Standardization and Optimization of Psychodiagnostic

Questionnaires

Dilbar Mukhamedova, Abdimumin Rasulov, Indira Rakhimova and Muhammadrasul Ibrogimov

National University of Uzbekistan after M.Ulugbek, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Keywords: Unification, Methodology, Personality, Questionnaire, Efficiency, Economy, Thrifty, Provides Uniformity,

Allows Fast Execution

Abstract: Psychological diagnosis of a condition/entity is influenced by various groups of standardized and non-

standardized techniques. The leading position among them is currently held by individual surveys. Alongside

these surveys, there is a category of personal questionnaires that serve as psychodiagnostic approaches where

they come in the form of discussions or questions. When employing these approaches, certain criteria are

applied to the processes involving psychology students. The purpose of this paper is to examine the

standardization of survey programs used in psychological studies. During this research, the optimization of

the method for the interpretation of their findings was accomplished by upgrading a variety of specific

questionnaires on an answer sheet. The study was conducted in compliance with respondent comprehension

standards, with the ability to expand them fairly for the purpose of improving the questionnaire answer sheet

processing method and the resulting data, the time spent on processing the responses, the reasonable prices of

the test materials and the nature of the operation. Following the standardization of the research findings

processing system, the validity of the methodology was defined in compliance with the statistical parameters.

1 INTRODUCTION

Survey questions are assessment instruments that

require continuous changes. In both initial and recent

interviewing approaches, the emergence of new

options has been observed from the very beginning.

Various classifications of individual research

questionnaires have been formulated and are widely

used as research instruments. As these questionnaires

are developed over multiple periods, specialists have

enhanced their use for research purposes through

various means: utilization of the "big five" in research

(Balgiu B. A. (2018)), (Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R.

(1985)), (Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B.

M. & Lucas, R. E. (2006).); inclusion of cultural and

ethnic groups (Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P.

(1998)); questionnaire analysis (Ben-

Porath, Y.S. (2012)), (Hoelzle, J. B., & Meyer, G.

J. (2008)); and adaptation of questionnaires (Rasulov

A.I. (2018)), (Stilwell NA, Wallick MM, ( 2000)),

(Shmelev А. G. (2002)). The utilization of

psychometric criteria for questionnaires is

continuously subjected to empirical scrutiny (Baturin,

Corresponding author

N.А. –( 2009)), refinement of stages and criteria for

upgrades (Yegorova, M.S. (2016).), availability of

psychometric characteristics (Yeliseyev О.P), the

question of technology for questionnaire

development and adaptation (Mitin О.V. (2011)), and

the necessity for ongoing study. However, in certain

cases, psychologists recognize the need to improve

the questionnaire processing system and the

interpretation of the results. The development of the

survey processing system and survey outcomes must

align with psychometric requirements. Our study

focuses on teaching psychology students how to work

with worksheets and establish a framework for

collecting responses to personal questionnaires.

1.1 The Purpose of the Study

The focus of the research is to study the mechanism

of consolidating the questionnaire response sheet and

the overall processing system. This also aims at

strengthen the response sheet for students'

questionnaires in the field of psychology.

Mukhamedova, D., Rasulov, A., Rakhimova, I. and Ibrogimov, M.

Standardization and Optimization of Psychodiagnostic Questionnaires.

DOI: 10.5220/0012476200003792

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies (PAMIR 2023), pages 5-13

ISBN: 978-989-758-687-3

Table 1: Features of questionnaires split in order to unify the answer processing method.

№ Name of the questionnaire

Confirmation of

feedbacks, quantity of

questions

Version of

answers

Scale

of ranking

Mini-mult (SMOL) form of

MMPI

71 dichotomic 11

Myers-Briggs personality type

indicator (MBTI) questionnaire

dichotomic,

trichotomic

“Psychodiagnostic test” of

V.M.Melnikov and L.T. Yampolski

174 dichotomic 14

“Temperament structure”

questionnaire of Y.Strelau

134 dichotomic 3

“Q-qualifying” questionnaire 60 trichotomic 6

H.J.Eysenck’s questionnaire

EPI

57 dichotomic 3

V.M. Rusalov’s “Questionnaire

on the official-dynamic

characteristics of individuality (of

QOCI)”

150 rated 13

Questionnaire of V.V.Stalin and

S.R.Panteleyev “Evaluation of self

personality”

110 dichotomic 9

Questionnaire of Freyburg (FPI) 114 dichotomic 12

2 МETHODOLOGY

Specialized questionnaires are the most popular

assessment tool for psychodiagnostics. Identity

surveys (pq, opq, opq32) are designed to determine

emotions, behaviors, motives and other personal

characteristics of an individual. Identity survey

questions have been compiled in various versions

over more than a century (Batashev 2020), (Costa

1985), and have been modified in diverse cultural

environments (John 2011), (Rasulov 2018),

(Batashev 2020), (Sobchik 2007). Moreover, they are

currently being implemented (Balgiu 2018), (Benet-

Martinez 1998), (Shmelev 2002). Questionnaire

preparation technology is utilized ensure the

fulfillment of psychometric criteria.

3 METHODS

The situational framework is used for analysing

performance outcomes as a tester, survey answer, and

response processing (20), Styuden's T-criteria are

utilized to verify the degree of predictive reliability of

empirical measures obtained from the analysis using

K. Pearson and Mann-Whitney criteria" for improved

clarity and better sentence structure.

Questionnaire on the official-dynamic

characteristics of individuality (of QOCI)”,

questionnaire of V.V.Stalin and. S.R.Panteleyev

“Evaluation of self personality”, the questionnaire of

Freyburg (FPI)" was revised to "To standardize the

process, the study also selected the following

questionnaires (20): the mini-mult (SMOL) form of

MMPI; the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator

(MBTI) questionnaire; the “Psychodiagnostic test”

by V.M. Melnikov and L.T. Yampolsky; the

“Temperament questionnaire” and Y. Strelau

Temperament diagnostic questionnaire; the “Q-

breeding” questionnaire; H.J. Eysenck’s EPI

questionnaire; V.M. Rusalov’s “Questionnaire on the

official-dynamic characteristics of individuality

(QOCI)”; the questionnaire by V.V. Stalin and S.R.

Panteleyev for “Evaluation of self-personality”.

The survey project allows the analysis of the issue

and details of strategies and methodology used in its

research. The research was conducted with the

participation of students in psychology and

pedagogy. 135 students engaged in the application

process for the unification of questionnaires; 50 for

the control group-in the verification of the validity at

the post-unification stage of the questionnaire answer

sheet; 50 students were involved in the experimental

group.

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

4 DATA ANALYSIS

The basic characteristics of the questionnaires chosen

for unification during the study are shown in Table 1

below. The table provides comprehensive statistics

on questionnaire confirmations, response choices and

ranking scales.

a) The mini-mult (SMOL) form of the MMPI

consists of 71 responses and has 11 assessment tools.

Variations of responses have a dichotomic (“right”

and “wrong”) character, there is a variant designed in

the Uzbek language;

b) The Myers-Briggs Personality type indicator

(PTI) questionnaire is based on 94 confirmations and

a network evaluation scale, with responses on both

dichotomic and trichotomic character;

Table 2: The degree to which the unification approaches of classification meet the requirements.

№

Questionnaires

Criteria

Question

naires of

dihotomi

es,

trichotom

ies, “like-

dislike”

or rating

responses

Let

only

one

rankin

g scale

used

in the

survey

questio

nnaires

and

verific

ation

The

sensiti

vity of

examin

ers to

survey

questio

remain

s the

same

indicat

or.

ind

icat

ave

rag

val

Mini-mult (SMOL) form of MMPI

135 - 135 90

Myers-Briggs “Personality type indicator” (MBTI) questionnaire

135 135 135

“Psychodiagnostic test” of V.M.Melnikov L.T. Yampol

135 - 126 87

“Temperament structure” questionnaire Y.Strelya

135 135 135

“Q-qualifying” questionnaire

135 135 135

H.J. Eysenck’s Questionnaire EPI

135 135 135

V.M. Rusalov’s “Questionnaire on the official-dynamic

characteristics of individuality (of QOCI)”

135 135 135

Questionnaire of V.V. Stalin and S.R. Panteleyev “Evaluation of

self personality”

135 135 135

Questionnaire of Freyburg (FPI)

135 118 123

с) V.M. Melnikov and L.T.Yampolsky’s

“Psychodiagnostic test” consists of 174 questions and

has 14 evaluation scales and “dihotomic” responses;

d) Y. Strela’s “Temperament structure”

questionnaire consists of 134 questions, with three

evaluation scales and “trichotomic” responses;

e) “Q-qualifying” questionnaire consists of 60

items and has six evaluation scales and answers

“trichotomic” character;

f) H.J. Eysenck questionnaire EPI consists of 57

questions, characterizes “dichotomic” responses in

two main and one controlling scales;

g) The questionnaire of V.M. Rusalov’s

“Questionnaire on the official-dynamic

characteristics of individuality (of QOCI)” consists of

150 reviews, consists of 12 reviews and one control

scale, the rating system is evaluated;

The questionnaire of V.V. Stalin and S.R.

Panteleev “Evaluation of self personality” consists of

Standardization and Optimization of Psychodiagnostic Questionnaires

110 reviews and responses on a rating scale and is

“dichotomous” in nature;

The Freiburg questionnaire (FPI) consists of 114

items, with 12 rating scales and responses that are

“dichotomous” in nature.

At the second step, the full version of the survey

questions and a brief outline of the structure and

assessment process were presented. This allowed the

survey participants to organize their project work. At

the introductory level, 135 students were selected as

respondents for the experiment (based on the training

course “General psychodiagnostics”) to study the

approach for processing the study findings according

to defined standards. After providing details of the

methods, they were asked to determine strategies that

could be used against the evaluation criteria to

replicate the results processing platform. The

following techniques assembled the methodological

approaches at the step of sorting (Table 2).

In order to conduct the production system, the

techniques that achieved a score above the following

25 factors were divided based on the performance

results of the examiners for the three parameters. The

outcome included the mini-mult (Smol) version of the

so-called MMPI (23.33) and “Psychodiagnostic Test”

of V.M. Melnikov and L.T. Yampolsky (20.33) to

meet the requirements. We did not ask respondents

why they also rated the Freiburg questionnaire (FPI)

highly in their comments. This was because,

according to the second evaluation criterion of this

questionnaire, one question served to evaluate two

scales, which led to their disregard. However, some

respondents noticed this.

At the next level of the experiment, the five

participants were divided into small teams, and each

group performed an independent analysis on the

response sheet and the main sorting methods. It was

suggested that they adhere to the following

requirements in order to propose a unified version:

1) Allow the option of participating uniformly to

all questionnaires;

2) The time required on the results analysis is

considerably less;

3) Low consumable costs;

4) Operational character;

5) Be accessible to users.

It was also clarified that they could be contacted

to clarify the task. After a two-week innovative

strategy, respondents were presented with a wide

range of interpretations and various materials

prepared alongside the survey. However, the ability

to find an optimal version of the technique was

severely constrained, and progressions in placing the

questionnaire key on the response sheet in the

intergroup were considered the most desirable

selection. Thus, six of these empirical indicators were

summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: The indicators of the groups of materials prepared for the unified system of the questionnaire response processing

sheet and results (significance of differences were determined by the student’s criterion.

Criteria

Groups

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

M σ M σ M σ M σ M σ M σ M σ

Provides

uniformity

2.53 0.68 3.43 0.72 2.26 0.78 2.53 0.86 2.53 0.68 4.70 0.70 2.53 0.86

-3.137***

1.06 3.628** 3.848**

Time

consumption

is low t

2.93 0.98 3.10 0.60 2.03 0.55 2.23 0.56 2.93 0.98 4.53 0.62 2.23 0.56

-0.926 1.92 -3.049** 3.057**

Thrifty

2.90 0.66 3.13 0.345 2.90 0.305 2.31 0.05 2.90 0.66 4.60 0.49 2.96 0.31

-1.882

1.541 -3.618 3.548**

Allows fast

execution

2.86 0.43 2.83 0.69 2.64 0.11 1.83 0.64 2.53 0.86 4.63 0.49 1.93 0.52

0.226 1.012 -3.157** 3.078**

For users, it is

clear and

comfortable.

1.63 0.49 2.80 0.48 1.88 0.49 1.63 0.49 2.23 0.56 4.26 0.52 2.60 0.56

-3.042** 0.195 -3.098** 3.302**

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

According to the results presented in Table 3, the

group that presented the alternative was significantly

assessed by the other groups, which ensured the

unification of the answer sheet of the methods in the

study. This has been confirmed by empirical

indicators of statistical significance (provides validity

relative to the fifth and seventh category indicators –

4.70, p≤0.01; has low time consumption – 4.53,

p≤0.01), saves – 4.60, p≤0.01 by the criterion; enables

quick execution – 15.157, p≤0.001; is understandable

and comfortable for users – 4.26, p≤0.01).

In turn, work has been done to review the mutual

influence of the expert assessment parameters of the

other six groups included in this category. For this

purpose, a correlation research was conducted using

the material prepared by these six groups based on the

responses of other members in the group (see Table

4).

Table 4: Indicator of the correlation between the evaluation criteria for the unification of the questionnaire response processing

system and the results.

№

Criteria

Provides

uniformity

Low time

consumption

Thrifty

Allows fast

execution

Convenient and

comfortable for

users

1 Monotonous

1 0.477

0.469

-0.328

0.333

2 Low time consumption

1 0.450

-0.020 0.487

3 Thrifty

1 0.079 0.357

4 Allows fast execution

1 -0.348

5 Convenient and comfortable for users

Annotation: * p≤0.05; ** p≤0.01

According to the correlation study, strong positive

and, conversely, negative correlations were found

between the methodological variables in relation to

the criterion for determining the examiners'

unification process.

Looking at the responses of the methods as a simple

process to the processing system leads to an

erroneous conclusion. Therefore, using the example

of the option with the most effective indicator, the

correlation coefficients of expert assessments provide

a specific definition. The proposed option for a

response processing system ensures uniformity for all

methodologies under the condition of unification.

This criterion resulted in a "reduction in time

consumption"(r=0.477, p≤0.01), and an increase in

‘savings’ (r=0.69, p≤0.01).

Although unification is provided by the criterion of

“low time consumption”, the criterion of “saving” is

the naturally leads to an increase (r=0.450, p≤0.01),

and “understandable and convenient for users” also

leads (r=0.487, p≤0.01). Ensuring the criterion of

“saving” in unification, as long as it provides “clarity

and convenience for users” (r=0.357, p≤0.05).

Ironically, the provision of the unification process

may have triggered confusion and discomfort to the

customers according to the criterion of “allows fast

execution” (r=-0.348, p≤0.01). Perhaps this concept

also applies to difficulties in focusing, making snap

judgments, reluctance to perform monotonous

actions, failure to have dynamic activity, and a

multitude of other psychological factors.

At this phase, visual aids helped progress to the next

step of the analysis. A research experiment was

conducted using materials formed for the unification

of the psychodiagnostic methods’ answer processing

system.

The next step of the experiment focused on the single

questionnaire method for analyzing answers. The

experiment was conducted with a group of students

who participated in the unification, as well as 3-4

students from the course. One of these groups was

developed as the control group (n=45), and the other

served as the experimental group (n=50).

Additionally, test materials were designed for the

types of research methods based on regular and

unified response processing framework in an earlier

stage of the experiment. The study group members

were assigned to work on the questionnaire of

answers obtained on the regular approach types and

on the questionnaire for unification of answers.

Responses from the application of techniques

were processed with the support of the participants

from both groups. Both the control group and the

experimental group members completed the assigned

task and noted the time spent on reviewing the

responses on the answer sheet. Their empirical

parameters were comparatively studied in the

experiment. Responses from the use of strategies

Standardization and Optimization of Psychodiagnostic Questionnaires

were processed with the assistance of participants

from both groups. In the experiment, the participants

of the control group were given the full details of the

questionnaire and were offered to process the results

by applying it in practice. In the experimental group,

along with the details of the questionnaire, a

methodological instruction was given to improve its

response sheet. The statistical processing results of

the indicators between the results of the groups

participating in both experiment and the test are

presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Descriptive and formative group indicators for the unification of the questionnaire answer sheet processing method

and findings, N=100.

Scales Medium rang

Mann-

Whitney’s

criterion

Significance-

degree of

validity (p)

Control group,

N=50

Experimental group,

N=50

EPI (H. Y. Eysenck)

64.19 22.81 35.00 0.000*

Temperament structure (Y. Strelyau)

64.58 22.42 18.01 0.001*

FPI (Frayburg questionnaire)

62.81 24.19 94.25 0.000*

QOCI (V.M. Rusalov)

60.79 26.21 18.,00 0.000*

Self-attitude questionnaire (V.V. Stolin)

65.12 22.00 36.12 0.000*

Annotation: * − expression of statistically significant differences.

From the collected quantitative indicators, it can

be seen that it is necessary to save time in the

processing questionnaire responses and not to ignore

the concept of improving the response sheet for the

acquisition of unbiased details, or to rely on the use

of a single method of processing results. However,

based on our experience, analytical measures suggest

that the situation has been sufficiently achieved.

H.Y. Eysenck’s (EPI) questionnaire (U=35.00,

p<0.05), Y. Strelyau’s “Temperament structure”

(U=18.01, p<0.05), Frayburg’s questionnaire (FPI)

(U=94.25, p<0.05), V.M. Rusalov’s questionnaire

((U=181.01, p<0.05), and Self-attitude (V.V. Stolin)

questionnaire (U=36.12, p<0.05) showed variations

in the unification of the method of processing

outcomes in terms of control and experimental

experience.

The study conducted on the unification of the

production mechanism in identity psychodiagnostic

technique responses followed the analysis aimed at

being part of the studies in this direction. This was

done to identify the empirical facts that determined

the objective and unbiased nature of our study and

validate it. Taking this into account, as a continuation

of our studies on the integration of processing

structures, the analysis involved testing consistency

between the individual questionnaire answers and

post-unification indicators with their original choices.

At the next level of the study, respondents were

recruited to assess the consistency status of individual

questionnaires between the original and unified

alternatives. Additionally, students in the educational

path of "psychology" were engaged as main research

participants. The examiners administered both

variants of the questionnaires, and the correlation

between them was determined. The results are

presented in the below table (see Table 6). In the

application of the technique, the metrics obtained

after the unification findings do not influence the

standards of reliability. Although the unification of

questionnaires has a positive influence on the

productivity of the experts' work, they do not change

the individual findings collected. Indicators were

developed comparing the outcomes of the application

of the first and second versions of the Eyzenk EPI

questionnaire. To do this, according Styuden's T-

criteria, the reliability of the variations between the

mean arithmetical values of the scales and the

relationship between the scales was calculated. The

methodological metrics from the table indicated that

the outcomes of the first and second versions of the

questionnaire were correlated. The scales of

questionnaire for “extraversion-introversion”

(r=0.548, р≤0.01), “neuroticism” (r=0.701, р≤0.01)

and sincerity reliability indicators showed

correlation. Differences were also not observed in the

mean arithmetic values of the scales according to the

first and second forms of the questionnaire: (12.96

and 12.76; t=0.358), “neuroticism” (12.05 and 11.96;

t=0.068) and scale of sincerity (3.60 and 3.62; t=-

0.071). It can be concluded that the unified form of

the Eysenck questionnaire provided convenience to

specialists for processing answers, and it did not have

a negative impact on its internal stability indicators.

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

Table 6: Correlation relationship between the EPI questionnaire scales of G. Y, Eysenck (n=50).

№ Scales

Figure 1 Figure 2

t r

М σ М σ

1 Extraversion-introversion 12,96 4,46 12,76 3,59 0,358 0,548**

2 Neuroticism 12,05 5,67 11,96 4,82 0,068 0,701**

3 Sincerity 3,60 1,62 3,62 1,52 -0,071 0,348*

Annotation: *р≤0,05; ** р≤0,01.

In determining reliability indicators between the

unification methods, the test was carried out based on

Y.Strelya's temperament study questionnaire. When

checking the level of reliability between both variants

of this methodology, the differences between the

mean values and the correlation relationship between

the indicators were determined. The indicators of the

experiment are reflected in Table 7.

Table 7: Correlation relationship between scales of Y. Strelyau’s questionnaire on learning temperament (n=50).

№

Scales

1-figure 2-figure

МσМσ

1 Excitation force (F

) 56.79 13.97 55.51 13.09 0.693 0.371*

2 Braking power (F

) 52.69 11.60 53.28 9.69 0.221 0.428*

3 Mobility (F

) 53.56 10.14 2.07 11.09 1.064 0.643**

Annotation: *р≤0.05; ** р≤0.01.

Indicators on the average slope of the first and

second forms between the scales “excitation force”,

“braking force”, and “mobility” of the methodology

were 56.79 and 55.51; t=0.693; 52.69 and 53.28;

t=0.221; 53.56 and 52.07; t=1.064. On average, there

was no difference in the arithmetic mean between the

indicators of both forms. This suggests that the

methodology has been tested in two different forms

in the same contingent respondents, comparing

whether there is a discrepancy between their

indicators. Although the discrepancy has not been

observed, it is recognized as a positive indicator. In

turn, the determination of the correlation relationship

between the methodological scales is the second

method, which serves to check the degree of

reliability of the methodology through the indicators.

The relationship between questionnaire scales on

correlation analysis indicators was found to have the

following coefficients: “excitation force”- r=0.371,

р≤0.05, “braking power” - r=0.428, р≤0.01, and

“mobility”- r=0.648, р≤0.01. This reflects a positive

correlation between the variation of the methodology

used in practice and the results obtained from the

modified forms of response processing system. The

unification form of this questionnaire is evidenced by

the fact that it has no effect on the content of the

methodology.

In order to ensure the objectivity and fairness of

the research conducted on the unification of the

response processing system of personality

psychodiagnostics methods, an attempt was made to

investigate the validity of one of the contents of the

other questionnaire forms. For this purpose V.V.

Stalin and S.R. Panteleev’s questionnaire on

“individual self-attitude” was carried out. The

findings on the unification form feature of the

questionnaire were reflected in the materials analyzed

above. The question arises: will there be a change in

the responses given by the respondent to the

questionnaire after the response processing system

has been unified, or will it keep its original state, like

the form in which it is applied in practice? To answer

this question, it was tried to determine the reliability

indicators between the forms of the methodology of

“self-examination of the individual”, such as the

questionnaires of Eysenck and Strelyau, and this was

achieved.

The correlation relationship between the scale of

V.V. Stalin and S.R. Panteleev's questionnaire on

"Individual self-attitude" is presented in Table 8.

Standardization and Optimization of Psychodiagnostic Questionnaires

Table 8: Correlation relationship between the scale of V.V. Stalin and S.R. Panteleev’s the questionnaire “Individual self-

attitude” (n=50).

№ Scales 1-figure 2-figure t r

М Σ М σ

Sincerity

5.46 1.51 5.52 1.35 -0.760

0.472**

Self-confidence

5.21 1.68 5.40 1.88 -1.534

0.261*

Self-administration

5.72 1.79 5.42 1.79 -1.358

0.563**

Reflection of self-

attitude 6.25 1.93 6.41 1.93 -1.889

0.278*

Self-esteem

5.96 1.80 6.00 1.78 -1.375

0.203

Self-acceptance

6.41 2.15 6.70 1.69 -1.097

0.672**

Limited nature

6.48 1.90 6.68 1.76 0.045

0.462**

Internal contradiction

6.22 1.13 6.53

1.35 0.971 0.781**

Self-blame

6.57 1.61 6.97 1.53

1.217 0.281*

Annotation: *р≤0.05; ** р≤0.01.

After the unification of V.V.Stalin and

S.R. Panteleev's questionnaire “Individual self-

attitude”, the placement of scales was replaced.

However, we relied on the original state of the scale

to determine the content reliability of the

questionnaire. The mean value of the questionnaire

scale and the relationship between the two

correlations indicated a similar pattern as the methods

previously analyzed. There were no differences

between the average values of the scales of the

questionnaire forms: sincerity-5.46 and 5.52; t=-

0.760; “self-confidence”-5.21 and 5.40; t=-1.534;

“self-administration”-5.72 and 5.42; t=-1.358;

“reflection of self-attitude”-6.25 and 6.41; t=-1.889;

“self-esteem”-5.96 and 6.-0; t=-1.375; “self-

acceptance”- 6.41 and 6.70; t=-1.097; “limited

nature”-6.48 and 6.68; t=0.045; “internal

contradiction”-6.22 and 6.53; t=0.971; “self-blame”-

6.57 and 6.97; t=1.217. This end result demonstrates

the reliability of the methodology.

The second approach is to determine the

correlation between the scales. The correlation

measures obtained at this point are seen in Table

4.2.8. Just one non-significant coefficient was

calculated among the scales (scale “self – worth” –

r=0.203). Only one significant correlation has been

found between all the remaining scales of the

questionnaire: sincerity- r=0.472, р≤0.01; “self-

confidence”- r=0.261, р≤0.05; “self-administration”-

r=0.563, р≤0.01; “Reflection of self-attitude”-

r=0.462, р≤0.01; “self-acceptance”- r=0.672, р≤0.01;

“limited nature”- r=0.462, р≤0.01; “internal

contradiction”- r=0.781, р≤0.01; “self-blame”-

r=0.281, р≤0.05. The positive correlation coefficients

of the scales indicate that the questionnaire has

validity and reliability .

5 CONCLUSION

The unification of the system for processing

questionnaire answer sheets and responses is an

integral part of the professional training of

psychology specialists. The unification of the

processing of questionnaire response sheets and

responses has ensured increased efficiency for

psychologists in the following ways:

● The uniform appearance and use of the

questionnaire answer sheet have contributed

to a consistent response style.

● Time savings have been achieved through

the reprocessing of data collected from the

questionnaire.

● Unification has not resulted in a decline in

the conformity of questionnaires with

psychometric parameters.

● It has ensured that the examiners' sensitivity

to the questions in the survey has not

changed.

The authors express their gratitude to the National

University of Uzbekistan and the Tashkent State

Pedagogical University for their assistance in

conducting this research and look forward to continue

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

their collaboration in further questionnaire

development studies.

REFERENCES

Balgiu B. A. (2018). The psychometric properties of the Big

Five inventory-10 (BFI-10) including correlations with

subjective and psychological well-being. Global

Journal of Psychology Research: New Trends and

Issues. 8 (Benet-Martinez 1998), 061–069.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco

grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait

multi-method analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and

English. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,75, 729-750.

Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2012). Interpreting the MMPI–2–

RF. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Boyd R, Brown T. (2005) Pilot study of Myers Briggs Type

Indicator personality profiling in emergency

department senior medical staff. Emerg Med

Australas.; 17:200-203.

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality

inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M. & Lucas, R.

E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective

measures of the Big Five factors of personality.

Psychological Assessment, 18(Benet-Martinez 1998),

92–203.

Hahn, E., Gottschling, J. & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short

measurements of personality: validity and reliability of

the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of

Research in Personality, 46(Ben-Porath 2012), P.355–

359.

Hoelzle, J. B., & Meyer, G. J. (2008). The factor structure

of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC)

scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, –P.443–

455.

John R. Graham. MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and

Psychopathology. Oxford University Press; 5 edition

(July 15, 2011). 688 p.

Rasulov A.I. (2018). Adaptation of the thirteen factor

version of Сattell’s personality questionnaire//

European Journal of Research and Reflection in

Educational Sciences. Vol. 6. No. 6. Pp.10-15.

Stilwell NA, Wallick MM, ( 2000); Thal SE, Burleson JA.

Myers-Briggs type and medical specialty choice: a new

look at an old question. Teach Learn Med. 12: –P.14–

20.

Batashev А.V., (2000). Multi-factor personal questionnaire

R.Cattell: A practical guide. - Talin, - 88 p.

Baturin N.А. (2010). Methods of quality control of

psychodiagnostic techniques based on the standard of

requirements for psychodiagnostic techniques // Journal

Bulletin of the South Ural State University, series

"Psychology".–– № 27. – P. 7-9.

Baturin, N.А. –( 2009). Test development technology: Part

II / N.А. Baturin, N.N’s // Journal Bulletin of the South

Ural State University, series «Psychology».– № 42

(175). – P. 11-25.

Yegorova, M.S. (2016). Psychometric characteristics of

the Short Portrait Questionnaire of the Big Five (B5-

10)// Psychological research. –– Т. 9. – № 45. – P. 9.

Yeliseyev О.P. Constructive typology and

psychodiagnostics of personality / edited by

V.N.Panferov. - Pskov, (1994). - 280 p.

Mitin О.V. (2011) Development and adaptation of

psychological questionnaires. – М.: Meaning,. - 235 p.

Morov М.D. (2011). Diagnostics of personal qualities in the

system of measurement procedures: author's abstract.

thesis. Candidate of psychological sciences: 19.00.01 /

Morov Mikhail Dmitrievich. – М.,– 27 p.

Rasulov А.I. ( 2019). Psychodiagnostics: methods and

methodology of study of the individual // Monograph.-

Tashkent:”Info Capital Group”, -199 p.

Rusalov, V.М. (2009). Battery Test Questionnaire

«Temperament-Character»// Bulletin of the Samara

Humanitarian Academy. Series: Psychology. –– № 1. –

P. 165-178.

Sobchik L. N. (2007). Standardized multifactorial method

of personality research (MMPI) A practical guide. - М.:

Speech, - 224 p.

Shmelev А. G. (2002)Psychodiagnostics of personality

traits. Sankt-Peterburg.: Speech, , 480 p.

Standardization and Optimization of Psychodiagnostic Questionnaires