Role Construct Repertory REP Test

Kelly devised a measuring instrument to assess a person's constructs. This Role Construct Repertory (REP) Test is easily adapted to particular clients. It has been widely used in research as well as in clinical and applied settings.

The REP test identifies the constructs a person uses to understand others. The first step in the test is to list several particular people with whom the client or subject is acquainted. (See Table 13.2 for an example.) The subject is sometimes, but not always, included on this list. Next, three of the persons identified are selected by the researcher or therapist. The subject is instructed to identify one way in which two of these individuals are the same and different from the third. The word or phrase used by the subject to identify how two individuals are the same is termed the construct. The word or phrase used to describe how the third person is different is termed the contrast. In keeping with Kelly's theory, these do not need to be logical opposites, and often they are not. Additional constructs are elicited by repeating the preceding step for several different triads of persons.

Repertory tests provide counselors with qualitative impressions of clients as they progress through therapy. In addition, they can be scored in a variety of ways. For example, the discrepancy between the ideal self and the real, current self can be computed to look for change (Leach, Freshwater, Aldridge, & Sutherland, 2001).

Examples of constructs elicited by one subject, a therapy client, are shown in Figure 13.2.

13.2 Role Specifications for One Version of the REP Test

1. mother

2. father 3- brother

4. sister

5. spouse (or girlfriend/boyfriend)

6. same-sex friend

7. work partner who disliked you

8. person you feel uncomfortable with

9- someone you would like to know better

10. teacher whose viewpoint you accepted

11. teacher whose viewpoint was objectionable

12. unsuccessful person 13- successful person

14. happy person

15. unhappy person

(Adapted from Landfield & Epting, 1987, p. 33, who give more detailed descriptions of these roles.)

Under standard instructions, the circles in each row would nominate two individuals to the construct pole in column 1, indicated by "1" in the cell, and one individual to the contrast pole in column 2, indicated by "2." (The subject in Figure 13-2, however, refused to name anyone by the contrast pole, "Someone I hate.") A zero, as in the lower right of the figure, indicates that neither pole applies. After several constructs have been elicited, the subject is instructed to consider each person for eveiy construct-contrast dimension and to indicate which pole applies. This creates a grid, rating each person on every construct.

Even without further analysis, the grid and list of constructs may offer insights. The subject or client may be surprised to learn what constructs come to mind through this technique. A clinician may use these results to identify material for further exploration in psychotherapy sessions. For example, Robert Neimeyer (1992) notes that many of the client's constructs in Figure 13.2 refer to emotional reactions from other people (e.g., "sensitive," "impatient," and "emotional") and that there is a suggestion of conflict between being "committed to family" or "independence" that could be relevant for the individual's current life decisions.

The grid, however, virtually begs for mathematical analysis. A variety of scoring methods have been devised. Because of the diversity of scoring techniques, it is advisable to seek empirical validation for the measures, for example, by comparing grid analyses with clinical judgments (e.g.. Chambers, Olson, Carlock, & Olson, 1986). Constructs are judged to be similar or different not simply from the verbal labels but also from the way they are applied to the persons being rated. For example, a person may propose two constructs, rich-poor and happy-unhappy. The words alone do not reliably disclose whether these are entirely different constructs. If all or nearly all of the individuals rated as rich are also rated as happy, while all or nearly all of those rated as poor are also

RESPONSE SHEET

■e 13.2 Example of One Client's Personal Constructs

RESPONSE SHEET

Column 1

1 Someone I love

2 Lack sensitivity

3 Committed to family

4 Understanding

5 Bright

6 Very inward

7 Childlike inside

8 Have real communication

9 Easy going

10 Unaffectionate

8 Have real communication

LL

Happy Person

Successful Person

Andy (self)

Brian (son)

Mike (son)

Sharon (wife)

Beth (lover)

ra a> .c I-

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

0

0)

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

O

1

2

G

©

2

«

1

1

(0

1

2

1

2

1

(0

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

o:

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

o:

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

e

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

0)

2

2

1

2

2

2

Sensitive

Independent

Impatient

Just average

Very outspoken

Aloof

Emotional

Likes to touch

Get what you see 7

(By Robert A. Neimeyer in Handbook of Constructivist Assessment edited by G. J. Neimeyer. Copyright © 1 992 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Greg Neimeyer.)

Column 2

Someone I hate

Sensitive

Independent

Impatient

Just average

Very outspoken

Aloof

Emotional

Likes to touch

Get what you see 7

(By Robert A. Neimeyer in Handbook of Constructivist Assessment edited by G. J. Neimeyer. Copyright © 1 992 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Greg Neimeyer.)

rated as unhappy, these are essentially the same construct, though with more than one way of referring to them in words.

Was this article helpful?

0 -1
Delicious Diabetic Recipes

Delicious Diabetic Recipes

This brilliant guide will teach you how to cook all those delicious recipes for people who have diabetes.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment