Clinical

IPPS

Integrative Personality Profile Suite — Explicit × Implicit Personality Integration

The only assessment that bridges explicit traits, implicit motives, defense mechanisms, interpersonal style, and relational patterns into a unified personality formulation. Where the measures agree is stable trait; where they diverge is dynamic conflict worth exploring clinically.

Component Reliability .61 – .95 Range across all instruments
Method Multi-Method Projective + self-report + behavioral
Integration Psychodynamic Implicit & explicit systems
Domains 5 Integrated report sections

The Five-Instrument Battery

1. Explicit Traits — FFM / IPIP

Five-Factor Model personality scales capturing the conscious, self-attributed personality. The foundation of the profile: where does the person place themselves in personality space?

2. Implicit Motives — PSE

Picture Story Exercise capturing implicit achievement, affiliation, and power motives. The motivational substrate operating beneath self-report awareness.

3. Defense Mechanisms — DMQ-30

Defense Mechanism Questionnaire capturing the defensive organization — mature, neurotic, and immature (action and disavowal) — that the person uses to manage internal conflict. Built from public-domain IPIP items.

4. Interpersonal Style — IPC-32

Circumplex-based measure of interpersonal problems along the agency and communion axes. Where does the person’s relational functioning sit, and how extreme is the position?

5. Relational Patterns — CCRT

Core Conflictual Relationship Theme from narrative material. The unconscious relational template: wish, response of other, response of self.

Integration Method

The IPPS synthesis identifies convergent patterns across all five domains and highlights divergences. When the FFM shows high Agreeableness but the IPC-32 shows hostile-dominant interpersonal style, the divergence is clinically informative: explicit self-presentation diverges from behavioral interpersonal style. When the PSE shows high power motive but the CCRT shows submissive response-of-self patterns, the divergence points to a conflict between implicit motivation and actualized behavior.

The Multimethod Argument

The MTMM ideal for personality assessment requires measuring the same construct with different methods. Convergence across methods provides the strongest evidence for a trait; divergence across methods indicates either measurement error or theoretically important system dissociation. The IPPS is built on this principle: no single instrument, however reliable, can carry the full personality formulation.

Read the background article →