Agreement Among Adolescents, Parents, and Teachers on Adolescent Personality

Laidra, Kaia; Allïk, Jüri; Harro, Maarike; Merenäkk, Liis; Harro, Jaanus

doi:10.1177/1073191106287125

Cited by 58 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Pulkkinen, Kokko, and Rantanen (2012) were able to predict personality at age 42 from teacher ratings in childhood and adolescence. Furthermore, in contrast to the findings of Laidra et al (2006); Baker, Victor, Chambers, and Halverson (2004) found that, in a sample of 165 students of a small high school, teacher ratings of the Big Five personality factors were particularly reliable in comparison to self and peer ratings.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…The teachers’ ratings within their context may make this up in the form of less measurement error, as the varied circumstances and relationships to the subject in more general groups of others’ ratings introduce considerable additional sources of measurement error. Nonetheless, Laidra, Allik, Harro, Merenäkk, and Harro (2006), who assessed personality ratings completed by a group of over 500 adolescents, their parents and their teachers, found that teachers’ ratings were least closely related to those of other raters. This may have been due to a relatively consistent bias among all teachers; a halo effect that could be expected to lead teachers to rate pupils who performed better academically as higher on the six personality characteristics as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personality stability from age 14 to age 77 years.

Harris¹,

Brett²,

Johnson³

et al. 2016

Psychology and Aging

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is evidence for differential stability in personality trait differences, even over decades. The authors used data from a sample of the Scottish Mental Survey, 1947 to study personality stability from childhood to older age. The 6-Day Sample (N = 1,208) were rated on six personality characteristics by their teachers at around age 14. In 2012, the authors traced as many of these participants as possible and invited them to take part in a follow-up study. Those who agreed (N = 174) completed a questionnaire booklet at age 77 years, which included rating themselves and asking someone who knew them well to rate them on the same 6 characteristics on which they were rated in adolescence. Each set of 6 ratings was reduced to the same single underlying factor, denoted dependability, a trait comparable to conscientiousness. Participants’ and others’ older-age personality characteristic ratings were moderately correlated with each other, and with other measures of personality and wellbeing, but correlations suggested no significant stability of any of the 6 characteristics or their underlying factor, dependability, over the 63-year interval. However, a more complex model, controlling rater effects, indicated significant 63-year stability of 1 personality characteristic, Stability of Moods, and near-significant stability of another, Conscientiousness. Results suggest that lifelong differential stability of personality is generally quite low, but that some aspects of personality in older age may relate to personality in childhood.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality stability from age 14 to age 77 years.

Harris¹,

Brett²,

Johnson³

et al. 2016

Psychology and Aging

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, researchers will have more than two measures-for example, father's ratings, mother's ratings, and child's self-reports (Laidra, Allik, Harro, Merenakk, & Harro, 2006). These profiles could be compared pairwise, but it would also be possible to combine the father's and mother's ratings to get a mean or adjusted mean (McCrae et al, 1998) parental rating profile and compare this to the self-report profile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Note on Some Measures of Profile Agreement

McCrae

2008

Journal of Personality Assessment

171

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Profile similarity or agreement is increasingly used in personality research and clinical practice and has potential applications in many other fields of psychology. I compared 4 measures of profile agreement-the Pearson r, Cattell's (1949) r p , McCrae's (1993) r pa , and an intraclass correlation coefficient (double entry), ICC DE -using both broad factor and specific facet profiles. Matched versus mismatched self-ratings/other ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory-3 were used as criteria. At the factor level, r pa and ICC DE were comparable, and both were superior to r p in distinguishing matched versus mismatched profiles. At the facet level, ICC DE was superior to the other coefficients. The Pearson r performed better than expected.Measures of profile agreement quantify the extent to which two profiles match across a range of characteristics. The profiles to be compared might be a set of ability measures administered to one individual on two occasions or ratings from two observers on the personality traits of a single target. Measures of agreement are useful in clinical applications in which they can help to evaluate the accuracy of data about an individual (see Costa & Piedmont, 2003), and they have been used to validate aggregate personality profiles of cultures (McCrae, Terracciano, & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005) and assess the accuracy of national character stereotypes . Profile agreement between individual scores and fixed prototypes has been proposed as a guide to personality disorder diagnosis (e.g., Lynam & Widiger, 2001) and might have applicability in employee selection. For all these reasons, it would be useful to identify the most effective measure of profile agreement.A good index of profile agreement would show high values when the two profiles were in fact similar. However, there are several ways to conceive of agreement between profiles, and it is not clear which of these is optimal. To circumvent this problem, I evaluated several indexes using self-reports and observer ratings of personality traits under the assumption that true similarity will be higher when the target for the two profiles is the same individual rather than two randomly paired individuals. Correlations with this matched/mismatched criterion can be used to evaluate the different indexes. Note that this criterion does not prejudge the form of agreement. Either absolute closeness of scores or similarity of profiles shapes might be most effective in distinguishing matched from mismatched profiles, and different indexes place different emphases on these components. The data I examined here -3 (NEO-PI-3;, but it seems likely that the results would be generalizable to other instruments. HHS Public AccessThe most obvious candidate for agreement is the Pearson correlation, but it is generally dismissed on the grounds that it is insensitive to differences in profile elevation (Cattell, 1949;Terracciano & McCrae, 2006): Two profiles may have the same shape and thus a high correlat...

show abstract

“…The five-factor model personality traits were measured by selfreports with the Estonian version of Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Kallasmaa et al, 2000), EPIP-NEO (Mõttus et al, 2006), which is a semantically simplified full-length version of NEO-PI-R, Short Five (S5) (Konstabel et al, 2011), which is a short inventory of five-factor personality, or Estonian Brief Big Five Inventory (EBBFI), which is a shorter and semantically simplified questionnaire (Harro, 2009;Laidra et al, 2006). All scales measure each of the FFM personality dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) with their six subscales.…”

Section: Personality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%