عامل تجزیه و تحلیل از نشانگر پنج عامل بزرگ با مقیاس شخصیتی "کومری"و تست شخصیت هاوارد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34162||1999||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 26, Issue 5, 1 May 1999, Pages 857–872
The relation of Big Five Marker variables to the Comrey Personality Scales (study 1) and the Howarth Personality Tests (study 2) was investigated. In study one a joint factor analysis of 284 participants (179 females) revealed that seven oblique factors accounted for 40% of the variance in the Big Five Markers and the Comrey Personality Scales. Extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism were assessed by roughly parallel scales in both tests. Three factors were defined uniquely by the Comrey Personality Scales (mental toughness, trust and empathy) and one factor was defined uniquely by the Big Five (openness). In study two a joint factor analysis of 197 participants (130 females) revealed that five orthogonal factors accounted for 57% of the variance in the Big Five Markers, the Howarth Personality Questionnaire and the Howarth Additional Personality Factors Inventory. The higher order factor structure of Howarth's tests resembles the Big Five. Eleven of the 20 Howarth scales were very similar to the Big Five. Additionally, six Howarth scales appear to be blends of pairs of Big Five factors. Both studies provide considerable support for the Big Five as an adequate, although perhaps not exhaustive, taxonomy of personality traits.
A comprehensive taxonomy of traits is one of personality researchers' most important tasks. Until relatively recently, taxonomies containing 10 or more personality traits (e.g. Guilford, Cattell, Gough etc.) were numerous and vigorously championed. However, a growing consensus among many personality researchers is that the scales of most personality tests can be aligned within the Five Factor Model of Personality (e.g. the Big Five). The Big Five has been remarkably successful in assimilating a wide variety of personality tests and scales within its dimensions. McCrae (1989)provides a review of the NEO-PI's convergence in joint factor analyses with Goldberg's Big Five Markers, the California Q-Set, the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, the Guilford Zimmerman Temperament Survey and Wiggin's Interpersonal Circumplex. This body of research points to a general proposition that the Big Five are measured to some extent by almost every personality test and that many test's scales can be “explained” as parallel to the Big Five, a sub-dimension of the Big Five, or some combination of Big Five factors. This paper presents two studies investigating the relation of the Big Five to the Comrey Personality Scales (Comrey, 1970, Comrey, 1980 and Comrey, 1994) and the Howarth Personality Inventories (Howarth, 1980a, Howarth, 1980b, Howarth, 1980c and Howarth, 1980d). Both of these tests were developed using factor analytic research programs. However, the two tests were developed using different strategies. Comrey used factorially and conceptually homogeneous clusters of items as the basic unit of analysis. Howarth used individual items as the basic unit of analysis. Both researchers sought to develop taxonomies of the most important personality traits and produced comprehensive tests with extensive empirical support. While the Big Five has developed extensive empirical support it is initially derived from an a priori rational approach, the lexical hypothesis (see Goldberg, 1993for a review). The lexical hypothesis takes the frequency of trait terms in a language as indicators of personality traits. The most important personality traits will form fairly well defined clusters of trait terms in semantic space. These clusters are the lexical equivalent of personality factors. The purpose of this study is to examine the convergence between the Big Five as defined by common trait terms and the inventories of Comrey and Howarth. The Comrey Personality Scales are a comprehensive inventory designed to account for many of the factors put forth in the personality trait systems by Guilford, Cattell and Eysenck (Comrey, 1980, p. 5). Comrey's research program consisted of a series of factor analytic studies designed to resolve the differences between these personality trait systems. The end product of this research program was the Comrey Personality Scales (Comrey, 1970, Comrey, 1980 and Comrey, 1994) which measure eight major bipolar personality traits. The eight factor structure of the Comrey Personality Scales has repeatedly emerged in joint factor analyses of the Comrey Personality Scales with other personality tests, notably with Eysenck's EPI, Cattell's 16PF (Comrey and Duffy, 1968; Noller et al., 1987) and the Guilford Zimmerman Temperament Survey (Comrey et al., 1968). Additionally, the eight factor structure of the Comrey Personality Scales exhibits a high level of cross-cultural generalizability and has been replicated in six languages across nine countries: the English language in the United States (Comrey, 1970), New Zealand (Forbes et al., 1974) and Australia (Noller et al., 1988); Portuguese in Brazil (Rodrigues and Comrey, 1974); Hebrew in Israel (Montag and Comrey, 1982); Russian in the former Soviet Union (Brief and Comrey, 1993); Italian in Italy (Caprarara et al., 1992) and Afrikaners in South Africa (DeBruin, 1995). Recently, Comrey and his colleagues have been systematically examining the relationship of the Comrey Personality Scales and the NEO-PI (Hahn and Comrey, 1994; Caprarara et al., 1995). These two studies used the original version of the NEO-PI and the Comrey Personality Scales. Nine and eight factors, respectively, rather than five, were found in joint factor analyses of the two tests. In a further study of the Comrey Personality Scales and the NEO-PIR, Hahn (1995)found similar results. These studies all indicate that there is substantial agreement between the Comrey Personality Scales and NEO-PI factors. Study one extends the work of Comrey and his colleagues by lexically assessing the Big Five with common Big Five Markers rather than syntactically with the phrase based NEO-PI. The pattern of results should be similar to previous investigations. The Big Five Openness scale will correspond to some extent with the Comrey Personality Scales Social Conformity scale, although reversed in direction. The Big Five Conscientiousness scale will correspond to the Comrey Personality Scales Orderliness scale. The Big Five Extraversion scale will correspond to the Comrey Personality Scales Extraversion scale. The Big Five Agreeableness scale will correspond to the Comrey Personality Scales Empathy scale. The Big Five Neuroticism scale will correspond to the Comrey Personality Scales Emotional Stability scale. The comprehensive taxonomy of 20 traits developed by Howarth and his colleagues has not been examined in light of the Big Five. The Howarth Inventories are the end result of programmatic investigations using item level factor analysis, rather than groups of items, to delineate an empirically based taxonomy. A forgotten fact of many early factor analytic investigations is that they were computed by hand and therefore many of the variables factored were actually groups of items defined a priori, such as Cattell's parcels, rather than individual items or empirically validated item groups. Howarth's rationale was that factors based on individual items are more robust and definable than those based on a priori item parcels. Many of the original items for Howarth's tests and subsequent factors, were drawn from the classic Sells et al., 1970 and Sells et al., 1971) of Cattell and Guilford's items. Through a series of studies, Howarth and his colleagues ( Howarth and Brown, 1971 and Howarth and Brown, 1977) added numerous variables and defined new factors, which resulted in a final set of 20 personality factors. The outcome of these studies ( Howarth, 1980c and Howarth, 1980d) was the Howarth Personality Questionnaire which measures the 10 most important and reliable factors and the Howarth Additional Personality Factors Inventory which measures 10 somewhat less important factors. Because some of Howarth's numerous factors are similar to one another (trait and state anxiety scales for example) and most of the scales are inter-correlated oblique factors, it is reasonable to expect that they could produce a higher order factor structure. The purpose of study two is an exploratory investigation to see if Howarth's numerous primary factors can be collapsed into a higher order structure resembling the Big Five.