“Hey, This is not like me!” Convergent validity and personal validation of computerized personality reports

Abstract

Introduction/objectiveThere is a dearth of research on the validity of computerized personality reports. The present study examined the validity of such reports using various methodologies. MethodConvergence between personality self-ratings on items and self- and peer-ratings on personality descriptive text blocks used for compiling computerized reports were examined in a sample of 175 psychology undergraduates who were administered the Personality for Professionals Inventory (PfPI; Rolland & De Fruyt, 2009). Some weeks after these test administrations, a subsample of individuals was given feedback on their actual sex-normative scores, with half of the sample receiving random scores. ResultsOverall, PfPI-self-ratings on items showed strong rank-order convergence with self- and peer-ratings on 25 sets of three personality descriptive text blocks describing respectively low, medium or high positions on the 25 PfPI traits, underscoring the validity of the report text blocks. However, absolute ratings on text blocks were usually somewhat higher in the socially desirable direction. Assessees were able to discriminate genuine from fake reports, and perception of the text blocks as accurate was negatively associated with the discrepancy between genuine and fake reports. ConclusionPfPI-computerized reports are accurate reflections of self-descriptions on PfPI items. Implications for career counseling and development practice are discussed.