Just for the record, Cybersuitors uses the CQ (Compatibility Quotient) Test devised and validated by Dr Glenn Wilson and I.

You are right to note that James Houran and his team subjected our data to further welcome investigation, but it is not correct to say that the CQ Test was improved or re-constructed in any way following their analysis.

Thanks

Jon Cousins

I could argue that the word similarity means different things for different persons, it depends on how you exactly mathematically defines it!
e.g.
http://www.plentyoffish.com/personality_faq.aspx

“…
For example look at the graph below that depicts two hypothetical couples with each factor shown horizontally (X-axis) and the scores vertically (Y-axis). These two couples can be seen similar or different, depending on which criterion is being used. The data of the couple shown in the top section are very similar scores (i.e., the values are roughly the same), but their test results (i.e., the overall shape of the lines) bear no relation to each other. By contrast, the data of the couple in the bottom section are very different (i.e., one person is ‘high’ overall, whereas the other is ‘low’), but their test results are very similar.

The preceding thus illustrates that depending on which type of ‘similarity ‘is being used, quite different results are obtained. In the top portion of the graph the two people are similar because the two people are both ‘average’ in Confidence, Openness, Easy Goingness, Self-Control and Family Orientation. The pair in the bottom section is ‘similar’ because both people score highest on Family Orientation and lowest on Openness – i.e. the two sets of scores are ranked about the same.
…
Also, we found that using both types of similarity simultaneously better captures the people’s individual characteristics and the dynamics of a couple. Therefore, our similarity algorithm combines the two types of indices in a proprietary fashion. ”
GRAPH
http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pofcpsimdisfh8.jpg

Using the high precision quantitative method I had invented to compare similarity between quantized patterns:
The patterns of the couple shown in the top section have a high degree of similarity between them
and
The patterns of the couple shown in the bottom section have a very low degree of similarity between them
exactly opposite as POFCP calculates similarity!

By the way, Dr. Houran, could you disclose all the tests/assessments/instruments used in actual online dating sites you had constructed/co_authored/peer_reviewed ?
Like:
True Compatibility Test (constructed / co_authored),
True Sexploration Test (constructed / co_authored),
Cybersuitors (improved, re_constructed using IRT),
Chemistry (peer_reviewed)
WeAttract’s Compatibility Test used in Yahoo!Personals (peer_reviewed)
POFCP PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor (constructed / co_authored)
PlentyOfFish Needs Assessment (constructed / co_authored)

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

I could argue that the word similarity means different things for different persons, it depends on how you exactly mathematically defines it!
e.g.
http://www.plentyoffish.com/personality_faq.aspx

“…
For example look at the graph below that depicts two hypothetical couples with each factor shown horizontally (X-axis) and the scores vertically (Y-axis). These two couples can be seen similar or different, depending on which criterion is being used. The data of the couple shown in the top section are very similar scores (i.e., the values are roughly the same), but their test results (i.e., the overall shape of the lines) bear no relation to each other. By contrast, the data of the couple in the bottom section are very different (i.e., one person is ‘high’ overall, whereas the other is ‘low’), but their test results are very similar.

GRAPH
http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pofcpsimdisfh8.jpg

The preceding thus illustrates that depending on which type of ‘similarity ‘is being used, quite different results are obtained. In the top portion of the graph the two people are similar because the two people are both ‘average’ in Confidence, Openness, Easy Goingness, Self-Control and Family Orientation. The pair in the bottom section is ‘similar’ because both people score highest on Family Orientation and lowest on Openness – i.e. the two sets of scores are ranked about the same.
…
Also, we found that using both types of similarity simultaneously better captures the people’s individual characteristics and the dynamics of a couple. Therefore, our similarity algorithm combines the two types of indices in a proprietary fashion. ”

Using the high precision quantitative method I had invented to compare similarity between quantized patterns:
The patterns of the couple shown in the top section have a high degree of similarity between them
and
The patterns of the couple shown in the bottom section have a very low degree of similarity between them
exactly opposite as POFCP calculates similarity!

By the way, Dr. Houran, could you disclose all the tests/assessments/instruments used in actual online dating sites you had constructed/co_authored/peer_reviewed ?
Like:
True Compatibility Test (constructed / co_authored),
True Sexploration Test (constructed / co_authored),
Cybersuitors (improved, re_constructed using IRT),
Chemistry (peer_reviewed)
WeAttract’s Compatibility Test used in Yahoo!Personals (peer_reviewed)
POFCP PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor (constructed / co_authored)
PlentyOfFish Needs Assessment (constructed / co_authored)

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

And relationship maintenance (stability and satisfaction) is not dependent upon personality — many studies contradict the notion that personality similarity is the key. The key actually resides in cognitive psychology: the tendency to view positive perceptions as more important than negative perceptions in the relationship, as well as the tendency to alter the importance of specific perceptions as needed. Couples simply (or not so simply) use their unique pattern of similarities and complementarities to justify staying in a relationship. Moreover, leading edge research can predict which issues men versus women will seize upon to build up or tear down a relationship.

In simpler terms, relationship success is grounded in accommodation, not “physical chemistry” or “personality similarity.” For more on this, I refer people to:

Houran, J., & Lange, R. (2004). Expectations of finding a ‘soul mate’ with online dating. North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 297-308.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com

In August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson told me, “There are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality.”

“Opposites attract but then they attack“, Dr Buckwalter’s dixit

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

I’ve no doubt that simple versions can be made easily. However, I’m talking about a tool that goes beyond simple demographic questions. The tool I envision measures a broad range of other salient attitudes, needs and traits. Thus, it’s akin to a psychological assessment and is grounded in scientific measurement. There are many advantages to the consumers who receive reports based on this approach — it can gauge hidden idiosyncrasies about which even the user is unaware. This allows us to give much more specific and relevant feedback and guidance than would be possible otherwise. Plus, it uses a computerized adapative testing (CAT) approach, so new questions are raised based on a user’s responses to previous questions. This type of stuff is well beyond the capabilities of typical programmers.

Potential clients almost always contact me via email, telephone or through OnlineDatingMagazine.com to discuss customized applications. I then share information that’s pertinent to a client’s needs. My group doesn’t advertise per se.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com

If someone were to think about hiring your for a project, is there a url people can visit to learn more about your team’s capabilities and experience?

But if any company or organization wishes to sponsor the costs involved in building it, my team would be happy to bring it to life.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com

Tests and assessments are both gauges or measures of underlying traits or characteristics. Both can use a myriad of different question types to establish trait levels. The only real difference is that with assessments there is evaluative feedback or clinical/practical application. Tests simply give descriptive “grades” or scores, not neccesarily evaluations of those grades per se. That is what an assessment does.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com