The Polish adaptation of the IPIP-BFM-50 questionnaire for measuring five personality traits in the lexical approach
Abstrakt
The article presents the Polish adaptation of Goldberg’s IPIP-BFM-50 questionnaire for measuring the five personality traits in the lexical tradition (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect). The adaptation procedure was carried out as a series of eight studies. Analyses were performed on a total of N = 7015 people aged from 10 to 83 (their mean age was 29 years). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Factorial validity was verified in confirmatory factor analysis. In multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance between various research situations was verified. External validity was assessed by comparing the scores obtained using the IPIP-BFM-50 with NEO-FFI and NEO-PI-R scores. The results support the conclusion that the IPIP-BFM-50 is a measure with satisfactory psychometric properties, fit for use in scientific research.
Bibliografia
Ashton, M. C. i Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1321-1353.
Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., Cunningham, C. J. i Ghorbani, N. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 417-429.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Chen, F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504.
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.
Cieciuch, J. i Davidov, E. (2014). Establishing measurement invariance across online and offline samples. A tutorial with the software packages Amos and Mplus. Studia Psychologica.
De Raad, B. i Perugini, M. (red.) (2002). Big Five assessment. Seattle–Toronto–Bern–Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.
De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebickova, M. i Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 212-232.
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.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. W: L. Wheeler (red.), Review of personality and social psychology (t. 2, s. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”. The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 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: 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, 84-96.
Gorbaniuk, O., Budzińska, A., Owczarek, M., Bożek, E. i Juros, K. (2013). The factor structure of Polish personality-descriptive adjectives: An alternative psycho-lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 27(3), 304-318.
Guenole, N. i Chernyshenko, O. S. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg’s Big Five IPIP personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 86-96.
Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B. i de Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307-325.
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.
Jarmuż, S. (1994). Metodologiczne problemy związane z weryfikacją modelu „Wielkiej Piątki”. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 37(1-2), 195-203.
John, O. P. i Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. W: L. A. Pervin, O. P. John (red.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (s. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Little, T., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., i Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
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. (2005). Osobowość człowieka dorosłego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.
McCrae, R. R. i John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 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.
Siuta, J. (2006). Inwentarz Osobowości NEO-PI-R Paula T. Costy Jr i Roberta R. McCrae. Adaptacja polska. Podręcznik. Warszawa: PTP.
Siuta, J. (red.) (2009). Diagnoza osobowości. Inwentarz NEO-PI-R w teorii i praktyce. Warszawa: PTP.
Strus, W. i Cieciuch, J. (2014). Poza Wielką Piatkę – nowe modele struktury osobowości. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne (w druku).
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., Rowiński, T., Gasiul, H., Stillwell i D., Kosiński, M. (2013). Factorial structure of personality as measured by the IPIP-100 in 33 countries. Referat wygłoszony na 12th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, San Sebastian, Hiszpania.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. i Rowiński, T. (2014). Circumplex structure of personality traits measured by the IPIP-45AB5C questionnaire in Poland. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 77-82.
Szarota, P. (1995). Polska Lista Przymiotnikowa (PLP): narzędzie do diagnozy pięciu wielkich czynników osobowości. Studia Psychologiczne, 33, 227-255.
Vandenberg, R. J. i Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
Zawadzki, B., Strelau, J., Szczepaniak, P. i Śliwińska, M. (1998). Inwentarz Osobowości NEO-FFI Costy i McCrae. Adaptacja polska. Podręcznik. Warszawa: PTP.
Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y. i Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between Internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 649-654.
Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., Cunningham, C. J. i Ghorbani, N. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 417-429.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Chen, F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504.
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.
Cieciuch, J. i Davidov, E. (2014). Establishing measurement invariance across online and offline samples. A tutorial with the software packages Amos and Mplus. Studia Psychologica.
De Raad, B. i Perugini, M. (red.) (2002). Big Five assessment. Seattle–Toronto–Bern–Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.
De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebickova, M. i Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 212-232.
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.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. W: L. Wheeler (red.), Review of personality and social psychology (t. 2, s. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”. The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 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: 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, 84-96.
Gorbaniuk, O., Budzińska, A., Owczarek, M., Bożek, E. i Juros, K. (2013). The factor structure of Polish personality-descriptive adjectives: An alternative psycho-lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 27(3), 304-318.
Guenole, N. i Chernyshenko, O. S. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg’s Big Five IPIP personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 86-96.
Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B. i de Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307-325.
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.
Jarmuż, S. (1994). Metodologiczne problemy związane z weryfikacją modelu „Wielkiej Piątki”. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 37(1-2), 195-203.
John, O. P. i Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. W: L. A. Pervin, O. P. John (red.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (s. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Little, T., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., i Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
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. (2005). Osobowość człowieka dorosłego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.
McCrae, R. R. i John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 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.
Siuta, J. (2006). Inwentarz Osobowości NEO-PI-R Paula T. Costy Jr i Roberta R. McCrae. Adaptacja polska. Podręcznik. Warszawa: PTP.
Siuta, J. (red.) (2009). Diagnoza osobowości. Inwentarz NEO-PI-R w teorii i praktyce. Warszawa: PTP.
Strus, W. i Cieciuch, J. (2014). Poza Wielką Piatkę – nowe modele struktury osobowości. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne (w druku).
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., Rowiński, T., Gasiul, H., Stillwell i D., Kosiński, M. (2013). Factorial structure of personality as measured by the IPIP-100 in 33 countries. Referat wygłoszony na 12th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, San Sebastian, Hiszpania.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. i Rowiński, T. (2014). Circumplex structure of personality traits measured by the IPIP-45AB5C questionnaire in Poland. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 77-82.
Szarota, P. (1995). Polska Lista Przymiotnikowa (PLP): narzędzie do diagnozy pięciu wielkich czynników osobowości. Studia Psychologiczne, 33, 227-255.
Vandenberg, R. J. i Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
Zawadzki, B., Strelau, J., Szczepaniak, P. i Śliwińska, M. (1998). Inwentarz Osobowości NEO-FFI Costy i McCrae. Adaptacja polska. Podręcznik. Warszawa: PTP.
Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y. i Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between Internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 649-654.
Opublikowane
2019-04-04
Numer
Dział
Artykuły
Copyright (c) 2014 Roczniki Psychologiczne
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
