Measuring Personality Constructs - The Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Reports, Informant Reports and Behavioural Assessments - Volume 1 - Issue 1

Sep 18, 2026

Achieving construct validity is a central goal in social science research on personality. This article reviews the strengths and limitations of personality assessment methods, focusing on methodological feasibility and accuracy in capturing theoretical constructs. It compares self-report questionnaires, informant reports, and behavioural measures, weighing their advantages and disadvantages. Since no single approach is perfect, the discussion argues for combining multiple methods, especially pairing self-reports with other assessments.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Self-Reports

Advantages and disadvantages of self-reports

Measuring Personality Constructs: The Advantages and Disadvantages of SelfReports , Informant Reports and Behavioural Assessments Jennifer Dodorico McDonald, University of Cambridge Enquire 1(1): 75-94 ©The Author, 2008 Abstract Achieving construct validity, or using measures that accurately represent particular theoretical constructs, is an important goal of social science research. This article reviews arguments regarding the strengths and limitations of personality assessment methods in terms of methodological feasibility and whether they are accurate in measuring personality constructs. Specifically, it considers the advantages and disadvantages of assessing personality with self-report questionnaires, informant reports, and behavioural measures. Acknowledging that no method is perfect, the discussion then focuses on the value of incorporating multiple methods. In light of the reliance on the self-report method in personality psychology, it will be argued that researchers could maximize the validity of the measurement of personality constructs by combining the questionnaire approach with other methods. Introduction According to Cronbach and Meehl (1955), psychological and personality constructs are “postulated” or inferred characteristics or traits of a person. There are many constructs, or concepts, in psychology that are not tangible; if we cannot physically see personality traits, for instance, there is the potential to question whether they are really there. Is it possible to measure such an abstraction as ‘Conscientiousness’ in the way that physical attributes, like height, are assessed? Social scientists have been making inferences about what people are like and thus measuring these sorts of hypothetical constructs for years, which is necessary in order to more fully understand how people behave (Smith, 2005) . Smith points out, though, that it is important to ensure that these theoretical constructs are measured “in a convincing, valid way” (p. 396) . In general, validity of a measurement device refers to the extent to which it actually measures what it intends to measure. Construct validity, then, refers to the accuracy of a measurement of the theoretical concept (e. g. John & Soto, 2007; Messick, 1995; Ozer, 1999) . Therefore, abstract personality constructs can only be accepted and made more concrete if the validity of the methods used to measure them can be ascertained. 75 Enquire 1(1) This paper will focus on evaluating the usefulness and accuracy of different methods of measuring personality constructs. According to Pervin (1999), the determining of the best methods of measuring personality constructs is one of the most prominent issues in personality psychology. The central debate involves the accuracy of self-report data in obtaining information about an individual’s personality, in comparison with ratings from others or the use of alternative methods of assessment. This is especially important in light of recent questionnaire findings that suggest that personality psychologists primarily rely on self-report measures, yet belong toa methodologically diverse field overall (Robins, Tracy, & Sherman, 2007) . Here, I will discuss the value of considering self-reports, informant or observer reports, and behavioural measures, by presenting the advantagesand disadvantages of each of these methods. I will assert that it is not sufficient to simply assume the accuracy of any one measure in fully representing the desired personality trait. I will demonstrate this by briefly addressing issues related to construct validity. Overall, this paper will suggest that a variety of methods should be employed in assessing personality constructs. Self-Reports Advantages and disadvantages of self-reports In order to later propose that more than one method is required to obtain more accurate understandings of personality constructs, I will discuss the value of the most common measure: self-reports. Using o

FAQs

What is the main research goal of the article?

To evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of different methods for measuring personality constructs, with attention to construct validity.

Which three types of personality assessment methods does the article compare?

Self-report questionnaires, informant reports (ratings from others), and behavioural assessments.

Why does the article argue for combining multiple methods?

Because no method is perfect; combining approaches can maximize the validity of measuring personality constructs.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Maya Linwood

Measuring Personality Constructs - The Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Reports, Informant Reports and Behavioural Assessments - Volume 1 - Issue 1_Page 1

Open in WPS to view all 20 pages