Simple measures and complex structures: Is it worth employing a more complex model of personality in Big Five inventories?
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
In: Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 47, No. 5, 10.2013, p. 599-608.
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Simple measures and complex structures
T2 - Is it worth employing a more complex model of personality in Big Five inventories?
AU - Herrmann, Anne
AU - Pfister, Hans-Rüdiger
PY - 2013/10
Y1 - 2013/10
N2 - The poor performance of five-factor personality inventories in confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) prompted some to question their construct validity. Others doubted the CFA's suitability and suggested applying Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM). The question arises as to what impact the application of either method has on the construct validity of personality inventories. We addressed this question by applying ESEM and CFA to construct better-fitting, though more complex models based on data from two questionnaires (NEO PI-R and 16PF). Generally, scores derived from either method did not differ substantially. When applying ESEM, convergent validity declined but discriminant validity improved. When applying CFA, convergent and discriminant validity decreased. We conclude that using current personality questionnaires that utilize a simple structure is appropriate.
AB - The poor performance of five-factor personality inventories in confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) prompted some to question their construct validity. Others doubted the CFA's suitability and suggested applying Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM). The question arises as to what impact the application of either method has on the construct validity of personality inventories. We addressed this question by applying ESEM and CFA to construct better-fitting, though more complex models based on data from two questionnaires (NEO PI-R and 16PF). Generally, scores derived from either method did not differ substantially. When applying ESEM, convergent validity declined but discriminant validity improved. When applying CFA, convergent and discriminant validity decreased. We conclude that using current personality questionnaires that utilize a simple structure is appropriate.
KW - Psychology
KW - 16PF
KW - Big Five structure
KW - Confirmatory factor analysis
KW - Construct validity
KW - Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling
KW - Multitrait-multimethod
KW - NEO PI-R
KW - Personality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879455791&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.004
DO - 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.004
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:84879455791
VL - 47
SP - 599
EP - 608
JO - Journal of Research in Personality
JF - Journal of Research in Personality
SN - 0092-6566
IS - 5
ER -