The five‐factor personality inventory: cross‐cultural generalizability across 13 countries

Hendriks, A. A. Jolijn; Perugini, Marco; Angleitner, Alois; Ostendorf, Fritz; Johnson, John A.; Fruyt, Filip De; Hřebı́čková, Martina; Kreitler, Shulamith; Murakami, Takashi; Bratko, Denis; Conner, Mark; Nagy, János; Rodrı́guez-Fornells, Antoni; Ruisel, Imrich

doi:10.1002/per.491

Cited by 81 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For scale development, commonly available methods to determine the number of factors to retain include a scree plot ( 85 ), the variance explained by the factor model, and the pattern of factor loadings ( 2 ). Where feasible, researchers could also assess the optimal number of factors to be drawn from the list of items using either parallel analysis ( 86 ), minimum average partial procedure ( 87 ), or the Hull method ( 88 , 89 ).…”

Section: Phase 2: Scale Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

Boateng

Neilands

Frongillo

et al. 2018

Front. Public Health

2,809

2,499

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scale development and validation are critical to much of the work in the health, social, and behavioral sciences. However, the constellation of techniques required for scale development and evaluation can be onerous, jargon-filled, unfamiliar, and resource-intensive. Further, it is often not a part of graduate training. Therefore, our goal was to concisely review the process of scale development in as straightforward a manner as possible, both to facilitate the development of new, valid, and reliable scales, and to help improve existing ones. To do this, we have created a primer for best practices for scale development in measuring complex phenomena. This is not a systematic review, but rather the amalgamation of technical literature and lessons learned from our experiences spent creating or adapting a number of scales over the past several decades. We identified three phases that span nine steps. In the first phase, items are generated and the validity of their content is assessed. In the second phase, the scale is constructed. Steps in scale construction include pre-testing the questions, administering the survey, reducing the number of items, and understanding how many factors the scale captures. In the third phase, scale evaluation, the number of dimensions is tested, reliability is tested, and validity is assessed. We have also added examples of best practices to each step. In sum, this primer will equip both scientists and practitioners to understand the ontology and methodology of scale development and validation, thereby facilitating the advancement of our understanding of a range of health, social, and behavioral outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Phase 2: Scale Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

Boateng

Neilands

Frongillo

et al. 2018

Front. Public Health

2,809

2,499

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to tool development, the multicenter approach has not been used much, which likely reflects the challenges of developing parallel item sets in the absence of a ‗target' set. Perhaps the best example is the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI; Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999), which was developed simultaneously in Dutch, English, and German and subsequently translated into several other languages, demonstrating good replicability across a number of cultures (Hendriks et al, 2003).…”

Section: Emic-etic Approach To Personality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Items were formulated in the first person singular, used simple language and no negations, and specified concrete behaviors expressed with an object whenever possible (e.g., -I care for others‖ and -I help others cope with their problems‖). The decision to use concrete behaviors was based on literature pointing to improved crosscultural replicability of psychological constructs when concrete behavior manifestations are used (Hendriks et al, 2003;Ramsay et al, 2008).…”

Section: Item Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups.

Fetvadjiev

Meiring

Vijver³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the development and the underlying structure of a personality inventory for the main ethnocultural groups of South Africa, using an emic-etic approach. The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) was developed based on an extensive qualitative study of the implicit personality conceptions in the country's 11 official languages (Nel et al., 2012). Items were generated and selected (to a final set of 146) with a continuous focus on cultural adequacy and translatability. Students and community adults (671 Blacks, 198 Coloreds, 104 Indians, and 391 Whites) completed the inventory. A 6-dimensional structure (comprising a positive and a negative Social-Relational factor, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness) was equivalent across groups and replicated in an independent sample of 139 Black and 270 White students. The SAPI correlated highly overall with impression-management aspects, but lower with lying aspects of social desirability. The SAPI socialrelational factors were distinguishable from the Big Five in a joint factor analysis; the multiple correlations with the Big Five were .64 (positive) and .51 (negative social-relational). Implications and suggestions for emic-etic instrument and model development are discussed.

show abstract

“…And indeed, there are a number of concerns and problems that need to be kept in mind when using Big Five measures within different cultural contexts: For example, it has been discussed whether the personality trait taxonomy, which is the basis for the Big Five structure, can be applied to different languages, because studies provided evidence for structural inhomogeneities depending on language (e.g., De Raad, 1998) and there are authors who assume language specific idiosyncrasies (e.g., Juni, 1996). On the other hand, studies testing the generalizability of the Big Five factor solution have replicated the five-factor structure quite well for many languages (Church and Lonner, 1998; Jolijn Hendriks et al, 2003). Another problem concerns whether data raised in different cultural contexts possess scalar equivalence (e.g., Byrne and Campbell, 1999) or whether encountered differences may be the result of matching translations, uneven sampling or culture-specific style of responding (Schmitt et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similar Personality Patterns Are Associated with Empathy in Four Different Countries

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empathy is an important human ability associated with successful social interaction. It is currently unclear how to optimally measure individual differences in empathic processing. Although the Big Five model of personality is an effective model to explain individual differences in human experience and behavior, its relation to measures of empathy is currently not well understood. Therefore, the present study was designed to investigate the relationship between the Big Five personality concept and two commonly used measures for empathy [Empathy Quotient (EQ), Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)] in four samples from China, Germany, Spain, and the United States of America. This approach was designed to advance the way the Big Five personality model can be used to measure empathy. We found evidence of medium effect sizes for associations between personality and empathy, with agreeableness and conscientiousness as the most important predictors of affective and cognitive empathy (measured by the respective IRI subscales) as well as for a one-dimensional empathy score (measured by the EQ). Empathy in a fictional context was most closely related to openness to experience while personal distress was first of all related to neuroticism. In terms of culture, we did not observe any distinct pattern concerning cultural differences. These results support the cross-cultural applicability of the EQ and the IRI and indicate structurally similar associations between personality and empathy across cultures.

show abstract

The five‐factor personality inventory: cross‐cultural generalizability across 13 countries

Cited by 81 publications

References 47 publications

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups.

Similar Personality Patterns Are Associated with Empathy in Four Different Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About