The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality.

The Mini-IPIP, a 20-item short form of the 50-item International Personality Item Pool-Five-Factor Model measure (Goldberg, 1999), was developed and validated across five studies. The Mini-IPIP scales, with four items per Big Five trait, had consistent and acceptable internal consistencies across five studies (= at or well above .60), similar coverage of facets as other broad Big Five measures (Study 2), and test-retest correlations that were quite similar to the parent measure across intervals of a few weeks (Study 4) and several months (Study 5). Moreover, the Mini-IPIP scales showed a comparable pattern of convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity (Studies 2-5) with other Big Five measures. Collectively, these results indicate that the Mini-IPIP is a psychometrically acceptable and practically useful short measure of the Big Five factors of personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Verification and extension of a system of personality dimensions.

This study continues a program devoted to the development of a system of factored homogeneous item dimensions (FHIDs) in the area of personality questionnaires. 6 multiple choice items were used for each of 32 personality dimensions and 4 validation scales. These items were dispersed in a questionnaire and administered to 506 volunteer male and female Ss, preponderately college students. 3 factor analyses of items, each with 72 items from 12 of the 36 dimensions, revealed 14 FHIDs for which every item had a loading of .5 or more. Factor analysis of the 36 total FHID score variables plus 9 background data variables resulted in the major personality factors: shyness, dependence, dominance, hostility, and compulsiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Incremental Validity of the Frame-of-Reference Effect in Personality Scale Scores: A Replication and Extension.

Context-specific personality items provide respondents with a common frame of reference unlike more traditional, noncontextual personality items. The common frame of reference standardizes item interpretation and has been shown to reduce measurement error while increasing validity in comparison to noncontextual items (M. J. Schmit, A. M. Ryan. S. L. Stierwalt. & S. L. Powell, 1995). Although the frame-of-reference effect on personality scales scores has been well investigated (e.g., M. J. Schmit et al., 1995), the ability of this innovation to obtain incremental validity above and beyond the well-established, noncontextual personality scale scores has yet to be examined. The current study replicates and extends work by M. J. Schmit et al. (1995) to determine the incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect. The results indicate that context-specific personality items do indeed obtain incremental validity above and beyond both noncontextual items and cognitive ability, and in spite of socially desirable responding induced by applicant instructions. The implications of these findings for personnel selection are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The relationship between social desirability and internal consistency of personality scales.

3 hypotheses concerning the relationships between psychometric characteristics of 61 personality scales were tested. A measure of internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson Formula 21) was found to be positively correlated (.62) with the degree of imbalance in the social desirability keying of the scales. Internal consistency was also negatively correlated (-.46) with the proportion of neutral items in the scales. The mean probability of a keyed response to the items in a scale was positively correlated (.83) with the proportion of items keyed for socially desirable responses. These results are consistent with predictions based upon social desirability considerations. (19 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A dimensional model of personality disorder: Incorporating DSM Cluster A characteristics.

The authors articulate an expanded dimensional model of personality pathology to better account for symptoms of DSM-defined Cluster A personality disorders. Two hundred forty participants (98 firstdegree relatives of probands with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 92 community control participants, and 50 first-degree relatives of probands with bipolar disorder) completed a dimensional personality pathology questionnaire, a measure of schizotypal characteristics, and Chapman measures of psychosis proneness. Scales from all questionnaires were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. A 5-factor structure of personality pathology emerged from the analyses, with Peculiarity forming an additional factor to the common 4-factor structure of personality pathology (consisting of Introversion, Emotional Dysregulation, Antagonism, and Compulsivity). These results support a 5-factor dimensional model of personality pathology that better accounts for phenomena encompassed by the Cluster A personality disorders in DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text revised; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). This study has implications for the consideration of a dimensional model of personality disorder in DSM-V by offering a more comprehensive structural model that builds on previous work in this area. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Methodological considerations in the assessment of acquiescence in the MA and SD scale.

This paper cites certain limitations in making assessment of acquiescence in personality scales by the use of reversed items and the Helmstadter technique. Inadequate item reversals may have contributed to the interpretation by Adams and Kirby (1936) that the SD scale was confounded with acquiescence, a finding not supported here when original items only are used. A criterion of adequate reversal, derived from SD research, may aid in developing "balanced" scales. Precautions in making acquiescence interpretations from the Helmstadter model include the confounding of content and set scores in the formulas, the confounding of response style and trait responses, lack of evidence on what the set score measures, and the uncertainty over the nature of acquiescence and how to measure it. (27 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five.

Compared major factors from 3 models of personality: H. J. Eysenck's Three Factor model, P. T. Costa and R. R. McCrae's (see record 1992-39186-001) version of the Big Five, and M. Zuckerman and D. M. Kuhlman's Alternative Five. The 1st study describes the development of a questionnaire measure for the Alternative Five and the reliability assessments of the scales. The 2nd study used factor analysis to compare the factors among the scales from the 3 models. Extraversion and Neuroticism were quite similar across all 3 models. Eysenck's Psychoticism scale marked a factor that included Conscientiousness and Impulsive Sensation Seeking factors from the other 2 models. Agreeableness and Aggression-Hostility formed a 4th factor. Openness could be identified as a factor using facet scales, but it showed no convergence with other factors. Four of the 5 factors showed convergence across at least 2 of the models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The relationship between response style and personality variables: I. The measurements of response acquiescence.

"This study is the first in a series of investigations designed to evaluate the currently popular hypothesis that response styles are based on personality traits, and thereby have utility in personality assessment. Responses of 218 subjects in six different scales of acquiescence, varying in degree of meaningful verbal content, were intercorrelated. The results revealed that only those scales containing similar verbal content in the items were related. Apparently verbal content is quite important, whereas the amount of structure of the items is less important in determining agreement responses, than has been previously supposed. The data are interpreted as suggesting that there is no general trait of response acquiescence independent of specific instruments used to measure it." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure from the perspective of general personality structure.

The Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200; J. Shedler & D. Westen, 2004) has received increasing support as a dimensional model of personality pathology. However, only 1 prior study has related empirically the SWAP-200 with any other measure of personality or personality disorder. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether the SWAP-200 personality disorder and personality dimension scales relate meaningfully to the domains and facets of the five-factor model (FFM; J. M. Digman, 1990) of general personality structure. Individuals (n = 94) with significant personality pathology were described on instruments of general personality and personality pathology. The results of the current study suggest that most of the SWAP-200 personality and personality disorder scales relate to the domains and facets of the FFM in a manner consistent with FFM theory and previous FFM personality disorder research. Inconsistent findings and limitations are discussed, along with suggestions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model.

In light of consistently observed correlations among Big Five ratings, the authors developed and tested a model that combined E. L. Thorndike’s (1920) general evaluative bias (halo) model and J. M. Digman’s (1997) higher order personality factors (alpha and beta) model. With 4 multitrait–multimethod analyses, Study 1 revealed moderate convergent validity for alpha and beta across raters, whereas halo was mainly a unique factor for each rater. In Study 2, the authors showed that the halo factor was highly correlated with a validated measure of evaluative biases in self-ratings. Study 3 showed that halo is more strongly correlated with self-ratings of self-esteem than self-ratings of the Big Five, which suggests that halo is not a mere rating bias but actually reflects overly positive self-evaluations. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that the halo bias in Big Five ratings is stable over short retest intervals. Taken together, the results suggest that the halo-alpa-beta model integrates the main findings in structural analyses of Big Five correlations. Accordingly, halo bias in self-ratings is a reliable and stable bias in individuals’ perceptions of their own attributes. Implications of the present findings for the assessment of Big Five personality traits in monomethod studies are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales": Correction to Samuel et al (2010).

Reports an error in "An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales" by Douglas B. Samuel, Leonard J. Simms, Lee Anna Clark, W. John Livesley and Thomas A. Widiger (Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2010[Jan], Vol 1[1], 5-21). In the acknowledgments, Douglas Samuel was incorrectly listed as the author of the DAPP-BQ instrument. John Livesley is the correct author of the DAPP-BQ instrument. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2010-01479-005.) The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV–TR) currently conceptualizes personality disorders (PDs) as categorical syndromes that are distinct from normal personality. However, an alternative dimensional viewpoint is that PDs are maladaptive expressions of general personality traits. The dimensional perspective postulates that personality pathology exists at a more extreme level of the latent trait than does general personality. This hypothesis was examined using item response theory analyses comparing scales from two personality pathology instruments—the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley & Jackson, in press) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press)—with scales from an instrument designed to assess normal range personality, the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results indicate that respective scales from these instruments assess shared latent constructs, with the NEO PI-R providing more information at the lower (normal) range and the DAPP-BQ and SNAP providing more information at the higher (abnormal) range. Nevertheless, the results also demonstrated substantial overlap in coverage. Implications of the findings are discussed with respect to the study and development of items that would provide specific discriminations along underlying trait continua. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Development of a structured disguised personality test.

"To develop a disguised but objective personality inventory, a factor analysis was performed on scores based on 400 examinees' tendencies to accept or reject 13 lists of proverbs constructed to cover 13 areas. The three test factors which emerged… were: Conventional Mores, Hostility, and Fear of Failure. Using 200 new examinees, scales were constructed by item analysis to measure each. In subsequent samples, the three scales were found to have corrected split-half reliabilities ranging from .45 to .83 and intercorrelations ranging from - .12 to .54. The reliabilities and intercorrelations among the scales were higher when the groups were more heterogeneous in background. The reliabilities and intercorrelations among the scales suggest that three separate behavioral tendencies are being assessed." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: I. Development and validation of survey measures.

Developed and validated 3 personality scales that were included in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study conducted by J. Cornoni-Huntley et al (1983). Items to measure neuroticism were selected rationally from a general well-being schedule developed by A. J. Dupuy (1978) and items to measure extraversion and openness to experience were selected by multiple regression from a personality inventory developed by the present authors (see record 1984-00201-001). In a sample of 654 20–96 yr old men and women from the Augmented Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, all 3 short scales showed clear evidence of convergent and discriminant validity against full scales in self-reports, and against peer and spouse ratings. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Updating Norman's "adequacy taxonomy": Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires.

Examined the correspondence between 2 systems for personality trait classification—W. T. Norman's (1963) 5-factor model and P. T. Costa and R. R. McCrae's (1980) NEO (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness) inventory—to evaluate their comprehensiveness as models of personality. 498 24–86 yr old participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging completed an instrument containing 80 adjective pairs, which included 40 pairs proposed to measure the 5 dimensions. Neuroticism and extraversion factors from these items showed substantial correlations with corresponding NEO inventory scales; however, analyses that included psychometric measures of intelligence suggested that the 5th factor in the Norman structure should be reconceptualized as openness to experience. Convergent correlations above .50 with spouse ratings on the NEO inventory that were made 3 yrs earlier confirmed these relations across time, instrument, and source of data. The relations among culture, conscientiousness, openness, and intelligence are discussed, and it is concluded that mental ability is a separate factor, though related to openness to experience. (49 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response sets and factor loadings on sixty-one personality scales.

Intercorrelations between 58 MMPI and 3 other personality scales, based upon the scores of 151 students, were factor analyzed and the factors rotated orthogonally. Loadings of the scales on the 1st factor correlated .90 with the proportion of items keyed for socially desirable responses and .98 with the zero-order correlations of the scales with the Social Desirability (SD) scale. The proportion of keyed True items correlated .82 with the loadings of the scales on the 2nd factor. The Lie and 3 other scales similar to the Lie scale had substantial loadings on the 3rd factor. The 1st factor is interpreted as reflecting the tendency to acquiesce, and the 3rd as reflecting the tendency to falsify answers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five.

Factor analyses of 75 facet scales from 2 major Big Five inventories, in the Eugene-Springfield community sample (N=481), produced a 2-factor solution for the 15 facets in each domain. These findings indicate the existence of 2 distinct (but correlated) aspects within each of the Big Five, representing an intermediate level of personality structure between facets and domains. The authors characterized these factors in detail at the item level by correlating factor scores with the International Personality Item Pool (L. R. Goldberg, 1999). These correlations allowed the construction of a 100-item measure of the 10 factors (the Big Five Aspect Scales [BFAS]), which was validated in a 2nd sample (N=480). Finally, the authors examined the correlations of the 10 factors with scores derived from 10 genetic factors that a previous study identified underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets (K. L. Jang et al., 2002). The correspondence was strong enough to suggest that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection.

Real job applicants completed a 5-factor model personality measure as part of the job application process. They were rejected; 6 months later they (n = 5,266) reapplied for the same job and completed the same personality measure. Results indicated that 5.2% or fewer improved their scores on any scale on the 2nd occasion; moreover, scale scores were as likely to change in the negative direction as the positive. Only 3 applicants changed scores on all 5 scales beyond a 95% confidence threshold. Construct validity of the personality scales remained intact across the 2 administrations, and the same structural model provided an acceptable fit to the scale score matrix on both occasions. For the small number of applicants whose scores changed beyond the standard error of measurement, the authors found the changes were systematic and predictable using measures of social skill, social desirability, and integrity. Results suggest that faking on personality measures is not a significant problem in real-world selection settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 1(3) of Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment (see record 2010-17135-005). In the acknowledgments, Douglas Samuel was incorrectly listed as the author of the DAPP-BQ instrument. John Livesley is the correct author of the DAPP-BQ instrument.] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV–TR) currently conceptualizes personality disorders (PDs) as categorical syndromes that are distinct from normal personality. However, an alternative dimensional viewpoint is that PDs are maladaptive expressions of general personality traits. The dimensional perspective postulates that personality pathology exists at a more extreme level of the latent trait than does general personality. This hypothesis was examined using item response theory analyses comparing scales from two personality pathology instruments—the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley & Jackson, in press) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press)—with scales from an instrument designed to assess normal range personality, the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results indicate that respective scales from these instruments assess shared latent constructs, with the NEO PI-R providing more information at the lower (normal) range and the DAPP-BQ and SNAP providing more information at the higher (abnormal) range. Nevertheless, the results also demonstrated substantial overlap in coverage. Implications of the findings are discussed with respect to the study and development of items that would provide specific discriminations along underlying trait continua. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role conflict and role ambiguity: Do the scales measure these two constructs?

Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the conflict and ambiguity scales developed by J. R. Rizzo et al (see record 1971-01407-001). Alternative models were contrasted to evaluate the possibilities that (a) the 14 items comprising the scales do measure the two purported constructs, (b) the 14 items measure only one construct, or (c) the 14 items load complexly on a second-order factor model. The second-order factor model was superior across three independent subject samples (total n?=?913), indicating that these measures do not establish role conflict and role ambiguity as two factorially independent constructs. The authors conclude that alternative scales are needed; suggestions for scale development are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Inability to predict cardiovascular disease from hostility scores or MMPI items related to Type A behavior": Correction to Leon et al.

Reports an error in "Inability to predict cardiovascular disease from hostility scores or MMPI items related to Type A behavior" by Gloria R. Leon, Stephen E. Finn, David Murray and John M. Bailey (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1988[Aug], Vol 56[4], 597-600). In the aforementioned article, the mean Ho scores are incorrect. For Group 1, M = 16.0 (SD = 7.3); Group 2, M = 15.3 (SD = 6.7); Group 3, M = 15.2 (SD = 7.2). Page 600, paragraph 2 is no longer relevant. All other analyses and all conclusions are correct as reported. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1989-05707-001.) Medical and psychological data collected for 30 years on a group of 280 men (mean age in 1947=45 years) were evaluated to identify the personality characteristics and attitudes that might be predictive of the later development of coronary heart disease (CHD). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Hostility scores did not predict CHD in this population. A 35-item scale derived from MMPI items judged to reflect the Type A construct and from other personality scales did not predict the later incidence of myocardial infarctions or other evidence of CHD. It is therefore possible that personality factors may not be strong predictors of CHD in particular samples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)