Item response theory and validity of the NEO-FFI in adolescents

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 801-807

  Spence, Ruth ^a   Owens, Matthew ^a   Goodyer, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adolescents; External validity; Item response theory; Personality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864324851     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baker F.B. The basics of item response theory 2001, ERIC clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation.
2. Chamorro-Premuzic T., Furnham A. Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality 2003, 37:319-338.
3. Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual 1992, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
4. Costello E.J., Copeland W., Angold A. Trends in psychopathology across the adolescent years: What changes when children become adolescents, and when adolescents become adults?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2011, 52(10):1015-1025.
5. De Fruyt F., De Bolle M., McCrae R.R., Terracciano A., Costa P.T. Assessing the universal structure of personality in early adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment 2009, 16(3):301-311.
6. De Fruyt F., Mervielde I., Hoekstra H.A., Rolland J.P. Assessing adolescents' personality with the NEO PI-R. Assessment 2000, 7(4):329-345.
7. De Fruyt F., van Leeuwen K., de Bolle M., de Clercq B. Sex differences in school performance as a function of Conscientiousness, imagination and the mediating role of problem behaviour. European Journal of Personality 2008, 22:167-184.
8. Embretson S.E., Reise S.P. Item response theory for psychologists 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, New Jersey.
9. Ferguson E., Patterson F. The five factor model of personality: Openness as a distinct but related construct. Personality and Individual Differences 1998, 24(5):1-4.
10. Goodyer I.M., Croudace T., Dunn V., Herbert J., Jones P.B. Cohort profile: Risk patterns and processes for psychopathology emerging during adolescence: The ROOTS project. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010, 1-9.
11. Goodyer I.M., Wright C., Altham P.M. Recent friendships in anxious and depressed school age children. Psychological Medicine 1989, 19:165-174.
12. Hřebíčková M., Urbánek T., čermák I., Szarota P., Ficková E., Orlická L. The NEO five-factor inventory in czech, polish, and slovak contexts. The five factor model of personality across cultures 2002, 53-78. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. R.R. McCrae, J. Allik (Eds.).
13. Masten A.S., Coatsworth J.D., Neemann J., Gest S.D., Tellegen A., Garmezy N. The structure and coherence of competence from childhood through adolescence. Child Development 1995, 66(6):1635-1659.
14. McCrae R.R., Costa P.T., Martin T.A. The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 2005, 84(3):261-270.
15. McCrae R.R., Costa P.T., Terracciano A., Parker W.D., Mills C.J., De Fruyt F., et al. Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 83(6):1456-1468.
16. Muthén L.K., Muthén B.O. Mplus user's guide 1998, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA. 6th ed.
17. Parker W.D., Stumpf H. A validation of the five-factor model of personality in academically talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differences 1998, 25:1005-1025.
18. Reise S.P., Henson J.M. Computerization and adaptive administration of the NEO-PI-R. Assessment 2000, 7(4):347-364.
19. Reise S.P., Morizot J., Hays R.D. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qualitative Life Research 2007, 16(19):19-31.
20. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph 1969, 17.
21. Samuel D.B., Simms L.J., Clark L.A., Livesley W.J., Widiger T.A. An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 2010, 1(1):5-21.
22. Scholte R.H.J., van Aken M.A.G., van Lieshout C.F.M. Adolescent personality factors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment 1997, 69(3):534-554.
23. Selfhout M., Burk W., Branje S., Denissen J., van Aken M., Meeus W. Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and big five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality 2010, 78(2):509-538.
24. Siegler I.C., Brummett B.H. Associations among NEO personality assessments and well-being at midlife: Facet-level analyses. Psychology and Aging 2000, 15(4):710-714.
25. Sneed C.D., Gullone E., Moore S. Reliability and factor structure of the NEO-five-factor inventory for Australian adolescents. Behaviour Change 2002, 19(2):121-126.
26. Soto C.J., John O.P., Gosling S.D., Potter J. The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, 94(4):718-737.
27. Stöber J. The social desirability scale-17 (SDS-17) convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2001, 17(3):222-232.
28. Tennant R., Fishwick R., Platt S., Joseph S., Stewart-Brown S. Monitoring positive mental health in Scotland: Validating the Affectometer 2 scale and developing the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale for the UK 2006, NHS Health Scotland, Edinburgh.
29. Thalmayer A.G., Saucier G., Eigenhuis A. Comparative validity of brief to medium-length big five and big six personality questionnaires. Psychological Assessment 2011, 23(4):995-1009.