NEO-FFI: Psychometric properties of a short personality inventory in Portuguese context

Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 642-657

  Magalhães, Eunice ^a   Salgueira, Ana ^a   Gonzalez, António José ^b   Costa, José Joaquim ^c   Costa, Manuel João ^a   Costa, Patrício ^a   de Lima, Margarida Pedroso ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^b INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE PSICOLOGIA APLICADA   (Portugal)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

NEO FFI; Personality; Portuguese context; Psychometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898647733     PISSN: 01027972     EISSN: 16787153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/1678-7153.201427405     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Aluja, A., Garcia, O., Rossier, J., & Garcia, L. (2005). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and individual Differences, 38(1), 591- 604. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.014
2. Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user's guide. Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation.
3. Bäckstrom, M., Bjorklund, F., & Larsson, M. (2009). Fivefactor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335-344. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
4. Colliver, J. (2007). Effect-size measures and research in developmental and behavioral pediatrics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(2), 145-150. doi:101097/DBP.0b013e318045beee
5. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1989). The NEO PI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
6. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). The revised NEO PI / NEO-FFI professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
7. Costa, P., McCrae, R., & Dye, D. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
8. Costa, P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising fi ndings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
9. Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: Emerging British norms and an item-level analysis sugest N, A, and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 907-920. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00242-1
10. Furham, A. F. (1997). Knowing and faking one's fi ve-factor personality score. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(1), 229-243.
11. Gignac, G., Bates, T., & Jang, K. (2007). Implications relevant to CFA model misfi t, reliability, and fi ve-factor model as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1051-1062. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.024
12. Hojat, M., & Xu, G. (2004). A visitor's guide to effect sizes: Statistical signifi cance versus practical (clinical) importance of research fi ndings. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 241-249.
13. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fi t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
14. Institute of National Statistics. (2010). Indicators on education, training and learning by gender and age. Retrieved from http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_main
15. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equations modelling (2nd ed.). London: Guilford Press. Korner, A., Geyer, M., Roth, M., Drapeau, M., Schmutzer, G.
16. Albani, C., .Brahler, E. (2008). Personality assessment with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory: The 30-Item-Short-Version (NEO-FFI-30). Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 58(6), 238-245.
17. Lecroy, C., & Krysik, J. (2007). Understanding and interpreting effect size measures. Social Work Research, 31(4), 243-248.
18. Lima, M. P. (1997). NEO-PI-R contextos teóricos e psicométricos. "OCEAN" ou "iceberg"? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal.
19. Lucas, R., & Donnellan, M. (2009). Age differences in personality: Evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1353- 1363. doi:10.1037/a0013914
20. McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587-596. doi:10.1016/S0191- 8869(03)00118-1
21. McCrae, R., Costa, P., Del Pilar, G., Rolland, J., & Parker, W. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the Five- Factor Model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188. doi:10.1177/0022022198291009
22. McCrae, R., Costa, P., Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., .Piedmont, R. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in fi ve cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 466-477.
23. McCrae, R., Terracciano, A., & Personality Profi les of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.
24. Muck, P., Hell, B., & Gosling, S. (2007). Construct validation of a short fi ve-factor model instrument. A self-peer study on the German adaptation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-G). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 166-175. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.166
25. Rolland, J., Parker, W., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A psychometric examination of the French translations of the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71(2), 269-291. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_13
26. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fi t of structural equation models: Tests of signifi cance and descriptive goodness-of-fi t measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
27. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89