16pf® Fifth Edition
Training Manual
OVERVIEW

Introduction

History of the 16pf®

Psychometric Properties of the 16pf®

Global and Primary factors of the 16pf®

Administration and Scoring

Profile Interpretation and Feedback

Practical applications and Ethics

Case study
®16pf is a registered trademark of the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc. (IPAT) in the USA, the
European Community and other countries. IPAT is a subsidiary of Performance Assessment Network, Inc. (PAN).
1
Table of Contents
1 Orientation.............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
1.2
Purpose of Training ...................................................................................................... 6
1.3
Raymond B. Cattell ....................................................................................................... 6
1.4
Theoretical Foundation ................................................................................................. 7
1.4.1 Research Approach ............................................................................................... 8
1.4.2 In Summary ........................................................................................................... 9
1.5
16pf®: Historical Development .................................................................................... 10
1.5.1 Basic 16pf® Formats ............................................................................................ 10
1.5.2 16pf® Fourth Edition ............................................................................................. 12
1.5.3 16pf® Fifth Edition ................................................................................................ 13
1.6
2
More about the Distributors ......................................................................................... 16
Questionnaire administration and scoring.................................................................... 18
2.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 18
2.2
Administration ............................................................................................................. 18
2.3
Scoring ....................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Hand scoring for incomplete items ....................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Computer scoring ................................................................................................ 20
3 Psychometric Properties of the 16pf® Fifth Edition ........................................................... 21
3.1
Comparison between the 16pf® Fifth Edition and Fourth Edition (Form A) .................. 21
3.2
Test Design and Construction ..................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Norm Samples ..................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Standard Error of Measurement (SEm)................................................................ 25
3.3
Response Style Indices .............................................................................................. 25
3.3.1 Impression Management (IM) .............................................................................. 26
3.3.2 Infrequency (INF) ................................................................................................. 27
3.3.3 Acquiescence (ACQ) ........................................................................................... 28
3.4
Reliability .................................................................................................................... 29
3.5
Validity ........................................................................................................................ 30
2
3.6
The 16pf® and Measurement of Psychological Constructs .......................................... 33
3.6.1 The 16pf®, Psychological Adjustment and Self-Esteem ....................................... 33
3.6.2 The 16pf®, Social Skills and Empathy .................................................................. 34
3.6.3 The 16pf®, Leadership and Creativity................................................................... 34
3.6.4 The 16pf® and Vocational Interest ....................................................................... 35
3.6.5 The 16pf® and Leisure Activities .......................................................................... 35
3.7
In Summary ................................................................................................................ 37
4 Profile Interpretation............................................................................................................ 38
4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 38
4.1.1 Summary of changes to the 16pf® ....................................................................... 39
4.2
General Interpretive Information ................................................................................. 41
4.3
Interpretive Guidelines and Strategies ........................................................................ 46
4.3.1 Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 46
4.3.2 Strategies for Interpretation ................................................................................. 47
4.3.3 Additional Interpretive Information ....................................................................... 73
4.3.3.1 General Areas of Functioning ........................................................................ 73
4.3.3.2 Thinking Style ................................................................................................ 78
4.3.3.3 Consistency of Behaviour .............................................................................. 81
4.3.3.4 Management of Pressure............................................................................... 83
4.3.3.5 Implication of other scores on the Level of Pressure Experienced ................. 86
4.3.3.6 Factor Interactions ......................................................................................... 87
4.4
Interpretive Principles ................................................................................................. 91
5 Practical Applications of the 16pf® ..................................................................................... 94
5.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 94
5.2
Different Applications .................................................................................................. 95
5.2.1 Clinical use of the 16pf® ....................................................................................... 95
5.2.2 Leadership and the 16pf® .................................................................................... 96
5.2.3 Use of the 16pf® in Selection and Placement ....................................................... 96
5.2.4 Use of the 16pf® in Teamwork ............................................................................ 100
5.3
Cross-Cultural Use of the 16pf® ................................................................................ 101
6 Ethics .................................................................................................................................. 102
6.1
A South African Perspective ..................................................................................... 102
6.2
Ethical Use of the 16pf® ............................................................................................ 103
6.2.1 Administration and Dissemination of Results ..................................................... 103
3
6.2.2 Interpretation of Results ..................................................................................... 104
6.2.3 Practitioner Competence ................................................................................... 105
6.2.4 Legal and Professional Responsibilities ............................................................. 105
6.2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................... 106
7 References ......................................................................................................................... 107
8 Additional Reading ............................................................................................................ 109
4
1 Orientation
RAYMOND B CATTELL (1970)
Perhaps it befits the complexity of an instrument which has to measure the human mentality that it should
have a definite infancy; between the first and the 1956 – 1957 Edition; a childhood between that and the
1961 – 1962 Edition and an adolescence terminating in the present Handbook.
Preface: Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16pf®) p xix Second Printing 1974
1.1
Introduction
The Sixteen Personality Factor (16pf®) Questionnaire is an instrument that assesses adult personality in
terms of sixteen reasonably independent categories or “factors”. The focus of the questionnaire is to
assess normal personality characteristics and to serve as a complement to information provided by more
clinical instruments like the MMPI.
R.B. Cattell followed a quantitative approach in the development of the 16pf®. Through factor analysis
he attempted to identify and formulate variables that could account for the diverse and complex nature
of human behaviour.
The 16pf® has been extensively researched over more than 50 years of being in use and numerous
studies have verified its basic structure and dimensions. As a broad measure of normal personality, the
16pf® Questionnaire is useful in a variety of settings to predict a wide range of behaviours.
Various formats of the questionnaire are available to address the needs of different circumstances. Of
particular interest in this training course is a focus on the theoretical basis and use of the 16pf® and to
relate this to the latest development of the questionnaire, namely the 16pf®5th edition.
5
1.2 Purpose of Training
To share information on the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16pf®) as a psychological measure, in
terms of:

Purpose

Theoretical base

History of its development

Statistical basis and structure

The 16pf® and other psychometric products

The value of the 16pf® and 16pf®5th edition through practical applications.
1.3 Raymond B. Cattell
Cattell was born in 1905 in Staffordshire in England. He trained at Kings College, University of London,
where he obtained his B.Sc. in Chemistry in 1924. He then studied Psychology and in 1929 obtained a
PhD.
Whilst working as a Research Assistant with Charles Spearman he developed an interest in Factor Analysis
as a developing technique to analyse data. From 1927 to 1932 he lectured at the University College of
Exeter and then became director of the Leicester Child Guidance Clinic where he stayed until 1937.
In 1937 he was awarded a D.Sc. Honores Causa by Exeter and he also moved to the University of Columbia
in the USA where he did research with E.L. Thorndike. He consequently did research in genetic psychology
at Clark University and lectured between 1941 and 1944 in Psychology at Harvard University, Boston.
In 1944, whilst at the University of Illinois he obtained his first subjects for the development of the 16pf®
Questionnaire.
During his lifetime Cattell published many articles and books and was awarded the prestigious WennerGren Prize by the New York Academy of Science for his research on the psychology of personality.
.
6
1.4 Theoretical Foundation
The 16pf® was developed by Cattell during the 1940’s to measure the concept of “personality”. The
task he set himself was difficult because the ways in which human personality can be described are varied
and systematisation there-of is very complex.
The author’s focus was to first identify a naturally occurring “structure of personality” and then to
develop a questionnaire to measure it.
Cattell aimed at identifying “source traits” as descriptors of basic personal characteristics and “surface
traits” as reflecting the behaviours associated with such identified source traits. A source trait was
perceived as an element or driving force that influences the way a person will tend to reflect this factor
in behaviour.
Cattell’s aim was to develop a questionnaire that would allow for a deeper and richer understanding of
a person by not merely describing what is seen in his or her behaviour but by describing the
characteristics which underlie what is seen.
His focus was to explore a universe of “trait elements” and to identify the larger unities that explain the
co-variance among them and which manifest as personal behaviour. He accepted that specific behaviour
is usually determined by two, three or more “factors” acting together. He also aimed at describing the
nature of such cross-linking interactions which he perceived to be similar to a dynamic “lattice” or
network of potential behaviour.
Cattell perceived personality to be “…..that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given
situation” (Maas, 1989:11).
7
1.4.1 Research Approach
Cattell used a language analysis, done by Allport and Odbert in 1936, as the basis for an operational
assessment of behavioural trait elements. He used personality descriptions found in Webster’s New
Unabridged International Dictionary. They had identified more than 4000 words that could be described
as “personal traits”.
Cattell and a colleague reduced this list to a more manageable number by combining synonyms and
eliminating items that were unclear in their meaning. A set of about 170 variables was then further
reduced to 35 by applying informal cluster-analytic methods to a correlation matrix of peer ratings made
by 100 adults. These 35 variables served as a basis for peer ratings on a sample of 208 adults.
Cattell then generated a pool of questionnaire items to represent factors he had obtained. His focus was
on those factors that had shown the greatest replicability across three interpretive approaches followed,
namely self-report, observer rating and objective performance data.
Twelve to fifteen factors were identified and Cattell named these according to the letters of the alphabet:
Factors A – O. Ultimately, Cattell took out some of the factors. Four factors, identified in the language
analysis but which did not turn up in the factor analysis were perceived by Cattell as of importance in
everyday life and were given equal ranking with the other factors of the questionnaire. They were named
the Q-factors. The above-identified (both the A-O factors and the Q-factors) factors were defined as
first order factors. Based on subsequent research, three of the identified fifteen factors, namely D, J, and
K, were found not to be replicable for adults and were subsequently left out in the further development
of the questionnaire.
Further correlation studies done on the sixteen “first order” factors resulted in the identification of a
number of “second-order” factors, each of which were perceived to extend over several of the primary
factors. Five major second-order factors in adults were identified in addition to the factor of intelligence.
These are extraversion, anxiety, cortertia, independence and sociopathy. Other second-order factors
identified were naturalness vs. discreteness, and cool realism vs. prodigal subjectivity.
8
Different source traits can result in behaviour which to an observer may seem the same, but the way in
which each source trait has caused the observed behaviour, may be different. For example, one person
in a group may want to impose his or her will on others, to influence others and thus be perceived as
dominant. Another person is perceived as dominant merely because he or she is more bold and
unselfconscious and not because of a need to influence people. Overlaps between the source traits and
experienced surface traits make interpretation of the 16pf® results complex unless the questionnaire and
its structure are clearly understood.
1.4.2 In Summary

Cattell defined personality as

“… that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation” (Maas,
1989:11).

Basic structural and functional elements of the personality are, according to Cattell, traits.

A trait is a basic personality structure which can be identified from behavioural actions.

General and unique traits organize into complex, dynamic, “lattice work” systems.

Such structures can result in wide varieties of patterns and combinations of individual actions.

The total personality in all its source trait dimensions becomes involved in all behavioural acts.

Cattell as a student of Charles Spearman, the inventor of factor analysis, learnt the techniques
that allowed him to search for the underlying elements of personality.

His initial source of information was language analysis of the concept of personality.

The 16pf® is not composed of arbitrary scales but consists of scales which have been validated
to offer primary personality factors rooted in basic psychological concepts.

The 16pf® can best be described as an instrument that assesses independent and essentially
normal categories or “factors”.

The questionnaire has one of the most extensive research bases of any test currently in use and
numerous studies have verified the basic structure and dimensionality of the test.

Assessment of content items done by Werner and Pervin (1986) showed the 16pf® to reflect the
following categories: 25% cognitive (beliefs, opinions); 30% affective preferences (likes, dislikes,
wishes); 23% affective feelings (emotions); 22% behavioural (actions).
9
1.5 16pf®: Historical Development
The 16pf® was first published by the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (IPAT) in 1949.
Over more than five decades the 16pf® has developed from a first edition questionnaire to a system or
“family” of tests, able to explore important criterion behaviours of adults, adolescents and children.
Different formats of the test have all remained true to the basic theory and principles which guided the
development of the original questionnaire.
Further developments followed on the publication of the first 16pf®:

In 1952 all items of the questionnaire were changed from a second person format ( do you
usually...) to a first person format (I like...).

In 1956, 1962 and 1968 revisions involved the replacement of out-dated items with new items.

In 1975 revision focused on eliminating gender discriminatory language in remaining items.

Some re-definition of scales (factors) was done after 1949 but since 1956 factors retained their
basic meanings.
1.5.1 Basic 16pf® Formats

1949, first publication of the 16pf® Questionnaire in the United States internationally (Cattell &
Schuerger, 2003).

1952, first publication of the 16pf® Questionnaire in Great Britain internationally (Cattell &
Schuerger, 2003).

1953, first publication of the High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) internationally (Cattell
& Schuerger, 2003).

1956, the 16pf® Second Edition was published internationally (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

1959, first publication of the Children’s Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) internationally (Cattell
& Schuerger, 2003).

1962, the 16pf® Third Edition was published internationally (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

1968, the 16pf® Fourth Edition was published internationally (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

Instruments were, over time, developed to meet the needs of different groups. In 1970, three
formats of the 16pf® were available, each with an equivalent second format. These were:
10
o
Form A and Form B, as equivalent, with the aim of assessing literate members of the
general public. Each of these formats consisted of 187 items and generally took 50
minutes to complete.
o
Form C and Form D, as equivalent, with a focus on assessing less literate members of the
general public. Words used were simpler and only 105 items had to be answered. It
generally took 30 to 40 minutes to complete.
o
Form E and Form F, as equivalent. These formats had very easy to understand words
and items and the focus was on general members of the public with a low level of
education (grades 6 –11). There were 128 questions to be answered and it normally took
between 30 to 40 minutes to complete.

In 1975, a Children’s Personality Questionnaire was developed by Porter and Cattell for
assessment of pre-teens. There were four forms A, B, C, D each with 140 items.

In 1976, an Early School Personality Questionnaire followed for assessment of 6 – 8 year olds.
This consisted of one form with two parts and each part had 80 items.

A subset of 16 items formed the IPAT Anxiety Scale which became available in 1976. The focus
was on clinically important aspects of personality.

In 1980, a set of scales designed to measure factorially distinct aspects of depression and cognitive
disturbance was developed and added to the basic 16pf® to create the Clinical Analysis
Questionnaire.

In 1984, the High School Personality Questionnaire for teenagers became available.

In 1992, the 16pf® SA92 was developed, where items were taken from the local A and B forms,
the American C and D forms and the South African forms E and F (an Eeden & Prinsloo, 1997).

1993, the 16pf® Fifth Edition was published internationally (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003)

1999, the 16pf® Select Questionnaire was published internationally (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

2000, 16pf® Fifth Editions re-standardised (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

2001, 16pf® Adolescent Personality Questionnaire (APQ, a revised HSPQ) was published –
internationally (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).
Additional research done over time included the development of secondary or derivative scales from the
basic scales. These scales are known as second-order scores, criterion scores, specification equations,
adjustment specification equations and performance equations. Each of these corresponds to a set of
weights applied to the primary factors to produce a new score.
11
A typical example of the value of these additional scales is found in the development of the Clinical
Analysis Questionnaire (CAQ). Although hypotheses about pathological behaviour can be suggested by
certain combinations of scores, the 16pf®’s primary focus is on the assessment of normal behaviour.
In creating the CAQ, twelve scales from factor-analytically identified traits were added to the existing
16pf® scales. These additional scales were developed from factoring items from reliable and valid
depression assessment questionnaires.
Further examples:

The Motivational Analysis Questionnaire (MAT) (1964). In the MAT five factors refer to what Cattell
named “ergs” and which he suggested are inborn propensities to seek biological goals, and five
factors refer to sentiments, namely acquired needs, feelings and values.

The IPAT Culture Fair Intelligence Test (1965). The purpose of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT)
is to measure intelligence as free as is possible from cultural bias by focusing only on the fluid
intelligence factor. There are three forms or levels of the CFIT. Scale One is for children up to 8 years
of age. Scale Two is for ages older than 8 years, adolescents and adults, while the difficulty level of
Scale Three items makes it possible to measure intelligence quotients of 140 and above.
1.5.2 16pf® Fourth Edition
IPAT’s focus is on continuous research, improvement and development of their products to assist their
clients in meeting the challenges of a changing world. Older products like the Forms A – E; the Clinical
Analysis Questionnaires (CAQ), the Adolescent Personality Questionnaire (APQ), the Children’s
Personality Questionnaire (CPQ), the Early School Personality Questionnaire (ESPQ), Culture Fair
Intelligence Tests (CFIT Scale 1, CFIT Scale 2 & 3) and the High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ)
were updated over time to represent the 16pf® Fourth Edition products. New products developed
include: a Comprehensive Ability Battery, a Health Attribution Test (HAT), an Adult Personality Inventory
(API) and an Executive Profile Survey (EPS).
12
1.5.3 16pf® Fifth Edition
During 1993 and 1995 a “new” 16pf® became available, known as 16pf®5th edition. This Edition
represents a controlled, natural evolution of the original questionnaire and it offers a significant number
of improvements without having changed the structure of the test.
Changes made include:

Updated language

Easier hand-scoring

Clearer items

Fine-tuned factor measurement

Improved psychometric characteristics

New normative data

Ethical and legal compliance for gender, culture and racial bias

Shorter testing time
The 16 personality factors identified by Dr Cattell more than 50 years ago are still measured by the Fifth
Edition and the letters for every factor scale are still used. However, terms used to identify traits have been
adapted to now measure levels of Warmth (A), Reasoning (B), Emotional Stability (C), Dominance (E),
Liveliness (F), Rule-consciousness (G), Social Boldness (H), Sensitivity (I), Vigilance (L), Abstractedness (M),
Privateness (N), Apprehension (O), Openness to Change (Q1), Self-Reliance (Q2), Perfectionism (Q3) and
Tension (Q4).
A number of additional scales have also been derived (as with the previous Editions), including five global
factors (these factors were historically called second-order factors and resulted from a factor analysis of the
test’s primary scales): Extraversion (EX), Anxiety (AX), Tough-Mindedness (TM), Independence (IN) and
Self-Control (SC). Composite scores for creativity, adjustment and numerous other criterion-related scales
are also available.
This version of the 16pf® contains 185 items and can be used for clients aged 16 and above. The items
comprise 16 primary personality factor scales and the Impression Management (IM) scale. Each scale
contains 10-15 items. It has a USA 5th grade reading level and usually takes 35 – 50 minutes to complete.
13
Combined gender norms plus separate male and female norms are available (See Part 3 in this manual for
statistical information; see Conn and Rieke (1998) for a full exposition of the development and technical
information).
Translations:
The 16pf® is currently available in the following languages:

Danish

English for Australia

English for Canada



English
for
South

Portuguese
Africa
(European and New

French (European)
World)
English for the United

German

Spanish (Castilian)
Kingdom

Italian

Spanish (American)
English for the United

Norwegian

Swedish
States

Greek

Turkish

Afrikaans

Ukrainian
The following should be available soon:

Croatian

Finnish
Software reports:
The 16pf®5th edition offers a variety of software reports which can be generated from the same test
administration.
For general applications and researchers:

Data Summary Report
(DSR)

Basic Score Report
(BSR)

Basic Interpretive
Report (BIR)
For counsellors and clinicians:

Cattell Comprehensive Personality Interpretation (CCPI)

Karson Clinical Report (KCR)

The 16pf® Couples’ Counselling Questionnaire (CCR) and report. This report is based on the
16pf®5th edition plus additional questions about relationship history and satisfaction.
14
15
OPPs online reports:

Career Development Report

Competency and Candidate Feedback Report

Interpretive Report

Profile Report

Management Potential Report

Profile and Management Feedback Report

Practitioner Report

Leadership Coaching Report

Competency report
For consultants, human resource professionals and vocational counsellors:

Leadership Coaching Report (LCR)

Teamwork Development Report (TDR)

Personal Career Development Profile (and Plus Profile) (PCDP)

Human Resource Development Report (HRDR)
All of the above reports are supported by User’s Guides and should be used when working with correlating
reports. Examples of the reports can be requested from Jopie van Rooyen and Partners (also see Addendum
C for an example of the Basic Interpretive Report).
NB: The 16pf® Fifth Edition South African English version is now available in hand-scorable and online
format. Software reports are generated on OPP’s assessment platform.
1.6 More about the Distributors
The original developer and supplier of the 16 PF, the Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, Inc. (IPAT)
was established in 1949 to develop and supply assessment instruments, books and interpretive services to
the behavioural science profession. At that time Dr Raymond Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire
was a revolutionary concept. Since then, it has become one of the most widely respected and welldocumented behavioural assessment instruments in the world.
IPAT, as distributor of the 16pf®, was able to keep abreast with the radical changes in society and industry
over the years. They maintained an active, ongoing and modern programme of test development, re-
16
norming and improvement. They have over the years maintained their commitment to fundamental research
but added to the latest technical developments to aid in assessment and interpretation.
IPAT was a founding member of the Association of Test Publishers and boasted distributors in Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Switzerland,
Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovac
Republic, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Their head office was in the USA.
Internationally, IPAT established a relationship with OPP, an international business consultancy, which
became the exclusive global distributor of the 16pf®. This relationship was terminated in 2015 when IPAT
officially became part of Performance Assessment Network (PAN), a leading provider of talent measurement
solutions.
PAN was founded in 2000 by two clinical psychologists, who saw a need for a company that could compile
various web-enabled assessments onto one platform. Since then they have continued to pursue their goal
of bringing only the best assessments to the market using industry-leading technology. PAN is now the
exclusive owner and publisher of the 16pf® personality assessment.
JvR as the regional representative of PAN is responsible for:

Research

Distribution

Training

Acting on copyright violations
17
2 Questionnaire
administration and scoring
2.1 Introduction
The 16pf® Fifth Edition is a self-report questionnaire that attempts to describe personality traits
comprehensively. It is designed to be administered to adults (16 years and older), individually or in a group
setting.
Individuals younger than 16 years can complete this questionnaire if their maturity level is professionally
judged as such, although the 16pf® Adolescent Personality Questionnaire (APQ) is most appropriate for
ages 11 through 22.
2.2 Administration
The 16pf® Fifth Edition is virtually self-administrable, but the time taken to establish a comfortable rapport
and favourable test-taking attitude is important. Note the following:

Questions have a three-choice response format where the middle response choice is a question mark
(?), Factor B items which measures reasoning ability are an exception. They are grouped at the end of
the test booklet to enable separate assessment of reasoning ability from that of personality.

There is no time limit to complete the test, but examinees should be encouraged to work at a steady
pace (time should not be spent agonizing over questions as the first, natural answer must be given).
Average test completion time is 35 to 50 minutes.

Paper-and-pencil administration includes the Fifth Edition test booklet and corresponding answer sheet,
with instructions.
18
2.3 Scoring
For complete instructions on scoring procedures consult Russel and Karol (2002). Before scoring the
following must be checked:

The identifying information must be provided (name, gender etc.).

All 185 items should be answered (answer sheets with 12 or fewer incomplete items can still be scored).

The norm grid must be completed, indicating whether combined-gender norms or gender-specific
norms (the three personality factors of A [Warmth], I [Sensitivity] and O [Apprehension] are compared
only to the compatible normative group) must be used for comparison. Combined-gender norms are
required for making employment decisions and are generally recommended for other testing contexts
as well.
2.3.1 Hand scoring for incomplete items
Materials needed are: a set of four scoring keys, a norm table and an Individual Record Form. The procedure
for scoring is as follows:
1.
Obtain the total raw score of the items in the scale by using the appropriate scoring key.
2.
Divide the total raw score by the number of items completed (to get a quotient).
3.
Multiply this quotient by the number of items in the scale (to obtain a product).
4. Round this product to the nearest whole number, this is then called the estimated full scale score.
The steps involved in hand scoring:
1.
Score the test. The first three scoring keys are used to each score five of the primary personality
factors. The fourth key scores Reasoning (Factor B) and Impression Management (IM: response style
scale that reflects social desirability). Detailed instructions for obtaining raw scores are provided on
the scoring keys. Position the scoring keys so that the stars on the right side of the answer sheet
appear through the holes on the right side of the key. Count the pencil marks that appear through
the holes in the key, allowing 1 or 2 points as indicated by the number next to each hole (except for
Factor B, where responses are scored as 0 [incorrect] or 1 [correct]). Write the total amount of points
in the space for the corresponding factor. No key is available for the hand scoring of the response
style indices of Infrequency (INF) and Acquiescence (ACQ). Instructions on how to score these two
19
response styles can be found in the Administrator’s Manual (Russel & Karol, 2002) or the South
African Manual (IPAT, 2009).
2.
Convert raw scores to sten (standardised) scores. The provided norm table is used for this conversion
(the basis of sten is described in the interpretation section). The procedure is as follows: locate the
raw score for the appropriate factor in the row that corresponds to the norms selected (combined
gender norms, male norms or female norms when applicable); the score at the top of the column
where the raw score is located is the sten score. A separate table is used for the IM index as the
scores are converted into a percentile rather than sten score.
3.
Calculate global factor sten scores. Sten sores for the five global factors of personality (Extraversion,
Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness, Independence and Self-Control) are calculated in this step. The global
factors are comprised of combinations of related primary factors and therefore they describe
personality in broader, more general terms. Global factor sten scores can be calculated through
following the instructions on the Individual Record Form (for the US version) and the Profile Sheet
(for the SA Version) or by using the equations in the corresponding user manuals.
4. Profile sten scores. Graph the sten scores for the five global factors and the 16 primary factors to
achieve a profile. This is helpful in interpretation and found on side 2 of the Individual Record Form
for the US version or on the same page for the SA version. Profiles for the primary factors and global
factors can be created.
2.3.2 Computer scoring
Computer scoring services are provided at the Bureau service of JvR. Reports available are discussed in the
software reports section of Part 1. Examples of reports are available on request.
20
3 Psychometric Properties of
the 16pf® Fifth Edition
3.1 Comparison between the 16pf® Fifth Edition and Fourth
Edition (Form A)
With regards to the equivalence between the last two Editions of the 16pf®, analyses showed that most (at
least 13 of the 16 scales) of the Fifth Edition primary scales are highly equivalent to the corresponding Fourth
Edition (Form A) scales (Conn & Rieke, 1998). The mentioned authors’ technical manual can be consulted
for a full exposition of the analysis done and results obtained.
In essence it was found that:

The Fifth Edition does measure the same fundamental trait characteristics as its predecessor, but the
internal consistency for each of the scales in the Fifth Edition was increased.

There are also some differences in correspondence for the primary scales, and particularly professionals
who are experienced in the use of Form A must note that the interpretations of some primary scales
need to be adjusted. The scales most affected are: Warmth (A), Rule-Consciousness (G), Abstractedness
(M), Privateness (N), Openness to Change (Q1), Perfectionism (Q3), and Tension (Q4). More information
on these effects is given in Part 4 of this manual.
3.2 Test Design and Construction
Although the 16pf® is used widely, one cannot assume that it is a valid and reliable instrument. The results
on the questionnaire can differ between cooperative and uncooperative subjects, well-educated and poorly
educated subjects, as well as honest subjects and subjects that have ulterior motivates. These distortions
can be reduced with appropriate motivation and cooperation during the test administration and with
corrections made afterwards.
21
All the 16pf® forms are intended for administration in groups and individually. No significant difference was
found between the two procedures.
3.2.1 Norm Samples
USA:
The updated norm sample in America consisted of 10 261 people. Sample stratification was done on the
basis of four demographical variables with the target number for each variable being derived from the 2000
US census figures. These variables were: gender, race and age.
Mean differences for gender, race and age were investigated. These analyses use the effect size index of d
to show the relation between demographic variables and factor scale scores. Any effect size ( d) that is equal
or greater than .50 is considered to be at least a moderate difference between subgroups. See Maraist and
Russel (2002) for more information.
Gender differences were found on the following scales: Warmth (A), Sensitivity (I) and Apprehension (O).
The mean for females was higher than the mean for males on all three of these factors. Dominance (E) no
longer has gender differences (as it did in the original norm sample) that meet the guideline for moderate
effect sizes. Overall norms should be used in selection contexts where the similar treatment of subgroups
is required by law.
In the USA sample there were two factors with mean differences for blacks and whites (racial differences).
These factors are Reasoning (B) and Vigilance (L) with whites scoring higher on B and blacks scoring higher
on L. See Maraist and Russel (2002) for other racial differences.
With regards to age, it was found that individuals under 40 years of age have higher average means on
Liveliness (F) and Vigilance (L). Age-related corrections can be used (see Conn and Rieke, 1998) but is not
advisable, especially in a selection context.
22
SA norms on the US version:
A first norm sample in South Africa consisted of 1525 students (692 males and 833 females) (Maree, 2002).
The biographical variables identified in this study were: population group, gender, study field, age and
language.
The majority of subjects were white and almost half of the sample was studying B.Com. Most (around 60%)
of the respondents were between 18 years –19 years old.
In terms of gender, large differences were found on most of the scales except for Liveliness (F), Social
Boldness (H), Vigilance (L), Perfectionism (Q3) and Tension (Q4). For the moment one can assume that
different norms for each group are warranted.
With regards to race, the research design was very unbalanced, but just in an exploratory fashion it was
found that Reasoning (B) and Privateness (N) presented the greatest disparities between the groups. There
are possible cultural influences when answering the 16pf®5th edition. Language competency also seems to
play a role here. Preliminary norms for the student group are available in Addendum A.
SA version of the 16pf®:
The South African version of the 16pf® was developed based on the Fifth Edition of the 16pf®. In the
development of the South African 16pf® questionnaire, a research form was used, which has an extended
number of trial items per scale, resulting in a total of 263 items.
The adaptation of the 16pf® for the South African context began in 2002, where initially only changes to
spelling and minor language usage changes were made to the research form items. A decision to translate
the 16pf® into both Afrikaans and Zulu then guided the selection of items from the research form, as it was
the intention to have the same items in all three translations of the South African 16pf®. Independent
translators were used to translate the items into Afrikaans and Zulu. Numerous problems arose from the
Zulu translation, and it was then decided to freeze the project while the English and Afrikaans adaptations
progressed. A few of the problems included the following:

The sentences in the English version would become paragraphs in the Zulu version just to say the
same thing.
23

For some English words there was not an equivalent word in Zulu.

There are also numerous dialects of Zulu (differences in regions)
The items included in the South African English 16pf® were very similar to those in the US version. Minor
language changes were made to only 37 of the final 185 items. The overlap of items with the US version is
very high, except for Factor B and Factor L. The items in the Afrikaans version are the same as in the South
African English version. The trial versions were administered to a group of students in 2003 (N = 3189), after
which further changes were made to the items of both the English and Afrikaans versions. The process
involved and psychometric properties of this trial version are described by Schepers and Hassett (2006). The
revisions were reviewed by experts, who made last suggestions and changes to the items at the end of 2004.
These final versions of the English and Afrikaans adaptations were administered to the student norm group
(N = 2538) early in 2005, and data collection with a working adult sample for the English version (N = 478)
started in 2007.
In factor analysis, where items were grouped into parcels for each scale, most of the factors were clearly
defined, corresponding to Cattell’s primary factors in the US 16pf® questionnaire. Apprehension (O)
provided an area of confusion as it did not exist as a separate factor, but rather loaded clearly onto the
Emotional Stability (C) factor, so that high Apprehension correlates with low Emotional Stability.
Despite
this anomaly, the majority of the factors were clearly defined, providing evidence for construct validity.
With regard to gender differences, the results showed that female students tend to score significantly higher
than male students on Warmth (A), Rule-Consciousness (G), Social Boldness (H), Sensitivity (I), Vigilance (L),
Apprehension (O) and Tension (Q4). Male students tended to score higher than female students on
Emotional Stability (C), Dominance (E), Abstractedness (M), and Privateness (N).
With regard to differences across four South African population groups, significant differences were found
on all the scales, except for Warmth (A), Social Boldness (H), and Apprehension (O). However, the effect
sizes for all of these differences were small, except for Reasoning (B) and Liveliness (F), which demonstrated
medium effect sizes. These results and the norms are available in the 16pf® SA version User’s Manual
(IPAT, 2009).
24
In 2011, JvR Psychometrics undertook a study on the ethnic equivalence of the 16pf®5th edition-SA, which
found stable differences between Black and White respondents at the scale level. This finding resulted in a
norm update for the SA working population, which was released in 2014. In addition to a combined sample
(N = 1810), this norm update also provides separate Black (N = 480) and White (N = 344) norms, which were
extracted from the overall sample.
With regard to gender differences, the results showed that women tended to score higher than men on
Warmth (A), Liveliness (F), Sensitivity (I), Apprehension (O), and Tension (Q4). Men tended to score higher
than women on Emotional Stability (C), Dominance (E), and Social Boldness (H).
3.2.2 Standard Error of Measurement (SEm)
The Standard Error of Measurement is an estimate of the degree to which a particular set of measurements
obtained in a given situation, might be expected to deviate from the true values.
Example: If a person scores a 7 on Q3, one can predict with a 65% confidence that the subject’s true
Perfectionism score is not less than 6 (7-1) and not more than 8 (7+1). If one would like to predict with a
95% confidence the SEm doubles to not less than 5 (7-2) and not more than 9 (7+2) [see measurement
limits in Conn and Rieke (1998:40)].
3.3 Response Style Indices
Response style is one of the known components of test variance and refers to how the respondent reacts to
a test and the test-taking situation, or the respondent’s approach to the test. This includes a tendency to
give socially desirable, critical, extreme, or random answers, regardless of the item content. The professional
needs to identify possible reasons for elevated response style indices (e.g. conscious misrepresentation, a
need for approval, or an inability to commit to a certain response).
The 16pf® addresses certain response styles via the following three response style indices

Impression Management (social desirability)

Infrequency (items with a very low endorsement rate for a particular response choice)

Acquiescence (tendency to agree with statements)
25
(Also see Part 4 of this manual; cf. Conn & Rieke (1998) for a full exposition on the three response style
indices).
3.3.1 Impression Management (IM)
Cattell (1973) described Motivational Distortion (MD) as a situation where the subject either consciously or
unconsciously presents a misleading set of responses. On the 16pf® (4th Edition), two separate motivational
distortion scales were developed, namely Faking Good (FG) and Faking Bad (FB). With the development of
the 16pf® 5th Edition several questions arose regarding the existing MD scales. To address these issues the
IM scale was developed to tap into conscious and unconscious components of social desirability. It was
composed of items not found on the other 16pf® scales and is bipolar. Because no differences in frequency
distributions between gender groups were found, the groups were combined and have one set of norms.
A high IM indicates more socially desirable responding and a low IM suggests less socially desirable
responding, or an exaggeration of undesirable qualities. The reasoning behind the development of the IM
scale was to use it as a criterion-referenced measure, one of several checks on the validity of the 16pf®
protocol. This scale includes items such as “Sometimes I would like to get even rather than forgive and
forget;” and “I have said things that hurt others’ feelings ”. A true answer to these questions indicates
a willingness to admit less sociably desirable behaviours and will not contribute to a higher score on IM,
whereas answering “false” will contribute to a higher score on this scale and is indicative of a socially
desirable response set. At the same time, answering “true" to an item such as “I am always willing to help
people” contributes to a higher score on IM. Too little attribution of socially desirable behaviours to oneself
can signal problems in self-esteem or adjustment problems that derive from insensitivity to social cues.
Impression Management correlated highly with several primary factor scales e.g. Emotional Stability (C), Rule
Consciousness (G), Vigilance (L), Abstractedness (M), Apprehension (O) and Tension (Q4). This generated
some questions on how to use the social desirability scores and whether primary scale scores should be
corrected based on the IM score (as was done in the Fourth Edition due to elevated FG and FB scores). It
was decided that corrections for personality scores should be situation-specific and cautiously implemented.
IM raw scores can range from 0 to 24 and the administrator can decide upon the most appropriate cut-off
score for the test setting. The cut-off should be established prior to testing to minimize the possibility of
26
personal bias affecting the interpretation of the results. Traditionally a 5% and 95% cut-off (percentile ranks
under Addendum A or Administrator’s manual) have arbitrarily been chosen to determine the significance
of high and low scores, but there is no specific reasoning to suggest this. Different situations might warrant
lowering or increasing the cut-off. For example a high cut-off is appropriate for a position where selfpreservation is important (e.g. selection for a position), and a lower cut-off in a situation where undesirable
qualities are expected to be present (e.g. therapy). An IM score greater than the high cut-off or less than
the low cut-off indicate a possible problem with the protocol.
An unusually high IM score suggest a respondent has exaggerated his or her socially desirable qualities and
denied their undesirable qualities. In this case the assessor will need to probe harder for negative rather
than positive self-statements. An unusually low IM score can reflect excessive malingering or reading
difficulty and here the assessor will have to probe for positive self-statements. Thus the score on this scale
can give the assessor useful information relating to the most effective interaction style to adopt.
3.3.2 Infrequency (INF)
Self-report personality measures have no truly correct responses on items. Because of this, external means
cannot be used to determine if a respondent has attended to item content. The instrument therefore has
to have a built-in method of determining any non-purpose or random responding to items. Two methods
of achieving this are either through a rational-intuitive or an empirical approach.
With the 16pf® the empirical approach was used, which involves identifying those items for which a response
alternative was seldom endorsed. Items selected for usage in this index were selected on the basis of their
endorsement rate under standard test administrations. A sample (N=4346) of the general public item
responses was analysed for frequency distribution. There was no statistical difference between gender
groups and combined gender distribution was used to develop the INF scale.
This scale consists of 32 items taken from the full set of items. Because all infrequently chosen response
choices in the above mentioned analysis were (b) responses (representing the “uncertain or cannot
decide” option), choosing the (a) or (c) responses does not contribute to the INF score. In calculating the
INF score a middle response (b) scores one and any other response choice is scored zero. If an INF score
is high, one can assume that random or very unusual responding occurred. Again one has to decide on the
cut-off prior to assessment (cf. scale score percentile ranks in Conn & Rieke, [1998:69]). This cut-off will be
27
determined by the hypothesis on random responding (e.g. respondents in a job selection setting would
unlikely respond randomly).
A high INF score indicates that the respondent chose the middle response to questions which are true or
false and offer distinct choices, such as “I have said things that hurt others’ feelings” or “I don’t usually
mind if my room is messy”.
3.3.3 Acquiescence (ACQ)
An acquiescence response style is described as: “the tendency to agree with personality items as selfdescriptive, independent of the particular content of the item”. This scale consists of 103 true-or-false items
and is unique to the 16pf®5thf edition. The ACQ scale was developed following the empirical approach
where a true response to any item on this scale was scored 1.
In using the ACQ index one should remember that a low number of true (a) endorsements (low ACQ value)
does not indicate a large number of false (c) endorsements. Response alternatives a, b, and c is offered in
the 16pf®5th edition and it could therefore be due to the endorsements of both b and c responses, as these
responses are scored 0. Here the cut-off must also be appropriate for the setting in which the test is
administered.
A high ACQ score indicates that the respondent tended to answer true to incongruous items such as “ I
tend to like to be in charge” and “I tend to be more comfortable taking orders than being in charge ”.
The ACQ index can be used to generate responses about the approach the subject follows in completing
the questionnaire e.g. a high ACQ might indicate a high need for approval, acceptance and recognition;
random and indecisive responding; or an unclear self-image. These assumptions have to be explored
through interviews or the results of other measurements.
28
3.4 Reliability
A few definitions:

Reliability. It is a generic term used to cover all aspects relating to the dependability of a measurement.
The essential aspect here is the consistency of a measure, i.e. whether the measure will yield the same
approximate results when administered repeatedly under similar conditions.

Index of reliability. The correlation between true and observed scores.

Reliability coefficient. The square of the correlation between true and observed scores. This provides an
estimate of proportion of variation in test scores not attributable to error variance.

Error variance. This, along with true score variance, are additive components of observed test scores
and can be introduced into observed scores from several sources, e.g. mood fluctuations of the
examinee, the conditions of the test setting, rapport, etc.

Whenever a test is administered there is a chance that some measurement error can occur. There is usually
some random error or measurement error that influences the true score. No test can be a perfect measure
and therefore observed scores will unlikely be equal to theoretical true scores. The true score is obtained
where a perfect measure is administered under ideal conditions. True scores can therefore only be estimated
or measured indirectly.
The Reliability Coefficient of a test can range from .00 to as high as 1.00. The higher the Reliability Coefficient,
the less the effect Error Variance had on the results.
Two methods commonly used for estimating reliability:

Test-retest reliability (the consistency of scores over time)
In determining this reliability one has to determine the correlation between the score obtained from two
different administrations of the measurement. It can also be seen as the stability index of an instrument,
since it suggests how stable the scores on an instrument are over time. There is no “perfect” time lapse
between test administrations - it is up to the researcher to determine this.
With the 16pf® the test-retest reliability were found to be high and comparable to the Fourth Edition (Form
A). Stability in test scores also remained high in the 16pf®.
29

Internal Consistency Reliability
The Internal Consistency Reliability reflects the degree to which a test’s items come from the same domain.
It also indicates the degree of confidence one can attach to the interpretation of a test score. A source of
internal consistency is the extent to which there is intercorrelation among items. In other words, the larger
the intercorrelation, the greater the internal consistency. With tests like the 16pf® that measure unitary
constructs, this is the appropriate form of reliability to use.
With the 16pf®, internal consistency reliability estimates were higher than those of the Fourth Edition for all
the primary scales, especially for factors L, M, N, and Q 3. This increased internal consistency showed that
items in the Fifth Edition are more homogeneous than the items on the Fourth Edition (form A), which is
positive for profile interpretation.
For the South African version of the 16pf®, the internal consistency reliability coefficients were slightly lower
than those found in the US version, but were comparable. Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) had the lowest
estimate. This finding is consistent with research done in South Africa with other measures of Openness
(Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 2009).
3.5 Validity
Validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of specific inferences made from a
test score (i.e. does the test measure what it is designed to measure). There are different types of validity
and one should choose the type most relevant or most easily obtained to one’s measurement.

Criterion Validity. The ability of a test to predict behavioural criteria (such as self-esteem and creative
potential).

Construct validity. A set of procedures to evaluate the validity of a measurement. It is based on the
determination of the degree to which the test items capture the hypothetical quality or trait (construct)
it was designed to measure.
Criterion Validity:
The 16pf® has been shown over time to be useful in predicting behavioural criteria such as self-esteem,
adjustment, interpersonal skills, empathy, creative potential and leadership potential. In spite of this proven
30
validity, the instrument must be used cautiously in occupational selection or the appraisal of specific qualities
as personality tests have a limited range of prediction value (this is because factors other than personality
can have an important influence on future behaviour, such as motivation, ability, etc). Although the 16pf®
should not be the sole instrument used in selection, it can be very useful in a test battery. For a full exposition
on the regression analyses performed to determine the criterion validity of the 16pf®, see Russel and Carol
(2002).
Construct Validity:
With regard to the 16pf®, the construct validity of this test demonstrates that it measures 16 distinct
personality traits. A common procedure to determine this is to correlate test scores with other measures of
psychological behaviours. The global factor and primary factor scales were compared to four comprehensive
measures of normal personality. They were the Personality Research Form- Form E (PRF), the California
Personality Inventory (CPI), the Neo Personality Inventory- Revised (NEO PI-R) and the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI). These personality inventories were developed from diverse scale construction strategies
and thus the correlations would not be contaminated by similar scale construction. These correlations clearly
showed that the construct validity of most of the scales of the 16pf® is quite similar to the Fourth Edition.
Some changes in meaning were suggested for three primary scales and one global factor, detailed below.
Construct Validity of the Global Factor Scales:
The Fifth Edition’s global factor scales were developed in the same fashion as the previous editions, namely
through analysing the primary factor scale scores. The global factor scale scores of the Fifth Edition were
first compared to the global factor scale scores on the Fourth Edition.
It showed a high degree of
congruence (correlations ranged from .65 to .81 for four of the scales). The lowest correlation ( r = .38) was
between Tough-mindedness and Tough-poise (Fourth Edition) and resulted in a reconceptualization of
Tough-Poise to Tough-Mindedness in the Fifth Edition.
Separate studies were conducted between the Fifth Edition and each of the four external personality
instruments named above. Each of the five global factor scales were found to be related to several measures
from the comparison inventories. Full expositions of the results are given in the technical manual (Conn &
Rieke, 1998).
31
De Bruin, Schepers, and Taylor (2005) examined the construct validity of the Basic Traits Inventory, a South
African developed measure of the Big Five factors of personality, and the South African version of the 16pf®.
A joint common factor analysis of the 24 BTI facets and 15 16pf® personality scales produced a
psychologically meaningful six factor solution. Five of the six factors corresponded closely with the Big Five
factors. These factors also manifested equivalently among Black and White students.
Construct Validity of the Primary Factor Scales:
The same above mentioned external measures of normal personality were used to determine the construct
validity of the 16pf® primary factor scales (except for Factor B). Overall, the relationships found between
these instruments were quite consistent for meanings developed for previous 16pf® Editions. Some changes
were suggested by the validation of results for three of the primary scales: namely Abstractedness (M),
Privateness (N), and Openness to Change (Q1) (See Conn and Rieke [1998:129-130] for a full exposition).
Factor B (which rather measures reasoning ability than personality), was separately validated. Scores on this
factor were correlated with two measures of general ability, namely the Information Inventory and Scale 2
of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT). From this it seems that Factor B can be used as a generally
unbiased gauge of reasoning skill, although it was not designed as a measure of intelligence.
For the primary factors of the South African version of the 16pf®, construct validity was established using
the Locus of Control Inventory (LCI). Schepers and Hassett (2006) found significant canonical correlations
between the Autonomy, Internal Control and External Control scales of the LCI and the primary factors of
the 16pf®, which were in line with the theoretical underpinnings of the LCI. Autonomy was linked with
Factors C, E, H, O, and Q1; Internal Control was linked with Factors A, G, I, O, and Q 3; and External Control
was linked to Factors C, L, O, and Q4. The study identified problems with Factors B, L, and Q1, which were
addressed in the subsequent revision of the South African version.
Although initial construct validity of the 16pf® was established by investigating the relationship between the
global and primary factor scales with external personality measurements, it must be borne in mind that the
construct validity of the 16pf® must also be assessed by including other aspects of behaviour, such as
interviews, and biographical information. This will lead to richer interpretations of the 16pf® scores.
32
3.6 The 16pf® and Measurement of Psychological Constructs
Several studies were conducted to determine the relationship, if any, of the 16pf® with a variety of
psychological constructs, such as self-esteem, social skills, and leadership. A summary of the findings is given
here, because software reports on the 16pf® also present information about related interpersonal,
vocational and behavioural criteria. A full exposition of the studies is given in Conn and Rieke (1998).
3.6.1 The 16pf®, Psychological Adjustment and Self-Esteem
Two separate, but related, studies were conducted regarding the measurement of psychological adjustment
and self-esteem by the 16pf®. They are considered together because theoretically and historically these two
constructs relate highly; that is, people with higher self-esteem tend to be more adjusted and vice versa.
In the adjustment study it was assessed how three types (components) of adjustment relate to personality
as measured by the 16pf®. These three components of adjustment are social, emotional and occupational
adjustment and the Adjustment Inventory was used as a criterion measure. Results showed that a low level
of anxiety would usually relate to good adjustment and that different personality traits relate to the three
types of adjustment.
The Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) was used as a criterion measure in the self-esteem study to examine how
normal personality (as it is measured by the 16pf® integrates with self-esteem as well as clarifies the
construct. It was found that the Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness and Independence global factor scales are
largely responsible for the variance in self-esteem. The most important primary scales predicting self-esteem
form part of the Anxiety and Tough-Mindedness global scales.
In essence, the results of the two mentioned studies supported relationships between personality (as
measured by the 16pf® and psychological adjustment and self-esteem:

 Anxiety global scale scores relate to  Psychological Adjustment and  Self-Esteem

 Independence global scale scores relate to  Emotional Adjustment,  Social Adjustment and 
Self-esteem

 Independence global scale scores relate to  Occupational Adjustment

 Extraversion global scale scores relate to  Social Adjustment and  Self-esteem
33
3.6.2 The 16pf®, Social Skills and Empathy
Because social skills and empathy are both major components of interpersonal skills, their studies are
considered together.
The relationship of six social skills, as measured by the Social Skills Inventory (SSI), to the 16pf® global and
primary factor scales was investigated. The study showed that the primary scales corresponding to the
Extraversion and Independence global scales are amongst the most important predictors of social skills.
Empathy is a major component of interpersonal skills and the Hogan Empathy Scale (HES) from the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI) was used to study which primary factors of the 16pf® are significant predictors
of this trait. Results indicated that empathic individuals are less anxious and more extraverted.
Both empathy and social skills are denominated through an orientation toward people. Predictions of
empathy and social skills from the 16pf® profile provide useful information regarding preferred social
interaction styles.
3.6.3 The 16pf®, Leadership and Creativity
In the 16pf® reports information is given on the leadership potential and creativity of a test-taker. Leadership
and creativity are considered together because research indicates that personality is a component of both.
There are also similarities and differences between leaders and creative professionals, which when used in
conjunction, are useful in team building, developing, and so forth.
The leadership potential equation was revised in the Fifth Edition on the basis of the original equation. In
this study the following was found:

The primary factor scales that significantly predict Leadership Potential are components of the global
factor scales:  Extraversion,  Self-Control and  Anxiety.
The Equations of Creative Potential and Creative Achievement were developed in the 16pf® and show the
links between personality traits and creativity. For Creative Achievement, the Artistic and Scientific Activities
Survey (ASAS) was used as criterion measure, and for Creative Potential the Something About Myself (SAM)
was implemented. From these studies it was determined that:

Creative Achievement:
34

Scientists are typically  on Sensitivity scores (I-) and Artists are typically on Sensitive (I+);

Scientific-business creativity is associated with  Social boldness scores (H+) and  Warmth
scores (A-);

Artistic production is coupled with  Privateness scores (N-);

Both artistic and scientific-business creative behaviours are associated with  Abstractedness
(M+),  Openness to change (Q1+) and  Self-Reliance (Q2+) primary scale scores.

The Independence global factor and the primary scale scores of  Social Boldness (H+),  Openness
to Change (Q1+) and  Dominance (E+) are most strongly related to Creative Potential.
Scores on the above-mentioned equations can be used by professionals in educational, counselling, training
and development settings.
3.6.4 The 16pf® and Vocational Interest
In order to determine the ability of the 16pf® to predict vocational interest as classified by Holland, the Self-
Directed Search (SDS) was used as criterion measure in this study. Results showed that 16pf® primary factor
scales predicted each Occupational Type and supported Holland’s own definitions of these types.
Therefore the 16pf®5th edition may be helpful in career guidance. The 16pf® can actually enrich the
description of the Holland types; and “Personality Portraits” for the types are shown on the next page (cf.
Conn & Rieke, 1998).
3.6.5 The 16pf® and Leisure Activities
In the study of the relationship between leisure activities, as measured by the Leisure Activities Blank (LAB),
and personality traits measured by the 16pf®®, no substantial predictability of the global factor scales on
the LAB scores was found. Possible reasons for this include:

Leisure interests should be assessed differentially which could result in a stronger relationship with
personality

Leisure interest measures should take into account other variables such as skills and aptitudes, the
availability of time and money and geographic location (Conn and Rieke, 1998).
35
Personality Portraits of the Holland Types
Realistic People

Tend to be tough-minded and somewhat introverted

May focus on the function and purpose of objects and not value aesthetic principles much

May possess interests stereotyped as “masculine”

May appear reserved or interpersonally distant

Exhibit little anxiety
Investigative People

Are generally introverted

Often appear as interpersonally reserved

Have good abstract reasoning and are open to and curious about new approaches

Usually tend to be objective and unsentimental
Artistic People

Are receptive and sensitive

Tend to be interested in aesthetic matters and have refined interests (usually stereotyped as “feminine”)

May be preoccupied with ideas and thoughts and overlook practical considerations

Are open to new ideas and experiences, but may be critical of those

Are typically independent, bold in social settings and enjoy being the centre of attention

May be expedient (operate by own set of rules rather than that of their culture)
Social People

Are extraverted

Tend to be warm and personal, and experienced as lively and exuberant

Prefer group settings, are bold and easily share personal matters with others

Are perceptive and open to new ideas and experiences

Are independent, which may involve being dominant and venturesome
Enterprising People

Are independent

May be dominant, assertive and venturesome with lively and animated interactions

Tend to be extraverted (warm and gregarious, preferring group settings)

Are socially bold and tough-minded (latter may involve focussing on utilitarian matters)

Are typically not anxious and generally cope self-assuredly with life’s challenges
Conventional People

Are self-controlled

Abide by society’s rules and standards

Are tough-minded (focus on utilitarian matters and practical considerations)

May adhere to traditional methods and ideas rather than experiment with new ones
36
3.7 In Summary
From all the research conducted on the psychometric properties of the 16pf®, it is clear that this instrument
is a reliable and valid measurement of personality. The essence of the Fifth Edition correlates highly with the
previous edition, but the internal consistency for each of the scales in the Fifth Edition has increased. From
this it can be said that the 16pf® can be used to generate more accurate profile interpretations.
Psychometric Properties
Statistical Methods
Pearson Product-Moment
Test-Retest
Reliability
Correlations were calculated for
two-week and two-month testretest intervals
Results
Primary factors: Mean reliability coefficient
of .80 and .70
Global factors: Mean reliability coefficient of
.87 and .78
Reliability
Internal
Cronbach Alpha Coefficients were
Consistency
calculated on each scale
Mean value of .76
Reliability
16pf® scores were correlated with
scores on existing self-esteem,
Criterion Validity
adjustment, social skills, empathy,
creative potential and leadership
potential measurements**.
3.6.5.1.1.1.1.1.2
Validity
3.6.5.1.1.1.1.1.1
16pf® scores were correlated with
Construct Validity
scores on existing widely-used
personality inventories*
The 16pf® has the ability to predict various
criterion scores, such as self-esteem,
adjustment, etc.
Global factors: correlational, regressional
and component analyses results showed
that each of the global scales were related
to several measures from the comparison
inventories
Primary factors: correlations are often
significant (see Conn & Rieke, 1998)
Table 1: The statistical methods used to determine the psychometric properties of the 16pf® (US Data)
** See section 3.6 for the measurements used
* See section 3.5 for the inventories used
37
4 Profile Interpretation
4.1 Introduction
Source traits can collectively cross link and influence surface traits to manifest in different behaviour patterns,
and overlap between the source traits within the surface traits with which they are associated, also occur.
The advantage of measuring source traits (the characteristics that underlie what is seen [behaviour]) as in
the 16pf® is that it gives a richer understanding of the person. Although each scale of the 16pf® measures
a functionally different source trait, the overlap between the source traits can result in surface traits (or
behaviour) that look the same to an observer, but the way the source trait caused the behaviour differs (see
diagram 1).
Overlap between the source traits results in item content overlap between scales, which in turn causes
statistical overlap between the scales and make interpretation more difficult. In order to reduce the statistical
overlap between the scales in the Fifth Edition, as well as reduce the complexity of the interpretive process,
each item’s correlation with scales other than the one to which it belongs had to be reduced. This led to a
difference in item content between the Fourth and Fifth Editions of the 16pf®. “In this way the Fifth Edition
stays true to the original factor structure while increasing the precision with which it measures that
structure” (Lord, 2000). In essence the 16pf® is more focused on how source traits affect behaviour, rather
than on surface traits. This means that the user can more accurately hypothesize about an individual based
on integrated information from several scales.
38
Source Trait #
High scorer: Factor A
(Warmth)
Source Trait 
High scorer: Factor H
(Social Boldness)
Person observed as (e.g.) being the centre of
attention, always meeting new people
High scorer on A is warm, attentive
High scorer on H is socially bold and
and outgoing. Behaviour arises out
venturesome.
of interest in people and an
because the person is less self-
outgoing nature
conscious than most people
Behaviour
arises
The boldness of the one person may be mistaken for the outgoing nature of
the other, but their source traits differ.
Diagram 1: The influence of source traits on behaviour
4.1.1 Summary of changes to the 16pf®
(For a complete description of differences in item content and between the 16pf® Fourth Edition and the
16pf® Fifth Edition and developmental data of the 16pf®, see Conn & Rieke, 1998; Lord, 2000; Russel &
Karol, 2002).
Apart from the fact that the 1993 revision of the 16pf® includes improved psychometric characteristics, there
is evidence of attention given to cultural changes and professional advances. Item content and scales were
also revised.
As mentioned above, each item’s correlation with scales other than the one to which it belongs was
reduced (all primary factor scales, except factor B). At the same time, items’ content was reviewed
39
(shortened, simplified, checked for race or gender bias, updated and clarified). These scales have 14 items
each.
Example of a removed item due to gender differences:

“If I discovered a shack in the woods that looked deserted, I would:
(a) Keep away from it
(c) Go inside and explore”
Example of a changed item:

“I have experienced ‘stage fright’ in some social situations”

“I get embarrassed if I suddenly become the centre of attention in a social group”
With regards to Factor B (Reasoning), all existing items were culled and rewritten. After extensive evaluation
of the experimental forms, this scale now consists of 15 items relating to verbal, numerical and logical
reasoning skills.
The Impression Management (IM) scale focuses on socially desirable and undesirable feelings, behaviours
and attitudes. The IM contents were also rewritten. It consists of 12 items that are only scored on this scale.
The Infrequency (INF) and Acquiescence (ACQ) response style indices were based on an empirical analysis
of the item response choice frequencies in the normative sample. The INF scale consists of 32 items in the
inventory that showed a very low support rate for a certain response alternative ( a, b or c). This means that
an elevated INF score (the candidate selected infrequently chosen responses) may indicate that the person
responded randomly or was inattentive to the item content. The endorsement frequency of “True”
responses led to the development of the ACQ scale (103 items), which indicates a tendency to agree with
statements regardless of their item content.
The Global Factors of the 16pf® were developed by factor analysing the final primary scales (see next section
for a description of the global factors), and the loading of the primary factors on the five global factors are
quite similar to previous second-order factors.
40
4.2 General Interpretive Information
Cattell used the factor-analytic approach to identify human personality’s basic structure. The use of the
test is made easier if one understands this method of test development. Factor analysis is:
“… a statistical technique used to discover, in a large set of variables, a smaller subset that explains the
whole domain” (Russel & Karol, 2002).
Through this method Cattell wanted to identify the primary personality traits (those traits that can explain
the whole personality domain). In this manner 12 traits (factors) were identified and given alphabetical letters
as names (A, B, C, etc) from which the 16 primary scales of the 16pf® was constructed through further factor
analysis (12 scales measure the originally identified factors and four scales [Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4] measure factors
that originated from further analysis of data).
As mentioned earlier in the introduction, the basic scales of the 16pf® were labelled with letters and in the
16pf®5th edition each scale was named as well. The scales are bipolar (both high and low scores have
meaning) and high scores are described as the plus (+) pole and low scores as the minus (-) pole. It must
be noted that + scores are not “good” and – scores are not “bad”. The scores must be interpreted
situationally.
Global factors (previous second-order factors) on which primary related scales cluster together were derived
from factor analysis of the 16 primary scales. This shows how the factors are interrelated and allow a broader,
simpler view of personality (see table 2):
41
Table 2: The global factors of the 16pf® and their contributing primaries
42
Meanings of the global factors appear in the table below.
Global Factor
General Factor Meanings
Extraversion (EX):

Extraversion reflects a tendency towards general social participation.
General style of

High scorers are people orientated and seek out relationships with others
relating to
people
(gregarious).

Low scorers spend more time in their own company than that of others. They
are independent thinkers and tend to deliberate before responding.

Extraversion has a strong relationship with social desirability.
Anxiety (AX)

Anxiety can be aroused by an external event or generated internally
Pressure

High scorers may find it difficult to control their emotions or reactions and
management
therefore act in counterproductive ways.

Low scorers tend to be unperturbed. They may be unmotivated to change
because they are in their comfort zone.

Anxiety has a strong relationship with social desirability
Tough-

Tough-Mindedness has to do with decision making when dealing with people.
Mindedness (TM)

High scorers tend to be alert and approach problems in an objective, cognitive
Thinking style
manner. They may come across as being set or fixed in their ways and may not
be open to others’ ideas, people who are different and new experiences. These
individuals have a certain degree of inflexibility and lack of openness. They have
difficulty accepting new viewpoints (including those that involve emotions).

Low scorers are more open to experiencing positive and negative feelings. They
can overlook practical or objective aspects of a situation as they may find it
difficult to put aside emotions to attain objectivity. They tend to deal with
problems in a cultured, refined and sensitive way.

Tough-Mindedness has been associated with masculine and feminine
stereotypes.
43
Independence

(IN)
General style of
Independence reflects the tendency to be actively and forcefully self-determined
in thought and action.

High scorers enjoy doing new things and exhibit intellectual curiosity. They are
relating to
socially forceful and tend to form and express their own opinions. They may
people
come across as persuasive and tend to challenge the status quo. They may be
suspicious of others’ interference and therefore find it difficult to accommodate
other people.

Extremely high scorers may come across as disagreeable, inflexible and
domineering.

Low scorers accommodate others; they do not question and see value in
harmony and agreeableness. They are likely to be easily influenced by others
and are uncomfortable in situations calling for assertiveness, persuasion or selfexpression.
Self-Control (SC)

Self-Control relates to curbing one’s urges and inhibiting impulses.
Consistency of

High scores may either not value flexibility or spontaneity or may have acquired
behaviour
self-control at the expense of these qualities.

Low scorers tend to follow their own urges and be flexible in their responses.
They can be seen as self-indulgent, disorganized, irrepressible and irresponsible,
unless they can muster their resources to restrain their behaviour when the
situation calls for it.

Self-Control is linked to social desirability.
(From Russell and Karol, 2002)
Standardised ten (Sten) score scales are used in the 16pf®. Sten scores range from 1-10, the mean is 5.5
and the standard deviation is 2. “The more extreme a score is toward a given factor pole, the more likely
that the descriptors for the scale’s pole will apply for that score and that the trait will be apparent in the
examinee’s behaviour” (Russel & Karol, 2002). The ranges for sten scores are presented in diagram 2
(note the 16pf® add-ons of low-average and high-average).
44
Diagram 2
High
Low
average
Low
1
2
3
4
Average
5
6
average
7
High
8
3.5
5.5
7.5
- 1SX
0SX
+ 1SX
9
10
Sten score
Standard score
(Mean)
% of people
16%
68%
16%
scoring in this
range
Sten distribution *
Adapted from Russel & Karol,
2002.
From diagram 2 it is clear that 68% of the population will theoretically obtain a score that falls within plusor-minus one standard deviation from the mean, and that about 16% will score at the high end and low end
of the distribution.
Measurement limits are also important for general interpretation of profiles. The short scales (10 –15 items
for each scale) are only an estimate of a person’s true score. Therefore, most 16pf® scales have a standard
error measurement (SEm) of approximately 1 sten score point. That means that theoretically the true score
for a sten score of 8 on a factor would be expected to fall, 65% of the time, between a sten score range of
7-9 (or between a 6-10 sten score range for 95% probability of the person’s true score being in that range).
Thus sten score differences should not be over-interpreted.
45
4.3 Interpretive Guidelines and Strategies
Though it is fairly easy for users to understand what each factor means in isolation, it is more difficult to
hypothesize about the effect of scale interactions. This is especially true if score combinations differ from
what would make sense to the user or differ from established scale correlations. Fortunately the lower
statistical overlap between scales in the 16pf® better facilitate the derivation of such hypotheses. Score
combinations within global groupings are especially useful to increase the understanding of score
combinations.
4.3.1 Guidelines

The 16pf® profile is used to describe, not predict. The presence of personality attributes cannot be used
to make predictions about suitability in an external environment.

Be cautious of test score errors. Statistically significant differences should exist in order to differentiate
between two profiles (See Lord, 2000, for SEdiffs [the distance required between two people’s scores]
on each scale).

“Simple interpretations” are best. Keeping interpretations to the core construct being measured by
the scale reduce possible bias and makes it easier to explain and justify interpretations. Therefore it is
important to focus on the source trait rather than its surface traits, or in other words to focus on how
source traits influence behaviour (see table 3).
46
Table 3: The manner in which each source trait influences behaviour
Factor
Manner of Influence
A
Level of readiness to become warmly involved with others (Warmth)
C
Perception of current level of coping with the daily demands of life (Emotional Stability)
E
Strength of tendency to attempt to exert influence over others (Dominance)
F
Excitement seeking and spontaneity of expression (Liveliness)
G
Degree to which societal standards of behaviour and externally imposed rules are valued and followed
(Rule-consciousness)
H
Level of ease in social situations (Social boldness)
I
The extent to which subjective feelings about issues influence judgement (Sensitivity)
L
Likelihood of questioning the motives behind what others say and do (Vigilance)
M
Degree of balance between attending to concrete aspects of the external environment and attending
to thought processes triggered as a result (Abstractedness)
N
Likelihood of keeping personal information private (Privateness)
O
Level of self-criticism and apprehension (Apprehension)
Q1
Openness to new ideas and experiences (Openness to change)
Q2
Strength of tendency to want to be around people and involved in group activities (Self-reliance)
Q3
Importance attached to behaving in line with clearly defined personal standards and being organized
(Perfectionism)
Q4
Level of physical tension as expressed by irritability and impatience with others (Tension)
(Adapted from Lord, 2000)
4.3.2 Strategies for Interpretation
Apart from the above mentioned guidelines when interpreting profiles, a combination of the recommended
strategies of Karson, Karson and O’Dell (1997) as well as Russel and Karol (2002) are of value:
Response style indices:
Firstly, one should evaluate the Response Style Indices (or test-taking attitude). The IM, INF and AQC
response style indices must be reviewed to obtain data about test-taking response styles. If scores on any
47
of these are extreme (computer-based interpretive reports automatically score the scales), hypotheses for
this must be generated. The response style indices may indicate that the profile is too invalid to warrant
further examination. The meaning of extreme scores on these scales (usually the 95th percentile for the high
end and the 5th percentile for the low end [IM], or any other designated cut-off) is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Interpretive information for the response style indices
Scale
+IM
Meaning
Socially desirable responses
This can indicate self-deception or other-deception,
meaning that the examinee’s responses might possibly
be more positive/negative than his/her actual behaviour
-IM
Willingness to admit undesirable attributes or
(conscious or unconscious) or that he/she really acts in
behaviour
socially desirable/undesirable ways.
This can indicate random responding, undecidedness,
+INF
A relatively large number of items were
difficulty reading or understanding items, reactions to
answered differently from most people
item content, or trying to avoid the possibility of making
a “wrong impression”.
This can indicate misunderstanding of item content,
+ACQ
There was a tendency to answer “true” to
random responding, difficulty to attend to self-evaluative
items, no matter their content
questionnaires, inability to be self-descriptive, or an
unclear self-image.
Overall Adjustment:
Secondly, evaluate overall adjustment. Adjustment is a continuous variable, which means that it is not a case
of either being adjusted or not. There are different levels of this variable which play an important part in the
functioning of the individual and how personality traits are expressed. The impression of overall adjustment
on the 16pf®5th edition is derived from four main sources, namely: the score on Emotional Stability (C); the
score on Anxiety (AX); the scores on Perfectionism (Q3); and Self-Control (SC); as well as the number of
scores or problem scores (as set out in Table 5) that raise questions about adjustment represent the
likelihood of the person experiencing problems. The traits indicated by such problem scores are set out in
Table 5.
48
Table 5: Problem scores indicated through extreme scores on the 16pf® and the traits they represent.
Trait
Score
Description
Social Withdrawal
Warmth (A-)
Suggest avoidance of people that goes beyond a preference for being alone.
Problems in forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships are likely, as is a
history of unsatisfying transactions with others.
Poor Reasoning Ability
Reasoning (B-)
Probability of impaired intellectual functioning. True deficits in verbal facility increase
the likelihood of other unmodulated personality problems.
Low Ego Strength
Emotional Stability (C-)
Possible coping deficits, poor frustration tolerance and difficulty in deferring needs
when required.
Submissiveness
Dominance (E-)
Possible problems with the smooth integration of aggression with other psychological
functions.
Low Energy Level
Liveliness (F-)
Suggestive of depressed mood or other problems with enjoyment.
Unconventionality
Rule-Consciousness (G-)
Possible disenfranchisement from societal expectations of behaviour.
Shyness
Social Boldness (H-)
Indicative of social timidity and fear of others. This may be based on self-esteem
problems.
Poor ego integration
Sensitivity (I+)
Indicative of overly sensitive and acutely aware of real or perceived criticism by others.
May suggest dependency and identity problems.
Suspiciousness
Vigilance (L+)
Suggest problems with the projection of anger and a preoccupation with power
dynamics.
Abstractedness (M+)
Impracticality
May indicate a detachment from mundane issues of life. This will likely interfere with
the individual’s functioning.
Poor interpersonal
Privateness (N+)
May suggest an inability to sustain interpersonal relationships. Questions could be
raised about an individual’s self-esteem and need for others.
skills
Apprehension (O+)
Worrying
Probably associated with negative self-experience, attacks of conscience, or a degree
of apprehension that likely interferes with functioning.
Aversion to Change
Openness (Q1-)
Suggests a severe constriction in response variability impairing the individual’s
capacity to flexibly meet demands.
Difficulty Collaborating
Self-Reliance (Q2+)
Possible conflicts with getting dependency needs met and with establishing and
maintaining mutually gratifying relationships.
Disorderliness
Perfectionism (Q3-)
Questions are raised about the individual’s identity integration, discipline,
orderliness, sense of purpose and self-esteem.
Tension (Q4+)
Tension
Suggestive of a level of tension and anxiety that likely interferes with functioning
efficiency.
Poor Impression
Impression Management
Management
IM-
*Above-average
Too little attribution of socially desirable behaviours to oneself can signal problems in
self-esteem or adjustment problems that derive from insensitivity to social cues.
scores are referred to by a (+) and low scores by a (-).
Global Factor Scale Descriptors (adapted from Conn & Rieke, 1998; Russel & Karol, 2002)
49
Extreme or Distinctive scores:
Upper: 8, 9, 10 and Lower: 1, 2, 3
These are extreme scores as defined by normal distribution ‘sten’ scores.
Problem Scores:
The problem scores are the extreme scores on the specific scales from Table 5.
This is dependent of the direction (8, 9, 10 if + or 1, 2, 3 if -) on Table 5.
Global Factor Scales:
Thirdly, evaluate global factor scales. Descriptions of the poles of each global factor are presented in Table
6.
Table 6
Factor
EX
AX
TM
IN
(-) Left Meaning
(+) Right Meaning
Introverted, Socially Inhibited
Extraverted, Socially Participating
Introverted
Extraverted
Low Anxiety, Unperturbed
High Anxiety, Perturbable
Low anxiety, adjustment
High anxiety
Receptive, Open-Minded, Intuitive
Tough-Minded, Resolute, Unempathetic
Emotionality, feeling
Tough poise, thinking
Accommodating, Agreeable, Selfless
Independent, Persuasive, Wilful
Subduedness
Independence
SC
Unrestrained, Follows Urges
Uncontrolled
Self-Controlled, Inhibits Urges
Control ,behaviour control
50
Note that factor names and descriptors for the 16pf® are in bold type, descriptors of earlier editions are
unbolded and Cattell’s original factor names are in italics.
When looking at the global factor scales, one should evaluate the number of extreme scores (it is rare for
an examinee to have extreme scores on four or five global factors) and keep the primary factor scale
relationships in mind (the direction of certain scales contribute to a given global factor, and therefore
knowledge of expected or opposite scale score directions can help with the forming of hypotheses). If, for
example, the primary scale scores are not contributing to the global factor in the expected direction (e.g.
introverted on some relevant scales and extraverted on other) conflict in behaviour may be experienced.
Primary Factor Scales:
In the fourth place, evaluate primary factor scales. Again, before one looks at the primary factor scale scores,
the following should be evaluated: the number of extreme scores (this usually indicates the most distinctive
scores and most examinees show distinctive scores on 2-6 primary scales); the slope of the profile (intended
as a rule of thumb only, the profile sheet must be divided in two with a horizontal line between factors H
and I; more high scores in the top half equals a more “positive” or socially desirable picture and vice
versa); and keep the primary factor scale relationships in mind (as with the global factor scales). Each primary
factor scale will now be considered.
Note that factor names and descriptors for the 16pf® are in bold type, descriptors of earlier editions are
unbolded and Cattell’s original factor names are in italics.
51
FACTOR A: WARMTH
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Reserved, impersonal, distant
Warm, outgoing, attentive to others
Cool, reserved, detached, formal, aloof
Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easy-
Sizothymia
going, participating, likes people
Affectothymia

Factor A measures emotional orientation toward other people from warmth on the right, A+, to coldness
and reserved social and interpersonal behaviours on the on the left A-.

A person with lower scores will be cautious when approaching relationships and becoming involved.
They prefer to work alone and often pursue intellectual, mechanical or artistic interests.

A person with higher scores will have an interest in people and will be likely to choose occupations
dealing with people, as they feel comfortable working closely with others.

Research has shown that scores on Factor A are correlated with impression management scores.
Behaviours associated with high scores on Factor A are seen to be more socially desirable.

It is sometimes mistaken for the Extraversion-Introversion dichotomy, but it is only one contributing
primary factor to the broader factor by that name.

Factor A makes the largest contribution to the assessment of personality of all the factors of the 16pf®
which means that the trait that Factor A measures has a broad influence on personality and largely
determines whether a person’s energy will be directed towards social interaction or focused instead
on objects and the inner world of ideas.

There is evidence that the level of warmth a person possesses is largely influenced by hereditary factors.

Research shows that women tend to score higher than men on Factor A.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
A+ contributes to the Extraversion global factor (along with F+, H+, N-, and Q2 -).
A- contributes to the Tough-Mindedness global factor (along with I-, M-, and Q1 -).
52
Correlations with other Measures
Warmth (A+) on the 16pf® shows positive correlations with: the NEO’s Warmth, Gregariousness and
Altruism scales; the MBTI’s Extraversion scale; and the CPI’s Sociability, Social Presence and Empathy
scales.
53
FACTOR B: REASONING
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Concrete
Abstract
Concrete-thinking, lower abstract reasoning ability,
High abstract reasoning ability, good problem
unable to handle abstract problems
solving skills, performs well in academic settings, fast
Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity
learner
Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity

This scale is brief and has a moderately high relationship with measures of “intelligence”. It can
therefore be used as a quick measure of cognitive ability, but should not replace a full-length intelligence
assessment. Unexpectedly low scores may also indicate reading difficulties, attention deficits, and
misunderstanding of instructions, inattentiveness, or test sabotage. Cautious interpretations should be
made.

The Reasoning scale was added to the 16pf® because it is such an important part of personality and
personality development (e.g. Cattell mentioned that intelligence directly aids the development of
conscientiousness).
Cognitive style moderates the expression of other personality traits by giving
different nuances to the type of behaviours displayed.

The revised Reasoning scale measures verbal, numerical, and logical reasoning ability as well as fluid
intelligence (innate cognitive skills) and crystallized intelligence (acquired skills). Heather Birkett Cattell
(1989:30) defines it as “the capacity to discern relationships in terms of how things stand, relative to
one another”. She further indicates that a Reasoning score could help in predicting how traits will be
expressed (e.g. B- and A+ could indicate that an individual would be more easily conned by a con artist,
than if factor B was higher).

Scores can be influenced by educational disadvantage, anxiety, depression, preoccupation, distraction
in the testing environment, being unmotivated, and not having read instructions adequately.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Although seen as a separate construct, factor B does show small correlations with Emotional Stability (C+),
Trust (L-), and Openness to Change (Q1 +). There is no certainty about the meaning of this link.
54
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (B) correlates positively with the Information Inventory and the Culture Fair Intelligence Test, as well
as with the CPI’s Intellectual Efficiency, and the MBTI’s Intuition.
55
FACTOR C: EMOTIONAL STABILITY
Low Range Descriptors

High Range Descriptors
Reactive, emotionally changeable
Emotionally stnable, adaptive, mature
Affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily
Emotionally stable, mature, faces reality, calm, even-
upset, changeable, feels unable to cope with stress
tempered, copes with stress
Lower Ego Strength
Higher Ego Strength
Emotional stability largely concerns feelings about coping with the challenges of everyday life. People
with high scores are likely to manage day-to-day situations and their emotions in a balanced and
adaptive way. They make proactive choices in managing their lives.

People with low scorers may feel like they have little control over happenings in their lives. They tend to
be reactive and experience mood swings.

Research shows that Factor C is related to elements of emotional well-being.

Extremely high scores could be an indication that a person is reluctant to report (or even experience)
so-called “negative” feelings.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (C-) strongly contributes to the Anxiety global factor.
Factor (C+) does not load significantly on the Self-Control global factor, but shows modest correlation with
Rule-Consciousness (G+) and Groundedness (M-) [primary scales related to Self-Control].
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (C-) correlates with the NEO’s Anxiety, Angry hostility, Depression, Self-consciousness and
Vulnerability. Factor (C+) shows the highest correlation with Self-esteem as measured by the Coopersmith
Self-Esteem Inventory.
56
FACTOR E: DOMINANCE
Low Range Descriptors

High Range Descriptors
Deferential, cooperative, avoids conflict
Dominant, forceful, assertive
Submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile,
Aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy,
accommodating, cooperative, considerate,
controlling, persuasive, authoritative, stubborn,
accommodating, modest
demanding, bossy
Submissiveness
Dominance
This factor is more about the tendency to exert one’s will over others than just being assertive
(assertiveness serves to protect one’s rights, wishes, and personal boundaries). Dominance involves
the subjugation of others’ wishes to one’s own. Extreme dominance can alienate people.

High scorers on Factor E tend to be forceful, express their wishes and opinions without being asked to
do so, and may be pushy about getting what they want.

Low scorers tend to avoid conflict by acquiescing to the wishes of others. They are deferent self-effacing
and set aside their own wishes.

Extremely low scores on factor (E) suggest problems involving the smooth integration of aggression with
others psychological functions. This can lead to chronic resentment or to explosive episodes when
aggression is inhibited over time.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (E+) is the strongest contributor to the Independence global factor (along with H+, L+, and Q 1 +).
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (E) correlates positively with the CPI’s Dominance scale and the NEO’s Assertiveness scale.
Dominant people’s willingness to manipulate others in order to control them is suggested by the negative
correlation with the NEO’s Straightforwardness scale.
57
FACTOR F: LIVELINESS
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Serious, restrained, careful
Lively, animated, spontaneous
Sober, serious, restrained, prudent, introspective,
Enthusiastic, spontaneous, happy-go-lucky, cheerful,
silent, quiet, cautious, deliberate, reflective, reliable,
expressive, impulsive, talkative, animated, carefree,
careful
fun-loving, high-spirited, energetic, exuberant,
optimistic, excitement seeking, impulsive
Desurgency

Surgency
Factor F is reminiscent of the natural self-expression and spontaneity exhibited by children before they
learn self-control.

High scorers tend to be enthusiastic, spontaneous, lively and are drawn to stimulating social situations.
However, the need to draw attention to themselves can result in inappropriate behaviour in situations
that call for decorum or restraint.

Extremely high scorers may come across as flighty, unreliable and immature.

People with low scores tend to take life seriously. They may appear quiet, cautious, less playful, less
spontaneous, and they don’t seem to have fun or to be entertaining.

When looking at factor (F) it seems similar to factor (A) that measures warmth, but although factor (F)
have some extraverted qualities, it is self-centered in quality. The attention seeking and liveliness of
factor (F+) people can be inappropriate for certain situations.

Extremely low scores on factor (F) may suggest a depressed mood or other problems with enjoyment.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
F+ contributes positively to the Extraversion global factor (along with A+, H+, N-, and Q2 -) as well as to the
unrestrained pole of the Self-control global factor.
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (F) shows positive correlations with all of the NEO Extraversion facets, with the MBTI’s Extraversion
scale, and the CPI’s Sociability and Social Presence scales.
58
FACTOR G: RULE-CONSCIOUSNESS
Low Range Descriptors

High Range Descriptors
Expedient, non-conforming
Rule-conscious, dutiful
Disregards rules and obligations, self-indulgent, low
Conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule-
acceptance of group standards
bound, conforms to group standards,
Low Superego Strength
High Superego Strength
Factor (G) measures the degree to which a person has internalised cultural standards of right and wrong
and how well he understands the rules of the social game we play.

High scorers view themselves as strict followers of rules, principles and manners. They emphasise the
importance of conforming to regulations, being conscientious and persevering. They can be perceived
as staid, inflexible and self-righteous.

Low scorers tend to shun rules and regulations because they either lack internalised moral values or
because they ascribe to values that may be different to the norm. Low scorers may also be described as
playful, autonomous and flexible.

Too little or too much group conformity coupled with poor impulse control can often lead to behaviour
difficulties.

Very low scores on factor (G) suggest disenfranchisement from societal expectations of behaviour.

Factor G scores are positively correlated with impression management scores. This is an indication that
rule-following behaviours are socially desirable.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
G+ contributes positively to the Self-Control global factor and correlates with the other contributing factors
to Self-Control (F-, M-, Q3 +). The modest correlations with Emotional Stability (C+) and Relaxedness (Q 4+)
possibly suggests that it arouses less anxiety to follow convention than to challenge it.
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (G) correlates positively with the NEO’s Conscientiousness facets and the CPI’s Responsibility,
Socialization, Self-control, Good Impression, and Achievement via conformance. It also correlates
negatively with the CPI’s Flexibility.
59
FACTOR H: SOCIAL BOLDNESS
Low Range Descriptors

High Range Descriptors
Shy, threat-sensitive, timid
Socially bold, venturesome, thick-skinned
Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated,
Bold, uninhibited, talkative, gregarious, adventurous,
modest, alert to dangers, easily embarrassed,
fearless, risk-taker, not afraid of criticism, resilient
thin-skinned, sensitive to criticism and stress
under stress, attention-seeking
Threctia
Parmia
This factor is one of daring fearlessness, spontaneity, risk-taking and a willingness to accept any
challenges. High scorers show little fear of social situations and aren’t shy. They like to initiate social
contact.

Social boldness has an element of a need for self-exhibition and might contain a flavour of dominance.
It is highly related to self-esteem.

Low scorers tend to be socially timid, cautious and shy. They feel uncomfortable in social situations and
find it difficult to talk in front of a group.

When looking at factors (A+), (F+) and (H+), it implies that there is less narcissism than in factor (F+)
and that there is a good deal more boldness than in factor (A+).

Extremely low scores on factor (H) indicate a social timidity and fear of others that may be based on
self-esteem problems.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (H+) contributes positively to the Extraversion global factor (along with A+, F+, N-, and Q2 -), as well
as the Independence global factor (along with E+, L+, and Q 1 +).
Correlations with other Measures
Boldness (H+), linked with Extraversion, is evident in positive correlations with: the CPI’s Sociability and
Social Presence scales; and all the Extraversion facets of the NEO. The H+ correlations with the NEO’s
Aggressiveness, and the CPI’s Dominance, Social Presence and Capacity for Status scales suggest the
dominant aspects of socially bold behaviour.
60
FACTOR I: SENSITIVITY
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental
Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental
Tough-minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough,
Tender-minded, sensitive, intuitive, refined,
realistic, unsentimental, objective, rational, hard,
dependent, emotional, empathic, artistic, subjective,
unemotional, acts on facts and logic, avoids
sympathetic, seeks support
sensitive feelings
Harria
Premsia

Factor (I) focuses on sensitivities and sensibilities.

High scorers rather base judgements on aesthetic values. They rely on sensitivity and empathy when
making decisions. These individuals also tend to have more refined interests and tastes and tend to be
more sentimental than low scorers.

Low scorers have a more utilitarian focus. They tend to be less sentimental and pay more attention to
how things work than people’s feelings involved in the process. They value objectivity and practicality.

Extreme high scorers may focus too much on subjective aspects and overlook functional aspects.

Extreme low scorers may have trouble dealing with situations that demand sensitivity.

Factor (I) shows significant gender differences in distribution. Women tend to score more to the righthand side of the scale and men to the left. Combined-gender and separate-gender norms are available
for this factor.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (I+) is the strongest contributor to the Receptive aspect of the Tough-Mindedness global factor. It
shows moderate correlations with Openness to Change (Q1 +), Abstractedness (M+), and Warmth (A+).
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (I+) is highly correlated with: the NEO’s Openness facet of Aesthetics. There is also a positive
correlation with the MBTI’s Feeling and Intuitive scale, as well as the CPI’s Femininity/Masculinity scale.
61
FACTOR L: VIGILANCE
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting
Vigilant, suspicious, sceptical, wary
Easy to get on with, may be taken advantage of by
Hard-to-fool, distrustful, oppositional, alert to others
others, tolerant, ready to forgive and forget
’ motives and intentions, resentful, competitive
Alaxia
Protension

This factor measures the tendency to trust others’ motives and intentions.

High scorers expect to be misunderstood or be taken advantage of. They tend to mistrust other people
and are prone to scepticism. They also find it extremely difficult to relax their vigilance when it would
benefit them to do so. High vigilance is sometimes a response to life circumstances (e.g. oppression of
a minority group). It can contain an element of animosity.

Extremely high scores on factor (L) suggest problems with the projection of anger and a preoccupation
with power dynamics.

Low scorers expect fair treatment, loyalty and good intentions from others. They have feelings of
contentment and satisfactory relationships.

Extremely low scorers may be taken advantage of because they don’t consider the motives of others.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (L+) contributes to the Anxiety global factor (along with C-, O+, and Q4+), as well as the
Independence global factor (along with E+, H+, and Q1+).
Correlations with other Measures
The largest correlation of factor (L-) is with NEO’s Trust. Factor (L-) also has a correlation with CPI’s
Empathy and Tolerance scales. Factor (L+) correlates with the NEO’s Anxiety, Angry hostility and
Depression, and it negatively correlates with the CPI’s Well-being scale.
62
FACTOR M: ABSTRACTEDNESS
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Grounded, practical, solution-oriented
Abstracted, imaginative, idea-oriented
Concerned with down-to-earth issues, steady,
Absent-minded, absorbed in ideas, impractical,
prosaic, conventional, realistic, pragmatic, literal,
idea-oriented, creative, interested in theory and
unimaginative
philosophy
Praxernia
Autia

Factor (M) focuses on the type of things which people give thought and attention to.

High scorers tend to spend more time on internal mental processes and ideas rather than practicalities.
They have an intense inner life and may be described as an absent-minded professor. Their thoughts
are highly abstracted and they can become preoccupied with thinking, imagination and fantasy. They
often get lost in thought. They tend to be good at generating ideas and being creative often without
consideration of practical realities of people, processes and situations.

Very high scores on factor (M) may indicate a detachment from the mundane issues of life that is likely
to interfere with the individual’s competence and effectiveness. They tend to be inattentive to details
and situations and can be accident-prone as a result.

Low scorers focus on their senses, observable data and the realities of the environment in forming their
perceptions. They tend to be grounded and focus on the environment and its demands. Although they
think in a practical and down-to-earth manner, they may find it difficult to generate possible solutions
to problems.

Extreme low scorers may become so literal or concrete that they struggle to see the bigger picture
(“miss the forest for the tree”).
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (M+) has a high correlation with factor (G-) (suggesting a link between abstractedness and
expedience). It also correlates with factor (Q1+) (indicative of abstracted people’s thinking being new or
unconventional). Abstractedness also loads negatively onto the Tough-Mindedness global factor (along with
factors A+, I+, and Q1+) and correlates negatively with the IM scale (it is more socially desirable to be
grounded [M-] than abstract [M+]).
63
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (M+) correlates strongly with Intuition on the MBTI, and factor (M-) with Sensation on the MBTI. Factor
(M) also correlates positively with several of the NEO’s openness facets and negatively with the CPI’s Selfcontrol, Socialization and Well-being scales.
64
FACTOR N: PRIVATENESS
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Forthright, genuine, artless
Private, discrete, non-disclosing
Open, unpretentious, naïve, warmly emotionally
Shrewd, polished, socially aware, worldly astute,
involved, self-disclosing, unguarded
diplomatic, calculating, emotionally detached, wears
a social mask, guarded
Artlessness

Shrewdness
This factor focuses on whether self-disclosure is part of the person’s orientation to people. This is
related to extraversion.

High scorers tend to be personally guarded (“play cards close to their chest”). They have trouble
revealing personal information about themselves to others.

Extreme high scorers may maintain their privacy at the expense of developing personal relationships.
This could indicate a fear of or disinterest in closeness.

Low scorers talk about themselves openly and appear genuine, self-revealing and forthright (“play with
an open hand”).
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
The link between Privateness and Introversion is supported by the correlations with factor (A-), (H-), (Q2-)
and the negative loading of factor (N) on the Extraversion global factor.
Correlations with other Measures
The link between extraversion and factor (N-) is supported by correlations with all the NEO Extraversion
facets, and the CPI’s Sociability, Social Presence, and Capacity for Status scale. There is a negative
correlation with the MBTI’s Feeling scale (suggesting that private people do not tend to be emotionally
close).
65
FACTOR O: APPREHENSION
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Self-assured, unworried, complacent
Apprehensive, self-doubting, worried
Secure, self-satisfied, confident, unperturbed,
Self-blaming, guilt-prone, insecure, nervous, lacks
placid, insensitive to criticism, untroubled by guilt or
confidence, sensitive to criticism, self-deprecating
remorse
Guilt-Proneness
Untroubled

This factor has shown to be one the most important scales on the 16pf® from a clinical standpoint
because of the worrisome anxiousness and guilt that is usually associated with so many clinical
syndromes.

High scores indicate worrying, apprehension and insecurity. This is sometimes contextual (in response
to a specific life situation). However, it can also indicate a characteristic response pattern that manifests
across situations. Apprehension can come across as having a poor social presence. On the other hand,
it can help a person anticipate danger in a situation.

Low scorers tend to be self-assured, confident and self-satisfied.

Extreme scores (high or low) on this scale can signal disturbance. If one is too untroubled questions are
raised about the superego controls and, conversely, excessive worries create the problem of
overwhelming guilt.

Extremely high scores on factor (O) are probably associated with negative self-experience, attacks of
conscience, or a degree of apprehension that is likely to interfere with the person’s functioning.

Extremely low scores indicate an unshaken self-confidence even where there is an opportunity for selfimprovement and self-evaluation. The person may then block out negative elements of the self from
awareness.

An interrelationship exists with factor (G) where both are linked with the superego. Scores on factor (G)
refers to the person’s awareness of the standards of society and factor (O) indicates the degree to
which the person has internalized these standards.

Women tend to have higher scores than men.
66
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (O+) contributes to the Anxiety global factor (along with C-, L+, and Q4+).
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (O+) correlates positively with most of the NEO neuroticism facets. There is furthermore a negative
correlation between O+ and the CPI’s Self-acceptance, Independence, Capacity for Status, Social Presence
and Dominance scales, as well as the NEO’s Assertiveness facet.
67
FACTOR Q1: OPENNESS TO CHANGE
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Traditional, attached to familiar
Open to change, experimenting
Conservative, respecting traditional ideas, prefers
Liberal, analytical, critical, free-thinking, questions
status quo, resistant to change, does not question
established methods, open-minded
how things are done
Conservatism

Radicalism
Factor (Q1) bears strong resemblance with factor (E), but it is more focused on constructive reform. Low
scorers tend to prefer traditional ways of looking at things. They don’t tend to question the way things
are done and prefer predictability and the familiar – even if this is not the ideal situation for them.

While high scorers tend to think of ways to improve things and to enjoy experimenting.

Extremely low scores on factor (Q1) suggest low response variability that impairs the individual’s
capacity to meet new demands flexibly.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (Q1+) contributes to the Independence global factor (along with E+, H+, and L+), as well as the
receptive pole of the Tough-Mindedness global factor (along with A+. I+, and M+).
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (Q1) is correlated with the MBTI’s Intuitive scale, and the CPI’s Psychological-mindedness and
Intellectual Efficiency scales. Openness is also reflected in correlations with the CPI’s Flexibility scale and
almost all of the NEO’s Openness facets.
68
FACTOR Q2: SELF-RELIANCE
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Group-oriented, affiliate
Self-reliant, solitary, individualistic
A joiner and sound follower, group dependent,
Self-sufficient, resourceful, self-contained, prefers
team player, prefers company, likes to get others’
own ideas and opinions, loner, values own
opinions, likes to belong, participative
autonomy
Group Adherence
Self-Sufficiency

The items on this scale clearly indicate a sort of introversion-extroversion factor. It is about maintaining
contact or proximity with others.

High scorers enjoy spending time alone and prefer making their own decisions. They have difficulty
working with others and find it hard to ask for help from others.

Extremely high scorers may neglect interpersonal aspects and consequences of their actions.

Low scorers prefer to be around other people and spend time with others.

Extremely low scorers may not be optimally effective in situations where help is not available or where
others are providing poor help or advice.

The significant negative correlation of Self-Reliance with the Impression Management scale possibly
reflects that it is more socially favourable to present oneself as group-oriented.

Extremely high scores on factor (Q2) suggest conflicts with getting dependency needs met and with
establishing and maintaining mutually gratifying relationships.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (Q2-) contributes to the Extraversion global factor (along with A+, F+, H+, and N-).
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (Q2) is correlated with the CPI’s Capacity for Status, Sociability and Social Presence; the MBTI’s
Extraversion; and nearly all the NEO’s Extraversion facets.
69
FACTOR Q3: PERFECTIONISM
Low Range Descriptors
High Range Descriptors
Tolerates Disorder, flexible
Perfectionistic, organized, self-disciplined
Undisciplined, lax, follows own urges, uncontrolled,
Compulsive, exacting, organized, conscientious,
careless of social rules, unexacting, undisciplined,
reliable, persevering, orderly approach to life,
spontaneous, not concerned about details, not
thorough, detailed, has clear goals and ideals
goal-oriented
Low Integration

High Self-Concept Control
The items on this scale measure something closely related to self-control or a careful, calculated
approach to life.

High scorers want to do things right, tend to be organized, plan ahead and keep things in proper places.
They would likely be most comfortable in an organized and predictable environment.

Extremely high scorers may be seen as inflexible.

Low scorers tend to leave more things to chance and are more comfortable in disorganised settings.
They may be seen as being lackadaisical, unorganised and unprepared. These individuals may have little
motivation to be organised, especially if these behaviours are unimportant to them.

Very low scores on factor (Q3) raise questions about the individual’s identity integration, discipline,
orderliness, sense of purpose, and self-esteem.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
Factor (Q3+) contributes to the Self-Control global factor (along with F-, G+, and M-). There is also some
correlation (maybe because it is not always desirable to be perfectionistic) with the social desirability aspect
of the Impression Management scale.
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (Q3+) highly correlates with all the NEO’s Conscientiousness facets. There is a further positive
correlation with the MBTI’s Judging and negative correlations with the MBTI’s Perceiving and the CPI’s
Flexibility. An element of social desirability is portrayed in the positive correlation with the CPI’s Good
Impression scale.
70
FACTOR Q4: TENSION
Low Range Descriptors

High Range Descriptors
Relaxed, placid, patient
Tense, high energy, impatient, driven
Tranquil, composed, low drive and ambition, laid-
Frustrated, over-wrought, fast-paced, goal-focused,
back, not easily upset or aroused
highly strung, restless, fidgety
Low Ergic Tension
High Ergic Tension
This factor is associated with nervous tension, where high scorers tend to be fidgety and restless. Since
the items are readily transparent and somewhat easily fakeable, it can be affected by social desirability.

High scores on tension may reflect a personal characteristic of the individual or be a result of tension
caused by external factors.

Extremely high scorers can be seen as impatient and irritable. Very high scores on factor (Q4) suggest
a level of tension and anxiety that may impede self-control and is likely to interfere with the person’s
functioning efficiency.

Low scorers feel relaxed and tranquil. They may be seen as patient and slow to become frustrated.

Extremely low scorers may be perceived as unmotivated due to their low level of arousal.
Correlations with other 16pf® Factors
There is a very high correlation between factor (Q4) and the Impression Management scale.
Factor (Q4+) is the largest contributor to the Anxiety global factor (along with C-, L+, and O+).
Correlations with other Measures
Factor (Q4) correlates with several NEO neuroticism facets. There is a negative correlation with the CPI’s
Self-control, Psychological-mindedness, Empathy, Tolerance, Achievement via Independence, and Good
Impression scales; and the NEO’s Action facet. A positive correlation exists with the NEO’s Impulsiveness.
71
Referral Question:
In the fifth place, scores should be related to the referral question. It must be continually considered how
each score may relate to the referral question or the problem at hand. The line of enquiry should look as
follows:

Does any score suggest pathological trends?

Which scores suggest conflict between the trait and circumstances? Does the profile fit the history and
clinical picture? How can discrepancies be explained?

Which scores are in conflict? What does the rest of the profile suggest about ways in which the individual
manages this conflict?
In summary it is recommended that the above-mentioned guidelines in and strategies for interpretation of
the 16pf® be applied consistently by practitioners. This will not only ensure consistent, but also unbiased,
interpretations of profiles.
72
4.3.3 Additional Interpretive Information
4.3.3.1 General Areas of Functioning
General style of relating to people:
Under this general area, factors contributing to Global Extraversion and Global Independence are explored.
Factor Q2 is presented first since it provides a fairly straightforward starting point and leads well into
consideration of the other contributing Factors.
Exploration around what the person enjoys about
teamwork/group activities and what they enjoy about working independently/being alone can provide
evidence relating to emotional orientation to people and general style.
FACTOR Q2 (SELF-RELIANCE)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘You describe yourself as someone who values time alone and the freedom to make
your own choices and decisions.’

Average Scores: ‘One aspect which affects general style is the extent to which a person prefers to be
with people rather than being alone. In this respect your responses suggest that you like to have a
balance between these two extremes.’

Low Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you value being part of a team and enjoy group activities.’
Areas to explore:
Whatever the score on Factor Q2, you might ask about what groups/teams the person belongs to and what
the person enjoys most about belonging to them. You might explore the extent to which they consult others
when making personal or work-related decisions. Under stress, does the person withdraw or seek social
support? You might also ask about whether the current balance between time spent with others and time
spent alone (at work and outside work) is satisfactory. What do they enjoy about group activities? What
value is gained from teamwork? What aspects of being involved in group activities do they enjoy less? What
aspects of time spent alone is enjoyable? How is time alone spent?
73
FACTOR A (WARMTH)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you show a higher than average level of concern for and
attentiveness towards others; that you relate easily to other people and feel warmth towards them.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you show an average level of concern for and interest
in others.’

Low Scores: (Note: The Low Factor A hypothesis will vary in its presentation depending on the score
position on Factors F and N. The high Factor F scorer may not perceive their emotional detachment,
seeing themselves as a ‘people person.’ The low or average Factor N scorer is willing to talk about
him or herself but may show less curiosity about others. Therefore in this case it may be preferable to
present hypotheses for Factors F and N before low Factor A. Bearing this in mind, the hypothesis for
low Factor A may be presented as follows):
‘It would appear from your responses that your interest and attention is more likely to be directed
towards tasks, objects or activities than towards peoples.’
Or
‘You describe yourself as less inclined than most to spend time listening to people introspecting about
their feelings, or discussing your own emotions with others.’
Areas to explore:
You might ask about the types of people whose company is most and least satisfying. What does the person
value most when in the company of others? What characteristics does the person think other people most
value in him or her? What makes them feel close to other people?
74
FACTOR N (PRIVATENESS)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘You describe yourself as someone who does not readily reveal personal information.
You seem to be quite a private person.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you are as open about yourself as most people.’

Low Scores: ‘You describe yourself as preferring to be open and straightforward with others. You are
probably more willing than most to disclose information about yourself.’
Areas to explore:
It is useful to explore the degree to which the low Factor N scorer is aware of the social impact of their
openness. What sort of people do they think respond less positively to their open approach? In what
situations has it been an advantage or a disadvantage?
In the same way, the high Factor N scorer may be able to identify situations or people with which their
guardedness has been advantageous / disadvantageous. What differences are there in the degree of
openness at home and at work?
FACTOR L (VIGILANCE)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘You describe yourself as having a natural inclination to assume that there are usually
hidden motives behind what people say and do rather than just accepting them at face value.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you generally assume that people are trustworthy and
sincere. You are probably alert to any real grounds for suspicion but you seem to be happy to take
people as you find them on the whole.’

Low Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you are very accepting of others and tend to take people
as you find them.’
Or
‘You describe yourself as generally trusting of other people’s sincerity in what they say and do, and
prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.’
75
Areas to explore:
Here the aim of questioning is to try to establish the degree to which the person generally believes others
to be trustworthy. Probe for evidence of co-operation with and acceptance of other people. Ask how the
level of trust shows itself at home and at work; in what ways is it apparent to others and how do people
respond to it? Ask about situations where they showed more or less trust than usual. Ask about situations
where a lack of trust or too much trust proved to be unwarranted.
FACTOR F (LIVELINESS)
Questions to ask:

High scores: ‘In terms of your general style, your responses suggest that you come across as lively and
enthusiastic with a higher than average level of spontaneity. You seem to be someone who enjoys
variety and excitement.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you have a normal level of energy and spontaneity in
your approach.’

Low Scores: ‘You appear to see yourself as a careful person; someone who likes to think things through
thoroughly. Your responses suggest that you think others see you as a person who takes life seriously;
certainly you feel you wouldn’t be seen as a reckless or a foolhardy person.’
Areas to explore:
How does the high scorer satisfy the preference for variety and excitement both at and outside work? How
does the spontaneity/caution show itself? Such questions would also be appropriate for the average scorer
where you are checking out a hypothesis of balance and clarifying its manifestation.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of the spontaneity/caution in the test-taker’s view? In what
situations have these characteristics proved advantageous / disadvantageous? In what situations has the
person thought things through more/less carefully than usual? Other aspects of Factor F can be explored
under Thinking Style.
76
FACTOR H (SOCIAL BOLDNESS)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘You describe yourself as someone who feels very much at ease in social situations. You
would seem to be less likely than most to feel intimidated by people.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you are likely to feel as comfortable as most people in
social situations.’

Low Scores: ‘The way you have answered the questions suggests that you may feel a bit shy or
uncomfortable in social situations, particularly when they are unfamiliar. Perhaps you feel a bit selfconscious and prefer not to be singled out for attention.’
Areas to explore:
In what situation does the person feel more / less at ease? How involved does the person get with the social
side of work? How is leisure time spent? How does the low scorer’s shyness show itself? Is anything avoided
due to shyness (at home or at work)?
FACTOR E (DOMINANCE)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘You seem to be someone who enjoys being in a position to influence others.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you do not force your views and opinions on other
people. You seem to be as likely as most to express what you think but, at the same time, you let others
have their say and seem willing to defer to a different opinion when it seems appropriate.’

Low Scores: ‘From the way you have described yourself, I get the impression that you don’t always
express your views and opinions on things and tend to let others take the lead.’
Areas to explore:
Questions might relate to how the person deals with opposition, the type of person considered most difficult
to deal with, and how this score manifests at home and at work. When are high and average scorers less
likely to express their opinions? When are low and average scorers likely to express their views more
forcefully? What makes the low scorer hold back?
77
4.3.3.2 Thinking Style
In this section, factors contributing to Global Tough-Mindedness are explored. Factor F is also revisited from
a slightly different point of view. Many people find it difficult to think about their own style of thinking so it
may be necessary to spend more time explaining the constructs than with other factors.
FACTOR M (ABSTRACTEDNESS)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you can become deeply engrossed in your thoughts and
ideas.’
Or
‘I get the impression that you enjoy ideas and would prefer to reflect on a broader view of things
rather than pay attention to the smallest details of an issue. You probably naturally tend to think beyond
the concrete facts and information when you consider an issue.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you are likely to give due attention to the facts and
details when you are focusing on an issue, but not to the extent of getting so bogged down that you
lose sight of the broader view.’
Or
‘You seem to be someone who is likely to reflect on things and come up with thoughts that go beyond
the present information while still keeping a focus on what is realistic, practical and immediately
necessary.’

Low Scores: ‘Your answers to the questionnaire suggest that you are very responsive to what is
immediately necessary in a situation.’
Or
‘You describe yourself as down-to-earth and realistic; probably a practical person who prefers to get
on and do things rather than spend time reflecting and theorizing on them.’
Areas to explore:
You are trying to verify the hypothesis that low scorers attend to what is actually present while high scorers
focus more on inner reflections. The average scorer is likely to shift flexibly between these two extremes. As
people often find it difficult to describe their thinking processes, the most effective line of questioning will
78
explore such things as how easily the person attends to and remembers details, how often and in what
situations they get lost in thought or daydream, and whether they prefer dealing with practical things or
ideas.
FACTOR I (SENSITIVITY)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you enjoy the more aesthetic side of life.’
Or
‘You are probably keenly aware of the implications that decisions have in terms of your values and
feelings. Because of this your judgements may be based more on whether a decision “feels right” to
you than on hard-headed logical analysis. So you may give more emphasis to personal tastes, values
and feelings when evaluating information.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses to the questionnaire suggest that when it comes to making
judgements and decisions, you are likely to pay attention to the facts and their practical implications. At
the same time you have an awareness of the emotional consequences of an issue and the values
involved. It would seem that your judgements tend to involve a balance of objectivity and sensitivity.’

Low Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you tend to be logical and objective in your approach to
decision-making.’
Areas to explore:
Here you are trying to clarify how the person evaluated information; the extent to which emphasis is placed
on either hard facts and practical implications or personal tastes and subjective impression. You might ask
how much the person relies on gut feeling when making a decision as opposed to logical analysis of the
facts. To what extent do they give weight to practicality and feasibility over personal inclinations, preferences,
tastes and values? You might ask about times when the person has made a decision that had harsh
consequences for themselves, or which they knew would have a result which was not in accord with their
subjectively preferred decision? Bear in mind that these will be difficult questions for people to answer and
that high Factor I scorers are often unaware of their own subjectivity in decision-making.
79
FACTOR Q1 (OPENNESS)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you have a strong orientation to new ideas and experiences.
You appear to be very open to change.’

Average Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you are as open as most people to new ideas and
experiences.’

Low Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you attach value to established ways of doing things. You
describe yourself as someone who tends to be less inclined than most to take risks with unproven
systems and ideas.’
Areas to explore:
You might relate questions to how the person feels about the culture in which he or she works. To what
extent does it encourage change and new ideas, and how does this suit the person? You could ask them
how the identified level of openness to change and experiences shows itself at work and at home. How far
do they rely on familiar, tried and trusted ways of doing things as opposed to trying new methods? What
concrete examples can they give?
FACTOR F (LIVELINESS)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘We mentioned earlier that your responses suggest that you have a higher than average
level of spontaneity. This implies that your mind moves quite fast; that can be an advantage for such
things as brainstorming ideas. At the same time it suggests that you may not always think things through
fully before you speak or take action.’

Average Scores: ‘We mentioned earlier that you appear to have a normal level of spontaneity. This
suggests that you will think things through as carefully as most when considering what decisions to
make.’

Low Scores: We mentioned earlier that your responses suggest that you like to think things through very
carefully before reaching decisions. This capacity for deep thought probably means that you develop
ideas more thoroughly and achieve greater levels of comprehension than most.’
80
Areas to explore:
Ask about times when the speed of decision-making (whether fast, average or slow) has proved
advantageous / disadvantageous. With the low scorer you might explore the extent to which thinking things
through so thoroughly causes him or she to worry too much about what might go wrong with a course of
action.
4.3.3.3 Consistency of Behaviour
Here the factors contributing to Global Self-Control are explored. It may be worth introducing this section
by explaining to the person that various aspects of temperament will either increase or decrease the
consistency of behaviour and that most people will have some aspects of temperament acting in one
direction and some aspects acting in the other.
FACTOR G (RULE-CONSCIOUSNESS)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you see the value of standards and rules imposed by society
and are willing to follow these.’

Average Scores: ‘When it comes to externally imposed rules and standards of behaviour, you describe
yourself as someone who accepts and is willing to abide by them but not rigidly. At times you may value
expediency more than following a rule to the letter.’

Low Scores: ‘You describe yourself as someone who isn’t too keen on having to abide by strict rules
and externally imposed codes of conduct. In that sense, you probably attach less importance than most
to “going by the book”.’
Areas to explore:
You might explore under which circumstances the person has been prepared to break or bend a rule. What
obligations in life generally, or at work specifically, does the person feel duty-bound to fulfil? How does the
person feel when obligations are not met?
81
FACTOR Q3 (PERFECTIONISM)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that one way to exert control over events is to plan ahead and
prepare for them. You appear to have clearly defined personal standards and it seems to be very
important to you to behave in a way that is consistent with these.’

Average Scores: ‘The extent to which you plan ahead and organize yourself would appear to be typical
of the comparison group.

Low Scores: ‘You appear to be less likely than most to choose to control events or your role in them
by planning ahead or preparing in detail. Your responses suggest that you feel comfortable leaving
things to chance and can tolerate a certain amount of disorganization.
Areas to explore:
You might ask about how the person approaches personal organization. What strategies are employed?
When has planning ahead/leaving things to chance been an advantage or disadvantage? It can also be
fruitful to explore how far the identified level of Factor Q3 links in with goal-orientation. What goals does
the person have? What do they want to have achieved five or ten years from now?
FACTOR M (ABSTRACTEDNESS)
Questions to ask:
Preamble: ‘Another aspect of temperament that influences consistency of behaviour is the extent to
which attention is focused on the external environment as well as concrete facts and information.’

High Scores: ‘You have described yourself as preferring to reflect and think beyond the present
information, so your attention may be more likely to wander from what is going on in the immediate
environment than that of most people.’

Average Scores: ‘You have described yourself as giving equal attention to the immediate facts and the
broader view. Your attention is likely to be as focused as that of most people.’

Low Scores: ‘Being someone, who is strongly grounded in practical reality, you are probably likely to
have stronger control over your attention than most people.’
82
Areas to explore:
Areas to explore with regard to Factor M have been suggested previously. In this context you might want to
give greater emphasis on clarifying whether hypothesized levels of attention to details or the broader view
are valid.
FACTOR F (LIVELINESS)
The extent to which impulses are controlled will affect behavioural consistency. Reference can be made once
again to the level of spontaneity identified. High scorers tend to have a low threshold for boredom so you
might explore how they deal with losing interest in a task or activity that has been going on too long.
4.3.3.4 Management of Pressure
In this section we explore the factors that contribute to Global Anxiety. These tell us about current responses
to life’s demands. In addition, we can look at the implications of score positions in relation to aspects of
the external environment that could be potential sources of stress for the individual.
FACTOR C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you feel in control of life’s current demands and generally
deal with things more calmly than most.’

Average Scores: ‘From the way you have answered the questions it would seem that you feel you deal
with life’s ups and downs as calmly as most people.’

Low Scores: ‘You seem to be saying through the questions that you are affected quite a lot by life’s
ups and downs; and that you see yourself as generally less calm than most people in the way you deal
with life.’
Areas to explore:
In your questioning you are trying to establish the extent to which the person deals calmly with life’s
demands; the degree of emotional resilience and the extent to which mood stays constant. In stressful
situations or periods of prolonged pressure or crisis, how does the person react and cope? How do they
83
react to and deal with disappointment? What sort of things places them under pressure and how frequently
does this happen? What levels of stress are they currently under? This is quite an important area to explore
given the influence of mental state on Factor C. The score on Factor C may be decreased by prolonged
stress so it is useful to explore the extent to which the current level of coping is typical.
FACTOR O (APPREHENSION)
Questions to ask:


High Scores: ‘You describe yourself as someone who worries a lot.’
Or
‘Your responses suggest that you have a tendency to be harder on yourself than most people; more
self-critical. Perhaps you take on too much personal responsibility for things that go wrong.’

Average Scores: ‘You seem to have a realistic idea of your strengths and weaknesses, and can accept
responsibility for your mistakes. This suggests that you can learn from these mistakes.’

Low Scores: ‘From your responses you seem to be more self-assured than most.’
Areas to explore:
Your questioning will relate to this person’s typical level of self-criticism and apprehension. You might ask
about the sorts of things that they worry about at work and at home. In what sorts of situations and with
which sorts of people do they feel most self-assured? What have they avoided because of worry?
It can be useful to ask if there has been any change in the level of self-assurance over time and, if so, what
caused the change. Have there been significant life events which have impacted either positively or
negatively on the level of self-assurance? Interesting responses can be elicited by directly asking high scorers
why they think they lack self-confidence or, from a different angle, what would need to change for them to
feel generally more self-confident.
FACTOR L (VIGILANCE)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘We have already discussed your tendency to expect others to have a hidden agenda.
This could generally increase anxiety in the sense that it may mean you feel less able to rely on other
people.’
84

Average Scores: ‘Anxiety in some people is increased when they feel that others cannot generally be
trusted. As we have previously discussed, your responses suggest that you trust others to the same
extent that most people do.’

Low Scores: ‘As we discussed previously, you seem to accept that other people are generally sincere
and worthy of trust. Such an attitude tends to have a positive impact on feelings of well-being.’
Areas to explore:
Areas to explore in relation to Factor L have been discussed earlier. In this context you might ask directly
about how the individual’s attitude to the trustworthiness of other people impacts on their general feeling
of security.
FACTOR Q4 (TENSION)
Questions to ask:

High Scores: ‘Your responses suggest that you are experiencing higher levels of tension than most
people and therefore feel irritated and impatient quite often.’

Average Scores: ‘The level of physical tension that you generally experience seems to be about the
same as most people.’

Low Scores: ‘You seem to be less physically tense than most people in the sense of being less likely to
experience impatience and irritability with others.’
Areas to explore:
When and how frequently is physical tension experienced? How does the tension manifest itself (muscle
tightness, aches and pains, general fatigue, impatience and irritability, and so on)? To what extent is the
current level of tension (whether high, average or low) a reflection of present circumstances or a habitual
feeling? How does the level of tension affect the person? How do they cope with it? How do they unwind?
85
4.3.3.5 Implication of other scores on the Level of Pressure Experienced
The scales on the 16pf® tell us about typical behavioural styles. From this we can extrapolate hypotheses
about the sorts of environments that best suit a person. If an individual is in an environment which does not
allow behaviour to be expressed in the way they are naturally inclined to express it, then that environment
is unlikely to be satisfying and may therefore be a source of pressure or stress. For example:

A high Factor A scorer may not feel satisfied in an environment that presents no opportunities to
establish close relationships with others.

A high Factor E scorer may feel dissatisfied in environments that present no opportunity for autonomy
and control.

A high Factor F scorer may feel dissatisfied by a lack of variety and excitement.

A low Factor F scorer may feel pressured by the concept of multitasking, preferring to focus on one
thing at a time.

The score on Factor G has implications for the amount of structure and regulation that would suit a
person.

High Factor H scorers may feel stressed by a lack of challenge, while low scorers may feel under pressure
if singled out for attention.

High Factor I scorers like to feel they are understood.

Low Factor Q1 scorers may feel pressured when change is radical and occurs too quickly.

High Factor Q2 scorers derive less satisfaction from working as part of a team whereas low scorers on
this factor would be less likely to enjoy working alone for long periods.

High Factors Q3 scorers feel more comfortable when they are given the opportunity to plan ahead while
low scorers on Factor Q3 might be frustrated by expectations that they should carefully plan for things.
We might also consult the profile to establish which strategy for coping with pressure might best suit a
person. For example, the low Factor Q2 scorer is likely to value social support. The high Factor I scorer wants
the chance to express emotions and be understood while the low scorer on Factor I may attach greater
value to practical solutions to dilemmas.
86
4.3.3.6 Factor Interactions
The combination of certain factor scores on a profile can often lead to useful hypotheses and predictions of
future behaviour of the individual. The following information is based more on the clinical experience of
practitioners and not necessarily on research (see Karson, Karson and O’Dell [1997] for a full exposition).

The Influence of Factor B
Reasoning can be expected to influence resourcefulness, impulse control, and competence. High scorers on
B are generally assertive (E+) and self-reliant (Q2+). If they are also self-disclosing (N-), they will expectedly
play a prominent role in most groups.

The Impact of Estimates Of Overall Adjustment
Overall adjustment virtually impacts on every factor interpretation. As set out in Table 5, overall adjustment
relates to a person’s abilities to control conflicts, defer needs, and to behave under the influences of longterm consequences as measured by certain factors and extreme scores (Table 5).

Interpretations of Specific Score Combinations
Specific score combinations can often lead to interesting hypotheses about and predictions of behaviour.
The meanings of certain combinations are set out in Table 7 (Karson, Karson & O’Dell, 1997). Note that
only unusual or complicated combinations are discussed, as certain factor combinations are straightforward
and need no explanation.
Descriptions of the interpretations of specific score combinations on the 16pf®:
87
Factor
Warmth (A)
Dominance
(E)
Degree of A often affects expression of E.
Person (A & E) Assertiveness is smoothly integrated with social awareness; Persuasive rather than
stubborn or domineering.
Person (A & E) Less socially facilitative modes of self-expression.
Person (A & E) A satisfying stance from which to deny aggression; Fits the culturally prescribed stance
for women (may experience conflict if challenging this).
Person (A & E) Resentment associated with blocked aggression.
Social Boldness
(H)
High/Low scores on both usually go together.
Person (A & H) Tendency to prefer initial stages of relationship over long haul (many acquaintances,
but few friends).
Person (A & H) Unusual combination, but dependable friends and often caretakers of others; desire
for companionship may be frustrated by inhibitions about pursuing it.
Sensitivity
(I)
Both factors involve the expression of emotions, where A is concern for other’s feelings, and I relates
to an interest in expressing own feelings.
Person (A & I) Thin-skinned and sensitive (avoid or limit emotional exchanges to create a social
buffer as a substitute for nonexistent psychological ones).
Person (A & I) Interested in other’s feelings (observant, thoughtful or akin to a parental role, without
involving personal feelings).
Vigilance
(L)
High scores on both are unusual.
Person (A & moderate L) Reflects anger that does not fully objectify its targets.
Person (moderate A & moderate L) No concerns about anger (pairing creates natural balance and
person is reclusive and reserved in presence of others).
Person (A & L) The combination of high warmth and excessive suspiciousness suggests a tendency
to lure others into relationships that turn out to be artificial and fragile, and, often, opportunities to vent
hostility.
Privateness
(N)
Person (average orA & N) The childlike quality of self-disclosure is sustained by a warm social
network.
Person (A & N) If overall adjustment appears adequate, person will be frank and discreet when the
opportunity arises, but he/she will not seek out that opportunity. If scores are very low, there may be
confusion about relating to others (e.g. individuals who collar strangers on long plane rides).
Self-Reliance (Q2)
A+ is usually paired with Q2- and discrepancies often reflect a split between social (A) and work
functioning (Q2).
Person (A & moderate Q2) Desirable adjustment of social warmth coupled with ability to work
independently.
Person (moderate or A & Q2) Signifies authentic self-reliance rather than difficulty collaborating (A
indicates that person does interact positively in some spheres)
Person (A &  Q2) Conflict usually exists where a person may sense his/her own dependency needs,
but do not know how to satisfy it. May also be driven to join groups to accomplish projects because of
feelings of incompetence (even more so with B- and E-).
88
Dominance (E)
Liveliness
(F)
Social Boldness
(H)
Person (E & F) Hysterical trends may be observed (aggression is probably denied or high activity
levels distract the individual from anger).
Person (E & F) Likely to be passive-aggressive, sullen and immobilized.
Person (E & H) May represent hysterical adjustment, with interest in the opposite gender.
Person (E& H) Unusual combination because it is difficult to stand up for oneself without attracting
attention. These people often assert themselves by being stubborn and it is difficult to change their
minds, because they keep an emotional distance from the argument. Their E constantly involves them
in situations that their shyness would rather avoid, which usually leads to significant inner conflict.
Vigilance
(L)
E, in its broadest sense, tends to be a form of anger expressed in the service of a goal independent of
the relationship with the object of aggression, and therefore dissipates when inconvenience is removed.
L causes persons to remain angry, even after they get their way, because their anger is used to achieve
power and to be seen as a force to be reckoned with.
Person (E & moderate L) Healthy expression of anger.
Privateness
(N)
Person (E & N) Mostly law-biding citizens, but can also lead to aggression being expressed in a
devious manner (e.g. corporate thieves who express their resentment indirectly when N is high).
Liveliness (F)
Social Boldness
(H)
F often provides a window into the inner life, while H may represent the social manifestations of activity
versus boredom.
Person (F& H) High energy levels, thrill seeking behaviour and intolerance for boredom.
Person (F & H) Counterdepressive by trying to mask inner gloom with social excitement.
Person (F & H) Immaturity and shyness.
Person (F & H) Passivity and hopelessness.
Apprehension (O)
Person (F & O) Signal for common form of depression where there are low energy levels and selfrecriminatory behaviour.
Person (F & O) Indicative of impulsivity.
Rule-Consciousness (G)
Abstractedness (M)
Person (G & M) This sounds like an impossible combination, but it may be that the M+ is a problem
and the G+ is an attempt at a solution. Another perspective is that G+ is the preferred mode and the
M+ represents warfare against the rigid system of behaviour.
Apprehension (O)
Person (G & O) Combination often found. Individual attempts to prove disregard for standards of
society, while simultaneously admitting intense guilt that contradicts disregard (they know how the game
is played and try to circumvent this, consequently suffering guilt at their lack of conforming.
89
These factors represent the two main strategies that most people use to supplement ego strength: that
Perfectionism (Q3)
is conformity to external norms and expectations and internalising them to bind anxiety. Q3- (alone)
implies a shallowness to behaviour controls (controls are not internalised. G- (alone) may (in combination
with signs of other strengths like overall adjustment) represent creativity, free-spiritedness, and
nonconformity rather than problematic self-control.
Social Boldness (H)
Privateness
These scales make most sense when they point in the same extraverted (H+/N-) or introverted (H-/N+)
direction.
(N)
Person (H & N) An experienced or seasoned mode of interacting with others (e.g. politicians).
Person (H & N) Shy and self-disclosing at the same time (Share distressing information with others
and then avoid them).
Sensitivity (I)
Men with I- suggests a stereotypical masculine style.
Vigilance
Person (I & L) Reflects a thin-skinned sensitivity to real or imagined slights to position of power,
(L)
which may impel the individual to lash out at others.
Person (I & L) Patrol environment for signs that macho adjustment is not fully accepted by others.
For women this also suggests an angry solution to either self-questioning or to other’s inquiries about
femininity and gender-role adequacy.
Abstractedness (M)
Perfectionism (Q3)
Person (M & Q3) Usually good at following routine and executing routines. Coupled with F- and H-,
behaviours can be repeated for a long time without losing interest.
Apprehension (O)
Tension
(Q4)
These two factors are quite highly correlated, but O+ is more about worrying (pangs of conscience and
obsessing) and Q4 relates to impatience (how tightly wound a person is).
Person (O & Q4) Person is anxious or impatient, but not guilt-ridden or obsessive.
Person (O & Q4) Worried, but not impatient or tense.
Liveliness (F) and Rule-Consciousness (G), Abstractedness (M), and Perfectionism (Q3)
When F is high, it is important to distinguish between impulsive immaturity and lively enthusiasm. Estimates of overall adjustment
are important. G+ helps bridle enthusiasm by making it conform to rules of conduct. Q 3+ balances F+’s tendency to act out
without due consideration. M- does not constitute a check on F+, but M+ strongly indicates that flights of fancy may occasionally
get out of hand.
Table 7
The factor combinations discussed above are useful when one encounters interpretive difficulties. Such score
combinations should be viewed as opportunities to discover special aspects of the client’s personality
profile.
90
4.4 Interpretive Principles
After a profile has been interpreted and hypotheses generated, one must give feedback, whether it is in a
report or verbally. According to Lord (1999) adherence to eight basic principles will optimise the effectiveness
of verbal feedback on the 16pf® to respondents. These general principles are presented here (cf. Lord,
1999):
PRINCIPLE 1
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF A WELL-STRUCTURED INTRODUCTION TO THE SESSION
Explain the nature of the data and how responses have been interpreted. Make sure that the respondent
understands the purpose of feedback and give him / her opportunity to talk about feelings regarding the
assessment.
PRINCIPLE 2
REMEMBER THE IMPACT OF THE NORM GROUP
The group that the respondent compares him or herself to may differ from the norm group that was used
to evaluate the test scores. A person may, for example, score above average on dominance when
compared to a general population norm group, but associate with people who are dominant and
therefore his or her self-perception on the level of dominance may differ from a hypothesis regarding the
average population.
PRINCIPLE 3
BE AWARE OF THE IMPRECISION OF LANGUAGE
Most people have a tendency to overestimate the degree of shared understanding when words are
exchanged. People have different understandings of what words and concepts may mean, for example
‘sensitivity’. Simple language should be used and especially broad terms and scale names (which are
for the use of the assessor as a quick cue into the meaning of the scale construct), should be avoided.
91
PRINCIPLE 4
BE AWARE OF THE EMOTIVE NATURE OF SOME WORDS, PHRASES AND VOICE TONES
Feedback should be presented as neutral as possible. That means that there should be no indication of
how the characteristic is evaluated (positive or negative). Hypotheses presented in positive or negative
ways may incline respondents to agree or disagree regardless of how true or false they are.
PRINCIPLE 5
AVOID PRESENTING HYPOTHESES AS CONCRETE FACTS
When hypotheses are presented as facts, they can trigger defensive reactions and this disagreement can
become very personal (especially because the person may differ from the ‘expert’ opinion of the
assessor). Ownership of hypotheses should be given to the respondent (‘You describe yourself as …’
etc.), so that disagreement would only mean the correction of a false impression that they have given
themselves. This method has a two-way goal: the disagreement is less threatening; and it will make it
easier for less assertive respondents to express possible disagreement rather than challenging the
assessor.
PRINCIPLE 6
AIM IN YOUR QUESTIONING TO GET REAL EXAMPLES OF PAST BEHAVIOUR
Validation of scores and predictions from them are best done through concrete examples of how the
person actually has behaved in the past (rather than speculation on hypothetical future situations).
92
PRINCIPLE 7
PHRASE QUESTIONS IN A WAY WHICH CONVEYS THE ASSUMPTION THAT EXAMPLES WILL BE FORTHCOMING
Phrasing questions as, for example: ‘What worries you at work?’ rather than; ‘Do you worry about
anything at work?’ gives the impression that everybody has worries and that there is no risk in admitting
such worries. This will make it easier for the person to talk openly.
PRINCIPLE 8
AVOID TRYING TO ‘FIT’ THE EVIDENCE TO YOUR HYPOTHESES
One should probe for evidence that may confirm, modify or disprove possible hypotheses. One strategy
to do this is to have a set of questions used to explore profiles, no matter score positions.
Assessors should refer to Lord (1999) for further information on the interpretation of profiles.
93
5 Practical Applications of
the 16pf®
5.1 Introduction
Topics researched with the 16pf® are varied. Some examples of research done and published are in the
areas of academic achievement, abortion, accident proneness, adjustment, age differences, anxiety,
alcoholism, adoption, asthma, arthritis, sport (23 types), cancer, climate, bankruptcy and birth order, career
choice, cheating, clinical assessments, comparisons with other tests (at least 150), conflict, conformity, culture
(30 and more different cultures), delinquency, diabetes, diet and divorce, empathy, executives, farmers and
fantasy, guilt, humour, leadership, leisure, motivation, obesity, popularity, race, reaction time, rigidity, sales,
sensory deprivation, suicide, talent, teachers, therapy, twins, values, volunteer work and women.
Since it was first published in 1949 the test has undergone several minor and major revisions, most recently
in 1975 and 1993. During this time the 16pf® has become the parent of an entire family of personality tests
such as the:

Early School Personality Questionnaire

Children’s Personality Questionnaire

High School Personality Questionnaire

IPAT Anxiety Scale

Clinical Analysis Questionnaire
The 16pf® has, over time, become a system of personality assessments rather than a single test. It is also
best described as a system/test focussing on 16 independent and essentially normal categories or factors of
personality. Because it emphasises normal characteristics, the 16pf® results are useful in various
circumstances such as predicting occupational preferences and job performance, coaching, counselling and
more.
94
5.2 Different Applications
5.2.1 Clinical use of the 16pf®
The 16pf® was not developed to solve a clinical problem, to categorize patients or to expose psychological
conflicts that can be addressed in therapy. It was created to measure personality itself. Through its intended
purpose, though, it becomes clear that the 16pf® has definite clinical relevance. There is an escalating
demand for the 16pf® as a tool in psychotherapy, probably because: there is a need to adapt therapeutic
services to economic realities of managed care; of the growing need to accommodate the “normal”
population in therapy; there is an enhanced appreciation of the relevance of ordinary personality traits in
diagnosing clinical problems, and; of the recognition of the facilitating role of the 16pf® in creating dialogue
between clinician and client / patient.
Some Clinical results from research with the 16pf® (earlier Editions) are:

Those studying substance abuse found a consistent pattern of high Anxiety (low Emotional Stability, low
Social Boldness and self-discipline while high on Suspiciousness, Insecurity and Tension), low on Control
(low on Conscientiousness and Self-discipline) and high on Sensitivity (Factor I), Imagination (Factor M),
Shrewdness (Factor N), and Radicalism (Factor Q1)

A characteristic of battered women, seem to be low Emotional Stability. In addition these women seem
to describe themselves as low on Warmth, Impulsivity and Self-discipline whilst being high on Insecurity,
Self-sufficiency and Tension

There seems to be a difference between males and females who could be seen as abusing parents.
Generally the profiles of both genders can be seen as maladjusted but the mothers seem more anxious
and undisciplined (low Emotional Stability and Self-discipline and high on Suspiciousness and Tension)
whilst the men reflect as serious and independent (low Impulsivity and high Self-sufficiency)

Research on the relationship between the 16pf® and physical health is substantial. The scales relating
most highly to various disease states are the components forming the Anxiety scale (low Emotional
Stability, low Boldness, Suspiciousness, Insecurity, low Self-Discipline and Tension). A review by Sherman
and Krug (1977) also implicates Sensitivity (Factor I: related to coronary heart disease), low Impulsivity
(factor F: related to the incidence of coronary heart disease, tuberculosis and diabetes), Self-Sufficiency
(Factor Q2: related to the incidence of coronary heart disease, hypertension, tuberculosis and peptic
95
ulcers) and low Dominance (Factor E: related to the incidence of coronary heart disease, hypertension,
tuberculosis and asthma).

Whereas tests like the MMPI (used to measure pathology) often undermine the therapeutic reliance because
of the difficulty to discuss results in neutral terms, the 16pf® results can be discussed openly and easily. In
this way the client becomes a full partner in the assessment process and subsequent therapy.
5.2.2 Leadership and the 16pf®
With the 16pf®, one can also get a Leadership Coaching Report (LCR). This report focuses on personality
issues related to leadership as a broad concept and provide the client and coach with reports for their use.
The report is quite self-explanatory and will help managers and executives to better understand their
preferences, attitudes and behaviours. Through this report they are able to identify their strengths and areas
for development, set goals and plan their actions.
The six dimensions discussed in the report are:

Problem-solving

Influence

Emotional Resilience

Extraversion

Practicality

Self-Control
5.2.3 Use of the 16pf® in Selection and Placement
Since the early 1950s the 16pf® has been used in job selection and placement. A large amount of literature
has accumulated regarding personality correlates of occupational preference, job performance, worker
satisfaction and academic majors, occupational types and occupational interests. Some results include the
following (cf. Watkins & Campbell, 1990:81)

Extraversion and its components (Warmth, Impulsivity, Boldness and low Self-sufficiency) consistently
differentiate those in high person-contact occupations from those occupations that offer limited
opportunities for interaction
96

Using Holland’s taxonomy, individuals in the Social and Enterprising occupations, such as sales, score
high on Dominance and Boldness. Members of the conventional occupations, such as bookkeeping, are
orderly, persistent, and conscientious (Factors G and Q3).

In a 1983 study, recently terminated executives were assessed and compared to adult norms. They were
found to be more secure and confident (Factor O), more conscientious (Factor G), more assertive (Factor
E) and more self-sufficient (Factor Q2). This pattern seems to suggest that the terminated executives
may not have been good “team players” given their self-described confidence, rigidity, and
independence.

Differences between system engineers, data processing managers and computer sales representatives
were studied and it was found that the systems engineers scored highest on the Intelligence scale (Factor
B), whereas the sales group scored highest on the extroversion components. All groups scored about
equally on Dominance (E), low Suspiciousness (L), Conformity (G), and Radicalism (Q1).

A large body of empirical data describes the 16pf® relationship with various performance criteria such
as absenteeism, tenure, safety and job performance. Some studies indicate Anxiety to be related to
absenteeism and Conscientiousness (Factor G) was negatively related to absenteeism or turnover.
Most people seem to have the following questions when use of the 16pf® results are used for selection
(Lord, 2000)

Are personality variables really relevant to the prediction of job performance?

What is the effect of self-report measures in selection?

What would be the best way to use a self-report personality assessment in selection?
In terms of the relevance to prediction of job performance, the Five-Factor model of personality (as
measured by the NEO Personality Inventory) gives some indications in this regard. According to the FiveFactor model, personality can be described by five broad factors, namely Extraversion, Emotional Stability,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. It is clear that the definitions of the global
factors of the 16pf® are closely similar to the five factors measured by the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO
PI-R) [more detail is given in the Administrator’s manual of the 16pf®. The Five-Factor model has
consistently been found to be valid in predicting job effectiveness. In summary, research seems to suggest
the following: Conscientiousness (Self-Control in the 16pf® seems to be the strongest and most consistent
predictor of job performance; Extraversion was found to be valid in predicting success in two occupational
groups, namely managers and sales personnel; Openness to Experience came out as a valid predictor where
97
success in training was a criterion, but not when using criteria related to job proficiency and personnel data;
Agreeableness and Emotional Stability appear to have less general relevance in predicting job performance.
In conclusion then, research suggests that personality variables can predict job performance.
Because personality measures, such as the 16pf®, are self-report measures their usefulness in a selection
context has been challenged. Recent research suggests that the “fakeability” of personality questionnaires
is not such a problem as previously thought. It is important though, to be clear about the purpose of the
test in a selection setting in order to reduce possible conscious faking.
The best way to use a self-report personality questionnaire in selection settings is to establish the relationship
between measured constructs and the required job competencies. In order to establish this relationship,
competencies required for effective performance in the specific job need to be identified. Lord (2000)
describes in detail how this can be done and incorporated into the selection process.
98
A short summary is given here:

Job roles exist because they are seen as an important contributor to corporate success (therefore we
need to know how the role is supportive of the organization’s goals and objectives). At the same time
we need to understand what attributes in a job holder will maximize the contribution to corporate
success.

The degree of job success is influenced by how effectively the person is managed and developed. It is
therefore helpful to employ people who have the potential to be developed, which is why it is necessary
to identify such potential at the selection stage and to also be aware of what makes the difference
between poor, satisfactory and excellent performers.

Job analysis leads to the identification of four main groups of characteristics, namely:
When one can identify the characteristics of an excellent
performer, one can start to differentiate between characteristics
which can be developed by training or effective management and
those who cannot be developed in all people (and therefore need
1) Knowledge, Skills and Experience
to at least be latently present).
2) Intellectual Abilities
3) Behavioural Style
4) Interests, Attitudes and Values
After characteristics have been described, each characteristic
must be analysed further by means of two methods:


The extent to which the characteristic is trainable
The extent to which it is essential or merely desirable
THEREFORE:
CHARACTERISTICS IDENTIFIED AS ESSENTIAL AND UNTRAINABLE
CHARACTERISTICS IDENTIFIED AS DESIRABLE
NEED TO BE PRESENT FROM THE START;
CAN BE EXPLORED FURTHER TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE ADDED VALUE, AND
WEIGHTED ACCORDINGLY.
99

The author further explains that personality based competencies should be broken down into specific
observable behaviours rather than global personality descriptors in order to minimize possible
misunderstanding of constructs (e.g. words like assertive and sensitive means different things to different
people).

One must also be very clear about the extent to which increasing levels of a construct will enhance job
performance, because extreme levels may sometimes be detrimental.

The prediction of a job competency most often involves consideration of scale interactions and not only
scores on individual factors.

Test scores, as well as information collected through other measures of assessment should play a role
in the final decision-making process. This is done through considering the following:

The importance of the particular competency, relative to others, in overall role effectiveness.

The amount of time in the job spent utilising behaviour related to the specific competency.

The consequences of a possible error in the work behaviour to which the competency relates.

The length of time it takes a typical employee to become proficient in the work behaviour to which
the competency relates.
It is clear that personality variables are relevant to the prediction of job success. It must be kept in mind
though that one instrument can never be used alone to make such decisions! The 16pf®is only part of a
whole selection process where a battery of psychometric tests, interviews, and other applicable information
is incorporated.
5.2.4 Use of the 16pf® in Teamwork
A team is defined as an interdependent group of people working together towards a defined goal known
to all members 16pf® Teamwork Development Report; User’s Guide, 1998).
The purpose of using the 16pf® Teamwork Development Report is intended for use in development settings
for the individual and/or the team. The team member is helped to increase self-awareness and develop
ideas for self-development. The make-up of the team as a group can also be assessed. In the 16pf®
Teamwork Development Report it is also possible to assess the possible implications of similarities and
differences between people, identify personality styles that may not be represented within the team, or allow
comparison of individual team members to the team as a group. The focus of the team assessment of the
100
16pf® is on the implications of personality on an individual level and of the process issues between team
members. The focus is not on outcome or productivity measures of the team’s performance.
In researching the 16pf® within a team context some of the general results indicate that:

Independence (domineering and blaming behaviour) is disagreeable to team members.

Accommodation (low Independence) and Trust (Factor L) are well received by the team members.

Open-Mindedness including Sensitivity and Openness to Change (Factors I and Q1) is associated with
good ratings in Decision-Making.

Being practical (Factor M) can foster coordination efforts of the team.

Some qualities observed in research in traditional managers (Dominance and Tough-Mindedness) may
not serve as well in a teamwork environment that emphasises cooperation, communication and
exploration.

While Independent and Conscientious people often rate themselves higher on teamwork behaviours,
these same behaviours may not be as highly rated by peers.
From this it is also clear that the 16pf® can add valuable information in a team context to understand and
develop members. This is especially useful where teams are in conflict or members may be frustrated in their
roles.
5.3 Cross-Cultural Use of the 16pf®
The 16pf® has been adapted for use in many different cultures. It is not an easy process to replicate selfreport questionnaires to another language or culture.
A South African version of the 16pf® is available and consistent research on the cross-cultural applicability
is highly encouraged. Preliminary South African student norms for the US 16pf® were published in 2002
(See Addendum A). The norms for the South African version are available in the User Manual and attached
as handout.
The comprehensiveness and depth of analysis achieved by the 16pf® contributes richness to the
understanding of people unequalled by any other psychometric assessment. It is one of the most widely
used personality assessments internationally.
101
6 Ethics
6.1 A South African Perspective
Since South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994, a series of labour legislation was put forward to
reassess labour practices and the role of psychometric testing in the workplace. Labour practices refer to
decisions taken about an individual in any of the following circumstances:

Employment in an organisation

Training

Education or other developmental opportunities

Determining who should be promoted
The purpose of the Labour Relations Act (1995) is to advance social justice, labour peace and the
democratisation of the workplace by entrenching that “every person shall have the right to fair labour
practices” (Section 27 of the Constitution).
The purpose of the Employment Equity Act (1998) is to achieve equity in the workplace by:

Promoting equal opportunity and fair treatment in employment through the elimination of unfair
discrimination; and

Implementing affirmative action measures to redress the disadvantages in employment by designated
groups, in order to ensure their equitable representation in all occupational categories and levels in the
workforce.
These acts are supported by the South African Qualifications Authority Act (1995) and the Skills Development
Act (1998) which focus on the acquisition of qualifications, training and skills development.
It can be expected that trade unions and individual employees will sometimes question the fairness of
personnel assessment procedures. In this regard, the specifications of the Employment Equity Act, are
particularly important.
102
The Employment Equity Act (1998) including its recent amendments formulates the use of psychometric
testing as follows:
Psychometric testing of an employee is prohibited unless the test being used:

Has been scientifically validated as providing reliable results which are appropriate for the intended
purpose;

Can be applied fairly to all employees; and

Is not biased against any employee or group.

Has been certified by the Health Professions Council of South Africa established by section 2 of the
Health Professions Act, 1974 (Act No. 56 of 1974) or any other body which may be authorised by
law to certify those tests or assessments.
These four conditions of the Act place the responsibility on the test user to ensure that psychometric testing
and assessments are done in an ethical and professional manner. It is seen as essential, in this regard, that
test users are appropriately trained, aware of the validity and reliability of the 16pf® and competent in
correct and appropriate interpretation of results.
To comply with the requirements of current labour legislation, both the technical quality of the 16pf® as
well as the competence of the test user are essential in ensuring effective and fair psychological assessment.
In order to purchase and use these products, the person must hold at least an Honour’s degree in
Psychology and be registered as a psychometrist in independent practice or as a psychologist with the
Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). The 16pf® is registered as valid for use in South Africa
by the Psychometrics Committee of the Professional Board for Psychology.
6.2 Ethical Use of the 16pf®
6.2.1 Administration and Dissemination of Results

The results of the assessment should benefit the person assessed (with the exception of some forensic
assessments).
103

The respondent to the 16pf® should voluntarily take the instrument. Verbal or written consent should
be obtained. Since the 16pf® is a self-report measure, it is not recommended for persons who are
unwilling or unable to respond honestly to a questionnaire.

The respondent should be informed of the purpose and intended use of the results prior to taking the
instrument. Informed consent should be obtained.

The respondent’s test protocols and results should be handled in such a manner that confidentiality is
ensured.

Administration and feedback should be provided in a face-to-face setting.

Test materials need to be handled properly to ensure control and confidentiality. No unqualified person
is allowed to administer or score the 16pf®.

Legal and ethical issues related to the release of the test protocols should be adhered to at all times.

Any questions and concerns surrounding possible discrimination, confidentiality issues, and skepticism
regarding psychological tests or human rights issues should be answered in a knowledgeable and honest
manner.
6.2.2 Interpretation of Results
The test user should be competent at understanding all facets of the test, the research and the basic
psychometrics, accurate interpretation and application of results.

Inferences should be made from multiple sources of data using proper test selection, administration and
scoring procedures. It is recommended that the 16pf® be used as part of a larger evaluation process,
together with other assessment methods and collateral information such as interviews, results from other
assessment tools and behavioral observations, when available.

The results rendered by the use of the 16pf® should be viewed as important points for further
examination. This allows for additional methods to give a balanced and broader picture of the person
being assessed.

Interpretation of 16pf® results should be made within the limits of currently available knowledge. Test
users should not make inferences regarding scores that go beyond available data.

Knowledge of current literature on the construct(s) assessed by the selection of tests used is essential.

Ability to appropriately interpret sources of error (e.g. measurement error) and bias is important.
104

The 16pf® should not be used for re-testing less than 6 months from the previous assessment, except
if some major event caused distinct personality changes. In these cases, re-testing is necessary.

Knowledge and ability to integrate multiple sources of information from the test(s) and the context
(ethnic and cultural variables, language proficiency, motivational set or attitude toward testing and
more).

Ability to effectively communicate test results to multiple audiences, including the limitations of test
results (effective feedback).

To have application-specific or substantive-specific knowledge, be it for hiring / recruiting, staff
development and training or any other purpose within any specific industry.

Test users should not use personality assessments whose reliability and validity have not been
demonstrated, or use parts of such assessments unless the parts themselves have been demonstrated
to be reliable and valid.
6.2.3 Practitioner Competence
Users of the 16pf® do so within the confines of their own knowledge, competence and roles. Due to the
continuing advances in the understanding and application of personality, research and applications, users
of the 16pf® are strongly urged to update their knowledge and experience through reading, conference
and workshop attendance, or other available means.
6.2.4 Legal and Professional Responsibilities
Users of the 16pf® assume specific professional and legal obligations and responsibilities, namely:

Copyright laws should not be violated by reproducing in whole or in part published instruments and
materials related to the 16pf®

(NB: Copyright does not mean the right to copy).

Users of the 16pf® should abide by local or other laws relating to the conduct of professionals using
psychological instruments.

No copy of the 16pf® may be resold, sublicensed, exported, redistributed or otherwise transferred; nor
may any such copy be used in any manner by any party other than the person or entity to whom the
copy is licensed for use by IPAT and Jopie van Rooyen & Partners SA (Pty) Ltd as their local
representatives.
105
6.2.5 Summary
Ethical use of all psychological tests, including the 16pf®, is regarded as essential by IPAT, OPP and JvR
Psychometrics (Pty) Ltd. Complaints of unethical use of the 16pf® should be brought to the attention of JvR
Psychometrics (Pty) Ltd, to be acted on as soon as possible.
106
7 References
Cattell, H.B. (1989). The 16PF: Personality in depth. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing, Inc.
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (2009). 16PF South African version: User Manual (2nd ed.).
Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Conn, S.R., & Rieke, M.L. (1998). 16 PF Fifth Edition: Technical Manual (2nd ed.). Champaign, Illinois: Institute
for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
De Bruin, G.P., Schepers, J.M., & Taylor, N. (2005). Construct validity of the 16 PF 5th Edition and the Basic
Traits Inventory. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Industrial Psychology Conference, Pretoria.
Cattell, H. E. P., Schuerger, J. M. (2003). Essentials of 16PF Assessment. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Karson, M., Karson, S., & O’Dell, J. (1997). 16PF interpretation in clinical practice: A guide to the fifth
Edition. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Lord, W. (1999). 16PF5: Overcoming obstacles to interpretation. Berkshire, UK: NFER-NELSON Publishing
Company Ltd.
Lord, W. (2000). 16PF5: Personality in Practice. Berkshire, UK: NFER-NELSON Publishing Company Ltd.
Maas, F. (1989). Die Persoonlikheidsteorie van Cattell. (Katalogusnommer 677/2 PP).
Pretoria: Raad vir Geesteswetenskaplike Navorsing.
Maree, D.J.F. (2002). Properties of and South African norms for the 16PF fifth Edition: technical report.
Randburg, Johannesburg: Jopie van Rooyen & Partners SA (Pty) Ltd.
Russel, M., & Karol, D. (2002). 16 PF Fifth Edition with updated norms: Administrator’s manual (3rd Ed.).
Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
107
Schepers, J.M., & Hassett, C.F. (2006). The relationship between the fourth Edition (2003) of the Locus of
Control Inventory and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Version 5). SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 32(2), 9-18.
Sherman, J.L., & Krug, S. E. (1977). Personality-somatic interactions: The research evidence. In S. Krug (Ed.),
Psychological assessment in medicine. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Watkins, Jr., C.E., & Campbell, V.L. (1990). Testing in Counselling Practice. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
108
8 Additional Reading
Abrahams, F., & Mauer, K.F. (1999a). The comparability of the constructs of the 16PF in the South African
context. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25, 53-59.
Abrahams, F., & Mauer, K.F. (1999b). Qualitative and statistical impacts of home language on responses to
the items of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) in South Africa. South African
Journal of Psychology, 29, 76-86.
Cattell, R.B. (1973). Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, H.B. (1989). The 16 PF: Personality in Depth. Champaign. Illinois: Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing, Inc.
Cattell, R.B. (1943). The description of personality. II. Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 37, 475-507.
Cattell, R.B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. American
Journal of Psychology, 58, 69-90.
Cattell, R.B. (1947). Confirmation and classification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12, 197220.
Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF.) Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (Second
Printing 1972; Seventh Printing 1992).
Conn, S.R (1997). Global Factor Pattern Interpretations of the 16PF® Fifth Edition. Champaign, Illinois:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Dawis, R.V. (1994). The Theory of Work Adjustment as Convergent Theory. In Savickas, M.L., And R.W. Lent
(Eds): Convergence in Career Development Theories, Implications for Science and Practice (pp 33 –
34). Palo Alto California: CPP Books.
109
Karson, S., and O’Dell, J.W. (1976). A Guide to the Clinical Use of the 16PF® (7th Edition). Champaign,
Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Krug, S.E. (1981). Interpreting 16PF profile patterns. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing, Inc.
Lubinski, D. and R.V. Dawis (EDS) (1995). Assessing Individual Differences in Human Behaviour. New
Concepts, Methods, and Findings. Palo Alto, California: Davies-Block Publishing.
Maraist, C.C., & Russel, M.T. (2002). 16PF Fifth Edition Norm Supplement. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Prinsloo, C.H., & Ebersohn, I. (2002). Fair usage of the 16PF in personality assessment in South Africa: A
response to Abrahams and Mauer with special reference to issues of research methodology. South
African Journal of Psychology, 32 (3), 48 – 57.
Russell, M.T., & Karol, D.L. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, Illinois:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Van Eeden, R., & Prinsloo, C.H. (1997). Using the South African version of the 16PF in a multicultural
context. South African Journal of Psychology, 27(3), 151-159.
Wallis, T., & Birt, M. (2003). A comparison of native and non-native English-speaking groups’
understanding of the vocabulary contained in the 16PF (SA92). South African Journal of Psychology,
33(3), 182-190.
110