Advertisement

Development of a Short Form of the Eysenck Personality Profiler via Structural Equation Modeling

  • K. V. Petrides
  • Chris J. Jackson
  • Adrian Furnham
  • Stephen Levine
Part of the Mathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications book series (MMTA, volume 19)

Abstract

Most salient personality theories maintain that traits are hierarchically organized, with a few broad factors at the apex of the structure and a number of narrow factors (primaries) below (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1999). Many such structures have been proposed (Cattell, 1973; Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Eysenck, 1992), differing both in the number of broad factors they postulate (e.g., three, four, five) as well as in the substantive theories that underpin them (e.g., descriptive versus hypothetico-deductive).

Keywords

Structural Equation Modeling Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Standardize Parameter Estimate Trait Emotional Intelligence Partial Measurement Invariance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personalityand Individual Differences, 25, 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor approach to personality description 5 years later. Journal of Research inPersonality, 35, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456- 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbookfor the 16Personality Factor questionnaire. Champaign, DL: Institute fo Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
  6. Church, A. T. & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL.: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  9. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of the Eysenck P-E-N system: Three and five-factor solutions. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 308–317.Google Scholar
  10. Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 322–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 58, 95–102.Google Scholar
  12. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.Google Scholar
  14. Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  15. Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual-differences: The three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 245–261.Google Scholar
  16. Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality andIndividual Differences, 13, 667–673.Google Scholar
  17. Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eysenck, H. J., Barrett, P. T., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. J. (1992). Primary trait measurement of the 21 components of the P-E-N system. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 109–117.Google Scholar
  19. Eysenck, H. J. & Wilson, G. D. (1991). The Eysenck Personality Profiler. London: Corporate Assessment Network, Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Eysenck, H. J., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson (1996). The Eysenck Personality Profiler (short). Guildford: Psi-Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description. British Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. T. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1998). Personality scores and test taking style. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (2001). Correlates of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 587–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuste, E. A. & Ruiz, R. J. (2001). Estructura factorial de la version reducida del “Eysenck Personality Profiler”. [Factor analysis of the “Eysenck Personality Profiler” (EPP-SF)]. Psicothema, 12, 406–411.Google Scholar
  26. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson, C. J., Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (2000). The structure of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 223–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, C. J. (2002). Mapping Gray’s model of personality onto the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP). Personality and IndividualDifferences, 32, 495–507.Google Scholar
  30. Levy, P. (1967). The correction for spurious correlation in the evaluation of short-form tests. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 23, 84–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:Theory and research(2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  32. McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Bond, M. H., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 70, 552–566.Google Scholar
  33. Millsap, R. E. (1998). Group differences in regression intercepts: Implications for factorial invariance. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 33, 403–424.Google Scholar
  34. Moosbrugger, H. & Fischbach, A. (2002). Evaluating the dimensionality of the Eysenck Personality Profiler - German version (EPP-D): A contribution to the Super Three vs. Big Five Discussion. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muris, P., Schmidt, H., Merckelbach, H., & Rassin, E. (2000). Reliability, factor structure and validity of the Dutch Eysenck Personality Profiler. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 538–556.Google Scholar
  37. Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:Google Scholar
  38. Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448.Google Scholar
  39. Raykov, T. (1998). On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Revelle, W. (1997). Extraversion and impulsivity: The lost dimension? In H.Google Scholar
  41. Nyborg (Ed.), The Scientific study ofhuman nature: Tribute to HansJ. Eysenck at eighty. (pp. 189–212). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  42. Saucier, G. (1992). Benchmarks: Integrating affective and interpersonal circles with the Big-Five personality factors. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 62, 1025–1035.Google Scholar
  43. Thompson, B. (1994). Guidelines for authors. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 54, 837–847.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, B. (1999). Journal editorial policies regarding statistical significance tests: Heat is to fire as p is to importance. EducationalPsychology Review, 11, 157–169.Google Scholar
  45. Wiggins, J. S. & Trobst, K. K. (1999). The fields of interpersonal behavior. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:Theory and research(2nd ed., pp. 653–670). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, G. D. & Jackson, C. (1994). The personality of physicists. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. V. Petrides
    • 1
  • Chris J. Jackson
    • 2
  • Adrian Furnham
    • 3
  • Stephen Levine
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of QueenslandQueenslandAustralia
  3. 3.University College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.University of SurreySurreyUK

Personalised recommendations