198

16 PERSONALITY FACTORS QUESTIONNAIRE

AIM OF THE TEST: The aim of the test is to understand and demonstrate the
administration, scoring and interpretation of the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF).

INTRODUCTION

Definition of Personality

Personality refers to the relatively enduring patterns of behavior, cognition and emotion that
define an individual's unique identity (Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R., 1992).

Theories of Personality

The journey of understanding human nature began roughly during 460-370 BCE, when
Hippocrates, a Greek physician, proposed a theory that our personality traits are shaped by
four fundamental temperaments, each linked to the balance of bodily fluids or humors. He
believed that each person embodies one dominant temperaments- choleric (yellow bile),
melancholy (black bile), sanguine (blood) and phlegmatic (phlegm) which influences their
behavior and interactions.

Later, Galen expanded his theory by giving detailed traits related to each temperament. He
believed that sanguine radiates warmth and

Allport’s Trait theory

Gordon Allport, a pioneer in trait theory, introduced the concept of personality traits, which
he referred to as “dispositions.” In 1936, Allport categorized traits into three levels: cardinal,
central, and secondary dispositions. Cardinal traits are rare, dominating characteristics that
define a person’s life, such as narcissism or Machiavellianism. These traits are so pervasive
that they overshadow other traits, becoming synonymous with the individual’s identity.
However, Allport noted that most people are described by their central dispositions, which
are general traits found to some degree in every person but are less dominant than cardinal
traits. Examples include intelligence, honesty, or shyness. These traits form the foundation of
a person’s personality. Finally, secondary traits are less visible and stable, appearing only in
specific situations, such as anxiety in public speaking or impatience while waiting in line
(Revelle et al., 2015).
 199

Allport believed that each individual’s personality could be described by 5-10 central traits
and argued that members of a culture often share common traits. While Allport
acknowledged the importance of nomothetic science, which seeks general laws of behavior,
he also advocated for an idiographic approach that focuses on the unique traits of each
person.

Raymond Cattell’s Trait theory

Raymond Cattell developed a comprehensive classification system for personality traits,

beginning with his distinction between common traits and unique traits. Common traits are
those shared by many people within a culture, for example intelligence, while unique traits
are individual characteristics that differentiate one person from another. He then categorized
traits into temperament traits, which reflect a person’s general emotional style and behavioral
tendencies, and dynamic traits, which motivate behavior and drive goals.

Cattell further divided personality traits into surface traits and source traits. Surface traits are
observable in day-to-day interactions and are explicit in an individual’s behavior. They are
less stable and less permanent in nature. Examples of surface traits include sociability,
unselfishness, and humor. In contrast, source traits represent the deeper structures of
personality and become evident only when multiple surface traits are combined. They are
highly stable traits. For instance, sociability, unselfishness, and humor together form the
source trait of friendliness (Mathews et al.,2003).

Finally, he differentiated between constitutional traits, which are biologically inherited, and
environmentally-molded traits, which are shaped by one’s environment and experiences. The
layered approach allowed Cattell to describe the complexity of personality in both its
observable and underlying dimensions, influenced by both genetic and environmental factors.

Cattell also applied trait theory beyond individuals, coining the term syntality to describe the
collective personality traits of social groups, such as religious, educational, or professional
organizations. He studied the syntality of various groups, as well as entire nations, suggesting
that traits could characterize both individuals and social entities. In conclusion, the
contributions of Gordon Allport and Raymond Cattell have had a profound impact on the
study of personality. Allport introduced a model that emphasized the uniqueness of individual
traits, advocating for both cardinal and central dispositions, while recognizing the importance
of cultural influences on personality. Building upon Allport’s work, Raymond Cattell
developed the Sixteen Personality Factor Model (16 PF). Cattell simplified Allport’s list of
 200

over 4,000 traits by eliminating rare ones and grouping similar traits together, reducing the
list to 171 traits, which were further condensed to 16 key personality traits through the
method factor analysis, a statistical technique. These traits include warmth, emotional
stability, dominance, and reasoning (Mathews et al., 2009). Cattell used oblique rotation in
his factor analysis, meaning the traits identified in his model may be related to one another.
He developed the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) to measure these traits,
believing that each person could be characterized by a unique combination of expression of
these traits.

Cattell’s analysis identified five broader second-order or global factors that include:
Openness/Tough-mindedness, Self-Control, Extraversion, Independence/Accommodation,
and Anxiety. These global factors represent overarching dimensions of personality that are
built on the foundation of the 16 primary traits. He concluded through his Multiple Abstract
Variance Analysis (MAVA) that approximately two-thirds of personality traits are shaped by
environmental factors, while one-third is determined by heredity (Revelle et al., 2015).

Eysenck’s PEN model

Eysenck's personality theory recognises three dimensions: extraversion-introversion (E),

neuroticism-stability (N), and psychoticism (P), each related with distinct systems in the brain
that regulate behavior. The reticulo-cortical circuit regulates cortical activation. Introverts
have relatively higher levels of arousal than extraverts, who require stimulation to achieve an
optimal state. Both may reach a state of TMI under high stimulation, meaning that after an
optimal point is reached, arousal is diminished (Eysenck, 1994).

The reticulo-limbic circuit is concerned with emotional arousal. This system is found to be
more sensitive to arousal in individuals high in neuroticism, making them more responsive to
stress. Those who are less stable show minimal variation in emotional situations.

The third dimension of Eysenck's theory is psychoticism (P). It has been proposed that P
might be connected with serotonergic and dopaminergic systems (Eysenck, 1992; 1997). In
general terms, the personality traits according to Eysenck's theory are associated with
differences in biological arousal, which determines variability in behavior between subjects.

Theories by McCrae and Costa

McCrae and Costa are famously known for the Five-Factor Model (FFM) and the Five-Factor
Theory (FFT). The FFM, sometimes referred to as the Big Five, organizes personality traits
 201

into five broad dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness.

The Big Five personality traits are broad dimensions of individual differences in behavior,
thought, and emotion: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and
Openness to Experience. Extraversion captures traits of social engagement, assertiveness, and
energy; extraverts tend to be sociable and enthusiastic. Introverts are more reserved.
Agreeableness counts traits for compassion, respectfulness, and acceptance of others:
agreeable people are empathetic and polite, whereas disagreeable people are less concerned
with others' feelings. Conscientiousness reflects responsibility, productivity, or organization.
People who score high in this trait are disciplined and goal-oriented, whereas those scoring
low in this trait are generally more disorganized. Neuroticism, or lack of emotional stability,
denotes a tendency to experience negative emotions. Neurotics frequently tend to feel
worried or moody, whereas emotionally stable people tend to be calm. Openness to
Experience is composed of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and imagination, where people
enjoy learning and are open to new experiences but less open individuals find comfort in
routine and familiarity. These characteristics have been confirmed by cross-cultural studies,
and are also found in many formal tests of personality, indicating that they hold validity both
in everyday and scientific practice. Emerging from studies on personality descriptors, it has
been validated across different methods of assessment, such as peer ratings and self-reports,
thereby confirming its robustness and utility for understanding the stability of traits, their
heritability, and predictive power (McCrae & Costa, 1992).

The FFM merely talks about the patterns of traits but explains nothing regarding personality
dynamics. McCrae and Costa, to address this, developed the Five-Factor Theory (FFT).
According to this theory, personality is a system in which core traits interact with the
environmental factors created by the latter that promote consistent behavior patterns. This
theory incorporates traits into a broader framework, thus providing an overall sense of
individual differences. A blend of the empirical structure of the FFM and the greater
theoretical scope of the FFT has allowed McCrae and Costa's work to shape modern trait
psychology considerably by providing illumination capable of informing research,
organizational procedures, and clinical application, among many other domains.

Other Theories of Personality

Psychodynamic theory of personality

 202

According to the psychodynamic theory given by Sigmund Freud, people have a conscious
mind (attuned to an awareness of the outside world), a preconscious mind (that contains
hidden memories or forgotten experiences that can be remembered), and an unconscious
mind (containing

the instinctual, repressed, and powerful forces). According to Freud, the personality consists
of three parts:

1. Id (comprised of amoral basic instincts, which operate according to the pleasure

principle)

2. Ego (the conscious, decision-making “executive of the mind,” which operates

according to the reality principle)

3. Superego (the conscience of the mind that contains the values of parental figures and
operates according to the moral principle).

Psychodynamic theory is also built on what Freud referred to as psychosexual developmental

stages. Each of the stages focuses on a zone of pleasure that is dominant at a particular time:

1. Oral stage, where the mouth is the chief pleasure zone and basic gratification is from
sucking, and biting;

2. Anal stage, where the delight is in either withholding or eliminating feces;

3. The phallic stage, where the chief zone of pleasure is the sex organs, and members of
both sexes must work through their sexual desires;

4. Latency, where energy is focused on peer activities and personal mastery of cognitive
learning and physical skills; and

5. Genital stage, where if all has gone well previously, each gender takes more interest
in the other and normal heterosexual patterns of interaction appear.

Alfred Adler’s theory of personality

Adlerian theory of personality focuses on social interests as well as the purposefulness of

behavior and the importance of developing a healthy style. This theory holds that conscious
aspects of behavior, rather than the unconscious, are central to the development of
personality. A major Adlerian tenet is that people strive to become successful (i.e., the best
they can be), a process he called striving for perfection or completeness. His theory also
 203

places considerable emphasis on birth order: those who share ordinal birth positions (e.g.,
firstborns) may have more in common with one another than siblings from the same family.
Adlerian theory places strong emphasis on developing social interest and contributing to
society. The theory holds that work is essential for human survival and that we must learn to
be interdependent.

Adler's belief that many people believe they are not as good as others is the cornerstone of his
theory. He called this an inferiority complex. This starts, Adler said, in infancy, when we are
small and helpless creatures.

As a result of our inferiority complex, Adler believed that we all crave to prove that we are
superior to others. A person who overcompensates for feelings of inferiority develops a
superiority complex.This drives our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings more than anything
else, and in turn it shapes our personality and who we are. Early interaction with family
members, peers, and adults helps to determine the role of inferiority and superiority in life.

Other Tests of Personality

1. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was developed by Isabel Myers during World War
II and is based on the theories of psychologist Carl Jung. It assesses personality types and
was specifically created to enhance working relationships among healthcare professionals,
especially nurses. Myers based this questionnaire on Jung's theory of "individual preference,"
which suggests that variations in human behavior stem from fundamental differences in
mental and emotional functioning. The MBTI categorizes individuals into 16 types based on
their preferences in four areas:

1. Extraversion or Introversion: Whether a person focuses their energy inward or

outward.

2. Sensing or Intuition: Whether a person prefers to take in information through their

senses or focus on meaning.

3. Thinking or Feeling: Whether a person makes decisions based on logic or values.

4. Judging or Perceiving: Whether a person prefers to organize the world or experience

it.
 204

The test consists of 94 forced-choice questions and produces a four-letter personality type,
such as "INFP" or "ESTJ," based on the test taker's answers. It is widely used in various
settings, including workplaces, schools, and hospitals.

2. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ( MMPI)

The MMPI, or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, is widely used for assessing
personality traits and psychopathology through a psychometric test. It was created in the
1930s and officially published in 1942 by Stuart Hathaway and Charley McKinley at the
University of Minnesota, using visitors of patients at the university hospital as a basis for
developing the instrument and understanding psychiatric illness constructs. The data
collected from this test can be utilized to make inferences about a person's psychopathy or to
interpret their psychological characteristics in comparison to the general population.
Providers commonly use the test to establish or evaluate care for patients with unclear clinical
presentations. The MMPI consists of 10 clinical scales and 3 content scales, with a total of
566 true or false items. The clinical scales aim to measure the presence of psychiatric
conditions, while the content scales are intended to assess the validity of test responses. The
clinical scales include:

1. Hypochondriasis (Hs) – Measures preoccupation with health concerns.

2. Depression (D) – Assesses clinical depression, including mood and cognitive

symptoms.

3. Hysteria (Hy) – Gauges emotional overreaction and physical symptoms in response to

stress.

4. Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) – Assesses social deviance and lack of conformity.

5. Masculinity-Femininity (Mf) – Historically used to measure gender role behaviors.

6. Paranoia (Pa) – Measures levels of trust, suspiciousness, and feelings of persecution.

7. Psychasthenia (Pt) – Assesses anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and self-

doubt.

8. Schizophrenia (Sc) – Evaluates bizarre thought processes, social alienation, and

delusions.

9. Hypomania (Ma) – Measures high energy levels, grandiosity, and irritability.

 205

10. Social Introversion (Si) – Assesses shyness, introversion, and social discomfort.

The MMPI has undergone several revisions to address its criticisms. The most recent
iterations include the MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form), and the MMPI-A, designed
for adolescents.

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

Paul T. Costa Jr. and Robert R. McCrae developed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory in the
1980s as a condensed version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), which they had
initially released in 1985. The NEO-PI was later updated in 1992, resulting in the NEO-PI-R
(Revised), and the NEO-FFI was created to offer a swifter evaluation of the same five
principal personality dimensions measured in the longer version. It was designed to assess the
Five-Factor Model (FFM), which encompasses the five major dimensions of personality
commonly known as the "Big Five" personality traits. These traits are

1. Neuroticism (N)
2. Agreeableness (A)
3. Conscientiousness (C)
4. Openness to experience (O)
5. Extraversion (E)

The NEO-FFI comprises 60 items (12 for each trait), with responses on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

METHOD

A. Participant Details

The participant, NV, a 21-year-old female undergraduate, was administered the test on 17 th
October, 2024. The participant reported her mood to be good.

B. Description of the Test

The 16 Personality Factor questionnaire (16 PF) is a self-report questionnaire assessing

personality developed by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber in the
year 1949 based on several decades of empirical research done through factor analysis
technique suggesting that a set of sixteen source personality traits summarize an individual’s
personality. The 16 PF questionnaire helps in providing a personality profile of normal adult
 206

individuals above the age of 15 and provides professionals with a composite score of an
individual’s level of insight, self-esteem, capacity to empathy, frustration tolerance,
interpersonal needs, emotional stability and much more helping them identify effective
strategies and develop therapeutic plans wherever necessary. It is also increasingly used
within the areas of career and vocational selection in recent years. The primary goal of the 16
Personality Factor questionnaire is to provide a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of an
individual’s personality.

The First edition of this instrument was published in the year 1949 followed by multiple
revisions in 1956, 1962, 1967 and the fifth edition in the year 1969. The most recent edition
of the 16 PF questionnaire is the 6th edition published in the year 1993 with changes based
on the data obtained from the American Government Census. The Latest version of the
questionnaire is updated as per the current developments in the field and the society, is 76%
similar to the 5th edition and has a simpler multiple choice format for 185 questions and
answers for better and effective understanding by the test-taker.

The questionnaire consists of forms A and B having 187 test items, generally requiring 45 to
60 minutes for administration. Forms C and D have 105 items specifically designed for
individuals above the age of 15 and usually require a lesser time of 25 to 30 minutes for
administration thereby making it easier and convenient for both the test-taker and test user.
The questionnaire is also made adaptable for low literates with 128 test items through its
form E. The computerized version of this questionnaire is also available. It has been
translated into more than 30 languages and dialects and can be scored based on either local,
national or international normative samples. The International Institute for Personality and
Ability testing holds the copyright and publishing rights for this test.

The 16 Personality Factor questionnaire is hand-scored and its raw scores are presented on a
standard 10-point sten scale for interpretation according to the standardised norms.

Explanation of each Personality Traits

Cattell identified 16 source traits through his factor analysis. He believed that these traits lie
on a continuum, where two opposite traits are at each end, and thus developed a questionnaire
to measure those traits on a continuum. He believed that a person has all 16 traits to a certain
degree, but they may differ in their range, being either high or low (Ciccarelli et al., 2018).
 207

Warmth (Factor A) represents the tendency to seek closeness and connection owing to
feelings such as care, concern, and sympathy. Depending upon this factor the person may
either be reserved or outgoing. (Cattell, 2001)

Reasoning (Factor B) denotes the extent to which a person can identify and solve problems
logically and sensibly. The scale here differentiates between abstract and concrete reasoning.
(Ciccarelli et al., 2018)

Emotional Stability (Factor C) refers to the ability to respond to a problem in a balanced and
integrated manner. (A. Baron & Mishra, 2002) Low scores Indicate a stable and calm
response, whereas high scores suggest a more stressed, neurotic dimension.(Ciccarelli et al.,
2018).

Dominance (Factor E) refers to an individual’s tendency to have control over others. The
person may either be submissive or assertive based on where they lie on the continuum.
(Cattell, 2001)

Liveliness (Factor F) is the tendency to be outgoing, high-energy, fun-loving, and carefree.

Low scorers tend to be serious, self-restrained, cautious, and sober, whereas high scorers tend
to be more spontaneous (Cattell, 2001).

Rule-consciousness (Factor G) refers to an individual's will to follow the rules or disregard

them. It involves adopting and conscientiously following society’s accepted standards of
behavior (Baron & Mishra, 2002).

Social Boldness (Factor H) is the tendency to be confident and fearless in social interactions.
Individuals low on this factor tend to be timid, shy, and more risk-avoidant. (Cattell, 2001)

Sensitivity (Factor I) refers to how sensitive an individual is to their emotions and feelings.
Whether they are tough-minded or tender-minded (Baron & Mishra, 2002).

Vigilance (Factor L) means the extent to which an individual is cautious of others' intentions,
and situations around them. Individuals can either be suspicious or trusting. (Ciccarelli et al.,
2018)

Abstractedness (Factor M) refers to the amount of attention given to abstract observations

and thoughts, the focus on imagination, theoretical ideas, and conceptual thinking. Low
scorers tend to be more practical as opposed to being imaginative. (Cattell, 2001)
 208

Privateness (Factor N) is the tendency to be guarded, and private. High-scorers tend to be

forthright, self-revealing, and unguarded. (Cattell, 2001)

Apprehension (Factor O) involves fearing that something bad might happen and being
worried about the future. Individuals can either be confident and placid or apprehensive and
worried. (Ciccarelli et al., 2018)

Openness to change (Factor Q1) refers to being open to free thinking, inquiry and exploring
new approaches. High scorers tend to be experimenting and flexible.(Cattell, 2001)

Self-reliance (Factor Q2) refers to the autonomy of an individual, the degree to which they
are self-sufficient. Low scores tend to be individualistic as opposed to high scorers who are
group-dependent. (Ciccarelli et al., 2018)

Perfectionism (Factor Q3) is the individual’s tendency to be self-disciplined, organized, goal-

oriented and to be in control of factors around them. Low-scorers tend to be more
undisciplined. (Cattell, 2001)

Tension (Factor Q4) represents the extent to which a person may be tensed by situations
around them. High-scorers tend to be tense and impatient, whereas low-scorers are more
relaxed. (Cattell, 2001)

1. Norms

The 16PF Fifth Edition was administered to a large group (N = 4,449), and then a
stratified random sampling was used to create the final normative sample of 22,500. Sample
stratification was done on the basis of gender, race, age, and educational variables, with the
target number for each variable derived from U.S. Census figures. The size of the norm
sample was 2,500: 1245 males and 1,255 females (49.8% male, 50.2% female). Ages ranged
from 15 to 92 with a mean age of 33.3 years.

Norm tables indicating sten scores with a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2
have been made for Male, Female and general population with specification of age criteria.

2. Validity

Construct Validity

The 16PF's construct validity has been proved by associations with various well-established
personality instruments, indicating that the scales measure what they are supposed to.
 209

Manuals for the 16PF (Russell & Karol, 2002; Conn & Rieke, 1994) show correlations
between the 16PF's primary and global scales and various personality tests, such as the
California Psychological Inventory (CPI), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), NEO-PI-R,
Personality Research Form (PRF), and others that assess creativity, leadership, and social
skills.

Predictive Validity

For more than 50 years, the 16PF Questionnaire has been an effective tool for comprehending
and foreseeing a wide range of behaviors. It has been employed successfully in a variety of
applications, including innovation, social abilities and compassion, marital compatibility,
ability to lead, and occupational profile (Cattell et al., 1970; Conn & Rieke, 1994). The 16PF
has helped to advance personality research by investigating topics such as personality
structure (Roberts et al., 2005), cross-cultural measurement equivalence (Ellis & Mead,
2000), peer vs. self-reports (IPAT, 2004a), and biases such as response bias and social
desirability (Christiansen et al., 1994; Seisdedos, 1996).

3. Reliability

Test-Retest Reliability

The 16PF Fifth Edition has excellent test-retest reliability, indicating score consistency over
time. The reliability of the primary scales averages 0.80 over a two-week interval (0.69 to
0.87), and 0.70 over a two-month interval (0.56 to 0.79). Global scales, which have more
items and so produce more consistent measurements, have higher reliability, with averages of
0.87 over two weeks (range from 0.84 to 0.91) and 0.78 over two months (ranging from 0.70
to 0.82).

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency assesses the degree of interrelatedness among items on a scale,

indicating its dependability, particularly for narrowly defined scales. Internal consistency
estimates for the 16PF major scales range between 0.66 and 0.86, with an average of 0.75
(Conn and Rieke, 1994). Standard internal consistency methods are inadequate for global
scales due to their heterogeneity, however advanced equations estimate their reliability at
0.87 over all five global scales (Drasgow, 2005; Bedwell, 2007).
 210

4. Scoring

The 16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire) Form C scored using scoring key
provided. It is essential to first review the answer sheet to ensure there are no scoring issues,
such as marking more than one response per question, incomplete erasures, or leaving
questions unanswered. Scoring involves assigning points to each response: All the answers
are scored 0, 1 or 2 points.

This process starts with Factor A and proceeds systematically through all the factors. The raw
scores for each factor are then summed and recorded in the right-hand column of the answer
sheet.

Once all raw scores have been calculated, they must be converted to sten scores (standard
scores that range from 1 to 10). This conversion is done using norm tables. The norm tables
from Form C that can take into account the age, gender, or specific demographic group of the
test taker. The administrator first selects the appropriate norm group (such as men, women, or
a mixed group) and then uses the corresponding conversion table.

An Important feature of the 16PF in form C is the Motivational Distortion (MD) scale, which
assesses whether the examinee has responded in a socially desirable manner. The MD score
helps detect whether the test-taker is attempting to present themselves in an overly favorable
light or is distorting responses to appear socially acceptable.

5. Interpretation

Sten scores are categorized into three ranges for interpretation:

1. Sten scores 1 to 4 are considered as Low.

2. Sten scores 5 to 6 as an Average.

3. Sten scores 7 to 10 fall into the High.

A score of 7 or higher on Motivational Distortion suggests that it is likely that the participant
has responded in a way that is socially desirable and motivated by the testing situation,
potentially compromising the accuracy of the test results.

In such cases, adjustments are made to factor scores as per the table below:
 211

Motivation Distortion

(Sten score) Adjustment in factors Sten scores

7 ● Add 1 in Sten Scores of Factors Q4

● Subtract 1 from Sten Score of Factor C

8 ● Add 1 in Sten Scores of Factors L, O, Q4

● Subtract 1 from Sten Scores of Factors A, C,G, Q3

9 ● Add 1 in Sten Scores of factor F, L, O, Q4

● Subtract 1 from Sten Scores of Factors A, G,

H, Q3

10 ● Add 2 in Sten Scores of factor Q4

● Subtract 2 in Sten Score of Factor C

● Add 1 in Sten scores of factor F, L, O

● Subtract 1 in Sten score of Factor A, G, H, Q3

6. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Test

Test Advantages

The 16 Personality Factors (16PF) questionnaire is a robust tool for assessing personality
traits, offering numerous advantages across various applications. Here’s a detailed overview
of the advantages and strengths of the 16 Personality Factors (16PF) questionnaire:

i. Comprehensive Assessment

The 16PF questionnaire provides a thorough assessment of a wide range of

personality traits, offering a detailed profile that goes beyond superficial
characteristics. This depth allows individuals and organizations to gain a nuanced
understanding of personality, which can be crucial for personal development, team
 212

dynamics, and recruitment processes (Cattell, 1949). The assessment's ability to

capture various dimensions of personality makes it a valuable tool in multiple
settings.

ii. Empirical Foundation

Developed by Raymond Cattell through extensive research, the 16PF is backed by

robust psychological principles and empirical studies. This research foundation
enhances the reliability and validity of the instrument, making it a trusted assessment
tool in both clinical and organizational contexts (Cattell & Mead, 2008). The
structured format of the test facilitates easier interpretation of results, allowing trained
professionals to derive meaningful insights and recommendations based on the
findings.

iii. Adaptability Across Contexts

One of the key strengths of the 16PF is its versatility. It can be applied in various
contexts, including educational, clinical, and workplace environments (Schuerger,
1997). This adaptability allows for a range of applications, from leadership
development and team building to career counseling, making it an invaluable resource
for enhancing both personal and professional growth.

iv. Predictive Validity

The 16PF has demonstrated predictive validity, effectively correlating personality

traits with behaviors in diverse contexts, such as job performance and interpersonal
interactions (Hough, 1992). This is particularly beneficial for organizations aiming to
understand potential hires or improve team dynamics. By identifying key personality
traits that align with specific roles or environments, the 16PF helps organizations
make informed decisions, leading to improved hiring practices and enhanced team
effectiveness.

v. Promoting Self-Awareness

Lastly, the 16PF questionnaire fosters self-awareness by encouraging individuals to

reflect on their traits and behaviors. This introspection can lead to improved interpersonal
relationships and enhanced performance in various settings (Psychoanalytic Association,
 213

2016). By understanding their personality profiles, individuals can set more aligned
personal and professional goals, facilitating ongoing personal development.

Test Disadvantages:

While it has various strengths, it also has notable limitations and disadvantages:

i. Cultural Bias

The 16 PF has been criticized for potential cultural bias. The factors identified may
not be universally applicable across different cultures, leading to misinterpretation of
results. Some traits may be viewed differently depending on cultural contexts, which
can affect the validity of the test in non-Western populations (McCrae & Costa,
1997).

ii. Complexity and Length

The 16 PF consists of a significant number of items (typically 185) and requires a

considerable amount of time to complete. This length can lead to respondent fatigue,
potentially resulting in less thoughtful answers and reduced reliability of the results
(Hough, 1992).

iii. Subjectivity in Interpretation

The interpretation of results can be somewhat subjective. Different psychologists may

provide varying interpretations of the same profile, which can lead to inconsistencies
in assessment (Schneider, 2004).

iv. Limited Predictive Validity

While the 16 PF is useful for understanding personality traits, its predictive validity in
specific occupational contexts has been questioned. Some studies indicate that it may
not be as effective as other assessments in predicting job performance (Tett et al.,
1991).

v. Overemphasis on Normal Personality Traits

The 16 PF primarily focuses on normal personality traits, potentially overlooking

clinical aspects of personality that might be relevant for psychological evaluation or
treatment (Furnham, 1996). This limitation can restrict its utility in clinical settings.

vi. Factor Structure Issues

 214

While the 16 factors were derived from empirical research, subsequent studies have
questioned the factor structure. Some researchers argue that the model may not
capture the full complexity of personality, with alternative models (like the Big Five)
gaining popularity due to their robust factor structures (Goldberg, 1993).

vii. Self-Report Limitations

As with many self-report instruments, the 16 PF is subject to biases such as social

desirability and self-deception. Respondents may provide answers they believe are
more socially acceptable rather than their true feelings or behaviors (Paulhus, 1991).

viii. Cost and Accessibility

While the 16 PF is a recognized tool, it can be costly to administer, especially for

organizations or individuals seeking to use it extensively. The need for trained
professionals to interpret results can also limit accessibility (Silvia & Duval, 2001).
While the 16 PF offers valuable insights into personality, its limitations highlight the
need for careful consideration in its application. Practitioners should be aware of these
disadvantages and consider supplementing the 16 PF with other assessments to obtain
a more comprehensive understanding of an individual’s personality.

7. Applications of the test

The 16PF Questionnaire, although designed to measure normal-range personality traits, is

widely used in counseling and clinical settings for its ability to provide a comprehensive
understanding of individuals' strengths and weaknesses. It fosters dialogue, empathy, and
rapport between clients and clinicians, facilitating self-awareness and collaborative
assessment. The test offers insights into traits like self-esteem, cognitive style, empathy,
interpersonal needs, and coping mechanisms, with Forms C and D commonly used in
occupational selection.

In counseling and clinical use, the 16PF predicts behaviors such as therapy outcomes, stress
resilience, substance abuse, and marital satisfaction. Qualitative research, including H.B.
Cattell's studies show that specific score combinations predict thinking patterns, trust issues,
and therapy outcomes. The 16PF is especially effective in marital counseling, helping to
understand how partners' traits interact.
 215

In organizational contexts, the 16PF aids in employee selection, promotion, and development,
predicting traits like leadership, creativity, teamwork, and job satisfaction. It has proven
effective internationally, though curvilinear relationships (e.g., lower Rule-Consciousness in
police officers) should be considered. For leaders, the 16PF highlights traits such as high
Independence, low Anxiety, Extraversion, and strong Reasoning Ability. Executives favor
Openness-to-Change, while managers value Rule-Consciousness and Perfectionism. These
traits are consistently linked to leadership styles across various countries.

Research on creativity links high Independence, Dominance, Social Boldness, and Openness-
to-Change with creativity, alongside low Tough-Mindedness and lower Self-Control,
confirmed across international studies. For protective service personnel like police officers
and firefighters, the 16PF identifies traits such as emotional stability, responsibility,
discipline, toughness, and boldness. These traits have been validated in large samples, with
variations based on job roles.

8. Recent Researches

The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire is still prevalent in today’s time suggested by a lot
of recent research findings. Some of them are as follows:

In a research conducted by Hobson et.al (2019), it was seen that The 16PF personality test
was utilized as a framework to assess and develop the critically important but often under-
emphasized leadership "soft skills" of MBA students. The test was administered to 59
students in five Teamwork and Team Leadership MBA classes over two years. Test results
were provided in the form of a 16PF Leadership Coaching Report, which identifies strengths,
and weaknesses, performance comparisons to successful leaders, and specific developmental
recommendations. Students were asked to use the report as the basis for an assignment to (1)
better leverage two of their existing strengths in the workplace and (2) make improvements in
two of their weaker areas. Anonymous, end-of-semester responses from students were
uniformly very positive.

Moghanloo (2021) conducted a study to examine the personality profile of prisoners in

Yasooj Central Penitentiary (YCP) via Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors. 50 prisoners and 50
people from non-prison communities of either gender were selected and evaluated using a
demographic questionnaire and Cattell’s 16 PF. He concluded that 16 PF can predict crime
and that examining the relationship between crime and personality traits can be the most
original and enduring approach to studying crime.
 216

Another study by Ron Jacobs ( 2019), revealed the use of 16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire, form A on Deaf University students. Numerous investigations have been
undertaken to discern which standardized paper-and-pencil personality inventories, if any, are
appropriate for use with deaf individuals; (Bannowsky, 1983; Dwyer & Wincenciak, 1977;
Jensema, 1975a, 1975b; Levine, 1978; Shafqat, 1986; Trybus, 1973; Vemon & Brown, 1964;
Watson, 1979). One such instrument that has received considerable attention is the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). While reliability and validity estimates were
somewhat below those found in published data for the 16PF, the internal consistency
coefficients were encouraging, given the small sample size. The score profile described this
group as academically successful college students, supporting acceptable construct validity.

Dr. Munendra Kumar’s (2018) study, ‘A Comparative Study of Personality Characteristics in

Engineering and Management Graduates’ explores the personality profiles of 200 students
pursuing B. Tech and M. B. A. Courses. The research utilized Cattell's 16 PF Questionnaire
to compare the personality characteristics of engineering and management graduates. The
study aimed to identify differences in personality traits between two groups of students.
Results showed that there were no significant differences among students in the personality
profiles based on academic background except for measures of sensitivity and perfectionism.
The mean calculated showed that the students with Science background were more tough
minded than the students with Art background. This shows that the Management students are
more self-reliant, realistic, responsible and emotionally though. Another significant
difference found is the measure of perfectionism. Management students are more socially
aware, controlled, self-disciplined and perfectionists as compared to the background students.
The mean calculated for the measure of vigilance though not significant in the present study
showed that science students are good team members as compared to the Art graduates.

Gonzálvez et al. (2016) conducted a study investigating the relationship between personality
traits and substance use among 1,455 adolescents from Spanish public schools. Utilizing the
16 Personality Factor Questionnaire, the researchers explored how personality traits
correlated with the consumption of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis. The findings revealed a
complex interaction between substance use and specific personality traits. Cocaine use was
significantly associated with Warmth, Stability, Calmness, and Perfectionism, suggesting that
individuals exhibiting these traits might be more inclined towards cocaine consumption.
Alcohol use was linked to a broader range of traits, including Stability, Friendliness, Trust,
Openness to Experience, Perfectionism, and Calmness, indicating that sociability and
 217

openness may increase vulnerability to alcohol use. Similarly, cannabis consumption showed
significant correlations with Sensitivity, Trust, Openness to Experience, Perfectionism, and
Calmness.

The gender-specific analysis revealed that personality traits influence substance use
differently in men and women. For women, traits like sociability and emotional openness
were more strongly linked to alcohol consumption, while trust and calmness were associated
with cannabis use. In men, similar traits like sociability and trust influenced both alcohol and
cannabis use, but the patterns were less varied. These findings suggest that personality-driven
tendencies shape substance use behaviors differently across genders, emphasizing the need
for nuanced prevention strategies.The study highlights the significant role personality traits
play in shaping substance use patterns, with distinct traits being more predictive of specific
substances.

In a research conducted by Shouxi Zhu, Jian Chen on personality development in aviation

professionals, the Cattell 16 Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire was employed to assess
personality changes among 200 flight technology students and 200 “college graduates to
pilot” participants. The test was administered across five stages: before aviation theory
training, after

theory training, post-flight training, during cadetship, and upon becoming captains. The
initial assessment revealed significant differences in 11 personality factors (e.g., Warmth,
Reasoning) between the two groups. However, these differences reduced to four factors (e.g.,
Sensitivity, Openness to Change) following theory training and disappeared entirely after
flight training. As participants progressed in their careers, substantial personality changes
were observed, with flight technology students showing shifts in 13 factors and graduates
experiencing changes in Participants' growth was shaped primarily by three critical stages:
university study, flight training, and the transition from copilot to captain.

Newer studies actually uncover that global sex differences in personality are more significant
than originally thought, and studies suggest that the personality profile of a randomly selected
male would remain more male-typical than a female’s 93% of the time (Del Giudice, 2019).
This large multivariate difference supports the notion that personality variables, such as those
assessed with 16 personality factors (16 PF), have considerable gender differences. While
individuals overlap substantially on individual traits, the chronic categorical stereotypes for
male and female behavior may result from a tendency to judge global personality profiles that
 218

leads to an appreciation of a boundary separating the sexes. This calls for further research
into how the 16 PF can serve as an accurate index of these differences; thus, this indicates the
origin of sex differences and their manifestations in measures of personality. Such findings
could further enhance the predictive validity of the 16 PF in differentiating between genders,
underpinning the need to understand personality in a multidimensional context.

Beata and Dariusz did research in 2022 on Use of the MMPI-2 and 16PF-5 in predicting
perseverance in the order and changes in personality during religious life: a longitudinal
study of Polish Catholic nuns. This study aimed to investigate the differences in
psychological functioning between nuns and those who left the order and the changes in
personality in persevering nuns along the religious life timeline. Data were collected at two
time points seven years apart. A total of 103 nuns participated in the research at Time 1; 45
left the order, and 29 participated in the study at Time 2. The MMPI-2 and Cattell’s 16PF-5
were utilised. The results indicated the absence of profound deviations from the norm in the
persevering and non-persevering groups. The non-persevering group reported more
favourable self-presentation and contentment with life than the persevering group. Significant
differences were obtained on the MMPI-2 and the 16PF-5 scales in persevering nuns between
Time 1 and 2. At Time 2, nuns reported lower response inconsistency, lower family conflicts,
stronger identification with the stereotypically female role, and higher emotional stability
than at Time 1. This study demonstrated that the MMPI-2 and 16PF-5 could be considered
efficient assessment tools for religious organisations that utilise psychological screening in
their enrolling process.

C. Administration of the Test

1. Material Used

The materials required for the test administration include:

16 Personality Factor Scale (16 P.F.) Test Booklet Form C, Answer Sheet, Stationary, 16
Personality Factor (16 P.F.) Scoring Key - Form C, Norm table, Profile sheet.

2. Precautions

To avoid social desirability effects, it was assured that the test taker had no previous
knowledge of the topic. A peaceful testing setting was maintained to eliminate
distractions and promote concentration. The test taker was situated comfortably, and any
indications of anxiety were addressed, as discomfort could have hampered performance.
 219

A positive rapport was built with the test taker in order to provide an interesting testing
atmosphere and encourage open communication. To ensure correct scoring, test takers
were clearly asked to mark their answers on a separate answer sheet rather than the test
booklet.

3. Instructions

Inside this booklet are some questions to see what attitudes and interests you have. There
are no "right" and "wrong" answers because everyone has the right to his own views. To
be able to get the best advice from your results, you will want to answer them exactly and
truly.

Write your name and all other information asked for on the top line of the Answer Sheet.

First you should answer the four sample questions below so that you can see whether you
need to ask anything before starting. Although you arc to read the questions in this
booklet, you must record your answer on the answer sheet (alongside the same number as
in the booklet).

There are three possible answers to each question. Read the following examples and
mark your answers at the top of your answer sheet where it says "Examples." Fill in
the left-hand box if your answer choice is the "a" answer, in the middle box if your
answer choice is the "b" answer, and in the right-hand box if you choose the "c"
answer.

EXAMPLES:

1. I like to watch team games.

a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no

2. I prefer people who:

a. Are reserved, b. (are) in between, c. Make friends quickly.

3. Money cannot bring happiness.

a. yes (true), b. in between, c. no (false)

4. Woman is to child as cat is to:

a. kitten, b. dog, c. boy

 220

b. (are) in between,

c. Make friends quickly.

In the last example there is a right answer - kitten. But there are very few such
reasoning items.

Ask now if anything is not clear. The examiner will tell you in a moment to turn the
page and start.

When you answer, keep these four points in mind:

1. You are asked not to spend time pondering. Give the first, natural answer as if
comes to you. Of course, the questions are too short to give you all the particulars you
would sometimes like to have. For instance, the above question asks you about "team
games" and you might be fonder of football than basketball. But you are to reply "for
the average game," or to strike an average in situations of the kind stated. Give the
best answer you can at a rate not slower than five or six a minute. You should finish
in a little more than half an hour.

2. Try not to fall back on the middle, "uncertain" answers except when the answer at
either end is really impossible for you — perhaps once every four or five questions.

3. Be sure not to skip anything, but answer every question, somehow. Some may not
apply to you very well, but give your best guess. Some may seem personal; but
remember that the answer sheets are kept confidential and cannot be scored without a
special stencil key. Answers to particular questions are not inspected.

4. Answer as honestly as possible what’s true of you. Do not merely mark what seems
"the right thing to say" to impress the examiner.

4. Conduction Procedure

The administration of the 16PF test began with a period of pre-test preparation in a
distraction-free, quiet setting. Participants received test booklets and answer sheets
and were previewed in general about what the test would consist of, and that there
would be no correct or incorrect answers to look for and that each response had been
promised to be kept confidential in order to encourage candid response. The
participant was then introduced to four sample questions in order to get them
accustomed to the form. They were instructed to answer questions according to the
 221

first, most natural reactions that occurred without overthinking, and not to utilize too
much time on the neutral option 'b' unless necessary. It was taken at a normal speed,
and it was estimated to take approximately between 30-45 minutes, and it was
observed by the facilitator. Participants would then answer the test; after answering
the test, answer sheets were collected from participants, and confidentiality was
reminded to them. Then the test was scored with the use of a stencil in order to
interpret the personality traits of each participant.

5. Observation of the participant

During the 16 PF assessment, the participant approached the questions with a serious
and contemplative attitude. While she maintained a steady pace, there were moments
of hesitation, particularly when considering more nuanced questions.

6. Reaction to the Test

After completing the 16 PF assessment, she expressed a sense of relief and curiosity
about her results. She mentioned that the process was more introspective than she had
anticipated. Although she found some questions challenging, she appreciated the
opportunity to gain insight into herself.

RESULTS

Table 9.1

Participant’s score on 16 PF Scale

Factors Raw score Sten Score

Warmth (A) 4 2

Reasoning (B) 5 6

Emotional Stability 5 4

(C)

Dominance (E) 7 7
 222

Liveliness (F) 4 3

Rule Conscientiousness (G) 6 5

Social Boldness (H) 1 2

Sensitivity (I) 6 4

Vigilance (L) 8 8

Abstractness (M) 5 5

Privateness (N) 7 7

Apprehension (O) 8 6

Openness to Change (Q1) 6 5

Self-reliance (Q2) 9 10

Perfectionism (Q3) 7 5

Tension (Q4) 10 8

Motivational distortion (MD) 10 7

Table 9.1 shows all the factors of the 16 PF, including the raw scores and sten scores.
However, adjustments were made due to motivational distortions, and the final scores are
presented below.

Table 9.2

Participant’s scores on 16 PF scale after adjustment for MD scores

 223

Factors Raw score Sten Score (Adjusted) Interpretation

Warmth (A) 4 1 Low

Reasoning (B) 5 6 Average

Emotional Stability 5 3 Low

(C)

Dominance (E) 7 7 Average

Liveliness (F) 4 3 Low

Rule Conscientiousness (G) 6 4 Average

Social Boldness (H) 1 2 Low

Sensitivity (I) 6 4 Average

Vigilance (L) 8 9 High

Abstractness (M) 5 5 Average

Privateness (N) 7 7 Average

Apprehension (O) 8 7 Average

Openness to Change (Q1) 6 5 Average

Self-reliance (Q2) 9 10 High

Perfectionism (Q3) 7 4 Average

Tension (Q4) 10 9 High

 224

Table 9.2 presents the participant's raw and sten scores after accounting for motivational
distortions. The participant achieved high scores on factors Q2, Q4, and L, while scoring
average on factors B, C, E, G, I, M, N, O, Q1, and Q3. Low scores were observed on factors
A, C, F, and H.

DISCUSSION

Personality encompasses the enduring characteristics and behaviors that shape a person’s
unique adaptation to life, including their interests, values, drives, self-concept, abilities, and
emotional patterns. Though theories differ on its development, all agree that personality
influences behavior. (APA, 2008)

The 16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor) Questionnaire, developed by Raymond Cattell in

collaboration with Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber, is a self-report personality test
designed to measure 16 source traits, providing insights into an individual's behavior and
characteristics. The 1969 edition, Form C was used for the assessment. Form C along with
Form D, are the only versions that include a measure of Motivation Distortion (MD). The test
has 69 items and takes approximately 25-30 minutes to complete.

The participant scored high on Factors L, Q2, and Q4.

Regarding Factor L (Vigilance), scoring high may reflect a skeptical approach towards
everything. The participant may be cautious and mistrusting, often maintaining a watchful
attitude towards the intentions and behaviors of others. She may have a tendency to be
deliberate in their actions.

For Factor Q2 (Self-Reliance), a high score may suggest a strong preference for
independence and self-sufficiency. The participant may favor making decisions alone and
tend to rely on their own judgment rather than seeking help or support from others.

A high score on Factor Q4 (Tension) may indicate a tendency towards being tense, driven,
and easily frustrated. She may often feel restless and find it challenging to relax, as she may
feel that she is usually under pressure. This may disrupt her school and work performance.
 225

The participant scored an average on factors B, E, G, I, M, N, O, Q, Q3.

For Factor B (Reasoning), an average score may suggest a typical cognitive functioning, with
no significant leaning towards either concrete or abstract thinking. The participant’s
reasoning abilities may be considered adequate for everyday problem-solving.

Regarding Factor E (Dominance), the score may suggest a moderate level of assertiveness,
meaning the participant may be both accommodating and assertive when needed, without
displaying overly submissive or dominating behavior.

For Factor G (Rule-Consciousness), an average score may indicate a typical adherence to

social norms and rules, balancing a sense of morality and conscientiousness with a
willingness to be flexible and not strictly bound by rules.

For Factor I (Sensitivity), the average score may reflect a balance between emotional
sensitivity and practicality. She may be realistic but may also be impatient and temperamental
at times.

An average score on Factor M (Abstractedness) may suggest a balance between imaginative

creativity and practicality at times.

Regarding Factor N (Privateness), an average score may suggest a typical level of openness,
where the participant may be neither overly secretive nor overly self-disclosing.

For Factor O (Apprehension), an average score may suggest a balanced level of self-doubt
and self-satisfaction, meaning she may feel free of guilt. She may experience occasional
worries, but these may not be excessive.

An average score on Q1 (Openness to Change) may suggest a moderate openness to new

experiences, indicating that she may have a readiness to adapt while also valuing stability.

Lastly, an average score on Q3 (Perfectionism) may suggest a balanced approach to

organization and self-discipline. She may not be overly considerate about details while still
being socially aware and careful.

The participant scored a low score on Factors A, F, C, H.

 226

For A (Warmth), a low score may suggest a tendency toward being emotionally detached.
She may have a precise and rigid approach to tasks, often preferring to work alone. She may
also be reserved and tend to be skeptical about most things.

A low score on F (Liveliness) may indicate that the participant may be of restrained nature,
suggesting that she may not express enthusiasm or energy in social situations. She may be
dependable and may excel as crisis management leaders due to her serious nature.

Regarding C (Emotional Stability), a low score suggests a tendency toward emotional

instability, meaning that she may experience frequent mood fluctuations and difficulty
managing stress. She may have a low tolerance for frustration in unsatisfactory conditions.

For H (Social Boldness), a low score may indicate that the participant may feel
uncomfortable or shy in social interactions and may avoid taking social risks. She may often
experience feelings of inferiority and may be slow in expressing themselves. She may tend to
dislike occupations that involve frequent personal contact.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The participant could be recommended the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10; Cohen, Kamarck,
& Mermelstein, 1983). This self-report questionnaire measures the perception of stress and
helps identify how different situations affect feelings of stress. Given her high score in
Tension, the PSS can provide valuable insights into her stress levels and coping mechanisms.
Additionally, considering her tendencies toward skepticism and self-reliance, the PSS can
help her understand her stress triggers and develop effective strategies for managing stress,
ultimately supporting her emotional well-being.

CONCLUSION

The scores of the participant on the 16 PF questionnaire were calculated and found to be:

Factors Interpretation

Vigilance (L) High

Self-reliance (Q2) High

Tension (Q4) High

 227

Reasoning (B) Average

Dominance (E) Average

Rule Conscientiousness (G) Average

Sensitivity (I) Average

Abstractness (M) Average

Privateness (N) Average

Apprehension (O) Average

Openness to Change (Q1) Average

Perfectionism (Q3) Average

Warmth (A) Low

Liveliness (F) Low

Emotional Stability (C) Low

Social Boldness (H) Low

REFERENCES

Aluja, A., Garcıa, O., Rossier, J., & Garcıa, L. F. (2005). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the
NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss
and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 591-604.
 228

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2:
Manual for administration and scoring. University of Minnesota Press.

Cattell, H. E. P. (2001). The Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) questionnaire. In Springer eBooks
(pp. 187–215). Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF). In

G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory
and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135–159). Sage
Publications, Inc.

Ciccarelli, S. K.; White, J. N. Adapted by Girishwar Misra (2018). Psychology (5th Edition).
Pearson.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment
using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1),
21–50.

Furnham, A. (1996). The Big Five and the 16PF: A comparative study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21(4), 553-560.

Gavrilescu, M., & Vizireanu, N. (2017). Predicting the sixteen personality factors (16PF) of an
individual by analyzing facial features. Journal of Image and Video Processing, 2017 (59),
1-13.

Gonzálvez M., Espada J., Guillén-Riquelme A. et al. (2016). Association between personality
traits and substance use in Spanish adolescents. Adicciones, 28(2), 108–115.

Hobson, C. J., Roberts, C. S., Selladurai, R., & Szostek, J. (2019). Assessing and Developing
Leadership Capabilities in MBA Students Using The 16PF® Personality Test.Business
Education Innovation Journal, 11(1).

Kaiser, T., Del Giudice, M., & Booth, T. (2019). Global sex differences in personality:
Replication with an open online dataset. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1111-1126.

Kumar, M. (2018). A Comparative Study of Personality Characteristics of Engineering and

Management Graduates. IJCRT Volume 6.

Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). The personality theories of H. J. Eysenck and J. A. Gray: A
comparative review. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 583-626.
 229

Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003b). Personality traits.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin &O.
P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153).
Guilford Press.

Minutes. (2017). Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator: How knowing your personality type can
help you. 50Minutes.com.

Moghanloo, M. (2021). Comparison of personality profile of prison criminals in the Yasooj

Central Penitentiary and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors.Industrial
Psychiatry Journal, 30(2), 316.

Pulkkinen, L., Kokkonen, M., & Mäkiaho, A. (1998). Positive affectivity, Self-Mastery, and sense of
failure as predictors of Self-Assessed health. European Psychologist, 3(2), 133–142.

Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2015). A model for personality at three levels. Journal of
Research in Personality, 56, 70–81.

Rivera, H. (n.d.). Critique of 16 PF. Eastern New Mexico University.

Sellbom, M. (2019). The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Assessment of personality

and psychopathology in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
15, 149–177.

Zárate-Torres, R., & Correa, J. C. (2023). How good is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for
predicting leadership-related behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 940961.
Post-task Questions

1) How was your experience with the test?

It was interesting. I really liked the questions.

2) Did you find anything discomforting throughout the test period?

No.

3) Have you done a test like this before?

No.

4) Was it difficult to choose Yes/No/In between options?

Yes, I found it a little bit confusing and difficult. I think I don’t see myself as someone on
extreme ends.

5) What do you think the test measures?

Maybe, it measures my attitudes.

6) How would you describe your experience while giving the test?
It was reflective.

7) Is there anything you want me to explain you?

No.