Sixteen Personality Factor

Assessment No. 1
Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR
MPS251N: Psychodiagnostic Lab 1
March 9, 2023
 Sixteen Personality Factor

Aim: To gain a comprehensive understanding of the participant’s personality using the

16PF questionnaire.

Introduction

Personality
Personality has been defined by various theorists throughout the history of social
psychology. Allport (1937) defines personality as "the dynamic organization within the
individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to the
environment.” Whereas Morton Prince (1924) has called personality as, “The sum total of all
biological, innate dispositions, impulses, tendencies, appetites and instincts of the individual and
the acquired dispositions and tendencies acquired by experiences.”

According to the American Psychological Association (N.d.), personality is defined as “ the

enduring characteristics and behavior that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life,
including major traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns.”

The thoughts, behaviours, and social attitudes that have an impact on how we perceive ourselves,
others, and the world collectively make up our personality. It includes a person's unique
thoughts, emotions, and behavioural patterns that distinguish them from others. Additionally, the
biological make-up and environment of an individual influence how their personality develops.

History
People have long sought to comprehend personality, and a plethora of ideas have been
produced to describe how personality develops and impacts behaviour. Raymond Cattell, a
psychologist, offered one such idea. Cattell, who was born in 1905, lived to see the creation of
numerous 20th-century innovations, including electricity, telephones, automobiles, and
aeroplanes. These discoveries inspired him, and he was eager to apply the same scientific
principles to the study of the human mind and personality. He later formulated a set of sixteen
different personality traits that might be used to define and explain variances in people's
personalities. Cattell's personality traits are included in the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF), which is commonly used in schools for career advice. It can also be used
in business to select employees, particularly managers. It is also used in clinical diagnosis and
therapeutic planning to measure anxiety, adjustment, and behavioural issues (Gavrilescu &
Vizireanu, 2017).

Theoretical Framework
This personality theory is based on Allport’s “trait theory” which was first introduced in
1937. According to trait theory, human personality is made up of a variety of universal
characteristics or tendencies. Traits are essentially immutable in a person. These can be observed
in the person's variety of behaviours and reactions to different situations. The trait approach is
focused on the specific psychological features along which individuals tend to differ in
predictable and consistent ways.

Gordon Allport found over 4,000 English terms that may be used to define personality
characteristics. He divided these characteristics into cardinal, central, and secondary levels.

The traits at the top of Allport's trait hierarchy are the cardinal traits, commonly referred
to as the dominating traits of a person's personality. These characteristics may predominate a
person's personality to the point where they become their only distinguishing characteristics. A
person's capacity for compassion may be seen in practically every area of their behaviour,
making it a fundamental quality.

The fundamental components of personality, or central traitss, are what give rise to our
unique personalities. In the hierarchy, these characteristics come second to cardinal features.
These traits can include, among others, being aristocratic, street savvy, intellectual, devoted,
trustworthy, frightened, aggressive, and arrogant. One of these is dominant, whilst the others do
not significantly affect how the person behaves. Those characteristics allow one to characterise
the person in question's personality.
 Compared to cardinal or central features, secondary traits of personality are less
universal, consistent, and pertinent. Situational or circumstantial features, which are the cause of
behaviours that are inconsistent with an individual's typical behaviour, are known as secondary
traits. Although they do not have the same level of dominance as the cardinal qualities, they can
nonetheless reveal a person's attitudes and preferences. Situation-specific, these characteristics
can alter in particular unique circumstances. According to Allport's theory of personality,
characteristics serve more as intermediary variables between a stimulus circumstance and a
person's response.

Raymond Cattell evaluated Allport's list and reduced it to 171 traits, largely by removing
duplicate or unusual phrases. He then utilised factor analysis, a statistical approach, to find
features that are related to each other. Using this strategy, he was able to narrow his list down to
16 important personality traits. The sixteen factors is as follows warmth, reasoning, emotional
stability, dominance, liveliness, rule consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity, vigilance,
abstractness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self-reliance, perfectionism, and
tension.

Description of the Assessment

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

developed by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice Tatsuoka, and Herbert Eber. It provides a measure of
personality and can be used as a clinical tool by psychologists and other mental health
professionals to aid in the diagnosis and prognosis of psychiatric disorders. It contains 105
different items. Five contemporary forms are available (Forms A, B, C, D, and E). Form C is
employed in the clinical setting.

The raw scores for each item are calculated using the item scoring key, and these scores
are further converted into sten scores from which the primary factors are identified. The next step
includes assessing second-order factors. The scores are calculated, and the interpretation is
given. Following thorough factor analyses of a wide range of behavioral items, the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) was developed. Primary and secondary traits are used to
measure personality on two hierarchical levels. The exam can be given at any time, needs little to
no supervision, and has straightforward instructions.

The administration period for the paper-and-pencil format lasts 35 to 50 minutes, while
the computerised format lasts 25 to 40 minutes. For the 16 primary scales, the five global scales,
and the three scales measuring response bias, scores are given. All personality scales are bipolar
(have distinct, meaningful definitions at both ends), have a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation
of 2.0, and are expressed in stens (standardized-ten scores) ranging from 1 to 10. Although there
are parallel tests for a range of younger age groups, the 16PF test was developed for adults over
the age of 16. (e.g., the 16PF Adolescent Personality Questionnaire).

Online resources for simple scoring procedures are available for tests that are
administered on paper, pencil, or computer. For use in employee selection settings, the 16PF
Select, a condensed (20-minute) version of the questionnaire with a selection of scales that have
been somewhat condensed, was developed (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999). Numerous languages are
offered for the survey (35 languages worldwide); each manual contains information on validity
and reliability, and 16 of the translations have been culturally modified to take into account
regional norms.

Clinical Implications
The 16PF questionnaire reveals a plethora of personality traits and many of them are
relevant from a clinical perspective. It can show a person's potential for insight, feelings of
self-worth, cognitive style, internalisation of standards, openness to change, capacity for
empathy, level of interpersonal trust, the strength of attachments, etc., all of which are pertinent
to the clinical and counselling processes. As a result, the 16PF instrument provides doctors with
a measurement of anxiety, adjustment, emotional stability, and behavioural difficulties that fall
within the normal range. The 16PF results can be used by clinicians to select effective
therapeutic interventions or modalities of treatment by identifying efficient methods for forming
a working alliance, devising a therapy plan, and putting it into practice (Karson & Dell, 1976).
Other domains of life, like career and job selection, may also benefit from its use (Schuerger,
J.M. 1995).
 The 2005 study by Yang et al. examined the psychiatric symptoms and personality
characteristics of Korean senior high school students who were thought to use the Internet
excessively. The Internet Addiction Test (IAT) and the Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R)
were both employed to achieve the same goal. The 16PF also demonstrated that excessive users
were more emotionally unstable, imaginative, focused, independent, and preferred to make their
own decisions. They were also more susceptible to being influenced by their emotions.

Ethical Considerations
The participant was asked to sign a consent form before the study began that informed
him of the reason why the test was being conducted. It was also reiterated that the participant
could withdraw from the study at any point in time. The results and interpretation would remain
confidential except for discussions that were strictly academic in nature. He could withdraw from
participation or refuse to answer any questions without any negative repercussions.

Methodology
Participant’s Brief
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) was administered and scored on a
single participant.
Demographics
● Name: KD
● Age: 23 years
● Gender: Male
● Educational Qualification: BA Hons in International Relations with a Minor in
Economics
● Ethnicity: Indian
● Nationality: British
● Residence: London, UK
● Marital Status: Unmarried
● Religion: Hindu
 ● Language preferred: English or Gujarati
● Relationship status: Currently in a relationship
● Occupation: Business Analyst at an MNC
● SES: Upper middle class
● Number of family members: 4

Tools and Materials

16PF Question Booklet
16PF Answer Sheet
Pen
Paper (for Introspective Report)
Notebook (for Observation Report)

Instructions
There are no right or wrong answers, so you can choose whichever option best applies to
you. In more than 30 minutes, you should be finished. Respond with the first logical answer that
comes to mind. Unless both options are impossible for you, which might happen once every four
or five questions, try to avoid selecting "uncertain" as your default response. Fill out the form
completely, and remember to answer each question. Try your best to answer, even if some don't
apply to you. I understand that some questions may come off as invasive, but rest assured, the
answers will remain completely confidential and no identifiable data of the participant will be
recorded. When describing yourself, be as honest as you can. Avoid marking options based on
what seems like "the right thing to say" as there will be absolutely no judgment, for there are no
incorrect responses in this questionnaire.

Procedure
The test was conducted on 8th February 2023. A quiet room was chosen for test
conduction. The answer and question sheet, a pen, and a bottle of water was kept in the room
before the participant entered. The subject entered the room and basic rapport formation was
done. Questions like ‘How was your day?’, ‘How are you feeling?’, ‘Are you comfortable?’,
‘Do you need anything before we start?’, etc. Once the subject confirmed that he was
comfortable, he signed the consent form (Appendix E) and was informed that the test was
only conducted for educational purposes.

All doubts and questions were answered. After making sure the subject was clear with the
instructions, the 16PF answer sheet was handed to him. After the question booklet was given, the
participant started attempting the test. He took approximately 20 minutes to complete the test,
during which the observation report was also noted. After completion, the participant was given
a sheet of paper and asked to write the introspective report (Appendix). He was thanked for
taking part in the study. The raw score for each trait was calculated which was then correlated
with the norm, and the sten score was obtained.

Precautions
It was ensured that the participant was not informed of the test's true objectives prior to
the test's start. If the subject is aware of the test's requirements, they might be persuaded to alter
their responses. After receiving the instructions, the subject was asked to read them again on the
booklet cover page to avoid any errors. The setting was made to be well-lit and noise-free.

Results

The items are assigned a numerical credit of 0, 1, or 2 in accordance with the item scoring key to
determine the raw score for each factor. The first-order factors are established with the aid of the
sten scores, which are created by converting the raw scores into stens using the norms from the
scoring key of the ‘20 years (Male)’ section from the scoring manual of Form C. The following
results were attained:

Code Factor Raw Score Sten Score Interpretation

MD Social Desirability 6 4

A Warmth 8 5 Average

B Reasoning 4 4 Low Average

C Emotional Stability 2 2 Low

E Dominance 6 6 Average

F Liveliness 11 9 High

G Rule Consciousness 6 5 Average

H Social Boldness 7 6 Average

I Sensitivity 7 7 High Average

L Vigilance 11 10 High

M Abstractness 4 4 Low Average

N Privateness 2 3 Low

O Apprehension 5 5 Average

Q1 Openness to Change 9 8 High

Q2 Self-Reliance 5 6 Average

Q3 Perfectionism 8 6 Average

Q4 Tension 3 3 Low
Figure 1 Scoring Sheet
Figure 2 Test Profile Sheet
 Interpretation and Discussion
The MD of the participant indicated a raw score of 6, which then corresponded to a sten
score of 4. MD is indicative of the social desirability bias of the participant and in this case, the
participant’s MD score did not indicate a presence of a possible bias.

The participant’s Factor A raw score (8), when converted to its corresponding sten score
(5), fell in the “Average” range. This would indicate that he is neither too “warm” nor too “cool”
in his demeanour while interacting with others. However, based on the information from the
participant’s personal history about his social life, it was noticed that, in general, the participant
is not very emotionally expressive, prefers being by himself and working alone and doing things
on his own terms. However, he understands that it is not always feasible, and he can make
himself act social and extroverted if the situation requires so. While he might prefer things a
certain way, he sees himself as easygoing and adaptable, which are qualities of someone with a
“warm” nature. Additionally, with his close friends and family, he can be emotionally expressive
and enjoys the company of people he is comfortable around.

KD’s Factor B (raw score = 4 ) showed a sten score of 4, which indicates a Low Average
score. This factor deals with the “reasoning” abilities of the individuals. Despite the score falling
in the low average category, the participant reports that he has a fairly decent grasping power and
learns things quickly. He also has a lot of knowledge about various things. But he has always
lacked attention and used to make a lot of careless errors in acedemically related tasks.
Furthermore, his biographical report shows that for him, grades were never that important and
gave more emphasis on the practical aspects of life.

The participant scored low on Factor C (raw; sten score = 2), indicating low emotional
stability. The participant admitted to getting frustrated and annoyed very easily and has also
experienced sleep issues where he overthinks about a lot of things before bed and has trouble
falling asleep. He also sometimes feels fatigued during the daytime. However, he rarely
experiences neurotic symptoms and does not get emotionally hurt very easily, which indicates
that in some aspects, his emotional stability is not as weak as the score indicates.
 For Factor E, KD’s sten score (6) fell in the Average range. He described himself as
assertive and independent, which are traits of a highly dominant individual. However, he does
not see himself trying to manage others and disregarding rules and regulations. He is assertive
when the need arises. But he can also conform to the requirements of an organisation or an event
if necessary.

KD’s score for Factor F indicated a very high score (raw score = 11; sten score = 9).
However, his biographical data only partially supports this score, specifically when it comes to
traits such as being frank, carefree and also often impulsive. But at the same time, his history
indicates that he isn't a very talkative, mercurial or particularly cheerful individual. He can come
off as smug, reserved and serious to those around him. Hence, he exhibits traits from both ends
of the spectrum.

The participant’s score for Factor G (raw score =; sten score =5) indicates an average
sense of rule consciousness. He does not appear to be pedantic about rules and the norms of
society. In correlation with the interpretation of Factor E, he is not someone who disregards rules
and authority but when he deems something to be incorrect or unfair, then he will stand up for
what he believes is correct and be assertive. There have been instances when he has stood his
ground against teachers and professors for what he thought was the right thing. He reported that
even in college and school days, he himself was not very mindful of all the rules, but he has
never exhibited extreme cases of disregard for rules.

KD’s score for Factor H indicates an average sense of social boldness (raw score-; sten
score=6). This average score can be explained by a partial presence of traits that have been
described in the high category. He can be very bold, frank and forthright. He is inherently not
sociable but can be when the situation needs him to be. But this is a skill he has developed over
time, as during his school days, he experienced difficulty making friends. He can be spontaneous
and likes trying new things but not to an extreme degree. However, he reported sometimes
showing disinhibitory behaviours, especially when it comes to substance abuse. This aspect of
this factor may have pathological implications. KD has been smoking cigarettes since his school
days. He described himself as having an “addictive personality” and has also experienced
resorting to drinking a lot during COVID as a coping mechanism and has struggled with quitting
frequent cannabis. Despite knowing the debilitating repercussion of smoking, he has trouble
quitting, although he has been trying for some time.

KD scored a score of 7 (both raw and sten) for Factor I indicating a High Average score.
This factor essentially denotes traits revolving “sensitivity” of the individual. This means he
incorporates both subjective and objective strategies when making decisions. The participant can
tend to be tough, realistic, down-to-earth, independent, and responsible. He is self-reliant: he
does not ask for help often and likes to do things by himself. The above qualities might have
been developed as the subject had turbulent experiences with friends and peers (he also mentions
having been bullied in school by his classmates.). On the other hand, the participant reports
having a low attention span, getting distracted easily, and can often be temperamental and
impatient.

The participant scored very high on Factor L (sten score = 10). He tends to be selective of
whom to trust and whom not to trust. He can question the motives behind what people say and
do and usually thinks strategically about others’ intentions. He is hard to fool and can be
distrustful or skeptical of the motives of those around them. He also struggles with sometimes
giving people “the benefit of the doubt”. The results of Factor L are in line with those of Factor I.
Thus, we can assume that the participant developed these qualities due to his past experiences.
He has described instances from his past where people have acted “two-faced” around him or
treated him in an unfavourable manner.

Factor M measured Abstractedness. KD scored 4 in both the raw score as well as the sten
score. This reflects a low average score. KD’s biographical data indicates that while he is not
overly pedantic over small details, he can sometimes lack creativity and imagination. His
self-motivation can vary depending on the circumstances. When it comes to matters of
workplace, he is motivated to work hard and well. But he can lack self-motivation when it comes
to matters of health and fitness and needs a push from others.
 The score for Fcator N, which indicates “Privateness”, was quite low (sten score = 2).
This can be explained by his frank, and forthright nature. He does not appear to be pretentious
and is frank about what he likes and doesn’t like. However, he can be shrewd and unsentimental
if the situation requires him to be so. He is also aware of his surroundings and likes to keep
himself up to date about what is happening around him.

The participant scored an average score for Factor O ( sten score = 5). This indicates that
while KD has high expectations of himself and does seem to sometimes worry about his
capabilities. But he also reports to not letting that deter him from trying again. He tries not to let
things affect him and in general, he is not extremely sensitive, so it is easier for him to bounce
back after any distressing situation.

For Factor Q1, KD scored a high score of 8 (sten score), indicating that he is open to
change. He is interested in inquiring and experimenting with new and different situations and is
open to new methods and ideas. However, it is not to the extent that the score indicates. While he
is interested in intellectual matters, he does not completely disregard old and fundamental ideas.
He can be less inclined to moralise in certain situations and is more likely to experiment in life.
The subject is more tolerant of inconvenience and change.

KD obtained a sten score of 8 (raw score 6) in Factor Q2. This means that he is slightly
less team-oriented and prefers to make decisions independently. He can be resourceful. He likes
going on his own way, making decisions and taking actions on his own, but he also likes to work
with and make decisions with other people. While he likes making decisions on his own, he does
not discount public opinion. He can be hesitant in certain situations to ask others for help. While
the participant does not disregard the group, he also does not always need their agreement or
support.

The participant scored 6 (sten score), which falls in the Average category. The Q3 factor
of the 16PF measures the trait of "sociability," which refers to a person's tendencies towards
social interaction and comfort level in social situations. A score of 5 suggests that the individual
is likely to be outgoing and sociable but not overly so. They are comfortable interacting with
others, but they also value their alone time. They may have a mix of introverted and extroverted
traits, and they may be able to adapt their social behaviour to different social situations. This
interpretation falls in line with how KD describes himself.

The Q4 factor assesses traits related to “Tension”. KD scored a low score of 3 (Sten
score) in this factor. He has previously described himself as easygoing and adaptable, which is in
line with his relaxed nature. He gets irritated easily but does not get sensitive about it.
Sometimes, he gets too carefree with certain things and feels little motivation. This can result in
laziness, which explains a low score in this category.

Summative Profile

The profile summarises the results of a test for a participant named KD. The validity
of the test scores seems adequate due to the average MD score. The participant is described as
having a mix of “cool” and “warm” traits, which might also alternate contextually, with an
average score in Factor A. He is bold, forthright, precise, and rigid in his approach but he can
also be critical and hard at times. However, he is also attentive and confident. The participant
scored low in factors C (Emotional Stability), N (Privateness), and Q4 (Tension). In contrast, he
scored high in Factor F (Liveliness), Factor L( and Factor Q1 (Openness to Change). While none
of the high or low traits were particularly concerning when correlated with biographical data,
KD’s interpretation of Factor H (Social Boldness) seems to have clinical implications despite
having an average score as the disinhibitory aspect of the factor was very relevant to him ad
explained his substance use tendencies. Overall, the profile highlights KD’s strengths and
weaknesses and provides insight into his personality traits.

Conclusion and Limitations

Examining behavioural traits is a difficult process, due to the subjective and contextual
nature of traits. In comparison to other tests measuring related constructs, the 16PF Fifth Edition
has demonstrated its value in a variety of contexts. The 16PF Fifth Edition does have two
drawbacks. The first one discusses cultural variances. The various bipolar decisions made may
be interpreted differently by people with different worldviews. It is hoped that the test taker's
worldview will be shared by the counsellors, therapists, and reviewers of the examination and its
results. The test's previous classification of secondary factors as what is now known as global
factors is another flaw. Although they interact, second-order factor levels may appear too many
to be less significant than primary factor levels. Boyle claims that by concentrating on the
second-order factor level, instrument reliability issues could be resolved. Hopefully, treating each
factor equally will follow the renaming of second-order factors to global factors. The new 16PF
Fifth Edition is an excellent measurement tool overall. It must be used as a screening tool in
educational and professional settings, especially when used in conjunction with other
measurement techniques. The amount of information regarding its predictability will increase
with more studies

References
Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Sage
Publications, Inc.

Cattell, R. B., & Krug, S. E. (1986). The number of factors in the 16PF: A review of the
evidence with special emphasis on methodological problems. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 46(3), 509-522.

Cherry, K. (2023, January 16). Cattell's 16 Personality Factors. Verywell Mind.

https://www.verywellmind.com/cattells-16-personality-factors-2795977

Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (1994). Correcting the
16PF for faking: Effects on criterion‐related validity and individual hiring decisions.
Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 847-860.
Gavrilescu, M., & Vizireanu, N. (2017). Predicting the Sixteen Personality Factors (16PF) of an
individual by analyzing facial features. EURASIP Journal on Image and Video
Processing, 2017(1), 1-19.