M.Phil. (Industrial Psychology) / The equivalent cross-cultural assessment of personality has long been a debatable subject in psychological research. Personologists remain divided as to the universality of personality traits, and as such, their cross-cultural applicability. This argument remains valid within the South African multicultural and multilingual context. In addition to the applicability of various imported personality measures, South Africa’s past misuse of psychological assessments for unfair discriminatory purposes has created many negative perceptions of their utility. This was further corroborated with the promulgation of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 that stipulates that all psychological assessments used in South Africa need to meet the criteria of: a) being scientifically shown to be valid and reliable; b) can be applied fairly to all employees; and c) not biased against any employee or group (Government Gazette, 1998). Currently no validated indigenous model and measure of personality exists in South Africa. Psychological assessments are mainly imported from the United States of America (US) and United Kingdom (UK) and normed to the South African population. Foxcroft, Roodt and Abrahams (2005) acknowledge that many of these assessments, in addition to many locally developed measures, have not been tested for bias nor have they been cross-culturally validated. Furthermore, the theories, models and taxonomies on which these measures are based were developed within a Western context and as such, have not incorporated the unique intricacies of the South African context and its array of cultures and languages. Therefore, the accurate and appropriate measure of personality within South Africa has been impeded.

The use of scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to detect defensiveness in criminal and nonclinical samples was evaluated. Forty-five male inmates of a county jail and 38 male undergraduate psychology students were provided with incentives to complete the PAI under two conditions: standard instructions and experimental instructions to feign a specific, positive role. The sequence of instructions was counterbalanced in both samples for the purpose of examining ordering effects. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed, yielding significant main effects of condition, group and order. Additionally, a step-wise discriminant function analysis significantly predicted group membership (i.e., subjects under honest and faking conditions) with a hit rate = 84.4%. Finally, a more effective cutting score for the Positive Impression scale was recommended.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 71-78). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toledo, 2007. / Typescript. "Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts Degree in Psychology." "A thesis entitled"--at head of title. Bibliography: leaves 57-82.

Thesis(M.S.)--Auburn University, 2008. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic references (p.37-43).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 71-78). Also available on the Internet.

No description available.

No description available.

New Spanish versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were assessed with the Spanish translation of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) as the gold standard. Findings from categorical and dimensional analyses suggest that, although the degree of diagnostic concordance of both measures with the DIS was found to be moderately high, the MMPI-2 clinical scales yielded greater specificity but lower sensitivity than the PAI scales on two of four diagnostic categories (i.e., Major Depression, and Schizophrenia). Both measures failed to correctly diagnose Anxiety Disorders, while the MMPI-2 also showed poor diagnostic accuracy with Alcohol Dependence.

Li, Xixi. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-71). / Abstracts in English and Chinese; includes text in Chinese. / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) --- p.1 / The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Invenroy (MCMI) --- p.9 / The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) --- p.14 / Purpose of the Present Study --- p.18 / Chapter Chapter 2 --- Method --- p.24 / Participants --- p.24 / Measures --- p.26 / Item selection and preliminary validation --- p.26 / Scale description --- p.27 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Result --- p.38 / Reliability --- p.38 / Convergent validity --- p.41 / Concurrent validity --- p.44 / Factorial structure of the CCMI --- p.49 / Discriminant power --- p.51 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- Discussion --- p.55 / Reference --- p.65 / Appendix --- p.72