Shifa Tameer-e-Milat University

Department of Clinical Psychology

Psychological assessment

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS)

Submitted To:

Mam Dr. Nasreen kausar

Submitted By: Faryal Hassan

Roll no: BSCP-22F-0222

 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Report

Overview:

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) is a widely recognized psychological

assessment tool developed by Allen L. Edwards in 1954. It is based on Henry A. Murray’s theory
of psychogenic needs, which focuses on motivational traits that drive human behavior. The EPPS
is designed to measure the relative strength of 15 personality traits, such as Achievement,
Affiliation, Dominance, and Order. Its forced-choice format minimizes social desirability bias,
offering reliable insights into individuals’ preferences and motivations. Widely used in
educational, counseling, clinical, and organizational contexts, the EPPS is a valuable instrument
for understanding personality dynamics, fostering self-awareness, and guiding personal and
professional development. This test has been administered to a student of Shifa Tameer-e-Millat
University, with appropriate permission and guidance from the instructor Dr. Nasreen Kausar, as
a part of Psychological Assessment Laboratory Practical. The administration, scoring and
interpretation of EPPS will be discussed in this report. The participant has got consistency score
11 which lies on 45 percentiles.

Introduction:

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) is a prominent psychological assessment tool
that measures a wide array of motivational traits and personality characteristics. Developed in
1954 by Allen L. Edwards, the EPPS was designed to assess the relative strength of 15
psychogenic needs, which are motivational traits linked to human behavior. These needs form the
core framework for understanding individual differences in personality and behavior.

The origins of the EPPS lie in the broader development of personality psychology during the
mid-20th century. Early personality theories, especially those of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and
Alfred Adler, focused on unconscious drives and individual psychology. However, in the 1930s
and 1940s, a shift occurred toward trait-based models of personality, with psychologists such as
Gordon Allport and Raymond Cattell making significant contributions. These models sought to
understand personality by categorizing individuals according to measurable traits.
A key figure in the development of personality theories during this period was Henry A. Murray,
whose work in personology emphasized the study of individuals’ psychogenic needs—enduring
personality traits that influence behavior. In his seminal work, Explorations in Personality
(1938), Murray identified 20 psychogenic needs, which interact with external pressures or
"press" to shape human behavior. These needs were conceptualized as essential motivational
forces that guided individual actions, responses, and desires.

Edwards, building on Murray’s personological theory, sought to create a practical instrument that
could measure these needs in a structured and systematic way. He developed the EPPS as a
forced-choice inventory to minimize social desirability bias, a common issue in self-reported
personality measures. This forced-choice format asks respondents to select between two equally
desirable or undesirable statements, making it harder for them to provide socially acceptable
responses. Standardized across a broad population, the EPPS demonstrated strong reliability and
validity, establishing itself as a pioneering tool in psychological assessments.

The EPPS is fundamentally grounded in Henry A. Murray’s theory of psychogenic needs.

Murray proposed that human behavior is driven by a variety of internal psychological needs,
which motivate individuals to interact with the world in specific ways. These needs are both
biologically and socially influenced and are central to understanding human motivations.

The psychogenic needs as outlined by Murray can be thought of as basic human drives that
persist throughout life and shape our behavior. Murray’s theory posits that these needs interact
with external press—environmental factors and social influences—to produce observable
actions. For instance, a person with a strong Achievement need may pursue challenging tasks and
goals, while someone with a strong Affiliation need might prioritize social relationships and
cooperation.

While Murray identified 20 needs, the EPPS focuses on 15 key needs, each representing a
specific motivational trait. These include:

1. Achievement: Desire to excel and accomplish difficult tasks.

2. Deference: Need to conform to others and seek approval.

3. Order: Need for organization and cleanliness.

4. Exhibition: Desire to attract attention and seek admiration.

5. Autonomy: Need for independence and freedom.

6. Affiliation: Desire for social interaction and relationships.

7. Intraception: Desire to understand one’s own feelings and those of others.

8. Succorance: Need for help, attention, and support from others.

9. Dominance: Need to assert influence over others.

10. Abasement: Tendency to accept blame or feel guilty.

11. Nurturance: Desire to care for and protect others.

12. Change: Need for variety and new experiences.

13. Endurance: Willingness to persist through adversity.

14. Heterosexuality: Desire for relationships with the opposite sex.

15. Aggression: Need to express anger or engage in conflict.

The EPPS is designed to assess the relative strength of these needs in an individual, providing
insight into the motivational priorities that drive behavior. The 15 needs are not isolated; they
represent interconnected aspects of an individual’s personality that interact with one another in
complex ways. The EPPS, through its forced-choice format, helps quantify these motivational
factors, providing valuable data for counseling, career guidance, and self-awareness.

Psychometrics:

Following are the psychometric properties of Edward personal preference schedule:

Norms:

The EPPS was standardized using a large sample population, including 1,509 college students
from diverse backgrounds. The norms enable practitioners to interpret raw scores by converting
them into percentiles, providing a benchmark for comparing an individual’s traits against a
reference group. Different norms exist for males, females, and mixed populations, which ensure
culturally sensitive and accurate interpretations.
Validity:

The EPPS demonstrates moderate to strong validity. Comparative studies between EPPS results
and other established measures, such as the Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory and the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale, show significant correlations. This indicates the test effectively captures
core personality traits and motivational patterns.

Reliability:

The EPPS has high reliability, confirmed by split-half reliability and internal consistency
measures. Low correlations among the 15 variables confirm that the test captures distinct
personality dimensions. This reliability was further supported by its consistent performance
across a broad population.

Uses:

The EPPS has diverse applications across multiple domains:

1. Personal Development:

 Identifies dominant motivational needs to enhance self-awareness.

 Helps individuals align decisions with their strengths and personality.

2. Educational and Career Counseling

 Guides students in choosing academic and career paths suited to their motivational
profiles.
 Helps counselors match individuals with roles or careers emphasizing traits like
Affiliation or Achievement.

3. Clinical and Therapeutic Settings

 Identifies motivational conflicts and personality traits.

 Facilitates the development of personalized therapeutic interventions.

4. Organizational and Workplace Applications

 Evaluates employee motivation to enhance job assignments, team dynamics, and

professional growth.
  Identifies leadership potential through traits like Dominance and Achievement.

5. Research in Personality Psychology

 Supports studies on the relationships between personality traits, motivational needs, and
behavioral outcomes.

Merits:

1. Strong Theoretical Foundation: Based on Murray’s theory of psychogenic needs, providing

a robust conceptual framework.

2. Minimizes Social Desirability Bias: The forced-choice format ensures more accurate
responses.

3. Reliable and Valid: High reliability and moderate validity make it a consistent and
meaningful tool.

4. Broad Applicability: Useful in educational, clinical, counseling, and workplace settings.

5. Comprehensive Insights: Measures 15 distinct needs, offering detailed motivational profiles.

6. Ease of Administration: Straightforward to administer in individual or group settings.

Demerits:

1. Forced-Choice Format Challenges: Respondents may feel frustrated by having to choose

between equally desirable options.

2. Limited Depth of Responses: Does not allow for nuanced degrees of agreement or
disagreement.

3. Cultural Limitations: Subtle linguistic differences in translation may affect cross-cultural

validity.

4. Social Desirability Bias: Though minimized, some level of bias may still persist.

5. Construct Overlap: Some traits, such as Affiliation and Nurturance, may overlap, raising
questions about distinctiveness.
6. Outdated Norms: The normative data may not reflect current population dynamics if not
updated.

7. Restricted Populations: The test is unsuitable for children or individuals with cognitive
impairments due to its complexity.

Scoring:

The EPPS is a forced-choice inventory with 225 paired statements, requiring respondents to
choose between two options that are similarly appealing or relevant to them. The scoring process
involves several key steps, which are outlined below in detail:

Step-1:

After the participant completes the answer sheet, the scoring template is placed over the answer
sheet to help differentiate between items that are to be scored and those that are excluded. The
template indicates which items should be considered for raw score calculation, while others are
marked as exclusion items (typically, those that have diagonal lines through them).

Step-2:

The EPPS consists of 225 items, with rows and columns where responses are recorded.

Row Scores: For each row, count the number of A responses (those indicating a preference for
the first statement in a pair) and record the total in the row’s score column (r). Items marked with
diagonal lines are excluded.

Column Scores: Similarly, count the B responses (indicating a preference for the second
statement) in each column and record the totals in the column’s score column (c).

Step-3:

Once the row and column scores are calculated, raw scores for each of the 15 personality traits
are derived by summing the corresponding row and column totals for each variable.

The total of all raw scores should be 210. Any discrepancy from this number may indicate an
error in the scoring process.
Step-4:

The test includes paired items that assess the same motivational need, but with slight variations
in wording. To ensure the reliability of the responses, compare the examinee’s answers for these
paired items.

If the responses to paired items are consistent (i.e., both responses are in agreement), mark a
check in the consistency column. The total number of checkmarks gives a consistency score,
which indicates how reliably the participant answered the test.

Step-5:

After calculating the raw scores, assess the stability of the individual’s motivational profile by
comparing the row and column scores. Profile stability helps determine the consistency of the
individual’s responses across different items measuring the same needs.

Interpretation of Scores:

1. Converting Raw Scores to Percentiles:

Raw scores are converted to percentiles using a pre-established norm table, which contains data
based on gender, age, and other demographic variables.

For example, raw scores for college students (female and male groups separately) will be
compared against norms to determine how an individual’s score ranks in relation to their peers.

2. Visual Profile:

The individual’s motivational profile is then plotted visually using a bar chart. Each bar
represents one of the 15 motivational needs, with the length of the bar corresponding to the
individual’s percentile rank for that trait.

A dominant need is indicated by a taller bar, which suggests that the person’s motivations are
strongly aligned with that specific trait (e.g., Achievement, Affiliation). Conversely, a shorter bar
suggests that the person may have a lower level of motivation or interest in that area.
3. Interpretation of Motivational Needs:

The final interpretation involves looking at the relative strength of the needs. High percentiles
indicate stronger motivation for specific needs, while low percentiles point to lesser importance
of those needs.

This profile is used to create a personalized motivational blueprint for the individual,
highlighting their dominant needs and offering insights into career choices, personal
development goals, and possible areas for therapeutic intervention.

Current Administration:

Examinee’s Details:

The examinee, ABC, is a 22-year-old female in her 5th semester of a BS Psychology program at
STMU.

Instructions:

The examinee was provided with an overview of the test’s purpose to foster rapport and
encourage honest responses. Instructions were delivered verbally and in written form to ensure
clarity.

Procedure:

1. Preparation: The assessment was conducted in a quiet, controlled laboratory environment.

Materials included the test booklet, answer sheet, scoring key, and manual.

2. Rapport Building: The purpose and benefits of the test were explained to the examinee,
emphasizing the importance of honest answers.

3. Orientation:

The forced-choice format was highlighted.

Examinees were instructed to choose the statement they felt best represented them in each paired
item.
4. Test Administration:

Unlimited time was provided, though completion within 45 minutes was encouraged.

Ensure all items were answered before collecting the test materials.

5. Scoring: The scoring process involved template application, row/column tallying, and
consistency checking. The results were used to generate the motivational profile of the examinee.

EPPA Personality Variable Raw scores Percentiles

Achievement 15 72
Deference 10 29
Order 11 64
Exhibition 7 3
Autonomy 15 77
Affiliation 18 58
Intraception 20 73
Succorance 9 25
Dominance 14 51
Abasement 10 19
Nurturance 25 99
Change 9 7
Endurance 12 50
Heterosexuality 18 76
Aggression 17 92
Consistency scores 11 45
 Result:

The following table shows the participant’s administration of the EPPS

Interpretation:

Elevated Scores:

Traits with percentiles above 75 reflect areas of strong preference or dominance in personality.
These traits are key drivers of the individual’s behavior.

1. Nurturance (Percentile: 99):

Nurturance reflects the need to provide support, care, and assistance to others. It involves
offering help, comfort, and emotional support. With a percentile of 99, this trait is extremely
dominant in the individual’s personality. The participant derive satisfaction from being a
caregiver and helping others. Likely to excel in roles involving caregiving, mentoring, or
emotional support (e.g., teaching, counseling, nursing). She enjoys building supportive and
nurturing relationships. But there is a risk of overextending herself for others and neglecting her
own needs.

2. Aggression (Percentile: 92): Aggression reflects assertiveness, competitiveness, and

willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs or defend against challenges. With a high score of 92,
the individual is strongly inclined to assert themselves and pursue goals with determination.
Effective in leadership or competitive roles requiring decisiveness. Likely to take a strong stance
in arguments or conflicts. But there is a need to manage aggressive tendencies to avoid
unnecessary conflicts or strained relationships.

3. Autonomy (Percentile: 77):

Autonomy involves the need for independence, freedom from external control, and self-reliance.
A score of 77 indicates a strong preference for making independent decisions and avoiding
restrictions. The participant prefers roles or environments with flexibility and minimal
supervision. She may resist authority or overly structured settings. The participant

needs to balance independence with collaboration to function effectively in team settings.

4. Heterosexuality (Percentile: 76):

Heterosexuality reflects the need for relationships with the opposite sex, focusing on romantic
intimacy and companionship. With a score of 76, the individual places significant importance on
forming close relationships with members of the opposite sex. The participant enjoys building
meaningful romantic relationships. She may prioritize intimacy and emotional connection in
their personal life. But the participant needs to ensure this focus does not overshadow other
personal or professional goals.

Low Scores

Traits with percentiles below 25 reflect limited preferences or needs. These areas are less likely
to influence the individual’s behavior.

1. Exhibition (Percentile: 3)

Exhibition refers to the need to attract attention, stand out, or be in the spotlight. A score of 3
indicates a very low desire to seek public attention or admiration. The individual prefers to
remain private and understated. The participant is more comfortable in roles that do not require
public attention or self-promotion. She may hesitate to share accomplishments, which could limit
recognition. The participant must need to find ways to communicate achievements when
necessary.

2. Change (Percentile: 7):

Change reflects the need for novelty, variety, and adaptation to new experiences or environments.
A low score of 7 suggests the individual prefers stability, routine, and familiar situations. They
may resist change or uncertainty. The participant functions well in predictable, structured
settings. She may struggle with transitions or adapting to new situations.

3. Abasement (Percentile: 19):

Abasement involves the tendency to accept blame, submit to others, or feel guilt. A score of 19
indicates very low tendencies to self-blame or submit to others’ opinions. The individual
maintains a high degree of self-confidence and assertiveness. The participant likely to avoid
unnecessary guilt or self-criticism. Mostly confident in her abilities and opinions

4. Succorance (Percentile: 25):

Succorance refers to the need to seek comfort, reassurance, or help from others. A score of 25
indicates limited dependence on others for support. The individual prefers self-reliance and
independence. The participant is more comfortable handling problems independently. She may
hesitate to seek help, even when needed. She should balance independence with recognizing
when support is beneficial.

Moderate Scores:

Traits with percentiles between 25 and 75 indicate balanced preferences, reflecting a moderate
influence on behavior.

1. Achievement (Percentile: 72):

Indicates a strong desire to succeed but not excessively dominant. The individual is goal-
oriented, motivated, and values personal accomplishments.

2. Intraception (Percentile: 73):

Reflects a strong but balanced need to understand oneself and others through introspection and
emotional analysis.

3. Order (Percentile: 64):

Demonstrates a preference for organization, structure, and tidiness without being overly rigid.

4. Affiliation (Percentile: 58):

Indicates a moderate desire to build relationships, seek friendships, and belong to social groups.
5. Dominance (Percentile: 51):

Suggests a balanced inclination for leadership and influencing others. The individual can take
charge when needed without being overly controlling.

6. Endurance (Percentile: 50):

Reflects a moderate level of persistence and perseverance in achieving long-term goals.

7. Deference (Percentile: 29):

Indicates a low-to-moderate preference for following authority and yielding to others’ opinions.

Consistency Scores:

The consistency score of 11 lies on 45th percentile reflects a moderate level of response reliability
in the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). This score indicates that the individual’s
responses are fairly stable but show minor variability. Such inconsistencies may arise from slight
indecision, context-dependent preferences, or difficulty in choosing between competing
statements. A moderate consistency score suggests that while the test results are largely valid and
reliable, there could be areas where the individual’s preferences are situational or not firmly
established. For instance, traits with close percentile scores might reflect preferences that shift
depending on circumstances. It is important to consider this score when interpreting the overall
profile, as it provides insight into the individual’s level of clarity and certainty about their values
and traits. To further refine these insights, self-reflection or follow-up discussions with a
counselor could help clarify ambiguous areas and solidify personal priorities.

Conclusion:

The individual’s EPPS profile reveals a personality that balances independence, assertiveness,
and nurturing qualities, combined with a strong preference for stability and privacy. Elevated
traits like nurturance, aggression, and autonomy highlight strengths in caregiving, goal-driven
assertiveness, and self-reliance, making this individual well-suited for leadership roles,
caregiving professions, or tasks requiring independence. However, low scores in exhibition and
change suggest a preference for avoiding the spotlight and resisting novelty, which may
sometimes limit opportunities for growth or recognition. With a moderate consistency score, the
responses are generally reliable but indicate room for clarifying priorities. To achieve greater
personal and professional fulfillment, the individual is encouraged to leverage strengths,
gradually embrace change, communicate achievements effectively, and seek support when
needed. Balancing assertiveness with emotional flexibility will further enhance adaptability and
success in various life domains.

Suggestions:

1. Leverage Strengths:

 Nurturance: Utilize the strong nurturing tendencies to build meaningful personal and
professional relationships. Careers in caregiving, education, social work, or counseling
could be especially fulfilling.
 Aggression: Channel assertiveness and competitiveness into productive outlets such as
leadership, goal-setting, and problem-solving. This drive can help in achieving success in
competitive environments like business, sports, or management roles.
 Autonomy: Pursue roles that offer independence and flexibility, such as freelancing,
entrepreneurship, or positions with minimal supervision. The ability to operate
autonomously can lead to increased satisfaction and productivity.
 Heterosexuality: Focus on building and maintaining healthy, emotionally fulfilling
romantic relationships, as these are likely to provide a sense of meaning and satisfaction.

2. Manage Challenges:

 Change: Since there is resistance to novelty, gradually introduce small changes into daily
routines to build flexibility and reduce discomfort with transitions. Adapting to new
experiences will open up more opportunities for growth.

For example, take on small new tasks, meet new people, or explore new hobbies.

 Exhibition: While a strong preference for privacy is evident, it is essential to

communicate achievements and contributions when necessary. Finding ways to share
successes—such as through written communication or trusted colleagues—can ensure
deserved recognition without compromising comfort.
  Succorance: Although self-reliance is a strength, it is important to recognize when
seeking help or support from others is beneficial. Building a network of trusted
individuals for guidance can improve overall resilience during challenging situations.

3. Enhance Adaptability and Emotional Balance

 Reflect on areas of moderate inconsistency (as indicated by the consistency score) and
clarify personal priorities through introspection or counseling. This will help in resolving
any internal ambiguities and improving decision-making.
 Develop stress management strategies, particularly in environments where assertiveness
and autonomy may lead to tension. Practices like mindfulness, open communication, and
time management can contribute to emotional balance.

References

Edwards, A. L. (1959). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: EPPS. New York, NY: The

Psychological Corporation
 Appendix A

Consent Form for Participation in Psychological Testing.

You are being invited to participate in a psychological study involving the completion of

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The purpose of this study is to explore various aspects of

personality and psychological functioning. Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you have

the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Your responses will be kept confidential and

used for research purposes only. Participation involves minimal risk, but you may experience

discomfort when reflecting on personal experiences. If you have any questions or concerns,

please feel free to ask. By agreeing to participate, you acknowledge that you understand the

information provided and consent to take part in the study. By signing below, you acknowledge

that you have read and understood the information provided in this consent form. You voluntarily

agree to participate in the study under the terms outlined above.

Participant Signature: ___________________________

Researcher Signature: ___________________________

Date: ______________