Psychometric Report for one Individual Using the IPIP and MSECQ

Introduction The trait approach is one of the comprehensivecharacteristics of personality which denotes that the individual personalities are self-possessed broad dispositions. Trait theories can be measured as a steady attribute that causes the individual to behave in a particular way. Trait approach mainly focuses on identifyingand judging individual personality characteristics (Hayes, 2000). Gordon allport is widely regarded as the founder of the trait approach in personality. Gordon Allport established the idea cardinal traits, which prejudicedpsychologist such as Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck and Costa and McCrae. At first, Gordon allport distinguished between the individual traits and common traits, individual traits are those influenced by a specific individual, and common traits are those shared by several individual. Allport was the one who insisted the personality theorist use the idiographic of research that is the intense study of single case, and avoid the nomothetic method that studies groups of individuals and analyzes averages. Later in the evolution of his theory, Allport came to believe using the term trait to describe both group and individual characteristics was confusing. He therefore retained the term common traits to describe characteristics of groups but changed the term individual trait to personal disposition (Hergenhahn, 2007). Psychometrics is the field of study concerned with theory and technique of psychological measurement which includes attitudes, personality traits and abilities. Psychometric approach tries to identify groups of items in a test that correlate highly with one another in order to discover underlying skills or abilities and Psychometric instruments are tests that quantify psychological attributes such as personality traits and intellectual abilities (Kowalski, Westen 2005). The scientific principles that strengthen psychometrics apply equally well to measurements in education and in clinical or occupational contexts and the early psychometricians were equally at home in all these fields (Rust and Golombok, 2009). Psychometrics offers statistical techniques which Tells the researchers how good a measuring tool or a particular questionnaire is, just as they might assess the accuracy of a thermometer or balance in the physical sciences. The accomplishments of modern techniques and the number-crunching power afforded by computers provide the advanced researcher with powers of data analysis far beyond those envisioned by the revolutionary trait researchers (Mathews et al, 2003). The big five which is also known by the Acronym the Ocean Framework are not personality types. They are set of factors which describes common elements among the sub factors or traits which cluster together. This approach had achieved broad acceptance as a common descriptive system. Costa and McRae who are the influential advocates of this approach came up with six traits under each of the five heading, giving totally 30 traits. The five personality dimensions include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience.Extroversion refers to a propensity to be sociable, active, and willing to take risks (Kowalski & Westen, 2005). Extraverted people are talkative, sociable, passionate, assertive, bold and dominant. Of the big five, extraversion is the easiest to judge in zero acquaintance, situations in which two people have only just met. Extraverted people prioritize status striving, which reflects a strong desire to obtain power and influence within social structure as a means of expressing personality(Colquitt, 2009).Agreeable people are warm, kind, cooperative, sympathetic, helpful and courteous. Agreeable people prioritize communion striving, which reflects a strong desire to obtain acceptance in personal relationships as a means of expressing personality.Conscientiousness has many definitions one is awareness others are the trait of being painstak-

ing and careful, or the quality of acting according to the dictates of one's conscience.Conscientious people are dependable, organized, reliable, ambitious, hardworking and preserving.Neuroticism defines a continuum from emotional stability to instability. It is closely related to the construct of negative activity. Neurotic people are nervous, moody, emotional, insecure, and jealous.Openness tends to be normally distributed with a small number of individuals scoring extremely high or low on the trait, and most people scoring near the average. People who score low on openness are considered to be closed to experience.Openness to experience is the final dimensions of the big five. Open people are curious, imaginative, creative, complex, refined, and sophisticated (Colquitt et al, 2009). "Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, integrate, understand and reflectively manage our own and other's feelings"( cited in Buchanan and Huczynski, 2007).in simple words Emotional Intelligence is the ability to read people's emotions and use one's own emotional response adaptively. In around 1900 to 1969 several psychologist have mentioned and discussed about emotion and intelligence, but at that time both were separate entities where they never considered emotional intelligence as one single aspect. In 1935 E.L.Thorndike was the first person to mention about social intelligence. Approximately after two decades a psychologist named David Welsher in around 1952 introduced intelligence quotient. In 1983 the famous psychologist Gardener came up with his theory of multiple-intelligence which had the capability to recognize and indicate emotions. A psychologist called Reuven Bar-On tried to measure emotional intelligence in wellbeing in the year of 1988. Eventually emotional intelligence was a significant topic in the field of Brain science around 1990 to 1993. But the universalization and augmentation of Emotional intelligence really started in 1994, and was well known after the publication of the book called Emotional Intelligence by Goleman. A wider research has been going on since then. And researchers have come up several contributions(Marriner.T.A, 2004). A study was conducted by Lee, Ashton and Goldberg in 2007, mainly in the HEXACO Personality inventory which was developed by the researchers in 2004 measuring lexical studies of personality stuctures of various languages. They used the substitute measurement of HEXACO factors and their aspects, using some of the items from IPIP. The results showed satisfactory psychometric properties, as assessed by internal-consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant correlations with the original HEXACO-PI scales, and factor structure (Lee Et Al, 2007). A study was conducted on emotional intelligence as well as the personality traits on 103 college students. They also measured the recognized value of an individual's personal relations. The psychometric they used were the Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The results obtained from the experiment was related with synchronized self-reports of satisfaction with social relationships. All the individual scoring showed a positive response. These associations remained statistically important even controlling for important Big Five personality traits and verbal intelligence. Global satisfaction with ones relationships was related with extraversion, neuroticism (negatively), and the ability to manage ones emotions, as assessed by the MSCEIT (Lopes Et Al, 2003). The measure chose to study personality is the IPIP questionnaire. International personality Item Pool is a website to progress and constantly enhance a set of personality records, of which the

subjects are in the public domain. The IPIP scales can be used for science related as well as viable determinations. On the other hand the measure chosen to study emotional intelligence in the MSECQ. MeredithSheppard emotional competencies questionnaire mainly contains of 5 of the factors of emotional intelligence introduced by Goleman. And all of them are mainly based on Goleman's principles. For the purpose of this report we are analyzing the IPIP personality profile and the MSECQ emotional competence profile of one individual. Methods IPIP Sixty psychology undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the experiment out of which two of them were male. The participants were aged between 18 and 40. Questionnaire was provided in order to measure their personality. MSECQ The experiment included sixty undergraduate students who voluntarily participated out of which there were two male participants. Emotional intelligence was the main component which was measured with the help of a questionnaire. Materials IPIP The material used to measure personality was the International personality item pool questionnaire which included 100 questions. Refer to appendix for the questionnaire. (Ravid.R, 2005) MSECQ The material used is a questionnaire to measure the emotional intelligence of the participants which included 80 questions. Refer to appendix for the questionnaire. (Meredith, 2007) Procedure IPIP Participant was asked to fill out a questionnaire, by the researcher on the five factors of a personality. Some of their personal data were also required such as age and gender. Once the participants were done with the questionnaire they were asked to score as well, and a scoring sheet was provided. The questionnaire contained hundred questions, which was divided in to 5 areas according to the big five personality traits, that is, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience and Neuroticism, Which were categorized in to negative and positive sides. Once they were scored the participants handed back the scoring sheet as well as the completed questionnaire. MSECQ

Akin procedure was followed in Emotional assessment as well. The researcher briefed the participants about the experiment and the participant was asked fill up a consent form as well. The researcher asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire related to emotional intelligence. The questionnaire contained some of the personal data such as the age and the gender of the participant. Seventy questions were asked, which were filled out by the participant within half an hour. A scoring sheet was also provided following the questionnaire, which contained five factors such as Self Insight, Expressivity, Sensitivity, Drive and lastly Foundations. Each of the factors was divided into negative and positive signs. The mean values and the formulas for calculating the z and t scores are provided in the scoring. Scoring IPIP The mean and the standard deviation were given to the participants, and with the help of these and the raw scores the Z score was formulated with the following equation. Z= X-Mean/Standard Deviation With the help of the Z score the T score was formulated T= (Z score * 10) + 50 MSECQ The same procedure was followed; with the help of mean and standard deviation the Z score was formulated. Z= X-Mean/Standard Deviation With the help of the Z score the T score was formulated : T= (Z score * 10) + 50

RESULTS IPIP

Sample Statistics IPIP FACTORS Extraversion Agreeableness Raw score Mean 53 78 69.116 77.967 (n= 60 ) SD 11.859 12.638 -1.36 0.002 36.4 50.02 Z score T score

Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to Experience

74 68 61

67.300 59.716 76.300

11.946 15.427 12.360

0.56 0.54 -1.24

55.6 55.4 37.6

Table 1 shows the raw score of the client, the Mean value of the sample, the standard deviation, the Z score and the t score.

The Z score was formulated with the help of the mean, the standard deviation and raw score of the participant. Sample mean was deducted from the raw score and then was divided by the standard deviation, whereas the T score was converted after the calculation of Z score. The Z score was multiplied by 10 and then the result was added to 50. The client has scored lowest, that is 36.4, in extraversion which shows that she is, if not completely but still an introvert. Her second lowest score was obtained from openness to experience by scoring 37.6 after the calculation of Z score and t score. The client received a score of 50.02 on agreeableness, where it can be interpreted that she is a fairly agreeable person. Neuroticism was fairly high for the client, where she acknowledged a score of 55.4, where it could be concluded that she is a very anxious and nervous person. And the client received her highest score for conscientiousness, where obtained a score of 55.6 which is only slightly from neuroticism.

Sample Statistics MSECQ DOMAINS Raw score ) n= 359( Mean Self-Insight Expressivity Sensitivity Drive Foundations TOTAL Emotional Competency 69 62 66 67 75 66.8 74.483 71.9 80.45 67.12 69.05 72.62 SD 5.954 7.632 8.952 11.721 11.388 7.481 -216.0 -.101 -.160. -21221 21248 21... 88144 8.1. 881.1 8111. 32148 80108 Z score T score

Table 2 mainly indicates the raw score of the client, the mean and standard deviation of the whole group and the calculated Z and T score.

The Z score was articulated with the help of the raw score, the mean and the standard deviation. The mean score was subtracted from the raw score of the participant and then was divided with standard deviation. On the other hand the T score was calculated with the by multiplying 10 to the Z score and adding it with 50. The results were obtained from that. The client received a score of 43.88 regarding self-insight and a 37.1 for expressivity. The lowest score she received was for sensitivity that is 33.79. The highest score she received was for 49.1 and 50.83 for Drive and foundation respectively. The average score obtained from emotional competence came up to 42.23. And it can be concluded that, the client's total emotional competency was only average.

Discussion Malavika Chelat, the client, scored her lowest in the extraversion which could be concluded that she is an introverted person. She is comparatively less on mingling with people and socializing, and prefers silence and loneliness to noise. She likes to be independent rather than trail behind someone. And also she likes to keep everything to herself rather than share everything with a second person. The client confirms that she has most of her characteristics as an introvert than an extrovert. She confirms that she doesn't mingle with people more often like her friends do. She prefers reading a book alone than attend a party. She scored an average on agreeableness which refers to that she is an agreeable person to some extent. She is really sympathetic towards other people's problems and is really keen to help when needed to be. She is cooperative too when required. Malavika confirms that she agree to people when she thinks they are right. And she also says that she loves to help people who are needy. Malavika scored her highest in conscientiousness; she has got strong will power and proper order for each and every single thing. It's mainly said that the people who score high in conscientiousness could be said as reliable persons. And the same thing can be said about Malavika as well. Malavika approves about what the researcher concluded about her trait in conscientiousness, she likes cleanliness, and she likes everything up-to-date. She also says that until and unless she has made up her mind she won't do anything properly. Neuroticism score of Malavika was closer to her score of conscientiousness.She gets angry and anxious very fast at times. And also she is shy around people. But when she gets to know people she starts mingling with them. Malavika confirms that she is nervous when she needs to present something's in front of everyone. And also gets anxious even when small things changes from here to there. She confirms that she tends to be angry at times.

The last score she received on openness to experience showed a score much lower score than the entire three factors such as agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. According to the researcher Malavika is more if insensitive person and does not have active imagination. And the researcher also thinks that she is not inquisitive about the world and does not have independence on their judgment. But in contrast the client is not satisfied with the results obtained by the researcher. She disagrees on the fact that she does not have active imagination, while she has so many ambitions. But she does agree to the result where the researcher says that she is insensitive and is not inquisitive to the world. But again she disagrees about the result where the researcher points out that she doesn't have independence of judgment, where she does respect her decisions. Malavika Chelat's scores were fair enough for the personality factors, ahead is the explanation of the result obtained from her emotional intelligence scores. Malavika has scored an average taking self-insight into consideration. But still her weighing scale tend to be showing more of, less self-insight where we can contemplate that she has a problem while figuring out her own emotions, which is more likely to create problems for her to cope with strong feelings and emotions. And to top it off she may as well suffer from selfesteem. And it may cause her trouble while dealing with emotional situation, where she'll either be too separate or easily confounded which will lead her to be in more emotional turmoil. Malavika almost agrees with everything predicted by the researcher. She accepts the fact the at times she doesn't understand her feelings, and has problem dealing with her emotions which can be expressed in an inappropriate manner and taken completely in a different sense by the person dealing with her. Client received a lesser score compared to self-insight than expressivity. And the researcher came up to an understanding that Malavika might be having problems while expressing her feeling to a second person, especially strong as well as undesirable feelings. The researcher even expressed that the client might find people who have high expressivity very less tolerant, which may lead them to show her emotions out and the person with high expressivity feel that she is mean and unsympathetic towards the person, whereas Malavika might be just being honest and highly sensitive. Malavika might also stuff all these emotions and hide everything inside without letting anyone know about her feeling which may later on cause her health related issues. Malavika certainly agrees with the results obtained by the researcher because, she does not like to express her feeling good or bad to anyone other than who are close to her. And eventually from time to time she does have emotional outburst which results in mainly angriness or deep hatred for the person who had caused it. Malavika received her lowest score compared to all the other in sensitivity. According to the researcher Malavika has trouble understanding and dealing with other people's emotions. She might find it understand other people's emotions from their point of view. And also concludes that since it is difficult understanding other people's emotions they may have an outburst on the spot itself. Participant completely and strongly disagrees to the results implemented by the researcher and expresses that she do understand other people's emotions and do not have any problem from

seeing from another person's viewpoint. And she also claimed that she tries her maximum to understand other person's feelings as well. Malavika obtained a comparatively higher score, where the researcher described Malavika as a highly motivated person who likes to achieve her goal in a disciplined way. And she specifically likes to do stuff on her own independently. The client agreed to the results drawn by the researcher, because they were absolutely correct according to Malavika. She also assured the researcher that she always wanted to be independent, and just the personality trait she likes to maintain things in her own manner. And she is really goal oriented and wants to accomplish her goal with her own will power. Malavika got her highest scores regarding emotional intelligence in foundations; the researcher suggests that she has good understanding of her own principles and which helps her to handle herself and her relationships in a proper manner. She is also able to know about her weakness compared to others. The client somewhat agreed to what the researcher indicated about her foundations, but she does say that at times can't come to a conclusion about what is weaknesses and if she could cope with all the failures and problems in relationships. When the average was calculated from the above emotional intelligence from the above factors the results showed were really average and the researcher recommended that Malavika is on the way to an emotionally intelligent. Even though Malavika received a fairly good result she has to improve in the field of self-insight, expressivity, and sensitivity. Being a psychology student, as well as the client, Malavika was aware of the entire factors of personality discussed above in the following experiment such as extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experiment.She was not satisfied and agreeable to some of the results obtained by the researcher. She did oppose some of the factors and the results attained from the factors as it was just the opposite of what her personality or emotional attitude was. The main factor which she opposed under personality was the openness to experience, where the researcher stated that she does not have active imagination and the client opposed strongly. It can be explained and proved that the client confirms that she does have great ambitions, which include doing her masters in one of the top ten universities in London. Malavika was also not happy about the score which was attained by the researcher for the factor of sensitivity in emotional intelligence, where the client claims that she does understands other people's emotions. In terms of personality it could be said that Malavika is more of an introverted persons who has feeling for other and like to deal with her own things in her own way, whereas in terms of emotional intelligence it could be said that she is a very sensitive person who had great ambitions.

Conclusion As a researcher, psychometrics is a good way of measuring personality and emotional intelligence. It did help me to understand the participant in detail, but it does have so many flaws to it. The first reason can be said that may be the client has lied in the questionnaires. May be

they dint understand the questions asked in the questionnaire in the first place. The client does points out where her results do not go hand in hand with her personality or emotional competencies. As a client I was happy with the whole report, but not completely. In some sections of results especially the sensitivity part from emotional intelligence and openness to experience from personality does not support what I am. It both shows just the opposite of what I am. I do understand myself more, and the results from the experiment showed that I should improve in my emotional back ground which I totally agree. As a matter of fact other than sensitivity whatever the report said about my emotional intelligence was accurate and preferably helpful for me. And I am sure that the knowledge myself which I received with the help of this report wouldn't go wasted when I enter the world of competition where I have to be independent.

REFERNCE LIST Colquitt.J.A, Lepine.J.A, Wesson.M.J (2009) Organizational behavior : improvingperformance and commitment in the workplace, McGraw Hill Education, London. Hayes.N (2000) Foundations of Psychology, Thomson Learning, Italy. Kowalski.R, Westen.D(2005) Psychology 4th edition, U.S.A Hergenhahn.B.R, Olson.M.H(2007) An introduction to theories of personality, 7thedition,Pearsonedications, U.S.A.

Rust.J, Golombok.S (2009), Modern Psychometrics: The science of Psychological Assessment, 3rd edition, Psychology Press, Great Britian. Huczynski.A.A, Buchanan.D.A (2007) Organizational Behaviour .6th edition, Prentice Hall, UK. Marriner.T.A (2004), Guide to Nursing management and leadership, 7th edition, Mosby,U.S.A. Matthews.G, Deary.I.J, Whiteman.M.C (2003) Personality Traits, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, New York U.S.A. Lopes.P.N,Salovey.P, Strans.R(2003), Emotional Intelligence, personality and the perceived quality of social relationships, Personality and Individual Difference, Vol.35, pp.641-658 Ashton.M.C, Lee.K, Goldberg.L.R (2007), The IPIPHEXACO scales: An alternative, public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model, Personality and Individual Differences,Volume 42(8), June 2007, Pages 1515-1526.

APPENDIX

STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MSECQ You are assessing in the development of a new emotional competencies scale by this questionnaire. To help categories responses could you please circle which of the following options applies to you: Male / Female 16-25 / 26-35 / 36-45 / 46-55 / 56-65 The MSECQ comprises a list of statements numbered 1 to 70 Please read each statement and put a cross in the box under the response that best suits you- for example. With first statement. Do you rely on your feelings when making decisions Hardly ever, Seldom, Sometimes, Often or Almost Always?

THE STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE IPIP

Contained in the IPIP there are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the rating scale to describe how accurately each statements describes you. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as yoyu are and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner , your responses will be kept in confidence. Please read each statement carefully and put a cross in the box under the option that correspondes to yourself.