Post by mgm on Oct 13, 2017 21:32:59 GMT
A) If we consider the third method of personality assessment - observations of the person being assessed by a trained observer - there are a few limits that come to mind.
The first is that the person being observed might alter their behaviour simply as a result of being observed - causing a problem for the validity and possibly also the reliability of the assessment. The simple fact that the observer is present is going to influence and change the nature of the observation - if your behaviour is being watched and studied by someone then there might be some things that you would do in that situation that you wouldn’t normally do- in order to present yourself in a more positive light- similarly, there might be certain other behaviours that you wouldn't do in that situation that would normally be carried out - in fear of coming across poorly by the observer.
Another issue affecting the validity is that a trained observer could be observing behaviour without having access to the larger context of a situation - for example, if a person displays a certain behaviour on a given day which is noted by the observer, then the context of that observation is confined to that particular day. But it is very possible that the behaviour observed on that day could have been informed by past experiences that extend back beyond the point at which the observation began, resulting in an incomplete contextual framework in which to properly evaluate the particular observed behaviour.
B). If I had to choose one of the three methods as being superior then I would stick with the first one - self reports from the persons being assessed. Some degree of bias and distortion is going to be unavoidable regardless of the particular method used, but I feel as if this method provides the clearest picture of personality because it is based on data obtained from the most informed source (no one has access to more information about someones personality and behaviours then that person themselves) with the most complete contextual perspective.
The first is that the person being observed might alter their behaviour simply as a result of being observed - causing a problem for the validity and possibly also the reliability of the assessment. The simple fact that the observer is present is going to influence and change the nature of the observation - if your behaviour is being watched and studied by someone then there might be some things that you would do in that situation that you wouldn’t normally do- in order to present yourself in a more positive light- similarly, there might be certain other behaviours that you wouldn't do in that situation that would normally be carried out - in fear of coming across poorly by the observer.
Another issue affecting the validity is that a trained observer could be observing behaviour without having access to the larger context of a situation - for example, if a person displays a certain behaviour on a given day which is noted by the observer, then the context of that observation is confined to that particular day. But it is very possible that the behaviour observed on that day could have been informed by past experiences that extend back beyond the point at which the observation began, resulting in an incomplete contextual framework in which to properly evaluate the particular observed behaviour.
B). If I had to choose one of the three methods as being superior then I would stick with the first one - self reports from the persons being assessed. Some degree of bias and distortion is going to be unavoidable regardless of the particular method used, but I feel as if this method provides the clearest picture of personality because it is based on data obtained from the most informed source (no one has access to more information about someones personality and behaviours then that person themselves) with the most complete contextual perspective.