NEO Facet Research Articles

Validation française du Big Five Inventory à 10 items (BFI-10)

ObjectiveOur primary objective was to validate the French version of the BFI-10, an ultra-short ten-item version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991), which allows for a reasonably accurate assessment of personality in circumstances in which more in-depth assessment is not possible. In order to reach a thorough evaluation of the external validity, we also aimed to examine the bandwidth of the BFI-10 scales with reference to the study by De Young, Quilty and Peterson (2007) who distinguished between two aspects in each of the Big Five: Assertiveness and Enthusiasm for Extraversion; Compassion and Politeness for Agreeability; Orderliness and Productiveness for Conscientiousness; Withdrawal and Volatility for Negative Emotionality, and finally Openness to Aesthetics and Openness to Ideas for Open-Mindedness. Our concern with regard to bandwidth was to examine whether the BFI-10 scales have strong enough correlations with both aspects of each domain. MethodsParticipants. Data from four samples were analysed: Sample 1 comprised 2499 undergraduate students (1654 women) who completed the full BFI in university classes; Sample 2 comprised 13,306 participants (8471 women) who filled out the BFI-10 ten items online via Internet; Sample 3 comprised 143 undergraduate students (115 women) who completed the full BFI twice with a two-week interval; Sample 4 comprised 360 undergraduate students (183 women) who filled out the BFI and NEO PI-R. Instruments. The French version of the Big Five Inventory is a 45-item inventory, which measures the five broader domains of personality. The ultrashort Ten-item Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) was developed simultaneously in German and English by Rammstedt and John (2007); it comprises five two-item scales measuring the big five domains. The Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa et McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item questionnaire which assesses the big five domains and 30 lower-order facets, i.e. six facets per domain. Statistical analyses. Factor structure and reliability of the five two-item scales were first investigated on samples 1 and 3. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on samples 1 and 2, and discriminant validity was assessed via comparison with the NEO PI-R (sample 4). In order to examine the bandwidth of the BFI-10 two-item scales, we studied their correlation not only with the NEO PI-R domains but also with the 30 facets. ResultsThe CFAs showed the good fit of the five-factor structure, with RMSEA=.077 (.072), CFI=.974 (.956), and SRMR=.029 (.027) in samples 1 and 2 respectively. Multigroup CFA conducted in groups 1 and 2 showed invariance across gender of factor loadings and item intercepts. Test-retest reliability was satisfactory with rs ranging from .68 (Open-Mindedness) to .86 (Extraversion and Negative Emotionality). The comparison of the two-item scales with the NEO PI-R scales showed high correlations not only with the NEO domain scales, but also with several facets: Four BFI-10 two-item scales (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Negative Emotionality, and Open-Mindedness) were highly correlated with at least three of the six NEO facet scales in each domain. For Agreeableness, the magnitude of correlations was smaller, but the pattern of correlations was the same. All BFI-10 scales had at least moderate correlations with both aspects of each domain, with the exception of Negative Emotionality, which measured the NEO Withdrawal aspect better than Volatility. ConclusionThe French version of the BFI-10 demonstrated the expected five-factor structure, satisfactory reliability, and broad bandwidth. It could be a valuable tool for the assessment of personality in circumstances in which it is not possible to use a longer and more in-depth instrument, especially when personality is not the main focus of research but one of the variables to be controlled.

Extraversion and psychopathology: A multilevel hierarchical review

We examine relations between extraversion and psychopathology, using a four-level hierarchical structure in which the general domain is divided into two aspects (Communal Extraversion, Agentic Extraversion), four consensual facets (Sociability, Liveliness, Venturesomeness, Dominance), and six NEO facets (Gregariousness, Warmth, Positive Emotions, Activity, Excitement-Seeking, Assertiveness). Our review indicates that extraversion’s negative correlations with depression primarily reflect the aspect of Communal Extraversion, the consensual facet of Liveliness, and NEO Positive Emotions. Its negative associations with social dysfunction largely are due to the aspect of Communal Extraversion, the consensual facet of Sociability, and NEO Warmth, Gregariousness, and Positive Emotions. Finally, externalizing and mania are positively related to the aspect of Agentic Extraversion, the consensual facets of Venturesomeness and Dominance, and NEO Excitement-Seeking.

A Big Five facet analysis of a psychopath: The validity of the HDS mischievous scale of sub-clinical psychopathy.

Around 5,700 British adults completed the NEO-PI-R, which measures the Big Five Personality factors at the Domain and the Facet level, as well as the Hogan Development Survey (HDS); measure of Anti-Social Personality Disorder called Mischievous. Previous work in this field has used clinical measures of psychopathy and either student or patient samples. This sought to validate this measure by comparing NEO facet correlational results with other studies. The Mischievous score from the HDS was the criterion variable in the correlations and multiple regressions. Mischievous people were Disagreeable, Stable, Extraverts, lacking in Conscientiousness. Facet analysis showed them high on Excitement-seeking but low of Straightforwardness, Anxiety and Deliberation. Limitations are of the study are discussed.

A Big Five Facet Analysis of a Paranoid Personality Disorder

Abstract. Around 4,100 British adults completed the NEO-PI-R ( Costa & McCrae, 1985 ), which measures the Big Five Personality factors at the Domain and the Facet level, as well as the Hogan Development Survey ( Hogan & Hogan, 2009 ) measure of Paranoid Personality Disorder called Sceptical. This study sought to validate this measure by comparing NEO facet correlational results with other studies. The Sceptical score from the HDS was the criterion variable in the correlations and multiple regressions. Sceptical people were Disagreeable, Neurotic, and Conscientious. Facet analysis showed them low on Trust, Compliance, and Straightforwardness but high on Depression and Angry Hostility. Limitations of the study are discussed.

Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives.

Integrating 2 theoretical perspectives on predictor-criterion relationships, the present study developed and tested a hierarchical framework in which each five-factor model (FFM) personality trait comprises 2 DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007) facets, which in turn comprise 6 Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO facets. Both theoretical perspectives-the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma and construct correspondence-suggest that lower order traits would better predict facets of job performance (task performance and contextual performance). They differ, however, as to the relative merits of broad and narrow traits in predicting a broad criterion (overall job performance). We first meta-analyzed the relationship of the 30 NEO facets to overall job performance and its facets. Overall, 1,176 correlations from 410 independent samples (combined N = 406,029) were coded and meta-analyzed. We then formed the 10 DeYoung et al. facets from the NEO facets, and 5 broad traits from those facets. Overall, results provided support for the 6-2-1 framework in general and the importance of the NEO facets in particular.

The Validity of Cloninger's Psychobiological Model Versus the Five‐Factor Model to Predict DSM‐IV Personality Disorders in a Heterogeneous Psychiatric Sample: Domain Facet and Residualized Facet Descriptions

The validity of Cloninger's psychobiological model and the Five-Factor Model of personality to predict DSM-IV personality disorders was examined in a psychiatric in-patient sample of 130 individuals. Patients completed Dutch authorized versions of the TCI (Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993) and the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and were also administered the ADP-IV (Schotte & De Doncker, 1994), a Dutch self-report questionnaire to assess Axis-II disorders. No personality-descriptive model proved to be superior in explaining personality disorder symptoms at the higher-order level: the TCI dimensions better explained the Obsessive-Compulsive and the Narcissistic disorders, whereas the FFM accounted for more variance of the Avoidant disorder. However, differences were apparent at the lower-order level with the NEO facets out performing the TCI subscales for six to four personality disorders. FFM facet-level predictions of Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (2002) were partially confirmed, with substantially better results using residualized facet scores. A set of TCI subscale personality disorder relationships is suggested.

Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains and facets of the Five-Factor Model.

We compared the utility of several trait models for describing personality disorder in a heterogeneous clinical sample (N = 94). Participants completed the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993b), a self-report measure that assesses traits relevant to personality disorder, and two measures of the Five-Factor Model: the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). Regression analyses indicated substantial overlap between the SNAP scales and the NEO-PI-R facets. In addition, use of the NEO-PI-R facets afforded substantial improvement over the Five-Factor Model domains in predicting interview-based ratings of DSM-IV personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), such that the NEO facets and the SNAP scales demonstrated roughly equivalent levels of predictive power. Results support assessment of the full range of NEO-PI-R facets over the Five-Factor Model domains for both research and clinical use.

Assessing adolescents' personality with the NEO PI-R.

The suitability of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) to assess adolescents' personality traits was investigated in an unselected heterogeneous sample of 469 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. They were further administered the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC) to allow an examination of convergent and discriminant validity. The adult NEO PI-R factor structure proved to be highly replicable in the sample of adolescents, with all facet scales primarily loading on the expected factors, independent of the age group. Domain and facet internal consistency coefficients were comparable to those obtained in adult samples, with less than 12% of the items showing corrected item-facet correlations below absolute value .20. Although, in general, adolescents reported few difficulties with the comprehensibility of the items, they tend to report more problems with the Openness to Ideas (05) and Openness to Values (06) items. Correlations between NEO PI-R and HiPIC scales underscored the convergent and discriminant validity of the NEO facets and HiPIC scales. It was concluded that the NEO PI-R in its present form is useful for assessing adolescents' traits at the primary level, but additional research is necessary to infer the most appropriate facet level structure.

The five factor model—I. Contributions to the structure of the NEO-PI

Within the context of various studies carried out in Spain with a translation of the NEO-PI S version, the aim of this work is to present and comment on the data referring to its internal structure. Dealing with two large groups of subjects coming from the general population ( N = 1171) and university students ( N = 1444), internal consistencies of facets and domains were calculated, factor analyses for the NEO facets and for the items of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were performed separately, compound factor analyses with the NEO facets and the non-faceted domains of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were performed, and finally, correlations between the five domains were calculated. The results are similar to those found in the U.S.A. samples, as well as in German studies, and they only partly corroborate the soundness of the proposed facets—especially in the case of Extraversion. Furthermore, the orthogonality of the five NEO-PI factors is seriously called into question. This might leave space for a higher order structure.