Improving the Measurement of “Big Five” Personality Traits in a Brief Survey Instrument

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew DeBell ◽  
Natalya Maisel ◽  
Ted Brader ◽  
Catherine Wilson ◽  
Simon Jackman
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Completion Time ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Verbal Response ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Item Nonresponse ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Item Reliability ◽  
Better Than

Abstract. The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is the leading brief instrument for the “Big Five” personality measurement. However, TIPI’s design has suboptimal features: agree-disagree response options, numeric instead of verbal response labels, and multiple items per page. This paper presents a version of TIPI that addresses these problems. Using two nationally representative sample surveys, we compare the original and revised TIPIs on several dimensions: completion time, item nonresponse, paired item reliability, and validity based on relations to other variables. Completion time is the same and item nonresponse rates are low, while reliability and criterion validity for the revised TIPI is better than the original. The results show how better personality data can be obtained at no additional cost by optimizing questionnaire design.

scholarly journals Who Can You Count On? Understanding The Determinants of Reliability

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 903-931
Author(s):  
Roger Tourangeau ◽  
Ting Yan ◽  
Hanyu Sun
Keyword(s):  
Social Desirability ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Item Nonresponse ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Big Five Personality Factors ◽  
Respondent Characteristics ◽  
Surprising Finding

Abstract Using reinterview data from the PATH Reliability and Validity (PATH-RV) study, we examine the characteristics of questions and respondents that predict the reliability of the answers. In the PATH-RV study, 524 respondents completed an interview twice, five to twenty-four days apart. We coded a number of question characteristics and used them to predict the gross discrepancy rates (GDRs) and kappas for each question. We also investigated respondent characteristics associated with reliability. Finally, we fitted cross-classified models that simultaneously examined a range of respondent and question characteristics. Although the different models yielded somewhat different conclusions, in general factual questions (especially demographic questions), shorter questions, questions that did not use scales, those with fewer response options, and those that asked about a noncentral topic produced more reliable answers than attitudinal questions, longer questions, questions using ordinal scales, those with more response options, and those asking about a central topic. One surprising finding was that items raising potential social desirability concerns yielded more reliable answers than items that did not raise such concerns. The respondent-level models and cross-classified models indicated that five adult respondent characteristics were associated with giving the same answer in both interviews—education, the Big Five trait of conscientiousness, tobacco use, sex, and income. Hispanic youths and non-Hispanic black youths were less likely to give the same answer in both interviews. The cross-classified model also found that more words were associated with less reliable answers. The results are mostly consistent with earlier findings but are nonetheless important because they are much less model-dependent than the earlier work. In addition, this study is the first to incorporate such personality traits as needed for cognition and the Big Five personality factors and to examine the relationships among reliability, item nonresponse, and response latency.

The Agony of Choice: Acceptance, Efficiency, and Psychometric Properties of Questionnaires With Different Numbers of Response Options

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110293
Author(s):  
Markus Müssig ◽  
Jeanette Kubiak ◽  
Boris Egloff
Keyword(s):  
Emotion Regulation ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Psychological Assessment ◽  
Completion Time ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Original Number ◽  
The Impact

Questionnaires are one of the most important tools in psychological assessment, yet the impact of different numbers of response options on psychometric properties of questionnaires is limited. This study extends existing research by analyzing respondents’ acceptance of and the efficiency of different numbers of response options and replicate findings on reliability and validity. We studied these questions in 540 respondents who filled out the Big Five Inventory–2 and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Two response options, 11 response options and the visual analog scale showed disadvantages in acceptance compared with the original number of response options. The completion time increased by 1.7s per item when moving from 2 to 11 response options. Cronbach’s alpha (but not ordinal alpha based on polychoric covariance) was lowest for two response options. Validity was unaffected. Overall, compared with the typical choice of five or seven response options, fewer or more response options resulted in disadvantages.

Further Validity of the Japanese Version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J)

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Oshio ◽  
Shingo Abe ◽  
Pino Cutrone ◽  
Samuel D. Gosling
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
English Language ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Japanese Version ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Big Five Personality

The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003 ) is a widely used very brief measure of the Big Five personality dimensions. Oshio, Abe, and Cutrone (2012) have developed a Japanese version of the TIPI (TIPI-J), which demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Until now, all studies examining the validity of the TIPI-J have been conducted in the Japanese language; this reliance on a single language raises concerns about the instrument’s content validity because the instrument could demonstrate reliability (e.g., retest) and some forms of validity (e.g., convergent) but still not capture the full range of the dimensions as originally conceptualized in English. Therefore, to test the content validity of the Japanese TIPI with respect to the original Big Five formulation, we examine the convergence between scores on the TIPI-J and scores on the English-language Big Five Inventory (i.e., the BFI-E), an instrument specifically designed to optimize Big Five content coverage. Two-hundred and twenty-eight Japanese undergraduate students, who were all learning English, completed the two instruments. The results of correlation analyses and structural equation modeling demonstrate the theorized congruence between the TIPI-J and the BFI-E, supporting the content validity of the TIPI-J.

Using Principal Component Scores to Enhance the Validity and Reliability of Big Five Personality Measures

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-93
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Cucina ◽  
Nicholas L. Vasilopoulos ◽  
Arwen H. DeCostanza
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Scoring Method ◽  
Five Factors ◽  
Big Five Factors ◽  
Component Scores

Abstract. Varimax rotated principal component scores (VRPCS) have previously been offered as a possible solution to the non-orthogonality of scores for the Big Five factors. However, few researchers have examined the reliability and validity of VRPCS. To address this gap, we use a lab study and a field study to investigate whether using VRPCS increase orthogonality, reliability, and criterion-related validity. Compared to the traditional unit-weighting scoring method, the use of VRPCS enhanced the reliability and discriminant validity of the Big Five factors, although there was little improvement in criterion-related validity. Results are discussed in terms of the benefit of using VRPCS instead of traditional unit-weighted sum scores.

scholarly journals Age-Related Differences in Actual-Ideal Personality Trait Level Discrepancies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Hennecke ◽  
Paul Schumann ◽  
jule specht
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Personality Trait ◽  
Age Effects ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Trait Level ◽  
Patterns Of Behavior ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Impact

People differ from each other in their typical patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion and these patterns are considered to constitute their personalities (Funder, 2001). For various reasons, for example because certain trait levels may help to attain certain goals or fulfill certain social roles, people may experience that their actual trait levels are different from their ideal trait levels. In this study, we investigated (1) the impact of age on discrepancies between actual and ideal Big Five personality trait levels and (2) the impact of these discrepancies on personality trait changes across a period of two years. We use data of a large, nationally representative, and age-diverse sample (N = 4,057, 17-94 years, M = 53 years). Results largely confirmed previously reported age effects on actual personality trait levels but were sometimes more complex. Ideal trait levels exceeded actual trait levels more strongly for younger compared to older adults. Unexpectedly, neither ideal trait levels nor their interaction with beliefs about the extent to which personality is malleable vs. fixed predicted trait change over two years (controlling for actual trait levels). We conclude that ideal-actual trait level discrepancies may provide an impetus for change but that they appear to neither alone nor in combination with the belief that personality trait change is possible suffice to produce such change. We discuss commitment, self-efficacy, and strategy knowledge as potential additional predictors of trait change.

scholarly journals Are self-description scales better than agree/disagree scales?

2020 ◽  
pp. 147078532097159
Author(s):  
Jerry Timbrook ◽  
Jolene D Smyth ◽  
Kristen Olson
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Mail Survey ◽  
Negative Response ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Item Nonresponse ◽  
Response Option ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Survey Estimates ◽  
Positive Valence ◽  
Better Than

Questions using agree/disagree (A/D) scales are ubiquitous in survey research because they save time and space on questionnaires through display in grids, but they have also been criticized for being prone to acquiescent reports. Alternatively, questions using self-description (SD) scales (asking respondents how well a statement describes them from Completely to Not at All) can also be presented in grids or with a common question stem, and by omitting the word agree, SD scales may reduce acquiescence. However, no research has examined how response patterns may differ across A/D and SD scales. In this article, we compare survey estimates, item nonresponse and nondifferentiation across these two types of scales in a mail survey. We find that SD scales outperform A/D scales for non-socially desirable questions that ask about positive topics. For questions that ask about negative topics, we find that estimates for SD items are significantly more negative than A/D items. This may occur because the SD scale is unipolar and has only one negative response option ( Not at All), whereas the bipolar A/D scale has two negative response options ( Disagree and Strongly Disagree). We recommend that researchers use SD scales for non-socially desirable positive valence questions.

Do Links Between Personality and Life Outcomes Generalize? Testing the Robustness of Trait–Outcome Associations Across Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Analytic Approaches

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Soto
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Big Five Personality Traits ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Representative Samples

The Big Five personality traits have been linked with a broad range of consequential life outcomes. The present research systematically tested whether such trait–outcome associations generalize across gender, age, ethnicity, and analytic approaches that control for demographic and personality covariates. Analyses of nationally representative samples from the Life Outcomes of Personality Replication project ( N = 6,126) indicated that (a) most trait–outcome associations do generalize across gender, age, and ethnicity; (b) controlling for overlap between personality traits substantially reduces the strength of many associations; and (c) several dozen trait–outcome associations proved highly generalizable across all analyses. These findings have important implications for evaluating the robustness of the personality–outcome literature, updating the canon of established trait–outcome associations, and conducting future research.

scholarly journals Predicting Psychological and Subjective Well-Being from Personality: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeromy Anglim ◽  
Sharon Horwood ◽  
Luke Smillie ◽  
Rosario Marrero ◽  
Joshua K Wood
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Personal Growth ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Subjective Well Being ◽  
Level Data ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Hexaco Model ◽  
Better Than

Post-print of manuscript published in Psychological Bulletin: This study reports the most comprehensive assessment to date of the relations that the domains and facets of Big Five and HEXACO personality have with self-reported subjective well- being (SWB: life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) and psychological well-being (PWB: positive relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and personal growth). It presents a meta-analysis (n = 334,567, k = 462) of the correlations of Big Five and HEXACO personality domains with the dimensions of SWB and PWB. It provides the first meta-analysis of personality and well-being to examine (a) HEXACO personality, (b) PWB dimensions, and (c) a broad range of established Big Five measures. It also provides the first robust synthesis of facet-level correlations and incremental prediction by facets over domains in relation to SWB and PWB using four large datasets comprising data from prominent, long-form hierarchical personality frameworks: NEO PI-R (n = 1,673), IPIP-NEO (n = 903), HEXACO PI- R (n = 465), and Big Five Aspect Scales (n = 706). Meta-analytic results highlighted the importance of Big Five neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. The pattern of correlations between Big Five personality and SWB was similar across personality measures (e.g., BFI, NEO, IPIP, BFAS, Adjectives). In the HEXACO model, extraversion was the strongest well- being correlate. Facet-level analyses provided a richer description of the relationship between personality and well-being, and clarified differences between the two trait frameworks. Prediction by facets was typically around 20% better than domains, and this incremental prediction was larger for some well-being dimensions than others. See https://osf.io/42rsy/ for Data and R scripts for the meta-analysis and facet-level data analyses of the above paper.

The REIm-13

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-458
Author(s):  
Clare E. McGuiness ◽  
Ian Zajac ◽  
Carlene Wilson ◽  
Deborah Turnbull
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Structure Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract. The Rational-Experiential Multimodal Inventory (REIm) is a recent tool showing promise in the measurement of self-reported thinking style – preference for rational or experiential processing – and offers three-faceted measurement of the latter. We present the first short form of the measure, the REIm-13, and test its factor structure, reliability, and validity in a large community sample. Participants were N = 920 Australian adults (502 females) who completed an online survey ( N = 510 of whom participated in a follow-up survey). In addition to the REIm, participants completed a Big Five personality measure. The internal consistency of the REIm-13 was acceptable given the limited number of items (.52–.68). Furthermore, test-retest reliability was high (ρ = .64–.74) for the theorized four-factor and two-factor solutions. Construct validity was established by examining the relationship between short-form and full REIm factors (ρ = .65–.71), and the validity of composite scoring was confirmed against factor scoring. Relationship with age (a slight negative relationship to both main scales), gender (females reporting higher Experientiality, males higher Rationality), and Big Five variables largely followed previous findings, demonstrating concurrent validity. The study demonstrates that the REIm-13 provides sound measurement of thinking style.

scholarly journals Reliability and Validity of the Enhanced Big Five Personality Test (B5T)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Satow
Keyword(s):  
Career Counseling ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Personality Test ◽  
Factorial Structure ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Professional Context

The Big Five Personality Test (B5T) was first developed in 2010 with the aim of measuring the five fundamental personality dimensions of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Conscientiousness (C), Agreeableness (A) and Openness (O) (Allport, 1937; Cattell, 1957, 1965; Eysenck, 1947; Goldberg, 1981, 1993; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). With a convincing factorial structure and high reliability (Cronbach's Alpha), it was shorter than previous procedures (McCrae & Costa, 2004) and was also suitable for use in a professional context (career counseling, personnel selection, personnel development, coaching). In order to also measure the potential and direction of a person, the inventory was later supplemented by three scales for capturing the basic needs for achievement (achievement motive), power (power motive) and security (security motive). After a first large standardization and validation study in 2012, the inventory was re-examined during 2020 using a large sample (n = 21,048). All scales achieved convincing psychometric values (Conrbach's alpha between .76 and .90), which hardly differed from the values from 2012. The factorial structure could be confirmed in confirmatory factor analyzes. There were clear connections with occupation, which suggest that the enhanced inventory is suitable for use in a professional context. The B5T is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. All language versions and further details are available from www.drsatow.de/tests/

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document