Essay Example on Psychometric Assessment: Measuring Cognitive Abilities & Personality Traits

Introduction

A psychometric assessment helps in determining the suitability of a candidate in a specific role. In order to achieve this, a psychometric test measures the cognitive abilities and personality characteristics of an individual. Psychiatrists use different tools to conduct a psychometric assessment. Such tools include Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), NEO Personality Inventory, Clifton Strengths Finder, and Strong Interest Inventory (SII). Any psychometric test evaluates different skills, knowledge, attitudes, personality traits, and abilities. However, it could go beyond the scope of the parameters herein mentioned. The Strong Interest Inventory is a widely used tool, applicable in different scopes and domains of life of individuals. Its validity and reliability should always inform the use of SII. A career coach must also understand all the scales used in the assessment tool and the right way to interpret them. These are the basic principles to follow to ensure that the tool is correctly applied. The Strong Interest Inventory is a reliable psychometric tool that can significantly help make career decisions if well used.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Strong Interest Inventory

The Strong Interest Inventory (SII) was first established by EK Strong in 1927, before major revisions in 1981 and 1985 by Jo-Ida Hansen (CAS, 2020). Further revisions happened in 1994 through Lenore Harmon and Fred Borgen (CAS, 2020). The current version is a 2004 edition, developed to cover the shortcomings of the previous editions. The Strong Interest Inventory test is commendable in its attempt to help people match their interests with different aspects, like career life preferences, education, leisure activities, and career interests. When an individual opts to take the test, they are on a path of self-discovery.

SII is an essential tool in a psychometric assessment that experts refer to it as a universal interest inventory (CAS, 2020). It is broad and covers major themes of a person’s life as follows: General occupation themes (GOTs), a theme that details the general attitude on broad categories of fields of interest (CAS, 2020). Basic interest scales (BISs) that narrow down on the ‘why’ of low and high scores demonstrated in the general occupation themes (CAS, 2020). Occupational scales (OSs), which relate occupations with various qualities and interests that people in a particular field identify with frequently (CAS, 2020). Personal style scales (PSSs), a scale that measures the comfort of an individual concerning different living and working styles (CAS, 2020).

In order to complement the four major themes and scales of the test, there are indexes that an individual or an interpreter can use to understand some profiles that are less common and may not be in conformity with the general concepts of the tool. The SII indexes items – as either strong items (very high and high) or weak items (moderate, low, and very low) – depending on the score obtained in the test. The items indexed as strong are the ones that the interpreter is concerned about because they provide an overview of one’s interests.

General Utility in Career Counselling and Coaching

The general utility of a psychometric test is its usability and success in assessment in the field of interest. The general scope of a utility tool is the wide scope within which it is used. The Strong Interest Inventory is widely used in career coaching and counselling. It is important to note that the primary function of the test is helping an individual discover their interests and abilities. After taking this test, it is easy to tell the career path that one would take with great comfort and success. Counselling a person based on the outcomes of the Strong Interest Inventory test would be interesting. The test analyses the person’s occupation and subject area interests comprehensively. This analysis is the most significant consideration in making career decisions. In order to use the test effectively, it is important to consult a certified facilitator who should administer it in full.

As highlighted in the previous section, the test aims to analyse the following major areas: occupations, subject areas, activities, leisure activities, people, and the individual’s characteristics (Harrington & Long, 2013). With this analysis complete, it forms the basis and foundation of decision-making for the person. The tool’s specificity in evaluating individuals’ interests ensures that it provides a clear roadmap to consider in making a career decision. One does not need to follow the direction advised from the assessment, but it has a penchant for predicting the most comfortable path one should take. For a fact, the assessment tool does not tell anyone what to do but provides direction and advice on the best route to make a career choice.

The tool is not only used in career counselling, but also in measuring the leisure interests, academic preferences, and personal characteristics (Harrington & Long, 2013). It has been used to counsel people on the education path they can take and succeed, as well as what they can do in leisure. The aspect of leisure is especially important for clinical psychologists, as they try to find a way to treat patients who need physical activities in their recovery programs. When the clinician understands the preferred leisure activities, they can prescribe some of them in the recovery process.

Appropriateness for use in Career Counselling and Coaching

Validity of SII

Myer Briggs Company (2016) sampled research studies relating to the test in asserting the validity of the tool. From the sample studies, it is clear that the tools’ general occupational themes are highly predictive of work-related variables (Myer Briggs Company, 2016). Further, the BISs are hailed as accurate in distinguishing occupations. The occupational scales are valid in that they have, from time to time, correctly predicted the careers that people join eventually. On that account, Myer Briggs Company (2016) posits that the tool’s validity is not in question.

Flores et al. (2006) assessed the Strong Interest Inventory’s validity and had conflicting positions for male and female students. The tool proved to be useful and valid in its application on female students, but was not valid when used on their male counterparts. This assessment by Flores et al. (2016) raises the question of the validity of the test through its contrary opinion, which only confirms only partial validity of the tool. In casting aspersions on the tool, Harrington and Long (2013) take fault with the tool’s self-reporting nature. The validity of its outcome is based on an individual’s self-awareness. However, this should not be a problem, rather that of the individual taking the test.

Reliability of SII

Reliability raises the question of consistency and trust. Researchers have argued in the past that the test can be reliable but not valid. However, a test cannot be valid if it is not reliable. That in mind, the research by Flores et al. (2016), which involved 487 Mexican high school students as participants, casts doubt on the reliability of the Strong Interest Inventory test. Despite finding it factually sound among the female students, it does not carry the same level of logic among males. The results it produces on males show consistency, and this is just one study that could still be deemed an outlier in the general scope of its usage.

The Strong Interest Inventory tool is reliable, and has consistently produced results bearing similarity in different times and uses (Gasser, 2005). With specificity on how the SII is useful in separating college majors for men and women, Gasser (2005) concluded that it was highly useful because it had shown high consistency. In conclusion, Gasser (2005) posited that SII concurrent validity in differentiating between the interests of men and women college majors, again proving the validity of the tool. Myer Briggs Company (2016) argues that SII shows high internal consistency reliabilities of all scales. The GOTs have reliabilities ranging between 0.90 to 0.95, the BISs reliability is between 0.80 and 0.92, and the PSSs show reliability range between 0.82 and 0.87. However, it is inappropriate to determine the internal consistency reliability of the OSs because of the heterogeneous nature of some of the items on the scale.

Position on Validity and Reliability of SII

The SII is a valid and reliable tool for use in career coaching and counselling. If the evidence from researches is anything to go by, the tool has consistently shown that it can clearly define an individual’s interests. Understanding interests becomes the first step in a lengthy and personal process that one has to navigate in making a sound career choice. In the past, career coaches have managed to create a dialogue with clients based on the assessment results, and this has helped people make career choices. Therefore, the appropriateness of using the SII could be a determination made on the premises of the relationship between the coach and the client. As a general concept, the SII is a great tool that helps an individual make career decisions and better understand oneself. The tool has been used for many years and has positively impacted many who have used it. As such, it has effectively fulfilled the intentions of its use.

Test Components and Item Analysis

The components of the SII are divided into four broad categories, as mentioned elsewhere in the analysis. The four are: general occupational themes (GOTs), basic interest scales (BISs), occupational scales (OSs), and personal style scales (PSSs). The GOTs are six and are based on John Holland’s theory (Myer Briggs Company, 2016). The six categories of GOTs are Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional – RIASEC (Myer Briggs Company, 2016). There are 30 basic interest scales covering areas like science, athletics, sales, and performing arts. PSSs are split into five categories, namely team orientation, risk-taking, leadership style, learning environment, and work style. The occupational styles are the most with 260, split into two halves; either half of 130 for each gender (Myer Briggs Company, 2016).

The RIASEC categorization, as established by the John Holland theory, plays the most crucial role in the analysis of the SII (Phan & Rounds, 2018). It determines the inclination and favour of the person under assessment. The RIASEC categories give suggestions of different careers, but the user is not limited to the said suggestions (Phan & Rounds, 2018). A realistic-favouring person may consider jobs like carpentry, electrician, and forester, while having hobbies like hunting and camping. An investigative-favouring person will go for careers like geology, psychology, or science-related ones, while enjoying hobbies like playing chess, reading, and scuba-diving. Nevertheless, it does not always play out that way in real life.

Every one of the six has their favoured career paths. A person classifying in the artistic theme will be better off in culinary or performing arts. In contrast, a social-favouring person may opt to be a social worker or a speech pathologist. When these broad categories are defined, the other parts of SII help to narrow down the options, especially with the basic interests scales. The interpretations invite the expertise of a professional who can make sense of the scores obtained from the scales (Myer Briggs Company, 2016). The higher scores resonate with one’s likings and desires, and they guide the coach on offering a qualified opinion about an individual’s interests and likely paths of success.