Psychometric Properties of the Portuguese Version of the Mini-IPIP five-Factor Model Personality Scale
- 98 Downloads
The aim of the present study was the examination of the psychometric properties and the evaluation of the factorial composition of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale among a sample of Portuguese college students (n = 2153). Factor analysis highlighted a structure similar to the one proposed by Donnellan et al. (Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203. doi: 10.1037/1040–35184.108.40.206, 2006), showing acceptable fits in confirmatory factor analysis. The Portuguese version of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale demonstrated good psychometric properties in terms of factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity. The results suggest that the Portuguese version of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale may have many potential applications in diverse psychological assessment contexts in Portugal and Portuguese speaking countries.
KeywordsPersonality assessment Big five International personality item pool Psychometric properties Portuguese version
This research should be considered as a contribution to the Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality and Other Individual Differences. We wish to thank Lewis R. Goldberg, Ph.D., for assistance under the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Collaboratory project.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards included in the Portuguese Code of Professional Ethics for Psychologists.
Conflict of Interest
The Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (2008). EQS for windows user’s guide. Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc..Google Scholar
- Bernard, L. C., Walsh, R. P., & Mills, M. (2005). Ask once, may tell: Comparative validity of single and multiple item measurement of the big five personality factors. Clinical and Consulting Psychology Journal, 2, 40–46.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI–R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Cunha, O., & Gonçalves, R. (2012). Análise confirmatória fatorial de uma versão portuguesa do Questionário de Agressividade de Buss-Perry [Confirmatory factor analysis of a Portuguese version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire]. Laboratório de Psicologia, 10(1), 3–17. doi: 10.14417/lp.620.Google Scholar
- Galinha, I., & Ribeiro, J. (2005). Contributions for the study of the Portuguese version of positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): II - psychometric study. Análise Psicológica, 23, 219–227.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
- John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Pechorro, P., Barroso, R., Poiares, C., Oliveira, J. P., & Torrealday, O. (2015). Validation of the Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire-short form among Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.033.
- Pechorro, P., Ayala-Nunes, L., Oliveira, J. P., Nunes, C., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2016). Psychometric properties of the socially desirable response set-5 among incarcerated male and female juvenile offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.003.
- Rammstedt, B., & Kemper, C. J. (2011). Measurement equivalence of the Big Five: Shedding further light on potential causes of the educational bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 121–125. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.006.
- Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L. R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005.
- Schmidt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The Geographical Distribution of Big Five Personality Traits. Patterns and Profiles of Human Self-Description Across 56 Nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. doi: 10.1177/0022022106297299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wielkiewicz, R. (2015). Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP with a multi-institutional sample of first-year college students. Retrieved from the DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU website: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/93.