Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Originalia

Zur Replizierbarkeit und Interkorrelationsstruktur der Faktoren im revidierten NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar (NEO-PI-R) und Trierer Integrierten Persönlichkeitsinventar (TIPI)

Published Online:January 01, 2004https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.50.1.39

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Protagonisten des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit vertreten häufig die Annahme, dass es sich bei den Big Five um gut replizierbare und unabhängige Faktoren handele. Diese Hypothesen werden am Beispiel der deutschen Version des revidierten NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventars (NEO-PI-R) und des Trierer Integrierten Persönlichkeitsinventars (TIPI) sowohl durch eine Literaturanalyse als auch in einer empirischen Studie an 255 Erwachsenen überprüft. Dabei gelangt eine konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse mit simultaner Bestimmung von fünf NEO-PI-R- und vier TIPI-Faktoren zur Anwendung. Es zeigt sich, dass - von Verfahren abgesehen, die explizit am Vorbild des NEO-PI-R orientiert sind - weder die vom NEO-PI-R erfassten Big Five in anderen diagnostischen Verfahren exakt repliziert werden noch die NEO-PI-R Big Five unabhängig sind.


About invariance and intercorrelation of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Trier Integrated Personality Inventory (TIPI)

Abstract. Many protagonists of the five factor model of personality assume that the Big Five are easily replicable and independent factors. These hypotheses are scrutinised by an analysis of the relevant literature and an empirical study with 255 adults in which the German version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Trier Integrated Personality Inventory (TIPI) were applied. The author uses a variant of confirmatory factor analysis in which five NEO-PI-R and four TIPI factors are simultaneously extracted. First, it is shown that the Big Five, as represented by the NEO-PI-R, are not exactly replicated in other diagnostic instruments apart from instruments that were modelled on the NEO-PI-R. Second, it is shown that the NEO-PI-R Big Five are not independent factors.

Literatur

  • Amelang, M. Bartussek, D. (2001). Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung (5., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage) . Stuttgart: Kohlhammer First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Barbaranelli, C. Caprara, G. V. (2002). Studies of the Big Five Questionnaire. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 109-128). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, P. (1999). Das Fünf-Faktoren-Modell der Persönlichkeit: Eine Zwischenbilanz. In W. Hacker & M. Rinck (Hrsg.), Zukunft gestalten. Bericht über den 41. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Dresden 1998 (S. 191-203). Lengerich: Pabst First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, P. (2002). Das Trierer Integrierte Persönlichkeitsinventar. Entwicklung des Verfahrens und vergleichende psychometrische Analysen nach dem ordinalen Rasch-Modell und der klassischen Testtheorie. Diagnostica, 48, 68– 79 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Becker, P. (2003). Das Trierer Integrierte Persönlichkeitsinventar TIPI. Testmanual . Göttingen: Hogrefe First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, P. Kupsch, M. (2002). The Four-plus-X Factor model for the description of normal and disordered personality as an alternative to the Five-Factor model: A test of two models. Trierer Psychologische Berichte, 29, Heft 1 Universität Trier. Fachbereich I-Psychologie First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Borkenau, 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– 524 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Caruso, J. C. Cliff, N. (1997). An examination of the five-factor model of normal personality variation with reliable component analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 317– 325 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cattell, R. B. (1995). The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere. The Psychologist, 8, 207– 208 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Church, A. T. Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen´s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93– 114 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Costa, P. T. J. McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Professional Manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Costa, P. T. J. McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21– 50 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five Personality Factors. The psycholexical approach to personality . Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • De Raad, B. Perugini, M. (2002a). Big Five factor assessment: Introduction. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 1-26). Bern: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • De Raad, B. Perugini, M. (2002b). Big Five Assessment . Bern: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246– 1256 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gerbing, D. W. Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 572– 580 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Guadagnoli, E. Velicer, W. (1991). A comparison of pattern matching indices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 323– 343 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hendriks, A. A. J. Hofstee, W. K. B. De Raad, B. (2002). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Assessing the Big Five by means of brief and concrete statements. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 79-108). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hofer, S. M. Eber, H. W. (2002). Second-order factor structure of the Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 397-409). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hogan, R. Hogan, J. (2002). The Six Factor Personality Questionnaire. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hu, L. Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424– 453 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jackson, D. N. Tremblay, P. F. (2002). The Six Factor Personality Questionnaire. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 353-375). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • John, O. P. Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research. 2nd Edition (pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • MacCallum, R. C. Widaman, K. F. Zhang, S. Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84– 99 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. Balla, J. R. McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391– 410 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modelling . London: Sage First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the Five-Factor Model: Joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology (pp. 237-245). New York: Springer First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R. Costa, P. T. J. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509– 516 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R. John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175– 215 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R. Zonderman, A. B. Costa, P. T. J. 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– 566 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mulaik, S. A. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis . New York: McGraw-Hill First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ostendorf, F. Angleitner, A. (1994). A comparison of different instruments proposed to measure the Big Five. European Review of Applied Psychology, 44, 45– 53 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ostendorf, F. Angleitner, A. (in Druck) NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae, revidierte Form (NEO-PI-R) . Göttingen: Hogrefe First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Panter, A. T. Tanaka, J. S. Hoyle, R. H. (1994). Structural models for multimode designs in personality and temperament research. In C. R. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 118-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Parker, J. D. A. Bagby, R. M. Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 463– 466 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Perugini, M. Di Blas, L. (2002). The Big Five Marker Scales (BFMS) and the Italian AB5C taxonomy: Analyses from an eticemic perspective. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 281-304). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Saucier, G. Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the Big Five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 29-58). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schutte, N. S. Malouff, J. M. Segrera, E. Wolf, A. Rodgers, L. (2003). States reflecting the Big Five dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 591– 603 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trull, T. J. Widiger, T. A. (2002). The Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model of Personality (SIFFM). In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 147-170). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Walker, A. J. (1997). Thesaurus of psychological index terms. Eighth edition . Washington: American Psychological Association First citation in articleGoogle Scholar