We examined data (N = 34,108) on the differential reliability and validity of facet scales from the NEO Inventories. We evaluated the extent to which (a) psychometric properties of facet scales are generalizable across ages, cultures, and methods of measurement; and (b) validity criteria are associated with different forms of reliability. Composite estimates of facet scale stability, heritability, and cross-observer validity were broadly generalizable. Two estimates of retest reliability were independent predictors of the three validity criteria; none of three estimates of internal consistency was. Available evidence suggests the same pattern of results for other personality inventories. Internal consistency of scales can be useful as a check on data quality, but appears to be of limited utility for evaluating the potential validity of developed scales, and it should not be used as a substitute for retest reliability. Further research on the nature and determinants of retest reliability is needed. KeywordsReliability; validity; cross-national; Five-Factor Model; personality traits Scale reliability is commonly said to limit validity (John & Soto, 2007); in principle, more reliable scales should yield more valid assessments (although of course reliability is not sufficient to guarantee validity). For a given set of scales, such as the 30 facets of the NEO Inventories (McCrae & Costa, in press), there is differential reliability: Some facets are more reliable than others. That fact makes it possible to test the maxim that reliability limits validity, provided that criteria of validity are chosen that are comparable across all facet scales: More reliable facets ought to be more valid. We will argue that three relevant criteria are longitudinal stability, heritability, and cross-observer agreement. Each of the 30 NEO facets is known to be more or less stable (Costa, Herbst, McCrae, & Siegler, 2000) and heritable (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998), and to show evidence of some degree of cross-observer agreement (McCrae et al., 2004); however, other things being equal, more reliable facets should be more stable and heritable, and show stronger evidence NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript of consensual validity. There are, however, different forms of reliability, of which internal consistency and retest reliability are the most prominent. In the present article we (a) assemble evidence on the stability, heritability, and cross-observer validity of NEO facets from the published literature; and (b) predict these values from estimates of internal consistency and retest reliability. These analyses allow us to assess the relative importance of these two forms of reliability.In this article we construe validity broadly to refer to the quality of a scale as a measure of its intended construct. However, our discussion is limited to a consideration of convergent validity; readers should recall that discriminant validity is also an essential attribute of a good sc...
This study examined whether universality of the 5-factor model (FFM) of personality operationalized by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory is due to genetic influences that are invariant across diverse nations. Factor analyses were conducted on matrices of phenotypic, genetic, and environmental correlations estimated in a sample of 1,209 monozygotic and 701 dizygotic twin pairs from Canada, Germany, and Japan. Five genetic and environmental factors were extracted for each sample. High congruence coefficients were observed when phenotypic, genetic, and environmental factors were compared in each sample as well as when each factor was compared across samples. These results suggest that the FFM has a solid biological basis and may represent a common heritage of the human species.
In the literature on achievement goals, performance-approach goals (striving to do better than others) and performance-avoidance goals (striving to avoid doing worse than others) tend to exhibit a moderate to high correlation, raising questions about whether the 2 goals represent distinct constructs. In the current article, we sought to examine the separability of these 2 goals using a broad factor-analytic approach that attended to issues that have been overlooked or underexamined in prior research. Five studies provided strong evidence for the separation of these 2 goal constructs: Separation was observed not only with exploratory factor analysis across different age groups and countries (Studies 1a and 1b) but also with change analysis (Study 2), ipsative factor analysis (Study 3), within-person analysis (Study 4), and behavioral genetics analysis (Study 5). We conclude by discussing the implications of the present research for the achievement goal literature, as well as the psychological literature in general.
J. M. Digman (1997) proposed that the Big Five personality traits showed a higher-order structure with 2 factors he labeled α and β. These factors have been alternatively interpreted as heritable components of personality or as artifacts of evaluative bias. Using structural equation modeling, the authors reanalyzed data from a cross-national twin study and from American cross-observer studies and analyzed new multimethod data from a German twin study. In all analyses, artifact models outperformed substance models by root-mean-square error of approximation criteria, but models combining both artifact and substance were slightly better. These findings suggest that the search for the biological basis of personality traits may be more profitably focused on the 5 factors themselves and their specific facets, especially in monomethod studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.