Dimensionality of observer ratings on the California Adult Q-set.

Lanning, Kevin

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.151

Cited by 92 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found three additional factors: Attractiveness, Insight, and Ambition. Lanning (1994) also obtained these three additional factors when factor-analysing CAQ ratings. These studies provide clear evidence that Gough's CPI scales and the CAQ are measuring constructs that are missing from the Five Factor Model.…”

Section: Criticisms Of the Five Factor Modelmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Millennium for Personality Psychology: New Horizons or Good Old Daze

Hough¹

1998

Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On passe en revue les recherches qui s'attaquent a trois questions importantes pour la psychologie appliquke: les taxinomies, la distorsion intentionnelle et la mesure. Les recherches centrees sur les concepts ont dkbouche sur des progres significatifs dans ce domaine. Le modkle en cinq facteurs est nkanmoins critique parce qu'il confond les concepts, est dependant d'une mCthode et incomplet. La comparaison de mCta-analyses generalisant la validite de concepts de personnalite tires de diffCrents modbles taxinomiques montre que le Big Five masque des relations predicteur-critere importantes. L'accomplissement, par exemple, un concept confondu avec d'autres dans le modele en cinq facteurs, presente, avec les critkres, un ensemble de relations hCtCrogenes avec 1'Extraversion et le Sens des ResponsabilitCs, les deux concepts du modkle en cinq facteurs avec lesquels il est souvent confondu. Bref. les resultats d'une recherche dependent de la structure de la taxinomie utilisee. O n s'interesse aussi aux travaux sur la distorsion intentionnelle (biais volontaire aux inventaires d'auto-evaluation). Les candidats a un poste ne distordent pas leurs rkponses autant que dans les travaux de falsification systematique, et la validit6 prkdicteur-critere des autodescriptions modirement biaisees est a peu pres la m&me que celle des reponses d e bonne foi. Les procCdures de mesure qui ne reposent pas sur l'auto-evaluation sont presentees comme etant des solutions de rechange.Research on three issues important to psychologists in applied settings is reviewed: taxonomies, intentional distortion, and measurement mode. Construct-oriented research has enabled the field to make significant advances. Nonetheless, the five-factor model is criticised because it confounds constructs, is method-bound, and is not comprehensive. A comparison of meta-analytic research summarising the criterion-related validity of personality constructs of different taxonomic models reveals that the Five Factor Model obscures important predictor-criterion relationships. Achievement, for example, a construct that is confounded with other constructs in the Five Factor Model, shows a pattern of relationships with criteria that differs from Extroversion or Conscientiousness-the two Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Leaetta M. Hough. The

show abstract

Section: Criticisms Of the Five Factor Modelmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Millennium for Personality Psychology: New Horizons or Good Old Daze

Hough¹

1998

Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that case, he should be most interested in the results of a study by Lanning (1994). Lanning analyzed data from the Institute of Personality and Social Research.…”

Section: Uncited Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block.

Costa¹,

McCrae²

1995

Psychological Bulletin

198

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The five-factor model (FFM) of personality offers a structural organization of personality traits in terms of 5 broad factors. J. Block's (1995) critique of the FFM failed to recognize the utility of a trait taxonomy and the intent of research designed to test the 5-factor hypothesis. In a number of instances he omitted reference to empirical evidence that addresses concerns he raised; this evidence shows strong support for the FFM beyond the lexical and questionnaire traditions he reviews. Many of his suggestions for improving the quality of personality research are valuable, but are likely to be more fruitful when used in conjunction with established knowledge about the structure of personality traits: the FFM.

show abstract

“…Analyses of some of the first administration data in the BLSA (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986) showed that the CAQ included items from all five factors of the FFM, and that a five-factor structure captured most of the common variance in CAQ items (cf. Lanning, 1994). Five varimax-rotated factors were extracted from the intercorrelation of the CAQ items on both occasions, yielding the expected N, E, O, A, and C factors.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality Plasticity After Age 30

Terracciano

Costa

McCrae

2006

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

395

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rank-order consistency of personality traits increases from childhood to age 30. After that, different summaries of the literature predict a plateau at age 30, or at age 50, or a curvilinear peak in consistency at age 50. These predictions were evaluated at group and individual levels using longitudinal data from the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory over periods of up to 42 years. Consistency declined toward a non-zero asymptote with increasing time-interval. Although some scales showed increasing stability after age 30, the rank-order consistencies of the major dimensions and most facets of the Five-Factor Model were unrelated to age. Ipsative stability, assessed with the California Adult Q-Set, was also unrelated to age. These data strengthen claims of predominant personality stability after age 30. KeywordsFive-Factor Model; personality development; long-term stability; individual differences; life-span; older adults Since data from longitudinal studies appeared in the 1970s (e.g., Block, 1977), it has been clear that individual differences in personality traits are stable over long periods of time. Helson and Wink (1992) reported typical results in a sample of 101 women initially aged 43 and retested after 9 years: The median retest correlation for scales from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) was .73. There is also considerable evidence that personality traits are more stable in adults than in adolescents. For example, Finn (1986) showed that the median 30-year retest correlation for factors from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) was .35 for respondents initially aged 17 to 25, and .56 for respondents initially aged 43-53.However, there is disagreement about the degree of rank-order consistency in different portions of adulthood. Based on their own research and review of the literature, McCrae and Costa (1990) argued that "personality change is the exception rather than the rule after age 30; somewhere in the decade between 20 and 30, individuals attain a configuration of traits that will characterize them for years to come" (p. 10). Ten years later, two meta-analyses were published on the rank-order consistency (or differential stability) of personality traits. Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) reported that rank-order consistency increased with age, even in adulthood. They estimated that 30-and 40-year-olds would show 7-year retest correlations near .60, whereas individuals over age 50 would show retest correlations over . 70, and they concluded that recent generations have "stretched the time it takes to fully develop one's traits" (p. 18) past age 30. Curiously, another meta-analysis published the Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Antonio Terracciano, Box #03, Gerontology Research Center, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224-6825. E-mail: terraccianoa@grc.nia.nih.gov.. Paul T. Costa, Jr., and Robert R. McCrae receive royalties from the Revised ...

show abstract

Dimensionality of observer ratings on the California Adult Q-set.

Cited by 92 publications

References 43 publications

The Millennium for Personality Psychology: New Horizons or Good Old Daze

The Millennium for Personality Psychology: New Horizons or Good Old Daze

Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block.

Personality Plasticity After Age 30

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About