Content Similarities and Differences in Cattell s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivation Analysis Test

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Content Similarities and Differences in Cattell s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivation Analysis Test"

Abigayle Lucas
6 years ago
Views:

1 Bond University From the SelectedWorks of Gregory J. Boyle 1987 Content Similarities and Differences in Cattell s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivation Analysis Test Gregory J. Boyle, Bond University Available at:

2 1 Content Similarities and Differences in Cattell s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivation Analysis Test Gregory J. Boyle University of Melbourne Requests for reprints should be directed to Dr. G. J. Boyle, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.

3 2 Abstract The multivariate psychometric measurement of normal personality traits, transitory emotional states, and dynamic motivational factors has been made possible through the factor analytically validated instruments devised by Cattell and his associates. Previous research by Boyle, et al. has demonstrated that in accord with theory, all three instruments are measuring essentially separate psychological domains. While this quantitative evidence suggested that the multivariate instruments exhibit little measurement overlap with each other, nevertheless, it was not possible to ascertain the content similarities and differences from the canonical-redundancy analyses reported. Hence, the present study examines these qualitative characteristics in terms of the subscale data across each pair of instruments in turn. Results suggest that the slight measurement redundancy across instruments is due predominantly to the influence of a few subscales only.

4 3 Numerous multidimensional psychological inventories have been devised to quantify the discrete psychological domains pertaining to stable normal and abnormal personality traits, less stable dynamic motivational structures, and situationally sensitive, transient emotional states (Mitchell, 1985). The lack of coordinated research efforts in this area of the multivariate psychometry of intrapersonal variables has led to a plethora of instruments, ranging from simple rating scales, to complex self-report inventories, and in a few instances to sophisticated objective measures. As a consequence of the disarray in the psychometric field, the output of truly meaningful research has been greatly restricted. Consequently, some psychologists have reached adverse conclusions as to the worth of psychometric investigation (Detterman, 1979, p. 172). However, this currency of thought is clearly pessimistic and entirely unwarranted. Given that measurement is the sine qua non (Boyle, 1987) of scientific enterprise, it is absolutely essential that psychology (the science of behaviour) has an empirical basis with which prevalent theories can be put to the test. Despite the confusion inherent in psychological test construction (Boyle, 1985b) regarding the almost total lack of adequate self-report measures of depression, the Cattellian school has by contrast at least attempted to adhere to a programmatic and systematic construction of multidimensional instruments pertaining to the separate psychological domains above, among others (such as the measurement of human abilities). Three of the major psychometric instruments devised by Cattell and his colleagues are the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF-Cattell, Eber, &Tatsuoka, 1970), the Eight State Questionnaire (8SQ-Curran & Cattell, 1976), and the Motivation Analysis Test

5 4 (MAT-Cattell, Horn, Sweney, & Radcliffe, 1964). All three of these instruments were based on methodologically sound factor analytic work (Cattell, 1973, pp , 1978, 1979, p. 351; Kline, 1979, pp , 1980, pp ; Gorsuch, 1983; Boyle, 1983a, pp , 1985a, 1985b, pp ), unlike the majority of psychometric instruments which have been constructed in ad hoc ways with little attention given to appropriate factor analytic methodology and necessary construct validation. While Cattell's multidimensional psychometric instruments clearly have their limitations as well, these measures have been shown to have extremely good criterion validity (Boyle, 1983b; Cattell, 1984). Moreover, the Motivation Analysis Test has the added advantage that it is an objective measure of motivational dynamics. Accordingly, the test avoids the pitfalls of self-report instruments involving the transparency of items, wherein the respondent may invalidate his/her responses with inadequate self insight or even downright dissimulation. When it comes to the measurement of dynamic motivational factors, it is clear from classical psychoanalytic theory that unconscious components play a major role in human behaviour. This virtually necessitates the objective measurement of motivation to avoid response bias. Previous canonical-redundancy analyses of the 16PF, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivational Analysis Test have been useful in elucidating the level of measurement overlap of these instruments. However, while it has been shown (Boyle, Start, & Stanley, 1985) that there is only marginal measurement overlap across these three instruments, little is known about the actual content similarities and differences in the respective subscales across the three measures. The present study, then, addresses this qualitative question and attempts to

6 5 delineate the actual qualitative redundancies as a function of inter-inventory prediction equations. Goldberg (1977) as well as Campbell and Chun (1977) successfully employed this approach using stepwise-multiple regression analyses in determining the inter-inventory prediction equations for various personality inventories. Method Subjects and Procedure The subjects were all Australian, college students attending the Institute of Catholic Education, Melbourne. Almost all students were from middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds, and about 80% were Australian born. Data for the 16PF was collected on 135 students whose mean age was yr. (SD = 6.75 yr.). Data for both of the other tests were collected from a sample of 258 students (including the above 135 undergraduates). The demographic characteristics were essentially comparable across the subsample of 135 subjects, and the larger sample of 258 students. The ages of the larger sample ranged from 18 to 47 yr., while the mean age was yr. (SD = 6.44 yr.). The students took all three tests as part of their regularly scheduled classes, and most seemed quite willing to participate in the study even though they were free to withdraw at any time. In fact, almost all subjects completed the instruments presented to them and most seemed to respond to the items seriously.

7 6 Results and Discussion Stepwise forward multiple-regression analyses were carried out for each of the 24 subscales in the Eight State Questionnaire and 16PF combined, for each of the 36 subscales in the 16PF and Motivation Analysis Test combined, and for each of the 28 subscales in the Eight State Questionnaire and Motivation Analysis Test combined. In each across-inventory comparison, each subscale of each instrument served as the dependent variable while the subscales from the other psychometric measure were treated as independent predictor variables. In this way it was possible to estimate inter-inventory prediction equations which indicated specifically what subscales exhibited significant redundancy across measures, in each instance. Furthermore, not only did these prediction equations allow qualitative comparisons, but they also enabled quantitative estimations of over-all redundancy across each pair of instruments in turn, thereby providing further evidence in addition to the canonical-redundancy estimates provided in the earlier study by Boyle, et al. (1985). The inter inventory prediction equations for the Eight State Questionnaire and 16PF instruments are presented in Table 1. As is clearly evident, very few of the subscales from the 16PF significantly predicted respective Eight State Questionnaire subscale variance, and vice-versa. In fact, most of the redundant emotional state variance was predicted by 16PF Factors 0 (Insecurity), Q4 (Tension), C (Emotional Stability), Q3 (Self-sentiment), and F (Impulsivity). Concomitantly, most of the personality trait variance was predicted by Eight State Extraversion and to a lesser extent Eight State Questionnaire Guilt, followed by Fatigue, Arousal, and Depression. Taken overall, the 16PF predicted 23% of Eight

8 7 State Questionnaire variance, while the Eight State Questionnaire accounted for only 10% of the measurement variance in the 16PF. These estimates support those obtained from the Boyle, et al. study (24% and 14%, respectively). With regard to, the multiple-regression analyses for the 16PF and Motivation Analysis Test instruments, again only a few of the subscales accounted for most of the inter-inventory redundancy in each case, as shown in Table 2. Table 1 Most of the 16PF redundant variance was accounted for by the Motivation Analysis Test subscale U-Fear (the unintegrated/unconscious component of Fear), and to a lesser extent by U-Pugnacity, U-Assertiveness, U-Home/Parental, and I Home/Parental (conscious/integrated component). For the Motivation Analysis Test, most of the overlapping variance was predicted by the 16PF Factors F (Impulsivity), G (Superego/Conformity), Q1 (Radicalism), Q3 (Self-sentiment), and Q4 (Tension). Over-all, the objective motivational measure ac counted for 19% of the personality trait variance, while the 16PF predicted 3% of Motivation Analysis Test variance. These estimates are comparable, have little measurement variance in common, being essentially measures of discrete psychological domains.

9 8 Tables 2 & 3 Similarly, few of the subscales of the Eight State Questionnaire were significantly measured by those from the Motivation Analysis Test and vice-versa. The over-all estimates of redundancy were again comparable to those obtained in the canonical-redundancy analyses. The Motivation Analysis Test accounted for 12% of the Eight State Questionnaire variance (15% in the Boyle et al., 1985 study), whereas the Eight State Questionnaire predicted a mere 3% of the Motivation Analysis Test variance (4% in the earlier study). Clearly, the two instruments are tapping discrete psychological variance associated with general emotional states on the one hand (Eight State Questionnaire) and specific dynamic traits/states (Motivation Analysis Test) on the other hand. In effect, each instrument is measuring orthogonal hyperplane variance (Cattell, 1978). Most of the extremely slight measurement overlap is accounted for in terms of the subscales of the Motivation Analysis Test: U-Sweetheart/Spouse, U-Home/ Parental, U-Career, U-Self-sentiment, as well as U-Sweetheart/Spouse orientation respectively, and the Eight State Questionnaire subscales Extraversion, Anxiety, and Depression. The across-inventory prediction equations are presented in Table 3. Standardized regression coefficients (betas) have been used in the prediction equations throughout rather than the unstandardized coefficients, as they are easier to interpret since the constant is always zero (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975, p. 325).

10 9 In conclusion, the present findings, both quantitative and qualitative, support the view that Cattell has developed his multidimensional psychometric instruments along programmatic and essentially sound factor analytic methodological grounds, as each of the 16PF, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivation Analysis Test appears to be measuring relatively discrete psychological variance. These findings support those of Boyle et al. (1985), and in addition provide specific evidence of the actual subscales in each instrument which account for the slight redundancy across each pair of measures in turn. The present findings agree well with those of Kline (1980, p. 328) suggesting that the psychometric model allows useful predictions of human behaviour even though the existing multidimensional instruments may be less than entirely adequate. Despite frequent assertions to the contrary, the psychometric model advanced by Cattell and his colleagues (operationally quantified by measures such as the 16PF, Eight State Questionnaire, and Motivation-Analysis Test) has a demonstrated record of successful prediction, enabling the frontiers of knowledge to be advanced considerably in both research and applied psychological settings (Boyle, 1983b). While development of more refined multidimensional measures and improved quantification of situational stimuli are always desirable, the present findings at least, strongly support the use of Cattellian psychometric instruments.

11 10 References BOYLE, G. J. (1983a) Critical review of state-trait curiosity test development. Motivation and Emotion, 7, BOYLE, G. J. (1983b) Effects on academic learning of manipulating emotional states and motivational dynamics. British journal of Educational Psychology, 53, BOYLE, G.J. (1985a) A reanalysis of the higher-order factor structure of the Motivation Analysis Test and the Eight State Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, BOYLE, G.J. (1985b) Self-report measures of depression: some psychometric considerations. British journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, BOYLE, G. J. (1987) Elucidation of motivation structure by dynamic calculus. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. (Rev. 2nd ed.) New York: Plenum (in press). BOYLE, G. J., STANLEY, G. V., & START, K. B. (1985) Canonical/redundancy analyses of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, the Motivation Analysis Test, and the Eight State Questionnaire. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 7, CAMPBELL, J. B., & CHUN, K. (1977) Inter-inventory predictability and content overlap of the 16PF and the CPI. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, CATTELL, R. B. (1973) Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. CATTELL, R. B. (1978) The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.

12 11 CATTELL, R. B. (1979) Personality and learning theory. Vol. 1. The structure of personality in its environment. New York: Springer. CATTELL, R. B. (1984) The voyage of a laboratory, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, CATTELL, R. B., EBER, H. W., & TATSUOKA, M. M. (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. CATTELL, R. B., HORN, J. L., SWENEY, A. B., & RADCLIFFE, J. (1964) Handbook for the Motivation Analysis Test, MAT. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. CURRAN, J. P., & CATTELL, R. B. (1976) Manual for the Eight State Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. DETTERMAN, D. K. (1979) Detterman's laws of individual differences research. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), Human intelligence: Perspectives on its theory and measurement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pp GOLDBERG, L. R. (1977) What if we administered the "wrong" inventory? The prediction of scores on Personality Research Form scales from those on the California Psychological Inventory, and vice versa. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, GORSUCH, R. L. (1983) Factor analysis. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. KLINE, P. (1979) Psychometrics and psychology. London: Academic. KLINE, P. (1980) The psychometric model. In A. J. Chapman & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Models of man. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Pp

13 12 MITCHELL, J. (Ed.) (1985) The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Press. NIE, N. H., HULL, C. H., JENKINS, J. G., STEINBRENNER, K., & BENT, D.H. (1975) Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw- Hill.

14 13

15 14

16 15

Comparison of higher stratum motivational factors across sexes using the Children's Motivation Analysis Test

Bond University From the SelectedWorks of Gregory J. Boyle 1989 Comparison of higher stratum motivational factors across sexes using the Children's Motivation Analysis Test Gregory J. Boyle K B Start Available