Psychometric Properties of the Portuguese Version of the Mini-IPIP five-Factor Model Personality Scale

Article
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

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: 10.1037/1040–3590.18.2.192, 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.

Keywords

Personality assessment Big five International personality item pool Psychometric properties Portuguese version 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2005). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440–450. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23, 221–247. doi: 10.1016/S0923-4748(01)00045-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachorowski, J., & Braaten, E. B. (1994). Emotional intensity: Measurement and theoretical implications. Personality and Individual Differences., 17, 191–199. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90025-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldasaro, R. E., Shanahan, M. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Mini-IPIP in a large, nationally representative sample of young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 74–84. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.700466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (2008). EQS for windows user’s guide. Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc..Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buss, A., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Cooper, A., Smillie, L., & Corr, P. (2010). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Personality & Individual Differences, 48, 688–691. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the big five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874–888. doi: 10.1037/a0027403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donnellan, M., Oswald, F., Baird, B., & Lucas, R. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T. (2011). Association between the five factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24, 407–419. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2010.540012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affect and personality: Support for the affect-level and affective-reactivity views. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 279–288. doi: 10.1177/0146167298243005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346. doi: 10.1177/1088868310361240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. doi: 10.1037/a0019265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism and susceptibility to positive and negative mood induction procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(12), 1221–1228. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90233-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh, H. W., Ludtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the big five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00087-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 549–559. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.549.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  46. Thalmeyer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of brief and medium-length big five and big six personality questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23, 995–1009. doi: 10.1037/a0024165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trigo, M., Canudo, N., Branco, F., & Silva, D. (2010). Estudo das propriedades psicométricas da perceived stress scale (PSS) na população portuguesa [psychometric proprieties of the perceived stress scale (PSS) in Portuguese population]. Psychologica, 53, 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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.
  51. Wilson, K., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between personality and affect over the lifespan. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1141–1156. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00058-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woods, S. A., & Hampson, S. E. (2005). Measuring the big five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality, 19, 373–390. doi: 10.1002/per.542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Lusófona, Escola de Psicologia e Ciências da VidaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations