1
Personality Assessment Inventories and the Potential Ethical Issues Used for
Treatment
Mayra Perez
Florida National University/Department of Psychology
Clinical Psychological Assessment-DBX-DL01
Thomas Buzzerd
August 17, 2025
, 2
Personality Assessment Inventories and the Potential Ethical Issues Used for Treatment
Human personality is defined as a long-term and stable trait that deeply influences
individual behavior, decision-making, and social interaction (Hyeonuk & Jongsuk, 2025).
Assessing a client’s personality is often part of the counseling process because individuals’
personalities are frequently intertwined with their problems and issues. Within personality
assessment, there are two major categories: standardized instruments and projective techniques
(Whiston, 2017).
As Whiston (2017) states, structured personality instruments are formalized assessments
in which clients respond to a fixed set of questions or items. These tools allow clinicians to
gather standardized and objective information about their clients’ traits, behaviors, and potential
treatment needs. Information collected using such tests can inform counselors’ decisions about
diagnoses, treatment planning, and even the choice of therapeutic approach to the case (Whiston,
2017). This paper will examine the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), structured personality tests used in counseling,
with a specific focus on their application in treatment planning and a review of relevant ethical
considerations.
Analysis of Two Structured Personality Inventories
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a 344-item self-report assessment that
evaluates multiple clinical constructs, including symptom syndromes, interpersonal styles, and
treatment considerations. The PAI is designed to be clinically-oriented, relatively quick to
administer (approximately 50-60 minutes), and has 22 non-overlapping scales with good
psychometric properties, most with an internal consistency of .80 or higher (McCredie et al.,
2018).
Personality Assessment Inventories and the Potential Ethical Issues Used for
Treatment
Mayra Perez
Florida National University/Department of Psychology
Clinical Psychological Assessment-DBX-DL01
Thomas Buzzerd
August 17, 2025
, 2
Personality Assessment Inventories and the Potential Ethical Issues Used for Treatment
Human personality is defined as a long-term and stable trait that deeply influences
individual behavior, decision-making, and social interaction (Hyeonuk & Jongsuk, 2025).
Assessing a client’s personality is often part of the counseling process because individuals’
personalities are frequently intertwined with their problems and issues. Within personality
assessment, there are two major categories: standardized instruments and projective techniques
(Whiston, 2017).
As Whiston (2017) states, structured personality instruments are formalized assessments
in which clients respond to a fixed set of questions or items. These tools allow clinicians to
gather standardized and objective information about their clients’ traits, behaviors, and potential
treatment needs. Information collected using such tests can inform counselors’ decisions about
diagnoses, treatment planning, and even the choice of therapeutic approach to the case (Whiston,
2017). This paper will examine the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), structured personality tests used in counseling,
with a specific focus on their application in treatment planning and a review of relevant ethical
considerations.
Analysis of Two Structured Personality Inventories
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a 344-item self-report assessment that
evaluates multiple clinical constructs, including symptom syndromes, interpersonal styles, and
treatment considerations. The PAI is designed to be clinically-oriented, relatively quick to
administer (approximately 50-60 minutes), and has 22 non-overlapping scales with good
psychometric properties, most with an internal consistency of .80 or higher (McCredie et al.,
2018).
