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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Competition and cooperation in the five-factor model: individual differences in achievement orientation

The authors investigated the relationship between basic achievement orientations of competition and cooperation and the five-factor model of personality as measured by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992). They examined 2 types of competition: hypercompetition (R. M. Ryckman, B. Thornton, & J. C. Butler, 1994) and personal development competition (R. M. Ryckman, M. Hammer, L. M. Kaczor, & J. A. Gold, 1996), as conceptualized by K. Horney (1937). In a sample of 251 young adults, 14% to 38% of the variance in achievement orientations was collectively predicted by NEO-PI-R domain scales. Of NEO-PI-R predictors, Agreeableness was most important in characterizing differences between various achievement orientations; Agreeableness was negatively related to hypercompetition, positively related to cooperation, and unrelated to personal development competition. Extraversion was positively related to both cooperation and personal development competition but was unrelated to hypercompetition. In contrast, Openness and Conscientiousness were least helpful in differentiating among achievement orientations. These findings support the useful application of the NEO-PI-R in achievement research and highlight competition and cooperation as interpersonally laden achievement orientations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Work and Personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in Industrial/Organisational Psychology

L'inventaire NEO Révisé de la Personnalité (NEO-PI-R) est une mesure actuelle de 30 traits qui renvoient aux cinq facteurs de base de la personnalité normale. II a fourni des preuves de sa fidélité et de sa validité aussi bien dans des recherches théoriques qu'appliquées et plusieurs études montrent qu'il contribue à prédire la performance professionnelle. Le domaine et les facettes du NEO-PI-R sont analysés avec quelques résultats issus de son application en psychologie des organisations.
The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) is a contemporary measure of 30 traits that define the five basic factors of normal personality. In both research and applied samples it has shown evidence of reliability and validity, and several studies suggest that it has utility in the prediction of job performance. The domain and facet features of the NEO-PI-R are discussed along with some issues in its use in industrial/organisational psychology.     

Research Validity Scales for the NEO-PI-R: Additional Evidence for Reliability and Validity

We examined the reliability and validity of the research validity scales (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) for the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) in a clinical sample. The Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Support for the validity of these scales was provided by the pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations with respective Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales. Finally, PAI profiles of individuals with invalid NPM scores were found to differ significantly from those with valid NPM scores. Comparisons of the invalid profiles with profiles from other clinical samples provided additional support for the use of the NPM scale as a measure of negative impression management.     

Short measurements of personality - Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S)

In the last decade, an upward trend in the use of short measurements for personality can be observed. The goal of this study was to explore the psychometric characteristics of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S; Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005), a 15-item instrument. We compared the BFI-S with the NEO-PI-R ( [Costa and McCrae, 1992a] and [Costa and McCrae, 1992b]) in a sample of 598 German adults (mean age = 42 years). Despite shortcomings for Agreeableness, the short scales generally showed acceptable levels of: (1) internal consistency, (2) stability over a period of 18 months, (3) convergent validity in relation to the NEO-PI-R and (4) discriminant validity. We conclude that in research settings with a pronounced need for parsimony, the BFI-S offers a sufficient level of utility.     

Research Validity Scales for the NEO-PI-R: additional evidence for reliability and validity

We examined the reliability and validity of the research validity scales (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) for the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) in a clinical sample. The Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Support for the validity of these scales was provided by the pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations with respective Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales. Finally, PAI profiles of individuals with invalid NPM scores were found to differ significantly from those with valid NPM scores. Comparisons of the invalid profiles with profiles from other clinical samples provided additional support for the use of the NPM scale as a measure of negative impression management.     

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.     

Psychopathy and the Five Factor Model in a Noninstitutionalized Sample: A Domain and Facet Level Analysis

The relationship of primary and secondary psychopathic dispositions as measured by the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) Scales to NEO-PI-R domain and facet scales of the Five Factor Model (FFM) was examined in a sample (N = 463) of young adults. Previous investigations were extended by (1) addressing the relationship of higher- (i.e., domain) and lower-order (i.e., facet) FFM traits to primary and secondary psychopathy in noninstitutionalized persons, in an attempt to validate hypotheses by T. A. Widiger and D. R. Lynam (1998); (2) examining sex differences in FFM traits in relation to these two psychopathic dispositions; and (3) lending further evidence for the validity of the LSRP. LSRP primary psychopathy was marked by low Agreeableness whereas LSRP secondary psychopathy was characterized by high Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness. Although few sex differences were found between primary and secondary psychopathy, findings support the use of NEO-PI-R domain and facet scales in the identification of personality disorder.     

The Italian version of the NEO PI-R: conceptual and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation

Earlier cross-cultural research on replicability of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) suggested that personality trait structure is universal, but a recent study using an Italian translation has challenged this position. The present article re-examines the psychometric properties of the Italian NEO-PI-R and discusses the importance of orthogonal Procrustes rotation when the replicability of complex factor structures is tested. The arguments are supported by data from a slightly modified translation of the NEO-PI-R, which was administered to 575 Italian subjects. These data show a close replication of the American normative factor structure when targeted rotation is used. Further, the validity of the Italian NEO-PI-R is supported by external correlates, such as demographic variables (age, sex, education), depression, and affect scales.     

Elucidating the Construct Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory Triarchic Scales

This study sought to replicate and extend Hall and colleagues’ (2014) work on developing and validating scales from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) to index the triarchic psychopathy constructs of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. This study also extended Hall et al.'s initial findings by including the PPI Revised (PPI–R). A community sample (n = 240) weighted toward subclinical psychopathy traits and a male prison sample (n = 160) were used for this study. Results indicated that PPI–Boldness, PPI–Meanness, and PPI–Disinhibition converged with other psychopathy, personality, and behavioral criteria in ways conceptually expected from the perspective of the triarchic psychopathy model, including showing very strong convergent and discriminant validity with their Triarchic Psychopathy Measure counterparts. These findings further enhance the utility of the PPI and PPI–R in measuring these constructs.     

Resilience is a good predictor of hopelessness even after accounting for stressful life events, mood and personality (NEO-PI-R)

A better understanding of the relation between protection and vulnerability may advance our understanding of mental health. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the incremental validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) as a predictor for level of hopelessness. A healthy sample (N = 532) completed the Beck Hopelessness Scale, a list of Stressful Life Events (SLE), the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25), NEO-PI-R (NEO Personality Inventory Revised) and the RSA. The relations between the variables were explored with correlations and multiple hierarchical regression analyses. The results indicated that the RSA measures important protective factors that significantly predict lower levels of hopelessness even when accounting for age, gender, SLE, HSCL-25 and NEO-PI-R. This study supports the notion that the protective resilience factors in the RSA have unique contributions over and above established constructs of stressful life events, depressive and anxiety symptoms and personality in predicting hopelessness, supporting the incremental validity of the RSA.