Concurrent validity and expanded interpretation of the M5–50
- 13 Downloads
The M5–50 is a brief 50 item international personality item pool public-domain five-factor model personality instrument. While public-domain instruments can facilitate social justice by allowing access to instruments to those who may not have the financial resources to use a pay-to-use instrument, public-domain measures may lack the scrutiny given to pay-to-use instruments. This study provides scrutiny through examining the concurrent validity evidence of the M5–50 by correlating it to the proprietary NEO-PI-3. Additionally, to provide additional validity, this study also correlates the M5–50 domains with well-documented relationships with religious fundamentalism. Regarding the NEO-PI-3, the domains of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness appear to well represent their NEO-PI-3 domain counterparts, whereas Extraversion and Agreeableness had weak relationships with some facet-level content. Openness to Experience on the M5–50 appears able to align with both the Openness/Intellect model and a unified domain structure suggested by traditional five-factor model literature as M5–50 domains and items most strongly correlate with the Aesthetics and Ideas facets in the NEO-PI-3 Openness domain. Regarding religious fundamentalism, the M5–50 domain of Openness had an inverse relationship with fundamentalism, while extraversion had a positive relationship with fundamentalism. Interpretive recommendations for the M5–50 and recommendations for future development of brief, IPIP-based Openness to Experience domains are discussed.
KeywordsIPIP NEO-PI-3 M5–50 Personality Five-factor model
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
The datasets for this study are not publicly available, but they are available upon reasonable request. The dataset we would provide would strip out individual item responses and they would provide composite information only.
- Bridges, A. N., Wormley, K. A., Leavitt, I. W., & McCord, D. M. (2016). Personality differences in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking individuals with self-reported anorexia. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2015-0116.
- Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO inventories: NEO™ personality inventory-3 (NEO™-PI-3) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In N. I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
- Gomez, R. (2006). Gender invariance of the five-factor model of personality among adolescents: A mean and covariance structure analysis approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.012.
- Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ big-five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011.
- Hofmans, J., Kuppens, P., & Allik, J. (2008). Is short in length short in content? An examination of the domain representation of the ten item personality inventory scales in Dutch language. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 750–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jonassaint, C. R., Siegler, I. C., Barefoot, J. C., Edwards, C. L., & Williams, R. B. (2011). Low life course socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with negative NEO PI-R personality patterns. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-009-9069-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- McCord, D.M. (2002). M5–50 Questionnaire [Administration and scoring materials]. Retrieved from http://paws.wcu.edu/mccord/m5-50/
- Williamson, P. W., Hood, R. W., Jr., Ahmad, A., Sadiq, M., & Hill, P. C. (2010). The Intratextual fundamentalism scale: Cross-cultural application, validity evidence, and relationship with religious orientation and the Big 5 factor markers. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 13(7–8), 721–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar