Psychometric properties of the German version of the NEO-FFI in psychosomatic outpatients

From paper to web: Mode equivalence of the ARHQ and NEO-FFI

“…trait factor and mode factor) (Alwin, 2007). Reliability (h 2 ) can be partitioned into two orthogonal parts where b T Ã represents true score validity which is due to the trait factor and b M which represents true-score invalidity due to the mode factor, and b 2 T Ã þ b 2 M ¼ 1:0 (Alwin, 2007). in various cultural settings (Aluja, García, Rossier, & García, 2005;Hull, Beaujean, Worrell, & Verdisco, 2010;Manga, Ramos, & Morán, 2004;Panayiotou, Kokkinos, & Spanoudis, 2004;Rolland, Parker, & Stumpf, 1998;Schmitz, Hartkamp, Baldini, Rollnik, & Tress, 2001). The psychometric properties and factor structure of the Icelandic NEO-FFI have been studied with similar results; internal consistency (CA) reliability indices of paper administered measures for N = 0.84, E = 0.81, O = 0.69, A = 0.69, and C = 0.72 (average = 0.75), and population norms most comparable to the original language US measure (Bjornsdottir, Jonsson, et al, 2013).…”

The NEO Five-Factor Inventory: Latent Structure and Relationships With Dimensions of Anxiety and Depressive Disorders in a Large Clinical Sample

“…In addition to criticisms about the lack of psychometric support for the NEO FFI (e.g., Egan et al, 2000; Parker & Stumpf, 1998; Schmitz et al, 2001), such findings have led researchers to question the adequacy of CFA in the study of personality structure (see Aluja, Garcia, Garcia, & Seisdedos, 2005; Church & Burke, 1994; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996; Parker et al, 1993; Vassend & Skrondal, 1997). For instance, McCrae et al (1996) argued that “there is no theoretical reason why traits should not have meaningful loadings on three, four, or five factors” (p. 553).…”

The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Five-Factor Traits: Current and Prospective Social, Work, and Recreational Dysfunction

“…Five-Factor Model (FFM: Neuroticism = N, Extraversion = E, Openness to Experience = O; Agreeableness = A; Conscientiousness = C) personality traits have demonstrated validity in predicting a range of important behaviors such as physical health (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Grucza & Goldberg, 2007; Goodwin & Friedman, 2006), social dysfunction (Bornstein & Huprich, 2006; Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004; Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Schmitz, Hartkamp, Baldini, Rollnik, & Tress, 2001; Watson, Hubbard, & Weise, 2000), work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, & Barrick, 1999), and recreational dysfunction (Burnett, 2006; Kircaldy, 1990; Wild, Kuiken, & Schoopflocker, 1995) even after controlling for factors such as intelligence and socioeconomic status (Roberts et al, 2007) and psychiatric diagnosis (Hopwood, Morey, Shea et al, 2007). FFM traits have also demonstrated utility predicting clinical outcomes.…”