Final answer:
Psychologists should not exclusively depend on computer-generated interpretations of tests like MMPI and projective tests, but should apply their professional judgment. These test results, if properly analyzed, can offer valuable insights into a person's unconscious feelings and potential for certain behaviors, as well as for job candidate assessments in I-O psychology settings.
Step-by-step explanation:
Many of the tests that psychologists use as part of their assessment of clients, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and various projective tests like the Rorschach Inkblot Test, provide computer-generated interpretations.
Projective tests rely on ambiguous stimuli to assess unconscious processes and are considered less subject to intentional distortion by the test-taker. It is hard for respondents to fake 'good' as a 'good' answer is not obvious. However, the use of these computer-generated interpretations must be approached with caution.
Psychologists should not solely rely on these automated interpretations. They should use their professional judgment to evaluate the results in the context of the individual's history, behavior, and other assessment information. The results of projective tests like the Rorschach Inkblot Test can provide insights into a person's irregular thoughts or increased anxiety, and Exner's scoring system is a standardized method used for scoring the Rorschach.
The validity of some projective tests is still a matter of debate, especially in legal contexts. Furthermore, in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology, personality tests are used to match job candidates' personality traits with those required for effective job performance.
For instance, agreeableness might be a desirable trait in customer support roles, but very high levels of agreeableness might not be beneficial. Hence, accurate interpretation and application of these test results are crucial.