Jeanette Cano
Test Critique
1) Name of the test, Purpose and Publisher
a) Name of Test:
Children’s Personality Questionnaire (CPQ)
b) Purpose:
The purpose of the CPQ is “to measure personality traits to predict and evaluate the course of personal, social, and academic development” (Impara & Plake, 1998). The CPQ was designed for children, ages 8 through 12 years.
The test measures 14 dimensions of personality in children (cool vs. warm, concrete thinking vs. abstract thinking, affected by feeling vs. emotionally stable, phlegmatic vs. excitable, obedient vs. dominant, sober vs. enthusiastic, expedient vs. conscientious, shy vs. bold, tough-minded vs. tender-minded, vigorous vs. guarded, forthright vs. shrewd, self-assured vs. apprehensive, undisciplined self-conflict vs. controlled, and relaxed vs. tense).
The authors of this test claims that the use of CPQ will help educators “make better predictions of future achievement and creativity in the process of scholarship selection and general school and scholarship selection and occupational counseling” (Drummond, 1987).
c) Publisher:
According to Test In Print IV, the publisher of the CPQ is Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
2) Construction Methodology
There are four forms of the CPQ test available (A,B,C, and D). Each form has two parts that contain a total of 140 forced-choice items. The 14 dimensions of personality that are being measured were identified by, R.B. Cattell, who noted that they were objectively determined source traits. These 14 dimensions were obtained through factor analysis and were found to be factorially independent.
The sample size of this test reflected children from four geographic regions, three levels of SES, and two levels of community size, however the exact sampling for this test was not reported, which most reviewers have had concerns about.
The authors of the CPQ indicate that each form should be given in two sittings, no longer than 50 minutes each. The raw scores from the CPQ can be changed to “n-stens,” “s-stens,” and percentile rank scores. Included with the CPQ are separate standard score tables which provide information for gender and form. The authors of this test recommended that at least two complete forms be administered in order to get the most precise assessment of personality.
The questions on the test are said to have the reading vocabulary of an average 8 year-old child, however the questions may be read aloud and words may be explained if necessary. According to the review by Stinnett the users should find the administration and scoring procedures straightforward.
3) Evidence of Reliability
Test-retest reliabilities of the 14 factors, based on a 1-week interval, ranged from a low .46 to .87 with a median of .71 for combined forms A and B; and .62 to .84 with a median of .765 for forms C and D. According to Hagin’s review “these coefficients imply the need to ask a child to read and reply to 240 items, as much as 200 minutes of testing time, to obtain marginally reliable responses” (Keyser & Sweetland, 1987). Test-retest reliabilities for all four forms combined were not offered in the manual. According to Stinnett’s review the test-retest reliabilities of the CPQ were too low for users to have much confidence in the test’s temporal stability (Impara & Blake, 1998).
4) Evidence of Validity
In regards to validity the reviewers agree that the CPQ’s handbook does not contain enough detailed information regarding the tests validity. According to Stinnett, the “test’s development was not adequately described…and in terms of construct validity it was a glaring omission, especially for a test that has been derived through factor analyses” (Impara & Plake, 1998).
5) Pros and cons of the test according to reviewers.
Pros:
Within the handbook the theoretical foundations of the CPQ are well explained, as well as the instructions for administration. According to Drummond, the test does measure several interesting dimensions of personality even though some of the factors need to be validated (Keyser & Sweetland, 1987). In general the test can be used for research and experimental purposes but should be used with caution in clinical or counseling situations.
Cons:
According to reviewers the CPQ handbook needs a lot of revision and updating since most of the material is clearly dated. Stinnett found that the standardization sample was also not described in sufficient detail for objective evaluation, and that the handbook is also unclear as to when the data was collected. Hagin’s review also found that also that information was needed about the characteristics of the standardization sample and the measures of traits. Hagin’s review also states that the handbook did not have sufficient information about the tests technical characteristics to “justify its use in decision making in school, counseling, or clinical settings” (Impara & Blake, 1998).
References
Impara, J.C., Murphy, L.C., Plake, B.S. (Eds.). (1998). The Thirteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements at the University of Nebraska.
Keyser, D.J., Sweetland, R.C. (Eds.). (1987). Test Critiques (Vol. 1). Austin, Texas: PRO-ED. Inc.