AbstractOne of the most important role‐defining functions of the clinical psychologist is personality assessment. Because of the wide range of personality assessment instruments available, there is a need for the clinician to be aware of their relative strengths and weaknesses. This article discusses the extent to which our present‐day tests of personality and theories of personality are helpful in guiding the clinician to meaningful conclusions and predictions. Indirect methods of assessment, such as the Rorschach and TAT, encourage the subject's free and open‐ended response to a small number of ambiguous stimuli so as to circumvent the subject's censorship of responses. To varying degrees, indirect methods have suffered from difficulties in establishing acceptable scoring systems and standardized norms. Direct measures, such as the MMPI, limit freedom of expression and assess fewer, but more clearly defined variables. Well‐defined and objective scoring and interpretation are considered major advantages of direct over indirect methods. However, direct methods are not without disadvantages. Some important concerns are limitations in subject's self‐knowledge, falsification of responses, and the development of resp