Knowing Your Personality: 16 Personality Factor Test (Form A+B)

Priti Punwani

20224337

Department of Psychology

MPS251N - Psychodiagnostics Lab -I

April 19th, 2020

Instructor-Dr Nidhi Verma

nidhi@christuniversity.in
 Personality Assessment with 16 PF Questionnaire

Problem

To assess primary personality traits of a person using the 16 Personality Factor (PF)

questionnaire (Form A+B).

Introduction

The term ‘Personality’ has been derived from the Latin word ‘Persona’ which means

‘mask’. It refers to an individual distinct and relatively enduring pattern of thoughts, feelings,

needs, motives, values, attitudes and behavior. It doesn’t include race, gender and physical

attractiveness.

It is cited as the whole sum of ways in which a person behaves and interacts with

others. It constitutes the inner psychological characteristics that determines and reflects how a

person reacts to his or her environment.

Personality has been defined in following ways by many researchers:

“Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical

systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment.” (Allport, 1937, pp.48)

“Personality is that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given

situation.” Cattell, 1990)

“Personality is more or less stable and enduring organisation of person’s character,

temperament, intellect and physique which determines his unique adjustment to

environment.” (Eysenck).

Personality is a dimension which can be measured and assessed. There are various

methods for assessing the personality.

Different types of assessment methods

Following methods or measures can be used to assess personality:

Subjective methods: The Subjective Methods allow an individual to tell what he

knows about himself on the basis of observation. They are based on subject’s own reflection

of himself/herself. Some of the important subjective methods are:

(1) The autobiography

(2) The case history

(3) The interview

(4) The questionnaire or the Self-report Inventory.

Objective Methods: These rely over subject’s overt behaviour as disclosed to others

who act as observers, examiners or judges. The subject, as far as possible, is observed or

studied in certain life situations where his particular traits, habits, needs and other

characteristics comes into picture and can thus be observed directly by the examiner. Some of

the objective methods are :

(1) Miniature life situations

(2) Physiological measures

(3) Rating scales.

Projective Methods: the subject is required to behave in an imaginative way i.e., by

making up a story, interpreting ink-blots or constructing some objects out of plastic material

and drawing what he wants. These methods are, thus, intend to reveal the underlying traits,
moods, attitudes and fantasies that determine the behaviour of the individual in actual

situations. The assumption that underlies the use of projective method is that an individual is

revealing his innermost characteristics or his personality by the activities assigned to him.

Some of the important projective techniques are:

(1) Rorschach Inkblot Test

(2) TAT or the Thematic Apperception Test

(3) Sentence Completion Tests

(4) Word-association method

(5) Picture association method.

Introduction to 16 PF test

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a self-report personality

test developed over several decades of empirical research by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice

Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber. The 16 PF questionnaire is an objectively scorable test designed

by basic research in psychology to give the most complete average of personality possible in

a brief time. This was the result of Cattell’s viewpoint towards assessing the personality. It

was first published in 1949. The test was designed to use with individuals of age 16 and

above. Different forms like Form A, B, C, D were designed for different age groups and

education level. It is a pen-paper test that consists of 185 multiple choice items. \the

participant has to select one option. There is no right and wrong answer. It takes 30-35

minute to complete the test. It provides a global representation of an individual coping style.

In 1949, Raymond Cattell published the first edition of his 16 Personality Factor

Questionnaire. It was a revolutionary concept: measuring the whole of human personality

using structure discovered through factor analysis. The 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire

represents a controlled, natural evolution of the 16PF Questionnaire, enhanced and updated to

reflect the changes in today's society. First published in 1949, the 16PF Questionnaire has

had four major revisions, in 1956, 1962, 1968, and the fifth edition in 1993 (Cattell, R.B. et

al.). The latest edition contains 185 multiple-choice items, with a three point answer format.

Item content is non-threatening, asking about daily behaviour, interests, and opinions. The

short ability scale items (Factor B) are grouped together at the end of the questionnaire with

separate instructions. The questionnaire is written at a fifth-grade reading level, and meant for

use with people 16 years and older. The instrument provides scores on the 16 primary scales,

5 global scales, and 3 response bias scales. All personality scales are bipolar (have clear,

meaningful definitions at both ends), and are given in ‘Sten’ (standardized-ten scores)

ranging from 1 to 10, with a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2.0. The latest

standardization includes over 10,000 people and was published in 2001. Because the

questionnaire is un-timed and has simple, straightforward instructions, administration

requires minimal supervision in either individual or group settings. Administration time is

about 35–50 minutes for paper-and-pencil format, and about 25–40 minutes for computer

administration. Easy scoring procedures are given for paper-and-pencil, computer, or Internet

formats. Detailed instructions for administration and scoring can be found in numerous

places. The questionnaire is available in many different languages (international translations

exceed 35 languages worldwide). Unlike many commercially available personality measures,

recent 16PF translations are culturally adapted, with local norms and reliability and validity

information available in individual manuals. Internet administration also allows use of

international norms for scoring, plus reports in over a dozen different language groups. The

16PF traits are also measured in parallel versions for younger age ranges. For example, the

16PF Adolescent Personality Questionnaire measures the 16PF .

Table 1:
The Primary Source Traits covered by 16 PF Test

FACTOR LOW STEN SCORE HIGH STEN SCORE

DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
(1-3) (8-10)
A Cool, reserved, impersonal, detached, Warm, outgoing, kindly, easygoing,
formal, aloof participating, likes people
B Concrete-thinking, less intelligent, Abstract-thinking, more intelligent,
Lower scholastic mental capacity bright, Higher scholastic mental
capacity
C Affected by feelings, emotionally less Emotionally stable, mature, faces
stable, easily annoyed, Lower ego reality, calm
strength Higher ego strength
E Submissive, humble, mild, easily led, Dominant, assertive, aggressive,
accommodating stubborn, competitive, v
Submissiveness Bossy
Dominance
F Sober, restrained, prudent, taciturn, Enthusiastic, spontaneous, heedless,
serious expressive, cheerful
desurgency Surgency

G Expedient, disregards rules, self- Conscientious, confirming, moralistic,

indulgent
Weaker superego strength
H Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant,
intimidated
I Tough-minded, self-reliant, no-
nonsense, rough, realistic
L Trusting, accepting conditions, easy
to get on with
M Practical, concerned with “down-to-
earth” issues, steady
N Forthright, unpretentious, open,
genuine, artless
Artlessness
O Self-assured, secure, feels free of
guilt, untroubled, self-satisfied
Untroubled adequacy
Q1 Conservative, respecting traditional
ideas
Conservatism of temperament
Q2 Group-oriented, a ‘joiner’ and sound
follower, listens to others
Group adherence
Q3 Undisciplined self-conflict, lax,
carelessness of social rules
Low integration
Q4 Relaxed, tranquil, composed, has low
drive, unfrustrated
Low ergic tension
staid, rule-bound
Stronger superego strength
Bold, venturesome, uninhibited, can
take stress
Tender-minded, sensitive,
overprotected, intuitive, refined
Suspicious, hard to fool, distrustful,
skeptical
Imaginative, absent-minded, absorbed
in thought, impractical
Shrewd, polished, socially aware,
diplomatic calculating
Shrewdness
Apprehensive, self-blaming, guilt-
prone, insecure, worrying
Guilt proneness
Experimenting, liberal, critical, open
to change
Radicalism
Self-sufficient, resourceful, prefers
own decisions
Self-sufficiency
Following self-image, socially precise,
compulsive
High-self-concept control
Tense, frustrated, overwrought, has
high drive
High ergic tension
traits in 12–18-year olds. A shorter (20-minute) version of the questionnaire, consisting of a

subset of somewhat-shortened scales, was developed for use in employee selection settings –

the 16PF Select (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999).

Methodology

Subject’s Particulars

Name: Megha Punwani

Age: 30 years of Age

Gender: Female

Educational qualification: Housewife

Material required

16- P.F. Questionnaire (FORMS A+B), computerised Answer sheet, Norms table (A+B) for

females, pen, paper.

Instructions

Subject was provided with the test booklet and answer sheet. Subject was asked to fill

the required basic details: name, sex, age. Subject was asked to read the instruction

mentioned on the front page of test booklet carefully and to clarify the doubts, in case of any.

She was asked to read each question carefully and to answer correctly in the right box and

clearly so as to avoid confusion. She was informed that there is no desired answer of any

question. It was told to her that there are three options of each question out of which only one

has to be ticked as the answer. She was told to give the first natural response as the answers

which come immediate to their mind post reading the questions. It was ensured that subject
has filled proper particulars of her, answers have been filled rightly and only one answer of

each question has been given, answer of no question has been left blank.

Administration

After taking consent from the subject elected, she was given the A+B question form

and the separate answer sheet. Situations were made comfortable. Proper light, ventilation

facility and water availability were maintained. She was given 5 minutes to read the

instructions written on the front page of question paper. Doubts raised by her were clarified.

After filling the basic details on the answer sheet, she filled the answers on the answer sheet

for the respective questions, and was asked to fill the first natural response coming to her

mind. Her introspection about the report was taken.

Introspection Report

According to subject, “Test was good and easy. Although number of questions were

many. Some questions were easy to understand but for some questions I asked for help. I am

excited to know the results.”

Scoring

1. After administering the test, scores of each question was calculated via scoring key. For

example if the three options carry 1,2,0 marks for options a,b and c respectively. Then,

the score would be of the option which has been selected by the subject. So, if he/she has

selected option c then the score would be 0.

2. After calculating, scores of each question, total raw score was calculated for a factor. For

example, the scores of all the question numbers falling under Factor A were added and

we got total raw score. Table 2 is presenting the total raw scores (sum of scores) for each

factor. Figure 2 is representing the total raw scores for each factor.

Total Raw Score X = Sum of scores of each question falling under Factor X
Table 2:

Total Raw Scores for each Factor.

3. After calculating total raw scores, these were converted into Sten scores (Standard

scores). Norm table is selected according to the selection of the question form (A, B, C,

D), population, age and gender. We selected the norm table for Form A+B which is

meant for general population and for females. Raw scores were converted into Sten

scores by checking in which range they are falling. First vertical column showed the

Factor name and first horizontal row shows the Sten scores from 1 to 10. So, the range

under which total raw score would be falling and the Sten score above this range will be

the Sten score for that factor. Table 3 is presenting the Sten scores for each factor.

4. After getting raw scores, these will be plotted on a profile sheet which will present the

characteristics of an individual. Sten score from 1-3 are low scores and 4-7 are average

scores and 8-10 are high scores. Table 1 represents the personality traits falling under

different level of scores and corresponding factor. Figure 1 and 2 show the plotted profile

table.
Table 3:
Calculated total and Sten scores
Sum of
Row Labels Scores
A 11
B 8
C 12
E 15
F 9
G 10
H 11
I 8
L 12
M 8
N 10
O 10
Q1 13
Q2 15
Q3 15
Q4 14
Sten
Scores Interpretation
2 Low
2 Low
2 Low
4 Average
1 Low
1 Low
3 Low
1 Low
5 Average
1 Low
1 Low
2 Low
4 Average
4 Average
3 Low
3 Low

Result and discussion

After getting done with scoring, interpretation of her personality traits based on her

scores are as follows:

Factor A: Subject scored 2 on Factor A. Hence it can be interpreted that she is stiff,

cool, skeptical and aloof. She is not much social and enjoys company of things rather than

people, that is she prefers roles where there is more exposure to ideas and practical

applications than with people. She has fixed way of doing things, that is she is rigid and

avoids compromising with her viewpoint and personal standards. She displays less emotions

and others find it harder to read. Since, for such people prefer less contact with others hence

their interpersonal engagement is less developed. She is generally referred as critical,

obstructive or hard. She is not much attached to people and formal in her approach. She is bit

of reserved and doesn’t attach every situation with feelings.

Clinical findings: People scoring low on this factor can be said to develop “burnt child”

syndrome (Karson & O’Dell, 1976).

Occupational Findings: Low scores can be seen for engineers, scientists and artists (Cattell

et al., 1970)

Factor B: Subject scored 2 on Factor B. It can be commented that the subject takes

time in learning and grasping new things. She is not active in interpreting the literal and

concrete meaning of things. She is less intelligent but she can work hard to improve her

scores on intelligence level. It can be said that her abstract thinking ability is less. People

scoring low on this factor are highly anxious, depressed or n ot motivated to do well on

problem-solving items. They tend to be more down-to-earth in their thinking and thus like to

have a demonstration rather than an explanation.

Factor C: Subject got 2 for Factor C. She easily gets into emotional turmoil as she is

emotionally less stable. She is intolerant for circumstances and situations which are not in her

control or leads to disappointment. She gets easily annoyed. She easily gets affected by

feelings. She easily gets affected from unexpected situation and also neurotically fatigued.

Since she is intolerant, she gets dissatisfied too. These features of her personality can lead to

neurotic symptoms if their intensity increases and can lead to generation of a phobia, sleep

disturbances and psychosomatic complaints.

Factor E: Based on subject’s responses, her personality is a mixture of traits that lie on

low and high scores in Factor E. She is submissive and dominant depending on situations.

She can be humble and assertive. She could be easily convinced but can be obstinate t times.

She adjusts into different environment but sometimes find difficulty in doing so as well.
Personality features lying on opposite sides in this Factor C are completely expressed based

on the need for situation for the subject. Her average scores indicate that she has balance

level of all the underling features under this Factor.

Factor F: Subject’s low score on this factor reflects that she is a person who speaks

less and introspects herself after or before every action of hers. She is simple and sober but

relies on others usually, that is, she is dependent. She remains pleased with her achievements.

She also stays serious. She also keeps on believing that wrong things would affect her sooner

or later.

Clinical Findings: Low scores show tendency to internalize conflicts and of high

behavior control (Krug, 1981).

Occupational findings: Some samples of scientists and artists scored low on this

factor. (Cattell et al., 1970)

Factor G: She scored very low on this factor G. It would be interpreted that she is

often casual in her approach and doesn’t add much efforts while working in groups. She is

not much responsive to group responsibilities and cultural demands. She won’t find it easy to

be bound by rules. She is always indulged into herself. She is not stable on her aims.

Factor H: She received 3 score for this Factor H. Her scores reflect that she is shy, sensitive

to dangers, weak. She is always influenced by her feelings of inferiority because of which she

is not much fluent while expressing her or while speaking in public. She doesn’t like work

where one needs to contact many people on daily basis like that of Customer, service, human

resource, marketing/ She likes to keep 2-3 people as their friend. She easily gets frightened.

She tends to distance herself from crowd and avoid being in the limelight.

Occupational Findings: Low scores were seen for realistic, investigative and artistic

groups: engineers, artists, miner and machine operators (Cattell et al., 1970)
 Factor I: Her low score of 1 on this factor shows the inclination of her personality

towards personality traits like self-reliance, realistic, tough-mindedness. She is humble and

down to earth. She thinks others are with her because of their selfishness, also distrusts the

motives of others. Shaking her decision and thoughts is difficult. She tends to keep a group

operating on a practical and realistic “no-nonsense” basis. She is tough, responsible but

sceptical of subjective, cultural elaborations.

Clinical findings: Low scores suggest repression of feelings (Cattell, 1989) and are

associated with asthmatic symptoms (Sherman & Krug, 1977).

Occupational findings: Low scores are received by technical personnel, engineers,

pilots, equipment salespersons and sales managers (Cattell et al., 1970).

Factor L: She got an average score of 5 on this factor. It informs us that she has a

balance between the characteristics of low and high scoring people. She is imaginative and

practical as well. She is steady but remain absorbed in her thoughts as well. She sometimes

remains occupied with herself. Sometimes more responsive towards outer world, sometimes

influenced by inner-directed interests. Basically, people scoring average can have a balanced

personality or mixture of the characteristics falling under both the divisions, high and low.

Occupational findings: Low scores are for accountants, pilots, police and firefighters

(Cattell et al., 1970).

Clinical Findings: Low scores are not clinically relevant.

Factor M: She got very low score, that is 1 for this factor. It can be considered that she

is practical and very realistic. She is not influenced by her inner-feelings and do not create

situations based on the. She is more vigilant towards small details. She is responsive to

emergencies. She doesn’t wander much in imaginative world. Her responses are more
inclined towards the outer world instead of the inner world. She is humble and down-to-earth.

She is being subject to the dictation of what is obviously possible.

Factor N: Subject score very low, that is 1 on this factor. It reflects that she is not

much complex in her approach but sentimental in her approach. She has welcoming nature

and genuine liking for people. She s clear in her expressions and says what she feels. She is

not much ambitious. She is simple and straightforward.

Factor O: She scored 2 on this factor. It indicates that she enjoys strong comfort with

herself. She is confident and high on self-esteem. She never doubts herself and never

questions her choices, abilities or motives. Such people lack a strong drive to change or grow

personally. She can endure stress and pressure and can take on responsibilities under

someone’s pressure.

Clinical Findings: Low scoring Individuals can have the possibility of repression of

negative aspects of the personality. Very low scores may show behavior moderating issues.

(Karson & O’Dell, 1976).

Occupational Findings: Low scores are for realistic or investigative occupations:

firefighters, mechanics, scientists (Cattell et al., 1970).

Factor Q1: Low Q1 scores presents she is conservative who prefers current situations

and works to maintain rather than change. Such people resist experiments and risk-taking

actions and they endorse traditional beliefs and attitudes. She puts energy in avoiding

mistakes and exercises caution, analyses before taking each step.

Factor Q2: Subject scored 4 on this factor. It represents that she has balanced presence

of the traits lying on both the extremes, either low or high. She is group oriented but self-

sufficient as well. Depending on situations, she listens to others and prefers her own decision
Figure 1:
Profile Sheet based on primary traits
Figure 2
Plotted Scores in Profile Sheet

as well. She sometimes relies on other persons’ agreement and sometimes does not

require the approval.

Factor Q3: She scored 3 on this factor. It can be interpreted that she is less attentive to

details and less orderly in her activities. She is not necessarily meticulous and precise and
prefer broader concepts and ideas. She is casual and spontaneous and often show a free-spirit

attitude. Such people can go against social custom and appear sloppy and careless. She may

lack self-discipline and focus and prefers to follow their own urges and emotions.

Clinical Findings: Low scores are associated with manifestations of anxiety and are

ready adaptive.

Occupational Findings: artist, English teacher, nurse and counselor were found to have

low scores (Cattell et al., 1970).

Factor Q4: She got 3 on this factor. It can be explained that she has low tension level

and less agitated feelings. She appears calm, tranquil and relaxed. She doesn’t show much

upset or emotional disruption. She also reflects low drive and a low sense of urgency. Such

people sleep well and have fewer physical ailments. They are highly satisfied and

comfortable with their present surroundings.

Clinical Findings: Low scores don’t carry any negative implications.

Occupational Findings: Low scores are achieved by engineers, firefighters and police

(Johns1985: Snibbe, 1975).

Discussions

Levonian (1961) is usually recognized as the first to question the psychometric adequacy of

the 16PF. He explained the loophole of homogeneity of the 16 scales when he explored that

"While the average item correlates significantly with fewer than one other item in its factor, it

correlates significantly with nearly 8 items outside its factor (p. 591)." Cattell subsequently

discarded this and similar studies debating that moderate heterogeneity was necessary to

ensure scale validity (Cattell & Tsujioka, 1964).

Cattell, Eber, and Delhees (1968) factor analysed the 64 variables as a result from the

administration of four forms of the 16PF to a large, heterogeneous sample of adults. They

found support for 12 of the 16 personality factors (E, M, N, and O were not clearly defined).

In fact, the magnitude of the loadings was lower than might be expected for this type of

analysis, i.e., each of the hypothesized primaries was represented by four supposedly parallel

measures, each being a composite of six to thirteen items.

A recent study conducted by two of Cattell's students: Burdsal and Vaughn (1974) concluded

that the results of their item factor analysis of the 16PF " ... was essentially the expected

factor pattern. The study did, however, indicate that four of the 16 factors (G, M, N, Q1) were

probably in need of revision and further research (p. 223)." Another recently reported item

factor analysis of the 16PF (Karson & O'Dell, 1974) deserves special attention because it was

conducted with Cattell's assistance. Consequently, the analysis met his requirements for a

sound investigation. The authors were moderate in their interpretation of the results: "But

generally, if we stretch our imagination a bit, there does seem to be a fair match between the

16PF items and the constructs the test purports to measure. This match, however, is not

strong and by no means fully supports the framework upon which the 16PF is based (p.

113)."

Strengths: Substantial strengths of this test are reliability of its manual, reasonable

scoring method, quantitative measurement and scientific approach (Cattell & Schuerger,

2003). Being a personality assessment test is its biggest strength. It is the most renowned

instrument for assessing normal adult populations’ personality attributes (Cattell & Mead,

2008). The test also has strong reliability coefficient and standard error of measurement

within the range of the test along with distinct justification and normed sample (Grossman &

Craig, 1995).
 Weaknesses: The most substantial weakness of this test is the absence of validation

reports in technical manual. As well, there is also absence of published data. Interpretation is

quite complicated and necessitates advanced training (Cattell & Mead, 2008). Use of question

mark suggested as the middle response may direct towards an infrequency response style. It

may be difficult for a new person to understand the 16-factor personality structure due to its

complexity (Coates, 2001). The test has been criticised due to the complexity of the factor

analytical approach. The use of random scale presents that test responses are not associated to

specific content. Reading level also deviates from 5th grade level in the technical manual

(Cattell & Mead, 2008). Certain questions necessitate sight ability so it is not appropriate for

blind individuals (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003). Clients, for whom English is second language,

this assessment may present difficulties. Numbers of studies that use the test as a

measurement instrument have been published in peer-reviewed journals. It includes studies

related to education, research, clinical research, student behaviour, counselling and

employees’ behaviour study etc (Coates, 2001). The test may perform positively or

negatively, when researchers or test users, other than the test developer or publisher, use it.
 References

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality

Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, IL: IPAT

Conn, S., & Rieke, M, (Eds,), (1994), 16PF Fifth Edition: Technical manual. Champaign, IL:

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Levonian, E. A statistical analysis of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 1961, 21, 589-596.

Sherman, J.L., &Krug, S.E. (1977). Personality-somatic interactions: The research evidence.

In S.E. Krug (Ed.), Psychological assessment in medicine (pp. 63-114). Champaign, IL:

IPAT.

Snibbe, H.M., Fabricatore, J., M& Azen, S.P. (1975). Personality patterns of white, black

and Mexican-American patrolmen as measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor

Questionnaire. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3(3), 221-227.

UK Essays. (November 2018). 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire Test Critique. Retrieved

from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/psychological-test-critique-

psychology-essay.php?vref=1

Watkins, & Campbell, V. L. (2012). Testing and Assessment in Counselling Practice

(Contemporary Topics in Vocational Psychology Series) (2nd ed.). Routledge.

 Appendix
1. Question Form (A+B)
2. Digital Answer Sheet
3. Norm table (For females and A+B form)