Reliability, homogeneity and the construct validity of Cattell's 16PF

This paper reviews criticisms of the psychometric properties of Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and examines Cattell's claims that 16PF scale reliabilities and factor validities are seriously underestimated by conventional internal consistency approaches to reliability estimation.On large samples of British adults and undergraduates no evidence was found to support the claim that the 16PF is deliberately heterogeneous in item content. No presence of suppressor effects or balancing of specifics were found in the 16PF scales, most of which were reasonably homogenous by conventional standards. Conventional internal-consistency reliability estimates in fact give very similar results to alternate form reliability coefficients and Cattell's factorial validities. 16PF scales which were particularly poor in terms of scale consistency were L, M and N with C, O and Q4 emerging as measures of essentially the same trait of anxiety.     

场依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析

1　前言我国心理学界关于场依存性认知方式的研究开始于 80年代初 ,除主要涉及场依存性的性别差异、年龄差异、学科差异和职业倾向以外 ,张厚粲 1 982年对场依存性与社会向性进行了相关分析 ,邓铸 1 995年则考察了场依存性认知方式与艾森克人格维度的相关性 ,这些对场依存性与个性特质的相关研究只涉及少数几种人格特质。本研究的主要目的就是系统考察场依存性与卡特尔人格特质的相关程度 ,试图寻求与场依存性认知方式有关联的人格特质 ,同时考察场依存性认知方式与学业成绩的相关性。这不仅能增进对场依存性认知方式的认识 ,而且有利于促进…     

Subjective ratings of Cattell's 16 Personality Factors

Summary: The Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF) was administered to 69 subjects. Each subject was asked to rate himself on the 16 personality factors on the 16PF. The 16PF scores and the self-ratings were compared by canonical analysis. Three significant relationships were identified. The relationships primarily involved indices of social interaction from the 16PF and indices of internal traits from the self-ratings.     

Form E of the 16PF and adults with mental retardation: internal consistency and validity.

Form E of the Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF-E) was administered to 70 adults (45 men and 25 women) who resided in a public facility for mentally retarded persons. Alpha coefficients were computed for each of 16 primary trait scales. The Intelligence (B), Ego Strength (C), Dominance (E), Superego Strength (G), Parmia (H), Protension (L), Autia (M), Shrewdness (N), Guilt Proneness (O), and Self-Sentiment (Q3) scales exhibited low internal consistency, whereas Premsia (I) and Self-Sufficiency (Q2) evidence relatively higher levels. Personality traits of subjects were also assessed by staff ratings. Ratings were compared to 16PF-E primary and secondary trait scores via correlation coefficients. Results provided virtually no support for the validity of the 16PF-E primary scales and the Exvia, Anxiety, and Cortertia secondary factors as applied to the subject population. Limited support for the validity of the Independence secondary factor was found.     

Further evidence on 16 PF distortion scales

Norms were obtained on a nationally representative sample of 4830 adult men and women for two empirically developed faking indices for Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) by Winder, Karson, and O'Dell (1975). These data provided convincing evidence that the cutoff suggested in the original work for the faking good scale was far too liberal and would routinely classify more than half of all 16 PF protocols as invalid. The faking bad cutoff appeared to be approximately correct. The correlations of the faking scales with the 16 PF primary factors were highly congruent with those reported in the development study and provided additional validity evidence for the two indices. Both indices were found to be sufficiently reliable to permit adjustments to be made in the primary trait scales when distortion is above average.     

Form E of the 16PF and Adults With Mental Retardation: Internal Consistency and Validity

Form E of the Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF-E) was administered to 70 adults (45 men and 25 women) who resided in a public facility for mentally retarded persons. Alpha coefficients were computed for each of 16 primary trait scales. The intelligence (B), Ego Strength (C), Dominance (E), Superego Strength, (G), Parmia (H), Protension (L), Autia (M), Shrewdness (N), Guilt Proneness (O), and Self-Sentiment (Q[sub 3]) scales, exhibited low internal consistency, whereas Premsia (I) and Self-Sufficiency (Q[sub 2]) evidenced relatively higher levels. Personality traits of subjects were also assessed by staff ratings. Ratings were compared to 16PF-E primary and secondary trait scores via correlation coefficients. Results provided virtually no support for the validity of the 16PF-E primary scales and the Exvia, Anxiety, and Cortertia secondary factors as applied to the subject population. Limited support for the validity of the independence secondary factor was found.     

A Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of the 16PF4 and 16PF5 Among Male Anglican Clergy

Cattell's latest version of the 16PF (16PF5) was completed by a random sample of 580 male Anglican clergy whose names and addresses were provided by the Church Commissioners' payroll. These data demonstrated the robustness and reliability of the new instrument for this specialist population compared to the poor psychometric qualities of the 16PF4 as judged by the same criteria.     

Three superfactors in the 16PF and their relation to Eysenck's P,E and N

The initial data consisted of responses to the 16PF and E.P.Q., obtained at the same testing, from 239 Independent Study Students. The responses to the 16PF were subjected to a principal components analysis. A Scree Test applied to the original solution indicated that between 8 and 10 factors should be retained for rotation. As this was at variance with Cattell's postulated factor structure supplementary analyses involving the retention and rotation of from 16 to 22 factors and item-factor analyses of groups of scales were carried out. All of these analyses failed to reproduce anything like a clear 16-scale structure. In order to accommodate the hypothesis that a 3-factor solution, in line with Eysenck's postulated dimensions of P, E and N, underpinned the Cattell scales and to test the validity of the intermediate solutions, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3 factors were retained and subjected to varimax and promax rotations. These solutions were compared with solutions obtained from analyses of the responses to the 16PF of 200 students at the Independent Assessment and Research Centre. Only the 3-factor solutions showed a degree of replicability across samples. The samples were combined to form a total sample of 439 cases and this was tested for factor replicability using factor comparability coefficients based on factor scores. This revealed a clear 3-factor structure, of anxiety, superego and exvia, which was replicable across sexes. An analysis of the responses to the combined questionnaires indicated that the neuroticism and anxiety factors and the extraversion and exvia factors were co-incident, but that psychoticism and superego were separate factors. However, the P-scale loaded -0.40 on the superego factor, which lends some support to Eysenck's contention that psychoticism is the obverse of superego. A 3-step analysis, in which pairs and triads of scales were tested for factor replicability, confirmed the equivalence of the neuroticism and anxiety factors and the extraversion and exvia factors. As far as psychoticism and superego were concerned only the latter appeared as a real, replicable factor. This factor contained virtually all the 16PF superego or S-items and 11 of the 25 E.P.Q. P-items. The 14 P-items which did not load significantly on the superego factor were those involving the cruelty or sadism element of the concept of psychoticism. It is contended that superego, rather than psychoticism, may best lay claim to join neuroticism and extraversion in what may be termed the great triumverate of the personality sphere.     

16PF in screening for appropriateness of mentors

The utility of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition (16PF) as an indicator of mentor effectiveness was examined. A random sample of the 16PF scores of 74 mentors was drawn from a population of 837 mentors from Big Brothers Big Sisters. Caseworkers rated mentor's effectiveness using a rubric developed for this purpose. The rubric showed good interrater agreement. Caseworkers' ratings of mentor's effectiveness was used to rate mentors systematically as appropriate or inappropriate. The 16PF scores of mentors were compared at an alpha level of .05 for appropriate and inappropriate groups using independent t tests and multivariate analyses of variance, which reflected significant differences between male and female mentors on Factors E and Q3. Significant differences were also found between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" mentors on Factors L and Q4. These differences reflected only moderate effect sizes and lacked practical significance or meaning. The results suggest that, while the 16PF discriminates statistically between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" mentors, in terms of practical significance, the questionnaire is not particularly useful as an initial screening tool.     

Comparison of MCMI-II and 16PF Validity Scales

We administered the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II; Millon, 1987) and the Sixteen Personality Factors Inventory (16PF; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) to 131 outpatients in marital therapy and tested the correlation between the validity scales of the two instruments. The results indicated that MCMI-II Disclosure and Debasement scales were positively correlated with the 16PF Fake-Bad scale and negatively correlated with the 16PF Fake-Good scale. The MCMI-II Desirability scale was significantly correlated with the 16PF Fake-Good scale.     

Validation of an automated 16PF administration procedure

Examined the effects of a computer-based administration procedure on reliability and validity of a personality questionnaire. Utilizing a counterbalanced repeated-measures design, Form A of the 16PF was administered to 80 undergraduates who had been randomly assigned to either computer-computer, computer-booklet, booklet-computer, or booklet-booklet administration conditions. Subjects also completed a self-report anxiety measure before and after each administration of the 16PF. Multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in score reliability, validity, or self-reported anxiety among the four administration conditions. Small yet significant differences were noted with respect to ratings of the assessment experience. Subjects in the two groups which were exposed to both administration formats rated the computer procedure as more positive in comparison to the booklet format. Due to the student sample, replication of these findings with treatment-seeking clients is needed.     

Comparison of women's studies students with female golf star athletes on the 16 PF.

29 female students in the first author's psychology of women took the 16 PF, along with 8 female golf stars and 8 average female golf team members. The women's studies students were significantly more venture-some, more tough-minded, and more imaginative than the female golf stars.     

社会称许性对16PF测验因素结构的影响

本研究采用共同方法偏差控制法研究在应聘情境下,社会称许性(SD)因素是否存在于16PF测验的二级因素结构中,对人格测量产生影响,并探索SD对15个分量表的影响程度。结果表明:在应聘情境下,16PF的二级因素结构中存在SD因素,SD普遍对13个分量表有显著的影响,其中分量表C、Q4和G受到的影响较大,分量表A、E、F、M、NI、、Q1和Q2受到的影响较小。本研究为探索如何矫正SD对16PF人格测量的影响提供参考。     

Cross-cultural second order factor structures of the 16PF

Cross-cultural personality research has generated a great amount of data on individual difference patterns in diverse cultures. One of the major instruments used in this research has been Cattell's 16PF. A major question in this research is whether the underlying personality structure is equivalent for different cultures. The present study evaluated the second order factor structure of the 16PF in 101 subjects of European ancestry and 117 subjects of Japanese ancestry. The factor structure for the Japanese was significantly different from that of the caucasian group. The caucasian results did not differ from those reported by Cattell and his associates. The implications of these results for personality theory and for cross-cultural evaluation were briefly discussed.     

Comparing 16 PF scores for two groups of offenders

The 16 PF scores for 678 male offenders in a diagnostic and receiving center were compared with scores for 891 male offenders in penal institutions by t tests for independent means. Significant differences were obtained for 13 of the 16 primaries included in the 16 PF. The Penitentiary group scored significantly higher than the Reception Center group on the primaries, A, I, L, M, O, Q1, and Q4. Conversely, the Reception Center group scored significantly higher than the Penitentiary group on the primaries, B, C, F, G, N, and Q3.     

Psychometric properties of the Danish 16PF and EPQ

A Danish translation of the Cattell's 16PF has been used in studies evaluating the effects of prenatal drug exposure. This paper reports a psychometric analysis of the 16PF and Eysenck's EPQ based on a sample of 558 young Danes. Many 16PF scales had unacceptable psychometric properties (as indicated by coefficient alpha and item–total score correlations), but more satisfactory results were obtained with the EPQ N and E scales. A factor analysis of all 16PF and EPQ scales suggested a six factor solution that roughly corresponds to the second-order factor structure obtained by Krug and Johns (1986). It is concluded that the second-order factor structure should be the basis of interpretation of the 16PF in both practical and research contexts.     

16 PF Profile of Schizophrenics With and Without Criminal Record

This study examined the personality characteristics of sixty Schizophrenics with and without criminal record on inpatients of Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences, Ranchi (RINPAS) India. A comparison of their personality profiles on 16 PF test revealed that Schizophrenics with criminal record were more assertive, less reserved, less conscientious, and more extraverted than Schizophrenics without criminal record. It indicates that Schizophrenics who commit offences may be differentiated from those who are not involved in criminal act on the basis of their personality characteristics.