scholarly journals Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Mõttus ◽  
Jüri Allik ◽  
Anu Realo
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Informant Ratings ◽  
Self Reports

Personality researchers often supplement or substitute self-reports with ratings from knowledgeable informants, at least implicitly assuming that the same constructs are measured regardless of the source of ratings. However, measurement invariance (MI) of personality constructs across these rating types has rarely been empirically tested. Here, this was done for the Five-Factor Model domains and their 30 facets (N = 3,253). Four domains and 26 facets showed the level of invariance (metric MI) required for comparing the relative standings of individuals across self-reports and informant-ratings, which is what researchers mostly do. However, 28 of the 35 scales failed to achieve the level of invariance (scalar MI) recommended when comparing mean scores. Self-informant pairs who contributed to higher MI also tended to display higher cross-rater agreement. In conclusion, self-reports and informant-ratings appear to measure reasonably similar constructs for most research purposes, but poor MI may contribute to imperfect cross-rater agreement.

scholarly journals Do Self-Reports and Informant-Ratings Measure the Same Personality Constructs?

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Mõttus ◽  
Jüri Allik ◽  
Anu Realo
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Informant Ratings ◽  
Self Reports

Abstract. Personality researchers often supplement or substitute self-reports with ratings from knowledgeable informants, at least implicitly assuming that the same constructs are being measured regardless of the source of ratings. However, measurement invariance (MI) of personality constructs across these rating types has rarely been empirically tested. Here, this was done for the Five-Factor Model domains and their 30 facets ( N = 3,253). All facets and all domains but Agreeableness met the level of invariance (metric MI) required for comparing the relative standings of individuals across self-reports and informant-ratings, which is what researchers mostly do. However, ten facets and the Agreeableness domain failed to achieve the level of invariance (scalar MI) recommended when comparing mean scores. In conclusion, self-reports and informant-ratings appear to measure similar constructs for most research purposes.

scholarly journals Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Stevanovic ◽  
R. Urbán ◽  
O. Atilola ◽  
P. Vostanis ◽  
Y. P. Singh Balhara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Conduct Problems ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Strengths And Difficulties Questionnaire ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Prosocial Behaviour ◽  
Emotional Symptoms ◽  
Strengths And Difficulties

Aims.This study evaluated the measurement invariance of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) self-report among adolescents from seven different nations.Methods.Data for 2367 adolescents, aged 13–18 years, from India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Croatia were available for a series of factor analyses.Results.The five-factor model including original SDQ scales emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity–inattention problems, peer problems and prosocial behaviour generated inadequate fit degree in all countries. A bifactor model with three factors (i.e., externalising, internalising and prosocial) and one general problem factor yielded adequate degree of fit in India, Nigeria, Turkey and Croatia. The prosocial behaviour, emotional symptoms and conduct problems factor were found to be common for all nations. However, originally proposed items loaded saliently on other factors besides the proposed ones or only some of them corresponded to proposed factors in all seven countries.Conclusions.Due to the lack of a common acceptable model across all countries, namely the same numbers of factors (i.e., dimensional invariance), it was not possible to perform the metric and scalar invariance test, what indicates that the SDQ self-report models tested lack appropriate measurement invariance across adolescents from these seven nations and it needs to be revised for cross-country comparisons.

scholarly journals A-12 The Dimensionality of Symptoms Before and After Sport-Related Concussion

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 785-785
Author(s):  
J Karr ◽  
G Iverson
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Fit Indices ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Specific Symptom ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Sleep Arousal

Abstract Objective Multiple factor analyses have examined the dimensionality of physical, emotional, and cognitive symptoms both before and after a sport-related concussion. The current study compared model fit and measurement invariance of five candidate factor models, including a one-factor model, original four-factor model (cognitive-sensory, vestibular-somatic, sleep-arousal, and affective), alternative four-factor model (cognitive, physical, sleep-arousal, and affective), five-factor model (cognitive-sensory separated), and bifactor model. Method Student athletes (N = 1,554; 56.7% boys; age: M = 16.1 ± 1.2) completed the Post-Concussion Symptoms Scale (PCSS) at preseason baseline and after a suspected concussion. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted at both time points, with pre-injury to post-injury measurement invariance models (configural, weak, strong, and strict) also examined. Model results were assessed via fit indices (CFI ≥ .90/RMSEA≤.08) and change-in-fit indices (∆CFI ≤ -.01). Results All models other than the one-factor model showed excellent fit before and after concussion (CFIs>.95/RMSEAs < .06). Based on pre-injury to post-injury invariance analyses, full weak invariance was established for both four-factor and the bifactor models, and partial strict invariance was established for each of these models following modifications. Conclusions Support for partial strict invariance indicates that meaningful comparisons can be made between factor means before and after concussion for the four-factor and bifactor models, evidencing the validity of a total symptom score and specific symptom subscales before and after concussion. The alternative four-factor model may offer an improved conceptual framework compared to the original four-factor model, which included a non-intuitive cognitive-sensory factor. These findings could support the development of normative scores for PCSS subscales for use in research and clinical practice.

Measurement Invariance and the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Assessment ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 571-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rollock ◽  
P. Priscilla Lui
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model

scholarly journals Ratings of dimensional traits in clinical practice: Comparing therapist and client perspectives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Balling ◽  
Sean Patrick Lane ◽  
Douglas Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Rating Form

Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the Five Factor Model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared to clients’ own self-reports when using the unipolar PID-5 scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client-therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form (FFMRF). When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly-rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e. theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFMRF compared to their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

scholarly journals The development of the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder Scale (CSBD-19): An ICD-11 based screening measure across three languages

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beáta Bőthe ◽  
Marc N. Potenza ◽  
Mark D. Griffiths ◽  
Shane W. Kraus ◽  
Verena Klein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Behavior ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Behavior Disorder ◽  
The United States ◽  
Compulsive Sexual Behavior ◽  
Negative Consequences

AbstractBackgroundCompulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) is included in the eleventh edition of The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as an impulse-control disorder.AimsThe aim of the present work was to develop a scale (Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder Scale–CSBD-19) that can reliably and validly assess CSBD based on ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines.MethodFour independent samples of 9,325 individuals completed self-reported measures from three countries (the United States, Hungary, and Germany). The psychometric properties of the CSBD-19 were examined in terms of factor structure, reliability, measurement invariance, and theoretically relevant correlates. A potential threshold was determined to identify individuals with an elevated risk of CSBD.ResultsThe five-factor model of the CSBD-19 (i.e., control, salience, relapse, dissatisfaction, and negative consequences) had an excellent fit to the data and demonstrated appropriate associations with the correlates. Measurement invariance suggested that the CSBD-19 functions similarly across languages. Men had higher means than women. A score of 50 points was found as an optimal threshold to identify individuals at high-risk of CSBD.ConclusionsThe CSBD-19 is a short, valid, and reliable measure of potential CSBD based on ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. Its use in large-scale, cross-cultural studies may promote the identification and understanding of individuals with a high risk of CSBD.

A Preliminary Validation of Preadolescents' Self-Reports Using the Five-Factor Model of Personality

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Markey ◽  
Charlotte N. Markey ◽  
Barbara J. Tinsley ◽  
Andrea J. Ericksen
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Preliminary Validation ◽  
Self Reports

Measurement Invariance and Sex and Age Differences of the Big Five Inventory–2: Evidence From the Russian Version

Assessment ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergei Shchebetenko ◽  
Aleksey Y. Kalugin ◽  
Arina M. Mishkevich ◽  
Christopher J. Soto ◽  
Oliver P. John
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Model Framework ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Big Five Inventory ◽  
Facet Structure ◽  
Russian Version

The Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2) is a recently published 60-item questionnaire that measures personality traits within the five-factor model framework. An important aspect of the BFI-2 is that it measures the traits at both the domain and facet levels and also controls acquiescence bias via the balanced number of true- and false-keyed items across the domains and facets. The current research evaluates factorial measurement invariance of a Russian version of the BFI-2 across sex and age within samples of 1,024 university students (Study 1) and 1,029 Internet users (Study 2). Across these samples, men scored lower on the domains of negative emotionality and agreeableness and slightly higher on extraversion. Sex differences were also obtained on various facets. In the Internet sample, age correlated modestly with several Big Five domains in accordance with the well-documented maturity principle. The newly developed Russian version of BFI-2 showed good reliability and validity across both samples. Moreover, random intercept exploratory factor analyses showed that the BFI-2 displayed a hierarchical five-domain-15-facet structure that demonstrated strict measurement invariance across sex and age.

Validation of the Swedish Version of the NEO-PI–R: Correlations between Self-Reports and College Peer Ratings

2009 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 815-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joakim Westerlund ◽  
Niklas Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Short Version ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Swedish Version ◽  
Peer Ratings ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Validity Tests

The NEO-PI–R has been one of the standard tools for measuring the Five Factor Model. Validity tests of the Swedish version of the NEO-PI-R have previously been limited to factor analyses and to testing the inventory's congruent validity using Hogan's Personality Inventory and the Karolinska Scales of Personality. The aim of the present study was to further investigate the validity of the NEO-PI–R. 53 pairs of volunteer college students who were peers (77 women, 29 men; M age = 27.3 yr., SD = 7) from the Department of Psychology at Stockholm University rated themselves both on the NEO-PI–R and on single statements taken from the NEO-PI–R Summary feedback sheet as well as rating their respective peers on a short version of the NEO-PI–R and on single statements taken from the NEO-PI–R Summary feedback sheet. The pattern of correlations indicated some support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the Swedish version of the NEO-PI–R.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document