California Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor Model of Personality

1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Deniston ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
California Psychological Inventory ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Psychological Inventory

The generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model was tested using the California Psychological Inventory, with the Interpersonal Adjective Scales Revised—B5 and the NEO-Personality Inventory scales as markers for the five major personality factors. The three inventories were completed by 88 male and 99 female undergraduates. Results provided strong empirical evidence for the generality of four factors (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, and Conscientiousness) but not for the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model.

Development and Validation of the Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM)

Assessment ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Watson ◽  
Ericka Nus ◽  
Kevin D. Wu
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Validity Data ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Three Samples ◽  
Five Phases

The Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM) is a comprehensive hierarchical measure of personality. The FI-FFM was created across five phases of scale development. It includes five facets apiece for neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness; four facets within agreeableness; and three facets for openness. We present reliability and validity data obtained from three samples. The FI-FFM scales are internally consistent and highly stable over 2 weeks (retest rs ranged from .64 to .82, median r = .77). They show strong convergent and discriminant validity vis-à-vis the NEO, the Big Five Inventory, and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Moreover, self-ratings on the scales show moderate to strong agreement with corresponding ratings made by informants ( rs ranged from .26 to .66, median r = .42). Finally, in joint analyses with the NEO Personality Inventory–3, the FI-FFM neuroticism facet scales display significant incremental validity in predicting indicators of internalizing psychopathology.

Reply to Comments on Byravan and Ramanaiah's 1995 Study of the Structure of the 16Pf Fifth Edition from the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model

1996 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-126
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Revised Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Major Factors

This article provides a reply to Cattell's 1995 comments on some methodological issues related to Byravan and Ramanaiah's 1995 study and shows that their study was methodologically sound. It was concluded that the results of Byravan and Ramanaiah's study were different from those of Cattell's 1995 factor analyses mainly due to the fact that the former involved the factor analysis of 16PF primary scales from the perspective of the five-factor model using Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales and Goldberg's 1992 scales as markers for the five major factors whereas the latter investigated the structure of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facet scales from the perspective of the 16PF global scales.

Structure of the 16 PF Fifth Edition from the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model

1995 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Personality Factor ◽  
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Sixteen Personality Factor ◽  
Five Factors ◽  
Personality Factor Questionnaire

Factor structure of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Fifth Edition) was investigated from the perspective of the five-factor model, using Goldberg's 1992 scales for five factors of personality and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales as markers for the five major personality factors. The three inventories were completed by 96 male and 92 female undergraduates. Results provided strong support for the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model.

Possible Barnum Effect in the Five Factor Model: Do Respondents Accept Random Neo Personality Inventory–Revised Scores as Their Actual Trait Profile?

2002 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 539-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Andersen ◽  
Hilmar Nordvik
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Military Aviation ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory Revised ◽  
Positive Correlations ◽  
Barnum Effect

This study investigated a possible Barnum effect in personality traits, i.e., that persons accept a false trait profile as correct. Having answered the Norwegian translation of the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised, a group of 75 students, 56 (five women) military aviation cadets and 19 (10 women) graduate students, received a random T-score profile and were asked to rate their agreement on a 7-point scale. For all personality traits, i.e., facets and domains measured by the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised, positive correlations ranging from .08 to .64 were found between the agreement ratings and the similarity between the random false scores and the actual scores. The respondents identified and rejected random T scores that deviated far from their actual scores, which works against the Barnum effect. Correct identification correlated negatively with Neuroticism ( r = −.41) and positively ( r = .53) with Conscientiousness.

Structure of Personality Disorders from the Perspective of the Revised Neo Personality Inventory Domain Scales and the Psychopathology-5 Scales

1999 ◽  
Vol 85 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1119-1122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Principal Axis ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Adjective Checklist ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Revised Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Separate Factor ◽  
Personality Disorder Scales

This study tested the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality as applied to the Personality Adjective Checklist's (Strack, 1987) personality disorder scales. A sample of 258 undergraduates (113 men and 145 women) completed the Personality Adjective Checklist, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, and the Psychopathology-5 Scales for partial course credit. A combined principal axis analysis with varimax rotation was performed for nonoverlapping scales of the Personality Adjective Checklist, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales and the Psychopathology-5 scales. The results indicated four factors which were identified as Neuroticism, Extraversion, Disagreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Openness did not emerge as a separate factor. These results supported the comprehensiveness but not the generality of the five-factor model as applied to personality disorders.

The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 51

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérôme Rossier ◽  
Franz Meyer de Stadelhofen ◽  
Samuel Berthoud
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Hierarchical Structures ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Factor Solution ◽  
Five Dimensions ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory Revised ◽  
Five Dimension

Summary: The present study compares the higher-level dimensions and the hierarchical structures of the fifth edition of the 16 Personality Factors (16 PF 5) with those of the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R). Both inventories measure personality according to five higher-level dimensions. These inventories were, however, constructed according to different methods (bottom-up vs. top-down). Both questionnaires were filled out by 386 participants. Correlations, regressions, and canonical correlations made it possible to compare the inventories. As expected, they roughly measure the same aspects of personality. There is a coherent association among four of the five dimensions measured in the tests. However, Agreeableness, the remaining dimension in the NEO PI-R, is not represented in the 16 PF 5. Our analyses confirmed the hierarchical structures of both instruments, but this confirmation was more complete in the case of the NEO PI-R. Indeed, a parallel analysis indicated that a four-factor solution should be considered in the case of the 16 PF 5. On the other hand, the five-factor solution of the NEO PI-R was confirmed. The top-down construction of this instrument seems to make for a more legible structure. Of the two five-dimension constructs, the NEO PI-R, thus, seems the more reliable. This confirms the relevance of the Five-Factor Model of personality.

Life Satisfaction and the Five-Factor Model of Personality

1997 ◽  
Vol 80 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1208-1210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah ◽  
Fred R. J. Detwiler ◽  
Anupama Byravan
Keyword(s):  
Life Satisfaction ◽  
Satisfaction With Life ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Satisfaction With Life Scale ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Inventory Analysis ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Life Scale

The hypothesis that happy and unhappy people have different personality profiles based on five personality factors (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) was tested using 245 undergraduates (111 men and 134 women) who completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the NEO Personality Inventory. Analysis indicated that High and Low Satisfaction groups had significantly different personality profiles, supporting the hypothesis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document