Sam Smith is a typical 21-year-old adult who enjoys life and laughs at the simplest things. Sam is outgoing, cheerful, friendly and is always busy. He works at a Rental Property agency store where he enjoys learning and meeting new people. His interests involve sports, travelling, and inputting his vision into theatre.
Sam’s experiences on diversity among personalities, cultures and atmospheres of the world have enabled him to connect with people on a greater, more personal level. Sam is studying psychology and aspires to work in a government agency to assist in the crime against drugs. Sam’s ideal self is to live more orderly, so he can balance work, family, friends and university life. In doing so, Sam also wishes to attain a stronger strive for achievement. Due to his inability to find his equilibrium, he has reflected on his life and feels frustrated.
While Sam concentrates on his university commitments, it has resulted to his inability to maintain his previously good social life. This has made him feel as if he has lost a sense of himself, and a major component of his personality. Sam is perplexed as to why this is occurring. Assessment Tools Personality assessment entails the use of well-designed questionnaires or other standardized instruments, which are deliberated to tell different facets of a person’s traits or psychological attributes (McAdams, 2009).
Diverse personality assessment tools have been developed, which are all designed to elucidate an individual’s psychological makeup including the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test, Mental Muscle Diagram Indicator (MMDI) test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) test, Jung personality test, as well as the International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO (IPIP-NEO) test (Bernstein & Clarke-Stewart, 2008). In this report, Sam has been evaluated using the MMDI (Appendix1), IPIP-NEO (Appendix2) and Jung personality test (Appendix3).
The MMDI test is a personality test whose questionnaires are designed with a specific intuition in mind: seeking information from the respondent, which is principally used by the respondent, and is essential in making decisions in reference to themselves and their self-management. The test is useful in specific areas considering that it aims in measuring preference and not the individual’s competence (McAdams, 2009). As with other personality assessment tests, the foundations of IPIP-NEO personality test is the Five-Factor model, which explicates the most-acceptable scientific theory of personality (Srivastava, 2013).
In the test, the fundamental personal traits to measure an individual’s personality, as explicated in the Five-Factor model include surgency, agreeability, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2010). It evaluates the five fundamental personal traits, while integrating them with the six facets described in the NEO-PI-R model to each trait. Lastly, the Jung personality test is based on Jung’s theory of personality types, which highlights on the different ways in which various personalities are perceived to the world (Campbell, 1976).
It evaluates three principle channels that an individual would employ in understanding the world, where there are two different ways in which each principle channel could be perceived. The three dichotomies that the test evaluates include the Sensing-Intuition, Introversion-Extroversion and Thinking-Feeling. Results Starting with the MMDI Personality Test, which shows the 16 Myers Briggs personality types, the test showed that Sam’s personality is between ESFP (62%) with the second closest type being ESFJ (53%).
Moreover, Sam’s leadership style, according to a reflection by the MMDI test, is an action-oriented leader. The algorithm of the test deduces scores that are quite close as shown in the table below. |Score (%) |Personality | |51 |ISTJ | |51 |ISFJ | |58 |INFJ | |54 |INTJ | |47 |ISTP | |52 |ISFP | |65 |INFP | |63 |INTP | 50 |ESTP | |62 |ESFP | |69 |ENFP | |64 |ENTP | |58 |ESTJ | |53 |ESFJ | |66 |ENFJ | |64 |ENTJ | As illustrated in the test fact sheet, the pattern-matching algorithm is very crucial in determining the probable personality type of an individual because it brings out a comparison of the different 16 personality types.
The table above shows Sam’s scores. Although there is no MMDI personality type questionnaire that is perfect, these test results are considered to be very accurate. The results in the IPIP-NEO test report provided estimates of Sam’s personality level for each of the five-factor personality domains. In addition to the description of each of the five personal trait domains, there is a provision of elaborate description of six personality attributes that every domain constitute. The table below elaborates on Sam’s test scores. |Domain |Sub-Domain Score (%) | |Extraversion (83%) |Friendliness |62 | | |Gregariousness |93 | | |Assertiveness |61 | | |Activity level |75 | | |Excitement-Seeking |84 | | |Cheerfulness |67 | |Agreeableness (48%) |Trust |47 | | |Morality |32 | | |Altruism |63 | | |Cooperation |61 | | |Modesty |42 | | |Sympathy |48 | |Conscientiousness (54%) |Self-Efficacy |51 | | |Orderliness |63 | | |Dutifulness |57 | | |Achievement-Striving |43 | | |Self-Discipline |80 | | |Cautiousness |16 | |Neuroticism (47%) |Anxiety |47 | | |Anger |53 | | |Depression |37 | | |Self-Consciousness |37 | | |Immoderate |63 | | |Vulnerability |51 | |Openness to Experience (38%) |Imagination |44 | | |Artistic Interests |33 | |Emotionality |47 | | |Adventurousness |71 | | |Intellect |09 | | |Liberalism |55 | The IPIP-NEO test is a two-tier test that provides the level of the primary personality domains and followed by the elaboration of the sub-domains that build the main domain. Considering Sam’s results, there is a low score in majority of the primary domains except the extraversion domain. The result shows that Sam is more of an extravert than an introvert.
This score is high and deduces that Sam is a highly sociable man, who is energetic, outgoing, and lively. As elucidated by the test results, Sam is a young man, who enjoys the company of people most of his time. Lastly, the test results from the Jung personality test pointer Sam’s personality as the ENTJ type. This is based on the fact that, from his score, Sam has a strong inclination to extraversion over introversion. Moreover, he has a strong preference of intuition over sensing, an attribute that educes better mechanics in fathoming diverse aspects of the world. This is as opposed to his moderate predilection to thinking over feeling, and his slightly weaker preference of judging over perceiving. Personality Attribute |Score (%) | |Extraversion |78 | |intuition |88 | |Thinking |50 | |Judging |44 | Synthesis The evaluation and analysis of the Five-Factor model in the elucidation of an individual’s personality is of crucial importance considering that the domains constitute a diverse range of very specific individual traits (McGhee, Ehrler ; Buckhalt, 2008). These individual traits are the sub-domains in the IPIP-NEO personality test. The three tests, considering the incorporation of the Five-Factor domain in their assessment, have elicited similar results.
The first test – the MMDI test has shown that Sam is a sociable young man, in concurrence with the other two tests. According to his biography, Sam feels like his world is torn when he is forced by circumstances to concentrate in his academic work, which places him away from his social life. Essentially, Sam is not judgmental, as depicted in his biography, an attribute that is highlighted by the Jung Personality test, which showed an average correlation between his judgmental overtone and his perceived connotation (McAdams, 2009). The Five-Factor model defines an individual’s personality as is considering that the statistical affiliation of the test with the general population must have normalized representativeness.
For example, when evaluating his extraversion, Sam’s assertiveness is clearly seen. This intuition is also highlighted in his biography. Moreover, the fact that the young man is talkative is clearly marked by his high score on extraversion in all the three tests. When considering Sam’s MMDI test results, it was noted that his personality lies between the ESFP and ESFJ personality. Ideally, individuals with personality traits parallel to ESFP are identifiable as those people who have action-oriented people person. With such a personality, as is the case with Sam, the individual tends to seek a life that is engaging while living to the fullest.
In this regard, the person takes pleasure in seeking relevance of the people-skills so that he or she realizes the tangible results from applying their potential for the people (Pittenger, 2004). In fact, as seen in Sam’s biography regarding his need to transform his thoughts into tangible outcomes, these individuals tend to act in propinquity. This makes them to isolate and itemize their ideas and probably those of colleague, putting them into action as “right-now” people. On the other hand, considering the second most probable personality of Sam, individuals with the ESFJ personality type tend to seek the development of cordial relations with colleagues.
This aspect tends to hurt Sam when he comes to terms with the fact that he is not going to connect with colleagues as before (Berens, Ernst ; Smith, 2004). This is because he is a team player, and finds it frustrating not to be in a position he could balance work, university life, friends and family. Additionally, Sam considers the problems of the society, some social evils such as drug use and dependency as well as crime, as his, and ends up in university to pursue a psychology career so that he may be part of the team fighting these social vice. An analysis of the parity between the results from the three personality assessment tests shows some resemblance. For instance, both the MMDI and IPIP-NEO test gave an average level on Sam’s extravert trait.
Fundamentally, a middling level of agreeableness, with respect to Sam elicits his concern with the needs of other persons (Puttick, 2009). Secondly, Sam’s level of conscientiousness is notable as average from all the three tests, which is indicative of his level of reasoning. Such individuals are always rationally consistent, ordered and reasonable. While considering neuroticism, Sam scored average in the three tests, which pointer a typical level of emotional process (Lynam ; Widiger, 2001). This is evident from Sam’s stressful and frustrating times in university when he considers his past social life at home and at work. It is disappointing to an extent of losing hope.
In conclusion, simultaneous use of different personality assessment tools on the same individual may elicit reliable results that are reproducible in the other tools used (Trull ; Widiger, 1997). The only difference in the tools used in this report is the level of information brought forth since tests, such as MMDI and Jung test, only consider the primary domains without dwelling much on the subdomains, yet they are more specific to personal attributes.
References Berens, L. V. , Ernst, L. K. , ; Smith, M. A. (2004). Quick Guide to the 16 Personality Types and Teams: Applying Team Essentials to Create Effective Teams. London: Telos Publications. Bernstein, P. Clarke-Stewart, R. (2008). Psychology, (8th Ed. ). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Campbell, J. (ed) (1976). The Portable Jung. New York: Penguin Books. Kaplan, R. ; Saccuzzo, D. (2010). Psychological Testing: Principle, Applications, and Issues. (8th Ed. ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Lynam, D. R. , ; Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401-412. McAdams, D. P. (2009). The Person: A New Introduction to Personality Psychology (5th Ed. ). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. McGhee, R. L. , Ehrler, D. ; Buckhalt, J. (2008). Manual for the Five Factor Personality Inventory — Children. Austin, TX: Pro Ed, Inc. Pittenger, D. J. (2004). The limitations of extracting typologies from trait measures of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 779–787. Puttick, E. (2009). 7 Personality Types: Discover Your True Role in Achieving Success and Happiness, (1st Ed. ). New York: Hay House. Srivastava, S. (2013). Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors. Retrieved July, 18 2013 from http://psdlab. uoregon. edu/bigfive. html. Trull, T. J. ; Widiger, T. A. (1997). Structured Interview for the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.