The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 51
Abstract
Summary: The present study compares the higher-level dimensions and the hierarchical structures of the fifth edition of the 16 Personality Factors (16 PF 5) with those of the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R). Both inventories measure personality according to five higher-level dimensions. These inventories were, however, constructed according to different methods (bottom-up vs. top-down). Both questionnaires were filled out by 386 participants. Correlations, regressions, and canonical correlations made it possible to compare the inventories. As expected, they roughly measure the same aspects of personality. There is a coherent association among four of the five dimensions measured in the tests. However, Agreeableness, the remaining dimension in the NEO PI-R, is not represented in the 16 PF 5. Our analyses confirmed the hierarchical structures of both instruments, but this confirmation was more complete in the case of the NEO PI-R. Indeed, a parallel analysis indicated that a four-factor solution should be considered in the case of the 16 PF 5. On the other hand, the five-factor solution of the NEO PI-R was confirmed. The top-down construction of this instrument seems to make for a more legible structure. Of the two five-dimension constructs, the NEO PI-R, thus, seems the more reliable. This confirms the relevance of the Five-Factor Model of personality.
References
Allport, G.W., Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study.. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1– 171Argentero, P. (1989). Second-order factor structure of Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire.. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 1043– 1047Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality.. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 515– 524Byravan, A., Ramanaiah, N.V. (1995). Structure of the 16 PF fifth edition from the perspective of the five-factor model.. Psychological Reports, 76, 555– 560Cattell, H.E.P. (1995). Some comments on a factor analysis of the 16PF and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised.. Psychological Reports, 77, 1307– 1311Cattell, H.E.P. (1996). The original Big Five: A historical perspective.. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 46, 5– 14Cattell, R.B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters.. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476– 506Cattell, R.B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis.. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69– 90Cattell, R.B. (1947). Confirmation and classification of primary personality factors.. Psychometrika, 12, 197– 220Cattell, R.B. (1950a). The main questionnaire factors in questionnaire self-estimate material.. Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3– 38Cattell, R.B. (1950b). Personality. . New York: McGraw Hill.Cattell, R.B. (1956a). Second-order personality factors in the questionnaire realm.. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 411– 418Cattell, R.B. (1956b). Validation and intensification of the sixteen personality factor questionnaire.. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 204– 214Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. . New York: World Book.Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition. . Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Cattell, R.B. Cattell, H.E.P. (1995). Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16PF.. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 926– 937Cattell, R.B. Eber, H.W., Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970). The handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. . Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Chernyshenko, O.S. Stark, S., Chan, K.Y. (2001). Investigating the hierarchical factor structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: An application of the Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization procedure.. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2, 290– 302Conn, S.R., Rieke, M.L. Eds. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. . Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1976). Age differences in personality structure: A cluster analytic approach.. Journal of Gerontology, 31, 564– 570Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five personality factors; The psycholexical approach to personality. . Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417– 440Eysenck, H.J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? - Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm.. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773– 790Frew, E.A., Shaw, R.N. (1999). The relationship between personality, gender, and tourism behavior.. Tourism Management, 20, 193– 202Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26– 42Hofer, S.M. Horn, J.L., Eber, H.W. (1997). A robust five-factor structure of the 16PF: Strong evidence from independent rotation and confirmatory factorial invariance procedures.. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 247– 269Holland, J.L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Horn, J.L. (1965). An empirical comparison of methods for estimating factor scores.. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 25, 313– 322John, O.P. Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research.. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171– 203Johnson, J.A. (2000). Predicting observers' ratings of the Big Five from the CPI, HPI, and NEO-PI-R: A comparative validity study.. European Journal of Personality, 14, 1– 19Krug, S.E., Johns, E.F. (1986). A large-scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defines by the 16 PF.. Psychological Reports, 59, 683– 693McCrae, R.R. Zonderman, A.B. Costa, P.T. Bond, M.H. Paunonen, S.V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552– 566McKenzie, J. Tindell, G. French, J. (1997). The great triumvirate: Agreement between lexically and psycho-physiologically based models of personality.. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 269– 277Meyer de Stadelhofen, F. Rossier, J. Rigozzi, C. Zimmermann, G., Berthoud, S. (submitted). Validation de la version française de l'inventaire Rationnel-Experientiel (REI) et application au tabagisme ‘Validation of a French version of the Rational-Experiential Inventory and its application to the study of tobacco smoking’..Mogenet, J.-L., Rolland, J.-P. (1995). 16 PF 5 de R.B. Cattell. . Paris: Éditions du Center de Psychologie Appliquées.O'Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test.. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396– 402Ormerod, M.B. McKenzie, J., Woods, A. (1995). Final report on research relating to the concept of five separate dimensions of personality - or six including intelligence.. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 451– 461Peabody, D., Goldberg, L.R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552– 567Raykov, T. (1998). On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in personality research.. Personality & Individual Differences, 24, 291– 293Rolland, J.-P., Mogenet, J.-L. (1996). Éléments de validité des dimensions primaires de l'adaptation française de l'inventaire 16 PF 5 ‘Evidence of the primary dimensions of the 16PF5 Franch form’.. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 46, 25– 30Rolland, J.-P. Parker, W.D., Stumpf, H. (1998). A psychometric examination of the French translations of the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI.. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71, 269– 291Rolland, J.-P., Petot, J.M. (1998). NEO PI-R, Inventaire de Personnalité-Révisé ‘Manual of the NEO PI-R, Franch adaptation’. Paris: Éditions du Center de Psychologie Appliquée.Rossier, J. Rigozzi, C., Berthoud, S. (2002). Validation de la version française de l'échelle de contrôle de Levenson (IPC), influence de variables démographiques et de la personnalité ‘Validation of the French translation of Levenson's locus of control scale (IPC), influence of demographic variables and personality’.. Annales Médico-Psychologiques, 160, 138– 148Rossier, J. Wenger, S., Berthoud, S. (2001). Validation de la version française du NEO PI-R et influence de l'âge, du sexe et de la profession ‘Internal validation of the French version of the NEO PI-R and impact of age, gender, and profession’.. Psychologie et Psychométrie, 22, 59– 82Saville, P., Blinkhorn, S. (1981). Reliability, homogeneity and the construct validity of Cattell's 16PF.. Personality & Individual Differences, 2, 325– 333Schmit, M.J., Ryan, A.M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations.. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966– 974Trull, T.J., Geary, D.C. (1997). Comparison of the Big-Five Factor structure across samples of Chinese and American adults.. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 324– 341
