Person-Fit to the Five Factor Model of Personality
Abstract
The Five Factor Model (FFM), a valid model of interindividual differences in the personality of a group of people, reportedly does not always provide a good fit for the individuals of that group. In addition to intraindividual variation across a considerable period of time, meaningful intraindividual variation can be observed within a single test administration. Two person-fit indices showed that the FFM is an adequate model for 95% of the 1,765 target-judge pairs in four different countries (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Germany): the double-entry intraclass correlation (ICCDE), which indicated that the 30 NEO PI-R scores on scales measuring the same personality trait are more similar and certainly less different than scores measuring different traits, and the individual contribution to the extracted eigenvalues (Zeig). The individual response pattern to the personality questionnaire characterized by the ICCDE and Zeig strongly determined the percentage of explained variance for the group-level factor structure of interindividual differences and the mean self-observer profile agreement. We demonstrate that, if the percentage of variance explained by the first five principal components is high enough, the FFM also provides an adequate fit at the individual level for most people.
References
(2002). A Five-Factor Theory perspective. In , The Five Factor Model of personality across cultures (pp. 303–322). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
(2010). How people see others is different from how people see themselves: A replicable pattern across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 870–882.
(2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17, 327–346.
(2010). Trait and source factors in HEXACO-PI-R self- and observer reports. European Journal of Personality, 24, 278–289.
(2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366.
(1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistency in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520.
(2009). Effects of self-enhancement on agreement on personality profiles. European Journal of Personality, 23, 107–123.
(2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203–219.
(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
(1974). Transituational consistency as a dimension of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 593–600.
(2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452.
(1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.
(2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523–562.
(1969). rc: A profile similarity coefficient invariant over variable reflection. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 281–284.
(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
(2010). Conscientiousness in the workplace: Applying mixture IRT to investigate scalability and predictive validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 232–244.
(1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 360–392.
(1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
(1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlisten NEO-PI-R en NEO-FF-I: Handleigin [
NEO Personality Questionnaire NEO-PI-R and NEO-FF-I: User manual ]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.(2002). Internal consistency of the Czech version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 46, 521–535.
(2000). The Estonian version of the NEO-PI-R: An examination of universal and culture-specific aspects of the Five-Factor Model. European Journal of Personality, 14, 265–278.
(2003). Comparing the aberrant response detection performance of thirty-six person-fit statistics. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 277–298.
(2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549–566.
(2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001–1053.
(1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
(2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In , Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 273–294). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
(2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 179–201.
(1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
(1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.
(2001). Methodology review: Evaluating person-fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 107–135.
(2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.
(2007). Does personality vary across ability levels? A study using self and other ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 155–170.
(2006). Toward more readable Big Five personality inventories. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 149–157.
(2004). NEO-PI-R: NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae [
NEO Personality Inventory according to Costa and McCrae ]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.(1993). Traitedness and the assessment of response pattern scalability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 143–151.
(1999). Assessing the fit of measurement models at the individual level: A comparison of item response theory and covariance structure approaches. Psychological Methods, 4, 3–21.
(1990). Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 271–282.
