Journal of Counseling Psychology

Vol. 5, No. 4, 1958

What Is "Objective" in
"Objective Personality Tests"?
Raymond B. Cattell
University of Illinois

This note to practical psychologists in gists to indicate a test which requires some-
the mental testing area concerns itself thing different from essay-type appraisal,
purely with the clarifying of test nomen- and involves, instead, an agreed key for
clature. However, perhaps no apology is selective (multiple choice) or inventive
necessary for this, since psychologists are (open-ended) responses, such that all psy-
notoiiously prone to getting involved in chometrists scoring the test will get the
conceptual debates which turn out to be same numerical result. However, it hap-
of purely verbal origin! Moreover, there pens historically that the pioneers in struc-
is no doubt that much confusion arises in tured personality research used the term
the communications of practical test users, "objective" in a more fundamental sense.
through failure of descriptive precision in In this higher degree of objectivity it was
the matter here to be discussed. required not only that the test result should
be scored similarly by two different psy-
Two Meanings of "Objective" chologists, but that the test stimulus situa-
The sense in which "objective" has been tion, and the whole mode of response,
increasingly used by the present writer and should be such that the subject himself
his co-workers, and in which it was used could not fake the response, or distort it
by many psychometrists such as Thurstone, to fit his subjective desires for a particu-
as well as by pioneers in truly objective lar kind of "good or bad" score. That is
personality development, such as Eysenck, to say, there could be no "motivational dis-
is clearly distinct from the older use still tortion" (See definition in 2) such as is sys-
appearing in many text books (See 1, 5, 7). tematically involved in the questionnaire
This older and more trivial sense has main- i.e., the self-appraisal inventory. Incident-
ly been employed by those concerned with ally, these objective tests have been far
teaching teachers the difference between more varied in type than the pencil and
essay examinations and multiple choice paper inventories, for they have frequent-
achievement tests, or those preoccupied ly not even broken down into items, but
with biographical inventories and other have been measures of global behavior,
"itemetric" (2) approaches. It is still given and have thus not been susceptible to the
equal weight with other meanings in the restricted rules of that branch of psycho-
texts of such well known educational statis- metrics which we may call "itemetrics" (2).
ticians as Cronbach and Edwards (5). The They include miniature situational tests,
parties disagreeing in present word usage stylistic tests, misperception tests (projec-
are unlikely to indulge in anything so tive tests), psychophysiological measures,
pointless as a debate as to which side is etc., and are perhaps best illustrated by
"right"; for both must recognize that two the 100 or more varieties of score shown
distinct meanings are involved and that in the Objective Analytic Personality Fac-
two distinct terms are now required. tor Test Battery (3). These tests are, in
These distinct meanings, as we shall see, fact, designed to eliminate the systematic
are in a sense two degrees of objectivity. distortion through poor self knowledge,
The term "objective," in the first degree, strong motivation to make a good impres-
has been used by educational psycholo- sion, or dishonesty, which normally reduce

285
286 Raymond B. Cattell

both the reliability and the validity of Q'- naires, opinionnaires and all the evidence
data. In general, the pioneers in this field of the consulting room. This gives "mental
have tacitly agreed (and the present writer interiors"—a view of the external behavior
concurs), in assuming that the first degree constituting L-data, as seen from the unique
of objectivity i.e., mere scoring objectivity, position of the subject. As just stated,
shall always be present as a prerequisite such test data is naturally more subject to
in such tests, much as one assumes that faking and self deception, and does not, in
scores will not have clerical errors, or pri- any case, permit the psychometrist to cal-
vate manipulations by the examiner. culate a conspect reliability coefficient (2),
There are, indeed, a considerable number i.e., a correlation between two independ-
of hard-headed psychometrists who are not ent observers (as in L-data) or experiment-
even willing to consider that a procedure ers as in T-data below, since only one per-
constitutes a "test" until this initial objec- son—the subject—can observe from this
tivity of scoring exists. particular vantage point. Such observa-
tions are symbolized as Q'-data (Q for
Three Media for Personality questionnaire, in the broadest sense). One
Measurement should distinguish (2) between such Q'-
It is this more radical sense of objective data, in which the subject's statements about
which has been consistently employed by himself are accepted as descriptions, and
the present writer, through twenty years Q-data, in which the questionnaire re-
of systematic personality structure investi- sponse itself is merely taken as "behavior,"
gation. This sense has been implicit in the the meaning of which has still to be estab-
notion that there are three, and only three, lished by correlation with L-data behavior
fundamental media through which meas- factors, as has been done in the 16 P.F.
ured or unmeasured data on personality Questionnaire test (4).
can be collected, as a basis for research 3. Observations on personality made by
and theory. These three media of observa- measuring actual behavior in a miniature
tion, which it is important to distinguish, situation—a test. The person reacts to a
both for theoretical research purposes and standard stimulus situation and his be-
for efficiency of practical routine testing havior is measured—in ways of which he
work, are: may not be aware and with interpretations
1. Observations of individual behavior of which he will certainly not be cognizant.
made in the individual's actual life situa- This is called an objective test, or T-data
tion, e.g., the behavior embedded in occu- (2). Some questionnaire response, namely
pation, family relations, social life, etc., Q-data but not Q'-data, by virtue of be-
unplanned and uneffected by the observa- ing recorded only as behavior and not as
tions being made. Such data can be ob- accepted true self-evaluation, can come un-
tained by behavior ratings, made by a suf- der the rubric of T-data, but most T-data
ficient number of observers, or by numeri- comes from far more varied miniature situ-
cal recordings of actual events, e.g., time ations, as indicated above.
sampling of specific behaviors, actual rec-
ords of achievements, automobile acci- Test versus Criterion
dents, salary, human relations (sociometry). It will be noted that both Q or Q'-data
This procedure is most accurately called and T-data come from tests, thus contrast-
life record observation," and in the vari- ing with L-data which comes from every-
ous writings from this and certain other day Me and is, therefore, the realm of
laboratories it has been systematically re- criterion data. (Actually, as shown else-
ferred to as L-data (2, 6, 7). where (2), criterion reference is always of
2. Observations of personality which two kinds; cultural, which belongs to L-
come to the psychologist in terms of intro- data, and test, which can come as a con-
spective, verbal, self-record and self-evalu- struct or factor from test material itself
ation, typically in inventories, question- (2); but, originally, criterion measurement
 What Is "Objective" in "Objective Personality Tests"? 287
was used in the sense that would make it tortion from one test motivation situation
synonymous with standards derived from to another: see test "situation sensitivity" in
L-data.) In calling questionnaire (Q'-data) 2), and of certainty of interpretation of the
and objective test (T-data) both test data test, e.g., determining the meaning of a
—in contrast to L-data—we should perhaps factor found in test response.
stop to define a test as such (self evalua- The most important second dimension,
tive or objective). In this most general after objective-vs-evaluative (or self-ap-
form, therefore a test may be defined as: praising), is what can most aptly be called
an artificial, transportable, standardized rative-vs-conspectice, corresponding to part
situation, which the subject recognizes and of that total difference which exists in edu-
voluntarily enters, agreeing to respond cational psychology between essay and
within specified forms, and the responses multiple choice, and in clinical psychology
to which are measured or classified ac- between open-ended projective (or down-
cording to rules agreed upon by psycholo- right crystal ball e.g., reading character in
gists. Although Q' and T-data contrast handwriting, devices) and tests objectively
with L-data in that both the former are scored by a key. A more precise termin-
tests, L and T-data contrast, alternatively, ology than the old "objective-vs-subjec-
with Q'-data in that the two first are con- tive" is deserved by this dichotomy, and
cerned with objectively-measured behavior, is required to distinguish it from the first
while a third grouping would place L- and more basic dimension of objectivity
and Q'-data over against T-data in that just described.
the two former are concerned with every- Let us look more closely at what is in-
day behavior, whereas T-data can be, and volved. The essay or rating requires inter-
commonly is, exotic or artificial. pretation by the private judgment of the
individual psychologist, and the resulting
Other Dimensions of Personality numerical value is a function both of the
Testing subject's and the psychologist's personal-
Focusing attention now, within the ities. (The multiple choice may also rest
above trio, only on the test forms of be- on no more than one unaided judgment,
havior measurement—in order more fully but it is an explicit, agreed and subse-
to bring out the properties defined as ob- quently common judgment of all the psy-
jective—we should note that tests, like any- chologists concerned.) This difference is
thing else, can in general be defined in shown operationally in an index which the
terms of either "types" or "dimensions." The present writer, in his survey of reliability
division just made between objective and coefficients (2, p. 352) has called the con-
self-evaluative tests is really a dichotomy on spect reliability coefficient, i.e., the corre-
a dimension, and permits recognition of lation between two examiners or raters to
other ways of "cutting the cake" to be simul- determine how far they "see together" (con-
taneously recognized. Indeed, in order not spect) in scoring tests. When the conspect
to fall into any confusion about the ob- reliability coefficient reaches unity we have
jective-vs-self evaluative dimension, it is what has sometimes been called an ob-
desirable to work out two or three other jectively scored test, or what we might
important dimensions, including that of ob- now, to avoid confusion, better call a com-
jectivity of scoring, referred to at the be- pletely conspective test, or simply a con-
ginning. Also, as Scheier (7) has lucidly spective test.
pointed out, it is necessary at the outset to A conspective test might synonymously
realize that objectivity of test, as defined be named a "key-scored" test, were it not
here, is quite distinct from reliability and that this is too concrete and awkward a
validity. However, objectivity should in- term, since, conceivably, perfectly conspec-
crease the probability of good validity (by tive tests may yet be found that are not
reducing faking), of good reliability (by re- key-scored. Besides, conspective brings out
ducing systematic shifts in the mode of dis- the operational relation to the conspect
288 Raymond B. Cattell

reliability coefficient. The opposite of a However, as Scheier points out in his ex-
conspective test one thinks of by such amination (7) of test properties in relation •
terms as "equivocal," "examiner-biased," to L-, Q'- and T-data, the nonobjective, I
"privately rated," "double-personality-deter- self-appraising form does not connote that "
mined," etc., which, though usefully de- faking must occur, while absence of self-
scriptive, are too cumbersome. A correct appraisal design does not guarantee that
Latin-derived expression would be "dis- faking cannot be effective, unless the sub-
spective" but since, for psychologists, the ject does not know how his behavior is
meaning of 'personal viewpoints intruding' being measured or what inferences are
is now well tied up with the verb "to rate," being drawn from it. The Objective-Ana-
perhaps "rative" would more briefly and lytic Test Batteries (3) illustrate the way
accurately designate the nonconspective in which test design can thus leave the
scoring of a test. subject pretty completely in the dark. He
It should be noted at once that conspec- can, of course, still refuse to cooperate,
tive-vs-rative is not the same dimension and thus introduce error into his score or
in the test world as "selective (fixed choice) give no score at all; but he cannot fake
vs-inventive (open-ended)." For an open- his behavior successfully to convey some
ended, inventive-answer, projective test, for impressions which he falsely (consciously
example, can have definite scores assigned, or unconsciously) wishes to make.
for all free responses, by prior agreement To sum up, there are three essentially
among psychologists. This is a third, es- independent dimensions of test descrip-
sentially independent dimension of test de- tion:
sign and construction. However, there will 1. Objective-vs-Self-appraising. This de-
be a high prevalence of rative scoring fines the kind of stimulus-response situa-
among inventive-answer tests. tion, and instruction, given to the subject,
in terms of the degree of his ignorance of
The Essential Meaning of "Objective" the behavior upon which he will actually
Before concluding it is desirable to de- be scored.
fine more sharply the dichotomy of "ob- 2. Selective-vs-Inventive (open-ended),
jective-vs-self-appraismg" (or "taking self- defining the kind of response situation
evaluation at face value") tests, now that limitations to which the subject agrees to
it has been sorted out from its confusion be restricted.
with "conspective-vs-rative." Elsewhere the 3. Conspective-vs-Rative, defining the
writer has defined this sense of an ob- kind of scoring situation in which the ex-
jective test as "A test in which the sub- aminer is placed, and therefore the magni-
ject's behavior is measured, for inferring tude of the conspect reliability among ex-
personality, without his being aware in aminers.
what ways his behavior is likely to affect These three dichotomous dimensions will
the interpretation" (2, p. 897). (See also 2, yield, (except for incompatibilities) eight
p. 225.) If he is told, as in an inventor)', (23) types of test, for which eight nouns
to evaluate himself, and the examiner ac- might be used. But it would probably be
cepts these descriptions, the test is obvi- simpler to depend on use of the present
ously not meeting these conditions, for three-fold adjectival description. For ex-
the subject knows in what sense to mis- ample, (a) Eysenck's or Sells' use of Ror-
represent in order favorably to affect the schach with previously assigned scores for
score. (The underlined phrase distinguish- free responses (6) constitutes an objective,
es between what we have called Q-data inventive, conspective test; (b) certain
and Q'-data, both derived from question- standardized interview tests give self-ap-
naire experiments, 2.) Only the test de- praising, inventive, rative measures; while
fined in this sense as objective escapes the (c) Scheier's anxiety scale (8) is an objec-
motivational distortion, fakability and sit- tive, selective, conspective test. There may
uation-sensitivity of the self-appraising test. be other dimensions of test description
 What Is "Objective" in "Objective Personality Tests"? 289
needed for special purposes, but this defi- Person. & Abil. Testing, 1604 Coronado Dr.,
nition of (1) stimulus situation, (2) response Champaign, 111., 1955.
4. Cattell, R. B. & Stice, G. F. The Sixteen Per-
opportunity, and (3) scoring basis, should sonality Factor Questionnaire Handbook. In-
suffice in general to "place" a test beyond stitute Person. & Abil. Testing, 1604 Coron-
misunderstanding. ado Dr., Champaign, 111., 1950.
Received February 24, 1958. 5. Edwards, A. E. Developments in personality
test construction. In Bass, B. & Berg, A.,
References (Eds.), Objective approaches to personality as-
sessment. Univ. of Louisiana, (In Press).
1. Anderson, H. H. & Anderson, G. L. An in- 6. Eysenck, H. ]. The scientific study of person-
troduction of projective techniques. New York: ality. London: Routledgc & Kegan Paul, 1952.
Prentice Hall, 1951. 7. Scheier, I. H. What is an "objective" test?
2. Cattell, R. B. Personality and motivation Pstichol Repi . 195S. 4. 147-157.
structure and measurement, New York: World 8. Scheier, I. H. & Cattell, R. B. An Objective
Book, 1957. An\iet\ Test Battery. Institute Person. &
3. Cattell, R. B. The Objective-Anal> tic (O-A) Abil. Testing, 1604 Coronado Dr., Champaign,
Personality Factor Test Battery. Institute 111., 1958.