Despite the empirical robustness of the S-factor model of personality, recent confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) data suggest they do not fit the hypothesized model. In a replication study of 229 adults, a series of CFAs showed that Revised NEO-PI scales are not simple-structured but do approximate the normative 5-factor structure. CFA goodness-offit indices, however, were not high. Comparability analyses showed that no more than 5 factors were replicable, which calls into question some assumptions underlying the use of CFA. An alternative method that uses targeted rotation was presented and illustrated with data from Chinese and Japanese versions of the Revised NEO-PI that clearly replicated the 5-factor structure.If an aeronautical engineer announced that the latest supercomputer simulation proved that monoplanes cannot fly, we would not rush to ground the airfleets of the world. We would instead conclude that the computer simulation was fatally flawed. It is the essence of empiricism that conceptual models, no matter how mathematically elegant, are abandoned when they fail to lead to accurate predictions of known facts. In this article we argue that maximum likelihood confirmatory factor

No abstract

The authors compared the Big 5 factors of personality with the facets or traits of personality that constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria. Both the broad factors and the narrow facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard, even when the number of facet predictors was limited to the number of factor predictors. Moreover, the criterion variance accounted for by the personality facets often included large portions not predicted by the personality factors. The narrow facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum prediction achieved by the broad factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more detailed approach to personality assessment, one that goes beyond the measurement of the Big 5 factors alone.

In this study, we examined relations between the performance of first-level managers in a large food service company and their affective commitment (i.e., emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization), continuance commitment (i.e., perceived costs associated with leaving the company), and job satisfaction. Commitment and satisfaction scores were correlated with three indexes of performance obtained from the managers' immediate supervisors. As predicted, affective commitment correlated positively and continuance commitment correlated negatively with all three measures of performance. Job satisfaction did not correlate significantly with performance ratings. The findings are interpreted as illustrating the importance of distinguishing between commitment based on desire and commitment based on need and as supporting organizational efforts to foster affective commitment in their employees.

Two studies evaluated personality trait measures and Big Five factor measures for their accuracy in predicting important behavior criteria. The results of both studies showed that the narrower traits and the broader factors, thought to define 2 levels of a hierarchy of personality variables, separately predicted most criterion variables. However, the incremental validity of the personality txait measures (the degree to which the traits increased the criterion prediction achieved by the factors) was generally much larger than the incremental validity of the Big Five factor measures. It was concluded that aggregating personality traits into their underlying personality factors could result in decreased predictive accuracy due to the loss of trait-specific but criterion-valid variance.