1 Running head: FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE VINELAND-II PAGE PAGE 2 FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE VINELAND-II Final Analysis of the Vineland-II Abstract The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition is a widely-used assessment of adaptive behavior for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Vineland-II possesses exceptional validity and reliability scores for its Survey Interview Form, Expanded Interview Form, and the Teacher Rating Form. The assessment purports to assess adaptive behavior in individuals from birth to 90 years of age. The efficacy of the Vineland-II for adult populations and severely disabled populations is a limitation of the Vineland-II that should be examined. Test items should also be updated to account for advances in technology. Element 1. Purpose The purpose of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition (Vineland-II) is to assess adaptive behavior skills to measure self-sufficiency across an individual’s lifespan and support diagnosis of intellectual or developmental disabilities (Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Balla, 2008). The Vineland-II measure adaptive behavior in four domains: communication, socialization, daily living skills, and motor skills. The test also contains a maladaptive behavior survey, an expanded interview form, and a teacher rating form for measuring adaptive behavior necessary in school environments (Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Balla, 2008). The Vineland-II measures adaptive behavior in individuals from birth to ninety years with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual and developmental disabilities, ADHD, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, post-traumatic brain injuries and hearing impairments (Vineland-II, 2016). The inclusion of a teacher rating form and a maladaptive behavior form are strengths of the Vineland-II as they give the test user more pertinent information regarding an individual’s adaptive behavior in various environments and problem behaviors that are barriers to adaptive functioning. A weakness of the Vineland-II is the age range it purports to measure adaptive behavior as it does not account for changes in socialization and societal expectations of adaptive behavior in adults (Matthews, Smith, Pollard, Ober-Reynolds, Kirwan, & Malligo, 2015). Element 2. Appropriateness The Vineland-II contains test items based on the definitions of adaptive behavior provided by American Association on Mental Retardation, the American Psychological Association, and the National Academy of Sciences and the test items show high content validity. The content validity of the Vineland-II is independently examined based on the World Health Organization’s definitions of adaptive behavior and shown to have strong content validity (Gleason and Coster, 2012). Thus, the test items are appropriate for measuring adaptive behavior and are a strength of the Vineland-II. The Vineland-II was standardized in 2004 before its release in 2005 and test items relating to an individ ...

1. 1
Running head: FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE VINELAND-II
PAGE
PAGE
2
FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE VINELAND-II
Final Analysis of the Vineland-II
Abstract
The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition is a
widely-used assessment of adaptive behavior for individuals
with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Vineland-
II possesses exceptional validity and reliability scores for its
Survey Interview Form, Expanded Interview Form, and the
Teacher Rating Form. The assessment purports to assess
adaptive behavior in individuals from birth to 90 years of age.
The efficacy of the Vineland-II for adult populations and
severely disabled populations is a limitation of the Vineland-II
that should be examined. Test items should also be updated to
account for advances in technology.
Element 1. Purpose
The purpose of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second
edition (Vineland-II) is to assess adaptive behavior skills to
measure self-sufficiency across an individual’s lifespan and
support diagnosis of intellectual or developmental disabilities
(Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Balla, 2008). The Vineland-II measure
adaptive behavior in four domains: communication,

2. socialization, daily living skills, and motor skills. The test also
contains a maladaptive behavior survey, an expanded interview
form, and a teacher rating form for measuring adaptive behavior
necessary in school environments (Sparrow, Cicchetti, and
Balla, 2008). The Vineland-II measures adaptive behavior in
individuals from birth to ninety years with autism spectrum
disorder, intellectual and developmental disabilities, ADHD,
dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, post-traumatic brain injuries
and hearing impairments (Vineland-II, 2016). The inclusion of
a teacher rating form and a maladaptive behavior form are
strengths of the Vineland-II as they give the test user more
pertinent information regarding an individual’s adaptive
behavior in various environments and problem behaviors that
are barriers to adaptive functioning. A weakness of the
Vineland-II is the age range it purports to measure adaptive
behavior as it does not account for changes in socialization and
societal expectations of adaptive behavior in adults (Matthews,
Smith, Pollard, Ober-Reynolds, Kirwan, & Malligo, 2015).
Element 2. Appropriateness
The Vineland-II contains test items based on the definitions of
adaptive behavior provided by American Association on Mental
Retardation, the American Psychological Association, and the
National Academy of Sciences and the test items show high
content validity. The content validity of the Vineland-II is
independently examined based on the World Health
Organization’s definitions of adaptive behavior and shown to
have strong content validity (Gleason and Coster, 2012). Thus,
the test items are appropriate for measuring adaptive behavior
and are a strength of the Vineland-II. The Vineland-II was
standardized in 2004 before its release in 2005 and test items
relating to an individual’s use of technology are not appropriate
in 2016. For example, one test item asks whether the child can
open a program on a computer and rates this as a skill for
seven-year-olds. Another test item asks if an individual can use

3. a home phone to make phone calls. (Sparrow, Balla, Cicchetti,
& Doll, 2005). Due to advances in technology, these questions
are outdated; kids as young as 2 years of age can open a
program on an iPad or touch screen computer and many kids
have never seen or used a home phone line as cell phones are
more prevalent; these test items, therefore, are not appropriate
in measuring adaptive behavior in 2016. Furthermore, the
exclusion of social media and electronic communication in the
Vineland-II represents another weakness of the assessment in
regards to appropriate test items as socialization and
communication increasingly involve technology that is not
included in the Vineland-II’s four domains (Tomanik, Pearson,
Loveland, Lane, & Shaw, 2007).
Element 3. Materials
The materials provided for the administration of the Vineland-II
include two survey forms; the Survey Interview form and the
Parent or Caregiver Rating Form. In addition, there is an
Expanded Interview Form, the purpose is to “provide a more
comprehensive measure of adaptive behavior as well as a basis
for treatment planning”. Finally, the Vineland-II includes a
Teacher Rating Form for children ages three to twenty-one
(Sparrow et. al, 2008). The inclusion of the setting specific
Teacher Rating Form and the age appropriate Expanded
Interview form make the Vineland-II’s materials superior in the
thoroughness of test materials for individuals under 21. This
strength of the Vineland-II does not translate to adult
populations, however, as the TRF are meant for individuals ages
3 to 21 and the expanded interview form is for individuals 0-5
(Viezel and Zibulsky, 2013). It is recommended that future
versions of the Vineland-II include forms assessing the adaptive
behavior of individuals in group homes, nursing homes, and
psychiatric facilities.
Element 4. Training
The Vineland-II recommends test administrators possess a
master’s degree in psychology, education, or a field related to

4. mental health or certification by a professional organization or
formal training in mental health assessments (Vineland-II,
2016). These qualifications are minimal and reflect the ease of
administration and scoring of the Vineland-II, a strength of the
Vineland for this code. An experienced administrator of the
Vineland-II, however, is more familiar with test items that are
commonly misunderstood and can explain questions before the
parent or caregiver scores the test question and therefore avoids
confusion on behalf of the parent or caregiver (de Bildt, Kraijer,
Sytema, and Minderaa, 2005). Despite the Vineland-II’s
recommendations for the qualifications of test administrators, a
more experienced administrator with a higher degree and more
credentialing in the field of behavior analysis is preferred as
this increases the reliability of the assessment as a measurement
tool (Sparrow et. al, 2008). Thus, the qualifications for
administering the test is a weakness of the Vineland-II in this
code and the authors of the test should increase the minimum
requirements for administering the assessment.
Element 5. Technical Quality
Element 5 of the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education
evaluates the technical quality of a test and the findings for a
test’s reliability and validity. The Vineland-II’s findings for
reliability and validity come from the administration of the
parent/caregiver rating form to 3,695 individuals selected from
a pool of 25,000 individuals, administration of the Expanded
Interview Form to 2,151 individuals from the same pool of
25,000 and administration of the Teacher Rating Form (TRF) to
2,570 teachers and care providers from a pool of 19,000
(Sparrow et. al, 2008).
Internal consistency reliability for the four domains of the
parent/caregiver rating form, the TRF, and the expanded
interview is between .9 and .95 using the reliability coefficient
and is therefore quite strong. Test-retest reliability for the three
forms is found to be between .8 and .9 and is considered good.
Interrater reliability for the parent/caregiver rating form and
expanded interview form is between .7 and .8, a reliable

5. coefficient that is moderately strong (Sparrow et. al, 2008).
Independent research using Cronbach’s alpha to determine
internal consistency of the Vineland-II produced scores across
the four domains above .95, showing significantly high internal
consistency reliability (de Bildt et. al, 2005). The assessment
also receives high inter-rater reliability scores between .93 and
.99 in the four domains, which are also significantly high and
support the Vineland-IIs reliability scores (p. 59). The
exceptional reliability of the Vineland-II is a major strength of
the assessment. This strength is relegated to individuals under
the age of 21; interrater reliability in the adult population is
weak at .39 to .6 and indicates improvements to the Vineland-II
need to be made to make it a viable assessment of adaptive
behavior in adult populations (Sparrow et. al, 2008).
Content Validity for the Vineland-II is found through examining
the correlation of test items to the definitions of adaptive
behavior from the American Association on Mental Retardation,
the American Psychological Association, and the National
Academy of Sciences; content validity is found to be strong
based on these organizations definitions (Sparrow et. al, 2008).
The exceptional content validity of the Vineland-II’s test items
is supported by research that shows strong content validity
based on the World Health Organizations ICF-CY definitions of
adaptive behavior and therefore, content validity is another
strength of the Vineland-II (Gleason and Coster, 2012).
Concurrent and construct validity of the Vineland-II is strong
and represents another strength of the Vineland-II (Viezel and
Zibulsky, 2013).
Element 6. Test Items and Format
The Vineland-II consists of a survey interview form, expanded
interview form, TRF, and a maladaptive behavior survey. The
test items are administered through an informal interview of the
parents of the individual or the teacher in the TRF. Test items
are read aloud by the administrator and answered with
“usually”, “sometimes”, or “never” (Sparrow et. al, 2008). The

6. scores from the four domains produce an adaptive behavior
composite (ABC) standard score with a mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 15. The ABC scores generate percentile
rankings for adaptive behavior as well as an adaptive level. The
scoring of the subdomain produce V- scale scores with a mean
of 15 and a standard deviation of 3. The subdomain scores give
percentile rankings, adaptive level, and an age equivalence for
one’s adaptive behavior. The maladaptive behavior interview
survey produces a maladaptive behavior level for the
individual’s behaviors (Vineland-II, 2016). The Vineland-II’s
age equivalents or mental age should be used with caution, if at
all, because it does not relate to the test’s purpose and does not
aid in treatment planning for interventions. Thus, it is
recommended that the age equivalency portion of the score
report be removed. (Cohen, Swerdlik, and Sturman, 2013;
Kanne, Gerber, Quirmbach, Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Saulnier,
2011).
Element 7. Test Procedures and Materials
The Vineland-II is administered as an interview to the parent or
caregiver of the individual being assessed or to the individual’s
teacher for the TRF. The caregiver, or teacher for the TRF,
answer pre-written questions read to them by the test
administrator about the individual’s adaptive behavior with
“usually”, “sometimes”, or “never”. The test administrator
obtains a composite score and validity scale scores using the
ASSIST software program (Vineland-II, 2016). The survey
interview form takes less than an hour to complete and scoring
of the Vineland-II takes 30 minutes or less.
Element 8. Modifications and Accommodations
The Vineland-II allows for the modifications to the assessment
by cutting off test questions in the subdomains when an
individual’s behaviors produce four consecutive “never”
answers from the parent or caregiver and a ceiling has been
reached for the subdomain. The test is also modified for

7. individuals over six years of age by excluding the Motor
domain. Accommodations for the interviewee are included in
the test directions and allow the administrator of the Vineland-
II to explain test questions that the parent or caregiver do not
understand (Sparrow et. al, 2008). The modifications allowed
are a strength of the Vineland-II, however, more modifications
should be added to allow for dated test questions that do not
consider advances in technology (Kanne et. al, 2011).
Element 9. Group Differences
The utilization of the Vineland-II across subgroups is
problematic in adult populations and in populations severely
impacted by a disability. In the adult population, the domains
of communication and socialization in the Vineland-II do not
adequately consider the absence of school and the social
interactions school provided by attending school (Matthews et.
al, 2015). In addition, adult populations have much more
refined communication skills as compared to children,
adolescents, and young adults. The nuances of adult
conversation are not factored into the Vineland-II’s assessment
and is therefore a weakness of the assessment in measuring
adaptive behavior in adults (Matthews et. al, 2015). Also, the
severity of an individual’s developmental disability is seen to
contribute to their adaptive behavior repertoire. It is not
definitively known whether a negative correlation in adaptive
behavior with age is due to the severity of the disability,
quality, or lack of behavior intervention, or due to extraneous
variable not taken into consideration by the researchers (Kanne
et. al, 2011). The Vineland-II does possess diagnostic accuracy;
the scores for subgroups of individuals with autism, ADHD,
learning disabilities, mental disabilities and visual or hearing
impairments accurately differentiate the individuals in the
subgroups (Sparrow et. al, 2008). Although this is a strength of
the Vineland-II, variations in scores in different age groups of
the subgroups should be addressed by the test makers.
Summary and Recommendation

8. The high validity and reliability of the Vineland-II is a major
strength, as it assures practitioners that the measurements
obtained are true indicators of adaptive behavior as defined by
professional organizations such as the World Health
Organization and the American Psychologists Association.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the TRF and the expanded
interview form make the Vineland-II a recommended assessment
tool for individuals 21 and under. Furthermore, reliability and
validity of the assessment is stronger in this age group and
allow the scores to properly guide the formulation of
interventions for deficits in adaptive functioning and the
tracking of progress in the interventions (Viezel and Zibulsky,
2013).
Reliability of the Vineland-II is weak in adult populations and
is a major reason the Vineland-II is not recommended for adult
populations. In addition, the test items on the Vineland-II do
not measure true adaptive functioning for adults. The nuances
of communication in adults is different than that of adolescents
and children and requires much higher cognitive skills to
determine meaning and purpose of what is being said based on
tone, subject matter, and societal events that contribute to
normal adult communication (Matthews et. al, 2015). Future
editions of the Vineland-II should not only include separate
forms for adults in assisted living environments; it should also
include test questions representative of communication,
socialization, and daily living skills necessary for adults to
succeed in job interviews, maintain employment, and
communicate effectively based on the adults age (Matthews et.
al, 2015).
Another concern in using the Vineland-II with all populations is
the assessments questions relating to communication and daily
living skills that deal with technology. Advances in technology
have made many test items outdated and problematic for scoring
the assessment since it relies on basal and ceiling rules that

9. cannot be modified when using computer based scoring software
provided by the test makers (Sparrow et. al, 2005). It is
recommended that the test makers include modifications in the
test directions that allow administrators of the test to alter the
question to make it relevant to current technology or give the
administrator the option of omitting test questions that are
outdated and not germane to adaptive function skills for all
populations (Matthews et. al, 2015).
It is also recommended that test items be updated to reflect the
prevalence of credit and debit cards in modern society and the
decrease in use of paper money and coins. While the use of
paper money and coins is still important, adolescent, and adult
populations are more likely to use debit or credit cards and they
should therefore be included as an adaptive behavior skill for
daily living in the Vineland-II. The test should also be updated
to reflect the role of social media and electronic communication
in the socialization, communication, and daily living skills
domains of the Vineland-II (Kanne et. al, 2011).
Finally, further research is needed to determine whether the
composite scores obtained from the administering of the
Vineland-II for adolescents and young adults produce
interventions that help individuals transition into adulthood.
Since self-sufficiency is the goal of adaptive behavior, the
results of interventions based on scores produced by the
Vineland-II should be examined to determine if the purpose of
the Vineland-II to aid in formulating interventions is being
upheld through the creation of effective interventions that
address individual adaptive behavior deficits that result in skill
acquisition leading to higher quality of life for the individual.
References
Cohen, R. J., Sturnman, E.D. & Swerdlik, M. E.
(2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction
to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill
de Bildt, A., Kraijer, D., Sytema, S., & Minderaa, R. (2005).
The Psychometric Properties of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior

10. Scales in Children and Adolescents with Mental
Retardation. Journal of Autism & Developmental
Disorders, 35(1), 53-62. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-1033-7
Gleason, K., & Coster, W. (2012). An ICF-CY-based content
analysis of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II. Journal
Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 37(4), 285-293.
doi:10.3109/13668250.2012.720675
Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair
testing practices in education. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf
Kanne, S. M., Gerber, A. J., Quirmbach, L. N., Sparrow, S. S.,
Cicchetti, D. V., & Saulnier, C. A. (2011). The Role of
Adaptive Behavior in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Implications
for Functional Outcome. Journal Of Autism & Developmental
Disorders, 41(8), 1007-1018. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1126-4
Matthews, N., Smith, C., Pollard, E., Ober-Reynolds, S.,
Kirwan, J., & Malligo, A. (2015). Adaptive Functioning in
Autism Spectrum Disorder During the Transition to
Adulthood. Journal of Autism & Developmental
Disorders, 45(8), 2349-2360. doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2400-2
Sparrow S, Cicchetti D, Balla D. (2008) Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales, Second Edition. [serial online]. January 1,
2008;Available from: Mental Measurements Yearbook with
Tests in Print, Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 4, 2016.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., Cicchetti, D. V., & Doll, E. A.
(2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition
Survey Interview Form Record Booklet. Bloomington, MN:
NCS Pearson.
Tomanik, S. S., Pearson, D. A., Loveland, K. A., Lane, D. M.,
& Shaw, J. B. (2007). Improving the Reliability of Autism
Diagnoses: Examining the Utility of Adaptive Behavior. Journal
Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 921-928.
doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0227-6
Viezel, K. and Zibulsky, J. (2013). Vineland adaptive behavior
scales, second edition. In E. Fletcher-Janzen, K. Vannest & C.

11. Reynolds (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education: A reference
for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with
disabilities and other exceptional individuals. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley. Retrieved from
http://library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.
com/content/entry/wileyse/vineland_adaptive_behavior_scales_s
econd_edition/0
Vineland-II. (2016). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from
http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/10000066
8/vineland-adaptive-behavior-scales-second-edition-vineland-ii-
vineland-ii.html
Running head: STANDARDIZED TESTS
1
STANDARDIZED TESTS
8
Review and Selection of a Standardized Test
Standardized Tests
Introduction
Standardized tests are used in psychology as techniques for
measuring different people’s problems aspects. Such tests are
different in types and are used in the psychology profession.
Standardized tests are used as diagnosis tools for mental illness
related disorders. This standardized tests assess different
aspects in mental aspect factors including achievements,
personality, aptitude, intelligence, interests and other mental
conditions. Specific categories of the tests can be identified and
examples of the related tools used in the specific tests. This

12. paper will focus on personality tests. The specific tests include
NEO Personality inventory, HEXACO Model of Personality
Structure and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI). A comparison of the tools is an important discussion
in this paper.
Element 1
Revised NEO Personality serves as an important standardized
test tool that is used to measure the five basic personality traits
which are included in the five factor model. These five
personality traits include openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Each of these five traits encompasses six different
subcategories. Such inventory constitutes a total of 240 entities
and their usefulness can be applied to both the children and
adults. The revised NEO personality test can be done by
counselors, doctors, educators, psychologists and psychiatrists
in evaluation of individuals’ mental state
HEXACO personality model is used in evaluation of different
dimension of personalities and theoretical interpretations. The
personality dimensions that are measured by the HEXACO
model include honesty-humility, emotionality, openness to
experience, extraversion agreeableness and conscientiousness.
This inventory combines sets of 60 100 and 200 questions.
HEXACO model of personality test can be self-administered
through access and filling out of a test questionnaire Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory is used is assessment of
personality and psychopathology among the adults. This tools
bases its test on ten different scales. The ten scales comprise of
hypochondriasis, psychastenia, psychopathic paranoia, deviate,
masculinity or femininity, depression hysteria, social
introversion, hypomania and schizophrenia. This test involves
567 questions that are formulated on the true-false basis. A
shorter version of the test contains 338 questions designed and

13. structured as the full version. This inventory is relevant in
diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Critical
professionals are also subjects to this test in assessing their
mental health stability before join such professions (Anglim,
Lievens, Everton, Grant & Marty, 2018).
Element 2
NEO-PI-R is used in measurement of the five important
personality traits in assessments of individuals psychological
states. The items and subcategories utilized in this test are
ascertained by the important aspects captured in the test.
Reliability in this test is very high and provides consistency
thus accounting for its suitability in the measurement purposes.
The test encompasses assessment and evaluation of individual’s
mental state. This tool is effective thus it efficiently serves its
purposes. The revision of this tool accounts for its relevant
application in the field of psychology. The components utilized
in this test ensures their appropriateness to employees, adults,
persons with learning problems and children (Detrick &
Chibnall, 2017).
The HEXACO model encompasses similar features as the NEO-
PI-R and thus portrays similar suitability aspects in the context
of psychological tests. One important difference has been the
inclusion of the personality of honesty humility factor. Addition
of this factor provides a new dimension which forms a basis of
assessing individuals’ personality. This test exhibits easy
administration which accounts for its suitability and usability as
a testing tool (HEXACO, 2019). MMPI cuts across several
aspects of mental health issues making it an effect tool in
assessment of different psychological problems. This
methodology also exhibits higher clinical reference making it
highly recommended in psychological testing. All these
effective aspects accounts for its application in addressing
mental health issues in workplace setting.

14. Element 3
NEO-PI-R utilizes 240 items in conjunction with other items
relating to validity making it extensive (Hesselmark, Eriksson,
Westerlund & Bejerot, 2015). The simplicity characteristic of
this test accounts for its effectiveness in addressing children
concerns at the level of the 6th grade and able. Simplicity
enable such children to answer the question s with ease.
Application of different forms of the test also help in attainment
of relevant and valid test outcomes. Application of self-
reporting for adult women and men is the basic concern.
However, the utilization of observer reports creates a
supplement self-reported information. The 5-likert scale
provides feasibility in terms of outcomes from the
measurements of the psychological factors. This tool’s
questionnaire creates effectiveness in information collection.
Calculation of T scores is done from the collected normative
data (Maples-Keller et al, 2019).
In HEXACO model, each domain has specific scales used in
measuring the scores based on the different dimensions. The 60
HEXACO scales indicate minimal correlations between the
different scales exhibiting highly internal consistency levels.
Observer and self-reports exhibit higher correlations which is a
proof of reliable test results. HEXACO elements therefore
advance the understanding of the specific phenomenon afar the
five factor model. This test includes all important aspects
creating positive impact in mental health comprehensively (De
Vries et al, 2016).
Employing the true- false based questions create simplicity in
the application of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. The questions also cover all thematic areas relating
to mental health capacity issues and personalities. Different
forms of test are utilized by this inventory thus creating an

15. expanded scope of the psychological testing tool. Each scale
features distinctive questions which are designed to be user
oriented. Validity scales evaluates honesty and accuracy thus
providing vital instruments to gauge representativeness in the
test results (Bianchini et al., 2019).
Element 4
Revised NEO test can be termed as a self-report tool that
doesn’t necessitate any technical skills. The requirements are
simply the abilities in reading, understanding the questions and
writing. In this context, there are qualification requirements.
However, the overseer reports require qualified expertise. The
qualification required are in accord to the specific field of
professional applying the tools in their practice. Users in self-
reporting can conduct questions assessment via online
administration which accounts for simple questions structuring.
The self-reported tests qualification level is A. This level
encompasses the guidelines for participation of children and
also provide guidance on intervention and the materials. Level
C qualification is requirement for the observer reports and it
require graduate level qualifications. Education and training are
the key competencies for the professional and provide the
required skills in the application of NEO testing (Maples-Keller
et al, 2019).
Methods similar to the revised NEO tests are also utilized in the
HEXACO test model. This necessitates the aspect of detail
sharing with reference to knowledge, skills and trainings.
HEXACO model employ both Self-reports and observer reports.
The observer reports require qualification trainings whereas
self-reports don’t require such qualifications. The MMPI tests
administration require vast and reliable knowledge on the
appropriate application of the test with reference to selective
administration and results interpretations. Participants in the
test are required to understand the questions in the test thus

16. making them qualify under level A group user qualification.
Professional in administration of the test require certified
trainings thus qualifying them for Level C qualifications
(Sellbom, 2019)
Comparison
The series of question in all the tests serve the purpose of
constructing individual psychological profiles. Each test
exhibits different number of questions depending on the specific
dimensions of the tests. MMPI inventory employs the closed
endned questionnaire techniquie whereas the HEXACO and
NEO model tests utilizes open ended questionnaires. HEXACO
and NEO model exhibit more alignmened since they employ the
five factor model.A difference exist in terms of the
subcategories that are utilized in developing the test and also
inclusion the honesty humility factor in the HEXACO model
(De Vries et al, 2016)
An important factor in the tests is that they apply self-
administering concept although professional administration may
be applied in some contexts. HEXACO and NEO have observer
reports and self-reports. This forms an important similarity in
the two psychological tests. MMPI is utilized in diverse forms
including MMPI-2 that is adult focused and the mmPI-2 RF.
They both exhibit complete versions that encompasses all the
components necessary and shortened versions that have fewer
questions for shorter completion durations. Development of the
tests is aimed at mental state assessments and personalities of
peoples (Dalpé, Demers, Verner-Filion & Vallerand, 2019).
Test evaluations indicate that suitability in assessing
psychological components of personality in peoples is the key
characteristic. HEXACO and NEO are distinct with refrence to
user qualifications levels thus sharing the important parts in
psychological testing. MMPI is different in terms of its process
and the elements on its test implementations (Maples-Keller et

17. al 2019).
HEXACO is the most preferred model (Wilson, 2016). Its
preference is based on the abilities in assessing and predicting
phenomenon evident in big five model. Addition of a new
factor; honesty humility creates completeness compared to the
NEO revised model tests. Test under HEXACO are highly
recognized in terms of their applications. This creates
suitability for its attention. Use of this model necessitates
evaluation of different variable in personalities that other test
tools have failed to effectively evaluate. This test is therefore
an important component of interest in psychological testing
field of study.
References
Anglim, J., Lievens, F., Everton, L., Grant, S. L., & Marty, A.
(2018). HEXACO personality predicts counterproductive work
behavior and organizational citizenship behavior in low-stakes
and job applicant contexts. Journal of Research in
Personality, 77, 11-20.
Bianchini, K. J., Aguerrevere, L. E., Curtis, K. L., Roebuck-
Spencer, T. M., Frey, F. C., Greve, K. W., & Calamia, M.
(2018). Classification accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)-Restructured form validity
scales in detecting malingered pain-related
disability. Psychological assessment, 30(7), 857.
Dalpé, J., Demers, M., Verner-Filion, J., & Vallerand, R. J.
(2019). From personality to passion: The role of the Big Five
factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 280-285.
De Vries, R. E., Tybur, J. M., Pollet, T. V., & van Vugt, M.
(2016). Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO
model of personality. Evolution and human behavior, 37(5),
407-421.

18. Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2017). A five-factor model
inventory for use in screening police officer applicants: The
revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R). In Police
psychology and its growing impact on modern law
enforcement (pp. 79-92). IGI Global.
Hesselmark, E., Eriksson, J. M., Westerlund, J., & Bejerot, S.
(2015). Autism spectrum disorders and self-reports: Testing
validity and reliability using the NEO-PI-R. Journal of autism
and developmental disorders, 45(5), 1156-1166.
Maples-Keller, J. L., Williamson, R. L., Sleep, C. E., Carter, N.
T., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Using item
response theory to develop a 60-item representation of the NEO
PI–R using the international personality item pool:
Development of the IPIP–NEO–60. Journal of personality
assessment, 101(1), 4-15.
Sellbom, M. (2019). The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-
RF): Assessment of personality and psychopathology in the
twenty-first century. Annual review of clinical psychology, 15,
149-177.
Wilson, A. (2016). Is the HEXACO the new black? An
examination of the predictive validity of NEO-PI-3 and the
HEXACO-PI-R to determine if the six factor model of
personality provides the most parsimonious assessment of an
individual’s employment suitability.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF TEST MATERIALS AND
PROCEDURES

19. 1
REVIEW AND SELECTION OF A STANDARDIZED TEST
8
Evaluation of Test Materials and Procedures
Evaluation of Test Materials and
Procedures
Psychological issues in the society have increased drastically in
the recent times and there is a need to take critical measures and
to take these measures with urgency to reduce the impacts of
these issues. Personality tests are critical in evaluation of the
mental conditions of individuals as well as their personalities.
The tests help psychologists to determine the problems
associated with their clients, giving them the ability to treat and
advise them appropriately. The personality tools examined in
this paper are the NEO personality inventory test, the HEXACO
model of personality structure and the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI). These three tests are crucial in
determining the living standards of these people affected by
psychological problems and they help the people and the
psychologists to live a decent life that can be defined as
positive (Morgeson, 2007).
Test Items and Format
These personality tests make use of well-structured questions to
analyze the personality of a person as well as their
psychological conditions, examining what issues they are likely
to be facing. The NEO personality inventory test makes use of
240 questions to measure the five big personality traits and it is
completed within a period of fifteen to thirty minutes. The
HEXACO model of personality structure summarize the human
personality characteristics based on yes-no questions. The
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) makes
use of 567 true or false questions, which take approximately 60

20. minutes to 90 minutes to complete. These questions are made in
audio or written form for ease of examination.
The tests identify scores based on the Honesty-Humanity (H),
Emotionally (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A),
Conscientiousness (C) and openness to experience (O) for
HEXACO test and openness, consciousness, extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism for the NEO personality
inventory test and MMPI test (Costa Jr, 2008). The questions
used in the tests are authentic and very friendly to the patient.
They are also on point and they reflect the exact condition of
the person from a psychological perspective. The questions,
being of the yes-no format and true-false format are very easy
to answer. The questions are however, quite many in all the
tests and it is likely that the patients may get to tire up before
finishing up the test. The tests are very effective and they are
important in the psychology field.
Fair and Appropriate Materials
The use of audio test, administered by the psychologist make
these tests very effective. The psychologists are always friendly
and they create an environment where the patient feels
comfortable, since they are able to communicate effectively
without any form of tension. The arrangement of the questions
is done in a way that creates a good environment for
examination. The questions feature every aspect of psychology
but in an indirect manner that cannot create an offensive
reaction from the patient (Butcher, 2006). The only aspect that
is negative about these tests is the quantity of the administered
questions. Some psychological disorders create impatience in
the patient and hence, they may not effectively answer the final
questions.
The tests do not allow modification or accommodations. This is
because the psychological aspects which are measured by these

21. psychological tests are almost similar and the questions used
cover all the aspects of the psychological aspects, hence, there
is no need for modifications. These personality tests comply
with AERA standards. One standard complied with in this case
is the validity standards. This is positively implied since the
results obtained have been found to comply with the set
standards for psychological tests, including the used questions
and the modes of application (Duran, 2006).
Use of Technology
These personality tests have made use of technology to advance
the tests. This has been done with the automation of the tests
where the results of the test, from the patients are automatically
analyzed by the use of a computer to give accurate results in
accordance with the programmed system (Ashton, 2008).
Technology has been utilized in designing of the questions
used. Research is done from time to time to determine the
changes in human psychology, since the area is changing with
time. As a result, the question formats and the content also
change in order to make sure that the tests give perfect results
about the conditions of the affected persons, without making
much reference to the old modes.
Synthesis of Findings
With these tests, I found two major strengths. One is the type of
questions used. The use of friendly questions which are not
offensive to the clients. Some clients take offense on issues
which seem to touch directly on their personality. The questions
used here are very friendly and they do not touch on the client’s
personal issues which he or she may not react positively on and
may end up giving false information. The alternate use of
questionnaires and voice make it easy for the client since he or
she chooses what they prefer. The weakness associated with
these personality tests is the applicability on some clients.

22. Some personality and psychological issues may not allow a
client to answer to questions effectively, making it hard to
determine their psychological issues.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The NEO personality inventory test, the HEXACO model of
personality and the MMPI personality tests are effective in
determining the psychological status of a person. They make
proper use of formatted questions and time to examine the client
and they are very friendly. Their use may however be hard for
people with serious issues and are not able to answer the
questions effectively. These personality tests can be improved
by making the process shorter by improving the validity of the
test, making use of imperial validity. They may also be
improved by designing the questions in a way that they can be
effective for all categories by working on their precision
(Duran, 2006). To improve the quality of the tests, it is also
important to work on the number of questions and adjust them
depending with the client’s condition.
References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and
practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality
structure. Personality and social psychology review, 11(2), 150-
166.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of
personality structure and the importance of the H factor. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1952-1962.
Butcher, J. N. (2006). MMPI-2: A practitioner's guide.
American Psychological Association.
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO

23. Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R).
Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A.,
Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., & Schneider, B. L. (2006).
Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in
AERA publications: American Educational Research
Association. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.
Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A
test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a
120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor
model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1070.
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck,
J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use
of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel
psychology, 60(3), 683-729.