Topic 12: Assessments for Personality and Anger {by 7/13}

Post your responses to the Assessment Review Reflection Questions (Likes/Strengths, Dislikes/Weaknesses, Clinical Utility) for the following assessments: (1) NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3) and (2) Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S).

 

Your original post should be posted by 7/13.  Post your two replies no later than 7/15.  *Please remember to click the “reply” button when posting a reply.  This makes it easier for the reader to follow the blog postings.

36 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Althea Hermitt- Mcpherson
    Jul 09, 2020 @ 11:40:47

    NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3:
    Strength/Likes: The NEO five Factor Inventory 3 is a 60 item scale, it measures 5 domains of personality Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness often referred to as the big 5 personality traits. It’s a self-report and observer report instrument. There is a separate norming group for adolescents and adults. Domain scores are easy to calculate and the assessment is easy to score. The questions are worded as statements. The domains used are strong indicators of personality. This assessment is from a well-established assessment developed in 1978 and has been revised several times since then. Raw scores are given for each domain so the therapist can see how each individual scores on each domain to know what areas to focus on. The assessment compares the score of females to other female and male scores to other males. It also has a combined section where scores can be compared to both males and females combined. This can be completed by individuals 12 yrs and older. It takes about 15-20 minutes to complete. I like that it had 3 questions at the end to make sure you answered all the questions.

    Dislikes/Weakness: scores for particular sections or entire tests will not be scored if certain data is missing. The instrument had less focus on maladaptive traits. This might be confusing for some people as the scoring is not done beside each question but on a separate sheet. Factor scores are harder to calculate and are calculated better by a computer. Not sure if the interpretations were missing but I felt like a detailed interpretation of each domain would be helpful in order to interpret the scores. It uses a normal population as the norming group so might not be adequate to be used as a diagnosis. It assesses 3 domains of anger vengeance, anger in and expressiveness/reactivity. It uses a five-point scale so answers can be varied.

    Clinical Utility: The scale has strong reliability and validity. It’s easy to score the domains and it’s a self-report and observer-rated report.

    Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S):
    Strength/Likes: This scale assesses dysfunctional anger and can be used by populations 18yrs and older. This scale is 18 items and will take about 5-10 minutes. It’s a self-report assessment. The Anger disorders scale-short if a shorter form of the ADS. The assessment is designed to be used in treatment planning as if it focuses on the problematic elements of anger. The scale has good reliability and validity.

    Dislikes/Weakness: Scoring can be confusing because you have to calculate sections a, b, c scores separately however these questions were not all grouped together. It also uses t scores and percentile scores which can be confusing to interpret. This scale cannot be used for diagnosis therefore additional assessment or clinical interview is required. The normative sample was basically from New York state therefore it reflects a regional bias.

    Clinical Utility: The ADS:S scale has an adequate level of discriminant validity and consistent concurrent validity. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability are high. The scale is also short and easy to administer.

    Reply

    • Madi
      Jul 12, 2020 @ 10:38:39

      Hi Althea,
      Overall I thought your response was very thorough and showed a good understanding of the assessments. I agreed with all of your points for the ADS:S, but I would push back against one of your points where you stated that a weakness was that additional assessment is require. Initial assessment screen is necessary, which allows for a vetting process. The concept of initial screening should not be seen as a weakness but instead a strength. I enjoyed reading your thoughts about the NEO. I liked your explanation of the domains and of the big 5.

      Reply

  2. Yen Pham
    Jul 09, 2020 @ 13:10:56

    1. NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)

    Strength/like: The instructions are clear and I like it as well as I like the way it separates the questions and the answers sheet it helps examiners easier to score. The questions are straight and each question has five options to answer. This scale is a 60-item that provides a quick, reliable, and accurate measure of the five domains of personality (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). Five domains can appear to apply across diverse cultures and can be administered to individuals or groups.

    Dislike/ Weakness: This scale is confused to score and interpret so need a trainer and professional is important. The ink color is a bit blurry, hard to read. It takes a long time to complete 60 questions for some people.

    Clinical Utility: because these broad constructs summarize so much
    information, they are the logical starting place for personality assessment.
    The NEO inventories are used around the world for basic research on personality structure and development. Therefore, this scale is also intended for clinical use. Counselors, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists can use the personality profiles provided by the NEO inventories to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the client, assist in diagnosis and the identification of problems in living, establish rapport, provide feedback and insight, anticipate the course of therapy, and select optimal forms of treatment.

    2. Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)

    Strength/ like: I like this scale because the instruction is clear. The scale also provides a total score and scores for three high-order factors: reactivity/expression, anger-in, and vengeance. In addition, I like the abundance in answer choices. Each item has five options but the special thing is that the options depend on the content of the items. Example in the item 3 states that “I use my anger to control others”. There has five options are never, rarely, occasionally, often and always. However when the item 7 states that ” I get frustrated and angry about”. There are different five options from the item 3 such as almost nothing, only one thing in my life, several things in my life, many things and almost everything. Moreover, on the item 8 states “When I get upset with people, I push or shove them around”. There are five options are never or rarely, about once a month, about once a week, about several days a week, and almost every day.

    Dislike/ Weakness: it may take 20 minutes to complete 18 items and score them. Scoring is confused and easier to misunderstand. Therefore, a professional interprets the results is important.

    Clinical Utility: the ADS: S developed for use with clinical populations; specifically it assesses anger as an independent problem rather than a secondary feature of other disorders. The ADS: S is the most comprehensive scientific assessment to date of the wide range of anger dimensions. The ADS:S scales is available in convenient Quikscore forms format where the client’s responses transfer through to a hidden scoring page where you complete a few simple calculations to obtain scores. Raw scores are quickly converted to T-scores by plotting them on age and gender-specific profile sheets. It takes only 5 to 10 minutes to complete and less than 10 minutes to score. Linear T-scores and percentiles, broken down by gender and age, are provided for the standardization sample. The profile of resulting scores helps clinicians assess both the internal experiences and expressive patterns of their clients’ anger and provides a strong basis for developing appropriate treatment plans.

    Reply

    • Althea Hermitt- Mcpherson
      Jul 11, 2020 @ 03:41:42

      Hi Yen, I also liked the 5 point scale as it gave a wider range of answers hence more variety in answers. I also appreciated that they used a separate norming group for adults and adolescence. I too didn’t like how the questions and answers were separated, I had to deal with a similar question sheet, then answer sheet back in high school when I did exams and I was so terrified to mess up or mistakenly skill a line because now all my answer would be incorrect. So I definitely can see where people might not be careful enough and give incorrect information. I found it interesting that if certain data is missing then particular sections or the entire tests will not be scored. The also instrument had less focus on maladaptive traits.

      Reply

    • Selene Anaya
      Jul 12, 2020 @ 14:47:53

      Hi Sr. Yen!
      I thought it was interesting that you mentioned that the five domains can appear to apply across diverse cultures. This is an important aspect to mention because oftentimes, assessments do not keep this in mind and we need to be careful of these when administering it to certain groups. To do this, we can look at the sample that was used to develop the norming data and then go on to decide if the assessment is appropriate for our client. I also thought the scoring was a bit confusing and there should be an easier, more organized way to score it. I don’t know if you have experienced scantrons at another school, but seeing this as a scantron test evoked a little anxiety for me and I mentioned it in my original post, but I do wonder if some individuals feel that way too and therefore, less motivated to complete it. Overall, I think you’re right in the fact that this assessment can be helpful for psychologists to assess different domains of personality and use that information to direct treatment and acknowledge areas that may need more attention. For the ADS:S, I also really liked the abundance of answer choices. It allows us to obtain more data from the client and not only assess the frequency, but the severity of the anger problems as well as certain aspects of the client’s life the anger may affect. I also thought it was cool that they made a scale of scores and the percentile that it falls on. This can be helpful for clinicians and I don’t think I have seen an assessment that does this yet.

      Reply

    • Michelle McClure
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 18:29:44

      Hi Yen! I agree with you that the NEO-Five Factor Inventory is long and some clients may lose interest or focus because of the length. The scoring is a little confusing at first but I think that with practice it would be easier to score and take less time. It is a really good personality assessment. I really liked how easy the Anger Disorders Scale was to take and to score as long as you are paying attention to the letters. I almost missed one and I had to go back and redo the one I missed when I caught it. I thought that the standardization sample made this assessment even more interesting. It was fun seeing where you scored in comparison to others of your gender and age,

      Reply

  3. Francesca DePergola
    Jul 10, 2020 @ 11:56:48

    (Likes/Strengths, Dislikes/Weaknesses, Clinical Utility)
    (1) NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 or NEO-FFI-3 seems to be a great assessment. I enjoy how it can be very specific whether it is a woman or man taking this instrument. I like how there is also an adult and adolescent one as well. Another strength of this assessment is that it is a self-report but can always be administered as an observer report. We have not seemed an assessment quite like this before, so I thought that was interesting. I also like the domains of personality that they are testing and how they have every 5 questions alternating between them.

    The NEO-FFI-3 is a well-known assessment and still used widely today, but a dislike I had to mention was it’s aesthetic. They could most certainly re-arrange how the test looks and then it might look less intimidating. Specifically, I did not like how the answers and questions were separated as I felt it could be easier for the client if they were next to the questions. I think that is to make it easier for scoring. The thing that I believe is its major weakness is that it was normed on “normal” people. Pathology and diagnosis should not be considered when using this instrument anyway, but it just was not normed on abnormal individuals. Other than those two features, there was not much that I did not like about this instrument.

    I think this assessment has decent clinical utility as it does not seem too difficult to take but can be long for some. It is also useful that there is a self-report and an observer report. The most difficult thing about it from a clinical perspective would be the interpretation that seems to be missing here. I think it is great that it has the potential to be used cross-culturally and that gives an idea of what kind of personality type the client is so that the clinician can better understand stand them at that deeper level.

    (2) Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)
    The Anger Disorders Scale-Short or ADS:S has good reliability and validity. I like how it addresses many aspects of anger like reactivity expression, anger-in, and vengeance. It was also interesting to see different answer types under the items whether it was asking to answer broadly; (never, rarely, occasionally, etc., or more specifically; about once a month, once a week, several days a week, etc.) This assessment’s strength comes from its ability to ask on several levels of how this anger is intervening in someone’s life.

    A strong dislike in this assessment is the way it looks to score and how to interpret. It seems like it is easy to get confused in the process, but I am sure a trained professional will be able to do it fine. I know I said this was a strength, but I think switching up the item answer options might confuse a client and they may reconsider their options based on what the item answers were in the previous question. I am not sure this is true, but something that crossed my mind when taking. It. Since it has good reliability and validity it is perhaps not a problem.

    This assessment has clinical utility. Since it is measured with clinical populations, has high reliability and validity it should be very useful in clinical settings. This instrument is somewhat brief and to the point versus the longer personality ones. This was it can be quicker to take and score so that the counselor may communicate results back promptly.

    Reply

    • Althea Hermitt- Mcpherson
      Jul 11, 2020 @ 03:30:49

      Hi Francesca, I like that you stated that a major strength is that his assessment has the ability to ask about how anger affects several levels of someone’s life. I also believed that the interpretation of the scores is a major weakness as it can be confusing due to the several different scores that need to be combined. I also found it interesting that the norming group was from New York State, however, the assessment is still reliable and valid. The switching of the response scale might really confuse a client even though I didn’t initially think about this, but I can see where this can result in incorrect answers. I like that, it was short and easy to administer.

      Reply

    • Madi
      Jul 11, 2020 @ 10:36:32

      Hi Francesca,
      I agree with you completely about the NEO and its aesthetic. I agree with you where it could have been reformatted so that it would be less intimating. It very much reminded me of some SAT.
      For the ADS I liked your perspective on the content of the questions. I also agree with you that it might have been confusing to score. But someone who was trained might find it easier than us and might find more clinical utility to it.

      Reply

    • Selene Anaya
      Jul 12, 2020 @ 15:28:02

      Hi Francesca!

      I agree this assessment was refreshing to see as we have not seen an assessment like this before. I also enjoyed the specificity of the questions and how some even addressed certain activities or hobbies an individual may have. I forgot to mention this in my original post, but I think it would actually make the assessment a tad more enjoyable. I always like it when I fill something out that asks about my hobbies and interests. Maybe that’s just me though. I also thought the assessment was a bit intimidating and brought me back to the not-so-fun days of scantron tests. I must have skimmed over the fact that it was normed on “normal” people. I can see how that can be somewhat of a concern when using the assessment and trying to interpret results. I also thought it was a big plus that it can be used across cultures, as that is an important factor we need to keep in mind when deciding on the assessments we want to use for our client. As for the anger disorders scale, I thought a big strength was the different aspects of anger it assesses as well! Not only that, but the inclusion of different answer choices that go along with the detailed statements allows clients to give more specific responses and allows clinicians to obtain more specific information regarding severity, frequency, and aspects of life that are affected by said anger.

      Reply

    • Trey Powers
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 17:17:09

      Hi Francesca!

      I agree with you that the NEO-FFI-3 seems to be a good assessment overall. At the same time, I also agree with you that it has its flaws. I like how you brought up how it is based on “normal” individuals. Although it is difficult, if not impossible to determine what normal looks like when it comes to humans, with certain areas such as disorders, it is more cut and dry. With matters of personality, however, there is far more variability, which means there is a great deal of gray area when it comes to what “normal” would look like.

      Reply

  4. Madi
    Jul 11, 2020 @ 10:31:05

    1. NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    a. I found the fill in the bubbles type of thing different but not quiet bad. It felt very much like the SATs or some other academic standardized test. I find this to be both a good and a bad thing. It makes the score easy. I severely disliked the fact that it was a separate scoring sheet completely removed from the questions. The questions were well worded. I like the likert scale but I did not like how it was not next to the questions. But this one probably has a great deal of clinical utility. It is very standardized but almost too much so.

    2. Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)
    a. I liked the questions and how they were formatted. I found it interesting that it was not all the same likert scale. For the other assessments all have the same likert and this one did not. All of the pages after the questions provide the clinical utility. I liked the page after the questions I thought it allowed for ease to scoring and clinical utility.

    Reply

  5. Selene Anaya
    Jul 12, 2020 @ 14:36:10

    1. NEO Five-Factor Inventory- 3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    I really like how in the instructions, there were clear definitions of each response possibility on the Likert scale. This can be helpful to clarify certain areas in which the client may be confused or unsure. I also liked how specific some questions and it was clear that not only were symptoms or specific traits were being assessed, but they were specific to certain activities or hobbies an individual might have. I also like how it is first person-oriented because it can allow the individual who is taking the assessment to read the statement and decide right away if it applies to them or not. Questions A, B, and C at the bottom were also very interesting. I am unsure if it is a like or a dislike at the moment. The assessment was a little long, but the scantron could allow it to be completed more quickly. Seeing that it is an item booklet, it is clear that this assessment is not a cheap one. It kind of brought me back to standardized testing from high school and even elementary and made me feel a lack of motivation to do it. I am curious if it would bring up the same feelings for some individuals. It also seems as though there should be an easier way to score this and I am sure there is an electronic way to score, but it looks like it would be a lot of back and forth checking and if it has to be done by hand, mistakes can be made. It is obvious this inventory has great clinical utility. I think it can be interpreted to figure out which of the five factors are more prominent for certain individuals and that information can help in many ways.

    2. Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)
    This is an interesting assessment! I like how the answer choices consist of a Likert scale that changes with regard to the question which allows for more specific and clear answers. Some other assessments that use the same scale can sometimes be confusing or hard to work when we are working with the same answer scale. The use of different answer choices allows us to obtain more accurate results from the client and we can understand the areas of concern with more detail. Along with that, we are able to assess not only frequency but severity as well which is a big plus. I also like how the statements are a good balance of detailed but not too detailed. One weakness of this assessment would be the scoring. I think it definitely could be organized differently to make it easier to understand and less likely for errors to occur. It is also interesting that there is a male and female profile, I am unsure of my thoughts for this. It is clear that they obtained a lot of data to give ranges of scores for each scale, so it should be reliable and valid, however, something about separately scoring males and females doesn’t seem right to me. It is kind of cool how they give you the percentiles for each score on each scale as well as the total. This assessment has good clinical utility and it can be helpful to assess different aspects of anger, some aspects of which we may not think to ask about if we are not using an assessment and we are just asking about anger in the client’s life. It is short and can be easy to score once you are familiar with the format, although it may require a bit more concentration to score it. The percentile given that go with the scores can be helpful when communicating these results to clients.

    Reply

    • Dawn Seiple
      Jul 12, 2020 @ 18:04:44

      Hi Selene,

      I agree that the NEO-FFI-3 provided very clear directions for each of the Likert scale choices. Sometimes that is missing, and I think it is much better when an assessment provides more instruction. Overall, the assessment did have the feel of a standardized test. I wasn’t bothered by that but would be interested to know if that was an issue for other people.

      Like you, I found the format of the ADS:S very strong. I agree that the more detailed answers provide clinicians better data. I also agree that the way the questions identify the existence of a problem and then determine how frequently it is a problem is a strength. As you note, even the results provide a level of specificity often lacking in other assessments. The results sheet provides percentile rankings by sex and age. This is very specific information to help a clinician determine how severe an individual’s anger issues are in comparison to the wider population.

      Reply

    • Christopher LePage
      Jul 12, 2020 @ 22:01:51

      Hi Selene, I thought it was interesting that we both compared the NEO assessment to standardized testing because that was the first thing I noticed about the exam, especially because of how it was formatted and how we had to score the results. I also completely agree about the complications of recording/scoring the results. I do think it makes room for error by having the results and the questions separated and it would be much more time consuming for individuals. In terms of the ADS:S I too like how it provides clinicians with more information on the client. I liked how you added that it would help isolate specific problem areas for the patient. This is very helpful for clinicians because it allows them to know what they should focus on in their sessions/treatment plans.

      Reply

    • Haley Scola
      Jul 14, 2020 @ 16:13:49

      Hi Selene,

      I loved how you compared it to the high school scantrons because I felt the same way when I first saw it. I wish its physical appearance was more appealing but I think with it being such a long assessment, the scantron is necessary for scoring effectively. I agree that the five categories can be extremely helpful and insightful into the client. In terms of the ADS:S I saw the difference of wording per question as a weakness. I think it adds confusion and could be hard to follow for some clients but I think you made some great points from the other perspective. You also stated that you weren’t sure about the separate female and male scores, I completely agree. I didn’t even mention it in my post because I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. My natural instinct was “that is so stupid” but then I thought about it more and was like well it adds detail to the scoring and maybe is vital in the reliability.

      Reply

  6. Dawn Seiple
    Jul 12, 2020 @ 17:44:36

    NEO-FFI-3
    Likes/Strengths- I liked the mix of positive and negative statements used throughout the assessment. Though some of the statements were clear in what trait they were assessing, others were less so, and I think this made it more likely that respondents would answer honestly. I like that this test has been in use for a long time and has been revised to keep it current and to make general improvements. I found the results personally interesting as well. I am always intrigued by personality tests and enjoy seeing what statements are used to determine certain personality traits.

    Dislikes/Weaknesses- A weakness/dislike is that specialized training is required to interpret the results, and this would obviously limit the test’s use. It is not clear why it is required as it seems it would not be that difficult to interpret. Also, the term neurotic has a pretty negative connotation and I wonder if there might be another way to describe these traits. I did not understand some of the statements related to Openness and how they connected and did read on the Mental Measurements Yearbook that Agreeableness and Openness in the short form were not that reliable. I thought the answer key design might lead to mistakes. Generally, a person would answer down a column and not across.

    Clinical Utility- Scoring is not difficult but takes some time. As noted, the test’s use may be limited due to education requirements necessary to interpret results. Some traits identified with this test may help predict certain disorders and would be a nice additional piece of information during diagnosis and treatment.

    ADS-S
    Likes/Strengths – I liked that the ADS-S assessed multiple anger factors. The test is scored on reactivity/expression, anger-in, and vengeance. It encompasses five domains related to anger -provocations, cognitions, arousal, motives and behaviors. These distinctions seem like they provide much better data for a clinician. As noted in the MMY review, they are also helpful in the development of individualized treatment plans. One strength of the assessment was that it compared females and males separately and divided them into 3 different age ranges. The MMY review noted that males and females differed in their scores for certain qualities. If they were not separated, the results would be less accurate. Having a shorter version of the Anger Disorders Scale makes sense for screening or intake. By taking the best items from the ADS, the developers were able to maintain sufficient reliability and validity and have a shorter form to use in the appropriate clinical settings. I believe providing 5 different choices for each statement was a strength as it seems it would lead to more exact responses.

    Dislikes/Weaknesses – I don’t dislike much about this assessment. Other than the fact that the scoring requires a little more effort, I think it would be a good tool to assess anger issues.

    Clinical Utility – Though the scoring would take some practice, if the scoring sheet is utilized, it is easy to determine the results. This assessment would generate very helpful information in determining if an individual has anger issues and in what way those present.

    Reply

    • Trey Powers
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 17:23:01

      Hi Dawn!

      I also appreciated how the scores were broken down in various ways. It seems as though this gives far more insight for the clinician. Anger, like any emotion, has a variety of presentations and manifestations. While we all know the stereotypical image of an angry person, some individuals turn their anger inward, or more subtly take it out on others. As a result, it is important to assess for the many forms that anger can take, both relating to the individual and those in their life. In order to properly treat a client, it is necessary to know the cause of their anger, as well as how it is expressed, so that an effective treatment plan can be formed.

      Reply

  7. Brigitte Manseau
    Jul 12, 2020 @ 21:05:54

    1. NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    The NEO-FFI-3 assesses the “big” five personality traits neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The scale has 60 items, 12 for each subcategory. I thought the length of the assessment was appropriate given that it assesses 5 different personality traits. It is long enough to get a good idea of what traits the client has. I liked that the instructions were clear. I thought it was interesting how there were examples showing what a filled answer bubble looked like. That is something I would automatically assume people know how to do. Filling in the bubbles reminded me of the MCAS which was a little annoying. Initially I disliked having to bubble my answers on a separate piece of paper instead of having the responses directly to the right of every item. I understood why the assessment was laid out that way when I went to score my assessment. It made scoring a lot easier since each column corresponded to each subcategory. What I did not like about the assessment was that it lacked an explanation for each cutoff score. All that was indicated were the cutoff score ranges for total scores and the five subcategories. Therefore, clinicians could possibly interpret the meaning of each cutoff score differently. The assessment has good clinical utility especially since it can be given to adolescents and adults. This would be a good assessment to give early on in the therapeutic process so the clinician can gauge what personality the client has. Understanding a client’s personality can help a clinician tailor their approach to that particular client.

    2. Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)
    A strength of this the ADS:S is that it assesses three aspects of anger: reactivity/expression, anger-in, and vengeance. It also gives subscores for each of the subcategories which allows the clinician to focus on particular problem areas the client may have. I liked how the responses varied from question to question. For instance, an individual who scores a 5 may indicate a response of “a year or more,” “always,” or “almost every day” depending on the particular item. This assessment is different from others we have reviewed that just have one set of responses for every item. I found it interesting that the cutoff scores were different depending on your age and gender. I was curious as to why the results were different depending on the client’s gender. According to the MMY review, women scored higher on reactivity/expression and anger-in while men scored significantly higher on vengeance. Having different scores for men and women may allow for more accurate scoring and interpretation. I really did not like the setup for scoring. It was not aesthetically pleasing to the eye and it looks a little confusing at first glance. I didn’t like how the various items were scattered on the scoring sheet. Other than that I liked the assessment overall. This assessment has good clinical utility since it is quick to fill out, quick to score (once you get over any initial confusion), and helps highlight particular anger issues a client may have. Since this is the short form, it is especially useful if the clinician is limited on time.

    Reply

    • Christopher LePage
      Jul 12, 2020 @ 21:56:47

      Hi Brigette, I also found it interesting that the cutoff was different based off of age and gender. I personally was wondering how the person answered the questions and their gender would have any benefit to the clinician since the treatment plan is based off of the individualized symptoms/experiences.

      Reply

    • Francesca DePergola
      Jul 13, 2020 @ 11:43:06

      Hi Brigitte,

      I like how you mention the length as being appropriate for what it is assessing. I think this is true as well because it is assessing five different personalities we could expect it to be longer. We have seen assessments typically measuring one thing rather than five, so I appreciated you mentioning this as I did not think of this at first. I also thought along with you and others that this reminded me of a standardized test. This can be very intimidating to some people and might make them a little nervous, or even bored. This could skew answers, which is important to note.

      I thought what you put about the anger assessment was interesting and very different than what I had mentioned. I thought the variance of answers between questions was a weakness in the assessment, which you seemed to like which I thought was a cool and different perspective. I also thought you pointed out something very useful for this assessment which is the subscales. I think this along with you, allows the clinician to pinpoint where the problem areas are for their client.

      Reply

    • Yen Pham
      Jul 13, 2020 @ 13:56:17

      Hi Brigitte,
      I agree with you that the instruction of the NE0-FFI-3 scale is so clear and it is great when giving the example and explaining what we should do if we want to change the answer. I also agree with you that the separating the score and the answer is more convenient for calculating the score since each column correspond to each subcategory. You also note, at the first look, you do not like having to bubble your answers on a separate piece of paper but later on you do like it when you realize its benefits. However, I think the dis-aggregation of the questions and the answers also is a weakness of this scale when it is difficult for the elderly and the blind.
      On the ADS: S scale, like you, I think that is interested when the results were different depending on the client’s gender. There are gender differences in the reactivity/expression, anger and vengeance. As you note, women scored higher on reactivity/expression and anger-in while men scored significantly higher on vengeance. I found the reason for this different by remembering something that I have learned that fear of being harmed is a robust inhibitor of direct aggression in women. Testosterone shows the same small, positive relationship with aggression in women as in men. The role of cortisol is unclear, although some evidence suggests that women who are high in testosterone and low in cortisol show heightened aggression. When counselors know more information and the differences of gender that will help them on the diagnosis and treatment.

      Reply

    • Haley Scola
      Jul 14, 2020 @ 16:21:23

      Hi Brigitte,
      I completely agree that this assessment reminded me of the MCAS which was sort of deterring. I personally did like that the answer sheet and questions were on separate papers because I think it allowed for the scoring to be clearer and easier to complete. I think your point about the cutoff score was very helpful because I honestly didn’t notice in depth what you did which makes me completely agree with your point. For the ADS:S I disagree that the different answers per question was a strength. I really disliked this and thought it was a chance for confusion but I agree that it is not aesthetically pleasing.

      Reply

  8. Christopher LePage
    Jul 12, 2020 @ 21:54:14

    1.) The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 has a lot of good qualities to it. For one, the instructions seem very simple and straightforward. By having the assessment be so straight forward you are widening your audience, and allowing the individual to provide you with accurate results. Not only are the instructions similar, but the scoring is as well. By using a Likert scale as a scoring card it makes it easier for individuals to score their results more accurately. Getting the results from this assessment also seems pretty simple. In fact it reminded me of high school and taking the MCAS where the results in the multiple choice sectioned were also bubbled, which made it so the instructors could simply scan the results. This would cut down the time it would take to score the test by hand.

    Some of my dislikes about the assessment, was that it was too long. 60 questions is very overwhelming and could make some clients reluctant to fill it out, or even take the time to properly answer all of the questions. I also did not like how the scoring was completely separate. If you had an older client or a client that is visually impaired it would be extremely difficult for them to score their questions properly. Even for me having 60 questions would create room for error of scoring my results in a different area (thinking I answered question 40 and scored it at question 42). With clinical utility this test seems that it would have strong test-retest reliability. I think what also makes this test beneficial, is that since the questions are often just a few words, it would allow this assessment to be translated in several different languages.

    2.) The biggest strength for the ADS:S for me is that it breaks it down into different variations of anger. This is so helpful because anger can be observed or interpreted in several different ways as each person has their own definition of anger. By having more of an encompassing definition of anger and the different domains associated with it, you are gathering more information for yourself. This is extremely helpful when it comes to creating a treatment plan, and overall understanding your client more.

    One dislike I had about this assessment, was that honestly the scoring seemed kind of confusing to me in the beginning. It also seems that it would be more time-consuming than the grading for the NEO assessment. This assessment would be very beneficial in a clinical practice, as it does a great job assessing all the different types of domains for anger.

    Reply

    • Yen Pham
      Jul 13, 2020 @ 10:21:15

      HI Christopher,
      I agree with you on the strengths of the NEO-FF3 scale. With 5 areas I believe it is very useful to increase client’s information for counselors as well the it is high reliability. I also really like the way you explain the weakness of this scale, you are right it is detrimental to the older and visually impaired if there is a separation between the question and the answer. On the ADS: S scale, like you, I found the anger level classification of the ADS: S is a strong point and has clinical benefits. I agree that by having more of an encompassing definition of anger and the different domains associated with it, the counselors are gathering more information of clients that in turn assists them to diagnose and provide a better treatment plan. As you note, the time spend to complete and score the ADS: S maybe longer than the grading for the NEO assessment because of the confusing of scores. I agree with you and I think that it is important to require a professional for scoring and interpreting the results of this scale.

      Reply

    • Francesca DePergola
      Jul 13, 2020 @ 11:52:03

      Hi Christopher,

      Right at the beginning of your answer to number one you pointed out something that I did not think about at first. You mention the importance of directions and the clarity because it “widens” the audience. I thought that was a very insightful piece of information because obviously if the directions are hard to understand, the assessment looks intimidating, or it is not reliable or valid, it might not be administered as often, or taken well by those who are being assessed. I also thought it was interesting that you thought this assessment was too long. I thought that too at first, but then I tried to keep in mind that they are assessing five different types of personalities and it might be hard for this assessment to be brief and do its job.
      I thought the scoring was confusing for the anger assessment as well, but I realized after looking at it more, it was more clear. I think that is an important factor to notice though because someone who is scoring it needs to pay closer attention to it than they normally would others. I also thought it was great that this assessment was looking at different domains of anger as well!

      Reply

  9. Haley Scola
    Jul 13, 2020 @ 15:14:21

    (1) NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)

    I really enjoyed this assessment. It was also clear, concise and easy to follow whether you are administering it or taking it. Something I really liked about the NEO-FFI-3 was that it measured the 5 big personality traits (Neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) because we know that these traits are often consistent worldwide and not dependent on cultural factors. This allows for anyone to take the assessment and for it to be used for many groups of people. The next thing I liked about this assessment was that it allowed the person taking the assessment to answer “neutral”. I find this a huge strength in assessments because sometimes when I’ve been taking them I don’t feel as if I necessarily agree or disagree so the option of answering it neutral is very appealing. Something about this assessment I could see as a disadvantage to this assessment was how long it is. 60 questions are a lot but I also think all the questions were necessary in contributing to the high reliability and validity of this assessment. In terms of clinical utility, I think this assessment is good due to its clarity, what exactly it measures and how in depth it is. The thing I did thing it lacked the most was that I thought there was a lack of interpretation to what exactly the scores mean. If it was more descriptive I think it could have been an extremely insightful tool.

    (2) Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)

    I thought this assessment’s items hit all the major points and provides the clinician with optimal information regarding the person’s anger. I liked that it categorized the clients anger in three parts (re-activity/expression, anger-in, and vengeance) due to the impact of insight these three categories have into a client. It also did this in only 18 questions which is helpful when administering to a wide variety of clients. I thought this was executed very nicely in the way in which the items were worded as well. Something I saw as a weakness to this assessment was that it provided different answers for each question instead of keeping the same consistent format. I think that when it’s not consistent, confusion is bound to happen. I also found the scoring system to be confusing and lacking insight into what exactly these scores mean for the client. Because of all these reasons I think the clinical utility is alright. I really enjoyed this assessment and could see myself using it as a clinician until I saw the lack of insight into scoring. I do think it is easy to follow whether you’re the administrator or the client but for reasons such as the inconsistent format, I think this assessment is mediocre at best.

    Reply

    • Brigitte Manseau
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 22:44:54

      Hi Haley,
      Like you, I really liked the NEO-FFI-3 due to the clarity of items and the ease of scoring. I like how you mention that clients have a “neutral” option in case they do not feel particularly for or against an item. Having neutral ground allows for the client to choose a response that is most accurate to them. I agree the lack of interpretation for this assessment was disappointing. Not providing the meaning of each cutoff score allows for more varied interpretations between clinicians. When interpreting the same score, an explanation from one clinician may be very different from another clinician.
      In terms of the ADS:S, I also found it helpful that three aspects of anger were assessed. It allows the clinician to pinpoint exactly what aspect of anger that is affecting the client’s life which helps the clinician develop an effective treatment plan. As with the NEO-FFI-3, I agree that the lack of meaning for each cutoff score was a weakness of this assessment.

      Reply

  10. Michelle McClure
    Jul 13, 2020 @ 15:24:18

    1. NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    Strengths- The assessment has 60 items that are pretty straight forward and the items are expressed as statements. The items measure the big five domains of personality that include; Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. This assessment can be administered to individuals or to groups. The scoring is also on a separate page which I think is another strength of the assessment.
    Weaknesses- I really liked this assessment overall. The assessment is not as easy to score and is long. It takes more time to administer and to score.
    Clinical Utility- This assessment would be useful in many clinical settings including inpatient and outpatient settings. This is a well-known go to for personality assessments.
    2. Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS-S)
    Strengths- This assessment is easy to take. It is a good length and the items are clear and straight forward. It assesses three aspects of anger including inner anger, reactiveness, and vengeance. It was interesting to see how your scores compared to others in the same age range. It was easy to score as long as you payed attention to the letters and did not confuse them.
    Weaknesses- I really liked this assessment. I think the only weakness is if your not paying attention to the letters you could miscalculate the score. I am not sure that it is actually a weakness so much as something that should be kept in mind while scoring.
    Clinical Utility- This assessment has good clinical utility and I can see this used in outpatient and inpatient clinical settings. I can see this assessment being used in anger management groups/programs.

    Reply

    • Casey Cosky
      Jul 16, 2020 @ 00:01:34

      Hi Michelle,
      I really liked the NEO-FFI-3 too! I agree with you that the big setback is how long and difficult the process is, from administering to scoring. It’s definitely an important tool though so it’s worth taking the extra time to add more details to gain more information for accurate results. I also really like how much easier the Anger Disorders Scale-Short was. The simplicity of the scoring makes it predictable, but less difficult to complete and score.

      Reply

  11. Casey Cosky
    Jul 13, 2020 @ 18:18:41

    NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    1. Likes (or Strengths)
    Because the scoring method is so in depth but also scattered, it will be hard for a client to manipulate the answers to get the results they want. Some assessments are very clear about what they are trying to determine and sometimes that can be difficult when the client wants a certain outcome and can tell how to lie in order to obtain that outcome. For such a complex assessment, the instructions were still relatively clear and understandable. Separating results into different groups based on age and gender can be important when determining personality traits, so it’s good that that is included.
    2. Dislikes (or Weaknesses)
    When first glancing at this assessment, it seems pretty confusing and difficult to score. After looking at it for a little bit, it still seems pretty confusing and difficult to score. It also takes up a lot more time than other assessments would, which may cause the client to speed through it if they don’t want to focus for that long, therefore affecting the accuracy.
    3. Clinical Utility (e.g., scoring, interpretation, population, assessment and treatment)
    This assessment is useful because it can apply to a broad population (different ages, different genders, etc) while still maintaining accuracy. A client’s personality is important to at least have some sort of an understanding of in order to find the most effective treatment methods. The scoring takes more time than other assessments because it’s so in depth and complicated, but that also allows for accurate, less biased responses.

    Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)
    1. Likes (or Strengths)
    These questions all can accurately help see the clear signs of an anger disorder, and the questions are, for the most part, very clear and easy to answer. Physical symptoms, such as heart racing, are involved as well as behaviors such as screaming at people or using anger to control others. The responses are simple and easy to score and interpret. The layout of the assessment is neat and organized.
    2. Dislikes (or Weaknesses)
    I didn’t like the way that these questions were asked. They asked questions more about frequency than severity, which was confusing for me. For example, question 15 said “When I get angry with someone, I refuse to do the things he or she expects of me” and the responses were never or rarely, once a month, once a week, several days a week, or almost every day. I feel like this should have had options like question 18 had instead, which were not at all, some of the time, about half the time, most of the time, or every time. It is also very clear that this assessment is to measure anger. If somebody does not want to reveal how severe their anger is, it would be easy for them to lie in their responses.
    3. Clinical Utility (e.g., scoring, interpretation, population, assessment and treatment)
    This assessment is very useful to help gain an understanding of the client’s anger. Scoring seems simple and easy to understand, and can be done quickly. Some of the questions might be hard for the client to interpret because, in my opinion, the options don’t make the most sense. However, the scoring and results are relatively easy to interpret.

    Reply

    • Dawn Seiple
      Jul 14, 2020 @ 10:54:56

      Hi Casey,

      I also felt the NEO-FFI-3 was a good balance of complexity and simplicity. It was able to test for five different personality traits without being too obvious and yet was still easy to take and administer. I agree that the extra time required to score it is worth it to get more accurate responses. By using an actual personality assessment, clinicians can gain valuable insight into their patients and their potential treatment plans. By using a more formal tool, they can avoid some of the subjective judgments or biases that can occur. I also liked that this inventory compared results for men and women separately. Both of the assessments we reviewed this week provided results for each sex. I don’t believe any of the other assessments we have reviewed have provided this. However, it would seem that disorders such as depression or anxiety might present differently in men and women. It is interesting that only these two assessments have presented the results this way.

      Reply

  12. Trey Powers
    Jul 13, 2020 @ 20:13:25

    NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
    Likes/Strengths
    Overall, I thought that this assessment was good for determining personality. While there were a larger number of questions in this assessment than in many of the previous assessments we have looked at, in this case I believe it to be necessary in order to sufficiently evaluate the five areas of personality. I liked how the statements that were being responded to were vague and did not give away the nature of the assessment. I also liked how a range of potential responses were provided. I thought it was interesting that the majority of these statements were positive rather than negative, unlike many of the other assessments we have looked at. The assessment is easy to understand from both the perspective of the client and clinician, and scoring appears to be quite simple.
    Dislikes/Weaknesses
    I did not like how the area for filling out the responses to the statements was on a separate page from the statements themselves. Although I can see this format being easier for the clinician to score the measure, from the client’s perspective this has the potential to be confusing, and result in the wrong response being filled in for a certain statement. I think it would have been much easier to fill out if the response came directly below each statement.
    Clinical Utility
    From both the client’s and clinician’s position, this instrument has great potential. The instructions are simple and easy to understand, and the statements are broad and do not give away the nature of the assessment. It seems as though this assessment would be accessible to a wide variety of individuals from different backgrounds who would benefit from understanding their individual personality traits better to aid the therapeutic process.

    Anger Disorders Scale-Short (ADS:S)
    Likes/Strengths
    This assessment is a short, comprehensive way of identifying anger in clients. Instructions for both client and clinician are simple, as is the scoring process. The statements represent three domains of anger, which can be helpful for determining where the client’s anger will likely be most problematic. I liked how each statement had a range of possible responses to indicate the frequency/severity of each statement. I think it is also useful that the instructions for the clinician include a chart designating where scores fall in terms of percentile based on gender and age for each of the categories.
    Dislikes/Weaknesses
    This assessment has very high face validity, as the individual taking it will easily and immediately be able to understand what is being assessed. This may lead to them changing their answers, or not being completely honest.
    Clinical Utility
    Despite its high face validity, I believe this is a useful tool for evaluating anger. The statements cut straight to the core of the issue, and identify which circumstances lead to the individual experiencing the most anger, or the most problematic behavior. I think that this information is enhanced by the three domains of anger that the scores are divided into, which will likely help the clinician when it comes to a treatment plan. Finally, given the ease of both completion and scoring, this assessment offers a simple way of getting a better understanding of an individual’s anger management, and problems they have experienced as a result of their anger.

    Reply

    • Michelle McClure
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 18:38:02

      Hi Trey! The scoring of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory is a little confusing at first but I think that with practice it would be easier to score. Its interesting that you also considered how the clients might find it confusing, I had not thought of that but I think some clients would find it confusing along with being on the long side which may make it hard for some clients to keep their focus. It is a really good personality assessment I think overall the strengths out weigh the weaknesses. I really liked the Anger Disorders Scale. I thought that the standardization sample made this assessment fun to take. I enjoyed seeing where I scored in comparison to others. I also thought the assessment did a really good job of assessing the 3 different domains of anger that it measures.

      Reply

    • Brigitte Manseau
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 22:41:34

      Hi Trey,
      I liked how you pointed out that the statements for the NEO-FFI-3 did not give away that it was assessing the “big” five personality traits. Prior to reading your post, I hadn’t thought about how the statements were not as straightforward as other assessments we have previously reviewed. It is refreshing to see an inventory that does not give away exactly what it is assessing. I, too, did not like filling in my answers on a separate page. I agree that clients may fill out a response wrong if he or she is not attentive to each and every item and response.
      In terms of the ADS:S, I agree that the percentile chart is a strength of this assessment. It allows clinicians to gauge how the client’s score compares to others and what scores may be unusually low or high. I like how you pointed out that the assessment has very high face validity. It is important to understand there is a possibility that clients may not be completely honest when filling out the assessment because they know what it assesses. Despite that, I believe it does have good clinical utility given that it assesses three aspects of anger. That allows clinicians to focus on certain aspects of anger that are affecting the client and helps improve treatment for the client.

      Reply

    • Casey Cosky
      Jul 15, 2020 @ 23:57:16

      Hi Trey,
      I agree with you that having more questions is necessary to evaluate one’s personality because it’s so complex. This is an assessment that also definitely had to have vague questions as well. I liked that the person taking the assessment couldn’t easily manipulate the answers to change the results to be how they want. I like how you pointed out that there were more positive than negative statements, too! I think that’s important.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Adam M. Volungis, PhD, LMHC

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: