The Edwards Personal Preference for the subject was to choose one item from

Schedule (EPPS) each

pair.
Introduction. There are two theoretical influ-
ences that resulted in the creation of the EPPS. Description. Each of the scales on the EPPS is
then composed of 28 forced-choice items,
The first is the theory proposed by Henry where
Murray an item to measure need Achievement for
(1938) which, among other aspects, catalogued exam-
a ple, is paired off with items representative of
set of needs as primary dimensions of behavior each of the other 14 needs, and this done twice
– per comparison. Subjects choose from each pair
for example, need achievement, need the one statement that is more characteristic of
affiliation, them, and the chosen underlying need is given
need heterosexuality. These sets of needs have one point. Let’s assume for example, that these
been scaled in a number of instruments such two statements are judged to be equal in social
as the EPPS, the Adjective Check List (Gough & desirability:
Heilbrun, 1965) and the Thematic Apperception
Which of these is most characteristic? (a) I find
Test (H. A. Murray, 1943). A second theoreti- it reassuring when friends help me out; (b) It is
cal focus is the issue of social desirability. A. L. easy for meto do what is expected.
Edwards (1957b) argued that a person’s If you chose statement (a) you would receive
response one point for need Succorance; if you chose
to a typical personality inventory item may be statement
more reflective of how desirable that response (b) you would receive a point for need
is than the actual behavior of the person. Thus Deference.
a true response to the item, “I am loyal to my Note again, that this procedure of having to
friends” may be given not because the person is choose (a) vs. (b)resultsinipsativemeasurement;
loyal, but because the person perceives that the resulting score does not reflect the strength
saying of a need in any “absolute” manner, but rather
“true” is socially desirable. whether that need was selected over the other
needs. Why is this point important? Suppose
Development. A. L. Edwards developed a pool you and a friend enter a restaurant and find five
of items designed to assess 15 needs taken choices on the menu: hamburger, salad, fish-
from sticks, taco, and club sandwich. You may not
H.A.Murray’s system. Each of theitemswas care very much for any of those, but you select
rated a hamburger because it seems the most
by a group of judges as to how socially desir- palatable.
able endorsing the item would be. Edwards
then
placed together pairs of items that were judged
to
be equivalent in social desirability, and the task
Table 4–2. The EPPS Scales
Need Brief definition Administration. The EPPS is easy to administer
1. Achievement To achieve, to be successful And is designed to be administered within the
2. Deference To follow, to do what is expected typical 50-minute class hour. There are two
3. Order To be orderly and organized answer sheets available, one for hand scoring
4. Exhibition To be at the center of attention and one for machine scoring.
5. Autonomy To be independent
6. Affiliation To have friends Reliability. The test manual gives both internal
7. Intraception To analyze one’s self and others consistency (corrected split-half coefficients
8. Succorance To be helped by others based on a sample of 1,509 subjects), and test-
9. Dominance To be a leader retest coefficients (1-week interval, n = 89); the
10. Abasement To accept blame corrected split-half coefficients range from +.60
11. Nurturance To show affection and support for the need Deference scale to +.87 for the
12. Change To need variety and novelty need
13. Endurance To have persistence
14. Heterosexuality To seek out members of the Heterosexuality scale. The test-retest
opposite sex coefficients range from +.74 for need
15. Aggression To be aggressive, verbally and/or Achievement and need Exhibition, to +.88 for
physically need Abasement.

Your friend however, simply loves hamburgers Validity. The test manual presents little data on
and his selection reflects this. Both of you chose validity, and many subsequent studies that have
hamburgers but for rather different reasons. used the EPPS have assumed that the scales
We should not assume that both of you are were valid. The results do seem to support that
“hamburger lovers,” even although your assumption, although there is little direct
behavior might suggest that. Similarly, two evidence of the validity of the EPPS.
people might score equally high on need
aggression, but only Norms. Because the EPPS consists of ipsative
one of them might be an aggressive individual. measurement, norms are not appropriate.
Nevertheless, they are available and used
In terms of the classificatory schema we devel- widely, although many would argue, incorrectly.
oped in Chapter 1, the EPPS, like most other The initial normative sample consisted of
personality inventories, is commercially 749 college women and 760 college men
available, a group test, a self-report paper-and- enrolled in various universities. The subjects
pencil inventory, with no time limit, designed to were selected to yield approximately equal
assess what the subject typically does, rather representation of gender and as wide an age
than maximal performance. spread as possible, as well as different majors.
The EPPS is designed primarily for research Basically then, the sample was one of
and counseling purposes, and the 15 needs that convenience and not random or stratified. The
are scaled are presumed to be relatively manual also gives a table that allows raw scores
independent normal personality variables. to be changed into percentiles. Subsequently,
Table 4.2 givesa list of the 15 needs assessed by the revised manual also gives norms for 4,031
the EPPS. adult males and 4,932 adult females who were
members of a consumer purchase panel
participating in a market survey. These norms to the nature of the test – the higher a person
are significantly different from those presented scores on one need, the lower they must score
for college students; part of the difference may on the other needs (if you select butter pecan
be that the adult sample seems to be somewhat ice cream as your favorite flavor, other flavors
more representative of the general population. must be ranked lower). The largest coefficient
reported is between need Affiliation and need
Interesting aspects. The EPPS contains two Nurturance (r = .46). The generally low values
validity indices designed to assess whether a do support A. L. Edwards’ claim that the scales
particular protocol is valid or not. The first index are relatively independent.
is based on the fact that 15 items are repeated;
the responses to these items are compared and
a consistency score is determined. If the subject
answers at least 11 of the 15 sets consistently,
then it is assumed that the subject is not
responding randomly. Interestingly, in the
normative sample of 1,509 college students,
383 (or 25%) obtained scores of 10 or below.

The second validity index, an index of profile

stability, is obtained by correlating partial scores
for each scale (based on 14 items) with the
other 14 items. A correlation coefficient of at
least +.44 across scales is assumed to indicate
profile stability, and in fact 93% of the
normative sample scored at or above this point.
The calculation of this coefficient, if done by
hand, is somewhat involved, and few if any test
users do this.

What about the equating of the items on social

desirability? Note first, that the equating was
done on the basis of group ratings. This does
not guarantee that the items are equated for
the individual person taking the test (Heilbrun &
Goodstein, 1961). Secondly, placing two “equal”
items together may in fact cause a shift in social
desirability, so that one of the items may still be
seen as more socially desirable (McKee, 1972).

The 15 need scales are designed to be inde-

pendent. A. L. Edwards (1959) gives a matrix of
correlations based on the normative sample of
1,509 college students. Most of the correlation
coefficients are low and negative, but this is due