The Five Factor Model (FFM) among four groups of male and female professionals

The present study examined the differences in personality traits among groups of seasoned professionals A Hebrew shortened version of Costa and McCrae’s [Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual odessa. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources] NEO-FFI questionnaire was administered to 236 Israeli male and female doctors, lawyers, clinical psychologists, and artists (mean age = 31.19). Artists were found to be significantly more neurotic than members of the other three professional groups and significantly more open to experience than doctors. Women were significantly more neurotic and extravert than men, regardless of their occupational affiliation.     

Neuroticism: how does one slice the PI(e)?

Costa and McCrae's operationalization of the Five-Factor Model, the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992a), measures five broad dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. According to Costa and McCrae, the Neuroticism (N) domain scale subsumes six facets. Although derived rationally and tested factor analytically, the factorial structure of the facet scales has yet to be unequivocally confirmed with analytic methods imposed at the item level. Using confirmatory and exploratory factor-analytic techniques, this study examines and tests the structure of the N domain scale of the NEO-PI-R. Confirmatory factor analysis indicates poor replication of the structure of the N scale. Results of the exploratory factor analysis indicate that while three of the facets replicated quite well, the other three factors did not correspond to Costa and McCrae's formulation. Future research should elaborate on the factorial structure and construct validity of the N facet scales, especially if they are to be used and interpreted in personality and clinical assessment. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The utility of the NEO-PI-R validity scales to detect response distortion: a comparison with the MMPI-2

In this psychometric study, we compared the recently developed Validity Scales from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) with the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) Validity Scales. We collected data from clients (n = 74) who completed comprehensive psychological evaluations at a university-based outpatient mental health clinic. Correlations between the Validity Scales of the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 were significant and in the expected directions. The relationships provide support for convergent and discriminant validity of the NEO-PI-R Validity Scales. The percent agreement of invalid responding on the two measures was high, although the diagnostic agreement was modest (kappa = .22-.33). Finally, clients who responded in an invalid manner on the NEO-PI-R Validity Scales produced significantly different clinical profiles on the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 than clients with valid protocols. These results provide additional support for the clinical utility of the NEO-PI-R Validity Scales as indicators of response bias.     

Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: development and initial validation

The purpose of this investigation was to develop a set of research validity scales for use with the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b). In study 1 we used the existing NEO-PI-R item pool to select items for three validity scales: positive presentation management, negative presentation management, and inconsistency. Several iterative item and scale analyses were conducted, using multiple criteria for item selection. These analyses resulted in 10-item scales. In Study 2, the internal consistency, interscale relationships, and normative characteristics were examined in a separate sample of working adults. In Study 3, the validity of the scales was examined by contrasting five sets of NEO-PI-R protocols: from a separate sample of working adults, from a sample of 100 NEO-PI-R protocols with randomly produced responses, and from three samples of undergraduates completing the NEO-PI-R under different instructional sets. Analyses revealed that both the research validity scales and the NEO-PI-R domain scales were sensitive to group differences. issues relating to the appropriate use of the scales are discussed.     

Substance or style? An investigation of the NEO-PI-R validity scales

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) has been criticized for the absence of validity scales designed to detect response distortion. Recently, validity scales were developed from the items of the NEO-PI-R (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) and several studies have used a variety of methods to test their use. However, it is controversial whether these scales are measuring something that is substantive (such as psychopathology or its absence) or stylistic (which might be effortful distortion or less conscious processes such as lack of insight). In this study, we used a multimethod-multitrait approach to examine the validity of these scales in a clinical sample of 668 participants diagnosed with personality disorders or major depression. Using various indicators of both stylistic and substantive variance, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) suggested that these validity scales measure something that may be conceptually distinct from, yet highly related to, substantive variance in responding.     

On the invalidity of validity scales: evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples

Because of the potential for bias and error in questionnaire responding, many personality inventories include validity scales intended to correct biased scores or identify invalid protocols. The authors evaluated the utility of several types of validity scales in a volunteer sample of 72 men and 106 women who completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; A. Tellegen, 1978/1982) and were rated by 2 acquaintances on the observer form of the NEO-PI-R. Analyses indicated that the validity indexes lacked utility in this sample. A partial replication (N = 1,728) also failed to find consistent support for the use of validity scales. The authors illustrate the use of informant ratings in assessing protocol validity and argue that psychological assessors should limit their use of validity scales and seek instead to improve the quality of personality assessments.     

Effects of response sets on NEO-PI-R scores and their relations to external criteria

Validity scales indicate the extent to which the results of a self-report inventory are a valid indicator of the test taker's psychological functioning. Validity scales generally are designed to detect the common response sets of positive impression management (underreporting, or faking good), negative impression management (overreporting, or faking bad), and random responding. The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) is a popular personality assessment tool based on the 5-factor model of personality and is used in a variety of settings. The NEO-PI-R does not include objective validity scales to screen for positive or negative impression management. The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of recently proposed validity scales for detecting these response sets on the NEO-PI-R (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) and to examine the effects of positive and negative impression management on correlations between the NEO-PI-R and external criteria (the Interpersonal Adjective Scale-Revised-B5 [Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997] and the NEO-PI-R Form R). The validity scales discriminated with reasonable accuracy between standard responding and the 2 response sets. Additionally, most correlations between the NEO-PI-R and external criteria were significantly lower when participants were dissimulating than when responding to standard instructions. It appears that response sets of positive and negative impression management may pose a significant threat to the external validity of the NEO-PI-R and that validity scales for their detection might be a useful addition to the inventory.     

Cross-cultural replication of the five-factor model and comparison of the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales in a Dutch psychiatric sample

The authors investigated cross-cultural replicability of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality as represented by the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) in a sample of 423 Dutch psychiatric patients. Also, NEO-PI-R domain scales were compared with the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5; A. R. Harkness & J. L. McNulty, 1994) scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 2002). Principal-components analysis with procrustean rotation confirmed the hypothesized structural similarity of the present sample with the U.S. normative factor scores. All of the hypothesized relations between NEO-PI-R and PSY-5 scales were confirmed. The results provide evidence for cross-cultural replicability of the FFM and for validity of the NEO-PI-R and PSY-5 constructs in the psychological assessment of psychiatric patients.     

Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: the case of the NEO-PI-R

In this study we tested the hypothesis that groups of NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) protocols identified as potentially invalid by an inconsistency scale (INC; Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) would show reduced reliability and validity according to a series of psychometric tests. Data were obtained from 2 undergraduate student samples, a self-report group (n = 132) who provided NEO-PI-R self-ratings on 2 occasions separated by a 7- to 14-day interval and an informant group (n = 109) who provided ratings of well-known friends or relatives on 2 occasions separated by a 6 month interval. INC scores from the Time 1 protocols were used to divide these samples into low, moderate, and elevated inconsistency groups. In both samples, these 3 groups showed equivalent levels of reliability and validity as measured by: contingency coefficients for the 20 INC item responses across occasions; test-retest intraclass correlations of NEO-PI-R domain scores; convergent correlations with Goldberg's (1992) Bipolar Adjective Scale scores; and discriminant correlations between the 5 NEO-PI-R domain scores. The similarity of results across self-report and informant assessment contexts provides additional evidence that semantic consistency approaches to assessing protocol validity may overestimate the prevalence of random or careless response behavior in standard administration conditions. Several theories are discussed that accommodate the existence of valid inconsistency in structured personality assessment.     

Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory

Personality traits are organized hierarchically, with narrow, specific traits combining to define broad, global factors. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c) assesses personality at both levels, with six specific facet scales in each of five broad domains. This article describes conceptual issues in specifying facets of a domain and reports evidence on the validity of NEO-PI-R facet scales. Facet analysis-the interpretation of a scale in terms of the specific facets with which it correlates-is illustrated using alternative measures of the five-factor model and occupational scales. Finally, the hierarchical interpretation of personality profiles is discussed. Interpretation on the domain level yields a rapid understanding of the individual interpretation of specific facet scales gives a more detailed assessment.     

Experimental Manipulation of NEO-PI-R Items

Research assessing the relationship of the Five-factor model (FFM) of personality to personality disorder symptomatology has generally been consistent with theoretical expectations. Three exceptions, however, have been failures to confirm predicted associations of the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) Conscientiousness scale with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder symptomatology, the NEO-PI-R Agreeableness scale with dependent symptomatology, and the NEO-PI-R Openness scale with schizotypal symptomatology. It was the hypothesis of this study that these findings might be due in part to a relative emphasis on adaptive rather than maladaptive variants of these domains of personality functioning within the NEO-PI-R. This hypothesis was tested by experimentally altering NEO-PI-R items to reverse their implications for maladaptiveness. The predicted correlations of the FFM were confirmed with the experimentally altered items in a sample of 86 adult psychiatric outpatients.     

Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains and facets of the Five-Factor Model

We compared the utility of several trait models for describing personality disorder in a heterogeneous clinical sample (N = 94). Participants completed the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993b), a self-report measure that assesses traits relevant to personality disorder, and two measures of the Five-Factor Model: the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). Regression analyses indicated substantial overlap between the SNAP scales and the NEO-PI-R facets. In addition, use of the NEO-PI-R facets afforded substantial improvement over the Five-Factor Model domains in predicting interview-based ratings of DSM-IV personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), such that the NEO facets and the SNAP scales demonstrated roughly equivalent levels of predictive power. Results support assessment of the full range of NEO-PI-R facets over the Five-Factor Model domains for both research and clinical use.     

Evaluating NEO Personality Inventory-Revised profiles in veterans with personality disorders

Fifty-one psychiatric, veteran outpatients were assessed for personality disorders on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997a) and were also administered the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Results were compared to Trull and Widiger's (1997) hypotheses about the profiles of such patients and similar past studies. Correlations between NEO-PI-R facets and SCID-II personality disorder symptom clusters generally occurred in the expected direction. Facets hypothesized to be associated with a given personality disorder were able to predict variance in their respective SCID-II personality disorder scores for seven of ten personality disorders. In general, results support the facet-level conceptualizations of these disorders, except for Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder.     

Positive and negative symptoms of schizotypy and the Five-factor model: a domain and facet level analysis

In this study, we investigated the Five-factor model in the concurrent prediction of positive symptom schizotypy as measured by the Magical Ideation (Eckblad & Chapman, 1983) and Perceptual Aberration (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1978) scales and negative symptom schizotypy as measured by the Physical Anhedonia (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1976) and Revised Social Anhedonia (Eckblad, Chapman, Chapman, & Mishlove, 1982; Mishlove & Chapman, 1985) scales. Previous studies suggest that these measures reflect the core symptoms found in schizotypal and schizoid personality disorder (Bailey, West, Widiger, & Freiman, 1993). Negative symptoms were significantly predicted by Neuroticism (+), Extraversion (-), Openness (-), and Agreeableness (-) domains of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Additionally, positive symptoms were significantly predicted by Neuroticism (+), Openness (+), and Agreeableness (-). In addition, we examined the validity of lower order traits in de- scribing these symptoms of character pathology. These findings lend further support for the use of domain and facet scales of the NEO-PI-R in the identification of personality pathology.     

Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and its relationships with the Three-and the Five-factor personality models

We investigated the dimensionality of the French version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) using confirmatory factor analysis. We tested models of 1 or 2 factors. Results suggest the RSES is a 1-dimensional scale with 3 highly correlated items. Comparison with the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa, McCrae, & Rolland, 1998) demonstrated that Neuroticism correlated strongly and Extraversion and Conscientiousness moderately with the RSES. Depression accounted for 47% of the variance of the RSES. Other NEO-PI-R facets were also moderately related with self-esteem.     

Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality

Several studies have explored associations between measures of adult attachment style and the Big Five personality traits or factors, but the studies have not included current dimensional measures of attachment style (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) or the most complete (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and frequently used (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) measures of the Big Five. Moreover, most studies after Shaver and Brennan’s (1992) have not compared attachment style and Big Five measures as predictors of relationship quality. Here, we summarize past research and report two studies comparing Brennan et al.’s two-dimensional measure of attachment style with the BFI and NEO-PI-R measures of the Big Five. There are consistent and theoretically meaningful associations between the attachment-style and personality trait measures, but attachment-style dimensions still predict relationship quality better than measures of the Big Five. Implications are discussed.     

Psychopathy and the Five-factor model of personality: a replication and extension

It has recently been argued that psychopathy can be understood and represented using common dimensions of personality taken from the Five-factor model (FFM). In this research, we examined this possibility by using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to assess psychopathy in an undergraduate sample. Specifically, we matched individuals' NEO-PI-R profiles with an expert-generated psychopathy prototype to yield a psychopathy score. These scores were correlated with self-reports of drug use, delinquency, risky sex, aggression, and several laboratory tasks. FFM psychopathy was significantly related to all forms of deviance, although the effects tended to be small in size. Moreover, individuals who more closely resembled the prototypic FFM psychopath were more aggressive in a laboratory aggression task, less willing to delay gratification in a time discounting task, and demonstrated a preference for aggressive responses in a social information-processing paradigm.     

The NEO-PI-3: a more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory

Use of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) in adolescent samples has shown that a few respondents have difficulty with a subset of items. We identified 30 items that were not understood by at least 2% of adolescent respondents and 18 additional items with low item-total correlations, and we wrote 2 trial replacement items for each. We used self-report and observer rating data from 500 respondents aged 14 to 20 to select replacement items. The modified instrument retained the intended factor structure and showed slightly better internal consistency, cross-observer agreement, and readability (Flesch-Kincaid grade level = 5.3). The NEO-PI-3 appears to be useful in high school and college samples and may have wider applicability to adults as well.     

Convergence of Vocational Interests and Personality: Examples in an Adolescent Gifted Sample

This investigation explored the convergence between vocational interests as measured by the Strong Interest Inventory (Hansen & Campbell, 1985) and two competing personality models: the Big Five as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the Big Three as measured by the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen, 1982; Tellegen & Waller, in press). The participants were 323 gifted adolescents. The authors predicted that specific NEO-PI-R facet scales and specific MPQ primary scales would add meaningful variance to the prediction of hypothesized Basic Interest Scales (BISs) on the Strong after the variation due to the respective Big Five or Big Three factors was removed. The predictions were largely supported. Moreover, this study provided additional evidence regarding convergence of Holland's Big Six and the Big Five model of personality. This study could serve to prompt a new generation of studies relating vocational interests and personality.     

Development and initial validation of validity scales for the NEO-Five Factor Inventory

Based upon the methodology established by Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer (Schinka, J. A., Kinder, B. N., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138), a set of validity scales were developed for the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources). In Study 1, 111 undergraduates completed the NEO-FFI and item means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations were used to construct measures of Positive Impression Management, Negative Impression Management, and Inconsistent Responding. In Study 2, 146 participants completed the NEO-FFI under one of five instructional sets (control, fake good, fake bad, graduate psychology and police academy admissions). A set of randomly produced NEO-FFI profiles were added to this data set. ANOVA results provided support for the utility of the validity scales, as they were differentially sensitive to random responding, positive and negative impression management in hypothesized ways.