Take the 2-minute tour ×
User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was wondering what would be the best way to say someone is one thing or another.

So, i want to create a form for Jungian Personality, but i want to make it fast and simple. So i was thinking of just creating a list of each type.

Example:

Extraverts
    prefer to work around others
    prefer to work on several projects at a time
    usually act first and then think about it
    express their thoughts and emotions freely
    want to be in on the action

Introverts
    prefer to work by themselves
    prefer to focus on one task at a time
    usually think first and then act
    keep their thoughts and emotions to themselves
    prefer solitude and serenity

These would be side by side and this way they can just say which one they are instead of answering a ton of questions.

This part is fine, pretty straightforward, but i would like to be able to have a scale of some sort. So they can say they are "this much" of an Extravert or Introvert. What would be the best type of scale or best way to do this without having them to answer a bunch of questions.

Another thing i was thinking is because the comparisons are basically opposites, is to have it so they can check off what they are 1 by 1. There are about 10 comparisons for each one. Something like: http://lipidity.com/fancy-form/#example, but using the radio buttons with the checkmark check.

[ ] prefer to work around others --- prefer to work by themselves [✓]

[✓] prefer to work on several projects at a time --- prefer to focus on one task at a time [ ]

Where the left side is left-aligned and the right side is right-aligned. Only problem this way is they have to go through about 40 different things. And if i do it this way, should i group them together or just list all of them at once?

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
@Doc please keep the dumb comments off stack exchange. You have no idea how this data is being used. ty. –  Matt Sep 28 '11 at 23:54
    
Fine, let's assume Jungian psychology warrants investment. Former comment has been nuked. –  Doc Sep 29 '11 at 0:01
1  
@Matt: You're assuming that people are able to identify their personality like this, which is most often not the case. The way people see themselves is rarely the way that others see them, so be careful in how you use this data. –  JohnGB Sep 29 '11 at 9:38
2  
Matt - I work with surveys a lot, and I'm surprised you are left to make the design decisions on this (I'm assuming you are a developer and not a psychologist/social scientist/etc). The design will directly impact the data you collect - can you give us some info on what the setting is? –  gef05 Sep 29 '11 at 13:28
    
Echoing the above. We can discuss the UX/interface design (and there are answers below), but the actual domain is highly suspect. People are not very good at self-reporting their mental tendencies accurately; hence the existence of inventories and 'quizzes'. –  Alex Feinman Sep 29 '11 at 19:28
show 1 more comment

4 Answers

I would use sliders, and try to group them in a way that balances the number of groups and the items in each group. Meaning that with 40 items I'd go for 5 groups of 8, as long as the groups make sense and don't seem arbitrary.

In order to reduce the amount of text and clutter, I'd try to take any repetitive text out form the answers and into the question/title of the slider.

Prefer to work:
around others                       by themselves
            --------------+--------------

Tend to:
act first, think later              think first, then act
           --------------+--------------- 

In terms of social activities:
want to be in on the action         prefer solitude and serenity
           --------------+--------------- 
share|improve this answer
    
The slider should have discrete values (mapping internally to 1-7, for example), so that a) it is clear what where "neutral" is b) the number of choices, and thus the complexity of filling in the form, is limited. –  giraff Sep 29 '11 at 10:25
    
Yes, definitely :) –  Vitaly Mijiritsky Sep 29 '11 at 10:38
add comment

It sounds to me like you don't care so much about each element of introversion or extroversion by itself but rather just want to know how much an introvert/extrovert the user thinks themselves overall. In that case, I would put the entire description of each type on either side of a scale and let the user rate themselves once.

If users need more guidance, I like your idea of letting them make a binary decision for each pair then totaling the Introverted column against the Extroverted column. It's too much to ask of the user to have them take the time to rate each pair if all you care about is the overall result.

share|improve this answer
    
i have actually tried this, but for some users it was hard to understand what to do. While i do care about the overall result, i do want to know what the user thinks where they find themselves at. This can later to be proved useful in an algorithm that is used. –  Matt Sep 30 '11 at 4:45
add comment

There are reasons why psychometric scales are designed the way they are (i.e. with multiple questions/items but without making the groups visible; 5 or 7 points rating scales and not – at least for modern questionnaires – yes/no checkboxes) and a vast amount of research on them. They are not perfect but it does not seem a good idea to just make something up based on speculation.

If you don't care for all that (and for the type of analysis that goes with it), then simply use a short description of each type and let people choose one. No need to try to be clever with lists of statements or sums of two-points bipolar items; if they have not been carefully designed and tested by someone who knows this stuff, they are not likely to be much better than a simple choice/question.

Even if you seem unwilling to discuss it, I am also somewhat puzzled by the choice to use Jungian personality types. If you are ready to consider the Big Five instead, there are very short scales that could fit your needs, for example:

  • Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann Jr., W.B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 (6), 504-528.
  • Langford, P.H. (2003). A one-minute measure of the Big Five? Evaluating and abridging Shafer's (1999a) Big Five markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 35 (5), 1127-1140.
  • Thompson, E.R. (2008). Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45 (6), 542-548.
  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 (1), 203-212.
  • Woods, S.A., & Hampson, S.E. (2005). Measuring the big five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality, 19 (5), 373-390.
share|improve this answer
    
Your thinking; I Likert –  Ben Brocka Sep 29 '11 at 23:10
    
I'll look into those, but as i stated in other comments, the Jungian types are used in an algorithm to come up with a personality type for a person. Jungian is only a small portion though. I need to keep the form as small as possible though. Would there be a way to give a description and have the user select what they are? I've never heard of the big five, so i really don't know. –  Matt Sep 30 '11 at 4:50
add comment

What if you create a rectangle, putting opposite answers in different corners? Based on were they put their answer (their scale), you can give them a category like Extravert / Introvert

Klout is doing something similar: klout example

share|improve this answer
    
interesting. ill have to look into that option. –  Matt Sep 30 '11 at 4:39
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.