An item and radial parcel factor analysis of the 16PF questionnaire

An extensive series of analyses were carried out on a sample of data from 491 undergraduate university students who completed Form A of Cattell's 16PF questionnaire. The data was item analysed, factored using both principal component and image analyses, and radial parcelled. However, even though five different factor solutions were rotated to a maximum simple structure, the 16 factors did not emerge as expected. Radial parcelling also yielded equivocal results. Using only psychometric criteria to guide the analysis, three new factor scales were generated that satisfied the test of high factor validity and high coefficient alpha simultaneously for each scale. The overall solution yielded seven factored scales. Additionally, results were reported of a scale factoring of the 16 scales yielding a replicable 4-factor solution. An alternative 7-factor solution was not replicable among subsamples taken from the total data set.     

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.     

Obtaining 16 PF Scores from the MMPI,and MMPI Scores from the 16 PF

Recent statistical analyses of the relation of the MMPI surface traits to the source traits in the 16 P.F. were extended to (a) the calculation of beta weights for estimating MMPI scale scores from the 16 P.F. and (b) deriving the MMPI item composition in terms of 16 P.F. scores from the MMPI, and vice versa. It has been argued from the specific nature of surface and source traits that additional diagnostic insight can be gained from their comparison, a principle which has been designated as depth psychometry.     

Sustaining fantasies and the 16 PF

This study examined the relationships between the Sustaining Fantasy Questionnaire (SFQ) and the 16 PF for 63 college students. The questionnaire is a self-report measure of characteristic fantasies used to reduce negative affect and maintain self-esteem. High scores on the fantasy scales having to do with power and revenge, death and illness, withdrawal and protection, and restitution, and on the scales measuring negative affect and the inability to produce comforting images were all associated with 16 PF indications of psychological distress.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Personality types as measured by the 16 PF

The possibility of isolating personality types using 16 PF profiles was studied by utilizing a Q-type factor analytic procedure. Four modal profiles, characteristic of major clusters of subjects, were derived and cross validated. These four major types successfully classified approximately 2/3 of the 16 PF protocols (n = 1037), and classified similar proportions of previously published profiles. Variation of classification rates as a function of race and sex was described, and strategies for utilizing the profiles for research and interpretive purposes were outlined.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

The Psychometric Properties of the 16PF Among Male Anglican Clergy

Cattell's 16PF Questionnaire was completed by 441 male Anglican clergy who attended residential ministry workshops over a period of ten years. The psychometric properties of this instrument were investigated. Most scales had poor homogeneity and the face validity of many items was suspect as far as the specific population of clergy was concerned. These findings caveat the usefulness of the 16PF in programs of ministry development.     

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。     

Sensitivity of the 16 PF Motivational Distortion Scale to response bias

The shortened versions of the 16 PF (Forms C or D) were given to 227 college students (who took Form D twice), 33 prisoners (who took Forms C and D), and 95 substance abusers (who took Form C twice). All were asked to answer honestly, then retake these tests to appear in a better light. Significant differences in Motivational Distortion scores were found between test and retest in each group.     

Psychophysiological Reactions to the Response Phase of the Rorschach and 16PF

Sylvia Anthony. The Discovery of Death in Childhood and After. New York: Basic Books, 1972, $6.95. Reviewed by Louise Bates Ames

B. Klopfer, M. M. Meyer, and F. B. Brawer (Editors), Developments in the Rorschach Technique, Vol. III. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovarovich, 1970 Reviewed by A. I. Rabin

Mireille Monod, Manuel d'Application de Test du Village. (Manual for the village test). Neuchatel (Switzerland): Delachaux &; Niestle, 1970. Reviewed by S. G. Vandenberg

Florence Roswell and Gladys Natchez. Reading Disability: Diagnosis and Treatment. (2nd ed.) New York: Basic Books, 1971, 277 pages, $6.95. Reviewed by Jules C. Abrams, PhD

M. Gardiner (Ed.) The Wolf-Man by the Wolf-Man. New York: Basic Books, 1971, 370 pages, $10.00. Reviewed by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi

N. J. Hale, Jr. Freud and The Americans – The Beginnings of Psychoanalysis in the United States, 1876–1917. New York: Oxford, 1971, 574 pages, $15.00. Reviewed by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi