نشانگرهای پنج عامل بزرگ 'IPIP' گلدبرگ: همسانی درونی و اعتبار همزمان در اسکاتلند
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34192||2005||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5688 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 39, Issue 2, July 2005, Pages 317–329
Goldberg’s (2001) IPIP Big-Five personality factor markers currently lack validating evidence. The structure of the 50-item IPIP was examined in three different adult samples (total N = 906), in each case justifying a 5-factor solution, with only minor discrepancies. Age differences were comparable to previous findings using other inventories. One sample (N = 207) also completed two further personality measures (the NEO-FFI and the EPQ-R Short Form). Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Emotional Stability/Neuroticism scales of the IPIP were highly correlated with those of the NEO-FFI (r = 0.69 to −0.83, p < 0.01). Agreeableness and Intellect/Openness scales correlated less strongly (r = 0.49 and 0.59 respectively, p < 0.01). Correlations between IPIP and EPQ-R Extraversion and Emotional Stability/Neuroticism were high, at 0.85 and −0.84 respectively. The IPIP scales have good internal consistency and relate strongly to major dimensions of personality assessed by two leading questionnaires.
Personality assessment is important in a variety of situations, from academic research to clinical settings. Individual differences in human personality are often described as being quite comprehensively described by 5 higher-order factors (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003), although an increasing body of evidence suggests that additional factors are required to account for important individual variation beyond that assessed within more traditional 5-factor frameworks (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000); a recent review of 8 psycholexical studies found support for a 6-factor model across seven languages (Ashton et al., 2004). For the purposes of the current study, however, a 5-factor model is employed due to the general consensus that exists about what those factors are; models with a higher number of factors are not entirely in agreement about what a 6th, 7th or nth factor would be.