Abstract
Abstract. The need for efficient personality inventories has led to the wide use of short instruments. The corresponding items often contain multiple, potentially conflicting descriptors within one item. In Study 1 (N = 198 university students), the reliability and validity of the TIPI (Ten-Item Personality Inventory) was compared with the reliability and validity of a modified TIPI based on items that rephrased each two-descriptor item into two single-descriptor items. In Study 2 (N = 268 university students), we administered the BFI-10 (Big Five Inventory short version) and a similarly modified version of the BFI-10 without two-descriptor items. In both studies, reliability and construct validity values occasionally improved for separated multi-descriptor items. The inventories with multi-descriptor items showed shortcomings in some factors of the TIPI and the BFI-10. However, the other scales worked comparably well in the original and modified inventories. The limitations of short personality inventories with multi-descriptor items are discussed.
References
(1996). Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 390–399. doi: 10.1086/297760
(2008). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar
[NEO-Five-Factor-Inventory] (2nd ed.). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod-matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016
(1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412985642
(2008). Little more than personality: Dispositional determinants of test anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 258–263. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.09.002
(1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
(2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2015). cocor: Comparing correlations. R package (Version 1.1–2) [Software]. Duesseldorf, Germany: University of Duesseldorf. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cocor
(2004). Follow-up by mail in clinical trials. Does questionnaire length matter? Controlled Clinical Trials, 25, 31–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.013
(2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 188–205. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002
(2003). Avery brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
(2012). Short measurements of personality: Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 355–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008
(2015). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package (Version 3.17–0) [Software]. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
(2006). Assessing the Big-Five personality domains via short forms: A cautionary note and a proposal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 139–148. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.139
(2011). Prüfungsangstfragebogen (PAF) [Test-Anxiety Questionnaire]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
(1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
(1974).
A method of constructing an attitude scale . In G. M. MaranellEd., Scaling: A sourcebook for behavioral scientists (pp. 233–243). Chicago, IL: Aldine.(2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227
(2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 28–50. doi: 10.1177/1088868310366253
(1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
(2007). Construct validation of a short five-factor model instrument. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 166–175. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.166
(2001). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
(2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 212–220. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000141
(2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp. 2009.10.005
(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
(2015). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. R package (Version 1.5.8) [Software]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
(2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145–154. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
(2010). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised Relationship Maintenance Behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303. doi: 10.1177/0265407510378125
(2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 227–254. doi: 10.1207/s15327698jfc0604_1
(2014). Editorial: Comments on item selection procedures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 1–2. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000196
