You are on page 1of 17

British Psychological Society

Psychological Testing Centre


Test Reviews
Personal Profile Analysis

Local test distributor / publisher: Thomas International Ltd

The British Psychological Society 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission.
This test has been granted registration as a psychological test by the British Psychological Society,
Psychological Testing Centre.
Permission has been granted to the distributor / publisher named above to distribute copies of this review in
paper or PDF file format so long as such copies are not amended or changed in any way from the original
version published by the BPS.

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

Personal Profile Analysis (PPA)


Reviewers:
Consulting Editor:
Senior Editor:
Senior Update Editor:
Update Editor

S. Robertson
& G. Hodgkinson
I. Robertson
P. A. Lindley
P. A. Lindley
S. Waters

GENERAL INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT


Test Name: Personal Profile Analysis
Authors of the original test: Thomas. M. Hendrickson
License for Distribution Issued To: Thomas International Ltd
Local test distributor / publisher: Thomas International Ltd
Date of Publication of Current Review/Edition: 1998
Date of Current Review: 2003
ISBN: 185433512X
General Description of Test: The Personal Profile Analysis (PPA) is a 24item, selfcompletion, and
multiscale instrument, designed for the assessment of workrelated dispositions. American in origin, the
PPA is an integral part of a system for use by line managers in work interviews. A companion instrument,
for completion by employers, known as the Human Job Analysis (HJA), designed to assess jobs along a
parallel set of dimensions, is intended for use in conjunction with the PPA, in order to enable the
assessment of personjob fit. This review is concerned only with the PPA.
The four scales of the PPA are as follows: 1. Dominance; 2. Influence; 3 Steadiness; 4 Compliance.
The instrument is linked to Marstons theory (Marston, 1920, 1925, 1927) that our behaviour is determined
by whether we perceive our environment to be antagonistic or favourable, and whether we choose to adopt
an active or passive response to it. PPA exists in 46 languages in translation.
Scores along the four dimensions of the PPA and HJA are represented visually in a series of graphs, in
order to facilitate the direct comparison of candidates selfdescriptions (PPA derived) with the ideal
profiles derived independently, through the HJA. According to the Technical Handbook,
Congruence, or at least near concordance, is recommended by Thomas for increasing the probability of
job success and satisfaction (Irvine, 1988, p. 9).
Each of the graphs contains the four dimensions, vertically arrayed, and scaled using the raw score range
in each case. The maximum scores on each scale vary from 15 to 21 depending on which graph is
considered. The minimum scores vary from 21 to 0. High and low scores on each scale are identified in a
grey shaded zone, and a central horizontal line divides each chart into two equal areas.
Participants are presented with 24 items, each comprising a set of four adjectives, and are required to
indicate which of the adjectives they feel are most and least like them, within each set. The information
elicited from the PPA is used in order to derive three profiles, each comprising the four dimensions: a
profile reflecting the characteristics which the candidate feels are most like him/herself (M); a profile
capturing the characteristics the candidate believes to be least like him/herself (L), and a total profile (T),
derived by subtracting the L scores from the M scores.
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 2 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

Administration is by means of a selfadministered booklet or, alternatively, via computer, using the
Thomas International Human Resources Software. The latter is a Windowsdriven computer program that
enables users to administer, score and interpret responses to the PPA and HJA.
Data gathered through the paperpencil mode of administration may be scored in one of three ways:
1. by keying responses from the answer sheet directly into a personal computer, via the Human Resources
Software;
2. by scoring the answer sheets manually;
3. via a consultancy service operated by Thomas International, the publisher and distributor (for which there
is an extra charge).
Extensive reportgenerating facilities are available, with a mixture of graphical and narrative information,
and with pointers for feedback/interview discussion across a wide range of issues. Fifteen different types of
profile reports and job comparisons can be generated through the Human Resources Software, when the
PPA is employed in conjunction with the HJA:
1. PPA profile
2. Management audit
3. Sales audit
4. Admin/tech audit
5. How to manage
6. Management interview questionnaire
7. Sales interview questionnaire
8. General questionnaire
9. Strengths and limitations
10. Career guidelines
11. Training needs
12. Executive summary
13. Human job analysis definition
14. Human job analysis comparison
15. Graphs and scores
Each of the above items are charged as separate reports, with the exception of item 15, for which there is
no charge.

Classification
Content Domains:
Personality Trait
Intended or main area(s) of Use:
Work and Occupational
Intended mode of use (conditions under which the instrument was standardised and validated):
Supervised and controlled administration. Test administration under the control of a qualified
administrator or proctor
Description of the populations for which the test is intended:
Working population, but new (experimental) version (J10) intended for school students, and an
experimental new form APNQ are not yet released.
Number of scales and brief description of the variable or variables measured by the test:
The four scales of the PPA are as follows:
1. Dominance
2. Influence
3. Steadiness
4. Compliance
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 3 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

Items format:
Forced choice, mixed scale alternatives (ipsative)
Number of test items:
The Personal Profile Analysis (PPA) is a 24item, self completion, and multiscale instrument, designed for
the assessment of workrelated dispositions. American in origin, the PPA is an integral part of a system
used by line managers in work interviews. A companion instrument, for completion by employers, known as
the Human Job Analysis (HJA), designed to assess jobs along a parallel set of dimensions, is intended for
use in conjunction with the PPA, in order to enable the assessment of personjob fit. This review is
concerned only with the PPA.
Response mode:
Manual operations
Paper and pencil
Computerised
Time:
Preparation: Estimate 5 minutes or less
Administration: Approximately 1015 minutes
Scoring: Computer scoring would take only a few seconds, hand scoring a few minutes, while the bureau
service would depend on speed of communication
Analysis: Computer scoring would take a few seconds, hand scoring a few minutes
Feedback: Approximately 4045 minutes, using either the computer generated graphic report on the
computergenerated interpretative report as a basis
Different forms of the test:
An experimental alternative version is discussed in the manual but is not yet available

Measurement and Scoring


Scoring procedure for the test:
Computer scoring manual entry of responses from the paper response form
Bureauservice e.g. scoring by the company selling the test
Scores:
No information in original report.
Score transformation for standard scores:
Ipsative
Scales Used:
Percentilebased scores:
Raw scores

Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 4 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

ComputerGenerated Reports
Are computer generated reports available with the instrument?:
Yes
Do distributors offer a service to correct and/or develop computer generated reports?:
Yes
Brief description of Reports..
Media:

Text only

Complexity:

Medium

Report Structure:

Construct based
Criterion based

Sensitivity to context:

Predefined contextrelated versions

Clinicalactuarial:

Based on clinical judgement of one expert


Based on empirical/actuarial relationships
Based on clinical judgement of group of experts

Modifiability:

Not modifiable

Degree of 'finish':

Publication quality

Transparency:

Concealed link between constructs, scores and text

Style and tone:

Directive

Intended recipients:

Qualified test users


Test takers
Qualified system users
Third parties

Supply Condition and Costs


Documentation provided by the distributor as part of the test package:
User manual
Supplementary technical information and updates (e.g. local norms, local validation studies etc)
Technical (psychometric) manual
The publishers of the instrument supply a computerbased administration/scoring system and
report/narrative generator, profile/generator.
Methods of publication:
Paper
Live Internet (test runs in a web browser)
Startup costs:
Corporate startup package, 2,500 + VAT. This package comprises two days training for two people pre
and post course tutorial, the computer system, 50 PPA forms for assessing individuals, 10 HJA forms for
assessing jobs and 500 software units (41 reports).
Recurrent costs:
Ongoing costs are for items consumed only i.e. Thomas does not charge a licence fee.
50 Manually scored PPA forms and 10 HJA forms @ 336 + VAT; 500 software units (41 reports), 875 +
VAT.
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 5 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

This amounts to around 32 + VAT per person (assuming that a questionnaire and report are required for
each respondent). Prices are all subject to volume discounts.
Prices for other bureau services:
These are provided by Thomas Consultants for an additional charge.
Testrelated qualifications required by the supplier of the test:
Test specific accreditation
Professional qualifications required for use of the test:
None

Evaluation of Test Materials


Key to symbols:
Inadequate
No longer used
Adequate/Reasonable
Good
Excellent
[N.r.i.o.r]

(for updates only) Item was not rated in original


review

Quality of the explanation of the rationale, the presentation and the


quality of information provided:
Overall rating of the Quality of the explanation of the rationale:
i) Theoretical foundations of the constructs:
ii) Test development procedure:
iii) Thoroughness of the item analyses and item analysis model:
iv) Explanation of content validity:
v) Summary of relevant research:
Adequacy of documentation available to the user (user and
technical manuals, norm supplements etc):
i) Rationale:
ii) Development:

Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 6 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

iii) Standardisation:
iv) Norms:
v) Reliability:
vi) Validity:
Quality of the Procedural instructions provided for the user:
i) For test administration:
ii) For test scoring, norming etc:
iii) For interpretation and reporting:
iv) For providing feedback and debriefing test takers and others:
v) For providing good practice issues on fairness and bias:
vi) Restrictions on use:
vii) References and supporting materials:
Quality of the materials:
i) General quality of test materials (test booklets, answer sheets, test
objects, software, etc):
ii) Test quality of the local adaptation (if the test has been translated and
adapted into the local language):

N/A

iii) Ease with which the test taker can understand the task:
iv) Ease with which responses or answers can be made by the test taker:
v) Quality of the items:

Reviewer's comments on the documentation (comment on rationale, design, test development and
acceptability):
The instructions associated with the questionnaire booklet are clear and its overall appearance is
satisfactory. The instructions associated with the "Human Resources Software " version of the instrument
and the reportgenerating facility are similarly clear and straight forward and the overall quality of the
graphics is satisfactory.
In general the printing quality is good. The basic training manual comes in a selfcontained binder. The
training pack is of reasonable quality. Previously essential technical information was distributed in several
disparate reports. Now there is a new technical resource manual which presumably replaces this.
Some of the background theory and discussion of technical issues regarding ipsativity are likely to be
beyond the grasp of the average user. The issues of ipsativity are dealt with in a way that glosses over the
complexities and implications for establishing the psychometric properties of the instruments and the
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 7 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

various uses to which it may and may not be put.


The PPA software is easy to install, making the task of scoring and deriving profiles and reports relatively
painless. The reports generated by software are clearly structured. Some guidance is provided on the
process of giving feedback to clients.

Norms, Validity & Reliability


Evaluation of technical information:
Norms or reference group information:
N/A

Overall adequacy:
i) Appropriateness for local use, whether local or international norms:

N/A

ii) Appropriateness for intended applications:

N/A

iii) Sample sizes:

N/A

iv) Procedures used in sample selection:

No information is supplied

v) Quality of information provided about minority/protected group


differences, effects of age, gender etc:

0 stars

Reviewers' comments about the norms:


No norm tables are provided. Scores are represented graphically on three charts in which raw scores are
scaled nonlinearly. The Technical Handbook does not indicate the basis for this, although it appears to
derive from a percentile scaling procedure developed by Hendrickson. This was based on a US sample (n
= 1000) collected in the 1950s around the time of Hendricksons early test development work.
There is a good deal of debate around the practice of norming ipsative (or quasiipsative) measures. The
impact of ipsativity on any scale increases as the number of scales involved decrease (Bartram, 1996). The
average intercorrelation between the scales rapidly approaches zero as the number of scales increases
above a dozen or so. For an instrument comprising only four scales, however, the impact of ipsativity is
bound to be high (cf. Baron, 1996). This is acknowledged in the technical documentation, although
percentile norms have been derived separately for M, L and T scores and normative data are presented
and discussed for both US and UK samples.
As acknowledged in the Technical Handbook:
No national norming samples have been constructed, stratified by sex, occupational level and industrial
context. Indeed, the critics of ipsative scales would say that such an effort is logically impossible anyway ...
It will come as no surprise to any person sensitive to the problems of crossnational research that the
problems of direct comparison are beyond the means of purposive samples derived from daytoday use
of instruments whose distribution to clients is a function of market forces. (Irvine, 1988, p. 38)
Nevertheless, UK normative data are derived separately for several groups comprising students,
professional and sales managers and clients, with sample sizes ranging from 103 to 4083.

Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 8 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

Validity:
Overall adequacy:
Construct Validity (overall adequacy):
i) Designs used:

Correlations with other


instruments

ii) Sample sizes:


iii) Procedure of sample selection:

No information is supplied.

iv) Median and range of the correlations between the test and other
similar tests:
v) Quality of instruments as criteria or markers:
vi) Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses:

N/A

Criterionrelated validity: overall adequacy:


i) Description of the criteria used and characteristics of the populations:

Supervisor ratings, sales


targets, earnings

ii) Sample sizes:


iii) Procedure of Sample selection:

No information supplied.

iv) Median and range of the correlations between the test and criteria:

Reviewers' comments about validity:


Concurrent Criterion Related Validity: The research that was undertaken between 19851995 has been
brought together and outlined in the new Technical Resource book, with a little more detail than previously
reported. Briefly the studies include:
132 subjects from 23 different companies, PPA results compared with supervisor ratings on current
performance using the Human Job Analysis (HJA) questionnaire. Coefficients ranged from .14 on the C
scale to .39 on the D scale. 3 results were significant at the .05 level. Better correlations (all significant at
the .05 level) were achieved with a subgroup of 79 who had been selected using the HJA.
In 1994, 218 American Insurance salespersons, mean DISC profiles (not stated which response was
used, but assumed the difference scores), compared with achievement of sales targets: high achievers,
average, and below average.
An earlier, unpublished independent study by Bateson, 1986, 176 insurance sales persons, DISC scores
compared with monthly salary earnings.
The above two studies were used to create preferred PPA profiles. This is "configurable prediction based
on the shape of the profile". Regression analysis on the performance criteria produced a multiple R of .395.
Predictive Validity: No predictive validity was reported in the Technical Handbook (Irvine, 1988). Some
further studies are reported in the new Technical Resources book.
30 pub landlords, PPA profiles compared with manager ratings on three dimensions; physical amenities,
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 9 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

interpersonal skills and running the business.


49 bus drivers, profile scores compared with accident rates. Correlational data and ANOVA used to show
that being compliant and steady reduced accidents.
155 Finnish Tour Guides, PPA results compared with decisions to rehire and ratings based on
observations of 10 qualities of work.
Construct Validity: Both the PPA technical manual and the Technical Handbook report construct validation
studies. The technical manual reports a number of significant correlations between the four PPA
dimensions and various GuilfordZimmerman factors and various performance ratings (as perceived by
supervisors). The information provided is insufficient to evaluate this research. Sample sizes and basic
background details are omitted. Although the statistical significance levels of the correlations are reported,
the magnitude of the various correlation coefficients are not reported.
112 Irish police officers took the MBTI and PPA. "Concordance" reported between the results on the two
measures
The Technical Handbook (Irvine, 1988) reports a UK study of 263 subjects who completed PPA, 16PF
(fourth edition), and the Factor Model 3 version of OPQ.
PPA scales correlated significantly with around three or four 16PF primaries per PPA scale. For example,
Dominance correlated positively with 16PF dominance (Factor E) and imaginative (M), but negatively with
apprehensive (O) and shrewd (N). Influence correlated positively with enthusiastic/happygolucky (F) and
bold (H), but negatively with (16PF) dominance. Compliance correlated negatively with
Enthusiastic/happygolucky (F) and bold (H) and 16PF dominance (E).
Over 20 OPQ dimensions correlated significantly with PPA scales. Typical of these were competitive,
decisive, and influential (correlated positively with Dominance); gregarious, socially at ease, optimistic
(correlated positively with Influence); competitive, decisive, influential (correlated negatively with
Steadiness); gregarious, decisive, socially at ease (correlated negatively with Compliance). All correlations
quoted were in excess of 030. Although the construct validity correlations include some values that are
large, the median values are uniformly in the 0.3 area for each PPA scale. None of the scales consistently
yields a coefficient greater than 0.45.
The new Technical Resources book reports the work of Dr Valentina Pogolsha, whose study using a
translation of the PPA, 166 subjects, correlated results with Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire and a
Russian measure of Interpersonal Success and Self Regulation, and the Ellers Test for Motivation of
Failure. Irvine states that the DISC "dimensions are recognisable when defined by the factor names of the
other inventories". The reported correlations however are all less that .55.
The new Technical Resource manual reports some further construct validation evidence, using UK and
USA data. One sample of 291 were tested using paper and pencil, and a larger sample of 1512 were tested
by computer. The smaller sample book Chrystals Self Development Inventory (an example of a big 5
measure), and it was demonstrated that the 4 DISC scales did map onto some of the big 5 scales. The
majority of correlations were under .55.
The sample of 1512 who were tested by computer took a different inventory, Irvine's Millennium test (big 5
plus Assertiveness), with similar results.
General comments on Validity: A range of studies is quoted to support the validity of PPA. Many of the
studies are described sketchily, sometimes without any information about sampling, sample sizes, the
nature of the criterion measured, or even the size of output statistics such as correlations. The findings that
are reported are frequently stated without interpretation.

Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 10 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

While some high correlations are reported between PPA and relevant criteria, or between PPA and other
instruments, they are rendered extremely difficult to interpret due to the strong ipsative character of the
questionnaire and the amount of overlap between the scales.
Intercorrelations, between the PPA scales average at 0.37, slightly higher than the theoretical value for a
fourscale fully ipsative device (0.33). The intercorrelations vary from 0.24 (steadiness and compliance) to
0.75 (dominance and steadiness). Given the strength of the correlation between Dominance and
Steadiness, they might be better thought of as two ends of a bipolar dimensions rather than separate
scales.
In the new Technical Resource book, there is more detailed explanation and comment on the various
studies. As far as predictive validity is concerned, the emphasis is on configural prediction deriving a
profile shape that will predict success in different jobs. Some of the profiles appear to be based on common
sense, a few have been test empirically
Reliability:
Overall adequacy:
i) Data provided about reliability:

No information supplied.

Internal consistency:
i) Sample size:
ii) Median of coefficients:
Test retest stability:
i) Sample size:
ii) Median of coefficients:
Equivalence reliability:
i) Sample size:
ii) Median of coefficients:

Reviewers' comments on Reliability (comment on confidence intervals for reliability coefficients


and provide Spearman Brown equivalents for a 30item scale):
The consistency estimates are splithalf reliabilities computed by Hendrickson on a sample of 100
respondents. The same caveat, regarding the degree of convergence between the modern PPA and
Hendricksons questionnaire, applies here as previously.
Exact internal consistencies are not reported in the Technical Handbook (Irvine, 1988), only the range
across the four scales (0.60 to 0.74). Conventional reliability procedures are problematic and controversial
in the context of ipsative instruments.
The reliabilities generally appear adequate for the PPA scales, although internal consistency measures
provide biased estimates of reliability for ipsative scales. It should also be noted that if results for only the
modern version of the instrument are used the picture changes. The Technical Handbook gives estimates
varying from 0.52 (Compliance) to 0.78 (Dominance) based on a sample size of 132. One of these
(Compliance) is clearly unsatisfactory.
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 11 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

Internal Consistency: The studies referred to earlier were also used to derive some reliability evidence. One
sample of 291 were tested using paper and pencil, and a larger sample of 1512 were tested by computer.
Cronbachs, Alpha was used to compute internal consistency reliability for the 4 scales using the composite
scores. For both samples the results were similar to the earlier study with the Dominance scale being the
most homogeneous, .77, and the C scale being unsatisfactory, .62 and .58.
Alpha coefficients using the same two samples were also calculated for Experimental form, APNQ. The
scoring procedure for this version of the PPA is different from the old DISC. The reliabilities in both samples
ranged from .77 to .86, the P scale being the most internally consistent and the A scale the least.
Test Retest: A study whose purpose was to demonstrate the effectiveness of PPA for career choice in
schools, was reported separately in 2003 (not in the new manual). A sample of 151 students from 2 schools
were given both DISC and a revised version that used short descriptive phrases (this was the experimental
form J10 not the experimental
APNQ). The highest testretest reliabilities were achieved (interval 5 days), when the new version was
presented first. These results (.89, .89, .80 and .78 for DISC) are substantially the same as previous
research in the USA and Europe. The same results are also described as parallel form reliabilities.
Parallel Form reliabilities for PPA and APNQ intercorrelations are reported in the new Technical Resource
book. In my opinion, this new version seems to be more like a different measure than a parallel form. The
domain names are different, descriptive phrases are used as well as words, and the scoring procedure is
different. The scales of APNQ also seem to be more reliable than the original DISC.
The schools study, 2003, (N = 151) also presents parallel form reliability statistics for the standard form and
the J10 version, with correlations greater than .8 on three scales.

Quality of ComputerGenerated Reports


Overall adequacy of computergenerated reports:
i) Scope or coverage:
ii) Reliability:
iii) Relevance or Validity:
iv) Fairness, or freedom from systematic bias:
v) Acceptability:
vi) Practicality:
viii) Length index (number of pages (including composite and derived
scales) divided by number of scales), multiplied by 10 and expressed as
an integer:

10

Reviewers' comments on the quality of computer generated reports:


Many different reports are available, some of them aimed specifically at the individual and developments
needs. Others based on the HJA are tools for the manager for use in recruitment situations. Some of these
are very job specific, such as the Sales Audit or the Call Centre Audit is the candidate suited to this role?
The report that is reviewed here is the PPA Profile. It is described as a "full profile identifying the
characteristics including working strengths, fears, motivations and values, that a person brings to an
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 12 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

employer".
Scores are presented for the 4 scales, DISC, with no explanations.
There is no introduction, and no comment about accuracy or distortion. There are no disclaimers, at the
end it is recommended that the report be used in conjunction with the interview.
It appears to be addressed to the client organisation, being written in the third person, in a directive style
under the following headings:
Self image
Self motivation
Job emphasis
How others see you
Behaviour under pressure
General comments
It is very user friendly, reads well, and at first glance appears to be a useful quick pen portrait of the person
concerned. As it is not at all clear how the comments track back to the profile, it is very hard to judge how
reliable and how valid it is. It could however, be extremely useful if used as suggested as an interview
prompt, with hypotheses to be explored and confirmed or not. For example, 3 alternative suggestions are
given as to why the person concerned might be frustrated and under pressure.
Overall, it is short, succinct and could be a very useful tool in a development situation if time were taken to
explore the hypotheses. It might be very tempting for a manager under pressure to use the report as "fact"
in a recruitment situation.

FINAL EVALUATION
Evaluative report of the test:
The PPA is a relatively brief, easy to administer instrument, designed to assess the suitability of candidates
in a range of employment situations. Used in conjunction with the HJA, a companion instrument for
assessing job characteristics, the training documentation supplied by the publisher and distributor suggests
that PPA provides a basis for retention and selection, training and development, team bonding and
building, releasing people potential, stimulating employees, diagnosing and resolving people problems,
career guidance, empowerment and change and appraisal.
No requirement is placed upon those wishing to train in PPA to meet any of the standards of competence in
occupational testing associated with Level A and B. Little of the underpinning knowledge associated with
these standards is reflected in the PPA System manual. As a consequence those who do train may not
have the knowledge and skill base required to evaluate PPA properly (or even to read the manuals with
understanding), and not to use the instrument in an inappropriate manner. The fact that PPA is
quasiipsative adds an extra layer of complexity for the novice user, in that a part of the reason why, for
example, people who score high on Dominance often score low on Steadiness is because of the structure
of the questionnaire and the correlations its format imposes.
A section in the training documentation on fair recruitment and appraisal methods at work is
underdeveloped, in that the key concepts arising from the relevant legislation, such as direct and indirect
discrimination are not mentioned. Contrary to the assertions of the documentation, the fact that the
instrument is available in a number of different languages does not necessarily provide additional
safeguards in this respect, since fundamental differences in meaning may occur in the process of
translation.
The training manual does not cover in sufficient detail technical issues, such as how the profiles are
generated, limitations of computer narrative reports, or fundamental concepts of psychometrics. Research
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 13 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

evidence concerning the psychometric properties of the instrument is available now in the new manual
which unfortunately still makes few concessions for the average user, who is likely to be a
nonpsychologist. Although this manual is a big improvement over the format of the series of technical
documents, unfortunately it is not particularly user friendly. It is written historically, so one has to jump
around looking for evidence of, say, construct validity, which could be in several different places. Moreover,
there is an abundance of statistics, not really reported in an easily digestible way. The style is rather
verbose. There is some confusion of reporting about DISC and APQN. If the latter is to be the version of
choice, maybe a user friendly technical manual outlining the rationale and supporting statistics for this new
measure alone, would be very welcome.
Questions as to the nature and significance of data derived through ipsative instruments, how such
instruments are best evaluated in terms of their psychometric properties, and whether or not they can
sensibly be used as a basis for selection decisions have been debated at length in recent years (see, for
example, Baron, 1996; Bartram, 1996; Closs, 1996; Johnson et al., 1988; Saville & Wilson, 1991; Cornwell
& Dunlap, 1994). Several of the points raised in the literature on ipsative tests are explicitly acknowledged
in various places throughout the PPA technical documentation. Indeed, the Johnson et al. (1988) reference
is cited in the Technical Handbook. Previous reviewers (Paltiel, 1986; Cook, 1992) have questioned both
the reliability and validity of PPA scales on the basis their ipsativity and the available research.
The validation studies report productmoment correlations between PPA scores and various jobrelated
performance criteria. Construct validity data, relating the PPA scales to a range of other personality
instruments, are also reported, again based on product moment correlations.
The question as to whether or not there are situations in which conventional psychometric analyses can be
performed on ipsative data in this way remains controversial at the present time. It is clear, however, that
the limitations are more likely to prove problematic in cases where the instrument concerned comprises
relatively few scales (Baron, 1996), as in the case of the PPA. Considerable caution, therefore, is required
when interpreting the evidence presented in the technical documentation concerning the psychometric
properties of the PPA. Another problematic area concerns the underlying theoretical rationale of the
instrument, as set out in the documentation. As noted earlier, the instrument has been derived on the basis
of an underlying interactionist theory, attributable ultimately to the work of William Marston. It is Marstons
work which provided the underlying rationale for the adoption of an ipsatised format. Candidates are
required to explicitly identify characteristics that they feel are most and least like them, in an effort to probe
beneath the surface of their personalities. However, there is considerable confusion within the
documentation that was supplied by the publishers for the purposes of this review as to the precise
meaning of the L pattern.
It is evident that there are two fundamentally opposing interpretations of L scores. In the copy of a
document entitled PPA Technical Manual, its authors state:
However, this is not to say that the L pattern measures unconscious aspects of personality or that it
cannot be distorted. It serves primarily when compared with the M pattern as an indicator of the probable
consistency of the individuals usual behaviour. (Hendrickson & Associates Inc., undated, p. 7)
The original technical manual, by contrast, stated: The L pattern measures unconscious aspects of
personality and as such is so extremely difficult to distort as to allow the claim that it cannot be distorted.
(Irvine, 1988, p. 26). Given that the L pattern is clearly of such fundamental significance to the scoring and
interpretation of the PPA, the failure to address this issue is a major concern.
Conclusions:
In summary, the PPA is a relatively brief, easy to administer instrument, designed to assess the suitability
of candidates in a range of employment situations and it is accompanied by userfriendly training materials.
Technically, the PPA appears to be a questionnaire that is sufficiently complex structurally (due to its
quasiipsative nature) to render straightforward interpretation of its internal and external correlations very
difficult. Taking into account the limitations identified in this review, it is strongly recommended that
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 14 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

intending users should proceed with due caution. The combination of its psychometric properties, together
with the lack of conceptual clarity regarding the nature and significance of the L pattern, raise questions, for
both academic researchers and practitioners alike.
Because Irvine states that the PPA is not a "psychometric test of all relevant personality domains", but is
merely "a unique interview form" and have been "evaluated by the strictest of metric methods and scientific
protocols" this somehow suggests that this is acceptable even though there may be a few shortcomings in
technical information and evidence. Having said that, however, Thomas International are to be commended
for the work they have done in recent years on research and revalidation of this instrument.
Recommendations:
Suitable for use in the area(s) of application defined by the distributor, by test users who meet the
distributor's specific qualifications requirements
Notes, references and bibliography:
Anonymous (1996). The Thomas International PPA System. Thomas International Limited.
This is the training manual supplied to all course participants enrolled for training.
Baron, H. (1996). Strength and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 69, 4956.
Bartram, D. (1996). The relationship between ipsatized and normative measures of personality. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 61, 2539.
Closs, S. J. (1996). On the factoring and interpretation of ipsative data. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 61, 4147.
Cook, M. (1992). An evaluation of the DISC/Personal Profile Analysis. Selection and Development Review,
8(3), 36.
Cornwell, J. M. & Dunlap, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring ipsative data: A
response to Saville and Wilson (1991). Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 67, 89100.
Hendrickson, T. M. & Associates Inc. PPA Technical Manual. Thomas International
Management Systems Europe Limited
One of the main sources of technical information supplied by the publishers.
Irvine, S. H. (1988). Personal Profile Analysis: Technical Handbook. Ormskirk: Thomas Lyster.
Key reference supplied by the publishers.
IRVINE, S.H., METTAM, D. and SYRAD, 1 (1994) Valid and more valid? Keys to understanding personal
appraisals at work. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 13 (1),2759.
Johnson, C. E., Wood, R. & Blinkhorn, S. E. (1988). Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative
personality tests. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 61, 153162.
Marston, W. M. (1920). Reactiontime symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3,
7287.
Marston, W. M. (1925). Negativetype reactiontime symptoms of deception.
Psychological Review, 32, 241247.
Marston, W. M. (1927). Motor consciousness as a basis for emotion. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 22, 140150.
Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 15 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

Three references cited in the publishers documentation as the theoretical basis of the PPA.
Paltiel, L. (1986). Selfappraisal personality inventories. Guidance and Assessment Review, 2(3), 37.
Saville, P. & Wilson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative approaches in the
measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 64, 193205.

SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE TEST


Content Domains:
Personality Trait
Intended or main area(s) of Use:
Work and Occupational
Intended mode of use (conditions under which the instrument was standardised and validated):
Supervised and controlled administration. Test administration under the control of a qualified
administrator or proctor
Test Description:
Test Name:

Personal Profile Analysis

Local test distributor / publisher:

Thomas International Ltd

Date of Current Review:

2003

Date of Publication of Current Review/Edition:

1998

Constructs Measured:

Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance

Administration Mode:

Administration is by means of a selfadministered


booklet or, alternatively, via computer, using
Thomas International Human Resources Software.

Response Mode:

Manual operations
Paper and pencil
Computerised

Instrument Evaluation:
Characteristics

Evaluation

Quality of Documentation
Quality of Materials
N/A

Norms and reference groups


Construct validity
Criterionrelated validity
Reliabilityoverall
Number of ComputerGenerated Reports
Personal Profile Analysis

Not recorded
2007 BPS

Page 16 of 17

License Issued To Thomas International Ltd

The British Psychological Society 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission.

Personal Profile Analysis

2007 BPS

Page 17 of 17

You might also like