</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
> I'm interested in which traits are more pervasive versus underdeveloped and how they interact.

I guess I'm a little influenced from some of the social psychological 'situationism' literature which seems to undermine the notion of traits that are stable across variations in contexts, rather... I'm not sure that traits are useful or helpful constructs (internal validity sure but real world utility in anything other than a self fulfilling prophecy sense? i'm not terribly convinced).

> The pattern of the scores across the different scales can suggest dynamics, conflicts, reactions to high stress, etc.

So can talking to the client. The test is self report after all. If you want to learn about a persons personality one could of course... Talk to them.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Although I'm sure it happens, the test should never be interpreted blindly, as in "here's a report, tell me what it says about this person you've never laid eyes on." Talking to the client is still crucial.

And yes, while the test is self-report, the sheer number of items as well as the low face value of many of them make it hard to manipulate the results to come up with a specific profile. Also, while we might have a good sense of our personality, there may be certain patterns, behaviors, or dynamics that we experience but are too caught up in the middle of to be able to step back and articulate the "big picture". Interpretations about these types of patterns often are new information yet "ring true" to the client when presented to them, in my experience.

gg