IPOLOGIA FACTORIALISTA R B CATTELL

TIPOLOGIA FACTORIALISTA R. B. CATTELL

Raymond Bernard Cattell (N. 1905) a fost unul din psihologii moderni, de inalta contributie, la dezvoltarea psihologiei contemporane. A studiat, intai, fizica si chimia, care I-au creat o optica deosebit de implicata, in exactitati si sistematizari, ca si in preocupari pentru extinderea conceptuala si metodologica a psihologiei, fata de care, I-a acaparat un interes deosebit, pentru care, a inceput sa se pregateasca in psihologie. A fost influentat de Ch. E. Spearman (1863-1945), cel ce a implicat in psihologia moderna, optica factorialista. Cattell a fost interesat, mai ales, de problemele inteligentei, ale temperamentului, si apoi, ale personalitatii, cea mai mare parte a activitatii sale stiintifice, pana in zilele noastre. A fost implicat, in activitati, la Clark University (USA), apoi la Harvard, si in continuare, la Universitatea din Illinois, unde a fost succesorul lui Charmicael. In 1949, s-a creat Institutul de Testare a Personalitatii si Abilitatilor, la care a lucrat, si pe care, le-a dezvoltat foarte mult. L-a preocupat mult, dezvoltarea psihologiei, constituirea de coerente, in corpul acestei stiinte, si implicarea in uzanta, a unei tehnologii complexe adecvate, si pentru implicarea psihologiei, in stiintele de suport ale vremii. Cattell a fost influentat, si de Allport, mai ales de teoria personalitatii, dezvoltata de acesta. Testul de personalitate construit de R. B. Cattell este cunoscut sub denumirea P.F.16 (testul de personalitate factorial de 16 factori). Cattell a diferentiat din multitudinea potentiala de factori, ce se afla in compozitia personalitatii, 16 ca fiind mai importanti. El a notat factorii implicati, cu litere, pentru a evita definitii controversate, si pentru a conversa, forme de relationare factoriale. Fara indoiala, acea conotatie, este datorata, in parte, spiritului sau, format sub incidentele chimiei. De altfel, o astfel de notatie permite o mai facila operare si relationare factoriala. Cattell a considerat ca, exista doua categorii mari de factori. Unii ce se manifesta (constienti) si altii ce se manifesta voalati (fiind inconstienti). Acestia din urma au fost 4 in P.F.16. Factorii pusi in evidenta de Cattell, prin testul sau de personalitate, sunt bivalenti, cu conotatii de + si - (plus si minus). Prezentarea acestor factori permite, din capul locului, o impartire tipologica, in 16 grupe mari, legate de dominatia unui anumit factor, din cei 16, si o tipologie de 32 de tipuri, in conditiile implicatiei, valorilor plus si minus, la fiecare factor implicat in test. Ca atare, tipologia implicata in testul lui R.B.Cattell, este una dintre cele mai ample, si se afla in corcondanta cu cel putin doua deziderate, ce se constituie in psihoogia diferentiala moderna. Unul dintre deziderate se refera la cresterea relativa de cuprindere a diferentierii in tipologii, iar a doua priveste implicarea unui model cu dominante si submisii de caracteristici psihice, in modelul oferit. 11326iox52hqm1h Dam mai jos factorii implicati in tipologia lui Cattell. A. Factor de schizotimie (-), si Afectotimie (+) oq326i1152hqqm

In ipostaza (-) e vorba de o personalitate rece, rezervata, detasata, in genere, fata de situatii, putin sociabila si introvertita. In varianta (+) se pune in evidenta o personalitate deschisa, cooperanta, calda, sociabila si introvertita. B. Factorul ce se refera la Inteligenta In caz de (-) este vorba de o personalitate slab inteligenta, cu dominatie de gandire concreta, adaptativa, cu spirit analitic, uneori excesiv, incapabil de generalizari coerente si de abstractizari. In caz de (+) se exprima inteligenta abstracta, inalta, spirit viu si activ, cu posibilitati achizitive foarte mobile. C. Factorul de manifestare a Eului (in analiza acestuia se tine seama si de factorul E.) Cand C este corelat (-) cu E (-) se pune in evidenta o persoana instabila, nerealista, sugestionabila, imitativa, cu o natura emotionala excesiva si sensibila. Cand se coreleaza C (+) cu E(+) se exprima o personalitate cu maturitate si stabilitate emotionala, calma, neinfluentabila si realista. D. Si factorul D este corelat cu factorul E si cu factorul B si are conotatie privind dominatia si submisia. In caz de (-) submisie e vorba de o persoana modesta, docila si conventionala. In caz de (+) dominatie, personalitatea in cauza este sigura de sine, autoritara si neconventionala. La acestea se adauga independenta evidenta in comportamente. E. Factor de expansivitate si nonexpansivitate. In caz de (-) persoana in cauza este prudenta, dispune de o comunicativitate slaba, un introspectionism cu tendinte pesimiste. In caz de (+) e vorba de persoane expansive cu structuri relativ superficiale, logoreice impulsive, dar si entuziaste. F. Factor de forta al Eului, exprimat prin dependenta-independenta. In caz de (-) persoana este dependenta, pe de o parte in principii, iar pe de alta parte este conventionala.

In caz de (+) se evidentiaza un Eu, dar, mai ales, un Supraeu corectiv si cenzurat puternic, fapt ce, creeaza personalitatii in cauza, un caracter ferm, simtul datoriei, perseverenta, afirmativ cu onestitate. G. Factor de anxietate In varianta (-) e vorba de persoane neincrezatoare, timide, inchise in sine si timorate. In varianta (+) persoana in cauza este sociabila, indrazneata, intreprinzatoare, disponibila la inovatii, spontana si indrazneata. H. Factor de afectivitate In caz de (-) este vorba de o persoana dura, insensibila, satisfacuta de sine. In caz de (+) se exprima o persoana sensibila, tandra, dependenta. L. Factor de paroxism- paranoism In caz de (-) este vorba de o persoana dificila, egocentrica, mereu geloasa, suspicioasa. In caz de (+) persoana in cauza, este acomodabila, increzatoare, dar necompetitiva, in general. M. Factor de conventionalism In caz de (-) se exprima persoane conventionale, dar practice, lipsite de imaginatie, dar rationale. In caz de (+) e vorba de persoane neconventionale, boeme, originale, imaginative. N. Factor de variabilitate In caz de (-) se manifesta personalitati simple, naturale, directe, relativ sentimentale, cu clarviziune, cinice si de rafinament. In caz de (+) e vorba de persoane increzatoare, calme, fara nelinisti, angoase si temeri. Q. Factorul incredere- neincredere In caz de (-) e vorba de persoane nelinistite, depresive, adesea neincrezatoare. In caz de (+) e vorba de personalitati calme, increzatoare in sine si in altii, faara angoase si temeri.

Q1. Factor de conservatorism, radicalism Prima varianta se exprima prin persoane traditionaliste, ce accepta confruntari, fara comentarii. Acestor persoane le place, sa conserve tot felul de lucruri. Sunt conservatoare si la propriu si la figurat. Varianta a doua, se refera la persoane radicaliste, critice, dure si inovatoare, cu o curiozitate dezvoltata. Q2. Factor de dependenta- independenta Prima varianta este a persoanelor dependente, si cu atasament excesiv, fata de grupul de apartenenta, fara opinii personale. A doua varianta are, in vedere, persoane cu opinii si decizii proprii, originale, inclusiv in actiuni, detasate, discrete, fata de grupul de aparteneta. Q3. Factor de integrare slaba sau buna. Prima varianta se refera la personalitati neimpacate cu sine, supuse permanent impulsurilor. A doua varianta se refera la personalitati, ce se controleaza permanent, sunt integre, dar si, formaliste si vanitoase. Q4. Factor de destindere, tensiune Prima varianta are in atentie personalitati calme, nepasatoare, satisfacute, nefrustrate si nefrustrante. A doua varianta se refera la personalitati mereu tensionate de ceva, incordate, mereu surmenate, surescitate si frustrate. Dupa cum, se poate lesne vedea, 6 factori sunt legati de afectivitate (anxietate). Se reproseaza factorialistilor, implicatia analizei cantitative matematice implicate in corelatiile, dintre ei, pentru a se calcula corelatia si saturatia diferentiala factoriala. In genere, se poate spune, ca ar exista atatia factori, cate forme de expresie se manifesta. Analiza factoriala ramane un instrumentar, o constructie matematica, ce pune in evidenta aspecte cantitative. Fara indoiala, acestea au rostul sa stabileasca finetea caracteristicilor, ceea ce, constituie un suport, pentru evidentierea calitativa specifica.

Contributions and Limitations of Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Model

Heather M. Fehriinger Rochester Institute of Technology Personality traits and scales used to measure traits are numerous and commonality amongst the traits and scales is often difficult to obtain. To curb the confusion, many personality psychologists have attempted to develop a common taxonomy. A notable attempt at developing a common taxonomy is Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Model based upon personality adjectives taken form the natural language. Although Cattell contributed much to the use of factor analysis in his pursuit of a common trait language his theory has not been successfully replicated. Science has always strived to develop a methodology through which questions are answered using a common set of principles; psychology is no different. In an effort to understand differing personalities in humans, Raymond Bernard Cattell maintained the belief that a common taxonomy could be developed to explain such differences. Cattell's scholarly training began at an early age when he was awarded admission to King's College at Cambridge University where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry in 1926 (Lamb, 1997). According to personal accounts, Cattell's socialist attitudes, paired with interests developed after attending a Cyril Burt lecture in the same year, turned his attention to the study of psychology, still regarded as a philosophy (Horn, 2001). Following the completion of his doctorate studies of psychology in 1929 Cattell lectured at the University at Exeter where, in 1930, he made his first contribution to the science of psychology with the Cattell Intelligence Tests (scales 1,2, and 3). During fellowship studies in 1932, he turned his attention to the measurement of personality focusing of the understanding of economic, social and moral problems and how objective psychological research on moral decision could aid such problems (Lamb, 1997). Cattell's most renowned contribution to the science of psychology also pertains to the study of personality. Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model aims to construct a common taxonomy of traits using a lexical approach to narrow natural language to standard applicable personality adjectives. Though his theory has never been replicated, his contributions to factor analysis have been exceedingly valuable to the study of psychology.

Origins of the 16 Personality Factor Model

In developing a common taxonomy of traits for the 16 Personality Factor model, Cattell relied heavily on the previous work of scientists in the field. Previous development of a list of personality descriptors by Allport and Odbert in 1936, and Baumgarten's similar work in German in 1933, focused on a lexical approach to the dimensions of personality. Since psychology, like most other sciences, requires a descriptive model to be effective, the construction of a common taxonomy is necessary to successful in explaining personality simplistically (John, 1990). Already focused on the understanding of personality as it pertains to psychology, Cattell set out to narrow the work already completed by his predecessors. The goal of the research is to achieve integration as it relates to language and personality, that is, to identify the personality relevant adjectives in the language relating to specific traits.

The lexical approach to language is creates the foundation of a shared taxonomy of natural language of personality description (John, 1990). Historically, psychologists relied on such natural language to aid in the identification of personality attributes for such taxonomy. The first step in such a process was to narrow all adjectives within a language to those relating to personality descriptions, as it provided the researchers with a base guiding such a lexical approach. When working with a limited set of variables or adjectives within a language progressed from spoken word as it evolved throughout its progression. Since there are finite sets of adjectives in a language, the narrowing of the variables into base personality categories becomes necessary as multiple adjectives can express similar meanings within the language (John, 1999). In the process of developing a taxonomy, a process that had taken predecessors sixty years up to this point, Allport and Odbert systematized thousands of personality attributes in 1936. They recognized four categories of adjectives in developing the taxonomy including personality traits, temporary states highly evaluative judgments of personally conduct and reputation, and physical characteristics. Personality traits are defined as "generalized and personalized determining tendencies--consistent and stable modes of an individuals adjustment to their environment" (John, 1999) as stated by Allport and Odbert in their research. Each adjective relative to personality falls within one of the previous categories to aid in the identification of major personality categories and creates a primitive taxonomy, which many psychologists and researchers would elaborate and build upon later. Norman (1967) divided the same limited set of adjectives into seven categories, which, like Allport and Odbert's categories, where all mutually exclusive (John, 1999). Despite this, work from both parties have been classified as containing ambiguous category boundaries, resulting in the general conviction that such boundaries should be abolished and the work has less significance than the earlier judgment.

Factor Analysis
Introduced and established by Pearson in 1901 and Spearman three years thereafter, factor analysis is a process by which large clusters and grouping of data are replaced and represented by factors in the equation. As variables are reduced to factors, relationships between the factors begin to define the relationships in the variables they represent (Goldberg & Digman, 1994). In the early stages of the process' development, there was little widespread use due largely in part to the immense amount of hand calculations required to determine accurate results, often spanning periods of several months. Later on a mathematical foundation would be developed aiding in the process and contributing to the later popularity of the methodology. In present day, the power of super computers makes the use of factor analysis a simplistic process compared to the 1900's when only the devoted researchers could use it to accurately attain results (Goldberg & Digman, 1994). In performing a factor analysis, the single most import factor to consider is the selection of variables as considerations such as domain, where a single domain results in the highest accuracy, and other representative variables related to a single domain would provide a more accurate outcome (Goldberg & Digman, 1994). Exploratory factor analysis governs a single domain while confirmatory factor analysis, often less accurate and more difficult to calculate, governs several domains. In terms of variables, it is unlikely to see a factor

analysis with fewer than 50 variables. In those situations, another statistical equation may be a better, easier consideration to process the information. A standard sample size for such a function would range between 500 to 1,000 participants (Goldberg & Digman, 1994). Cattell, another champion of the factor analysis methodology, believed that there are three major sources of data when it comes to research concerning personality traits (Hall & Lindzey, 1978). L-Data, also referred to as the life record, could include actual records of a person's behavior in society such as court records. Cattell, however, gathered the majority of L-Data from ratings given by peers. Self -rating questionnaires, also known as Q-Data, gathered data by allowing participants to assess their own behaviors .The third source of Cattell's data the objective test, also known as T-Data, created a unique situation in which the subject is unaware of the personality trait being measured (Pervin & John, 2001). With the intent of generality, Cattell's sample population was representative of several age groups including adolescents, adults and children as well as representing several countries including the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, and Japan (Hall & Lindzey, 1978). Through factor analysis, Cattell identified what he referred to as surface and source traits. Surface traits represent clusters of correlated variables and source traits represent the underlying structure of the personality. Cattell considered source traits much more important in understanding personality than surface traits (Hall& Lindzey, 1978). The identified source traits became the primary basis for the 16 PF Model. The 16 Personality Factor Model aims to measure personality based upon sixteen source traits. Table 1 summarizes the surface traits as descriptors in relation to source traits within a high and low range.

Critical Review
Although Cattell contributed much to personality research through the use of factor analysis his theory is greatly criticized. The most apparent criticism of Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model is the fact that despite many attempts his theory has never been entirely replicated. In 1971, Howarth and Brown's factor analysis of the 16 Personality Factor Model found 10 factors that failed to relate to items present in the model. Howarth and Brown concluded, that the 16 PF does not measure the factors which it purports to measure at a primary level (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1987) Studies conducted by Sell et al. (1970) and by Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) also failed to verify the 16 Personality Factor Model's primary level (Noller, Law, Comrey, 1987). Also, the reliability of Cattell's selfreport data has also been questioned by researchers (Schuerger, Zarrella, & Hotz, 1989). Cattell and colleagues responded to the critics by maintaining the stance that the reason the studies were not successful at replicating the primary structure of the 16 Personality Factor model was because the studies were not conducted according to Cattell's methodology. However, using Cattell's exact methodology, Kline and Barrett (1983), only were able to verify four of sixteen primary factors (Noller, Law & Comrey, 1987).

In response to Eysenck's criticism, Cattell, himself, published the results of his own factor analysis of the 16 Personality Factor Model, which also failed to verify the hypothesized primary factors (Eysenck, 1987). Despite all the criticism of Cattell's hypothesis, his empirical findings lead the way for investigation and later discovery of the 'Big Five' dimensions of personality. Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961) simplified Cattell's variables to five recurrent factors known as extraversion or surgency, agreeableness, consciousness, emotional stability and intellect or openness (Pervin & John, 1999). Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Model has been greatly criticized by many researchers, mainly because of the inability of replication. More than likely, during Cattell's factor analysis errors in computation occurred resulting in skewed data, thus the inability to replicate. Since, computer programs for factor analysis did not exist during Cattell's time and calculations were done by hand it is not surprising that some errors occurred. However, through investigation into to the validity of Cattell's model researchers did discover the Big Five Factors, which have been monumental in understanding personality, as we know it today.

Table 1. Primary Factors and Descriptors in Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model (Adapted From Conn & Rieke, 1994).
Descriptors of Low Range
Reserve, impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, impersonal, detached, formal, aloof (Sizothymia)

Primary Descriptors of High Range Factor

Warmth Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easy going, participating, likes people (Affectothymia) Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright, higher general mental capacity, fast learner (Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity) Emotionally stable, adaptive, mature, faces reality calm (Higher Ego Strength) Dominant, forceful, assertive, aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy (Dominance)

Concrete thinking, lower general mental capacity, less intelligent, Reasoning unable to handle abstract problems (Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reactive emotionally, changeable, affected by feelings, emotionally Emotional less stable, easily upset (Lower Ego Stability Strength) Deferential, cooperative, avoids conflict, submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile, accommodating (Submissiveness) Dominance

Serious, restrained, prudent, taciturn, introspective, silent (Desurgency)

Liveliness

Lively, animated, spontaneous, enthusiastic, happy go lucky, cheerful, expressive, impulsive (Surgency) Rule-conscious, dutiful, conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule bound (High Super Ego Strength)

Expedient, nonconforming, Ruledisregards rules, self indulgent (Low Consciousness Super Ego Strength)

Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, Socially bold, venturesome, thick Social Boldness intimidated (Threctia) skinned, uninhibited (Parmia) Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough minded, self-reliant, noSensitivity nonsense, rough (Harria) Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy (Alaxia) Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution orientated, steady, conventional (Praxernia) Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious, involved (Artlessness) Self-Assured, unworried, complacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self satisfied (Untroubled) Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas (Conservatism) Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower dependent (Group Adherence) Tolerated disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, selfconflict, impulsive, careless of social rues, uncontrolled (Low Integration) Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, patient, composed low drive (Low Ergic Tension) Vigilance Abstractedness Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender minded, intuitive, refined (Premsia) Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, distrustful, oppositional (Protension) Abstract, imaginative, absent minded, impractical, absorbed in ideas (Autia) Private, discreet, nondisclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute, diplomatic (Shrewdness) Apprehensive, self doubting, worried, guilt prone, insecure, worrying, self blaming (Guilt Proneness) Open to change, experimental, liberal, analytical, critical, free thinking, flexibility (Radicalism) Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self sufficient (SelfSufficiency) Perfectionistic, organized, compulsive, self-disciplined, socially precise, exacting will power, control, self sentimental (High Self-Concept Control) Tense, high energy, impatient, driven, frustrated, over wrought, time driven. (High Ergic Tension)

Privateness

Apprehension

Openness to Change Self-Reliance

Perfectionism

Tension

Peer Commentary

Maybe We're Asking the Wrong Question

Jennifer A. Dructor Rochester Institute of Technology There is no doubt in my mind that Raymond Bernard Cattell was an intelligent man. Beginning his college days at age 16 in the field of chemistry and attaining a doctorate degree in psychology immediately thereafter along is an impressive accomplishment. Working with renowned psychologists like Charles Spearman, one of the originators of factor analysis, only adds to this credibility. Nevertheless, I have to question the methodology that contributed to the Sixteen Factor Model of Personality Cattell created. It is no secret that despite multiple attempts to demonstrate the validity of the model, it has never actually been replicated. Even Cattell himself was not able to duplicate his findings, which in my opinion speaks volumes. He did not have the advanced technology to work with like computer software that virtually eliminates human error, which begs the question "How do we know if any of the conclusions were reasonable or valid at all?" Although a useful model known as the "Big Five factors" was developed through investigations into Cattell's theory, I do not feel satisfied with any of the conclusions drawn as to why this model is not conclusive. People often forget that before becoming what we consider a science all fields of study came from philosophy. Is it even possible to come up with an accurate taxonomy of universally common traits? Are the methods of factor analysis and the lexical approach to this question even valid themselves? I think we often get ourselves into trouble when we try to draw conclusions about people using mathematical equations and scientific methods. Yes, it has been widely found that factor analysis has been able to find correlations between various items within psychology; but, I ask, in what situations does one analyze a person's behavior or personality by pulling out that calculator, pencil and paper? The connation I get whenever I read about someone trying to explain people using math is, "How does this make sense?" I think to have a truly deep understanding of a person's traits we must first turn to philosophy and answer the question, "Are there any universal traits, and what reasonable explanations can be provided to support the answer?" Cognitive relativism states that there are no universal truths about the world and that there are no intrinsic characteristics, but only different ways of interpretation (Sterba, 2000). Every culture has its own views of the world, what is right and wrong, and how people should live their lives. Every culture has its own interpretation and holds different meanings for various things; so, how can anything be universally true? As Americans, being citizens of one of the most powerful nations of the world, we often feel that our beliefs and opinions hold true over most nations; but who is to say that our conclusions extend to any nation outside of our culture? To even come close, I think a team of individuals from every nation would have to analyze their own culture and put their findings together. Only then, I believe could these methods be relied on to draw accurate conclusions.

If one day we are able to decisively answer the previously mentioned questions, I think the lexical approach could be a useful tool. It is logical to think that the more words in existence to describe one meaning symbolizes how important it is to society. Yet this method does not include all parts of speech and cannot really accommodate traits that are ambiguous to most people. The lexical approach has been used to find popular meanings, and factor analysis has been used to determine traits that are correlated, but how does this determine the existence of the traits? The communication process human beings went to from primitive days until now was long and complicated. People might not have always been able to communicate all of their thoughts, feelings, or emotions clearly, and we cannot exactly go back in time to find the answers. Although I understand the burning desire to classify traits in order to better understand people, I am not sure that questions about human nature can ever actually be explained. Although our hearts are in the right place, often I feel that our need to figure people out clouds our judgment. I too find myself yearning to better understand others and myself; but I am not yet convinced that any of our methods are valid in doing so. We need philosophy because of our natural tendency not to critically examine our beliefs and to accept accounts of the world given to us because some intelligent person like a psychologist says so or even because a book on the topic tells us so. How well did psychologist Raymond Cattell question his predecessors? Peer Commentary

Is the Development of a Hierarchy of Personality From a Flawed Base Trustworthy?

Mallory R. Harvey Rochester Institute of Technology The five-factor model of personality is based on the fundamental principles and goals of Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model. Cattell's approach to understanding the factors of personality was lexical. He acquired previous compilations of the most common adjectives describing personality and subdivided and excluded terms, ending up with 35 clusters of descriptors. A factor analysis of the 35 clusters resulted in the formation of a hierarchy, which consisted of 16 personality traits. Cattell's results were never duplicated, and his method of organization was discarded. Although his method of analysis was discorroborated, the currently popular five-factor model of personality was developed from Cattell's clusters of personality descriptions. Basing a method of analysis off of a flawed method without questioning the original breakdown of the lexical arrangement leaves doubts as to the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model. Cattell's 35 clusters of personality traits were further limited by Fiske, who used a subset of only 22 clusters and ran a factor analysis. The results of Fiske's analysis provided a fivefactor solution. Tupes and Christal completed further analysis, using larger samples. Their results also corroborated a five-factor hierarchal model of personality (Larsen & Buss, 2002). The most recent form of Cattell's 16 Personality Factor approach declares that the 16 personality traits are results of five major personality factors. This is quite similar to the

five-factor approach in that the global properties of personality are restricted to five characteristics. Recent studies have shown both methods of analysis measure comparable personality factors quite reliably (Rossier, de Stadelhofen, & Berthound, 2004). Recent criticisms of the five-factor model have looked at the possible exclusion of other universal personality factors. Evidence for a sixth factor is strong, and there is some evidence for a seven-factor model. A cross-cultural study completed by Aston et al. (2004) suggests that a factor containing the aspects of Honesty or Humility should be added to the current five-factor model to make it more comprehensive. Further evidence has suggested that a global property of personal attractiveness may be a feasible addition to the current model (Larsen & Buss, 2002). The numerous exclusions marked by recent research suggest that the foundations of the five-factor model should be reevaluated. The five-factor model has also been criticized for being unable to concretely label the fifth factor. There has been much debate as to the validity of either Intelligence or Imitation as the fifth factor. Comparing different cultures has caused much of the dispute over the labeling of the fifth factor. Different cultures value different personality characteristics, and this contributes to the problem of defining the fifth factor (Larsen & Buss, 2002). The difference in values leads to the conclusion that, globally, there cannot be a consensus on a fifth trait and calls into question the possibility of a globally reliable hierarchy of personality. Cattell paved the way for the development of the five-factor model of personality, but the process developed has not been entirely substantiated. Many aspects of personality appear to have been overlooked in the process of clumping together and discarding adjectives in the original lexical breakdown performed by Cattell. There has been a great influx of support for the addition of a sixth factor of personality. Much thought should be given to how statistical processes are performed and what in reality is being measured. Author Response

Factor Analysis Questioned

Heather M. Fehringer Rochester Institute of Technology A question has been posed about the efficacy of using factor analysis as an approach to identifying individual traits. Trait theorists employ three main approaches in their research, the lexical approach, the statistical approach, and the theoretical approach. Most trait psychologists have employed one or more of the three main approaches. Cattell based his work on previous information gathered through the lexical approach of Allport and Odbert and the statistical approach, factor analysis. Simply put, factor analysis is a process by which large clusters and grouping of data are replaced and represented by factors. As variables are reduced to factors, relations between the factors begin to define the relations in the variables they represent (Goldberg & Digman, 1994).

I for one am not a mathematician and will not attempt to explain the methodology any further. I would refer anyone looking for a further in-depth explanation of the methodology of factor analysis to the chapter, "Revealing Structure in the Data: Principles of Exploratory Factor Analysis," by Goldberg and Digman (1994).

References
Aston, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366. Cattell, R. B. (1990). Advances in Cattellian personality theory. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 101-110). New York: Guildford. Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champagne, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Goldberg, L. R., & Digman, J. M. (1994). Revealing structure in the data: Principles of exploratory factor analysis. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 216-242). New York: Springer. Lamb, K. (1997). Raymond Bernard Cattell: A lifetime of achievement. Mankind Quarterly, 38, 127. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J. B. (1998). Theories of personality (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Horn, J. (2001). Raymond Bernard Cattell (1905-1998). American Psychologist, 56, 71-72. John, O. P. (1990) The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guildford. John, O. P. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guildford. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2002). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Noller, P., & Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). The Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for five robust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 775-782. Pervin, L. A., & John. O. P. (2001). Personality theory and research (8th ed.). New York: Wiley. Rossier, J., de Stadelhofen, F. M., & Berthound, S. (2004). The hierarchical structures of the NEO-PI-R and the 16 PF 5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 27-38. Schuerger, J. M., Zarella, K. L., & Hotz, A. S. (1989). Factors that influence the temporal stability of personality by questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 777-783. Sterba, J. (2000). Ethics: Classical Western texts in feminist and multicultural perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Last modified May 2004 Visited times since May 2004 Comments? Home to Personality Papers Home to Great Ideas in Personality

TEST DE PERSONALITATE - R.B. CATTELL

(manual de utilizare)
CUPRINS: R.B.Cattell i testul su de personalitate (n loc de introducere) 1.Chestionarul 2.Descrierea factorilor de personalitate i semnificaia valorilor acestora 3.Aspecte metrologice ale testului 4.Cheia testului 5.Etalonul

6.Utilizarea testului

R.B.CATTELL I TESTUL SU DE PERSONALITATE: 16PF

(n loc de introducere) Unul dintre marii specialiti care s-au preocupat de problematica personalitii umane a fost i psihologul american R.B.CATTELL. Acesta s-a nscut n Anglia, n anul 1905, trgndu-se dintr-o familie de ingineri cu origini mai vechi n Scoia i cu o linie de rudenie ndeprtat cu Mc Ken Cattell, unul dintre prinii psihologiei americane din secolul trecut, care, ntre altele, a folosit pentru prima dat termenul de test mental. La 19 ani R.B. Cattell a obinut la Universitatea din Londra diploma n fizic i chimie. Sperman i Bot i-au deschis gustul pentru psihologie, n special pentru msurarea capacitilor umane. n 1937 se stabilete n SUA ca cercettor n subordinea lui Thorndike la Teachers College (Columbia University). n 1945 funcioneaz ca profesor la Universitatea Illinois unde s-a preocupat n special de msurarea trsturilor de personalitate. Printre instrumentele elaborate se numr i testul (chestionarul) 16PF. Testul la care ne referim, elaborat pe baza unor cercetri ample i ca un instrument matematic-statistic elevat i rafinat, analiz multifactorial s-a dovedit a fi un instrument valid pentru cunoaterea oamenilor, fapt pentru care a fost preluat de ctre foarte muli psihologi pentru a-l utiliza n psihodiagnosticarea personalitii. A fost preluat i de ctre specialitii din Frana, unde psihologia cunoate o dezvoltare considerabil. Specialitii francezi au adoptat testul lui Cattell, l-au tiprit i apoi l-au pus n circulaie n Europa, iar n anul 1971, am intrat i noi n posesia acestuia. Iniial testul a fost tradus i aplicat unui numr restrns de subieci cunoscui, ocazie cu care s-a constatat c instrumentul la care ne referim ar putea s fie deosebit de util pentru populaia romnreasc cu condiia ca el s fie adaptat la realitatea social de la noi. n aceast ordine de idei, Centrul de organizare i cibernetic n construcii s-a dovedit un loc prielnic pentru experimentarea lui de ctre Cornel Cotor, Aurel Jula i Constantin Zahirnic. Aciunea de adaptare a testului a nceput cu renunarea la forma B a acestuia (din considerente de economisire a timpului) i adptarea formei A de aa manier nct aceasta s ne satisfac exigenele. n acest context, forma A a fost aplicat la peste 1000 de subieci cadre de conducere i specialiti de categorii i vrste diferite din construcii participani la programele de specializare organizate de COCC. Din cei peste 1000 de subieci testai au fost separate la ntmplare 300 de profile pe baza crora s-a elaborat un nou etalon. Dat fiind numrul mare de subieci care necesita a fi examinai cu acest instrument, am fost obligai s procedm la informatizarea lui (transpunerea lui pe calculator, pentru a fi prelucrat i interpretat). Aa a luat natere, n anul 1972, la COCC, varianta 1 232x234c 6PF cu prelucrare i interpretare automat a datelor, realizat de specialitii mai sus citai.

Acest instrument dovedindu-se a fi valid i operant, permind testarea, prelucarea i interpretarea rezultatelor ctorva sute de subieci, n cursul unei singure zile, cu eforturi i cheltuieli relativ mici, a fost preluat de un numr mare de specialiti din ar pentru a fi utilizat. Testul CATTELL 16PF dispune de urmtoarele componente: 1. CHESTIONARUL propriu-zis cu instruciuni de aplicare att pentru corecie i interpretare tradiional. 2. FILE DE RSPUNS: pentru prelucrarea tradiional. 3. GRIL PENTRU CORECIE. 4.FOAIA DE PROFIL. 5.ETALONUL pentru prelucrarea tradiional. 6.CHEIA testului sau modul de cotare al itemilor. 1. CHESTIONARUL propriu-zis este conceput n ideea de a furniza informaii eseniale referitoare la structura personalitii subiecilor investigai. Este alctuit din 187 itemi (ntrebri) care urmresc evidenierea a 16 trsturi de personalitate (factori de personalitate de prim ordin) plus 4 factori de personalitate de ordinul doi[1]. ntrebrile sunt formulate astfel nct s permit trei variante de rspuns (afirmativ, negativ i nedecis) excepie fcnd factorul B care solicit un singur rspuns, cel corect. Cei 16 factori de personalitate vizai, dispun de un numr inegal de itemi (13-26) n funcie de complexitatea i dificultatea de a putea fi surprini prin modul de formulare al acestora. Altfel spus, anumite trsturi de personalitate, mai complexe i mai dificil de surprins i evideniat, necesit un numr mai mare de ntrebri, adresate din perspective diferite. Fiecare item al chestionarului coteaz pentru un singur factor de personalitate. Toi itemii dispun ce aceeai pondere, aspect rezultat din analiza factorial efectuat de autor. n funcie de maniera n care sunt formulate ntrebrile, de sensul polarizrii acestora, cotarea se face n felul urmtor: cnd polarizarea este pozitiv, prima variant de rspuns este cotat cu dou puncte, a doua variant cu un punct i a treia variant cu zero puncte; cnd polarizarea este negativ, varianta a treia este cotat cu dou puncte, varianta a doua cu un punct, iar prima variant cu zero puncte. Fac excepie de

la aceast regul itemii de la factorul B (inteligen) care sunt cotai cu un punct pentru rezolvarea corect i cu zero puncte pentru rezolvarea incorect. Subiecilor crora li se aplic acest chestionar, n funcie de variantele de rspuns pe care le aleg pot obine ntre zero i maximum de puncte pentru fiecare factor de personalitate. Itemii sub forma ntrebrilor formulate au fost repartizai astfel nct s prezinte o variaie pentru subieci. Chestionarul a fost astfel ntocmit nct s reduc pe ct posibil riscul simulrii deliberate, majoritatea ntrebrilor fiind indirecte, legate de aspecte crora subiectul nu le sesizeaz relaia cu nsuirea de personalitate vizat, dar despre care se tie, prin studiul corelaiilor c o testeaz. APLICAREA chestionarului 16PF se poate face individual sau colectiv, potrivit instruciunilor cuprinse n primele dou pagini ale acestuia. Timpul de aplicare este variabil, n funcie de subiecii examinai. Persoanelor care citesc mai repede le sunt suficiente 60 minute pentru parcurgere i completare; celor cu posibiliti mai reduse le sunt necesare 120 minute. La COCC, aplicrii acestui test i s-a alocat 120 minute, inclusiv instruirea n vederea aplicrii. 2.DESCRIEREA FACTORILOR DE PERSONALITAE SEMNIFICAIA VALORILOR ACESTORA Interpretarea factorilor de prim ordin (PRIMARI) Factorul A exprim schizotimia-ciclotimia Schizotimia caracterizeaz un tip de caracter normal, nchis n sine, hipersensibil, dei n aparen rece, tinznd spre inhibiie. Ciclotimia exprim o dispoziie spre o evoluie tonicoafectiv ciclic cu alternane ntre stri active, euforice i depresive, atonie. Iat nsuirile bipolare evideniate: distanapropiere; rceal cldur; rigiditateadptabilitate; bnuialncredere; duritatemaleabilitate; indifereninteres fa de alii; opozan(critic)conlucrabilitate(serviabilitate); deprtareapropiere; dispreuire preuire. A Notele mici obinute la factorul A exprim: rezerv, detaare, tendin de critic, distanare, scepticism, rigiditate, dispre. Persoanele care obin note mici prefer lucrurile n locul oamenilor, le place s lucreze singuri, evitnd confruntrile, sunt exigeni i rigizi n normele personale; sunt critici, opozani i duri. +A Notele mari obinute la factorul A exprim: deschidere, cldur, afectuozitate, un caracter plcut, agreat. Persoanele din aceast categorie sunt apropiate, primitoare, tandre, amabile, capabile s-i exprime emoiile, dispun de capacitate de adaptare, sunt sensibile i se intereseaz de alii. Au preferin pentru profesiunile cu posibiliti de contacte personale, organiznd cu plcere activiti colective i particip la ele, sunt generoi n relaiile personale i nu le este fric de critic. INVESTIGAI I

FACTORUL B vizeaz nivelul intelectual: cultivatnecultivat, perseverena delsarea sau lipsa acesteia, contiina valorii i contiinciozitatea i opusul acestora (ignorana i lipsa de scrupule). B Notele mici exprim o inteligen discret, o gndire concret, lentoarea spiritului (cade greu fisa), atunci cnd este vorba de nelegere i nvare, este greoi i nclinat spre o interpretare concret i literal a fenomenelor. Aceast situaie poate s fie reflexul unei instruiri i educaii neadecvate, fie efectul unei srcii intelectuale de ordin psihopatologic. +B Notele ridicate reflect un nivel intelectual ridicat exprimat de o gndire abstract dezvoltat (capacitatea de a opera cu noiuni din ce n ce mai abstracte, de a opera cu simboluri, de a sesiza rapid aspectele eseniale dintre lucruri i fenomene, de a gsi soluii, etc.). FACTORUL C exprim fora Eului n termeni psihoanalitici, viznd urmtoarele aspecte bipolare: intoleran la frustarematuritate emoional, stabilitateainstabilitatea emoional, nervozitateacalmul, asteniatonicitatea psihic, liniteaagitaia. C Nota sczut arat un caracter emotiv, nestatornic, agitat, influenabil, impresionabil, iritabil, nesatisfcut. +C Nota ridicat arat un caracter stabil emoional, maturitate, calm, realism i capacitate de a susine moralul altora. FACTORUL E se refer la subordonaredominare, influen, esxprimnd supunere dominare, siguran de sinenesiguran, independendependen de opinii, amabilitate severitate, naturalee n comportareseriozitate afectat (nenatural), conformism noncorformism, siguran(neovire)nesiguran(uor ncurcat, tulburat), capacitate de a capta ateniaincapabil de aceast aciune. E Nota sczut evideniaz: modestie, supunere, conformism, linite, acomodare. Cu alte cuvinte, tendina de a ceda uor altora, de a fi docil, sim dezvoltat al culpabilitii i obsesie fa de conveniene. +E Nota ridicat pune n eviden sigurana de sine, caracterul independent dominant, ncpnarea i tendina spre agresivitate, independena n opinii i tendina de a face ceea ce dorete, oponen i autoritarism. FACTORUL F vizeaz expansivitatea exprimat de comunicativitatetaciturnie, nsufleirelipsa de nsufleire (deprimare), vioiciunelentoare. F Nota mic pune n eviden prudena, gravitatea, seriozitatea, rezerva, introspecia. Oamenii din acest categorie au tendin spre ndrtnicie, pesimism, spre o pruden excesiv i arogan.

+F Nota ridicat arat indiferen, nepsare, entuziasm, impulsivitate. Persoanele din aceast categorie sunt vesele i voioase, vorbree, deschise i sincere. Atrag privirile altora pentru a fi alese lideri. FACTORUL G se refer la fora Supra-Eului, la regulile de convieuire social, punnd n eviden respectuleludarea regulilor, hotrreanehotrrea, responsabilitateafuga de rspundere, maturitatea emoionalnerbadarea(preteniozitatea), stabilitate n conduit(activ, harnic)instabil(delstor, lene), prevenitor cu aliineprevenitor, etc. G Nota mic arat oportunism, ocolirea regulilor i legilor i lipsa simului datoriei sau tendin de delsare i neglijen. Oamenii din aceast categorie nu fac eforturi pentru a participa la aciunile colective, manifestnd independen de orice influen a grupului. Sunt tolerani la tensiuni psihice. +G Notele ridicate arat onestitate, integritate moral, perseveren, seriozitate i atenie la regulile de convieuire. Cei ce fac parte din aceast categorie sunt exigeni, cu un sim al datoriei i responsabilitii ridicat, sunt prevztori, contiincioi, moralizatori, prefernd tovria oamenilor serioi i harnici dect a celor amuzani. FACTORUL H vizeaz timiditateandrzneala, cu cortegiile care le nsoesc, dup cum urmeaz: tendina de ntoarcere spre sine(interiorizare)sociabilitate, prudenndrzneal, interes viu pentru sexul opuslips de interes pentru aceast realitate, contiinciozitate superficialitate, sentimente i interese artisticelipsa acestor sentimente i interese, rezonan afectivrceal sau lips de rezonan afectiv. H Nota sczut exprim timiditate, atitudine timorat, nencredere n forele proprii, prudena execesiv. Asemenea oameni ncerc s treac neobservai, au un sentiment de inferioritate, exprimndu-se nesigur i cu reinere, exteriorizndu-se greu, nu agreaz profesiile care presupun contacte personale, iar n relaiile cu semenii lor prefer cercuri restrnse de prieteni. Tendin de dezinteres pentru persoanele de sex opus. +H Nota ridicat exprim ndrzneal, destindere, spontaneitate. Persoanele din aceast categorie dispun de o puternic rezonan afectiv, acceptnd cu uurin refuzurile nedelicate ale altora sau situaii conflictuale dificile, greu de suportat. Sunt ntreprinztoare, acord un interes viu persoanelor de sex opus, petrrecndu-i mult timp vorbind. FACTORUL I (raionalitateafeciune), evideniaz urmtoarele aspecte bipolare: maturitate emoionalimaturitate, independendependen n gndire, satisfacie de sineinsatisfacie, aspru(uneori critic)amabil(apropiat), simul artisticlipsa simului artistic. I Nota sczut exprim: realism i uneori duritate, satisfacie referitoare la propria persoan, raionalitate. Persoanele cu not ridicat se caracterizeaz prin spirit practic, independen i sunt capabile s-i asume responsabiliti. Sunt sceptice, au tendine spre insensibilitate, duritate, cinism i dispreuire. Le plac activitile cu caracter practic.

+I Nota ridicat arat: tandree i dependen afectiv, sensibilitate exagerat i imaturitate afectiv. Persoanele cu note ridicate sunt vistoare, depinznd afectiv de alii i solicit atenie din partea altora, nedispunnd de simul practic. Au aversiune pentru persoanele mai puin rafinate sau pentru aspectele triviale. Sunt predispuse s coboare moralul unui grup printr-o atitudine infantil negativ. FACTORUL L (atitudine ncreztoaresuspiciune), exprim urmtoarele caracteristici contrare: tendina spre invidielipsa de invidie, timiditatea i ruineandrzneala i chiar neruinarea, vioiciuneamorocnozitatea(ursuzitatea), adaptabilitatearigiditatea, interesul fa de aliiindiferena fa de alii. L Nota sczut arat o atitudine ncreztoare, acomodan, capacitate de contacte personale, lipsa invidiei, preocupare de soarta altora, capacitatea de a lucra n echip. +L Nota ridicat arat suspiciune (bnuial), rigiditate, interesul fa de problemele personale (egoism, egocentrism), dezinteres fa de alii, neputina de a lucra n echip (nu este suportat de ctre coechipieri datorit atitudinilor acestuia). FACTORUL M (preocupare fa de aspecte practiceignoran fa de aspecte practice), vizeaz urmtoarele aspecte contrare: convenionalismulneconvenionalismul, logicul imaginativul, nsuirea de a exprima ncrederelipsa acesteia, elecvenainelocvena, sngele receemotivitatea exagerat. M Nota sczut evideniaz spiritul practic, scrupulozitatea, convenionalismul, corectitudinea. Persoanele din aceast categorie sunt grijulii n a face ceea ce se cuvine, acordnd o atenie deosebit problemelor practice, neacionnd la ntmplare, interesnduse de detalii, autocontrolndu-se exagerat, dnd dovad de snge rece n caz de pericol, uneori le lipsete imaginaia. +M Nota ridicat arat puin preocupare de conveniene, originalitate i ignoran fa de realitile cotidiene. Persoanele care obin note ridicate sunt preocupate de idei mree, neglijnd oamenii i realitile materiale. Uneori sunt: extravagante dispunnd de reacii emoionale violente. Pot s mpiedice aciuni colective n virtutea calitilor lor. FACTORUL N se refer la clarviziunenaivitate dup cum urmeaz: cutezan (viclenie) nendemnare n aceast privin, interes fa de aliidezinteres fa de alii i interes fa de sine, satisfacieinsatisfacie, comportare natural i tendin spre corectitudine abilitate, subtilitate, viclenie. N Nota sczut exprim un caracter drept, natural, sentimental, naiv. Persoanele din aceast categorie sunt spontane, uneori repezite i stngace n a face curte i a se face plcute. +N Nota ridicat arat abilitate, subtilitate, perspicacitate, cutezan, interes, viclenie. Asemenea persoane dispun de capacitatea de analiz i sintez ridicate, fiindu-le

strin sentimentalismul. Adopt n activitatea lor i n relaiile cu alii maniere intelectualiste, ncercnd s epateze, pentru atingerea scopului. FACTORUL Q ofer informaii asupra calmului i nelinitii. Q Nota sczut exprim calm (armonie, linite) i ncredere. Asemenea persoane manifest o atitudine general de indiferen, ncredere puternic n forele proprii, siguran n posiblitatea lor de a-i rezolva problemele. +Q Nota ridicat arat nelinite, agitaie, deprimare i tendin de culpabilitate. Asemenea persoane dispun de presentimente i gnduri negre. n situaii dificile prezint nelinite infantil; se simt persecutate i eliminate din grup i incapabile s se integreze. FACTORUL Q1 pune n eviden radicalismulconservatorismul. Q1 Nota sczut exprim conservatorismul, care se definete prin urmtoarele caracteristici: conformism i toleran la deficienele i dificultile tradiiei, ncredere n ceea ce a apucat s cread, accepiune fa de toate adevrurile primare n ciuda contradiciilor, chiar cnd posibilitatea de mbuntire este evideniat; pruden i suspiciune fa de orice idee nou, ceea ce determin ntrzierea sau opoziia fa de orice schimbare. +Q1 Nota ridicat exprim radicalismul care se caracterizeaz prin: spirit novator, sesizarea i critica a tot ceea ce este vechi i perimat, libertatea n gndire i aciune scepticism i curiozitate fa de ideile vechi, capacitate de a suporta bine inconvenienele i schimbarea, interes pentru probleme intelectuale i ndoial fa de aa-zisele adevruri eseniale. FACTORUL Q2 ofer informaii despre atitudinea de dependenindependen fa de grup. Q2 Nota sczut arat dependen social i ataament fa de grup, preferina pentru munc i deciziile n colectiv. Persoanelor cu note sczute la acest factor le place ca societatea (grupul) s-i aprobe i s-i admire, au tendina de a urma calea majoritii ntruct le lipsesc soluiile personale. +Q2 Nota ridicat indic hotrre i independen social. Asemenea persoane fac opinie separat, fr a arta dominan fa de alii, nu pentru c nu i-ar simpatiza ci pentru c nu au nevoie de susinerea lor. FACTORUL Q3 se refer la integrare. Q3 Nota sczut exprim lipsa de autocontrol, conflictul cu sinele, neglijena convenienelor i supunerea fa de impulsuri, neglijena fa de cerinele vieii sociale. Asemenea persoane nu sunt prea prevenitoare, nici scrupuloase sau cugetate, uneori se simt neadaptate.

+Q3 Nota ridicat exprim un autocontrol ridicat, formalism i conformism fa de anumite idei personale, tendin spre circumspecie. Persoanele cu note ridicate dispun de amor propriu, sunt vanitoase i in la reputaia lor, uneori sunt ndrtnice. FACTORUL Q4 pune n eviden tensiunea energetic. Q4 Nota sczut evideniaz destinderea, linitea, apatia, mulumirea i nepsarea; lispa sentimentului de frustraie. Persoanele din aceast categorie pot ajunge lenee, neeficiente n msura n care le lipsete ambiia; denot experien modest. +Q4 Nota ridicat evideniaz ncordare, frustrare, iritare, surmenaj. Evideniaz persoane surescitabile, agitate, nelinitite, irascibile. Asemenea persoane, dei sunt surmenate, nu pot rmne inactive; n grup nu contribuie dect foarte puin la coeziunea acestuia, la disciplin sau la conducere. Insatisfacia acestor persoane reflect un exces de energie stimulat dar nedescrcat, neinvestit. FACTORII DE ORDINUL DOI: 1. 2. 3. 4. ADAPTABILITATEAANXIETATEA INTROVERSIAEXTROVERSIA DINAMISMULINHIBIIA INDEPENDENASUPUNEREA

Calculul notelor standard la factorii de ordinul doi se face dup cum urmeaz: 1.ADAPTABILITATEAANXIETATEA 2x Nota L +3x Nota O +4x Nota Q4 2x Nota C 2x Nota H 2x NotaQ3 + constanta 34 Suma rezultat se mparte la 10 3.INTROVERSIAEXTROVERSIA 2x Nota A +3x Nota E +4x Nota F +5x Nota H 2x Nota Q2 constanta 11 Suma rezultat se mparte la 10 2.DINAMISMULINHIBIIA 2xNota C +2xNota E +2xNota F +2xNota N 4xNota A 6xNota I 2xNota M + constanta 69 Suma rezultat se mparte la 10 4.INDEPENDENASUPUNEREA 4xNota E +3xNota M +4xNota Q1 +4xNota Q2 3xNota A 2x Nota G constanta 4 Suma rezultat se mparte la 10

3.ASPECTE METROLOGICE ALE TESTULUI

a.FIDELITATEA chestionarului a fost verificat prin retestarea a 152 de subieci testai, dup o perioad de 6 luni, cu ocazia participrii acestora la ciclul doi al programului de perfecionare la COCC. Cu acest prilej se costat la toi subiecii examinai c se menin aceleai tendine ale valorilor nsuirilor la ambele testri dei la nici un subiect nu s-au obinut tablouri identice n ceea ce privete notele brute. b.VALIDITATEA chestionarului rezult din coeficientul mare de coinciden ntre valorile obinute prin testarea subiecilor i imaginea furnizat de persoane care cunoteau subiecii examinai. n acest sens am consultat 86 de persoane crora le-am cerut s indice n note de la 1 la 10 nivelul celor 16 factori de personalitate, n funcie de modul n care i-au perceput. Transformnd aceste note n calificative s-a obinut o coinciden de 71% cu nivelurile rezultate prin testare; 22% din informaii au indicat niveluri din trepte proxime (superioare sau inferioare) ale profilului rezultat prin testare. Ct privete validitatea celor patru indicatori sintetici, s-a solicitat opinia a 82 de subieci testai pentru a confirma sau infirma nivelul acestora. Peste 93% din acei subieci s-au recunoscut, confirmnd valabilitatea testului; aproape 7% au afirmat c cifrele nu reflect o situaie strict. SENSIBILITATEA pus n eviden de repartiia rezultatelor este exprimat de valorile cuprinse n tabelul de mai urmtor: Factorii de personalitate A B C E F G H I L M N Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FS 15 9 11 14 10 11 9 10 14 15 12 11 13 11 9 10 Distribuia subiecilor pe factori de nivel S 28 23 27 25 23 30 26 29 30 24 30 27 24 22 29 25 M 72 76 74 73 79 69 81 79 70 70 75 77 79 73 79 79 R 25 29 30 29 27 28 24 24 27 30 25 23 21 25 23 24 FR 12 15 10 11 13 14 12 10 11 13 10 14 15 11 12 14

Dup cte se poate observa, rezultatele obinute se repartizeaz astfel nct respect regula normalitii i exigenele att din punct de vedere al numrului de subieci ct i al diferenei mici dintre subiecii testai.

*repartiia rezulatelor pe 5 niveluri au fost denumite: FS-foarte sczut, S-sczut, M-mediu, R-ridicat, FR-foarte ridicat 4.CHEIA TESTULUI (a=2 pct., b=1 pct., c=0 pct.) Factor A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Not brut (puncte) 20 13 26 26 26 20 26 20 20 26 20 26 20 20 20 26 a Poziia rspunsului cotat cu dou puncte b c 28, 53, 54, 78,103,128 26, 27, 51, 76, 151 77,102,127,153 5, 29, 79, 80, 129, 154 6, 31, 32, 57,81,106 8, 82, 107, 108, 157, 158 9, 34, 59, 84, 159 35, 60, 61, 85, 86, 161 11, 62, 87, 137, 162 13, 63, 64, 89, 139 14, 15, 90, 141, 165, 166 16, 41, 66, 67, 92 19, 44, 68, 93, 144, 168 21, 45, 95, 120, 170 22, 96, 97, 121, 122 23, 24, 123, 147, 172 25, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175

3, 52, 101, 126, 176 152, 177, 178 4, 30, 55, 104, 105, 130, 179 7, 56, 131, 155, 156, 180, 181 33, 58, 83, 132, 133, 182, 183 109, 134, 160, 184, 185 10, 36, 110, 111, 135, 136, 186 12, 37, 112, 138, 163 38, 88, 113, 114, 164 39, 40, 65, 91, 115, 116, 140 17, 42, 117, 142, 167 18, 43, 69, 94, 118, 119, 143 20, 46, 70, 145, 169 47, 71, 72, 146, 171 48, 73, 98, 148, 173 49, 50, 74, 99, 124, 149, 174

Not: Rspunsurile cu varianta a 2-a de la toi factorii, cu excepia factorului B, vor fi cotate cu 4 puncte. La factorul B, rspunsul corect va fi cotat cu un punct. ETALONUL TESTULUI pentru cei 16 factori de personalitate Factor A B C E F G H I L M Foarte sczut (FS) 0-1 2-4 0-3 4-5 0-5 6-7 0-3 4-5 0-2 3-4 0-6 7-9 0-4 5-6 0-2 3-4 0-2 3-4 0-3 4-5 Sczut (S) Mijlociu (M) Ridicat Foarte ridicat

(R) (R) 5-6 7 8-9 10 11 12 13-14 15-20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18 19 20-21 22-26 6 7-9 10 11 12 13-14 15-16 17-19 20-26 5 6 7-8 9-11 12 13 14-17 18 19-26 10-11 12 13-14 15 16 17 18 19-20 7-8 9-10 11 12-13 14-1516-17 18-21 22-24 25-26 5 6-8 9 10 11-12 13 14 15-17 18-20 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12 13-14 15-20 6-7 8 9-10 11 12 13 14 15-16 17-26

N Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

0-5 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-4 0-3

6 3-4 3-4 3-4 5-6 4-5

7 6 5 5 7-9 6-7

8 7 6 6 10 8

9 8-9 7-8 7-8 11 9-10

10 11 12 13 14-16 10-11 12 13-14 15 16-21 9 10 11 12 13-14 9 10-11 12 13-14 15 12-13 14 15 16 17 11-12 13-1415-16 17 18-21

17-20 22-26 15-20 16-20 18-20 22-26

ETALONUL PENTRU FACTORII DE ORDINUL DOI NIVELUL FS S M R FR 20( 1,6 2,56,7 6,810,4 peste 1,7) (+2,4) 10,4 5,1 0,6 2,45,8 5,98,3 peste 8,3 (0,7) (2,3) 3,1 7,9 13,1 16,4 peste (+7,8) 13,00 16,3 19,9 19,9 5 5,68 8,110 10,1 peste (+5,5) 13,5 13,5

ADAPTABILITATEA ANXIETATEA INTROVERSIA EXTROVERSIA DINAMISMUL INHIBIIA INDEPENDENA SUPUNEREA

*Valorile cuprinse ntre 1316 la introversieextroversie exprim ambivertismul. Valorile sub 13 indic introversia, iar cele peste 16 indic extroversia

Factorii de personalitate de ordinul doi sunt obinui din cei 16 factori de personalitate de prim ordin
[1]

Classics in the History of Psychology

An internet resource developed by Christopher D. Green York University, Toronto, Ontario (Return to Classics index)

V.-MENTAL TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS by Prof. J. McK. Cattell (1890)

First published in Mind, 15, 373-381.

Psychology cannot attain the certainty and exactness of the physical sciences, unless it rests on a foundation of experiment and measurement. A step in this direction could be made by applying a series of mental tests and measurements to a large number of individuals. The results would be of considerable scientific value in discovering the constancy of mental processes, their interdependence, and their variation under different circumstances. Individuals, besides, would find their tests interesting, and, perhaps, useful in regard to training, mode of life or indication of disease. The scientific and practical value of such tests would be much increased should a uniform system be adopted, so that determinations made at different times and places could be compared and combined. With a view to obtaining agreement among those interested, I venture to suggest the following series of tests and measurements, together with methods of making them.[1] The first series of ten tests is made in the Psychological Laboratory, of the University of Pennsylvania on all who present themselves, and the complete series on students of Experimental Psychology. The results will be published when sufficient data have been collected. Meanwhile, I should be glad to have the tests, and the methods of making them, thoroughly discussed. The following ten tests are proposed: I. Dynamometer Pressure. II. Rate of Movement. III. Sensation-areas. IV. Pressure causing Pain. V. Least Noticeable difference in Weight. VI. Reaction-time for Sound. VII. Time for naming Colours. VIII. Bi-section of a 50 cm. Line IX. Judgment of 10 seconds time. X. Number of Letters remembered on once Hearing. [p.374] It will be noticed that the series begins with determinations rather bodily than mental, and proceeds through psychophysical to more purely mental measurements.[2] The tests may be readily made on inexperienced persons, the time required for the series being about an hour. The laboratory should be conveniently arranged and quiet, and no spectators should be present while the experiments are being made. The amount of instruction the experimentee should receive, and the number of trials he should be given, are matters which ought to be settled in order to secure uniformity of result. The amount of instruction depends on the experimenter and experimentee, and cannot, unfortunately, be exactly defined. It can only be said that the experimentee must understand clearly what he has to do. A large and uniform number of trials would, of course, be the most satisfactory, the average, average variation, maximum and minimum being recorded. Time is, however, a matter of great importance if many persons are to be tested. The arrangement most economical of time would be to test thoroughly a small number of persons, and a large number in a more rough-and-ready fashion. The number of trials I allow in each test is

given below, as also whether I consider the average or 'best' trial the most satisfactory for comparison. Let us now consider the tests in order. I. Dynamometer Pressure. The greatest possible squeeze of the hand may be thought by many to be a purely physiological quantity. It is, however, impossible to separate bodily from mental energy. The 'sense of effort' and the effects of volition on the body are among the questions most discussed in psychology and even in metaphysics. Interesting experiments may be made on the relation between volitional control or emotional excitement and dynamometer pressure. Other determinations of bodily power could be made (in the second series I have included the 'archer's pull' and pressure of the thumb and fore-finger), but the squeeze of the hand seems the most convenient. It may be readily made, cannot prove injurious, is dependent on mental conditions, and allows comparison of right-and left-handed power. The experimentee should be shown how to hold the dynamometer in order to obtain the maximum pressure. I allow two trials with each hand (the order being right, left, right, left), and record the maximum pressure of each hand. II. Rate of Movement. Such a determination seems to be of considerable interest, especially in connexion with the preceding. [p.375] Indeed, its physiological importance is such as to make it surprising that careful measurements have not hitherto been made. The rate of movement has the same psychological bearings as the force of movement. Notice, in addition to the subjects already mentioned, the connexion between force and rate of movement on the one hand and the 'four temperaments' on the other. I am now making experiments to determine the rate of different movements. As a general test, I suggest the quickest possible movement of the right hand and arm from rest through 50 cm. A piece of apparatus for this purpose can be obtained from Clay & Torbensen, Philadelphia. An electric current is closed by the first movement of the hand, and broken when the movement through 50 cm. has been completed. I measure the time the current has been closed with the Hipp chronoscope, but it may be done by any chronographic method. The Hipp chronoscope is to be obtained from Peyer & Favarger, Neuchtel. It is a very convenient apparatus, but care must be taken in regulating and controlling it (see MIND No. 42).[3] III. Sensation-areas. The distance on the skin by which two points must be separated in order that they may be felt as two is a constant, interesting both to the physiologist and psychologist. Its variation in different parts of the body (from 1 to 68 mm.) was a most important discovery. What the individual variation may be, and what inferences may be drawn from it, cannot be foreseen; but anything which may throw light on the development of the idea of space deserves careful study. Only one part of the body can be tested in a series such as the present. I suggest the back of the closed right band, between the tendons of the first and second fingers, and in a longitudinal direction. Compasses with rounded wooden or rubber tips should be used, and I suggest that the curvature have a radius of 5mm. This experiment requires some care and skill on the part of the experimenter. The points must be touched simultaneously, and not too hard. The experimentee must turn away his head. In order to obtain exact results, a large number of experiments would be necessary, and all the tact of the experimenter will be required to determine, without undue expenditure of time, the distance at which the touches may just be distinguished.

IV. Pressure causing Pain. This, like the rate of movement, is a determination not hitherto much considered, and if other more important tests can be devised they might be substituted for these. But the point at which pressure causes pain may be an important constant, and in any case it would be valuable in the diagnosis of nervous diseases and in studying abnormal states of consciousness. The determination of any fixed point or quantity in pleasure or pain is a matter of great interest in theoretical and practical ethics, and I should be glad to include. some such test [p.376] the present series. To determine the pressure causing pain, I use an instrument (to be obtained from Clav & Torbensen) which measures the pressure applied by a tip of hard rubber 5 mm. in radius. I am now determining the pressure causing pain in different parts of the body; for the present series commend the centre of the forehead. The pressure should be gradually increased and the maximum read from the indicator after the experiment is complete. As a rule, the point at which the experimentee says the pressure is painful should be recorded, but in some cases it may be necessary to record the point at which signs of pain are shown. I make two trials, and record both. V. Least noticeable difference in Weight. The just noticeable sensation and the least noticeable difference in sensation are psychological constants of great interest. Indeed, the measurement of mental intensity is probably the most important question with which experimental psychology has at present to deal. The just noticeable sensation can only be determined with great pains, if at all: the point usually found being in reality the least noticeable difference for faint stimuli. This latter point is itself so difficult to determine that I have postponed it to the second series. The least noticeable difference in sensation for stimuli of a given intensity can be more readily determined, but it requires some time, and consequently not more than one sense and intensity can be tested in a preliminary series. I follow Mr. Galton in selecting 'sense of effort' or weight. I use small wooden boxes, the standard one weighing 100 gms. and the others 101, 102, up to 110 gms. The standard weight and another (beginning with 105 gms.) being given to the experimentee, he is asked which is the heavier. I allow him about 10 secs for decision. I record the point at which he is usually right, being careful to note that he is always right with the next heavier weight. VI. Reaction-time for Sound. The time elapsing before a stimulus calls forth a movement should certainly be included in a series of psychophysical tests: the question to be decided is what stimulus should be chosen. I prefer sound; on it the reaction-time seems to be the shortest and most regular, and the apparatus is most easily arranged. I measure the time with a Hipp chronoscope, but various chronographic methods have been used. There is need of a simpler, cheaper and more portable apparatus for measuring short times. Mr. Galton uses an ingenious instrument, in which the time is measured by the motion of a falling rod, and electricity is dispensed with, but this method will not measure times longer than about 1/3 sec. In measuring the reaction-time, I suggest that three valid reactions be taken, and the minimum recorded. Later, the average and mean variation may be calculated.[4] VII. Time for naming Colours. A reaction is essentially reflex, [p.377] and, I think, in addition to it, the time of some process more purely mental should be measured. Several such processes are included in the second series; for the present series I suggest the time

needed to see and name a colour. This time may be readily measured for a single colour by means of suitable apparatus (see MIND No. 42), but for general use sufficient accuracy may be attained by allowing the experimentee to name ten colours and taking the average. I paste coloured papers (red, yellow, green and blue) 2 cm. square, 1cm. apart, vertically on a strip of black pasteboard. This I suddenly uncover and start a chronoscope, which I stop when the ten colours have been named. I allow two trials (the order of colours being different in each) and record the average time per colour in the quickest trial. VIII. Bisection of a 50 cm Line. The accuracy with which space and time are judged may be readily tested, and with interesting results. I follow Mr. Galton in letting the experimentee divide an ebony rule (3 cm. wide) into two equal parts by means of a movable line, but I recommend 50 cm. in place of 1 ft., as with the latter the error is so small that it is difficult to measure, and the metric system seems preferable. The amount of error in mm. (the distance from the true middle) should be recorded, and whether it is to the right or left. One trial would seem to be sufficient. IX. Judgment of 10 sec. Time. This determination is easily made. I strike on the table with the end of a pencil and again after 10 seconds, and let the experimentee in turn strike when he judges an equal interval to have elapsed. I allow only one trial and record the time, from which the amount and direction of error can be seen. X. Number of Letters repeated on once Hearing. Memory and attention may be tested by determining how many letters can be repeated on hearing once. I name distinctly and at the rate of two per second six letters, and if the experimentee can repeat these after me I go on to seven, then eight, &c.; if the six are not correctly repeated after three trials (with different letters), I give five, four, &c. The maximum number of letters which can be grasped and remembered is thus determined. Consonants only should be used in order to avoid syllables. Experimental psychology is likely to take a place in the educational plan of our schools and universities. It teaches accurate observation and correct reasoning in the same way as the other natural sciences, and offers a supply of knowledge interesting and useful to everyone. I am at present preparing a laboratory manual which will include tests of the senses and measurements of mental time, intensity and extensity, but it seems worth while to give here a list of the tests which I look on as the more important in order that attention may be [p.378] drawn to them, and co-operation secured in choosing the best series of tests and the most accurate and convenient methods. In the following series, fifty tests are given, but some of them include more than one determination. Sight 1. Accomodation (short sight, over-sight, and astigmatism). 2. Drawing Purkinje's figures and the blind-spot. 3. Acuteness of colour vision, including lowest red and highest violet visible. 4. Determination of the field of vision for form and colour. 5. Determination of what the experimentee considers a normal red, yellow, green and blue. 6. Least perceptible light, and least amount of colour distinguished from grey.

7. Least noticeable difference in intensity, determined for stimuli of three degrees of brightness. 8. The time a colour must work on the retina in order to produce a sensation, the maximum sensation and a given degree of fatigue. 9. Nature and duration of after-images. 10. Measurement of amount of contrast. 11. Accuracy with which distance can be judged with one and with two eyes. 12. Test with stereoscope and for struggle of the two fields of vision. 13 Errors of perception, including bisection of line, drawing of square, &c. 14. Colour and arrangement of colours preferred. Shape of figure and of rectangle preferred. Hearing. 15. Least perceptible sound and least noticeable difference in intensity for sounds of three degrees of loudness. 16. Lowest and highest lens audible, least perceptible difference in pitch for C, C', C", and point where intervals and chords (in melody and harmony) are just noticed to be out of tune. 17. Judgment of absolute pitch and of the nature of intervals, chords and dischords. 18. Number and nature of the overtones which can be heard with and without resonators. 19. Accuracy with which direction and distance of sounds can be judged. 20. Accuracy with which a rhythm can be followed and complexity of rhythm can be grasped. 21. Point at which loudness and shrillness of sound become painful. Point at which beats are the most disagreeable. 22. Sound of nature most agreeable. Musical tone, chord, instrument and composition preferred. [p.379] Taste and Smell. 23. Least perceptible amount of cane-sugar, quinine, cooking salt and sulphuric acid. and determination of the parts of the mouth with which they are tasted. 24. Least perceptible amount of camphor and bromine. 25. Tastes and smells found to be peculiarly agreeable and disagreeable. Touch and Temperature. 26. Least noticeable pressure for different parts of the body. 27. Least noticeable difference in pressure, with weights of 10, 100 and 1000 gms. 28. Measurement of sensation-areas in different parts of the body. 29. Accuracy with which the amount and direction of the motion of a point over the skin can be judged. 30. Least noticeable difference in temperature. 31. Mapping out of heat, cold and pressure spots on the skin. 32. The point at which pressure and heat and cold cause pain. Sense of Effort and Movement.[5] 33. Least noticeable difference in weight, in lifting weights of 10, 100 and 1000 gms. 34. Force of squeeze of hands, pressure with thumb and forefinger and pull as archer. 35. Maximum and normal rate of movement. 36. Accuracy with which the force, extent and rate of active and passive movements can be judged.

Mental Time. 37. The time stimuli must work on the ear and eye in order to call forth sensations. 38. The reaction-time for sound, light, pressure and electrical stimulation. 39. The perception-time for colours, objects, letters and words. 40. The time of naming colours, objects, letters and words. 41 The time it takes to remember and to come to a decision. 42 The time of mental association. 43. The effects of attention, practice and fatigue on mental time. Mental Intensity. 44. Results of different methods used for determining the least noticeable difference in sensation. 45. Mental intensity as a function of mental time. [p.380] Mental Extensity. 46. Number of impressions which can be simultaneously perceived. 47. Number of successive impressions which can be correctly repeated, and number of times a larger number of successive impressions must be heard or seen in order that they may be correctly repeated. 48. The rate at which a simple sensation fades from memory. 49. Accuracy with which intervals of time can be remembered. 50. The correlation of mental time, intensity and extensity. Remarks by Francis Galton, F.R.S. (A) One of the most important objects of measurement is hardly if at all alluded to here and should be emphasised. It is to obtain a general knowledge of the capacities of a man by sinking shafts, as it were, at a few critical points. In order to ascertain the best points for the purpose, the sets of measures should be compared with an independent estimate of the man's powers. We thus may learn which of the measures are the most instructive, The sort of estimate I have in view and which I would suggest should benoted [? for private use] is something of this kind,-"mobile, eager, energetic; well shaped; successful at games requiring good eye and hand; sensitive; good at music and drawing". Such estimates would be far from worthless when made after only a few minutes' talk; they ought to be exact when made of students who have been for months and years under observation. I lately saw a considerable collection of such estimates, made by a medical man for a special purpose. They were singularly searching and they hit off, with a few well chosen epithets, a very great variety of different characters. I could not induce the medical man to consent to the publication of specimens of his excellent analyses, nor even of fancy specimens. Even these would have sufficed to show that if psychologists seriously practised the art of briefly describing characters. they might raise that art to a high level. (B) The method I have long used for testing keenness of eye-sight in persons whose powers of eye-adaptation are normal, still seems to me quite effective. It is to register the greatest distance at which numerals printed in diamond type can be read. Strips of paper cut out at random from a small sheet printed all over with these numerals, are mounted on blocks set at successive distances from the eye-hole. They can easily be changed when dirty. Fair light is wanted, but that is all that is needed for ordinary test purposes.

C) I have constructed an instrument which is not yet quite as I desire , of which the first part would I think greatly facilitate [p. 381] the working with the Hipp chronograph. I had found great trouble in inducing coarse and inexperienced persons to deliver their blows aright. They bungled and struck the instrument wrongly, and often broke it. Then I made it more massive, yet still they broke it and often hurt themselves much in doing so. My present plan is to give them nothing more than one end of a long thread to hold. The other end passes round a spring reel, like the tape in a spring measuring tape. The string when left to itself will reel home much faster than the swiftest blow can travel. All that the experimentee does is to retard it; the quickest man retarding it the least. The string travels smoothly and swiftly in a straight line between two eyelet holes. A bead attached to that part of the string would make the necessary breaks of electric contact with great neatness. The thread has a stop to cheek it when it has run far enough home. My reel is nothing more than a very light wooden wheel with a groove in it, some 3 inches in diameter, and with a brass axis turning freely between fixed points. One thread passes round the axis, and is tied at the other end to an india rubber band. The other thread passes in the opposite direction round the grooved wheel, and then through the eyelet holes. The experimentee is placed well back, quite clear of the apparatus. Nothing can act better than this part of my new instrument. (D) I now use a very neat, compact, and effective apparatus (made for me by Groves, 89, Bolsover Street, Portland Street, W.) which is a half-second's pendulum, held by a detent 18 from the vertical. The blow of a released hammer upon the detent gives the soundsignal and simultaneously lets the pendulum go. An elastic thread is fixed to the pendulum parallel to its axis, but about 1 inch apart from it. As the pendulum oscillates this thread travels between 2 bars; the one fixed, the other movable. The fixed bar lies horizontally between the pendulum and the thread and is graduated. The movable bar nips the thread when a key is touched. Doing this, constitutes the response. The pendulum itself receives no jar through the act, owing to the elasticity of the thread. The graduations on the bar, that forms the chord to an arc of 18 on each side of the vertical, are calculated and published in the Jour. Anthrop. Inst. early last year, 1889, together with my description of the first form of the instrument. I exhibited the revised form of it at the British Association last autumn ; a brief description of it will appear in their Journal. The instrument is arranged for sightsignals as well. It is also arranged to measure the rapidity with which any given act can be performed. The experimentee touches a key that releases the pendulum ; then he performs the act; finally he touches the second key, that causes the thread to be nipped. Footnotes [1] Mr. Francis Galton, in his Anthropometric Laboratory at South Kensignton Museum, already uses some of these tests, and I hope the series here suggested will meet with his approval. It is convenient to follow Mr. Galton in combining tests of body, such as weight, size, colour of eyes, & c., with psychophysical and mental determinations, but these latter alone are the subject of the present discussion. The name (or initials) of the experimentee should be recorded, the nationality (including that of the parents), and the age, sex, occupation and sate of health. [See Remark (a) by Mr. Galton]

[2] Sharpness of sight (including colour-vision) and hearing might, perhaps, be included in the list. I have omitted them because it requires considerable time to discover the amount and nature of the defect (which is usually bodily, not mental), and because abundant statistics have been published, and are being collected by oculists and aurists. [See Remark ( b )] [3] See Remark ( c ). [4] See Remark ( d ) [5] Organic sensations and sensations of motion, equilibrium and dizziness, should perhaps be included in this series.

ANALIZA SWOT Metoda SWOT este una dintre cele mai frecvent utilizate metodologii de analiza a nivelului de performanta al unei organizatii avnd ca scop analiza pozitiei unei organizatii sau a unui departament n relatie cu competitorii sai si de a identifica factorii majori care afecteaza desfasurarea activitatii, n scopul elaborarii unei strategii viitoare. SWOT este un instrument extrem de simplu de aplicare si poate fi adaptat la cerintele diverselor organizatii. Ce nseamna SWOT? SWOT este un acronim care provine de la Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities- Threats . Practic aceasta modalitate de analiza va ajuta sa sistematizati punctele tari, slabiciunile, oportunitatile si amenintarile caracteristice unei organizatii sau anumitor elemente din cadrul acesteia. SWOT permite identificarea factorilor interni si externi care afecteaza organizatia si cuantificarea impactului lor asupra acesteia. Factorii interni relationati cu punctele tari si punctele slabe sunt: structura si cultura organizatiei, resursele acesteia si actionarii. Factorii externi relationati cu oportunitatile si amenintarile sunt reprezentati de clientii si competitorii respectivei organizatii. De asemenea, putem enumera aici si: politici, tehnologii, probleme economice si sociale. Aplicarea metodologiei SWOT(Exemple) PUNCTE TARI: Se definesc si se masoara domeniile n care organizatia exceleaza * Care sunt punctele forte ale afacerii? * Cat de puternica este compania pe piata ? * Organizatia dispune de tehnologii de ultima ora?

* Exista o strategie de dezvoltare clara? * Cultura organizatiei Dvs. este favorabila crearii unui mediu de lucru pozitiv? PUNCTE SLABE: Se definesc si se masoara principalele puncte slabe * Ce ar putea fi mbunatatit n activitatea organizatiei dvs.? * Care sunt probleme pe care le ntmpinati? * Aveti probleme n ceea ce priveste cash-flow-ul? * Va confruntati cu inexistenta resurselor financiare pentru proiecte? OPORTUNITITATI: Se definesc si se masoara oportunitatile * Exista circumstante favorabile pe piata? * Exista oportunitati de extindere pe noi piete? * Integrarea unor noi tehnologii este o prioritate pentru organizatia Dvs.? AMENINTARI: Se definesc si se masoara amenintarile la care este expusa organizatia * Care sunt obstacolele care le poate ntmpina organizatia? Schimbarile rapide de tehnologie va pot afecta pozitia? * Care sunt schimbarile produse n cadrul competitorilor si cum pot ele afecta organizatia dvs.? Schimbarea politicilor n domeniu si a cadrului legal va pot afecta activitatea? Concluzii Analiza SWOT este capabila sa sintetizeze punctele cheie ale unei organizatii. n primul rnd, gruparea problemelor si avantajelor pe baza celor patru categorii SWOT permite identificarea mai simpla a unei strategii si a unor modalitati de dezvoltare a afacerii. n plus, metoda poate fi adaptata simplu la nevoile specifice diverselor procese de afacere. Analiza SWOT poate contribui la realizarea unor strategii si adaptarea rapida a acestora la cerinte. Matricea SWOT

Puncte Tari

Puncte Slabe

Caracteristici pozitive si avantaje ale Caracteristici negative si dezavantaje situatiilor sau tehnicilor utilizate. ale situatiilor sau tehnicilor utilizate. Oportunitati Analiza Puncte Tari Oportunitati Analiza Puncte Slabe Oportunitati Cum pot fi folosite punctele tari pentru a dezvolta oportunitatile? Cum pot fi depasite punctele slabe lundu-se n considerare dezvoltarea oportunitatilor? Amenintari Analiza Puncte Tari Amenintari Analiza Puncte Slabe Amenintari Cum pot fi folosite punctele tari pentru a contracara amenintarile care au tendinta de a mpiedica ndeplinirea obiectivelor si urmarirea oportunitatilor? Cum pot fi depasite punctele slabe pentru a contracara amenintarile care au tendinta de a mpiedica ndeplinirea obiectivelor si urmarirea oportunitatilor?

RECOMANDARI PRIVIND NTOCMIREA DOSARULUI DE CANDIDATURA - PREMIUL ROMN PENTRU CALITATE J.M. JURAN - EUROPEAN EXCELLENCE AWARD Structura si continutul Documentului de candidatura difera n functie de abordarea pe care decide sa o adopte organizatia candidata, astfel: n cazul Abordarii clasice a Modelului de Excelenta, (aplicantii vor ntocmi n acest caz un document detaliat de candidatura format din maxim 75 de pagini, care urmeaza a fi evaluat de o echipa de evaluatori. Evaluarea este bazata pe Modelul de Excelenta versiunea 2003, incluznd cele 32 de sub-criterii si Matricea RADAR de stabilire a punctajului n cazul Abordarii 2005+ (o noua abordare interactiva care prevede ntocmirea unei harti a factorilor determinanti si care impune o ntlnire cu managementul organizatiei candidate, n vederea pregatirii site-visit.) I. ABORDAREA CLASICA A MODELULUI DE EXCELENTA (Sursa: The EFQM European Award Information Brochure for 2006) I.1 Dosarul de calificare Dosarul de calificare este documentul n care organizatia si prezinta realizarile si performanta pentru toate sub-criteriile de la Rezultate (de la 6a la 9b).

Scopul pentru care este elaborat Dosarul de calificare are doua laturi: De a confirma ca organizatia ntruneste un scor de minimum 500 puncte; De a crea primul set de informatii pe care l utilizeaza echipa de evaluare pentru a ntelege organizatia. I.2 Documentul de candidatura - Prezentarea informatiilor n documentul de candidatura se prezinta realizarile organizatiei n domeniile acoperite de criteriile Modelului de Excelenta: Informatii privind Factorii Determinanti Informatii privind Rezultatele (Abordarea clasica si Abordarea 2005+) n documentul de candidatura trebuie mentionate informatii referitoare la modul n care organizatia aplica n activitatile sale proprii fiecare sub-criteriu. n abordarea clasica, documentul de candidatura trebuie sa aiba maximum 75 de pagini format A4. Cele 75 de pagini trebuie sa includa descrierea generala a organizatiei si toate materialele suport. II ABORDAREA 2005+ A MODELULUI DE EXCELENTA , Aplicantii care decid alegerea abordarii 2005+ si vor actualiza Dosarul de calificare cu ultimele rezultate si vor ntocmi o harta a factorilor determinanti. n total, cele doua documente vor nsuma 25 de pagini. II.1 Dosarul de calificare are acelasi format si continut ca si n abordarea clasica. II.2 Harta factorilor determinanti Acest document completeaza Dosarul de calificare, prezentnd informatii referitoare la factorii determinanti ai Modelului de Excelenta. Scopul hartii factorilor determinanti este: De a furniza echipei de evaluatori o imagine generala asupra abordarilor implementate n organizatie si a modului n care acestea se ncadreaza ntr-unul din criteriile de la Factori Determinanti (1a ... 5e). De a servi ca document de referinta pentru pregatirea ntlnirii dintre echipa de evaluare si managerii organizatiei, si de a asigura ca toate elementele sistemului de management sunt incluse.