A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages

Standard psycholexical studies of personality structure have produced a similar 6-factor solution in 7 languages (Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Polish). The authors report the content of these personality dimensions and interpret them as follows: (a) a variant of Extraversion, defined by sociability and liveliness (though not by bravery and toughness); (b) a variant of Agreeableness, defined by gentleness, patience, and agreeableness (but also including anger and ill temper at its negative pole); (c) Conscientiousness (emphasizing organization and discipline rather than moral conscience); (d) Emotionality (containing anxiety, vulnerability, sentimentality, lack of bravery, and lack of toughness, but not anger or ill temper); (e) Honesty-Humility; (f) Intellect/Imagination/Unconventionality. A potential reorganization of the Big Five factor structure is discussed.     

Factorial Validity of the Personality Adjective Checklist in a Dutch-Speaking Sample

We examined the factorial structure of the Dutch version of the Personality Adjective Checklist (PACL–D) in a Belgian sample of 3,012 community-dwelling adults. Exploratory factor analyses revealed a 5-factor structure (Neurotic, Aggressive/Dominant, Introverted vs. Extraverted, Conscientious, and Cooperative), that showed considerable overlap with 3 of the Big Five factors (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness). Moreover, the 5-factor structure closely resembled the structure found in the original American PACL and was equivalent across gender and age.     

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the pervasive developmental disorders rating scale for young children with autistic disorder

In this study, the authors examined the construct validity of the Pervasive Developmental Disorder Rating Scale (PDDRS; R. C. Eaves, 1993), which is a screening instrument used to identify individuals with autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders. The PDDRS is purported to measure 3 factors--arousal, affect, and cognition-that collectively make up the construct of autism. Using scores from 199 children (aged 1-6 years) diagnosed with autistic disorder, the authors submitted data to exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. In the 1st series of analyses, the authors analyzed a user-specified 3-factor solution using principal axis factor analysis with a promax rotation to evaluate the assertion of a correlated 3-factor structure. Next, the authors analyzed 1-factor and 2-factor solutions to determine if they provided a better factor structure for the data. In the 2nd series, the authors conducted confirmatory factor analyses, which compared the theorized hierarchical 2nd-order factor model with 5 plausible competing models. The results of the exploratory analyses supported the 3-factor solution. With the confirmatory analyses, the 2nd-order factor model provided the best fit for the data. The exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported the theoretical assumptions undergirding the development of the PDDRS. The authors discuss theoretical implications, practical implications, and areas for further research.     

Confirmatory factor analyses of the WAIS-III standardization data

Confirmatory factor analyses with the standardization data of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (Wechsler, 1997a) compared 6 models with 1 to 4 factors for 11- and 13-subtest versions of the test. Three factors usually fit the data better than 2 factors, but 2-factor models were more parsimonious. A 2-factor model with a Verbal Comprehension factor (Vocabulary, Similarities, Information, and Comprehension) was as good as and sometimes better than the 2-factor model defined by the traditional separation of Verbal and Performance subtests. For 3-factor models, alternative specifications of processing speed subtests on either the Perceptual Organization or Freedom From Distractibility factor were comparable, and specifying a 4th factor for Digit Symbol and Symbol Search had little advantage in comparison with 3-factor models with correlated errors for the 2 subtests.     

Viewing the MMPI–2–RF Structure Through the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) Lens

Ben-Porath and Tellegen (2008) recommend organizing MMPI–2–RF scale interpretive information around 3 broad topics, emotional/internalizing dysfunction, thought dysfunction, and externalizing/behavioral dysfunction, and 3 additional topics labeled somatic complaints, interpersonal functioning, and interests. That organization is based primarily on structural analyses of the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales. This study reviewed the MMPI–2–RF's scale structure when the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) scales are included. Principal axis factor analyses with oblique rotation were conducted on the Restructured Clinical, PSY–5, and Special Problem (SP) scales in 2 samples, by gender. One sample was an outpatient community health center, the other a large, metropolitan inpatient psychiatric facility. The 6-factor solution evidenced each of the PSY–5 constructs plus a general somatic concerns factor. Implications of this solution in comparison to the 3-factor organizing structure recommended by Ben-Porath and Tellegen are discussed.     

Measuring cancer patients' psychological distress and well-being: a factor analytic assessment of the Mental Health Inventory

This study examined the psychometric structure of the Mental Health Inventory (MHI) in 433 cancer patients. Using structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted. Next, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore an alternative MHI factor structure with a randomly chosen subsample. Finally, CFAs were conducted on 6 MHI models with the second subsample. Convergent validity was examined by administering the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). The CFAs with the original MHI factor structure indicated inadequate fit, supporting the need to conduct an EFA. Results of the EFA indicated support for a 5-factor solution but numerous differences in item factor loadings. The CFA indicated that the 5-factor correlated model was the best fitting model. Correlations between the PANAS and the DAS with the MHI provided preliminary support for the convergent validity of the MHI. Together, these results indicate that the original MHI factor structure may require modification for use in patients with cancer.     

WAIS-R factor structure in Alzheimer's disease patients: a comparison of alternative models and an assessment of their generalizability

The WAIS-R is often used in neuropsychological evaluations of individuals with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its factor structure in this population is unknown. Moreover, theories and past research findings make competing predictions concerning its structure. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors compared 5 alternative WAIS-R factor models among 516 AD patients: 1-factor (Spearman's g) and 2-factor (Verbal IQ and Performance IQ) models; a 3-factor model including Verbal Comprehension (VC), Perceptual Organization (PO), and Freedom From Distractibility (FD) factors; a 3-factor model in which Digit Symbol loads on PO rather than FD; and a 3-factor model in which Digit Symbol loads on both PO and FD. Results favored the 3-factor model in which Digit Symbol loads on PO rather than FD. Moreover, this model fit the data best among subsamples of patients defined by age, dementia severity, years of education, and gender.     

Factor structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: a parent rating scale of Oppositional Defiant Behavior Toward Adults, Inattentive Behavior, and Conduct Problem Behavior

Used the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) to measure disruptive behavior problems in children and adolescents. A controversy exists, however, on the dimensional structure of the ECBI. To evaluate this issue, an exploratory factor analysis was first performed on a sample of 1,263 children and adolescents. This analysis identified 3 meaningful factors (i.e., Oppositional Defiant Behavior Toward Adults, Inattentive Behavior and Conduct Problem Behavior) and a fourth, poorly defined factor. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated the fit of the 3 meaningful factors in a second sample of 1,264 children and adolescents. The 3-factor model with 2 correlated errors provided a excellent fit. This 3-factor model also provided a significantly better fit than 2- and 1-factor models. Multiple group CFA indicated that the factor pattern, item-factor loadings, factor correlations, and correlated errors were equivalent across the samples. The CFA on sex yielded similar results. Initial normative information is presented for boys (n = 1,322) and girls (n = 1,205) within 4 age ranges (i.e., 2-5, 6-9, 10-13, 14-17) for the 3 factors. The use of these 3 factors, especially Oppositional Defiant Behavior and Conduct Problem Behavior, should make the ECBI more useful as a screening and outcome measure.     

Psychometric analysis of the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist: factor structure of occurrence and reaction ratings

A modified version of the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist (RMBPC; L. Teri et al., 1992) was administered across 6 different sites to 1,229 family caregivers of community-dwelling adults with dementia. The total sample was divided randomly into 2 subsamples. Principal components analyses on occurrence responses and reaction ratings from the first subsample resulted in a 3-factor solution that closely resembled the originally proposed dimensions (memory-related problems, disruptive behaviors, and depression). Confirmatory factor analyses on data from the second subsample indicated adequate fit for the 3-factor model. Correlations with other caregiver and care-recipient measures supported the convergent and discriminant validity of the RMBPC measures. In addition, female caregivers and White caregivers reported more problems, on average, than male caregivers and African American caregivers, respectively.     

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.     

On the dimensionality of the stress-related growth scale: one, three, or seven factors?

We examined the factorial validity and dimensionality of the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996) using a large multiethnic sample (n = 1,070). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that a multidimensional representation of the SRGS fit better than a unidimensional representation. Specifically, we cross-validated both a 3-factor model and a 7-factor model using confirmatory factor analysis and were shown to be invariant across gender and ethnic groups. The 3-factor model was represented by global dimensions of growth that included rational/mature thinking, affective/emotional growth, and religious/spiritual growth. We replicated the 7-factor model of Armeli, Gunthert, and Cohen (2001) and it represented more specific components of growth such as Self-Understanding and Treatment of Others. However, some factors of the 7-factor model had questionable internal consistency and were strongly intercorrelated, suggesting redundancy. The findings support the notion that the factor structure of both the original 1-factor and revised 7-factor models are unstable and that the 3-factor model developed in this research has more reliable psychometric properties and structure.     

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.     

Validity of the V. C. Aeronautics Aptitude Test and the O. E. Scientific Aptitude Test

An hierarchical factor solution was obtained on correlations among WISC and ITPA subtests for 110 reading disabled children. The ability hierarchy which included a general (g) factor, two subgeneral factors, and five primary factors was arranged in a manner congruent with Vernon's structural paradigm. The g-factor was defined by a moderate but distinct pattern of positive loadings from WISC and ITPA subtests. At the subgeneral level a verbal-educational factor was defined by verbal WISC and ITPA subtests, and a spatial-perceptual-mechanical factor was defined by WISC performance and ITPA visual subtests. Three primary factors—freedom from distractibility, verbal precision, and quasi-specific—were defined by WISC subtests. Two primary factors—automatic processes and representational processes—were defined by ITPA subtests.     

Dimensionality of the Beck Anxiety Inventory in a Polytrauma Sample of OEF/OIF/OND Veterans: Findings From Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is commonly used as a screening instrument for symptoms of anxiety in clinical settings. The factor structure has been researched in a variety of different clinical settings with results ranging from a 2- to 5-factor structure. The purpose of this study was to explore the factor structure of this instrument in a polytrauma veteran sample. A sample of 304 veterans was used for this study. All subjects were administered the BAI screening measure as part of an evaluation in an outpatient polytrauma clinic. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for half of the sample, followed by confirmatory factor analysis for the remaining sample to determine the best model. Factor analyses revealed that a 5-factor model provided a best fit. It is interesting to note that previously identified models of the BAI with other types of samples did not provide the best fit for this polytrauma sample. The BAI may provide additional information for clinicians when examining the 5-factor model with veterans in polytrauma settings. The factor structure of the BAI includes 1 factor (i.e., personal safety) that may be unique for veterans who have served in combat zones.     

Psychometric characteristics of the Parenting Scale in a head start population.

Examined the reliability, construct, and concurrent validity of the Parenting Scale (PS), a brief instrument designed to measure dysfunctional parenting practices for parents of young children. In Study 1, 183 primarily African American mothers and their Head Start children completed the PS. The PS, which consists of 3 subscales--Laxness, Overreactivity, and Verbosity--was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Neither the original 3-factor structure, nor a 2-factor structure consisting of the original Laxness and Overreactivity factors, fit the data. A subsequent exploratory factor analysis yielded a 2-factor solution that was generally consistent with the Overreactivity and Laxness subscales identified by Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker (1993). The 2-factor CFA solution was replicated with a sample of 216 similar mothers, and the 5-item Overreactivity and Laxness subscales retained internal consistencies above .70. Analysis of the convergent validity of the modified PS and its 2 subscales revealed moderate associations with measures of permissiveness, authoritarianism, involvement, and limit setting. Scores on the PS were not correlated significantly with measures of social desirability, maternal education level, or parent report of internalizing behavior problems. Concurrent validity evidence was obtained by correlating the PS with measures of parenting satisfaction and support, parenting stress, maternal depression, and measures of externalizing child behavior problems.     

The QCAE: a Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy

Empathy has been inconsistently defined and inadequately measured. This research aimed to produce a new and rigorously developed questionnaire. Exploratory (n? = 640) and confirmatory (n? = 318) factor analyses were employed to develop the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE). Principal components analysis revealed 5 factors (31 items). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this structure in an independent sample. The hypothesized 2-factor structure (cognitive and affective empathy) was tested and provided the best and most parsimonious fit to the data. Gender differences, convergent validity, and construct validity were examined. The QCAE is a valid tool for assessing cognitive and affective empathy.     

Cross-validation of Levenson's Psychopathy Scale in a sample of federal female inmates

Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick's Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRPS) is evaluated to determine the factor structure and concurrent validity of the instrument among 430 federal female inmates. Confirmatory factor analysis fails to validate the expected 2-factor structure. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis reveals a 3-factor structure (egocentric, antisocial, and callous), where each factor accounts for significant variance in scores on several theoretically relevant measures. Higher scores on the antisocial factor of the LSRPS are associated with a history of varied psychopathological and negative legal outcomes, suggesting evidence of concurrent validity. However, the egocentric and callous factors do not seem to measure precisely the same construct as the primary psychopathy factor from the Levenson et al. study. The 3-factor structure proposed here has been proposed by other researchers and found in other samples of psychopathy in female inmates. Implications for both research and clinical practice using the LSRPS with female inmates are discussed.     

Exploring the Hierarchical Structure of the MMPI–2–RF Personality Psychopathology Five in Psychiatric Patient and University Student Samples

In this study our goal was to examine the hierarchical structure of personality pathology as conceptualized by Harkness and McNulty's (1994) Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) model, as recently operationalized by the MMPI–2–RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2011) PSY–5r scales. We used Goldberg's (2006) “bass-ackwards” method to obtain factor structure using PSY–5r item data, successively extracting from 1 to 5 factors in a sample of psychiatric patients (n = 1,000) and a sample of university undergraduate students (n = 1,331). Participants from these samples had completed either the MMPI–2 or the MMPI–2–RF. The results were mostly consistent across the 2 samples, with some differences at the 3-factor level. In the patient sample a factor structure representing 3 broad psychopathology domains (internalizing, externalizing, and psychoticism) emerged; in the student sample the 3-factor level represented what is more commonly observed in “normal-range” personality models (negative emotionality, introversion, and disconstraint). At the 5-factor level the basic structure was similar across the 2 samples and represented well the PSY–5r domains.