Thank you Dr Arben, Dr Hassan, Dr Ludwig and Dr Francis. Which type of tests should be considered reliable fully? This is because there are many indicators and many types of personality tests.

How do I conduct qualitative test on estimation of test results?

Pl share your notion in detail if possible

this link is useful

https://www.shrm.org/.../hr.../how-reliable-are-personality-tests.aspx

regards

As far as I understand the question correct, the answer is not generalizable. In other words it depends on the kind of personality test.

I agree to Mr. Salihu that tests who try to assess the personality of an individuals should be more precise.

There is also a variety of personality test with rare or no empirical evidence. So finding a "good" personality test, for the one occasion, occures to be a difficult task.

The manuel ot the tests give indications concerning the reliability of the tests scores or scales. It depend of mode of construction (empirical is less reliable), the type of items (global one's as adjectives is less reliable) and the number of items of the scales (few items is less reliable). It dépend also of the type of indice : alpha of Cronbach give higher estimations but test retest is much better. It dépend also of theorie of test classical or functionnal, functional being more reliable (functional is a method that i have created and explain in thid review)

Thank you Dr Arben, Dr Hassan, Dr Ludwig and Dr Francis. Which type of tests should be considered reliable fully? This is because there are many indicators and many types of personality tests.

How do I conduct qualitative test on estimation of test results?

Pl share your notion in detail if possible

I have created the fuctional method because the classical theory of test as been created for aptitude tests and for selection situation and used for attitude test. However aptitude tests and subjectives evaluation tests are very différent in their items (simple with an objective answering for aptitude and complex with subjective answering for attitude) as well as the process underlying the answerinq (a unidimensional aptitude for aptitude and a multidimensional comparison in attitude). So aptitude is simple and unidimensional and attitude is complex and multidimensional and only a multivariate methodologie can take into account these features.. The functional method is to my knowledge the only methos of test construction and interpretation who is really multivariate and appropriate for personnality tests. For other personnality tests you should compare the manuels and take into account the theorical background, the selection of items and the number of scales

and subscales, the factorial structure, the internal consistency of the scales and their test retest reliability, and the more important is their conceptual and criterial validity . Last and depending of the use of the test in selection situation or counselling you should take into account the indices of control for the validity (interpretability) of the protocol, and different biais of answering the more important being social desirability answering or faking.

Much like with anything, personality indicator assessments have merits and problems. The most efficient method of best determining the personality of a client is to not administer a single assessment, but provide a variety of different projective and objective assessments. The culmination of data and interpretation based on this varietal method of assessing will produce a more reliable overall interpretation and indication/diagnosis of a person's personality.

In addition to structured or projective assessments, a person's behavior, reactions, and even the words they choose should be a part of the overall assessment and interpretation. The more data and the more investigation into something, the more reliable the results.

Taking one assessment as a face-value answer to any question is limiting and may be incorrect.