2 Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little packages (S. Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behavior and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Researchers, as well as practitioners in the field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from which to choose, with little guidance and no overall rationale at hand. What made matters worse was that scales with the same name often measure concepts that are not the same, and scales with different names often measure concepts that are quite similar. Although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales. Many personality researchers had hoped that they might devise the structure that would transform the Babel into a community speaking a common language. However, such an integration was not to be achieved by any one researcher or by any one theoretical perspective. As Allport once put it, " each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of diagnostic devices " (1958, p. 258). What personality psychology needed was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a generally accepted taxonomy would greatly facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the " Big Five " personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality …

The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.

This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.

/pdf/the-structure-of-phenotypic-personality-traits-2a2319vija.pdf

The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits

Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

On robust estimation of the location parameter

Measurement and control of response bias.

Attempting to differentiate fast and slow intelligence: Using generalized item response trees to examine the role of speed on intelligence tests

A method (HICLAS; De Boeck & Rosenberg, 1988) for studying the internal structure of semantic concepts is presented. The proposed method reveals the internal structure of the extension as well as the intension of a concept, together with a correspondence relation that shows the mutual dependence of both structures. Its use is illustrated with the analysis of simple concepts (e.g. sports) and conjunctive concepts (e.g. birds that are also pets). The underlying structure that is revealed can be interpreted as a differentiation of the simple concepts studied and for conjunctive concepts the proposed method is able to extract non-inherited and emergent features (Hampton, 1988).

Structural analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts

In two studies, we investigated to what extent typicalities in conjunctive concepts phrased as relative clauses—such aspets that are also birds—can be predicted from simple functions of constituent typicalities and from extensions of such functions. In a first study, analyses of a large aggregated data set, based on seven different experiments, showed that a calibrated minimum rule model and some extensions of this model accounted for a very large part of the variance in the conjunction typicalities. The same models can also account for the so-called guppy effect. A psychological explanation is presented, which states that typicalities in contrast categories, likepets that are not birds andbirds that are not pets, further improve the prediction of conjunction typicalities. This hypothesis is tested in a second study.

/pdf/predicting-conjunction-typicalities-by-component-3ll086ucwv.pdf

Predicting conjunction typicalities by component typicalities.

An old issue in psychological assessment is to what extent power and speed each are measured by a given intelligence test Starting from accuracy and response time data, an approach based on poster

/pdf/how-much-power-and-speed-is-measured-in-this-test-4yi99eryjs.pdf

How Much Power and Speed Is Measured in This Test

Componential IRT models for polytomous items are of particular interest in two contexts: componential research and test development. We assume that there are basic components, such as processes and knowledge structures, involved in solving cognitive tasks. In componential research, the subtask paradigm may be used to isolate such components in subtasks. In test development, items may be composed such that their response alternatives correspond with specific combinations of such components. In both cases the data may be modeled as polytomous items. With Bock's (1972) nominal model as a general framework, transformation matrices can be used to constrain the parameters of the response categories so as to reflect the componential design of the response categories. In this way, both main effects and interaction effects of components can be studied. An application to a spelling task demonstrates this approach. In item response theory (IRT), the probability that a person will solve an item correctly is modeled in terms of both the characteristics of the item and the ability of the person. Both refer to latent traits that are required more or less by the item or possessed more or less by the person. As Mislevy (1993) has written, a promising prospect is to incorporate cognitive principles into IRT. One such principle is that solving an item can be decomposed into elementary cognitive requirements called components. The term component in the present context is used in a broader sense than it was by Steinberg (1977) and denotes aspects of

Paul De Boeck

Papers

Attempting to differentiate fast and slow intelligence: Using generalized item response trees to examine the role of speed on intelligence tests

Structural analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts

Predicting conjunction typicalities by component typicalities.

How Much Power and Speed Is Measured in This Test

Componential IRT Models for Polytomous Items