The lie score on the personal development test depicts the creditability of test taker: as well as PDT scores

College Student Journal, June, 2002 by Donald F. DeMoulin, Robert J. Walsh

The LIE score on The Personal Development Test is modeled after the earlier LIE score on the Minnesota Personality Test. It depicts the creditability of the test taker; as well as that of the PDT scores. The research shows that the higher the personal development of an individual the more reliable the creditability not only of the test scores, but also of the test taker. There is no statistical significant relation ship between the PDT scores and either the GRADE Level or AGE of the student involved.

Introduction

The Personal Development Test (PDT) is designed to assess the personal development of individuals, and as a meaningful index of one's Global Functioning as described in DSM-IV (1994). It is structured on the basis of the Dewey definition of democracy--"the interdependence of independent individuals." The 200 true/false type items are distributed with 25 items in each of the 8 part scores. The first four of those scores seek to measure Personal Development, for the "independence" element in the Dewey definition, and the second four parts measure Social Integration for the "interdependence" one.

LIE Score on the PDT

The LIE score on the PDT is comprised of 21 pairs of the 200 items; Half of those 21 pairs are opposites, and the other half do not agree with each other in varying degrees. It was modeled after the LIE Score on the MMPI (1970), and is intended first to insure that an individual taking the test has read and understood the items. Since the test data represents an actual sample of an individuals' assignment, it serves as a creditability check of not only the test data, but of the individual taking the test.

Group Involved

The group involved in he following analysis included 292 students from a high school in Tennessee. They ranged in age from 14 to 20 years, with a mean age of 16.26, and with a standard deviation of 1.29 years. 171 of them were females, and 121 were males. It included 50 9th graders, 65 10th graders, 28 11th graders, 145 12th graders, and 4 high school graduates.

Psychological Aspects of the LIE Score

A Pearson correlation was computed between the LIE score and other important data as depicted in Table 1 below. Every one of the 8 part scores received a negative correlation that was statistically significant at the 01 level of confidence or better.

Significant Correlations

A negative correlation with the LIE score suggests that the higher the PDT score the lower the LIE score for that individual, and that individuals with high personal development tend to have low LIE scores. In order of the significance obtained those correlations are as follows:

1. The PDT Total Score--PDPTOT was highest: r = -0.432.

2. The Personal Maturity Score--PERMAT was next: r = -0.402.

3. The Locus of Control Score--LOC was next: r = -0.401.

4. The Self-Efficacy Score--EFF was next: r = -0.388.

5. The Social Integration Score--SOCINT was next: r = -0.387.

6. The Coping Skills Score--COP was next: r = -0.332.

7. The Sympathy Score--SYM was next: r = -0.326.

8. The Conformity Score--CFM was next: r = -0.266.

9. The Self-Esteem Score--EST was next r = -0.261.

10. The Gender of the high school student --GENDER was next: r = 0.211.

(Males were coded as #2, and females as #1; this correlation was the only statistically significant positive index, indicating that males tended to have the higher LIE scores)

11. The Assertiveness Score--ASS was next: r = -0.187.

12. The Caring Score--CAR was next: r = -0.177.

Non-Significant Correlations

Only two of the data in Table 1 showed no statistical significance with the LIE score, and they were as follows:

1.The Chronological Age of high school student--AGE: r = 0.108.

(The correlation was positive suggesting that the younger students tended to have the higher LIE scores, but there was no statistical significance between AGE of the student and the LIE score)

2. The High school grade of the student involved--GRADE: r = -0.054.

(No relationship between the grade of students and he level of their LIE score)

Discussion

Not unlike the LIE score in the early Minnesota Personality Test (MMPI) the LIE score on The Personal Development Test (PDT) depicts in a realistic and reliable manner the trustworthiness of each and evry individual taking the test.

Table 1

Pearson r of LIE Scores Against Other Data

(N=292)

Scores           (1)        (2)        (3)       (4)

 1. AGE        1.000
 2. GENDER      .043      1.000
 3. GRADE       .818 *    -.008      1.000
 4. EST         .017      -.136      -.021     1.000
 5. COP        -.073      -.277 *    -.062      .444 *
 6. ASS         .020      -.106      -.036      .314 *
 7. LOC         .016      -.256 *    -.021      .397 *
 8. PERMAT     -.007      -.261 *    -.047      .754 *
 9. CFM        -.110      -.248 *    -.109      .370 *
10. SYM        -.009      -.263 *    -.026      .177 *
ll. EFF        -.143 *    -.217 *    -.176 *    .489 *
12. CAR        -.159 *    -.187 *    -.198 *    .410 *
13. SOCINT     -.143 *    -.308 *    -.174 *    .490 *
14. PDTTOT     -.082      -.312 *    -.119      .686 *
15. LIE         .108       .211 *    -.054     -.261 *
16. GPA        -.039      -.210 *    -.112      .199 *

Scores           (5)        (6)        (7)       (8)

 1. AGE
 2. GENDER
 3. GRADE
 4. EST
 5. COP        1.000
 6. ASS         .466 *    1.000
 7. LOC         .478 *     .298 *    1.000
 8. PERMAT      .802 *     .639 *     .748 *    1.000
 9. CFM         .354 *     .078       .435 *     .430 *
10. SYM         .458 *     .306 *     .365 *     .431 *
ll. EFF         .552 *     .357 *     .462 *     .633 *
12. CAR         .461 *     .332 *     .289 *     .506 *
13. SOCINT      .617 *     .364 *     .520 *     .675 *
14. PDTTOT      .779 *     .550 *     .692 *     .914 *
15. LIE        -.332 *    -.187 *    -.401      -.402 *
16. GPA         .273 *     .152       .335 *     .331 *

Scores           (9)         (10)       (11)       (12)

 1. AGE
 2. GENDER
 3. GRADE
 4. EST
 5. COP
 6. ASS
 7. LOC
 8. PERMAT
 9. CFM        1.000
10. SYM         .270 *    1.000
ll. EFF         .470 *     .430 *    1.000
12. CAR         .327 *     .442 *     .449 *    1.000
13. SOCINT      .690 *     .721 *     .788 *     .761 *
14. PDTTOT      .614 *     .627 *     .775 *     .688 *
15. LIE        -.266 *    -.326 *    -.388 *    -.177 *
16. GPA         .177 *     .258 *     .258 *     .246 *

Scores            (13)       (14)       (15)       (16)

 1. AGE
 2. GENDER
 3. GRADE
 4. EST
 5. COP
 6. ASS
 7. LOC
 8. PERMAT
 9. CFM
10. SYM
ll. EFF
12. CAR
13. SOCINT     1.000
14. PDTTOT      .914 *    1.000
15. LIE        -.387 *    -.432 *    1.000
16. GPA        -.316 *     .351 *    -.262 *     1.000

* Statistical significance for .05 level = 0.110, and for .01
level = 0.140.