current issues in personality psychology · volume 5(4), 7 doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2017.69857 original article Reading Personality: Assessing “Big Three” Traits with the Sentence Completion Method Stephen P. Joy Department of Psychology, Albertus Magnus College background coefficients [ICCs] of .75, .79, and .71, respectively) and Performance-based personality assessment has advan- correlated well with self-reported traits (mean r values of tages, and the sentence completion method is one of the .51, .57, and .58). Reliability of the finalized system was most reliable of these techniques. We sought to derive rat- higher, with ICCs of .84, .83, and .79. RISB-rated traits cor- ing scales for three major personality traits (Extraversion, related predictably with symptomatic distress. RISB-rated Neuroticism, and Psychoticism) based on Rotter Incom- Psychoticism correlated strongly with the originality and plete Sentences Blank (RISB) protocols. judged creativity of drawings and poems. Psychoticism ratings were more strongly related to criterion measures participants and procedure than was the original self-report. Four successive samples of students (N = 231) completed the RISB and other measures. Rating scales were derived em- conclusions pirically and cross-validated against the Eysenck Personali- The sentence completion method can be used to rate ty Questionnaire (EPQ-R). Additional validity evidence was personality traits reliably. These ratings correlate fair- obtained regarding symptomatic distress (SCL-90-R scales) ly strongly with the results of self-report inventories but and creativity (based on originality scores and expert judg- sometimes correlate more strongly with theoretically rele- ments of student-generated drawings and poetry). vant variables than do self-report scores. results key words The scales could be applied reliably by undergraduate re- Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank extraversion; neuroti- search assistants (mean individual intraclass correlation cism; psychoticism corresponding author – Stephen P. Joy, Department of Psychology, Albertus Magnus College, 700 Prospect Street, New Haven CT 06511, e-mail: [email protected] authors’ contribution – A: Study design · B: Data collection · C: Statistical analysis · D: Data interpretation · E: Manuscript preparation · F: Literature search · G: Funds collection to cite this article – Joy, S. P. (2017). Reading Personality: Assessing “Big Three” Traits with the Sentence Completion Method. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 5(4), 215–231. received 23.03.2017 · reviewed 2.06.2017 · accepted 4.06.2017 · published 4.09.2017 Reading Personality in Sentence Completions BACKGROUND & Farnham, 2000), anxiety (Egloff & Schmukle, 2002), and aggression (Richetin, South Richardson, & Ma- Performance-based personality measures enable son, 2010) with similar results; the IAT correlates test-takers to construct responses expressing their modestly with self-reports and with observable be- thoughts and feelings, but extracting the information havior not accounted for by self-reports. contained in test protocols is challenging. Calls to re- In sum, both classic “projective” tests and nov- strict their use are common (e.g., Lilienfeld, Wood, el experimental techniques yield valid predictions & Garb, 2000), and assuredly it is easier to score of behavior largely independent of those made by self-report measures. Yet when both self-report and self-report inventories. However, it is not always performance-based tests are administered, they may easy to identify a task as explicit vs. implicit. Many yield overlapping but distinct information, providing may involve both processes, just as recognition a more valid prediction than either alone. This state- memory involves both explicit (“remembering”) and ment is based on several lines of research. implicit (“familiarity”) memory systems (Mandler, First, motives, such as the need for achievement, 1980). Consider interviews. A structured interview have been studied using the picture-story exercise administered by an epidemiological researcher is ex- (Smith, Atkinson, McClelland, & Veroff, 1992) as well plicit; a clinical interview conducted by a freewheel- as self-report measures. The two types of test tend not ing gestalt therapist is mostly implicit. But many in- to correlate well with each other; meta-analyses have terviews probably tap into both processes, gathering declarative evidence while also eliciting affective re- reported means of r = .09 (Spangler, 1992) and r = .13 actions that are observed by the clinician. (Kollner & Schultheiss, 2014). McClelland (1985; Mc- Even detractors of performance-based personal- Clelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989) argued that ity assessment (Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000) of- both approaches are valid but predict different types ten make an exception for properly scored sentence of behavior. He (1985) compared self-report measures completion tests. There is ample evidence that these with respondent behaviors and performance-based instruments can be scored reliably and made to yield measures with operant behaviors. Later, self-reports valid information with meaningful behavioral cor- were attributed to explicit, performance-based tests relates (Hy & Loevinger, 1996; Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty, to implicit, mental operations (McClelland et al., 1992); they are, in addition, relatively easy to master. 1989). Self-reports should do a better job of predicting The status of sentence completion measures along choices under well-defined conditions, while the pic- the explicit-implicit continuum is not known. They ture-story technique should be superior at predicting are performance-based tasks, and the samples of longer-term engagement in an activity. Some evidence verbiage they elicit resemble the TAT-type story- supports this position. As one example, among ath- telling technique, albeit writ small. In keeping with letes, self-reported achievement motivation predicts this, they have been used to measure work-related the distance from which a player will take a shot, but motives (Miner, 1964) with validity similar to that of a picture-story test predicts how much a player con- other approaches (a mean effect size ofr = .20; Col- tributes to the team during a series of games (Schul- lins, Hanges, & Locke, 2004). On the other hand, the theiss, Yankova, Dirlikov, & Schad, 2009). units of verbal behavior can be so small, the prompts Second, dependency has been measured using the (stems) so straightforward, that explicit responses performance-based Rorschach Oral Dependency Scale are likely in many instances. Completing a sentence (Masling, Rabie, & Blondheim, 1967) as well as self-re- beginning with “a mother” is a far simpler task than ports. They correlate moderately, with meanr = .35 writing a story in response to a picture of a man at (Bornstein, 1999; Bornstein, Rossner, & Hill, 1994), and a drafting board. As with word associations, there are similar in their ability to predict behavior; Born- may sometimes be a few responses so dominant that stein’s (1999) meta-analysis reported mean r values of the task is virtually a multiple-choice one: almost .37 and .31, respectively. Yet they have different prop- as much a self-report as a constructed response. It erties. Only self-reported dependency is affected by seems probable that the sentence completion method gender or instructional set; only performance-based draws upon both implicit and explicit processes. dependency is affected by mood (Bornstein, 2002). This paper introduces new scoring systems for Third, studies of implicit processing by cognitive an existing sentence completion measure, the Rot- science began with memory (Schachter & Graf, 1986) ter Incomplete Sentences Blank (RISB; Rotter et al., but expanded to affective variables. The advent of 1992). Introduced 70 years ago (Rotter & Willerman, the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, Mc- 1947), the RISB is more often used clinically than Ghee, & Schwartz, 1998) revolutionized the study of all other sentence completion measures (Holaday, attitudes. Self-reported and implicit attitudes cor- Smith, & Sherry, 2000), most likely due to its existing relate, on average, at r = .24 (Hoffman, Gawronski, well-validated scoring system. Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005). IAT measures Standard RISB scoring assesses Adjustment: a prod- have been developed for self-esteem (Greenwald uct of the interaction between the individual’s resourc- 216 current issues in personality psychology Stephen P. Joy es and environmental demands. Each RISB response traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism is rated separately; the item scores are then summed. (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994). The first two of these Inter-rater reliability averages .93 (Rotter et al., 1992). have won widespread acceptance and will be de- It correctly classifies 85% of clinical vs. control cases scribed but briefly. The third is less familiar to many and correlates well with other adjustment-related mea- psychologists and will be discussed more fully. sures. Recent studies support its validity with clinic-re- Extraversion (E) represents one end of a contin- ferred adolescents (Weis, Toolis, & Cerankosky, 2008) uum bounded at the other extreme by Introversion. and adult psychiatric patients (McCloskey, 2014), in- High E people are sociable, outgoing, and active. cluding evidence of incremental validity when added They tend to have many friends and acquaintances to a standard assessment (McCloskey, 2014; Torstrick, and