The Couple's Counseling Report User's Guide describes the contents of the report and explains how to use it. Familiarity with the 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire is required for appropriate use of this report. The 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator's Manual describes how to administer and interpret the test. The psychometric properties of the fifth edition of the 16PF are well documented in its technical manual. The mean test-retest reliability (aka coefficient of stability) for the Primary Factor scales over a two-week and two-month period are 0.80 and 0.70 respectively.
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
(16PF) is a measure of normal personality, based on R. B. Cattell’s factor-analytic theory of personality (Cattell, 1933, 1946). Since the original 16PF Questionnaire was published in 1949, it has been revised four times, in 1956, 1962, and 1968 and the latest fifth edition in 1993.
Description of Test – 217
The 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire contains 185 multiple-choice items. The questionnaire is written with simple (fifth grade) and updated language, and is meant for individuals above 16 years of age.
Personality items have a three-choice answer format, and the middle response is a question mark. The items are nonthreatening and ask about personal preferences, interests, behaviors, and opinions. Items were also reviewed for gender, race or cultural bias, compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, and cross-cultural translatability.
Parallel versions of the 16PF test include the 16PF Adolescent Personality Questionnaire for lower age ranges of 12 – 18 years (Schuerger, 2001); 16PF Select, a shorter version used for employee selection (Cattell et al., 1999); and the 16PF Express with reduced items for each factor (Gorsuch, 2006). 16PF is also included in the PsychEval Personality Questionnaire which measures both normal and abnormal personality dimensions (Cattell et al., 2003).
Scales
The test consists of sixteen primary factor scales including a cognitive ability scale, five global factor scales, and two super factor scales. In addition, it features three response style indices to measure validity. All scales were determined through factor analysis.
The sixteen primary scales are basic elements of personality. Each primary scale contains 10-15 items. The sixteen primary scales are Warmth (A), Reasoning (B), Emotional Stability (C), Dominance (E), Liveliness (F), Rule-Consciousness (G), Social Boldness (H), Sensitivity (I), Vigilance (L), Abstractedness (M), Privateness (N), Apprehension (O), Openness to Change (Q1), Self-Reliance (Q2), Perfectionism (Q3), and Tension (Q4).
Global scales are based on more items (40-50) than primary scales, hence are more reliable and robust. The five global scales are Extraversion, Anxiety Neuroticism, Tough-Mindedness, Independence, and Self-Control. More confidence can be placed in their accuracy. Each global factor is made up of four or five specific primary traits. The global scales align fairly well with other Big-Five measures. However, global scales are broad in meaning.
Super factor I, called active outward engagement, consists of both Extraversion and Independence. It involves tendencies to socially connect to the world, and to explore and master the environment. Super factor II, called self-disciplined practicality versus unstrained creativity, consists of both Self-control and Receptivity. Self-controlled people tend to be more tough-minded and less receptive to feelings and new ideas, while impulsive and undisciplined tend to be more creative and receptive to emotions and ideas.
The three response-style scales help to identify unusual response patterns which especially affects predictive validity. The three response indices are the Infrequency (INF) Scale, the Acquiescence (ACQ) Scale, and the Impression Management (IM) Scale. Factors that affect accurate responding include low reading comprehension, test anxiety, and giving socially desirable answers. The INF scale measures whether the individual responded meaningfully or randomly, while the IM and ACQ scales indicate whether the individual was motivated to present an accurate self-portrayal.
Administration and Scoring -166
Administration and scoring is easy and can be completed by a trained nonprofessional. The test can be administered individually or in group settings, and requires minimal supervision. It is untimed, and has simple, straight forward instructions. The paper-and-pencil format takes 35 to 50 minutes while computerized administration takes 25 to 35 minutes.
Online administration and scoring are available on the Internet via NetAssess. The 16PF Questionnaire is available in over 35 languages, and 16PFworld.com provides internet multilingual testing and scoring with the appropriate norms.
Hand scoring is quick and simple, and takes an experienced scorer only 6 or 7 minutes to complete. It requires a set of four scoring keys, a norm table, and an Individual Record Form. Detailed hand-scoring instructions are provided in the test administrator’s manual.
Computer scoring can generate additional scores and information that enhance test interpretation. Test answer sheets may be mailed or faxed to the test publisher, or scored on a personal computer via the Internet or software.
Score Interpretation
Scores are presented in “stens” or standard-ten scale, ranging from 1 to 10, with a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2. Sten 4 is considered low, sten 5 or 6 average, and sten 7 high. A+ indicates a high score (right pole) while A- indicates a low score (left pole) on the primary scale Warmth (A).
The 16PF primary and global scales are bipolar, with well-defined meanings at both poles rather than varying degrees of the scale. A high or low score on a scale is not regarded as good or bad. Rather, the score increases the likelihood that the trait defined at the pole will be distinctive of the individual’s behavior. Whether that trait is determined to have positive or negative effects depends on the context.
According to Cattell and Schuerger (2003), interpreting the 16PF Questionnaire first requires the interpreter to consider all other sources of information about the person to better understand the individual and the context in which the testing is taking place. For instance the purpose for the testing, anxiety or unfamiliarity with tests, results from other tests, life history accounts, and interview data. This is followed by the evaluating of response indices, global and primary scores. Then determine scale interactions and finally integrating all information in relation to the assessment question.
Individual scores are compared to the mean score based on the 16PF normative sample. Scores that fall outside the average range are the focus of interpretation. Extreme scores are central to the individual’s identity.
Interpreting Primary Scales
According to the 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator’s Manual (Russell & Karol, 2002), having two to seven extreme primary scores is within the average range. Extreme primary scores represent the strong behavioral tendencies that may be difficult for the person to shift away from. The more extreme primary scores an individual has, the more well-defined his or her personality style will be. Possible explanations for few extreme scores are that the person’s behavior is average, unclear self-picture on certain traits by answering similar items in inconsistent directions, or avoid making a poor impression or by choosing a relatively high number of b responses.
Interpreting Global Scales
According to the 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator’s Manual (Russell & Karol, 2002), 86% of the general population have zero to two extreme global scores in their profiles. 10% had three extreme global scores, 3% four, and less than 1% had all five global factors. People with three extreme global scale scores have an above-average number of distinctive traits, and those with four or five total extreme global scores are rather unique in the distinctiveness of their personality.
Primary scales may contribute to global scales in either a positive or a negative direction. For example, a high score on the global Extraversion can come from high scores on Warmth (A+), Liveliness (F+), or Social Boldness (H+) or from low scores on Privateness (N-) and Self Reliance (Q2-).
Scale Interaction
An essential part of 16PF interpretation is understanding which primary scales fit together to form the global scales. Two or more scores can interact and have modified meaning together, called scale interactions or score patterns. For instance, with a score pattern of high Warmth (A+) and Dominance (E+), the aggressive and overbearing qualities present in E+ individuals are softened by the tendency to be concerned about others and their feelings (A+). The individual is likely to be persuasive and socially facilitative rather than stubborn or domineering (Karson et al., 1997).
Interpreting Response indices
Scores of the response style indices are presented as raw scores and percentiles rather than as sten scores. The 16PF manuals (Russell & Karol, 2002) suggest using the 95th percentile as the cut off mark for response set. If any of the indices is extreme, the interpreter should evaluate whether the individual’s response set might be affecting the validity of the profile.
Normative and Standardization Procedure
Information describing the norming process is vague. The current standardization sample was released in 2002 and is based on a stratified random sample of 10,261 individuals, matched to the U.S. Census data from 2000 for sex, race, and age (Cattell & Schueger, 2003).
Reliability
Test-retest Reliability
The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual (Conn & Rieke, 1994, cited in Cattell & Schueger, 2003) reports strong test-retest reliabilities, which are estimated on a sample of 204 people for two-week interval and 159 people for two-month interval.
Two-week test-retest estimates for the 16PF primary scales ranged from .69 to .87, with a mean of .80, while two-month test-retest reliabilities ranged from .56 to .79, with a mean of .69.
16pf Fifth Edition Technical Manual
Two-week test-retest estimates for the global scales ranged from .84 to .91 with a mean of .87, and two-month test-retest estimates ranged from .70 to .82 with a mean of .78.
International 16PF editions also show strong test-retest reliabilities. For instance, one-month estimates of primary scales had a mean of .83 for the German edition (Schneewind & Graf, 1998, cited in Cattell & Mead, 2008); .86 for the Danish edition (IPAT, 2004c, cited in Cattell & Mead, 2008); and .73 for the French edition (IPAT, 1995, cited in Cattell & Mead, 2008).
Internal Consistency
The test manual (Conn and Rieke, 1994, cited in Cattell & Schueger, 2003) also reports good internal consistency for the 16PF scales. Estimated on a stratified random sample of 10,261 people, Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .66 to .86, with a mean of .76. Internal consistency estimates are not provided for the global scales.
Validity
The three response style indices are used to measure validity.
Content-related Evidence: Factorial validity
Factorial validity of 16PF scales is particularly important as the 16PF Questionnaire is developed through factor analysis. Several factor-analytic studies have established strong support for the structure of the primary and global traits across diverse sample groups.
For instance, Hofer, Horn, and Eber (1997) found the factor structure to be robust across six diverse samples of a total of 30,732 individuals. Dancer and Woods (2007) found strong support for the global traits through factor analysis of the primary traits based on a sample of 4,414 business employees.
Factorial validity has also been confirmed in the international editions, for instance German edition (Schneewind and Graf, 1998), Italian edition (Barbaranelli & Caprara, 1996), Chinese edition (Jia-xi and Guo-peng, 2006), French edition (Rolland and Mogenet, 1996), and Japanese edition (IPAT, 2007),
Construct-related Evidence: Convergent Validity
Convergent validity is established by the correlations between the 16PF scales and scales on other instruments. Strong relationships with other measures of personality help to validate the meanings of the 16PF scales. For instance the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae, 1992a), the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers and McCaulley, 1985), and the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1989).
There is good convergent validity for international 16PF editions too. For instance, the German edition has strong correlations with the NEO-PI-R and the Personality Research Form (Schneewind and Graf, 1998).
Criterion-related Evidence: Predictive Validity
Predictive validity of the 16PF scales has been established by its usefulness in a range of settings, for instance employee selection, career development, clinical and counseling, educational and research settings.
The 16PF scales have also been useful in understanding and predicting a range of areas, for instance leadership potential (Conn and Rieke, 1994), social skills (Conn and Rieke, 1994), creativity (Guastello and Rieke, 1993), and several occupational profiles (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter, 2000).
Strengths and Weaknesses
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 135 7The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) Heather E.P. Cattell and Alan D. MeadINTRODUCTION research and is embedded in a well-established theory of individual differences. This ques-The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire tionnaire’s extensive body of research(16PF) is a comprehensive measure of normal- stretches back over half a century, providingrange personality found to be effective in a evidence of its utility in clinical, counseling,variety of settings where an in-depth assess- industrial-organizational, educational, andment of the whole person is needed. The 16PF research settings (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970;traits, presented in Table 7.1, are the result of H.E.P. Cattell and Schuerger, 2003; Conn andyears of factor-analytic research focused on Rieke, 1994; Krug and Johns, 1990; Russelldiscovering the basic structural elements of and Karol, 2002). A conservative estimate ofpersonality (Cattell, R.B., 1957, 1973). 16PF research since 1974 includes more than 2,000 publications (Hofer and Eber, 2002). In addition to discovering the sixteen Most studies have found the 16PF to benormal-range personality traits for which the among the top five most commonly usedinstrument is named, these researchers iden- normal-range instruments in both researchtified the five broad dimensions – a variant of and practice (Butcher and Rouse, 1996;the ‘Big Five’ factors (Cattell, R.B., 1957, Piotrowski and Zalewski, 1993; Watkins et al.,1970). From the beginning, Cattell proposed 1995). The measure is also widely used inter-a multi-level, hierarchical structure of per- nationally, and since its inception has beensonality: the second-order global measures adapted into over 35 languages worldwide.describe personality at a broader, conceptuallevel, while the more precise primary factors HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEreveal the fine details and nuances that make 16PF QUESTIONNAIREeach person unique, and are more powerfulin predicting actual behavior. In addition, this The history of the 16PF Questionnairefactor-analytic structure includes a set of third- spans almost the entire history of standardizedorder factors, also discussed in this chapter. Due to its scientific origins, the 16PFQuestionnaire has a long history of empirical
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 136136 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTTable 7.1 16PF Scale Names and DescriptorsDescriptors of Low Range Primary Scales Descriptors of High RangeReserved, Impersonal, Distant Warmth (A) Warm-hearted, Caring, Attentive To OthersConcrete, Lower Mental Capacity Reasoning (B) Abstract, Bright, Fast-LearnerReactive, Affected By Feelings Emotional Stability (C) Emotionally Stable, Adaptive, MatureDeferential, Cooperative, Avoids Conflict Dominance (E) Dominant, Forceful, AssertiveSerious, Restrained, Careful Liveliness (F) Enthusiastic, Animated, SpontaneousExpedient, Nonconforming Rule-Consciousness (G) Rule-Conscious, DutifulShy, Timid, Threat-Sensitive Social Boldness (H) Socially Bold, Venturesome, Thick-SkinnedTough, Objective, Unsentimental Sensitivity (I) Sensitive, Aesthetic, Tender-MindedTrusting, Unsuspecting, Accepting Vigilance (L) Vigilant, Suspicious, Skeptical, WaryPractical, Grounded, Down-To-Earth Abstractedness (M) Abstracted, Imaginative, Idea-OrientedForthright, Genuine, Artless Privateness (N) Private, Discreet, Non-DisclosingSelf-Assured, Unworried, Complacent Apprehension (O) Apprehensive, Self-Doubting, WorriedTraditional, Attached To Familiar Openness to Change (Q1) Open To Change, ExperimentingGroup-Orientated, Affiliative Self-Reliance (Q2) Self-Reliant, Solitary, IndividualisticTolerates Disorder, Unexacting, Flexible Perfectionism (Q3) Perfectionistic, Organized, Self-DisciplinedRelaxed, Placid, Patient Tension (Q4) Tense, High Energy, Driven Global ScalesIntroverted, Socially Inhibited Extraversion Extraverted, Socially ParticipatingLow Anxiety, Unperturbable Anxiety Neuroticism High Anxiety, PerturbableReceptive, Open-Minded, Intuitive Tough-Mindedness Tough-Minded, Resolute, UnempathicAccommodating, Agreeable, Selfless Independence Independent, Persuasive, WillfulUnrestrained, Follows Urges Self-Control Self-Controlled, Inhibits UrgesAdapted with permission from S.R. Conn and M.L. Rieke (1994). 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champaign, IL: Institutefor Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.personality measurement. Instead of being hydrogen and oxygen). For psychology todeveloped to measure preconceived dimen- advance as a science, he felt it also neededsions of interest to a particular author, the basic measurement techniques for personality.instrument was developed from the unique Thus, through factor analysis – the powerfulperspective of a scientific quest to try to new tool for identifying underlying dimen-discover the basic structural elements of sions behind complex phenomena – Cattellpersonality. believed the basic dimensions of personality could be discovered and then measured. Raymond Cattell’s personality researchwas based on his strong background in the Over several decades, Cattell and his col-physical sciences; born in 1905, he witnessed leagues carried out a program of comprehen-the first-hand awe-inspiring results of sci- sive, international research seeking aence, from electricity and telephones to auto- thorough, research-based map of normal per-mobiles, airplanes, and medicine. He wanted sonality. They systematically measured theto apply these scientific methods to the widest possible range of personality dimen-uncharted domain of human personality with sions, believing that ‘all aspects of humanthe goal of discovering the basic elements of personality which are or have been of impor-personality (much as the basic elements of the tance, interest, or utility have already becomephysical world were discovered and organ- recorded in the substance of language’ized into the periodic table). He believed that (Cattell, R.B., 1943: 483). They studied thesehuman characteristics such as creativity, traits in diverse populations, using three differ-authoritarianism, altruism, or leadership skills ent methodologies (Cattell, R.B., 1973):could be predicted from these fundamental observation of natural, in-situ life behavior orpersonality traits (much as water was a L-data (e.g. academic grades, number of trafficweighted combination of the elements of accidents, or social contacts); questionnaire
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 137THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 137or Q-data from the self-report domain; and research in each new country. Introduction ofobjective behavior measured in standardized, Web-based administration in 1999 allowedexperimental settings or T-data (e.g. number international test-users easy access to admin-of original solutions to problem presented, istration, scoring, and reports in many differ-responses to frustrations). Eventually, this ent languages, using local normsresearch resulted in the 16 unitary traits ofthe 16PF Questionnaire shown in Table 7.1. CATTELL’S THEORY OF PERSONALITY From the beginning, Cattell’s goal was to Primary and secondary-level traitsinvestigate universal aspects of personality.Thus, his University of Illinois laboratory From its inception, the 16PF Questionnaireincluded researchers from many different was a multi-level measure of personalitycountries who later continued their research based on Cattell’s factor-analytic theoryabroad. Ongoing collaborative research was (Cattell, R.B., 1933, 1946). Cattell and hiscarried out with colleagues around the world, colleagues first discovered the primary traits,for example, in Japan (Akira Ishikawa and which provide the most basic definition ofBien Tsujioka), Germany (Kurt Pawlik and individual personality differences. TheseKlaus Schneewind), India (S. Kapoor), South more specific primary traits are more power-Africa (Malcolm Coulter), England (Frank ful in understanding and predicting the com-Warburton, Dennis Child), and Switzerland plexity of actual behavior (Ashton, 1998;(Karl Delhees). Judge et al., 2002; Mershon and Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen and Ashton, 2001; Roberts Since its first publication in 1949, there et al., 2005).have been four major revisions – the mostrecent release being the 16PF fifth edition Next, these researchers factor-analyzed the(Cattell, R.B. et al., 1993). The main goals of primary traits themselves in order to investi-the latest revision were to develop updated, gate personality structure at a higher level.refined item content and collect a large, new From this, the broader ‘second-order’ ornorm sample. The item pool included the global factors emerged – the original Bigbest items from all five previous forms of Five. These researchers found that thethe 16PF plus new items written by the test numerous primary traits consistently coa-authors and 16PF experts. Items were refined lesced into these broad dimensions, eachin a four-stage, iterative process using with its own independent focus and functionlarge samples. The resulting instrument has within personality, as described in Table 7.2.shorter, simpler items with updated lan- More recently, a similar set of Big Fiveguage, a more standardized answer format, factors has been rediscovered by otherand has been reviewed for gender, cultural, researchers (Costa and McCrae, 1992a;and ethnic bias and ADA (Americans With Goldberg, 1990), but using forced, orthogo-Disabilities Act) compliance. Psychometric nal factor definitions. The five global factorscharacteristics are improved, hand scoring is also have been found in factor analyses of aeasier, and the standardization contains over wide range of current personality instruments10,000 people. (as Dr. Herb Eber, one of the original 16PF authors, used to say, ‘These broad factors Because of its international origins, the validate across very different populations and16PF Questionnaire was quickly translated methods because they are as big as elephantsand adapted into many other languages. and can be found in any large data set!’).Since its first publication in 1949, the instru-ment has been adapted into more than 35 lan- Thus, these five ‘second-order’ or globalguages worldwide. These are not simply factors were found to define personality at atranslations, as many questionnaires provide,but careful cultural adaptations, involvingnew norms and reliability and validity
How To Write Technical Manual
Table 7.2 16PF global factors and the primary trait` make-up 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 138 Global FactorsExtraversion/Introversion High Anxiety/Low Anxiety Tough-Mindedness/Receptivity Independence/Accommodation Self-Control/Lack of Restraint(A) Warm-Reserved (C) Emotionally Stable– (A) Warm–Reserved (E) Dominant–Deferential (F) Lively–Serious(F) Lively-Serious Reactive (I) Sensitive–Unsentimental (H) Bold–Shy (G) Rule-conscious/Expedient(H) Bold-Shy (M) Abstracted–Practical (L) Vigilant–Trusting (M) Abstracted–Practical(N) Private-Forthright (L) Vigilant–Trusting (Q1) Open-to-Change/ (Q1) Open-to Change/ (Q3) Perfectionistic–Tolerates(Q2) Self-Reliant–Group-oriented (O) Apprehensive–Self-assured (Q4) Tense–Relaxed Traditional Traditional disorder Primary Factors
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 139THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 139higher, more theoretical level of personality. likely to come across as warm, modest, andHowever, because of their factor-analytic concerned about others, while the second isorigins, the two levels of personality are likely to seem bold, talkative, and attentionessentially inter-related. The global factors seeking (less concerned about others). Thus,provide the larger conceptual, organizing although both may seek social interaction toframework for understanding the meaning an equal degree, they do so for very differentand function of the primary traits. However, reasons and are likely to have a very differentthe meanings of the globals themselves were impact on their social environment.determined by the primary traits which con-verged to make them up (see Table 7.2). The primary and global levels of 16PF traits combine to provide a comprehensive, For example, the Extraversion/Introversion in-depth understanding of an individual’sglobal factor was defined by the convergence personality. For example, although knowingof the five primary scales that represent basic someone’s overall level of Self-Control/con-human motivations for moving toward versus scientiousness is important, successfullyaway from social interaction. Similarly, motivating that person to accomplish athe four primary traits that merged to define particular goal depends on also knowingTough-Mindedness versus Receptivity whether their self-control is motivated moredescribe four different aspects of openness to by strong obedience to societal standardsthe world: openness to feelings and emotions (Rule-Consciousness – G+), by a temperamen-(Sensitivity – I), openness to abstract ideas tal tendency to be self-disciplined and organ-and imagination (Abstractedness – M), open- ized (Perfectionism – Q3+), or by a practical,ness to new approaches and ideas (Openness- focused perceptual style (low Abstractedness –to-Change – Q1), and openness to people M−). Thus, the 16PF Questionnaire can pro-(Warmth – A). vide an in-depth, integrated understanding of an individual’s whole personality. Cattell’s hierarchical structure is basedon the idea that all traits are inter- The super factors of personality:correlated in the real world (for example, third-order factorsintelligence and anxiety, although conceptu-ally quite distinct, are usually strongly inter- From the beginning, Cattell’s comprehensivecorrelated). Because the basic 16PF primary trait hierarchy was three-tiered: A wide sam-traits were naturally inter-correlated, they pling of everyday behaviors were factor-could be factor-analyzed to find the secondary- analyzed to find the primary factors; theselevel global traits. Thus, the data itself deter- primary traits were factor-analyzed, resultingmined the definitions of the primary and in the five second-order, global traits; andglobal factors (in contrast to the forced then the global factors were factor-analyzedorthogonal definitions of factors in the cur- into third-order traits at the highest, mostrently popular Big Five models). abstract level of personality organization (Cattell, R.B., 1946, 1957, 1973). Factor Thus, the global traits provide a broad analysis of secondary factors to find third-overview of personality, while the primary order factors was practiced first in the abilitytraits provide the more detailed information domain (e.g. Spearman, 1932), but a fewabout the richness and uniqueness of the indi- personality theorists have also looked atvidual. For example, two people may have the this highest level of personality structuresame score on global Extraversion but may have (e.g. Eysenck, 1978; Hampson, 1988;quite different social styles. Someone who is Digman, 1997; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989).warm and supportive (A+) but shy and modest(H−) may have the exact same Extraversion Because factor-analytic results at eachscore as someone who is socially bold and level depend on the clarity of the traits beinggregarious (H+) but emotionally aloof anddetached (A−). However, the first person is
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 140140 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTfactor-analyzed, early attempts to find third- Self-Control or conscientiousness); but alsoorder traits were less reliable. However, the dimensions of internal perceptual sensi-several independent studies have recently tivity, reactivity, and creativity – openness toused large-scale samples to investigate the feelings, imagination, esthetics, and newthird-order factor structure of the 16PF ideas (global Receptivity/openness versus(H.E.P. Cattell, 1996; Dancer and Woods, Tough-Mindedness). Note that higher levels2007; Gorsuch, 2007; Lounsbury et al., of Self-Control/conscientiousness are related2004). H.E.P. Cattell (1996) applied a common to lower levels of openness/Receptivity:factor analysis to the global traits of the Thus, highly conscientiousness, self-con-16PF Fifth Edition norm sample (n = 2,500), trolled people also tend to be tough-mindedand found two well-defined third-order fac- and less open to emotions and new ideas.tors. Richard Gorsuch (pers. comm., 12 Conversely, those who are more impulsiveFebruary 2007) applied a common factor and undisciplined also tend to be moreanalysis to the 16PF global scores of 11,000 creative and open to feelings and ideassubjects, and found two very similar third- (and to experience life more vividly). Thisorder factors. Most recently, Dancer and third-order factor is well illustrated in theWoods (2007) found very similar results contrasting styles of having a conscientiousworking with a sample of 4,405 working focus on concrete, objective, practicaladults, and this factor pattern is presented in tasks, versus occupations that focus onTable 7.3. abstract, imaginative, and innovative ideas. Thus, superfactor II might be called self- Each of these independent studies found disciplined practicality versus unrestrainedthe same two-factor solution. The first factor, creativity.factor I, involves human activities that aredirected outward toward the world. This The fifth global factor, Anxiety/neuroti-includes both Extraversion (movement cism, then loads on both of these third-ordertoward social engagement, ‘communion’ factors. This suggests that the distressor ‘attachment’), as well as Independence described by Anxiety could arise either in the(mastery/dominance of the social and non- inward/outward engagement domain or in thesocial environment). Thus, third-order factor more internalized unrestrained creativity/ self-I encompasses tendencies to move assertively disciplined practicality domain. Additionally,outward into the world toward both social high levels of distress may affect either ofconnection and toward exploration/mastery these areas. This is consistent with the wideof the environment, and might be called range of outward and inward human capaci-active outward engagement. ties that can potentially become unbalanced, or can be affected by stress. Third-order factor II involves internaltypes of processes and events. It includes These results are consistent with Cattell’sfirst the age-old dimension of instinctual original belief that these third-order factorsimpulsivity versus self-restraint (global may not represent personality traits in the usual sense, but might reflect some broad, abstractTable 7.3 Varimax rotated factor loadings level of sociological or biological influencesof the second-order factors of the 16PF5 on human temperament (Cattell, R.B., 1957;questionnaire (n = 4,405) 1973). For example, there may be some biological/neurological structure that affects Rotated factor I Rotated factor II outward engagement versus inhibition (super- factor I), or affects impulse control/Extraversion 0.821 −0.522 restraint and perceptual sensitivity/reactivityIndependence 0.669 0.816 (superfactor II). Definition and understandingAnxiety −0.638 0.737 of these third-order factors await furtherSelf-control investigation.Tough-mindedness
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 141 THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 141Comparison of the 16PF global methods, Costa and McCrae’s results do notscales with other five-factor models replicate (McKenzie, 1998). Instead, appro- priate factoring (see R.B. Cattell, 1978;For over 50 years, the 16PF has included the Gorsuch, 1983) of the original matrix pro-broad, second-order dimensions currently duces the five 16PF global factors, rathercalled ‘the Big Five’ (Cattell, R.B., 1946; than the three orthogonal NEO factors thatKrug and Johns, 1986). In fact, Cattell located Costa and McCrae chose to use.three of these five factors in his earliest stud-ies of temperament (1933) – which Digman A range of studies comparing the five 16PF(1996) called ‘the first glimpse of the Big global factors and the set of NEO Big Five fac-Five’. Four of the five current traits were tors show a striking resemblance between thealready described in Cattell’s 1957 book. All two (Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E.P. Cattell,five traits have been clearly identified and 1996; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Gerbing andscorable from the questionnaire since the Tuley, 1991; Schneewind and Graf, 1998).release of the fourth edition around 1970. These studies show strong correlational andAlthough Cattell continued to believe that factor-analytic alignment between the twothere were more than five factors, so have models: Between the two extraversion factors,many other prominent psychologists (Block, between anxiety and neuroticism, between1995; Fiske, 1994; Hogan et al., 1996; self-control and conscientiousness, betweenJackson et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2005; tough-mindedness/receptivity and openness-Ostendorf, 1990; Saucier 2001). to-experience, and between independence and dis-agreeableness. In fact, the average correla- The 16PF scales and items also played an tion between the 16PF global factors and theirimportant role in the development of the other respective NEO five factors are just as high asBig Five factor models (e.g. Costa and those between the NEO five factors and theMcCrae, 1976, 1985; Norman, 1963; Big Five markers which the NEO was devel-McKenzie et al., 1997; Tupes and Christal, oped to measure (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996;1961). For example, the first NEO manual Goldberg, 1992). The alignments among the(Costa and McCrae, 1985: 26) describes the Big Five models are summarized in Table 7.4.development of the questionnaire as beginningwith cluster analyses of 16PF scales, which However, there are important differencesthese researchers had been using for over between the two models. Although propo-20 years in their own research. However, this nents of the other five-factor models have doneorigin, or even acknowledgement of the exis- much in the last decade to try to bring abouttence of the five 16PF global factors, does not a consensus in psychology about the exis-appear in any current accounts of the develop- tence of five global factors, their particularment of the Big Five (Costa and McCrae, set of traits have been found to be problem-1992a; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). atic. In the development process, the NEO Big Five factors were forced to be statisti- Furthermore, when the 16PF correlation cally uncorrelated or orthogonal for reasonsmatrix, which was used in the original devel- of theoretical and statistical simplicity.opment of the Big Five, is re-analyzed However, few have found this as a satisfactoryusing more modern, rigorous factor-analytic approach for defining the basic dimensionsTable 7.4 Alignments among the three main five-factor models16PF (Cattell) NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae) Big Five (Goldberg)Extraversion/Introversion Extraversion SurgencyLow Anxiety/High Anxiety Neuroticism Emotional stabilityTough-Mindedness/Receptivity Openness Intellect or cultureIndependence/Accommodation Agreeableness AgreeablenessSelf-Control/Lack of Restraint Conscientiousness Conscientiousness or dependability
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 142142 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTof human personality. For example, Big Five (Wiggins, 2003), the five-factor model has nosupporter Jack Digman (1997) stated: ‘The factor that centrally includes either domi-apparent orthogonality of the Big Five is a nance or warmth. Rather factor analyses ofdirect result of the general employment of the NEO-PI-R show that the central traits ofvarimax rotation, a procedure that imposes dominance and warmth are widely dispersedrather than finds independent factors.’Additi- and spread thinly among several of the fiveonally, Loevinger writes: factors, particularly extraversion and agreeableness (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996; There is no reason to believe that the bedrock of Child, 1998; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Costa personality is a set of orthogonal ... factors, unless and McCrae, 1992). you think that nature is constrained to present us a world in rows and columns. That would be con- However, in the 16PF Questionnaire, the venient for many purposes, particularly given the Independence global factor is organized statistical programs already installed on our com- around traits of assertiveness and influence puters. But is this realistic? (1994: 6) in the world (high scorers are dominant, independent-minded and innovative, low The decision to impose orthogonal loca- scorers are deferential, cooperative, andtions had fundamental effects on the resulting agreeable). Thus, the 16PF global Independ-factors and their meanings. In his analysis ence factor is defined around traits of domi-of this basic issue of factor analysis, Child nance or ‘agency’, while in the NEO model,states: the basic trait of dominance is split and relegated to small roles in several factors Oblique solutions can spread the common vari- including extraversion and dis-agreeableness ance between and within factors; orthogonal rota- (where dominance is centered in a negative, tion can only spread variance between factors. hostile context). That is why it is so important to carry out an oblique solution, to allow no escape of important In a similar way, factor-analyses of the variance ... Unfortunately, the orthogonal compro- NEO-PI-R have found that the basic trait of mise disguises both the relationship between warmth (or communion) is also divided, with domains and the number of factors which could low loadings on several factors including possibly be present in hyperspace. (1998: 353–354) extraversion and agreeableness (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996; Child, 1998; Conn and Rieke, 1994; In contrast to the orthogonal definitions Smith et al., 2001). However, in the 16PF,that were fundamental to the development of Warmth plays a central role in Extraversion,the NEO factors, recent studies have found the factor that focuses on the basic dimensionsthat the NEO five factors are actually sub- of interpersonal relating. Additionally, thesestantially inter-correlated (Carnivez and Allen, factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R indicate that2005; Goldberg, 1992; Smith et al., 2001). the openness trait (called ‘intellect’ inEven the latest NEO-PI-R manual (Costa Goldberg’s model) tends to focus more on cog-and McCrae, 1992: 100) shows neuroticism nitive or intellectual curiosity, rather thanand conscientiousness to inter-correlate − equally measuring the whole domain, which0.53, and extraversion and openness to inter- includes openness to feelings, emotions, andcorrelate 0.40. Goldberg’s Big Five markers esthetics. Also, the Big Five factor ‘conscien-also show substantial inter-correlations. tiousness’ appears to be narrower in contentThese inter-correlations contradict the origi- than 16PF Self-Control and doesn’t include thenal premise on which the NEO Big Five fac- whole domain of human methods for self-tors were defined. control and self-restraint versus impulsivity (Roberts et al., 2005). The forced orthogonal factor locations ofthe five-factor model have had substantial Thus, the imposed orthogonality of theeffects on the meanings of the traits. For NEO has had multiple impacts on itsexample, although the basic traits of domi- factor definitions. Furthermore, researchersnance (or agency) and warmth (or communion)have long been seen as two of the most fun-damental dimensions of human personality
Usmc Technical Manual
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 143THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 143have found that when oblique methods are just as well with other Big Five domains thanused on the NEO-PI-R items, allowing the data their own (even the test authors stated thatitself to determine factor definitions, the result- the 1992 revision of the NEO was prompteding factor definitions are different, and show by the fact that the facets for neuroticism andmore clarity and simple structure than do the extraversion did not cohere psychometricallycurrent NEO-PI-R factors (Child, 1998). (McCrae and Costa, 1992)). For example, Roberts et al. (2005) found that three of the However, the biggest difference between six conscientiousness facets do not adhere tothe two approaches is the method of develop- that domain, but are as strongly related toment of the primary level traits. In the 16PF other Big Five domains as they are to consci-Questionnaire, the first-order primary trait entiousness.definitions are based on decades of scientificresearch, and have been confirmed in a wide Overall, the strong correlations of manyrange of independent studies (see the section facets with theoretically unrelated domainson Validity). In contrast, the NEO-PI primary- and facets bring into question the definitionlevel personality facets were decided by of the Big Five factors. This lack of adher-consensus among a small group of psycholo- ence of the NEO facets to their assignedgists (who selected what they felt should domains is inconsistent with the basic modelappear in each NEO domain). Child (1998) of the questionnaire (and probably a result ofcomments: the non-empirical origins of the facets). Thus, a number of important issues have It does seem miraculous that the personality been raised about the integrity of the NEO domains divided exactly into six facets. Of course, model, as a result of both the arbitrary choice as the NEO PI-R is a “top-down” theory, the of facet trait meanings and orthogonal global researchers can choose whatever number they factor definitions. wish before tying up the parcel. The snag with this procedure is its arbitrary nature and proneness to Another important distinction between the creating factors or traits to fit a theory. (1998: 352) 16PF and other questionnaires is the contex- tualized nature of its items. For example, This method of selecting the fundamental items on the NEO-PI-R involve a high degreefacets of personality raises some basic ques- of transparent self-rating or self-assessmenttions about the NEO model. First of all, this of traits (e.g. ‘I’m an even-tempered person’;arbitrary approach to choosing the facets ‘I am dominant, forceful, and assertive’; ‘I amleaves them open to debate by every other known as a warm and friendly person’).psychologist who happens to conceptualize Although this type of transparent item maypersonality differently (e.g. Gough, 1987; do well in research settings, in most assess-Hogan et al., 1996; Wiggins, 2003). More ment situations where there are strong moti-importantly, these facets are now used to vational components, these items tend to bedefine and calculate scores on the basic vulnerable to distortion. For example, vari-Big Five factors, which have resulted in ous studies have found that the basic factorchanged definitions of the Big Five domains structure of the NEO-PI-R is different in jobthemselves. applicant samples, thus bringing into question the validity of the questionnaire in settings Additionally, many correlational and where motivation and social desirability arefactor-analytic studies have found the under- issues (Schmit and Ryan, 1993; Smith et al.,lying factor structure of the NEO facets 2001). In contrast, 16PF items tend to beinconsistent and confusing, and that the more indirect and involve more contextualizeddomains do not actually hold together (Child, questions about actual behavior or experience1998; Church and Burke, 1994; Conn and (e.g. ‘When I find myself in a boring situa-Rieke, 1994; Loevinger, 1994; Parker et al., tion, I usually “tune out” and daydream about1993; Roberts et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2001). other things’; ‘I hardly ever feel hurried orThese researchers have found that a largeproportion of the NEO facets actually correlate
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 144144 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTrushed as I go about my daily tasks’; ‘I some- ized-ten scores) ranging from 1 to 10, with atimes feel that I need my friends more than mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2.0.they need me’). The latest standardization includes over 10,000 people and was published in 2001. Furthermore, there is substantial researchindicating that self-ratings are different Because the questionnaire is un-timed andfrom observer ratings in their factor struc- has simple, straightforward instructions,ture, and that they are only moderately cor- administration requires minimal supervisionrelated with actual behavior (e.g. Paunonen, in either individual or group settings.1993; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989). This Administration time is about 35–50 minutessuggests that much of the variance or mean- for paper-and-pencil format, and abouting in self-ratings is not explained by the 25–40 minutes for computer administration.actual trait value, but rather is substantially Easy scoring procedures are providedaffected by self-perception or self-image. for paper-and-pencil, computer, or InternetFor example, self-ratings do not capture the formats. The publisher provides various scor-important dimensions of personality that are ing services (mail-in, fax, software, andoutside of a person’s awareness or inconsis- Internet) and a range of interpretive reportstent with their self-image. Therefore, indi- for different applications. Detailed instruc-rect questions that ask about actual everyday tions for administration and scoring can bebehavior (as 16PF items do) tend to measure found in numerous places (H.E.P. Cattellpersonality more accurately, than asking and Schuerger, 2003; Russell and Karol,a person to rate themselves on the trait – 2002).particularly where social desirability isinvolved or when no validity scales are The questionnaire is available in many dif-available on the instrument. ferent languages (international translations exceed 35 languages worldwide). UnlikeBASIC FEATURES OF THE 16PF many commercially available personalityQUESTIONNAIRE measures, recent 16PF translations are cul- turally adapted, with local norms and relia-First published in 1949, the 16PF Question- bility and validity information available innaire has had four major revisions, in 1956, individual manuals. Internet administration1962, 1968, and the fifth edition in 1993 also allows use of international norms for(Cattell, R.B. et al.). The latest edition con- scoring, plus reports in over a dozen differenttains 185 multiple-choice items, with a three- language groups.point answer format. Item content isnon-threatening, asking about daily behavior, The 16PF traits are also measured in par-interests, and opinions. The short ability scale allel versions for younger age ranges. Foritems (Factor B) are grouped together at the example, the 16PF Adolescent Personalityend of the questionnaire with separate Questionnaire measures the 16PF traits ininstructions. The questionnaire is written at 12–18 year olds (Schuerger, 2001). A shortera fifth grade reading level, and meant for (20-minute) version of the questionnaire, con-use with people 16 years and older. sisting of a subset of somewhat-shortened scales, was developed for use in employee The instrument provides scores on the selection settings – the 16PF Select (Cattell,16 primary scales, 5 global scales, and 3 R.B. et al., 1999). The 16PF Expressresponse bias scales. All personality scales are (Gorsuch, 2006) provides a very short,bipolar (have clear, meaningful definitions at 15-minute measure of all the traits (withboth ends), and are given in ‘stens’ (standard- four or five items per factor). The 16PF traits also appear in the PsychEval Personality Questionnaire (PEPQ; Cattell, R.B. et al., 2003), a comprehensive instrument which
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 145THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 145includes both normal and abnormal personal- RELIABILITY AND HOMOGENEITYity dimensions. Test–retest reliabilityUSES AND APPLICATIONS Test–retest reliabilities (measuring temporalBecause of its strong scientific background, consistency or stability) are documented inthe 16PF Questionnaire is used in a wide the 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manualrange of settings, including industrial/organi- (Conn and Rieke, 1994). For the 16PF primaryzational, counseling and clinical, basic scales, test–retest reliabilities average 0.80research, educational, and medical settings. over a two-week interval (ranging from 0.69The instrument’s ability to provide compre- to 0.87), and 0.70 over a two-month intervalhensive, objective information in an efficient (ranging from 0.56 to 0.79). The five globalmanner makes it a particularly powerful tool scales of the 16PF Questionnaire show evenfor industrial/organization applications, such higher test–retest reliabilities (they haveas employee selection, promotion, develop- more items); they average 0.87 for a two-ment, coaching, or outplacement counseling. week interval (ranging from 0.84 to 0.91),The questionnaire is also widely used in and 0.78 for a two-month interval (rangingcareer counseling settings. from 0.70 to 0.82). Although the 16PF Questionnaire is a International 16PF editions also showmeasure of normal-range personality, it can strong test–retest reliabilities. For example,be used in counseling/clinical settings to pro- two-week test–retest reliabilities for thevide an in-depth, integrated picture of the Norwegian edition average 0.80 for primarywhole person. Many experts have promoted scales and 0.87 for global scales (IPAT,the use of normal-range measures in clinical 2004b); for the German edition, primarysettings (e.g. Butcher and Rouse, 1996; scale reliabilities average 0.83 over a one-Costa and McCrae, 1992b). For example, month interval (Schneewind and Graf,16PF dimensions have proven useful in effi- 1998); for the Danish edition, primary scaleciently developing a comprehensive picture reliabilities average 0.86 over a two-weekof the whole person (including strengths and interval (IPAT, 2004c); and for the Frenchweaknesses), facilitating rapport and empathy, edition, one-month reliabilities average 0.73helping clients develop greater self-aware- (IPAT, 1995).ness, identifying relevant adjustment issues,choosing appropriate therapeutic strategies, Internal consistencyand planning developmental goals (H.B. andH.E.P. Cattell, 1997; Karson et al., 1997). Internal consistency indicates the degree of inter-relatedness or homogeneity of the items Information about questionnaire interpre- in a scale, and is thus a good estimate of reli-tation can be found in numerous 16PF ability for narrowly defined scales. Internalresource books. These include the test manu- consistency estimates for the 16PF primaryals, clinically oriented interpretive books scales on a diverse sample of 4,660, range(e.g. H.B. Cattell, 1989; Karson et al., 1997; from 0.66 to 0.86, with a mean of 0.75 (ConnMeyer, 1996), resource books for I/O settings and Rieke, 1994). Normal internal consis-(e.g. Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Lord, tency estimates are not appropriate for the1999; Watterson, 2002); and comprehensive global scales, because of their heterogeneousinterpretive guidebooks (e.g. H.E.P. Cattell nature as weighted composites of primaryand Schuerger, 2003; H.E.P. Cattell, 2007), scales. However, recently developed equa-plus computer-generated interpretive reports. tions (F. Drasgow, pers. comm., January 2005)
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 146146 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTfor estimating internal consistency in hetero- where rXC is the criterion-related validity ofgeneous composites were applied, and aver- the scale, riC is the criterion correlation ofage 0.87 over the five global scales (S. Bedwell, item i, and other terms are as defined inpers. comm., February 2007). Equation 7.1. The term involving a ratio of numbers of items in Equation 7.1 approaches Internal consistency for international one quickly and can be ignored. The remain-versions of the instrument also meets profes- der of Equation 7.1 looks quite like Equationsionally accepted standards. For example, 7.2; both equations contain ratios of sumsCronbach alphas averaged 0.74 in the with similar denominators. The denominatorGerman edition (Schneewind and Graf, is maximized when the items are highly cor-1998), 0.72 in the French edition (Rolland related (and a large denominator leads to aand Mogenet, 1996), 0.75 in the Japanese edi- small ratio). The key difference between thetion (IPAT, 2007), 0.69 in the Chinese edition two equations is that the ratio is subtracted(Jia-xi and Guo-peng, 2006), and 0.73 in the from 1 in Equation 7.1.Spanish-American or Pan-Spanish edition(H.E.P. Cattell, 2005). Thus, opposite conditions lead to maxi- mization of Equations 7.1 and 7.2. EquationToo much homogeneity? 7.1 shows that internal consistency is maxi- mized when items are highly correlated, andTest developers often select items to maxi- Equation 7.2 shows that criterion-relatedmize the internal consistency of a scale by validity is maximized when items are uncor-deleting heterogeneous items. Cattell and related. In practical terms, this means it isothers (Cattell, R.B. and Tsujioka, 1964; mathematically impossible to simultaneouslyRosnowski, 1987) have questioned this prac- maximize reliability and validity of a scale.tice because it can lead to seemingly highly Therefore, test developers must choosereliable scales which actually measure only a between making very homogeneous scalesvery narrow, homogeneous segment of the that reliably predict only a narrow set oftarget construct, or measure it only in a narrow behaviors versus creating more heteroge-group of people. neous scales that measure more comprehen- sive scale content. Because the predictive In fact, personality scales can be too homo- validity of a scale is the ultimate measure ofgeneous. Lord (1980: 9) shows how, for its worth, internal consistency reliabilitydichotomous items, a single scale cannot should not be the main criterion used in scalemaximize both internal consistency reliability development.and validity. Reliability may be defined as:∑ ∑∑ρXX '=n ⎛ − σ 2 ⎞ FACTORIAL VALIDITY − ⎜1 i ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (7.1) One important source of validity for the n 1 σiσ ρij 16PF Questionnaire has been factor-analytic j studies of the structure of the primary and global traits across diverse samples of people where n is the number of items on the (e.g. Boyle, 1989; Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E. Cattell, 1996; Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970;scale, rXX′ is the internal consistency reliabil- Cattell, R.B. and Krug, 1986; Chernyshenkoity, rij is the correlation of items i and j, and et al., 2001; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Dancersi and sj are the standard deviations of items and Woods, 2007; Gerbing and Tuley, 1991;i and j. Validity may be defined as: R. Gorsuch, pers. comm., February 2007; Hofer et al., 1997; Krug and Johns, 1986;∑∑∑ρXC = σi ρiC (7.2) σi σ j ρij
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 147THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 147McKenzie et al., 1997; Ormerod et al., 1995). Edition Administrator’s Manual (RussellThese studies have used exploratory and con- and Karol, 2002) and the 16PF Fifth Editionfirmatory factor analysis to confirm the Technical Manual (Conn and Rieke, 1994)number, identity, and independence of the present correlations between the 16PFprimary factors; and to confirm the number, primary and global scales and a range ofidentity, and primary factor make-up of the other measures of normal, adult personality.global factors. These include the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Myers-Briggs For example, Dancer and Woods (2007) Type Indicator (Myers and McCaulley,factor-analyzed the primary traits in a sample 1985), the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae,of 4,414 business employees and found 1992a), the Personality Research Formstrong support for the 16PF global factor (Jackson, 1989), the Coopersmith Self-Esteemstructure. R. Gorsuch (pers. comm., February Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), the Holland2007) factor-analyzed the primary traits to occupational themes, as well as other meas-find the global traits on a sample of 11,000 ures of creativity, leadership, and socialtest-takers, and then applied a common factor skills. These results consistently validate theanalysis to the globals to confirm the third- meanings of the 16PF scales.order factors. Hofer et al. (1997) used confir-matory factor analysis and structural There are numerous independent studiesequation modeling tests of factorial invari- showing strong relationships between theance to study the measurement properties 16PF scales and other questionnaire scales;of the questionnaire across six large, diverse, for example, Boyle (1989) studied relation-samples (n = 30,732), and concluded that ships with the Eysenck and Comrey scales;‘the factor structure of the 16PF holds Dancer and Woods (2007) investigated rela-remarkably well across radically different tionships with the FIRO-B; and many studiessamples of people, across gender, and across have investigated the relationships betweendifferent forms of the 16PF’ (266). the 16PF scales and the NEO-PI scales (Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E.P. Cattell, Factor analyses of international editions 1996; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Gerbing andhave also confirmed the structure of the 16PF Tuley, 1991).primary and global traits. For example, factoranalyses have confirmed the factor structure International 16PF editions have alsoin the German edition (Schneewind and Graf, shown strong relationships with other instru-1998), the French edition (Rolland and ments. For example, the Japanese 16PFMogenet, 1996), the Japanese edition (IPAT, manual (IPAT, 2007) provides inter-correla-2007), the Chinese edition (Jia-xi tions with the OPQ and the SPI (a Myers-and Guo-peng, 2006), the Castilian Spanish Briggs type measure); the German editionedition (Prieto et al., 1996), the Italian edi- provides inter-correlations and multi-leveltion (Argentero, 1989), the South African factor analyses with the NEO-PI-R, the PRF,edition (Van Eeden and Prinsloo, 1997; and the Locus of Control InventorySchepers and Hassett, 2006); the Norwegian (Schneewind and Graf, 1998); the Dutchedition (IPAT, 2004b); and the Dutch edi- Manual provides inter-correlations with thetion (IPAT, 2004a). MBTI as well as with peer-ratings of person- ality (IPAT, 2004a); the French editionCONSTRUCT VALIDITY (IPAT, 1995) provides inter-correlations with the CPI, the Gordon PersonalityConstruct validity of the 16PF scales has Inventory, and the MBTI; and Schepers andbeen demonstrated by their correlations with Hassett (2006) provide correlational, factor-scales on other instruments. The 16PF Fifth analytic, and canonical correlations between the South African 16PF and the Locus of Control Inventory.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 148148 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTPREDICTIVE VALIDITY Employee selection, promotion, and developmentFor over half a century, the 16PF Questionnairehas proven useful in understanding and pre- The 16PF Questionnaire has proven itselfdicting a wide range of important behaviors, invaluable in making a range of organiza-thus providing a rich source of information tional decisions, such as employee hiring,for test users. For example, the instrument promotion, development, coaching,has been effective in predicting such diverse outplacement, and retirement counseling.areas as creativity (Guastello and Rieke, There is an extensive body of research1993b), social skills and empathy (Conn and demonstrating the 16PF Questionnaire’sRieke, 1994), marital compatibility (Russell, ability to predict a wide variety of1995), and leadership potential (Conn and occupational profiles (Cattell, R.B. et al.,Rieke, 1994), as well as over a hundred occu- 1970; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Guastello andpational profiles (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; Rieke, 1993a, 1993b; Russell and Karol,Conn and Rieke, 1994; Schuerger and 2002; Schuerger and Watterson, 1998;Watterson, 1998; Walter, 2000). Walter, 2000). Additionally, the 16PF has been useful in predicting many important The 16PF Questionnaire has been particu- job-related dimensions, for example,larly productive in the domain of basic person- creativity (Guastello and Rieke, 1993b),ality measurement research. For example, in leadership styles (Watterson, 2002), teamstudies of underlying personality structure roles and team climate (Burch and(Roberts et al., 2005), research into measure- Anderson, 2004; Fisher et al., 1998), socialment equivalence across cultures (Ellis and skills (Conn and Rieke, 1994), job trainingMead, 2000); studies into differences between success (Tango and Kolodinsky, 2004), andpeer-ratings and self-reports (IPAT, 2004a), job satisfaction (Lounsdbury et al., 2004).and studies of response bias (Christiansen International versions have also beenet al., 1994) and social desirability (Seisdedos, effective in predicting important work1996). The instrument has also been useful in dimensions, for example, punctuality, jobsocial and cognitive psychology, for example, preparedness, and ability to work alone inin studies of social perception and judgments the Netherlands (IPAT, 2004a); call-center(Rohmer and Louvet, 2004), attributional style customer service performance in Britain(Wang and Zhang, 2005), cognitive style and (Williams, 1999); and leadership effective-decision-making (Bisset, 2000), and cult mem- ness ratings in Norwegian managersbership (Kintlerova, 2000). (Hetland and Sandal, 2003). The measure has also been productive in Note that almost all research results areeducational settings, for example, in predicting linear and assume that ‘more is better’ onacademic achievement (Schuerger, 2001), char- personality dimensions, which may not beacteristics of college drop-outs (Sanchez the case. For example, although police offi-et al., 2001), choice of college major or spe- cers as a group generally score above aver-cialization (Hartung et al., 2005), and university age on Rule-Consciousness (G+); highersports participation (Arora, 2005). The instru- on-the-job performance is often predicted byment has also been useful in medical studies, lower scores on Rule-Consciousness withinfor example, of treatment issues in end-stage this above average group – probably becauseliver disease (Bonaguidi, 1996) and illnesses extremely G+ people may be rigidly rule-such as coronary artery disease (Miller et al., bound (Adcox et al., 1999). Therefore, job1996) or cancer (Nair et al., 1993). Because of performance results need to be taken inspace limitations, this review will focus on two the context of the group’s general scorebroad areas of use: organizational applications, range, and curvilinear relationships shouldsuch as employee selection and career develop- be considered.ment, and counseling and clinical uses.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 149THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 149Meta-analytic job performance innovative goals, tend to score higher onevidence Openness-to-Change (Q1+), Abstractedness (M+), Reasoning Ability (B+); averageOver two decades, a large body of evidence (below other managers) on Extraversionhas shown that various Big Five measures of traits such as Warmth (A), Forthrightnesspersonality are valid predictors of job per- (N), and Group-Orientation (Q2); and aver-formance (Hough and Ones, 2001; Hurtz and age to below on Rule-Consciousness (G−)Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., (H.B. Cattell, 1989; Walter, 2000; Watterson,1991). Indeed, the 16PF Questionnaire shows 2002). On the other hand, managers who areeven greater ability to predict occupational in applied manufacturing and operationsoutcomes through its more fine-grained pri- roles tend to score below average onmary traits, which are more powerful in cap- Abstractedness (M−) and Sensitivity (I−),turing important variance about specific and above average on Rule-Consciousnessbehaviors (Ashton, 1998; Judge et al., 2002; (G+) and Perfectionism (Q3+). Many studiesMershon and Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen and have predicted other aspects of managerialAshton, 2001; Gorsuch, 2006). style such as achievement motivation or supervision style, such as task-orientedManagers, executives, and leaders versus relationship-oriented focus (Clark and Clark, 1990; Dutta, 1995; Guastello andThe 16PF Questionnaire has a long history of Rieke, 1993a; Hinton and Barrow 1976;identifying the personality traits of success- Johns et al., 1980; Roy, 1995; Walter, 2000).ful supervisors, managers, executives, andother leaders (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; Similar results have also been found inCattell, R.B. et al., 1999; Cattell, R.B. and international samples, such as German man-Stice, 1954; Christiansen et al., 1994; Conn agers, executives, and consultants (Schneewindand Rieke, 1994; Guastello and Rieke, and Graf, 1998); Norwegian managers and1993a; Johns et al., 1980; Roy, 1995; executives (IPAT, 2004b); middle- and senior-Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter, level British managers (Bartram, 1992; Singh,2000; Watterson, 2002). These studies con- 1989; Williams, 1999); high-performingsistently indicate that three clusters of traits Japanese managers (IPAT, 2006); autocraticare important for managerial success. First, versus democratic styles of managers ineffective managers tend to be higher on India (Singh and Kaur, 2001); and predic-Global Independence and its primary traits of tions of management level and income inDominance (E+), Social Boldness (H+), and Dutch samples (IPAT, 2004a).Openness-to-Change (Q1+). Second, leaderstend to be below average on Anxiety and its Entrepreneurshiptraits of Apprehension (O−) and EmotionalStability (C+). Third, leaders tend to be Aldridge (1997) studied the personalities ofabove average on Extraversion and its entrepreneurs and found them to be signifi-traits of Warmth (A+), Social Boldness (H+), cantly below average on anxiety traits – lowLiveliness (F+), and Group-Orientation on Apprehensiveness (Self-Assured (O−))(Q2−). Leaders also tend to be above average and above average on Emotional Stabilityon Reasoning Ability (B+), and somewhat (C+). They were also above average onabove average on self-control traits. Independence and its traits of Dominance (E+), Social Boldness (H+), and Openness- Many of these studies also predicted impor- to-Change (Q1+). They were also higher ontant differences in management style and Self-Reliance (Q2+), Rule-Consciousnessbehaviors. For example, top-level executives (G+), and Reasoning Ability (B+), and lowwhose roles involve developing long-term, on Sensitivity (Utilitarian (I−)).
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 150150 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT H.B. Cattell confirmed many of these samples, for example in several groups ofresults in her applied research (H.B. Cattell, British salespeople (Williams, 1999), German1989; H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, 1997), salespeople (Schneewind, 1998), andidentifying traits that distinguished entrepre- Norwegian salespeople (IPAT, 2004b).neurs from other executives: innovativethinking (Openness-to-Change (Q+)); ability Social/helping occupationsto step back and focus on the ‘big picture’(Abstractedness (M+)); and a preference for 16PF profiles have also been identified forworking independently (Self-Reliance (Q2+)). social or helping occupations such as teach-Aldridge (1997) and Fraboni and Saltstone ing, counseling, customer service, human(1990) also found that entrepreneurs tended resource personnel, ministers/priests, nurses,to be less sociable than regular managers and physical therapists (e.g. Cattell, R.B.(low Warmth (A−), and low Trust (L+)), and et al., 1970; H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell,prefer to work independently (Self-Reliance 1997; Phillips et al., 1985; Roy, 1995;(Q2+)). Many of these results have also been Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter,confirmed in international samples, for 2000). People in social/helping occupationsexample, Norwegian entrepreneurs (IPAT, tend to be above average on Extraversion, and2004b). Thus, the traits that particularly dis- particularly on Warmth (A+); they also tend totinguish entrepreneurs from other business be below average on Tough-Mindedness (inmanagers include traits that cluster around the Receptive/open direction) – above averagequalities of innovation and self-reliance. on Sensitivity (I+) and Open-to-Change (Q1+). They also tend to be below average onSales Anxiety: Relaxed (Q4−), Self-Assured (O−), Trusting (L−), and Emotionally Stable (C+);Many studies have identified a similar 16PF and above average on Self-Control traits ofprofile for effective salespeople (e.g. Cattell, Perfectionism (Q3) and Rule-ConsciousnessR.B. et al., 1970; Guastello and Rieke, 1993b; (G+). These results have been validated in var-Rieke and Russell, 1987; Schuerger and ious international samples, such as BritishWatterson, 1991; Tucker, 1991; Walter, counselors of adolescents (Lee, 1994) and2000). Salespeople tend to be high on customer service personnel (Williams, 1999).Extraversion and its traits of Warmth (A+),Social Boldness (H+), Liveliness (F+), and Police, security, and protectiveGroup-Orientation (Q2−). They also tend service personnelto be low on Anxiety and its sub-traits ofApprehensiveness (Self-Assured (O−)), Vigi- The 16PF Questionnaire has a long history oflance (Trusting (L−)), and high on Emotional predicting the personality profiles of effectiveStability (C+). They also tend to be somewhat police officers, prison guards, firefighters,above average on Independence and its traits and other protective service and security per-of Social Boldness (H+) and Dominance sonnel (e.g. Adcox et al., 1999; Cattell, R.B.(E+); and somewhat above average on Rule- et al., 1970; Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999; H. Eber,Consciousness (G+) and Reasoning Ability pers. comm., 10 February 2007; Hofer et al.,(B+). Thus, salespeople tend to be generally 1997; IPAT, 2003; Jones et al., 2006;similar to managers; however, salespeople Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter,tend to be even higher on the traits of 2000). These studies indicate that protectiveExtraversion (especially F+, H+, and A+) and service officers tend to be calm and resilientlower on Anxiety traits (more Self-Assured under stress (low Anxiety, Emotionally Stable(O−), and are Stable (C+)). This profile has (C+); Self-Assured (O−); and Trusting (L−)).also been validated in numerous international
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 151THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 151They also tend to be responsible, self- Creativitydisciplined, and task-focused (high self-con-trol; Rule-Conscious, G+; Perfectionistic, Many studies have examined the relationshipQ3+; Practical, M−; and Serious, F−). They between 16PF scores and creativity. Conn andalso tend to be tough and pragmatic (high on Rieke (1994) summarized much of thisTough-Mindedness; Unsentimental (I−); research, and these results have beenPractical (M−); and Traditional (Q1−)). confirmed in recent American and interna-Additionally, protective service personnel are tional samples (e.g. Joy and Hicks, 2004;consistently bold and fearless (high on Social Jurcova, 2000; Roy, 1995, 1996). ConsistentBoldness (H+), but not on other Extraversion predictors of creativity include high scores ontraits), and somewhat above average on Independence and its primary scalesDominance (E+). Dominance (E+), Social Boldness (H+), and Openness-to-Change (Q1+); low scores on These results have been confirmed across Tough-Mindedness (in the Receptive or openvery large samples. For example, Herb direction) and its traits of Openness-to-ChangeEber’s sample of 30,700 police officers con- (Q1+), Sensitivity (I+), and Abstractednessfirms all 12 of the trait findings noted above (M+); and somewhat below average scores(H. Eber, pers. comm., 10 February, 2007). on Self-Control (unrestrained). These resultsAdditional trait patterns have been found to have been confirmed in international samples,be associated with particular job roles and for example in Norwegian artists (IPAT,functions, for example, officers who work 2004b) and in Korean, American, Finnish, andalone versus in community-patrol situations, Slovak students (Shaughnessy et al., 2004).those who perform investigative roles, orthose who work on high-stress assignments Career development counselingtend to show particular trait profiles. and coachingScientific, technology, and research The 16PF Questionnaire is widely used inpersonnel career development planning, counseling, and coaching, both inside and outside organiza-Distinct 16PF profiles have also been found tions, to help clients understand their strengthsfor scientific or technological professions and limitations, and plan self-developmentsuch as computer scientists, physicists, engi- goals and effective career paths (Carson, 1998;neers, and research and development person- Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; H.E.P. Cattell andnel (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; Schuerger and Schuerger, 2003; Conn and Rieke, 1994; KrugWatterson, 1998; Walter, 2000). In addition and Johns, 1990; Lowman, 1991; Schuerger,to being high on Abstract Reasoning (B+), 1995; Schuerger and Watterson, 1998;they tend be high on Independence and its Watterson, 2002). In addition to using thetraits of Dominance (E+) and Openness-to- numerous 16PF occupational profiles toChange (Q1+); low on Extraversion Traits of determine person–job fit, the questionnaireReserved (A−), Serious (F−), and Self- has been useful because of its long history ofReliant (Q2+); and below average on Anxiety predicting the six Holland RIASEC occupa-traits of Self-Assured (O-), Relaxed (Q4−), tional dimensions (Schuerger and Watterson,and Emotionally Stable (C+). These results 1998; Schuerger and Sfiligoj, 1998). Therehave been confirmed in international sam- is also empirical evidence of the relationshipples, for example, groups of Norwegian between 16PF scores and important career out-researchers, engineers, and computer pro- comes such as career satisfaction (Lounsburygrammers (IPAT, 2004b), British engineers et al., 2004) and job-training success (Tango(Williams, 1999), and German technical pro- and Kolodinsky, 2004).fessionals (Schneewind and Graf, 1998).
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 152152 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTCounseling and clinical uses the two partners’ unique traits combine and interact (Russell, 1995). In particular, 16PFThe 16PF Questionnaire was developed as a research has predicted various aspects ofmeasure of normal adult personality, and marital satisfaction as a function of absolutecannot be used to diagnosis psychiatric disor- or relative levels of personality traits. Forders (e.g. Lally, 2003). However, 16PF example, Krug (1976) found that differentdimensions have proven quite useful in coun- types of marital dissatisfaction were relatedseling and clinical settings; for example, in to large score differences between partnersquickly developing a picture of the individ- on certain traits. He also found that dissatis-ual’s overall personality functioning (includ- faction in wives was related to particular per-ing strengths and weaknesses), in facilitating sonality traits in husbands, while husbands’the development of empathy and rapport, dissatisfaction was related to largely differenthelping the client gain greater self-awareness, traits in wives.planning developmental goals, anticipatingthe course of therapy, selecting optimal ther- Russell (1995) studied 321 couples andapeutic interventions, and identifying rele- found that several aspects of marital satisfac-vant adjustment issues (H.B. Cattell, 1989; tion were related to higher levels of particu-Karson et al., 1997; Meyer, 1996; Russell, lar 16PF traits. She also found that several1995; Schuerger, 2001). 16PF traits predicted greater consensus between the partners on important topics, 16PF scores have also been successful in and that better problem-solving communica-predicting a diverse range of behaviors of tion was related to another set of traits. Sheinterest to clinicians; for example, effects of also found that 16PF traits predicted moregroup therapy (Wang and Li, 2003), war- traditional gender roles in relationships.related stress (Poikolainen, 1993), alienation Craig and Olson (1995) also studied 145(Yi-Hui et al., 2004), types of substance marital therapy clients, and found that fiveabuse (Carey et al., 1995), suicidal tenden- different 16PF trait clusters represented dif-cies (Ferrero et al., 1997), delinquency ferent marital types that required different(Junmai, 2005), law-breaking tendencies types of therapeutic goals.(Low et al., 2004), and excessive Internet use(Xiaoming, 2005). SUMMARY One source of useful clinical information The 16PF Questionnaire is a comprehensivehas been the qualitative research carried out and widely used measure of normal, adultin clinical settings (H.B. Cattell, 1989; personality which was developed fromH.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, 1997; Karson factor-analytic research into the basic struc-et al., 1997). For example, H.B. Cattell stud- tural elements of personality. First publishedied over 1,100 clients who were assessed or in 1949, and now in its fifth edition, the ques-treated over a 20-year period, and found that tionnaire is based on Cattell’s multi-levelspecific 16PF score combinations were personality theory, and measures 16 primaryrelated to distinct patterns of thinking, feel- factors, 5 global or second-stratum factorsing, and behavior. She found that score com- (the original Big Five), and 2 third-stratumbinations predicted individuals’ capacity for factors. Although this chapter could notinsight and introspection, difficulties in review the decades of research on the 16PFestablishing trust and rapport, sensitivity to Questionnaire, a summary of reliability stud-power dynamics in relationships, effective ies indicates that the questionnaire providestreatment modalities, and capacity for suc- reliable information, and a selection of valid-cessful termination. ity studies illustrates how the instrument is used effectively in a variety of contexts. The 16PF Questionnaire has proven par-ticularly useful in marital or couples counsel-ing, where it provides information about how
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 153THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 153REFERENCES Personality and Individual Differences, 10(12): 1289–99.Adcox, K., Taylor, W. and Mead, A.D. (1999) Burch, G.S.J. and Anderson, N. (2004) ‘Measuring ‘Leveraging personality assessment to reduce person-team fit: Development andvalidation of law enforcement officers’ accidents’, Paper the team selection inventory’, Journal of presented at the Annual Meeting of the Managerial Psychology, 19(4): 406–26. Society for Industrial and Organizational Butcher, J.N. and Rouse, S.V. (1996) ‘Personality: Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Individual differences and clinical assessment’, Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 87–111.Aldridge, J.H. (1997) ‘An occupational person- Carnivez, G.L. and Allen, T.J. (2005) ‘Convergent ality profile of the male entrepreneur as and factorial validity of the 16PF and the assessed by the 16PF Fifth Edition’, unpub- NEO-PI-R’, Paper presented at the Annual lished doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State Convention of the American Psychological University. Association, Washington, DC. Carey, G., Stallings, M.C., Hewitt, J.K. andArgentero, P. (1989) ‘Second-order factor Fulker, D.W. (1995) ‘The familial relationships structure of Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor among personality, substance abuse, and Questionnaire’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, other problem behavior in adolescents’, 68(3): 1043–47. Behavior Genetics, 25(3): 258. Carson, A.D. (1998) ‘The integration of inter-Arora, S. (2005) ‘Personality profiles of univer- ests, aptitudes and personality traits: A test sity sports players’, Social Science International, of Lowman’s Matrix’, Journal of Career 21(2): 115–20. Assessment, 6(1): 83–105. Cattell, H.E.P. (1996) ‘The original big five: AAshton, M.C. (1998) ‘Personality and job per- historical perspective’, European Review of formance: The importance of narrow traits’, Applied Psychology, 46(1): 5–14. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: Cattell, H.E.P. (2005) Spanish-American 16PF 289–303. Questionnaire Technical Manual: A Pan- Spanish Psychological Assessment. Champ-Bartram, E. (1992) ‘The personality of UK man- aign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability agers: 16PF norms for short-listed applicants’, Testing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Cattell, H.E.P. (2007) Exploring your 16PF Psychology, 65: 159–72. Profile, Oxford: Oxford Psychologist Press. Cattell, H.E.P. and Schuerger, J.M. (2003)Birkett-Cattell, H. (1989) The 16PF: Personality Essentials of the 16PF Assessment. in Depth. Champaign, IL: Institute for New York: John Wiley & Sons. Personality and Ability Testing. Cattell, R.B. (1933) ‘Temperament tests:II’, British Journal of Psychology, 23: 308–29.Birkett-Cattell, H. and Cattell, H.E.P. (1997) Cattell, R.B. (1943) ‘The description of person- 16PF Cattell Comprehensive Personality ality: Basic traits resolved into clusters’, Interpret-ation Manual. Champaign, IL: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. 38: 476–506. Cattell, R.B. (1946) The Description andBisset, I.A. (2000) ‘Comment on Gadzella Measurement of Personality. New York: and Penland (1995) Creativity and critical Harcourt, Brace and World. thinking’, Psychological Reports, 86(3): Cattell, R.B. (1957) Personality and Motivation 848–50. Structure and Measurement. New York: World Book.Block, J. (1995) ‘A contrarian view of the five- Cattell, R.B. (1973) Personality and Mood by factor approach to personality description’, Questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2): 187–215. Cattell, R.B. (1978) The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. NewBonaguidi, F., Michelassi, C., Trivella, M.G., York: Plenum. Carpeggiani, C., Pruneti, C.A., Cesana, G. and L’Abbate, A. (1996) ‘Cattell’s 16 PF and PSY Inventory: Relationship between person- ality traits and behavioral responses in patients with acute myocardial infarction’, Psychological Reports, 78(2): 691–702.Boyle, G.J. (1989) ‘Re-examination of the major personality factors in the Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck scales: Were the factor solutions of Noller et al. optimal?’,
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 154154 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTCattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K. and Cattell, H.E.P. Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (1990) Measures of (1993) 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire. Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Library of America. Ability Testing. Conn, S.R. and Rieke, M.L. (1994) The 16PFCattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P. and Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champaign, Kelly, M.L. (1999) The 16PF Select Manual. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Coopersmith, S. (1981) Self-esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P., Russell, M.T. and Bedwell, S. (2003) The Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1976) ‘Age differ- PsychEval Personality Questionnaire. ences in personality structure: A cluster ana- Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and lytic approach’, Journal of Gerontology, 31: Ability Testing. 564–70.Cattell, R.B. Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO- (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen Personality PI-R Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992a) RevisedCattell, R.B. and Krug, S.E. (1986) ‘The number NEO-PI-R Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) of factors in the 16PF: A review of the evi- and NEO-PI-R Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-PI- dence with special emphasis on methodolog- R-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: ical problems’, Educational and Psychological Psychological Assessment Resources. Measurement, 46(3): 509–22. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992b) ‘NormalCattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F. (1954) ‘Four formu- personality assessment in clinical practice: lae for selecting leaders on the basis of per- The NEO Personality Inventory’, Psychological sonality’, Human Relations, 7(4): 493–507. Assessment, 4(1): 5–13.Cattell, R.B. and Tsujioka, B. (1964) ‘The impor- Craig, R.J. and Olson, R.E. (1995) ‘16 PF profiles tance of factor-trueness and validity versus and typologies for patients seen in marital ther- homogeneity and orthogonality in test apy’, Psychological Reports, 77(2): 187–94. scales’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(1): 3–30. Dancer, L.J. and Woods, S.A. (2007) ‘Higher- order factor structures and intercorrelations ofChernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S. and Chan, K.Y. the 16PF5 and FIRO-B’, International Journal (2001) ‘Investigating the hierarchical factor of Selection and Assessment, 14(4): 385–91. structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: An application of the Schmid-Leiman Digman, J.M. (1990) ‘Personality structure: orthogonalisation procedure’, Educational Emergence of the five-factor model’, Annual and Psychological Measurement, 61(2): Review of Psychology, 41: 417–40. 290–302. Digman, J.M. (1996) ‘A curious history of theChild, D. (1998) ‘Some technical problems in five-factor model’, in J.S. Wiggins (ed.), The the use of personality measures in occupa- Five-factor Model of Personality: Theoretical tional settings illustrated using the “Big- Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. Five”’, in S. Shorrocks-Taylor (ed.), Directions in Educational Psychology, London: Whurr Digman, J.M. (1997) ‘Higher order factors of Publishing, pp. 346–64. the big five’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6): 1246–56.Christiansen, N.D., Goffin, R.D., Johnston, N.G. and Rothstein, M.G. (1994) ‘Correcting for Dutta, R.D. (1995) ‘Differences in personality faking: Effects on criterion-related validity factors of experienced teachers, physicians, and individual hiring decisions’, Personnel bank managers, and fine artists’, Psychological Psychology, 47(4): 847–60. Studies, 40(1): 51–6.Church, A.T. and Burke, P.J. (1994) ‘Exploratory Ellis, B.B. and Mead, A.D. (2000) ‘Assessment and confirmatory tests of the Big-Five and of the measurement equivalence of a Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional Spanish translation of the 16PF Questionnaire’, models’, Journal of Personality and Social Educational and Psychological Measurement, Psychology, 66(1): 93–114. 60(5): 787–807. Eysenck, H. (1978) ‘Superfactors P, E, and N in a comprehensive factors space’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13(2): 475–82.
Technical Manual Example
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 155THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 155Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Wong, J. Hofer, S.M. and Eber, H.W. (2002) ‘Second- (1998) ‘Cognitive style and team role prefer- order factor structure of the Cattell Sixteen ence’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Personality Factor Inventory (16PF)’, in B. De 13(8): 544–57. Raad and M. Perugini (eds), Big-Five Assessment. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber,Fiske, D.W. (1994) ‘Two cheers for the Big Five! pp. 397–404. Psychological Inquiry’, 5: 123–4. Hofer, S.M., Horn, J.L. and Eber, H.W. (1997) ‘AFraboni, M. and Saltstone, R. (1990) ‘First and robust five-factor structure of the 16PF: second generation entrepreneur typologies: Strong evidence from independent rotation Dimensions of personality’, Journal of Social and confirmatory factorial invariance proce- Behavior and Personality, 5: 105–13. dures’, Personality and Individual Differences, 23(2): 247–69.Gerbing, D.W. and Tuley, M.R. (1991) ‘The 16PF related to the five-factor model of per- Hogan, J., Brinkmeyer, K. and Hogan, R. (1996) sonality: Multiple-indicator measurement Hogan Personality Inventory Form manual. versus the a priori scales’, Multivariate Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Behavioral Research, 26(2): 271–89. Hough, L.M. and Ones, D.S. (2001) ‘The struc-Goldberg, L.R. (1990) ‘An alternative “descrip- ture, measurement, validity, and use of per- tion of personality”: The big-five factor sonality variables in industrial, work, and structure’, Journal of Personality and Social organisational psychology’, in N. Anderson, Psychology, 59(6): 1216–29. D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work, andGoldberg, L.R. (1992) ‘The development of Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1). London: markers for the big-five factor structure’, Sage, pp. 233–77. Psychological Assessment, 4(1): 26–42. Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (2000) ‘PersonalityGorsuch, R.L. (1983) Factor Analysis (2nd rev and job performance’, Journal of Applied edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Psychology, 85(6): 869–79.Gorsuch, R.L. (2006) The 16PF Express Edition: IPAT (1995) 16PF5 Manuel: French Version. A Supplemental Chapter to the 16PF Fifth Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Edition Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, Ability Testing. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. IPAT (2003) The Protective Service ReportGough, H.G. (1987) California Psychological manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Inventory Administrator’s Guide. Mountain Personality and Ability Testing. View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. IPAT (2004a) Dutch 16PF5 User’s Manual.Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993a) The Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and 16PF and Leadership: Summary of Research Ability Testing. Findings 1954–1992. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. IPAT (2004b) 16PF5 Manual: Norwegian Version. Champaign, IL: Institute forGuastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993b) Selecting Personality and Ability Testing. Successful Salespersons with the 16PF. Form A Validity Studies. Champaign, IL: Institute for IPAT (2004c) 16PF5 Manual: Danish Version. Personality and Ability Testing. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Hampson. S.E. (1988) The Construction of Personality (2nd edn). London: Routledge. IPAT (2005) 16PF5 Manual: Swedish Version. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality andHartung, P.J., Borges, N.J. and Jones, B.J. Ability Testing. (2005) ‘Using person matching to predict career specialty choice’, Journal of IPAT (2006) The 16PF5 User’s Manual: South Vocational Behavior, 67(1): 102–17. African Version. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Hetland, H. and Sandal, G.M. (2003) ‘Transformational leadership in Norway: IPAT (2007) Japanese 16PF5 technical manual. Outcomes and personality correlates’, Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and European Journal of Work and Organizational Ability Testing. Psychology, 12(2): 147–70. Jackson, D.N. (1989) Personality Research FormHinton, B.L. and Barrow, J.C. (1976) ‘Personality Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment correlates of the reinforcement propensities of Systems. leaders’, Personnel Psychology, 29(1): 61–6.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 156156 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENTJackson, D.N., Paunonen, S.V. and Tremblay, P.F. structure defined by the 16PF’, Psychological (2000) Six Factor Personality Questionnaire. Reports, 59: 683–93. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1990) ‘The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire’, in E.E.Jia-xi, C. and Guo-peng, C. (2006) ‘[The valid- Watkins and V.L. Campbell (eds), Testing in ity and reliability research of 16PF 5th in Counseling Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence China]’, Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, Erlbaum. 14(1): 13–46. Lally, S.J. (2003) ‘What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey ofJones, J.W., Newhouse, N.K. and Stowers, M.R. experts’, Professional Psychology: Research (2006) Civilian Police Officer Profiles: An IPAT and Practice, 34(5): 491–8. Technical Report. Champaign, IL: Institute for Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B. and Ashton, M.C. Personality and Ability Testing. (2005) ‘Personality traits beyond the Big Five: Are they within the HEXACO space?’,Johns, E.F., Schuerger, J.M. and Watterson, Journal of Personality, 73(5): 1437–63. D.G. (1980) ‘Personality measures as predic- Lee, R.E. (1994) ‘Personality characteristics of tors of managerial performance and salaries. very desirable and undesirable childcare Paper presented at the meeting of the workers in a residential setting’, Psychological Midwest Society for Multivariate Experimental Reports, 74: 579–84. Psychology, May, St. Louis, MO. Loevinger, J. (1994) ‘Has psychology lost its conscience?’, Journal of Personality Assess-Joy, S. and Hicks, S. (2004) ‘The need to be dif- ment, 62(1): 2–8. ferent: Primary trait structure and impact on Lord, F.M. (1980) Applications of Item projective drawing’, Creativity Research Response Theory to Practical Testing Journal, 16(2 and 3): 331–9. Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lord, W. (1999) 16PF5: Overcoming ObstaclesJudge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A., Locke, E.A. to Interpretation. Windsor: NFER-Nelson and Thoresen, C.J. (2002) ‘The scientific Publishing Company (available from IPAT). merit of valid measures of general concepts: Lounsbury, J., Park, S.H., Sundstrom, E., Personality research and core self-evalua- Williamson, J.M. and Pemberton, A.E. (2004) tions’, in J.M. Brett and F. Drasgow (eds), The ‘Personality, career satisfaction, and life satis- Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based faction: Test of a directional model’, Journal Empirical Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, of Career Assessment, 12(4): 395–406. pp. 55–77. Low, J.M., Williamson, D. and Cottingham, J. (2004) ‘Predictors of university student law-Junmei, J. (2005) ‘[A Research on the Personality breaking behaviors’, Journal of College Traits of Young Criminals]’, Psychological Student Development, 45(5): 535–48. Science (China), 28(1): 217–9. Lowman, R.L. (1991) The Clinical Practice of Career Assessment. Washington, DC:Jurcova, M. (2000) ‘Socialna kompetentnost American Psychological Association. tvorivych adolescentov – jej kognitivne a McKenzie, J. (1998) ‘Fundamental flaws in the osobnostni zdroje [Social competence of cre- Five Factor Model: A re-analysis of the semi- ative adolescents – its cognitive and person- nal correlation matrix from which the ality sources]’, Ceskoslovenske Psychologie, “Openness-to-Experience” factor was 44(6): 481–92. extracted’, Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 24(4): 475–80.Karson, M., Karson, S. and O’Dell, J. (1997) McKenzie, J., Tindell, G. and French, J. (1997) 16PF Interpretation in Clinical Practice: A ‘The great triumvirate: Agreement between Guide to the Fifth Edition. Champaign, IL: lexically and psycho-physiologically based Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. models of personality’, Personality and Individual Differences, 22(2): 269–77.Kintlerova, T. (2000) ‘Osobnostni charakteris- Mershon, B. and Gorsuch, R.L. (1988) ‘Number tiky clenov siekt a kultov [Personality of factors in the personality sphere: Does characteristics of members of sects and cults]’, Ceskoslovenske Psychologie, 44(2): 180–9.Krug, S.E. (1976) ‘Personality correlates of mar- ital satisfaction and conflict’, unpublished manuscript, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1986) ‘A large-scale cross-validation of second-order personality
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 157THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 157 increase in factors increase predictability of Piotrowski, C. and Zalewski, C. (1993) ‘Training real-life criteria?’, Journal of Personality and in psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved Social Psychology, 55(4): 675–80. PsyD and PhD clinical psychology programs’,Meyer, R.G. (1996) The Clinician’s Handbook Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(2): (5th edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon/ 394–405. Longman.Miller, T.Q., Smith, T.W., Turner, C.W., Guijarro, Prieto, J.M., Gouveia, V.V. And Ferandez, M.A. M.L. and Hallet, A.J. (1996) ‘Una rassegna (1996) ‘Evidence on the primary source trait meta-analitica della ricerca su ostilita e salute structure in the Spanish 16PF Fifth Edition’, fisica [A meta-analytic review of research on European Review of Applied Psychology, hostility and physical health]’, Bollettino di 46(1): 33–43. Psicologia Applicata, 220: 3–40.Myers, I.B. and McCaulley, M.G. (1985) Manual: Rieke, M.L. and Russell, M.T. (1987) Narrative A Guide to the Development and Use of the Score Report user’s guide. Champaign, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mountain View, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Testing.Norman, W.T. (1967) 2800 Personality Trait Descriptors: Normative Operating Charac- Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S. teristics for a University Population. Ann and Goldberg, L.R. (2005) ‘The structure of Arbor: University of Michigan, Department conscientiousness: an empirical investigation of Psychology. based on seven major personality question-Ormerod, M.B., McKenzie, J. and Woods, A. naires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1): 103–39. (1995) ‘Final report on research relating to the concept of five separate dimensions of Rohmer, O. and Louvet, E. (2004) ‘Familiarite et personality – or six including intelligence’, reactions affectives de l’egard des personnes Personality and Individual Differences, 18(4): handicapes physiques [Familiarity and affec- 451–61. tive reactions regarding physically handi-Ostendorf, F. (1990) Language and Personality capped persons]’, Bulletin de Psychologie, Structure: On the Validity of the Five-factor 57(2): 165–70. Model of Personality. Regensburg, Germany: S. Roderer Verlag. Rolland, J.P. and Mogenet, J.L. (1996) ‘EvidenceParker, J.D.A., Bagby, R.M. and Summerfeldt, on the primary dimensions of the 16PF5 L.J. (1993) ‘Confirmatory factor analysis of French Form’, European Review of Applied the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Psychology, 46(1): 25–31, Differences’, 15(4): 463–6.Paunonen, S.V. (1993) ‘Sense, nonsense, and the Rosnowski, M. (1987) ‘Use of tests manifesting Big-Five factors of personality’, Paper pre- sex differences as measures of intelligence: sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Implications for measurement bias’, Journal Psychological Association, August, Toronto. of Applied Psychology, 72(3): 480–3.Paunonen, S.V. and Ashton, M.S. (2001) ‘Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of Roy, D.D. (1995) ‘Differences in personality fac- behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social tors of experienced teachers, physicians, Psychology, 81(3): 524–39. bank managers, and fine artists’, PsychologicalPeabody, D. and Goldberg, L.R. (1989) ‘Some Studies, 40: 51–6. determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors’, Journal of Roy, D.D. (1996) ‘Personality model of fine Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3): artists’, Creativity Research Journal, 9(4): 552–67. 391–4.Phillips, D.A., Carlisle, C.S., Hautala, R. and Larson, R. (1985) ‘Personality traits and teacher- Russell, M.T. (1995) The 16PF Couple’s student behaviors in physical education’, Counseling Report User’s Guide. Champaign, Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4): IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. 408–16. Russell, M.T. and Karol, D. (1994) 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator’s Manual with Updated Norms. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Salgado, J. (1997) ‘The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1): 30–43. Sanchez, M.M., Rejano, E.I. and Rodriguez, Y.T. (2001) ‘Personality and academic
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 158158 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT productivity in the university student’, Social Smith, M.A., Moriarty, K.O. and Lutrick, E.C. Behavior and Personality, 29(3): 299–305. (2001) ‘Exploratory factor analysis of theSaucier, G. (2001) ‘Going beyond the Big-Five’, NEO-PI-R for job applicants: Evidence against paper presented at the Annual Conference the Big Five’, paper presented at the of the American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial (August), San Francisco. and Organizational Psychology, (April),Schepers, J.M. and Hassett, C.F. (2006) ‘The San Diego. relationship between the Fourth Edition (2003) of the Locus of Control Inventory and Spearman, C. (1932) The Abilities of Man. the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire London: Macmillan. Fifth Edition’, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(2): 9–18. Tango, R.A. and Kolodinsky, P. (2004)Schmit, M.K. and Ryan, A.M. (1993) ‘The Big- ‘Investigation of placement outcomes Five in personnel selection: Factor structure 3 years after a job skills training program for in applicant and non-applicant populations’, chronically unemployed adults’, Journal of Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6): Employment Counseling, 41(2): 80–92. 966–74.Schneewind, K.A. and Graf, J. (1998) 16- Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. and Rothstein, M. Personlichkeits-Factoren-Test Revidierte (1991) ‘Personality measures as predictors Fassung Test-Manual [The 16 Personality of job performance: A meta-analytic Factor Test – Revised Version Test Manual]. review’, Personnel Psychology, 44(4): Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Hans Huber. 703–42.Schuerger, J.M. (1995) ‘Career assessment and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire’, Tucker, T.L. (1991) ‘Investigating sales effective- Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2): 157–75. ness in the automobile industry in relation toSchuerger, J.M. and Sfiligoj, T. (1998) ‘Holland personality variables as measured by the codes and the 16PF global factors: Sixty-nine 16PF Questionnaire’, unpublished disserta- samples’, Psychological Reports, 82: tion, Fuller Theological Seminary. 1299–306.Schuerger, J.M. and Watterson, D.G. (1998) Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.E. (1961) Recurrent Occupational Interpretation of the 16PF Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Questionnaire. Cleveland, OH: Watterson Tech. Rep. Nos 61–67. Lackland, TX: US Air and Associates. Force Aeronautical Systems Division.Seisdedos, N. (1996) ‘The “IM” (Impression Management) Scale’, European Review of Van Eeden, R. and Prinsloo, C.H. (1997) ‘Using Applied Psychology, 46(1): 45–54. the South African version of the 16PF in aShaughnessy, M.F., Kang, M.H., Greene, M., multicultural context’, South African Journal Misutova, M., Suomala, J. and Siltala, R. of Psychology, 27(3): 151–9. (2004) ‘16 PF personality profile of gifted children: Preliminary report of an interna- Walter, V. (2000) 16PF Personal Career Deve- tional study’, North American Journal of lopment Profile Technical and Interpretive Psychology, 6(1): 51–4. Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute forSingh, S. (1989) ‘Projective and psychometric Personality and Ability Testing. correlates of managerial success’, British Journal of Projective Psychology, 34: Wang, Y. and Li, Y. (2003) ‘[The effect of group 28–36. counseling on improvement of self-confidenceSingh, S. and Kaur, R. (2001) ‘A comparative of college students]’, Chinese Mental Health study of the personality characteristics, Journal, 17(4): 235–9. motives, and work values of the autocratic and democratic executives’, Journal of the Wang, C. and Zhang, N. (2005) ‘[Personality Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Correlates of Attributional Style in 27(1–2): 143–9. Undergraduates]’, Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13(1): 53–4. Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., Nieberding, R. and Hallmark, R. (1995) ‘Contemporary practice of psychological assessment of clinical psychologist’, Professional Psychological Research and Practice, 26: 54–60. Watterson, D.G. (2002) The 16PF Leadership Coaching Report Manual. Champaign,
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 159THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 159 IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Xiaoming, Y. (2005) ‘[The mental health prob- Testing. lems of internet-addicted college students]’,Wiggins, J.S. (2003) Paradigms of Personality Psychological Science (China), 28(6): 1476–8. Assessment. Guilford Press.Williams, R. (1999) 16PF5: Profiling Personality Yi-Hui, T., Hai, H. and Liang-Xin, L. (2004) for Potential – A Data Supplement to the ‘[Relationship among the family functioning, UK Edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for personality, and alienation of adolescents]’, Personality and Ability Testing. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12(2): 158–60.