Balanced and Positively Worded Personality Short-forms: Mini-IPIP Validity and Cross-cultural Invariance

Overview

Journal PeerJ

Specialties Biology
Environmental Health
General Medicine

Date 2018 Sep 19

PMID 30225170

Citations 12

Authors

Agustin Martinez-Molina

Victor B Arias

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The Mini-IPIP scales (Donellan et al., 2006) are possibly one of the most commonly used short inventories for measuring the Big Five Factors of personality. In this study, we aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of two Mini-IPIP Spanish short forms, one balanced and one positively wording (PW).

Method: Two samples, one from native Spanish speakers and another from native English speakers, made up a total of 940 participants in this study. The short forms were translated and adapted based on international guidelines. Reliability (internal and composite) and validity analyses (construct ESEM, concurrent, predictive and cross-cultural invariance through multi-group factorial models) were performed.

Results: For both the balanced scale and the PW one, modeling a method factor was not relevant. The reliability and validity indices of both forms were according to theory and prior studies' findings: (a) personality factors were medium-high related to affective factors; (b) personality factors were less related to life satisfaction than affective factors; (c) life satisfaction was medium-high related to affective factors; (d) neuroticism appeared mainly related to all criteria variables; and (e) an acceptable level of invariance was achieved with regard to the English version.

Discussion: This study contributes to research on personality assessment by providing the first evidence regarding the psychometric properties of a PW short measure. These results suggest that PW short scales of personality used after data screening techniques may be appropriate for future studies (e.g., cross-cultural, content validity).

Citing Articles

Intensity of Physical Activity in Young People: Focus on Emotional, Cognitive, and Healthy Lifestyle-Related Variables.

Elliott A, Moreno-Fernandez R, Cordellat-Marzal A, Sampedro-Piquero P Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(10).

PMID: 39457807 PMC: 11504200. DOI: 10.3390/bs14100935.

The Spanish adaptation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Heart: psychometric evidence in cardiac rehabilitation patients.

Coello-Cremades M, Martinez-Molina A, Ferrer-Pena R, Lerma-Lara S Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2024; 60(4):691-702.

PMID: 39007784 PMC: 11403632. DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08268-6.

Deploying a robotic positive psychology coach to improve college students' psychological well-being.

Jeong S, Aymerich-Franch L, Arias K, Alghowinem S, Lapedriza A, Picard R User Model User-adapt Interact. 2024; 33(2):571-615.

PMID: 38737788 PMC: 11086679. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-022-09337-8.

The Dark Tetrad: analysis of profiles and relationship with the Big Five personality factors.

Gomez-Leal R, Fernandez-Berrocal P, Gutierrez-Cobo M, Cabello R, Megias-Robles A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):4443.

PMID: 38396168 PMC: 10891063. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55074-w.

Testing the latent structure, factorial equivalence, and external correlates of the brief self-control scale in a community sample of Spanish adults.

Torres-Marin J, Gomez-Benito J, Guerrero E, Guilera G, Barrios M PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0296719.

PMID: 38394086 PMC: 10889899. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296719.

References

Diener E, Emmons R, Larsen R, Griffin S . The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985; 49(1):71-5. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13. View

Podsakoff P, Mackenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N . Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(5):879-903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. View

McNeish D, An J, Hancock G . The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models. J Pers Assess. 2017; 100(1):43-52. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286. View

Muniz J, Elosua P, Hambleton R . [International Test Commission Guidelines for test translation and adaptation: second edition]. Psicothema. 2013; 25(2):151-7. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2013.24. View

Cole D, Ciesla J, Steiger J . The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychol Methods. 2008; 12(4):381-398. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381. View

Weijters B, Baumgartner H, Schillewaert N . Reversed item bias: an integrative model. Psychol Methods. 2013; 18(3):320-34. DOI: 10.1037/a0032121. View

Smith G, McCarthy D, Anderson K . On the sins of short-form development. Psychol Assess. 2001; 12(1):102-11. DOI: 10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.102. View

Gnambs T, Schroeders U . Cognitive Abilities Explain Wording Effects in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Assessment. 2017; 27(2):404-418. DOI: 10.1177/1073191117746503. View

Chico Libran E . Personality dimensions and subjective well-being. Span J Psychol. 2006; 9(1):38-44. DOI: 10.1017/s1138741600005953. View

10.

Eys M, Carron A, Bray S, Brawley L . Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: the group environment questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007; 29(3):395-402. DOI: 10.1123/jsep.29.3.395. View

11.

Hopwood C, Donnellan M . How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated?. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2010; 14(3):332-46. DOI: 10.1177/1088868310361240. View

12.

de Carvalho H, B Andreoli S, Lara D, Patrick C, Quintana M, Bressan R . Structural validity and reliability of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): evidence from a large Brazilian community sample. Braz J Psychiatry. 2013; 35(2):169-72. DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2012-0957. View

13.

Gonzalez-Arias M, Martinez-Molina A, Galdames S, Urzua A . Psychometric Properties of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in the Chilean Population. Front Psychol. 2018; 9:963. PMC: 6005868. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00963. View

14.

Meade A, Craig S . Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17(3):437-55. DOI: 10.1037/a0028085. View

15.

Garrido L, Barrada J, Aguasvivas J, Martinez-Molina A, Arias V, Golino H . Is Small Still Beautiful for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire? Novel Findings Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Assessment. 2018; 27(6):1349-1367. DOI: 10.1177/1073191118780461. View

16.

COUCH A, Keniston K . Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1960; 60:151-74. DOI: 10.1037/h0040372. View

17.

Markey P, Markey C . A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment. 2009; 16(4):352-61. DOI: 10.1177/1073191109340382. View

18.

Huang J, Liu M, Bowling N . Insufficient effort responding: examining an insidious confound in survey data. J Appl Psychol. 2014; 100(3):828-45. DOI: 10.1037/a0038510. View

19.

Konstabel K, Lonnqvist J, Leikas S, Garcia Velazquez R, Qin H, Verkasalo M . Measuring single constructs by single items: Constructing an even shorter version of the "Short Five" personality inventory. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8):e0182714. PMC: 5553894. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182714. View

20.

Maydeu-Olivares A, Coffman D . Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 2006; 11(4):344-62. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344. View