Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical Psychology

by

Anthony Tarescavage

• LAST MODIFIED: 29 November 2022
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0300

Introduction

There are thousands of psychological tests that rely on test-takers’ reports of themselves to measure their standing on psychological constructs of interest. This annotated bibliography on self-report inventories delineates over fifty of these self-report measures. Specifically, this review includes some of the most relevant self-report assessments in the major measurement domains of personality and psychopathology. All can be administered in the traditional paper-and-pencil format. Pertinent background information on using and evaluating these tests is described next.

Background Information

Ben-Porath 2012 and Costa and McCrae 2009 provide historical background information regarding the measurement of personality and psychopathology. Cronbach and Meehl 1955, Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991a, Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991b, Reynolds and Ramsay 2003, and Kane 2006 describe the major considerations for evaluating the reliability and validity of self-report tests. American Educational Research Association, et al. 2014 describes best practices and ethical guidelines for using psychological tests. Finally, Lee, et al. 2017 describes how to map self-report inventories onto modern dimensional models of personality and psychopathology.

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, and Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. 2014. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

  These standards provide information on the foundations of psychological testing, best practices in operations, and information on applying testing information.

• Ben-Porath, Y. S. 2012. Self-report inventories: Assessing personality and psychopathology. In Handbook of psychology. Vol. 10, Assessment psychology. 2d ed. Edited by J. R. Graham and J. A. Naglieri, 622–644. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  This comprehensive chapter discusses the origins of self-report measures of personality and psychopathology, criticisms of self-report inventories and responses, and the common threats to protocol validity ( nonresponding, content-based invalid responding, over-reporting, and under-reporting).

• Costa, P. T., and R. R. McCrae. 2009. The five-factor model and the NEO inventories. In Oxford handbook of personality assessment. Edited by J. N. Butcher, 299–322. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  This chapter describes the most prominent model of personality, the five-factor model of personality. It also describes the NEO inventories that are most commonly used to measure this model.

• Cronbach, L. J., and P. E. Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52.4: 281–303.

  DOI: 10.1037/h0040957

  This seminal work provides background on one of the three primary areas of validity evidence—construct validity.

• Kane, M. 2006. Content-related validity evidence in test development. In Handbook of test development. Edited by S. M. Downing and T. M. Haladyna, 131–153. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  This chapter provides background information on the third of three primary areas of validity evidence—content validity.

• Lee, T. C., M. Sellbom, and C. J. Hopwood. 2017. Contemporary psychopathology assessment: Mapping major personality inventories onto empirical models of psychopathology. In Neuropsychological assessment in the age of evidence-based practice: Diagnostic and treatment evaluations. Edited by S. C. Bowden, 65–94. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  This chapter discusses how self-report inventories can be used to assess contemporary dimensional models of psychopathology.

• Pedhazur, E. J., and L. P. Schmelkin. 1991a. Criterion-related validation. In Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. By E. J. Pedhazur and L. P. Schmelkin, 30–51. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  This chapter provides background information on the second of three primary areas of validity evidence—criterion validity.

• Pedhazur, E. J., and L. P. Schmelkin. 1991b. Reliability. In Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. By E. J. Pedhazur and L. P. Schmelkin, 81–117. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

  This chapter provides background on evaluating the reliability of psychological tests.

• Reynolds, C. R., and M. C. Ramsay. 2003. Bias in Psychological Assessment: An Empirical Review and Recommendations. In Handbook of psychology. Vol. 10, Assessment psychology. Edited by J. R. Graham and J. A. Naglieri, 67–93. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  This chapter provides an overview of research on bias in psychological testing, including a review of possible explanations for mean score differences across demographic groups.