<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_validity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_validity</a> </p>

<p>This wikipedia page seems be a good starting point for answering to your quesion, but as has been noted elsewhere, there's no neat, concise way to respond. Still, although classical models divided the concept into various "validities" (such as content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity), the currently dominant view is that validity is a single unitary construct. So the answer might be somewhat more unitary than other commenters claim.</p>

<p>Guion, R. M. (1980). On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology, 11, 385-398. </p>

<p>Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-03T09:44:58.893Z
+1 for the references. However, you say "currently dominant view", yet you cite papers that are 20 to 25 years old. How current is that?
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-03T09:24:11.703Z
2016-11-03T09:43:26.370Z
2016-11-03T09:43:26.370Z
Psyche
<p>So, I want to evaluate a personality test I took to see how "valid" it is. At first when I took the test I thought it was scary accurate and decided to look over it to make sure it wasn't like a fortune cookie. However, I was told it was like Myers-Briggs. So, I decided to read the Wikipedia entry and through that I remembered something from Psychology Class that goes over how to evaluate tests, such as validity, reliability, etc... I am trying to figure out/remember how to evaluate them so I can check this test (and future tests), for its accuracy (If it turns out to be a really good test, I may have any of my employees (when I have a business) do it and may use it throughout other aspects of my life).</p>

<p>Basically, my question is, how would I go about properly evaluating the test and is there a good checklist I can print out and use, or a better or different way to check it.</p>

<p>Edit:
To help narrow down the question, I am looking for finding out if the test can actually measure what it is attempting to measure (that includes Strengths &amp; Weaknesses, Romantic Relationships, Friendships, Parenthood, Career Paths, Workplace Habits which is listed on each of the personalities pages). Like @Ebbinghaus said, it sounds like a psuedo-scientific test, and sure I am hoping that it isn't, but if it is, I will just see if I can find a better/real scientific test that can help with relations and personalities.</p>

<hr>

<p>By the way, I don't know what it takes to make a meta post, but evaluating tests might make a good meta post so if anyone knowledgeable in this field (I guess you can call it a field) wants to take it up, you should!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T19:51:15.737Z
That is a really broad question. Tbh it matters *a lot* on what exactly you want to measure with your test. For example external validity, is about the generalisability of the results to other situations/individuals - however to fulfil the criterion of validity you will need a lot of other things. Consequently, I flagged this question for closure.
Ebbinghaus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T19:54:39.703Z
Okay, then, well what I want to evaluate is 16personalities.com. It seems to measure who I am very well and I just wanted to have scientific backup to show that it is a really good test.
Alexis Evelyn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T20:02:58.660Z
Only judging by the name, it sounds like one of those pseudo-scientific tests.
Ebbinghaus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-28T00:21:41.073Z
it's some version of MBTI.
Jlente
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-28T07:32:50.057Z
I agree with Ebbinghaus. If you want to test the test-retest validity then you can have people take it twice and check the correlation. If you want construct validity you must compare it with a measure that supposedly measures the same. If I may believe your words face validity is good, i.e. you accept/understand/agree with the test on face value.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-28T08:17:37.703Z
@RobinKramer I looked at the test, and the only thing that I was able to draw from it, is it that they try to eliminate response bias.
Ebbinghaus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-28T08:24:18.683Z
@Ebbinghaus Well that is something already. On face value it appears good to me too. But regarding the OPs question, there are too many different types of validity and thus too many different possible tests. If you, SenorContento, could narrow it down to one type of validity (e.g. construct validity) then I bet there will be some good answers :)
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-03T09:20:30.427Z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_validity this wikipedia page seems be a good answer to your quesion
Psyche
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-03T10:31:49.070Z
Isn't this really a stats question? The following website is an excellent resource explain psychometrics in personally testing, the stats it uses are in R. But it explains and references the methods to be used to asses a personality questionnaire. http://personality-project.org/readings-measurement.html#edstat
Comte
<personality><test>
Checklist to evaluate the validity of a personality test
Alexis Evelyn
# Checklist to evaluate the validity of a personality test

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-10-27)

So, I want to evaluate a personality test I took to see how "valid" it is. At first when I took the test I thought it was scary accurate and decided to look over it to make sure it wasn't like a fortune cookie. However, I was told it was like Myers-Briggs. So, I decided to read the Wikipedia entry and through that I remembered something from Psychology Class that goes over how to evaluate tests, such as validity, reliability, etc... I am trying to figure out/remember how to evaluate them so I can check this test (and future tests), for its accuracy (If it turns out to be a really good test, I may have any of my employees (when I have a business) do it and may use it throughout other aspects of my life).

Basically, my question is, how would I go about properly evaluating the test and is there a good checklist I can print out and use, or a better or different way to check it.

Edit:
To help narrow down the question, I am looking for finding out if the test can actually measure what it is attempting to measure (that includes Strengths & Weaknesses, Romantic Relationships, Friendships, Parenthood, Career Paths, Workplace Habits which is listed on each of the personalities pages). Like @username_1 said, it sounds like a psuedo-scientific test, and sure I am hoping that it isn't, but if it is, I will just see if I can find a better/real scientific test that can help with relations and personalities.

---

By the way, I don't know what it takes to make a meta post, but evaluating tests might make a good meta post so if anyone knowledgeable in this field (I guess you can call it a field) wants to take it up, you should!

**Tags:** personality, test

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: That is a really broad question. Tbh it matters *a lot* on what exactly you want to measure with your test. For example external validity, is about the generalisability of the results to other situations/individuals - however to fulfil the criterion of validity you will need a lot of other things. Consequently, I flagged this question for closure.  
> **username_0**: Okay, then, well what I want to evaluate is 16personalities.com. It seems to measure who I am very well and I just wanted to have scientific backup to show that it is a really good test.  
> **username_1**: Only judging by the name, it sounds like one of those pseudo-scientific tests.  
> **username_2**: it's some version of MBTI.  
> **username_3**: I agree with username_1. If you want to test the test-retest validity then you can have people take it twice and check the correlation. If you want construct validity you must compare it with a measure that supposedly measures the same. If I may believe your words face validity is good, i.e. you accept/understand/agree with the test on face value.  
> **username_1**: @RobinKramer I looked at the test, and the only thing that I was able to draw from it, is it that they try to eliminate response bias.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 Well that is something already. On face value it appears good to me too. But regarding the OPs question, there are too many different types of validity and thus too many different possible tests. If you, SenorContento, could narrow it down to one type of validity (e.g. construct validity) then I bet there will be some good answers :)  
> **username_4**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_validity this wikipedia page seems be a good answer to your quesion  
> **username_5**: Isn't this really a stats question? The following website is an excellent resource explain psychometrics in personally testing, the stats it uses are in R. But it explains and references the methods to be used to asses a personality questionnaire. http://personality-project.org/readings-measurement.html#edstat  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-11-03. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_validity>

This wikipedia page seems be a good starting point for answering to your quesion, but as has been noted elsewhere, there's no neat, concise way to respond. Still, although classical models divided the concept into various "validities" (such as content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity), the currently dominant view is that validity is a single unitary construct. So the answer might be somewhat more unitary than other commenters claim.

Guion, R. M. (1980). On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology, 11, 385-398.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: +1 for the references. However, you say "currently dominant view", yet you cite papers that are 20 to 25 years old. How current is that?  

---

