FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES, THE PERSONALITY RESEARCH FORM-E, AND THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL

1990 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 627 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN R. CONN
Keyword(s):  
Factor Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Research

Development of a Measure of Calculative Mindset (CM): Establishing a Nomological Net and Predictive Utility of the CM Measure

2021 ◽  
pp. 003329412110102
Author(s):  
Joongseo Kim ◽  
I. M. Jawahar ◽  
Brigitte Steinheider ◽  
Thomas Stone ◽  
Brandon Ferrell
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Citizenship ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Work Behavior ◽  
Hierarchical Regression ◽  
Organizational Contexts ◽  
Personality Research

A calculative mindset (CM) describes the tendency to analyze and convert qualitative social values into numeric or monetary metrics and is a predisposition that shapes behaviors and actions of the employee. CM has been manipulated in experimental studies, but it has not been investigated in field research due to the absence of a scale to measure CM. In study 1, we followed Hinkin’s scale development protocol to conceptualize, develop, and validate a measure of CM to facilirate research in organizational contexts. In Study 2, we examined the relationship between CM and measures of performance, counterproductive work behavior (CWB), organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and in role-performance (IRP). Results from hierarchical regression analyses indicate that CM is related to these performance outcomes and explains incremental variance over established measures of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Implications for personality research, selection of human resources, and facilitation of an ethical workplace are discussed.

Symptom differentiation of anxiety and depression across youth development and clinic-referred/nonreferred samples: An examination of competing factor structures of the Child Behavior Checklist DSM-oriented scales

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (4pt1) ◽  
pp. 1005-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggi Price ◽  
Charmaine Higa-McMillan ◽  
Chad Ebesutani ◽  
Kelsie Okamura ◽  
Brad J. Nakamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Behavior ◽  
Youth Development ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Child Behavior Checklist ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Depressive Symptomology ◽  
Model Research ◽  
Competing Models

AbstractThis study examined the psychometric properties of the DSM-oriented scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003) using confirmatory factor analysis to compare the six-factor structure of the DSM-oriented scales to competing models consistent with developmental theories of symptom differentiation. We tested these models on both clinic-referred (N = 757) and school-based, nonreferred (N = 713) samples of youths in order to assess the generalizability of the factorial structures. Although previous research has supported the fit of the six-factor DSM-oriented structure in a normative sample of youths ages 7 to 18 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), tripartite model research indicates that anxiety and depressive symptomology are less differentiated among children compared to adolescents (Jacques & Mash, 2004). We thus examined the relative fit of a six- and a five-factor model (collapsing anxiety and depression) with younger (ages 7–10) and older (ages 11–18) youth subsamples. The results revealed that the six-factor model fit the best in all samples except among younger nonclinical children. The results extended the generalizability of the rationally derived six-factor structure of the DSM-oriented scales to clinic-referred youths and provided further support to the notion that younger children in nonclinical samples exhibit less differentiated symptoms of anxiety and depression.

scholarly journals What is the p-factor of psychopathology? Some risks of general factor modeling

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 759-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riet van Bork ◽  
Sacha Epskamp ◽  
Mijke Rhemtulla ◽  
Denny Borsboom ◽  
Han L. J. van der Maas
Keyword(s):  
Factor Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Psychological Disorders ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Factor Analytic ◽  
History Of ◽  
Factor Modeling ◽  
P Factor

Recent research has suggested that a range of psychological disorders may stem from a single underlying common factor, which has been dubbed the p-factor. This finding may spur a line of research in psychopathology very similar to the history of factor modeling in intelligence and, more recently, personality research, in which similar general factors have been proposed. We point out some of the risks of modeling and interpreting general factors, derived from the fields of intelligence and personality research. We argue that: (a) factor-analytic resolution, i.e., convergence of the literature on a particular factor structure, should not be expected in the presence of multiple highly similar models; and (b) the true underlying model may not be a factor model at all, because alternative explanations can account for the correlational structure of psychopathology.

From types to typological thinking: a reply to Asendorpf

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert R. McCrae ◽  
Antonio Terracciano ◽  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Daniel J. Ozer
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Typological Thinking ◽  
Q Sort

We continue to disagree with Asendorpf (2006) on the best way to analyse Q‐sort data and on our priorities for personality research. We believe on statistical grounds that the large first factor found in inverse factor analyses of raw CAQ items tells us much about response norms, but little or nothing about individual differences. These emerge more clearly in analyses of standardised items, which show the familiar dimensions of the Five‐Factor Model. Based on our research on types and the mixed results reported by other researchers, we do not believe that replicable empirical types are likely to be found, and suggest that a more profitable line of research would focus on the heuristics of types and the configural interpretation of traits. Published in 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

scholarly journals Exploring the Structure of Narcissism: Towards an Integrated Solution

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
William Keith Campbell ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Factor Structure ◽  
Externalizing Behavior ◽  
Precise Measurement ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Parsimonious Model ◽  
Amazon's Mechanical Turk ◽  
Criterion Variables ◽  
Three Factor

Objective: Despite decades of work on narcissism there remain many active areas of exploration and debate including a clear and consensual description of its underlying components. Understanding narcissism’s factor structure is necessary for precise measurement and investigation of specific psychological and behavioral processes. The aim of the current study was to explore the structure of narcissism by examining it at varying hierarchical levels. Method: Participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (N = 591) completed 303 narcissism items encompassing 46 narcissism scales and subscales. Criterion variables measuring the Five Factor Model, self-esteem, aggression, and externalizing behavior were also collected. Results: A series of factor analyses reveal the factor structure of narcissism at a range of specificities. No more than five meaningful factors (i.e., Grandiosity, Neuroticism, Antagonism, Distrustful Self-reliance, Attention-seeking) were identified and the most parsimonious model appears to be a three-factor structure. Narcissism scales that effectively capture each of the identified factors are identified. Factors diverged in their associations with criterion variables. Conclusions: A three-factor model (i.e., Agentic Extraversion, Narcissistic Neuroticism, Self-centered Antagonism) seems to be the most parsimonious conceptualization. Larger factor solutions are discussed, but future research will be necessary to determine the value of these increasingly narrow factors.

scholarly journals Measuring Failures Proneness: Scale Development and Preliminary Validations

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Diamant ◽  
Zohar Rusou
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Deviant Behaviors ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
One Step ◽  
Development And Validation ◽  
Preliminary Phase

Behavioral failures can serve as precursors for accidents. Yet, individual differences in the predisposition to behavioral failures have predominantly been investigated within relatively narrow parameters, with the focus limited to subsets of behaviors or specific domains. A broader perspective might prove useful in illuminating correlations between various forms of accidents. The current research was undertaken as one step toward developing the concept of behavioral failures proneness in its multidimensional aspect. We report the initial stage of the development and validation of the Failures Proneness questionnaire (FP): a brief, multifaceted, self-report scale of common behavioral failures in everyday settings. In a preliminary phase we conceived an extensive pool of prospective items. Study 1 identified and validated the factor-structure of FP and reduced the scale to a brief measure of 16 items. Study 2 corroborated the factor structure of the FP and evaluated its construct validity by assessing its relationship with the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality traits. Study 3 tested the criterion-related validity of the FP by assessing its ability to predict deviant behaviors. These studies provide evidence of the FP’s performance in generating valuable information on a broad range of behavioral antecedents of accidents.

scholarly journals Five Factor Model in Iranian Culture: A Psychometrics Analysis of NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoochehr Azkhosh ◽  
Ali Asgari
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Explanatory Factor Analysis ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

This study aimed to investigate the construct validity and factor structure of NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in Iranian population. Participants were 1639 (780 male, 859 female) Tehran people aged 15-71. The results of explanatory factor analysis showed no notable differences between the factor structures extracted by oblique and orthogonal rotations and didn’t replicate the scoring key. The Openness and Agreeableness had more psychometric problems (low internal consistency and high deleted items). The female’s NEO-FFI factor structure (with 41 items of 60 loaded on intended factors)was clearer than males’ (with 37 items). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the male’s latent modeling of the 31-item but failed to fit the female’s model. The women scored significantly higher in the Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness than men who scored significantly higher in the Extraversion. As previous findings, the current results showed the NEO-FFI’s cultural limitations assessing the universality of the Five Factor Model.

Merging Structural and Process-related Approaches to the Study of Agreeableness: A Preregistered Replication and Extension Attempt

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Vize ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Hierarchical Models ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Antisocial Behaviors ◽  
Substantial Evidence ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Emotional Processes ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Insight Into

Agreeableness is one of the major domains included within prominent hierarchical models of personality like the Five-factor Model (FFM). (Low) agreeableness is the strongest correlate of a variety of antisocial behaviors relative to the other FFM domains. Though there is substantial evidence that (low) agreeableness is arguably the most important personality correlate of various antisocial behaviors, this evidence is descriptive and provides little information on the direction or processes underlying the relation. Process-related research has started to provide more insight into how agreeableness-related traits give rise to various antisocial and prosocial behaviors. The proposed study looked to first replicate previous research on some of the potential cognitive/emotional processes related to agreeableness, and then conduct exploratory analyses to identify which, if any, of the empirically identified facets of agreeableness bear specific relations to the processes under study. Overall, we were unable to replicate the primary effects of interest in regard to processes of agreeableness and found little support for our preregistered confirmatory and exploratory hypotheses despite having high power to detect these effects. Nonetheless, process-models of personality remain at the vanguard of personality research and we discuss how the current results can inform future work in this area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document