The essential trait approach - psychometric theory and FA

Question 1

trait identification and measurement

Answer 1

lexical

theoretical

psychometric theory

use combo

Question 2

lexical approach

Answer 2

All relevant dimensions of personality exist in the natural language.

Question 3

theoretical approach

Answer 3

Start with a theory which guides selection of terms and question formation – Eysenck – very biological

Question 4

psychometric theory

Answer 4

Statistical approach: Use factor analysis to guide selection of terms and questions – Eysenck, Cattell, big 5

The impact of testing on the individual and in wider society is substantial therefore it is important to have high professional standards for the development, administration and interpretation of tests – big in children as well now

Question 5

the essential trait approach

Answer 5

Most popular

uses Factor Analysis to synthesise and formalise the ‘many’ traits

The debate continues today and is further complicated by the fact that the labelling of traits is subjective.

• Similar traits have been given different labels by different theorists (e.g., neuroticism and emotional stability usually refer to the same trait).
• Therefore, we need to look for the meaning that underlies a trait, rather than simply looking at its name.

Question 6

what does the essential trait approach attempt to do?

Answer 6

reduce large numbers of traits to a few traits that are essential to understanding personality

Question 7

essential trait approach goal

Answer 7

to find the smallest number of traits by which individual differences in personality can be adequately described – big 5 – super traits – made up of factors of smaller traits

Question 8

what is the essential trait approach underpinned by?

Answer 8

psychometric theory and factor analysis.

Question 9

what does psychometric refer to?

Answer 9

the theory and methods of psychological measurement

Question 10

psychometrics includes

Answer 10

intelligence testing, measurement of personality traits and vocational testing.

Question 11

FA

Answer 11

lies at the heart of psychometrics.

It is a statistical method that allows a lot of data to be reduced to a few important factors – looks at associations between data sets – sorts them into clusters – cluster will become personality trait

Factor analysis is the statistical technique used by Hans Eysenck and Raymond B. Cattell and it eventually resulted in the Big Five

• Many of the disagreements between different theorists are the result of differences in their use of factor analysis. This is why it is important to have some understanding of the technique.
• Stats are what we make of them
• Factors and traits = same thing

Question 12

who was FA developed by?

Answer 12

Spearman at the beginning of the 20th century, for the analysis of psychometric data in the field of abilities

Question 13

what is the cornerstone of FA?

Answer 13

correlation

Question 14

FA process

Answer 14

1. Measure a large number of people in various ways, using numerous items = questions
2. Correlate scores on each measure with scores on every other measure (correlation matrix) – lots of diff variables/items/questions and want to see how well they correlate – shows how diff questions clustered together
3. Determine how many factors (traits) need to be hypothesised in order to account for the various clusters of inter-correlations.
   - When items show a high correlation with one another they are thought to measure the same ability or characteristic – this is called a factor or a trait.
4. Subjectively decide the meaning of each factor and label it.
   - The label should reflect the meaning of the items that cluster together to make the factor
5. Standardise the personality measure: test the measure on hundreds of people representative of the population you want to measure – put together a questionnaire – should never be less than 100 – has to be relevant (can’t use one for adolescents of older people) – need norms from popn it was meant to be measuring
   - Analyse these responses and develop ‘norms’. All future scores are then assessed against these norms.
   - Need to create a norm/average

Question 15

personality assessment reliability

Answer 15

All tests should have norms (no norms = not worth doing - won’t know what the scores mean) but this still doesn’t guarantee a reliable or valid test.
- Before using any standardised test we need to examine its reliability and validity.

A test has good reliability when it measures consistently (get same results over two tests in short space of time)

Question 16

2 distinct meanings of reliability

Answer 16

Test-retest reliability - stability over time/repeatability.

Internal consistency – whether all items are measuring the same thing

Question 17

test-retest reliability

Answer 17

correlate scores from a large set of participants who take the test on at least two occasions.

Want it to be at least 3 months apart – otherwise people remember

A correlation of .8 is a minimum for test-retest reliability – 645 of variance accounted for

Question 18

factors influencing test-retest

Answer 18

Characteristics of the subjects: ill, tired, upset.

Characteristics within the tests: poor test instruction, complex responses, subjective scoring, guessing.

Question 19

other factors distorting test-retest

Answer 19

Time gap - needs to be at least 3 months.

Difficulty level of items.

Subject sampling – representative of the relevant population.

Sample size – at least 100.

Question 20

internal consistency

Answer 20

The best index of internal consistency is Cronbach’s Alpha

• Reliability should never be below .7
• Shouldn’t be above .9

Very high Alphas: Cattell (1977) ‘bloated specifics’ - the test will be too narrow or specific to be valid – not enough variation within items – all asking the same thing – not asking breadth of concept

Low alphas: the items comprising the scale are probably measuring different concepts.

In general, very high or very low internal consistency reduces test validity - either the items are too specific to capture the breadth of a concept or items are so diverse they are not measuring anything coherent.

If a test is to be valid then internal consistency needs to be high but this still does not guarantee validity.

Question 21

personality assessment validity

Answer 21

Validity refers to the extent to which a test measures what it is designed to measure.

Personality tests attempt to measure hypothetical constructs (e.g., intelligence, social anxiety, self esteem, extraversion) – validity of that concept
- Hypothetical constructs describe concepts that have no physical reality. E.g., we cannot see ‘extraversion’. We can see and measure behaviours that suggest extraversion but the concept itself remains a theoretical entity.

Construct validity must be demonstrated.

Question 22

types of validity

Answer 22

face

content

concurrent

discriminant

predictive

Question 23

face validity

Answer 23

what you would expect – does it look like they are measuring the concept

Question 24

content validity

Answer 24

breadth and depth of the concept – are you capturing all of the content of the concept – is there enough there – without capturing any other trait aspects

Question 25

concurrent validity

Answer 25

involves comparing a new test with an existing test (of the same nature) to see if they produce similar results. If both tests produce similar results, then the new test is said to have concurrent validity

Question 26

discriminant validity

Answer 26

tests whether concepts or measurements that are not supposed to be related are actually unrelated.

Question 27

predictive validity

Answer 27

the extent to which a score on a scale or test predicts scores on some criterion measur

Question 28

strengths of psychometrics

Answer 28

Objective and scientific way of describing people and their behaviour.

Psychometric tests are usually easy to administer.

Can quickly gather a lot of quantitative data for statistical analysis.

Question 29

weaknesses of psychometrics

Answer 29

Constructing valid and reliable tests is very difficult.

Tests usually contain culture bias, especially intelligence tests.

The very act of measuring something makes it exist as a concept - ‘intelligence is what intelligence tests measure’

Question 30

Qs in essential trait approach

Answer 30

What traits are basic or essential to personality?

How many essential traits are there?

Question 31

Eysenck (1947, 1986)

Answer 31

3 essential traits:

extraversion; neuroticism and psychoticism.

Question 32

Cattell (1961)

Answer 32

16 source traits, including:

intelligence, stability and friendliness

Question 33

big 5 - Macrae and Costa, 1987

Answer 33

Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism (also called negative emotionality)

Question 34

Cattell (1905-1998)

Answer 34

Worked with prominent psychologists - Charles E. Spearman (inventor of factor analysis), Gordon Allport and Henry Murray.

Lecturer at the University of Exeter from 1927-1932.

During his 70 year career he published more than 500 research articles and 56 books.

Very controversial figure regarding the stance he took on several political and social issues.
- Member of the Eugenics Society - the belief that the human race can be improved by ‘controlled’ breeding

Empirical approach to trait theory

He adopted an inductive approach – no specific guiding hyp – instead factor analysis of large data set used to generate hyps from patterns that emerged from data

Factor analysis reduction of 4,500 trait words (from Allport) revealed 16 primary personality factors (source traits).

Question 35

what sources did Cattell use?

Answer 35

L-data – life data
T-data – test data
Q-data – questionnaire data

Question 36

source traits

Answer 36

underlying cause of overt behaviour, they are the basic elements of personality and the cause of surface traits.

Question 37

surface traits

Answer 37

overt behaviour.

Surface traits group together under the larger source traits.

They are always manifestations of source traits, they are groups of observations that are correlated and are encompassed and explained by source traits – what we see in the behaviour

Question 38

Cattell’s trait classification

Answer 38

env-mold traits

constitutional traits

ability traits

temperament traits

dynamic traits = motivational traits

Question 39

env-mold traits

Answer 39

Determined by experience. e.g. religious or political orientation

Question 40

constitutional traits

Answer 40

Determined by biology (behavioural genetics) - e.g. neuroticism

Question 41

ability traits

Answer 41

Ability to deal with complex situations – intelligence.

Question 42

temperament traits

Answer 42

Emotional tendencies. Inherited source traits that determine the general style of interaction

Question 43

dynamic traits

Answer 43

are motivational traits:

• Ergs (innate motivation traits)
• Meta-ergs (learned, environmental origin)

Question 44

16 PF questionnaire

Answer 44

constructed around Cattell’s 16 factors or source traits.

The 16PF is one of the most widely used measures of personality.

The 16PF (5th Ed) contains 185 multiple-choice items.

items ask simple questions (185) about daily behaviour, interests, and opinions rather than asking for self-assessment of personality traits – how you usually behave

Question 45

16PF applications

Answer 45

Research and Clinical Settings

Vocational Psychology

Personnel selection and placement

With adults or adolescents (16-year-olds) and 5th grade reading level

Question 46

16PF and big 5

Answer 46

Cattell contributed to the development of the Big Five theory of personality.

The Big Five theory proposes that all traits fall under five broad groupings.

The 16 traits measured by the 16PF questionnaire can be grouped into five second-order Global Factors which correlate with the Big Five.

• Extraversion
• Anxiety
• Tough-Mindedness
• Independence
• Self-Control

Question 47

strengths

Answer 47

Cattell’s revolutionary contribution to psychology in using factor analysis and computer technology is widely appreciated.

There is a lot of research lending support to Cattell’s 16 factors

Question 48

criticisms

Answer 48

problems remain.

Cattell’s findings are not easy to replicate; the 16 factors are really 5 factors (“The Big Five”).

Cattell used factor analysis in such a way as to end up with factors that were to some extent correlated with each other – not independent.

This is the crux of the difference between Eysenck and Cattell. Eysenck used a method that ensured the factors are independent of each other, not correlated.

Question 49

Ashton and Lee (2005)

Answer 49

The structure of personality variation is discussed from the perspective of the lexical approach, which is based on the examination of relations among personality-descriptive adjectives that are indigenous to various languages.

The results of this approach-which reveal a cross-culturally replicated set of six dimensions-are described.

Specifically, the obtained structure corresponds rather closely to the Five-Factor Model, but differs from that model in the nature of the Agreeableness and Emotionality/Neuroticism factors and also in the existence of a sixth factor known as Honesty-Humility.

It is suggested that the emergence of this structure provides support for attempts to establish a cross-culturally generalizable structural model that could summarize normal and abnormal personality variation.

It is argued that the study of personality structure via the lexical approach is an important area of research

Question 50

Coan (1974)

Answer 50

The results, reported here, are enlightening.

It was found, for example, that the different characteristics viewed by psychologists as traits of the ideal person do not constitute a unitary pattern.

There is no evidence of a general dimension of personality integration or mental health.

A number of independent components or factors of sound functioning were isolated.

Some desirable traits were discovered to be inversely related to each other, many of these relationships appearing to involve a choice between an open or spontaneous orientation and a more ordered and controlled orientation.

The author’s view, fully supported by his findings, is that if people are to achieve maximal realization of their potentials, a clear requisite is the flexible utilization of various modes of experiencing and acting.

Question 51

Sellborn and Tellegen (2019)

Answer 51

More specifically, we discuss a need to be more careful about item distribution properties in light of their potential impact on model estimation as well as providing a very strong caution against item parceling in the evaluation of psychological test instruments.

Moreover, we consider the important issue of estimation, with a particular emphasis on selecting the most appropriate estimator to match the scaling properties of test item indicators.

Next, we turn our attention to the issues of model fit and comparison of alternative models with the strong recommendation to allow for theoretical guidance rather than being overly influenced by model fit indices.

In addition, since most models in psychological assessment research involve multidimensional items that often do not map neatly onto a priori confirmatory models, we provide recommendations about model respecification.

Finally, we end our article with a discussion of alternative forms of model specification that have become particularly popular recently: exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor modeling.

We discuss various important areas of consideration for the applied use of these model specifications, with a conclusion that, whereas ESEM models can offer a useful avenue for the evaluation of internal structure of test items, researchers should be very careful about using bifactor models for this purpose.

Instead, we highlight other, more appropriate applications of such models.

Question 52

Lloret et al. (2017)

Answer 52

The aim of the present study is to illustrate how the appropriate or inappropriate application of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) can lead to quite different conclusions.

To reach this goal, we evaluated the degree
to which four different programs used to perform an EFA, specifically SPSS, FACTOR, PRELIS and MPlus, allow or limit the application of the currently recommended standards. In addition, we analyze and compare
the results offered by the four programs when factor analyzing empirical data from scales that fit the assumptions of the classic linear EFA modeling adequately, ambiguously, or optimally, depending on the case, through
the possibilities the different programs offer.

The results of the comparison show the consequences of choosing one program or another; and the consequences of selecting some options or others within the same program, depending on the nature of the data. Finally, the study offers practical rec

Question 53

Bartel (2017) - use for the 16PF

Answer 53

The Scale of Accurate Personality Prediction (SAPP) was first developed in 2000 by Miller.

Its principal purpose is to serve as a measure of one’s ability to accurately predict his or her personality traits, and as such, potentially reflect the level of one’s self-knowledge.

The measure is derived from the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF).

The purpose of the current study was to follow up on a recent attempt to identify the best predictors of the SAPP using the 16 primary factors of the 16PF (Mazur, 2013).

This study focuses on certain demographics to determine their potential ability to predict derived SAPP scores.

To do so, a series of a series of multiple regression analyses were run to determine if the demographic variables would yield any significant differences between those who obtained high and low SAPP scores.

The current study utilized a database of 609 respondents to complete the analyses.

The current study concluded males more accurately predicted their personality scores than females and as a women’s education increased their ability to accurately predict their personality score decreased.

It was hoped this research would provide a better picture between demographics and self-knowledge, and also enhance the predictability of the SAPP, and in doing so, the predictability of one’s level of self-knowledge.

Question 54

Rossier et al. (2006)

Answer 54

The present study compares the higher-level dimensions and the hierarchical structures of the fifth edition of the 16 Personality Factors (16 PF 5) with those of the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R).

Both inventories measure personality according to five higher-level dimensions.

These inventories were, however, constructed according to different methods (bottom-up vs. top-down).

Both questionnaires were filled out by 386 participants. Correlations, regressions, and canonical correlations made it possible to compare the inventories.

As expected, they roughly measure the same aspects of personality.

There is a coherent association among four of the five dimensions measured in the tests.

However, Agreeableness, the remaining dimension in the NEO PI-R, is not represented in the 16 PF 5.

Our analyses confirmed the hierarchical structures of both instruments, but this confirmation was more complete in the case of the NEO PI-R.

Indeed, a parallel analysis indicated that a four-factor solution should be considered in the case of the 16 PF 5.

On the other hand, the five-factor solution of the NEO PI-R was confirmed.

The top-down construction of this instrument seems to make for a more legible structure.

Of the two five-dimension constructs, the NEO PI-R, thus, seems the more reliable.

This confirms the relevance of the Five-Factor Model of personality.

Question 55

Cattell and Nichols (1972)

Answer 55

1. Factor analyses to maximum simple structure (oblique) on each of 10 samples differing in test edition, age, and cultural population have yielded essentially the same eight second order factors from the primary factors in the 16 P.F.
2. Goodness of match, by the congruence coefficient, seems to vary little according to culture and language translation; but the agreement is better among studies derived from the same method-orrelation of actual 16 P.F.
   scales-than with the correlation of pure factors as reached in the primary simple structure rotations.
3. The best mutual agreement, and agreement with past researches summarized elsewhere ( 18), is established for exvia-invia (the core of extraversion FI ; anxiety FII ; cortertia FIII ; intelligence FvrI ; and the factor sometimes
   called superego strength, but actually best interpreted as a firm moral home upbringing, which affects simultaneously the superego factor, GI the development of the self-sentiment, Qs, and some production of general inhibition in
   desurgency, F (-) .
4. The independence factor, FIV, is somewhat less invariant than in previous researches, while FV and, especially, Fvl-which have never been definitively stabilized or interpreted in previous researcheestill present a challenge
   to interpretation. However, space precludes discussion of new hypotheses here.
5. Apart from the main congruences, in the region of 8, there are in some researches lesser but appreciable correlations of factor patterns among specific disparate factors. These off-diagonal values do not upset the hierarchy (permitting the outstanding values to run down the diagonal) and are best interpreted as instances of cooperative factors. That is to say, some degree of similarity of factor pattern is not inconsistent with completely uncorrelated factor scores.

A third order analysis on the basis of these second orders is in progress.

Question 56

Boyle (2018) - alternative to Cattell

Answer 56

• 68% reduction of 16PF primary factors down to 5 broad second-stratum factors with significantly greater simple structure than for FFM measures.
• 50% reduction of 12 CAQ abnormal personality trait dimensions down to six broad psychopathology factors.
• 65% reduction of 20 (U and I) MAT factors down to seven broad dynamic trait factors.
• 67% reduction of 12 (8SQ/POMS/DES-IV) primary mood-state factors down to just four broad state factors.
• 68% reduction of 92 CPM primary factors (ability, personality, motivation, and mood-state) down to just 30 broad factors.

Question 57

Erwing et al. (2014)

Answer 57

In order to examine its higher-order factor structure, we applied confirmatory factor and invariance analysis to item level data from the US standardization sample of the 16PF5, divided into a calibration sample (N = 5,130) and a validation sample (N = 5,131).

Using standard assessments of model fit, all primary factors displayed good to excellent model fit, thus suggesting the scales to be broadly unidimensional.

Results indicated a drop in model fit in both the structural and configurally invariant second order models, suggesting some level of misspecification in the global scales of Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness, Independence, and Self-Control.

However, the degree of misspecification was slight.

Overall, the analyses generally supported the proposed structure of the 16PF5.

Question 58

Bolton (1982)

Answer 58

The 16 PF does not purport to measure those dimensions of severe pathology that characterize the various psychiatric syndromes.

Validity studies that violate the theoretical foundation of the 16 PF cannot contribute relevant information about its appropriate diagnostic applications

Question 59

H. Cattell (2001)

Answer 59

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire is a comprehensive measure of normal range personality.

Although it was not developed to identify psychopathology, it has been used extensively and productively in clinical settings due to its ability to give a deep, integrated picture of the whole person, including both personal strengths and weaknesses.

The 16PF questionnaire can be used to identify patterns of behavior in a wide variety of real-life circumstances.

For example, it can be used to understand a person’s self-esteem, coping patterns, capacity for empathy, interpersonal needs, likely attitude toward power and authority, cognitive processing style, internalization of societal rules or standards, and likely occupational preferences.

Because of this comprehensive scope, 16PF results are useful in a wide variety of settings, including clinical, counseling, industrial, career development, and research.