Self-Critical Perfectionism Predicts Lower Cortisol Response to Experimental Stress in Cfs Patients

[Hip]

This consistency in test results was probably due to how many of the questions are worded. They use phrases such as "drawn toward", "impressed by", "swayed by", "comfortable with", etc. Had the questionnaire asked more what I do rather than what I think, feel or believe, my results would likely have differed more.

That is an interesting point. I guess it is things like this that make the difference between good and bad questionnaire design.

I can see that by asking how you feel about something (by using phrases such as "drawn toward", "impressed by", "swayed by", "comfortable with"), rather than what you actually do, is the better approach that will lead to more accurate assessment of personality.

This is because there may be many circumstances that physically limit what you can actually do. ME/CFS patients have physical limitations imposed on them by the PEM; but people might also be limited in what they can do by say poverty, living in a remote location, not having a car, having to work all hours, and so forth.

So it would be better to ask questions such as "Are you drawn towards socializing", rather than "Do you socialize a lot".

 

[Esther12]

There is some data which indicates that Myers-Briggs isn't impressive for test-retest.

Quick google found:

Several studies, however, show that even when the test-retest interval is short (e.g., 5 weeks), as many as 50
percent of the people will be classified into a different type.

http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf

My view of where psychology needs a fundamental shift of emphasis is not so much it its measurement of psychological parameters like personality traits — I think the consistency of these measurements is likely good enough

Can you point to any particular personality test which you think is a valid measure of 'personality traits', and not full of questions likely to be affected by other external factors?

 

[Hip]

@Esther12
I mentioned that I don't think any personality trait questionnaire will ever be perfect, or ever be free of the influence of external factors. But it is the best measurement tool of personality we have at present.


Let me turn the tables for a moment, and ask how you would go about creating a practical, objective approach to measuring say emotional hypersensitivity in ME/CFS patients.

Emotional hypersensitivity, a listed symptom in the CCC, is very common in ME/CFS, and just one of the many unpleasant symptoms we have to face in this disease.

But like all ME/CFS symptoms, its level of intensity can vary from one patient to the next.

So how would you go about measuring the level of emotional hypersensitivity in ME/CFS patients, such that you can produce a numerical result on a scale from 1 to 5 say?

You are criticizing the questionnaire approach, so what approach would you use instead?

 

[A.B.]

Let me turn the tables for a moment, and ask how you would go about creating a practical, objective approach to measuring say emotional hypersensitivity in ME/CFS patients.

I would not. I would try to understand and cure the underlying disease in the belief that things such as emotional hypersensitivity are a manifestation of the illness and nothing more.

 

[Hip]

I would not. I would try to understand and cure the underlying disease in the belief that things such as emotional hypersensitivity are a manifestation of the illness and nothing more.

That is evading the question.

Criticisms have been made against the questionnaire approach to measuring mental parameters.

So I am asking how you would do it better.

 

[A.B.]

That is evading the question.

Criticisms have been made against the questionnaire approach to measuring mental parameters.

So I am asking how you would you do it better.

I don't think I'm evading the question. The idea is fatally flawed and I would not waste precious time and resources on trying to make it work. There are better ways to spend energy and resources. For example developing a safe alternative to CPET. Demonstrating disability objectively is more useful to patients and society than maybe having a vague idea of emotional hypersensibility.

 

[Hip]

The idea is fatally flawed

Do you have a scientific reference for this fatal flaw that you say is in the questionnaire method of mental parameter measurement?

I would not waste precious time and resources on trying to make it work. There are better ways to spend energy and resources.

Whether you personally find it a waste of time is neither here nor there. It is psychologists' job to measure mental parameters. They do this in many diseases, not just ME/CFS.

If there is criticism of psychologists' measurement tools — which there was — you really need to explain how you would do it better.

 

[Esther12]

Let me turn the tables for a moment, and ask how you would go about creating a practical, objective approach to measuring say emotional hypersensitivity in ME/CFS patients.

I don't think that there is a great way of doing that. Personally, I'd just ask "do you think that you suffer from emotional hypersensitivity?"

I think it's good to be honest about how bad we are at judging other people. Creating personality 'experts' whose views are based on poor quality evidence seems likely to do more harm than good.

 

[A.B.]

Do you have a scientific reference for this fatal flaw that you say is in the questionnaire method of mental parameter measurement?

I asked you earlier what concrete benefits personality research had provided to mankind. You were not able to name any examples (I don't consider "consumer mindset" to be an example of a concrete and clear cut benefit).

I don't think you're in the position to ask others for evidence demonstrating the uselessness of personality traits research. The burden to demonstrate its usefulness is on its proponents.

My answer is still "I wouldn't" and I don't think I need to explain the reasons again.

 

[chipmunk1]

Do you have a scientific reference for this fatal flaw that you say is in the questionnaire method of mental parameter measurement?

.

Not a scientific reference but.how about this one:

Psychomatic research has been shown to be highly unreliable in the past. Not one single psychogenic theory withstood the test of time.

See AIDS, Diabetes, Arthritis, Cancer, Movements disorders, peptic ulcers, Asthma etc. Virtually any disease known to mankind.

So we know from the previous failure rates that such findings are very likely wrong or exaggerated.

We also don't know how many studies seeking associations have not been published.

For example if we keep looking for patterns we will likely find some by chance.

Negative findings might not get published or presented as positive findings.

How often has this finding been replicated?

Then how do we know what a lower cortisol response means. Is this always negative? Positive? Neither?

What does it really mean?

Then the most important thing. So far we don't know if the associations are real and if they are important.

Does cortisol alter personality? Does personality alter cortisol? Are they linked directly or is something else going on here?

We have not established any causality. We can only speculate how they are related since we cannot study the
psyche" directly under the microscope because it is a metaphysical concept.

We will never be able to study it directly. That's why we will have to keep speculating for the rest of our lives.

We looked for many different Patterns, found one, don't know what it means and interpret it as we want to.

So i would say the practical importance of such findings is low.

 

[Old Bones]

There is some data which indicates that Myers-Briggs isn't impressive for test-retest.

In addition to not being "impressive for test-retest" (although this is contrary to my experience based on a sample size of one -- me), I was told at a one-day course this spring conducted by a university psychology prof that M.B. is not well-respected in the field of personality studies.

Can you point to any particular personality test which you think is a valid measure of 'personality traits', and not full of questions likely to be affected by other external factors?

I'm not qualified to suggest a valid personality test. However, the psychology prof mentioned above co-authored a little book called "The H Factor of Personality - why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and exploitive - and why it matters for everyone". The authors, both psychology graduate students during the 1990's, reached the conclusion that the five-factor model being used to study personality (the "Big Five" being extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience) was not adequate. After studying personality research from around the world, they determined there was a sixth factor -- one they named "honesty-humility". Now, I realize this isn't specifically relevant to a study of personality traits in ME patients. But, it is a very interesting read -- particularly if you consider yourself to be a sincere, honest and ethical person.

 

[chipmunk1]

I asked you earlier what concrete benefits personality research had provided to mankind. You were not able to name any examples (I don't consider "consumer mindset" to be an example of a concrete and clear cut benefit).

I don't think you're in the position to ask others for evidence demonstrating the uselessness of personality traits research. The burden to demonstrate its usefulness is on its proponents.

My answer is still "I wouldn't" and I don't think I need to explain the reasons again.

that's a good point. one simple question? How did 100+ years of personality trait research help medicine with treatment of diseases?

If the answer is it didn't really help us much and it did some harm as well, how likely is it that this finding will help?

Anything that justified the spending of enormous amounts of funds?

Compare that with medical advances like the pacemaker or insulin for diabetes and hundreds of other discoveries.

Astrology is at least as much as entertaining and the practical value is not so much different. At least astrology makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[Hip]

Personally, I'd just ask "do you think that you suffer from emotional hypersensitivity?"

Sure, but that in itself is a questionnaire, albeit with just one question. So you have ended up taking the same approach that you are criticizing.

When you want to measure mental characteristics, you can only really do one of two things: ask questions, or observe behavior.

Creating personality 'experts' whose views are based on poor quality evidence seems likely to do more harm than good.

Do you mean poor quality evidence (ie, poor quality empirical measurement), or poor quality theorizing (determination of cause and effect)? As mentioned, I think the latter is the problem in psychology, not the former.

I asked you earlier what concrete benefits personality research had provided to mankind. You were not able to name any examples (I don't consider "consumer mindset" to be an example of a concrete and clear cut benefit).

Do you really need to ask that question? Everyone knows that psychologists have numerous roles in society. Psychologists work in counseling and therapy, child education, in occupational psychology, in police work, in sports psychology, in market research, in advertising, etc. Most of those roles revolve around personality theories.

And talking of advertising, without the modern consumer economy, it is likely that none of the technological achievements you listed earlier like semi-conductors would have been possible, and least not in this highly accelerated timescale. You are vastly underestimating the effect that mindset has on spending and economic growth, in my view.

I don't think you're in the position to ask others for evidence demonstrating the uselessness of personality traits research.

You are doing a Peter White on me.

Psychomatic research has been shown highly unreliable in the past.

I am totally in agreement that the field of psychosomatic research is an embarrassment to science, and should be criticized from all angles.

But psychosomatics is not what is being discussed.

 

[chipmunk1]

But psychosomatics is not what is being discussed.

OBJECTIVE:
Previous studies have suggested that self-critical perfectionism (SCP) may play a role in the development and maintenance of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). In this study we investigated whether SCP is related to a hypofunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which has been shown to be a key factor in the pathophysiology of CFS

it studies whether or not SCP can cause HPA dysfunction. Personality causing pathophysiology.

This is not psychosomatics?
.

 

[Esther12]

Sure, but that in itself is a questionnaire, albeit with just one question. So you have ended up taking the same approach that you are criticizing.

I'm not criticizing the idea of asking someone what they think about something. My 'questionnaire' is a question which is unlikely to be misrepresented in the way which personality questionnaires so often are. I am concerned about the the way in which personality questionnaires can be used to allow some professionals to claim that that have more expertise and knowledge about the personalities of others than is truly the case.

Do you mean poor quality evidence (ie, poor quality empirical measurement), or poor quality theorizing (determination of cause and effect)? As mentioned, I think the latter is the problem in psychology, not the former.

Poor quality evidence.

 

[Hip]

@chipmunk1
This thread has moved on a bit from the original post. What we are discussing at the moment is the validity and accuracy of using psychological questionnaires to measure mental parameters.

that's a good point. one simple question? How did 100+ years of personality trait research help medicine with treatment of diseases?

As I mentioned earlier, the measure of scientific truth or fact is not in its utility. There is such a thing as pure research. Why are you assuming that discoveries about the mind should help treat disease, otherwise they are of no value?

Poor quality evidence.

How are you judging that the evidence obtained by questionnaires is poor quality?

The thing is, questionnaires, as far as I am aware, are the gold standard of measurement of psychological parameters. We don't have any more accurate standards to judge them by. Possibly the only more accurate approach might be for subjects to be given the questionnaires by a trained psychologist, who can try to make sure that the questions and their answers are correctly interpreted. I think this is done in certain studies, but obviously it costs more.

So I am not sure that the statement that psychological questionnaires provide poor quality evidence actually has any meaning, given we have nothing more accurate to judge it against.

As far as I can see, the only way you can validate a psychological questionnaire would be by testing its consistency, ie, does the same questionnaire provide the same result when given to the same person 5 years later.

 

[Esther12]

How are you judging that the evidence obtained by questionnaires is poor quality?

The lack of evidence that they are reliable and valid measures of those things they claim to be measuring, and from examining the questions themselves and how they are scored.

There are also things like test-retest results, but I think that's less important.

So I am not sure that the statement that psychological questionnaires provide poor quality evidence actually has any meaning, given we have nothing more accurate to judge it against.

If that's the strongest defense of these personality testing, then there are few times that it would be ethical to use personality testing, and it would certainly not include comparing the results of those with a health condition and healthy controls to make claims about the personalities of those with the health condition.

 

[Hip]

The lack of evidence that they are reliable and valid measures of those things they claim to be measuring,

At present, the questionnaires themselves are the things they are measuring.

The questionnaires themselves are the units of measurement, just as when you measure distance with a ruler, the distance markings on the ruler form the basis of your measurement.


It is a bit like the measurement (ie diagnosis) of ME/CFS: at present, ME/CFS is diagnosed by a series of questions / tick boxes, like the CCC. If you answer yes to the right questions, and exclude all the appropriate exclusionary illnesses, then by definition you have ME/CFS.

Nobody can really comment much on the accuracy of the CCC, because we don't have a viable biomarker for ME/CFS. So at present, the CCC questionnaire is ME/CFS. There is no separate observable disease other than the questions / tick boxes of the CCC (or whatever ME/CFS defining criteria you use).

 

[Esther12]

At present, the questionnaires themselves are the things they are measuring.

The questionnaires themselves are the units of measurement, just as when you measure distance with a ruler, the distance markings on the ruler form the basis of your measurement.

So researchers should not claim that they are measuring personality traits.

 

[Hip]

So researchers should not claim that they are measuring personality traits.

No, they are measuring personality traits.

But the personality traits they are measuring are defined by the questionnaire.

Just as ME/CFS is defined by the CCC questionnaire (because there are no validated biomarkers for ME/CFS, so no other way to diagnose or detect ME/CFS), the personality traits are also defined by their questionnaires.


Of course, psychologists will design a questionnaire to detect what they intuitively perceive as a personality trait present in human beings; but once the questionnaire is set up, it becomes the yardstick of measurement.