The short IPIP-BFM-20 questionnaire for measuring the Big Five

Ewa Topolewska; Ewa Skimina; Włodzimierz Strus; Jan Cieciuch; Tomasz Rowiński

Ewa Topolewska Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Ewa Skimina Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Włodzimierz Strus Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Jan Cieciuch The University of Finance and Management in Warsaw
Tomasz Rowiński Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw

Keywords: the Big Five; short version of the questionnaire; personality; personality traits; International Personality Item Pool

Abstract

The most frequently used measures of personality consist of a large number of items. However, it is their short versions that have enjoyed popularity in recent years. This article is a presentation of the short form of Goldberg’s questionnaire for measuring the Big Five personality traits. The questionnaire measures five traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Intellect), and consists of 20 items. It is a shortened version of the 50-item Big Five Markers questionnaire from the resources of the International Personality Item Pool, whose Polish version was prepared by Strus, Cieciuch, and Rowiński (2014b). In constructing the short version, we followed the procedure developed by Donnellan and colleagues (2006), aimed at maximizing the internal consistency and independence of scales. The research was carried out on a group of N = 903 people aged between 16 and 83 years. The validity (verified in confirmatory factor analysis and in the analysis of correlations between the questionnaire’s scales and other measures of the five personality traits) and reliability (measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) are satisfactory and make the questionnaire fit for use in scientific research.

References

Ashton, M. C. i Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1321-1353.
Baldasaro, R. E., Shanahan, M. J. i Bauer, D. J. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Mini-IPIP in a large, nationally representative sample of young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 74-84.
Batinic, B., Wolff, H. G. i Haupt, Ch. M. (2007). Construction and factorial structure of a short version of the Trendsetting Questionnaire (TDS-K): A cross-validation using multigroup confirmatory factor analyses. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 88-94.
Browne, M. (2000). Cross-validation methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1), 108-132.
Costa, P. T. i McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S. i Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874-888.
De Raad, B. i Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five factor assessment: Introduction. W: B. De Raad i M. Perugini (red.), Big Five assessment (s. 1-26). Seattle–Toronto–Bern–Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C. i Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880-896.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M. i Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203.
Fischbach, A. i Moosbrugger, H. (2007). The German EPP-D: How to shorten and improve the reliability and validity of Eysenck’s Personality Profiler (EPP). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 95-100.
Frazier, T. W., Naugle, R. I. i Haggerty, K. A. (2006). Psychometric adequacy and comparability of the short and full forms of the personality assessment inventory. Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 324-333.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative „description of personality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor Models. W: I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt i F. Ostendorf (red.), Personality psychology in Europe (t. 7, s. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R. i Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. i Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.
Herzberg, P. Y. i Brähler, E. (2006). Assessing the Big-Five personality domains via short forms: A cautionary note and a proposal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 139-148.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B. i Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1), 146-163.
Hu, L. i Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
John, O. P. i Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. W: L. A. Pervin i O. P. John (red.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (s. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T. i Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
McCrae, R. R. i Costa, P. T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116-128.
Rammstedt, B. (2007). The 10-Item Big Five Inventory: Norm values and investigation of sociodemographic effects based on a German population representative sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 193-201.
Reise, S. P. i Henson, J. M. (2000). Computerization and adaptive administration of the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 7(4), 347-364.
Samson, A. C. i Huber, O. W. (2010). Short German versions of Empathizing and Systemizing Self-Assessment Scales. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69(4), 239-244.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.
Saucier, G. i Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the Big Five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. W: B. de Raad i M. Perugini (red.), Big Five assessment (s. 30-54). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. i Rowiński, T. (2011). Kołowy model struktury cech osobowości w ujęciu Lewisa Goldberga. Studia Psychologica, 11(2), 65-93.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. i Rowiński, T. (2012). Polish version of Big Five Aspects Scales from International Personality Item Pool. Poster na 16th European Conference on Personalit, Triest, 10-14.07.2012.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. i Rowiński, T. (2014a). Circumplex structure of personality traits measured with the IPIP-45AB5C questionnaire in Poland. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 77-82.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., i Rowiński, T. (2014b). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza IPIP-BFM-50 do pomiaru pięciu cech osobowości w ujęciu leksykalnym. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 17(2), 327-346.
Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G. i Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of brief to medium-length Big Five and Big Six personality questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995-1009.
Weiss, D. J. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing for effective and efficient measurement in counseling and education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(2), 70-84.