The growing interest in research on temperament during the last decade has been re corded by several authors (e. g. , R. Plomin; J. E. Bates) from such sources of informa tion as the Social Sciences Citation Index or Psychological Abstracts. The editors' inquiry shows that the number of cases in which the term temperament was used in the title of a paper or in the paper's abstract published in Psychological Abstracts reveals an essential increase in research on temperament. During the years 1975 to 1979, the term temperament was used in the title and/or summary of 173 abstracts (i. e. , 34. 6 publications per year); during the next five years (1980-1984), it was used in 367 abstracts (73. 4 publications per year), whereas in the last five years (1985 to 1989), the term has appeared in 463 abstracts, that is, in 92. 6 publications per year. Even if the review of temperament literature is restricted to those abstracts, it can easily be concluded that temperament is used in different contexts and with different meanings, hardly allowing any comparisons or general statements. One of the consequences of this state of affairs is that our knowledge on temperament does not cumulate despite the increasing research activity in this field. This situation in temperament research motivated the editors to organize a one week workshop on The Diagnosis of Temperament (Bielefeld, Federal Republic of Germany, September 1987).

The growing interest in research on temperament during the last decade has been re corded by several authors (e. g. , R. Plomin; J. E. Bates) from such sources of informa tion as the Social Sciences Citation Index or Psychological Abstracts. The editors' inquiry shows that the number of cases in which the term temperament was used in the title of a paper or in the paper's abstract published in Psychological Abstracts reveals an essential increase in research on temperament. During the years 1975 to 1979, the term temperament was used in the title and/or summary of 173 abstracts (i. e. , 34. 6 publications per year); during the next five years (1980-1984), it was used in 367 abstracts (73. 4 publications per year), whereas in the last five years (1985 to 1989), the term has appeared in 463 abstracts, that is, in 92. 6 publications per year. Even if the review of temperament literature is restricted to those abstracts, it can easily be concluded that temperament is used in different contexts and with different meanings, hardly allowing any comparisons or general statements. One of the consequences of this state of affairs is that our knowledge on temperament does not cumulate despite the increasing research activity in this field. This situation in temperament research motivated the editors to organize a one week workshop on The Diagnosis of Temperament (Bielefeld, Federal Republic of Germany, September 1987).

ALOIS ANGLEITNER and JERRY S. WIGGINS The personality questionnaire has been with us for more than 60 years. It has been, and still is, the most popular method of personality assessment and it no doubt will continue to be so. The method has been sharply criticized since its inception (e. g. , Allport, 1921; Watson, 1933; Ellis, 1946; Janke, 1973), and this criticism is also likely to continue. The long-standing indifference of test con structors to criticisms of their craft is brought home by noting the similarities between objections raised many years ago and those that are offered today (Gynther & Green, 1982). Within this context, one might well ask why a book on personality questionnaires should appear at this time. Despite the centrality of the personality questionnaire to personality as sessment, there are, to our knowledge, no recent books on the general topic of personality questionnaires. There are of course books on specific instru ments (e. g. , Dahlstrom, Welsh & Dahlstrom, 1972, 1975), books on interpre tation of specific instruments (e. g. , Comrey, 1980), and books on specific is sues such as response styles (e. g. , Block, 1965). Although not specifically focused on personality questionnaires, Bass and Berg's (1959) Objective Ap proaches to Personality Assessment dealt with a number of issues that are cen tral to questionnaires.