Blog
Recent Blog Comments
CCEF on the Web
- Dr. Bob Kellemen reviews Mike Emlet's CrossTalk: Where Life & Scripture Meet
- See what Taylor Brooks says,
"Every man should read." - In Light of the Gospel Blog
quotes Powlison's "Personal Liturgy
of Confession" with link to full article. - The Reformed Reader recommends Ed Welch's Running Scared.
- Radio host Kevin Boling
interviews David Powlison - What Is Real vs. What I Feel - C. J. Mahaney
interviews David Powlison (audio)
Psychological Tests: Are You For or Against?
Psychological tests: are you for or against?
Yes, that is a polarizing way to ask the question. It certainly doesn't leave room for nuanced biblical thought. This is better: how do we even begin to think biblically about psychological testing?
It’s a two-step process. First you have to know something about psychological tests. Second, you bring that knowledge to Scripture and shed light on it. The first part is a little complicated. There are thousands of psychological tests out there. Some try to get at the details of intellectual functioning (e.g., the Wechsler Intelligence tests), some try to identify personality themes - good and bad - that impact our work and relationships (e.g. the MMPI*), others are less popular tests that are deeply embedded in a particular theory of the person and are trying to apply that theory to everyday life. When we talk about psychological tests we are usually talking about the personality tests, especially those used in pre-marital counseling.
Before you even get to Scripture, these tests have critiques of themselves. For example, test makers know that test questions are connected to your present circumstances, so as your circumstances change, so will your test answers. Also, none of them claim to offer omniscient insight into the human heart. They are simply organizing your answers into categories they hope will be useful. Personality tests, in general, are for fun. They have more in common with parlor games than they do with X-Rays.
When you first bring your knowledge of psychological tests to Scripture . . . hmm . . . you don't come up with very much, at least I don't. Let's keep thinking biblically, but an initial scan of Scripture might suggest that we don't have to make a big deal out of personality tests. They are one way of gathering information from a person, and gathering information is a critical feature of ministry - it is tough to apply Scripture to a person we don't know. We pursue this information in all kinds of ways. We ask friends (with permission, of course), we read personal journals that the person allows us to read, we ask all kinds of questions, we watch the person relate to others, we might even ask about high school grades, or even talk about a profile that came out of a personality test. All data has its biases and a hint of the dubious (I am going to put my best foot forward if you are asking me questions), but as we walk along with someone and bring together different kinds of information, we can actually know someone accurately, though never exhaustively.
At this point, Scripture really kicks in. Scripture takes our knowledge of the person and places it in the larger context of allegiances and kingdoms. No psychological test will do that for you.
Do we actually use tests at CCEF? No, not that I know of. But that's not necessarily because of a definitive biblical principle. We opt to gain an understanding of someone from talking with them. Most experienced counselors can fairly quickly gather the useful data that might come from personality testing.
On a personal note, I have done interviews of candidates for a mission organization and I have suggested that they use a couple psychological tests in their evaluations. I think they actually asked me for recommendations because the standard in mission's interviews is to use psychological tests. Also, when you have a short period of time with someone a psychological test might give you a specific direction for questions that could be useful. The critical issue here is that it is irresponsible to make critical decisions about someone based on their answers to a test. A test, at its best, raises questions that can be explored together.
The good with tests? Some experienced test-givers can gather a crazy amount of information from a test. The first time I observed this, I thought the test-interpreter was some kind of seer. In time, however, the process was de-mystified because experienced people can get lots of information from what seems to be a little snippet of life. For example, an experienced observer could probably tell me things about myself, which I would rather not know, by watching me drive a car.
The cautions? Here are a couple. (1) Some people fall in love with tests, and the test categories become biblical categories generating statements like this: "Oh, you are an INTJ (MBTI** result), that's why you did that." That becomes a hindrance to knowing and loving because you feel like you have mastered everything you need to know about the other person. (2) Since biblical counseling aspires to a counseling method that is accessible to everyone - we believe that counseling ministry is public domain - we tend to not emphasize tools that demand some technical expertise.
With these things in mind, we could then look at specific tests and talk about their advantages or disadvantages. But at some point we would probably say, "let's talk about something more important."
Ed Welch
*MMPI – refers to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
**MBTI – refers to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Comments
Ed, interesting post but I'm not sure why you are as negative about collecting data from psychological tests. You mention data from school records, from friends, from journal entries, and from careful interview in a counseling session. All of these provide data so that you can know your counselee. But, why am I left with the impression that while there is nothing unbiblical about test data, you don't think very highly of them? Is it because of the costs? The mis-use by some? The proprietary nature of them (can only be used by experts?)
All data sources carry bias and dead-ends. But there are many good things that you and I just won't get very easily (or efficiently) without test data. For example, IQ plus achievement data can help pinpoint subtle learning disabilities (and help us recognize the difference between sinful rebellion and struggles with attention); A personality profile (with good validity scales) can help a couple recognize and underline learnings about how their personalities will collide or collude to create problems. Or about about the person who comes in with a rumination problem about a spiritual matter. The YBOCS can help to quickly uncover that this person also has some interesting obsessional counting issues (I knew a person who obsessively counted up the digits on license plates) that builds a larger picture of control/compulsion that might not have risen to the surface.
So, while testing is abused by some (your MBTI example is right on the money!), let's not disrepect ways that can provide data to help us understand the person before us.
On last caveat. In the 1980s many famous clinicians thought they were better at predicting future violence using their interview techniques than using objective testing and history taking. Turns out, they were no better than chance with their own interviewing but with objective test data plus history reviews, they are much much more accurate.
Thanks Ed for the opportunity to talk about this.
So you sitting with a personality test in front of you. What kind of information do you have? First, understand that whatever it tells you, it's biased and limited. A test like the MMPI, designed to find pathology in people . . . finds pathology. The Myers-Briggs personality inventory finds . . . that people have differences in perception and judgment that impacts what they do and say.
Perhaps one of the most misleading things about them is the illusion of scientific objectivity: they have scores that can be quantified; individual and groups can be compared; a personality type is formulated via responses from the individual and not from the observations and judgment of a clinician or counselor.
A series of studies in the 1980s discovered that professional psychologists could not detect when young adolescents were faking brain damage on standard intellectual tests after merely being given the instructions to “be convincing.” When the faked results were mixed with an equal number of results from truly brain–damaged individuals, and the professional were truthfully told there was a 50% chance the test results they saw were faked, less than 10% recognized the faked results. These were professionals who identified themselves as specialists in “neuropsychology.” (House of Cards, chapter 3)
In the early 1990s a study was done on the reliability (the ability of two clinicians to agree upon the diagnosis of a specific case) of the then current diagnostic system of the DSM–IIIR. All the techniques developed to improve agreement were utilized by the study: a finely tuned classification system developed and revised by top psychiatric researchers; specific diagnostic criteria used to guide clinical decisions for each diagnostic category; carefully developed interview protocols designed specifically for use with the given diagnostic system; careful and deliberate selection and training of experienced professional interviewers; and the oversight of perhaps the most experienced research team in conducting diagnostic studies in the world.
Correlation statistics for the patient sample ranged from .40 to .86; the average was .61. Among the nonpatient community sample from two sites, the statistics ranged from .19 to .59, with a .37 mean (Selling of the DSM, 245). By the same standards laid down by the individuals who developed the DSM, only a few of the patient sample approached the "uniformly high" correlation of .90. The fact that the DSM II uniformly failed to achieve the .90 correlational level was used in the 1970s to critique it and call for its radical revision.
Research into judgment and decision making suggests why expert clinical psychological judgment is not better than the above studies have indicated. The research shows that human biases are particularly strong “when judgments are made in the absence of a well–validated scientific theory or when they are evaluated without systematic feedback about how good they [the judgments] are.” Both of these conditions characterize the art of prediction and diagnosis practiced in professional clinical psychology and psychiatry (House of Cards, p. 27).
Never assume you somehow have a more objective sense of what a person is like simply because they have taken one or more personality tests.
Hey Chuck, good to hear from you. It has been many days since our WTS days!
My point doesn't necessarily deny your points. All science, including the so-called hard sciences, are not fully validated in their theories. They all contain biases. Some more than others. Not doubt. However, it is not as if there is NO no empirical validation in psychological testing. Reliability and Validity on many tests are much better than chance--by far! Dawes, who you quote, has some good points but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. The key is to know and understand what data you are getting and not try to make it more than it is. Still, these tools have merit and use. In all science there are false negatives and false positives. Just think, yesterday there was a tornado in Lancaster County. They were concerned about the possibility of a tornado in a larger area and one did touch down in one little area. The science isn't that exact, but I'd prefer it over nothing.
Hi "PMonroe" (being ignorant of blog protocol I don't know if I can use your first name, though I know you well, think very highly of you, know your kids names, and know where you live!), thanks for taking the time on this. I was trying to sound somewhat neutral about psychological tests, but I can understand how I came across as indifferent and "whatever." I think that my casual approach is ultimately rooted in the fact that there is somthing deeper that tests don't measure: our spiritual allegiances and our responsiveness to the gospel. Personality trends are quite fluffy in comparison. As someone who loves to see growth, change, and comfort, I think tests might contribute to that process, but they certainly aren't essential, and they certainly aren't as profitable as an hour with a cup of coffee with you, which, if I remember correctly, you promised me a while ago.
Quick comment on blog protocol (since it's asked). It's curtesy to stick to what's revealed by default until the poster reveals more personal information of himself publicly.
Thanks, I enjoy reading your insights!
"dchen"
Ed, you can refer to me as Phil. I didn't realize I was just "pmonroe."
As to that cup of coffee, if memory serves, I did offer and am waiting for you to provide some dates. :)
Phil
Hi "pmonroe" (alias Phil) and Ed,
Let's take the Myers Briggs, for an example. It's based on Jung's theoretical pairings of dicotomous cognitive functioning as rational (judging) functions thinking and feeling; and irrational (perceving) functions: sensing and intuition in his work "Psychological Types." He then suggested that these functions are expressed in either an introverted or extraverted form. From these original concepts of Jung, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological types, on which the MBTI is based. Their dichotomies being: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving.
All of this is philosophy, guesswork, theory, whatever you want to call it; not science. I like to think of it as the use of conceptual metaphors: THIS (human personality) is like THAT (the Myers Briggs typology). My fundamental critique is that it is too easy to forget the basic metaphorical fact of what is happening with personality typing, counseling theory and psychiatric diagnosis (and the abnormal psychology based upon it). All the empirical methodology in the world that comes afterward cannot alter the fact that at its initial presuppostions, it is guesswork at worst, or metaphor at best. It is not and cannot be "scientific" unless you accept the initial categorization of the types, the legitimacy of the metaphoric comparison. And that is not scientific or empirical, it's a philosophical/faith commitment.
We too easily forget that the perhaps real metaphorical correspondence does no mean that the two halves of the metaphor (human personality and the Myers Briggs typology) are identical. The trappings of objective tests, and statistical analysis, and the explanatory power of the typolological worldview can't change this. As Ed said, there is something deeper, and I'd say more wonderful, about human personality that a personality test cannot begin to touch or conceive.
I agree with you that the key is knowing and understanding the data you are getting; and to try not to make it more than it is. That's the point. Advocates of psychiatric diagnosis and psychological testing often do just that. They do make it more than it is. They are tools with some merit and use if you understand this point. I know you do; but many people don't.
In closing with a metaphor, it's like trying to excavate the foundation of a house with a spade. You're using a digging tool that's woefully inadequate for the job. That's what personality tests are like when they try to present themselves as capturing the glory and wonder of what we mean by human personality. You'll have more success digging out a house's foundation with the spade.
By the way, the html coding didn't seem to work. I tried to use it to emphasize some words, but it translated as text. I couldn't bold words or use italics.
I don't disagree with your analysis of the MBTI. But, remember, not every personality profile starts with theory like Jung's. Not all tests are constructed in the same manner. Some start with a pool of items and looks for factor analysis. Its not that these types of tests are free from interpretation or bias. They do have them, but they are certainly more empirical than the MBTI. For example, while the MMPI-2 has its issues including its looking for pathology, the fact that it is used for hiring police officers and missionaries is based not so much on the focus on pathology but the research coming out of giving it to tens of thousands of each kind. Give a test enough to a particular subgroup and you do begin to find evidence regarding the common response profile associated with the best fit between person and job.
Somehow I think we are talking past each other with apples and oranges conversation. I do agree that some tests are highly suspect. Many psychologist rightly refuse to use those popular tests due to their ease of abuse AND low reliability. But, I would argue that tests can be useful and still not get at the deepest issues of the heart. Do we have to choose? Does taking a test suggest we'll stop and ignore deeper issues? I hope not. But, knowing a particular personality trait or learning style in greater detail just might lead to those important conversations.
Consider this analogy. I don't need to go to the doctor about my tension headaches in order to respond in a godly fashion to stress in my life. But, going and learning that I have a muscle formation in the back of my neck that lends itself to headaches--and one that can be treated with some physical therapy--isn't worthless. Either way I still ought to assess my heart and obey God with my attitudes and actions. But one doesn't need preclude the other.
The science in personality tests comes in the analysis of the items; not the correspondence of the personality profiles to the actual person. That is metaphorical: THIS (the person) is THAT (the profile). This kind of comparison can be useful, but is not a scientific analysis of the individual's personality.
I am new to the academic world of counseling. The discussion about personality testing is enlightening and facinating. I have only been exposed to the work of Sandra Seagal and David Horne, Human Dynamics which is based upon the observations by Ms Seagal of how persons obtain, process and retrieve information and how that appears to be asssociated with how they function in small groups, how they learn, and how they interact.
I am interested in how educators can provide enriched environments to assist small groups to learn without having to test the participants. Your conversations about psychological and personality tests has thus captured my attention.... keep going please... smiles
Ed said in the beginning of his post that there was a two-step process to thinking biblically about psychological testing. He said, “First you have to know something about psychological tests. Second, you bring that knowledge to Scripture and shed light on it.” I agree. The critique in my dialogue with Phil was to the first step of the process. One of the things you need to know about psychological tests is that they all begin as theoretical, metaphorical systems. Regardless of the statistical reliability or validity of the scientific analysis of data compiled from these tests, the tests themselves are only a crude analogy. When discussing the way of love in First Corinthians 13, Paul remarked how we can only know things partially until the time we stand before Christ: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Co 13:12) In a similar way, psychological tests are only looking at human nature “through a mirror dimly.” Any picture we get of ourselves through psychological assessment will be incomplete, biblically speaking as well as scientifically. I believe it is necessary to start any enquiry into knowledge of ourselves through psychological assessment or tests with this presupposition.
This premise also gets to Ed’s second point, bringing the light of Scripture to the use of psychological tests: we can only know in part; we will always see in a mirror dimly until we are face-to-face with Christ. First Corinthians 13:12 applies equally to psychological testing as it does to prophecy. Let us be careful to not be seduced by the quantification of knowledge gained via testing and assessment, remembering that the Fall was precipitated by the human desire to be wise apart from God’s revelation. Turning to Scripture for the light it can shed upon human nature, we find that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Heb 4:12-13)
Starting with this acknowledgement of the supremacy of Scripture to the limited reflection of who we are through psychological tests, I think we can in principle learn from and use any of the standard psychological tests or assessment tools without quantifying that wisdom independent of God and His Scripture.