English Essay

6958 Words Jan 25th, 2014 28 Pages
Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 317–329 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid GoldbergÕs ÔIPIPÕ Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland
Alan J. Gow *, Martha C. Whiteman, Alison Pattie, Ian J. Deary
Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland, UK Received 12 May 2004; received in revised form 16 July 2004; accepted 17 January 2005 Available online 2 March 2005

Abstract GoldbergÕs (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
…show more content…
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.

2. Recent debate and GoldbergÕs proposal Goldberg (1999) has argued that scientific progress within the development of personality inventories has been ‘‘dismally slow’’ (p. 7). He attributes this to the fact that most of the broad-bandwidth personality inventories developed are proprietary instruments (such as the NEO PI-R/FFI: Costa & McCrae, 1992), possibly leading to a lack of improvement as researchers require permission from the copyright holders and are charged for each questionnaire used. However, Costa and McCrae (1999) maintain that proprietary instruments are regularly revised (several changes were recently suggested to the

Related Documents