Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 0

The Development of a Big Five Adolescent Personality Inventory

John W. Lounsbury

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Holly Tatum

Colby-Sawyer College

Lucy W. Gibson

Resource Associates, Inc

Soo-Hee Park

State of Tennessee, Educational Testing Services

Eric D. Sundstrom Frances L. Hamrick

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Denise Wilburn

Anderson County School Systems

This manuscript appears in Psychoeducational Assessment, 2003, Volume 21, pp. 111-133.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to:

John W. Lounsbury

Dept. of Psychology

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN 37996-0900

Ph.: 865-577-6089

email: jlounsbury@aol.com
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 1

Abstract

Using data from 3752 middle and high school students, a series of eight studies developed and
validated a measure of the Big Five personality traits tailored to adolescents, the Adolescent Personal
Style Inventory (APSI). Study 1 tested the internal consistency reliability of the first version of the
APSI. Study 2 validated the APSI against teacher ratings of Big Five traits. Study 3 confirmed the
five-factor structure of the APSI. Study 4 developed evidence for the criterion-related validity of the
APSI in two high schools using GPA, absences, and behavior problems. Study 5 demonstrated
convergence of traits measured in the APSI and the NEO-FFI. Study 6 investigated the construct
validity of the APSI in relation to the 16 PF, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and Otis Lennon
intelligence test. Study 7 examined known-group validation with two groups-- an at-risk group of
high school students and a high school leadership group. Study 8 provided descriptive statistics,
coefficient alphas ranging from .80 to .85, and inter-correlation coefficients for subscales in the,
revised version of the APSI. Together the eight studies demonstrate the psychometric adequacy of
the new Adolescent Personal Style Inventory.
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 2

The Development of a Big Five Adolescent Personality Scale

The Big Five personality model has emerged as a widely accepted general framework for

conceptualizing personality traits (De Raad, 2000; Digman, 1990; Digman, 1997; Wiggins &

Trapnell, 1997). The five factors of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and

Conscientiousness have been consistently observed in a variety of settings and samples with many

links to other constructs and observable behavior; they have been found to remain relatively stable

throughout the lifespan (Costa & McCrae, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans,

2000), and there is evidence that they may have a genetic basis (Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996a,

1996b). Moreover, the Big Five model has been verified in a wide range of cultures and languages,

including American-English, Dutch, Flemish, Roman and Triestian Italian, German, Hungarian,

Czech, Polish, Filipino, Japanese, and Russian (De Raad, 2000). There is an emerging consensus

that the Big Five represents a “grand unified theory” for personality (Digman, 1990). While the bulk

of research on the Big Five is based on adults, there is a growing body of evidence to support its

applicability to adolescents and importance for adolescent research and theory-building (see, for

example, Bratko & Marusic, 1997; Digman, 1989, 1997; Ehrler, Evans, & McGhee, 1999; Goldberg,

1990, Graziano & Ward, 1992; Heaven, 1996; Robins, John, Caspi, Moffitt, & Stothamer-Loeber,

1996; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000).

More specifically, research on adolescence has found the Big Five to be related to such

diverse criteria and constructs as intelligence, juvenile delinquency, school performance, future

career success, stress and coping, social competence, and peer relationships. Digman and Inouye

(1986) found teacher ratings of conscientiousness in childhood to be significantly correlated with

high school GPA. Conscientiousness has also been significantly positively related to academic

performance (Graziano & Ward, 1992; John et al., 1994) and intelligence (John et al., 1994), while

negatively correlated with attention problems (Victor, 1994) and juvenile delinquency (John et al.,

1994). Lay, Kovacs, and Danto (1998) reported significant negative correlations between both self-
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 3

rated and teacher-rated Conscientiousness and trait procrastination in school aged children. Graziano

and Ward (1992) demonstrated a significant relationship between Extraversion and social

competence. Adolescents low in Agreeableness have been found to report more day-to-day conflicts

and poorer relationships with teachers and peers (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell & Finch, 1997; Jensen-

Campbell, Graziano, & Hair, 1996). Furthermore, openness has also been linked to overall IQ and

school performance (John et al., 1994; Parker & Stumpf, 1998). In a study of the Big Five and

coping strategies utilized by early adolescents, Medvedova (1998) found that Neuroticism was

positively related to avoidance strategies and negatively related to direct problem solving, while

extraversion was related to support-seeking and direct-problem solving and conscientiousness was

significantly correlated with the use of active coping strategies. Robins, John, and Caspi (1994)

found that conscientiousness and agreeableness independently predicted juvenile delinquency, and

that those boys who had committed more severe delinquent behaviors were lower on both

agreeableness and conscientiousness.

However, despite the increasing empirical and theoretical attention to the Big Five model in

adolescent research, there is a lack of measurement instrumentation devoted to adolescent Big Five

personality traits. This lacuna has been noted as a factor hindering research in this area (John, Caspi,

Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996). Most studies on Big Five factors in childhood and

adolescence have relied on ratings by teachers and parents (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman &

Shmelyov, 1996; Graziano & Ward, 1992; Mervielde, Buyst, & De Fruyt, 1995). Some researchers

have utilized a combination of separate adolescent-specific scales to represent the Big Five (e.g.,

Graziano & Ward, 1992), while others have used an adult Big Five scale such as the NEO

Personality Inventory on older adolescents (e.g, Larson & Borgen, 2002)—which is of questionable

utility for younger adolescents. One adolescent personality inventory that has received considerable

research attention is the High School Personality Questionnaire—HSPQ (e.g., Mandryk &

Schuerger, 1974; Barton, Dielman, & Cattell, 1971). While there is some correspondence between
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 4

factors in the HSPQ and the Big Five (Ormerod, McKenzie, & Woods, 1995; Cattell, 1996), the

HSPQ comprises 16 dimensions (Cattell, Cattell, & Johns, 1968) and, even if construed in Big Five

terms, is not an efficient scale for measuring the Big Five personality traits. Moreover, the items on

the HSPQ were constructed over 30 years ago and reference is made to some activities and jobs

which may have limited or no familiarity to current test-takers, such as a spending time in a “duck

shooting match”, “playing around the campfire with the crowd”, working as a conductor on a

railroad, and being in a seal colony.

There is a need for more up-to-date scales designed specifically for adolescents to measure

the Big Five traits in a self-report format. Such instrumentation would be useful for investigating the

Big Five model in adolescence and for making comparisons between the adult and adolescent

literatures on Big Five personality. Accordingly, the purpose of the present investigation was to

develop and validate a reliable self-report scale to measure Big Five personality traits in

adolescents. Following Cronbach (1988), as a general validation strategy we chose to use multiple

studies to investigate diverse types of validity. A series of eight studies was conducted. In the first

study, an initial Big Five adolescent personality scale (termed the APSI) was constructed and

evaluated in terms of reliability and criterion-related validity using a middle school sample. In the

second study, the APSI was validated against teacher ratings of Big Five dimensions. The third study

used a confirmatory factor analysis to verify the five-factor structure of the APSI. The fourth study

examined the criterion-related validity of the APSI in terms of school grades, attendance, and

behavior problems for middle and high school students. The fifth study investigated the convergence

of indicators of the APSI and the NEO-FFI. The sixth study examined the construct validity of the

APSI in relation to the 16 PF, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and Otis Lennon general intelligence

Test. The seventh study made known group comparisons between the APSI traits and an at-risk

group of high school students as well as high school students in a leadership group. The eighth study
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 5

provided descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for subscales in the final, revised version of the

APSI.

Study 1

Overview

The purpose of this study was initial scale construction and reliability analysis. After a review

of the literature and Big Five instruments, ninety-one items were written by the authors to reflect Big

Five traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and

Conscientiousness and were combined into the APSI. Each trait was developed using rational scale

construction (Edwards, 1970) and conceptual definitions of the Big Five constructs provided by

Digman (1990) and McCrae & Costa (1987). To make the items understandable to as wide a range

of adolescents as possible, we used relatively simple statements encompassing a single activity,

preference, or disposition and we tried to avoid idiomatic language, specific jobs, and culturally-

valenced activities. The number of items created for each dimension was: Neuroticism—16,

Conscientiousness—19, Extraversion--18, Agreeableness—18, and Openness--20. These were

reviewed for item clarity and meaning by middle-school teachers, school psychologists, and middle

school students. Items were included based on consensus of reviewers. For the total scale, the

average number of words per sentence was 9.5 and the average number of characters per word was

3.7. Readability statistics were computed using the Microsoft Word 2000 software program on the

APSI to determine the grade level and reading ease of the items on the instrument. The Flesh-Kincaid

grade level was 3.2 and the Flesch reading ease was 88.9.

Data were collected at a public middle school located in a medium-size city in the

Southeastern United States. The middle school has close to 1000 students in 6th through 8th grades.

The overall middle school population was similar to those participants in the current study with 82%

Caucasian, 13.5% African-American, 3% Indian or Asian, and 1.5% Hispanic.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 6

Participants

Two hundred and four middle school students in the 6th through 8th grades participated in the

study (76 males and 128 females). The ethnicity of the sample was 85% Caucasian, 6% African

American, 6% Indian or Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 1% “Other.”. Twenty-nine percent of the

participants were in the 6th grade, 25% of the participants were in the 7th grade, and 46% of the

participants were in 8th grade. The mean age of all participants was 12.8 years.

Measures

The APSI was designed specifically for use with adolescents, ranging from ages 11 to 18

years of age. Five subscales of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and

Conscientious were measured using individual statements followed by responses on a 3-point scale

where 1 represents True, 2 represents In-Between, and 3 represents False. Sample items from each

subscale are provided in Table 1.

__________________________________________

Insert Table1 about here

__________________________________________

Procedure

Teachers were recruited during a faculty meeting. The teachers who agreed to participate

announced the research project to their participating class or classes and were responsible for

distributing and collecting parental informed consent forms. In addition to parental informed consent,

assent was obtained from the adolescent participants. As an incentive for their participation, students

were offered a brief feedback letter on the personality dimensions examined in the present study. All

participants who acknowledged that they would like the feedback letter received a one-page

summary of their results. Teachers read the directions aloud and administered the questionnaire

during a regular class period. When students had completed the personality scale, they placed them in

a sealed envelope, which was returned to the researcher.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 7

Results and Discussion

Internal consistency reliability for each of the Big Five dimensions was assessed by

Cronbach’s alpha. Coefficient alphas for each dimension were: Neuroticism--.86, Extraversion--.76,

Openness--.59, Agreeableness--.78, and Conscientiousness--.82. The internal consistency

reliabilities were regarded as satisfactory for all scales except Openness, which was revised for Study

2. Six items were deleted from the total scale. In addition, in an effort to increase item variance and,

thus, scale reliability, all items were subsequently placed on a five-point Likert scale for Study 2.

Study 2

Overview

Study 2 assessed the convergent validity of the APSI by correlating student subscale scores

with teacher ratings of Big Five personality dimensions. The participants involved in Study 2

attended the same middle school as those participating in Study 1.

Participants

Seventy-two 7th grade students (33 males and 39 females) served as participants in this study.

Thirty percent of the students were 12 years of age and 70% were 13 years of age with a mean of

12.7 years. Approximately 90% of the participating students were Caucasian, 4% were African-

American, and 6% were Asian or Indian.

Measures

APSI. After making minor wording changes in four items, the APSI was used for this study, with the

response format changed to a five-point Likert scale to: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (In-

Between), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). Coefficient alphas for the APSI were: .85 for

Neuroticism, .85 for Extraversion, .75 for Openness; .72 for Agreeableness, and .76 for

Conscientiousness.

Teacher Ratings of Big Five Personality. A 36-item scale developed specifically for the current

study was used to assess teacher ratings of the Big Five personality dimensions in adolescent
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 8

students. Items were designed to evaluate typical behaviors associated with each of the Big Five

dimensions, such as Seems sad and depressed (Neuroticism), Talks a lot (Extraversion), Starts fights

with other students (Agreeableness), Is very curious (Openness), and Always prepares for class

(Conscientiousness). The items were designed to reflect behaviors and characteristics that teachers

can easily observe in the school environment. There were six to eight items for each scale. Behaviors

were rated on a five point Likert scale with the following response options: 1 (Never), 2 (Rarely), 3

(Sometimes), 4 (Often), and 5 (Always). Coefficient alphas for the Personality Rating Scale for

Teachers were found to be .79 for Neuroticism, .82 for Extraversion, .81 for Openness to

Experience, .91 for Agreeableness, and .93 for Conscientiousness.

Procedure

Teachers were responsible for distributing and collecting parental informed consent forms.

Students were offered feedback as an incentive for their participation. The participating teachers

had approximately 7 months of daily contact with the students prior to completing the personality

ratings. The teachers rated approximately 25 students each on the Personality Rating Scale for

Teachers.

Results and Discussion

Three of the self-report APSI traits were significantly correlated with the corresponding

teacher rating dimension for Agreeableness (r=.68, p<.01); Openness (r=.31, p<.01; and

Extraverison (r=.30, p<.01). The other two convergent validities failed to reach significance—

Conscientiousness (r=.18, n.s.) and Neuroticism (r=.17, n.s.). This set of results with a median

value of .30 is consistent with the median value of .28 found for cross-informant correlations in a

meta-analysis of 119 studies of child/adolescent behavior and emotional problems reported by

Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987).

The present results may reflect the greater observability by teachers of agreeable, extraverted,

and openness-related student behavior than neuroticism-related behavior, though why convergent
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 9

validity did not emerge for Conscientiousness is unclear, as it is generally regarded as a fairly salient,

observable trait (Kohnstamm, Mervielde, Besevegis, & Halverson, 1995; Lay, Kovacs, and Danto,

1998). However, Mervielde (1994) found Agreeableness to be the most prominent factor in teacher

descriptions of children 4 to 12 years of age. The agreeable early teen is probably stands out as being

popular, empathetic, and cooperative and as getting along with his or her peers. These personality

characteristics are often just as important to teachers as turning in work on time and doing well in

school. (I have more that I can add about Neuroticism and why it did not correlate). No significant

gender differences were found for any of the personality dimensions. Taken as a whole, these results

indicate significant convergent validity with teacher ratings for three of the five APSI factors.

Study 3

Overview

The purpose of this study was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis of the APSI. Data

were based on sample obtained in a semi-rural county school system in Southeastern Tennessee.

Participants

A total of 1373 students participated in this study, including 556 6th graders, 445 9th graders,

and 338 12th graders. The percentages of male and female students by grade were: 6th grade—

50%male/50% female; 9th grade—47% male/53% female; 12th grade—45% male/55% female.
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 10
Measures

The same version of the APSI was used for all grades with Agreeableness measured by 11

items, Conscientiousness measured by 12 items, Emotional Stability by 11 items, Extraverison by 12

items, and Openness measured by 10 items.

Procedure

All students in class on a given day were administered the adolescent personality inventory by

school counselors.

Results and Discussion

A confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) based on an unweighted least squares estimation

procedure using LISREL version 8.03 (Joreskog & Sorobom, 1993) was used to evaluate the data.

The Pearson product-moment correlation matrix with listwise deletion was used for the CFA. The

resulting solution of this analysis is portrayed in Figure 1. For the overall model evaluation, the root

mean square residual (RMR), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) were used. The RMSEA

of .059 was at an acceptable level and the GFI and AGFI values of are .91 and .905, respectively,

indicate good fit. Thus, the five-factor structure of the APSI is supported by the CFA. As an

additional check on the five-factor structure, an exploratory factor analysis with maximum likelihood

estimation was performed on the data set, revealing five factors with Tucker and Lewis (1973)

reliability =.82.

_________________________________________________

Insert Figure 1 about here

_________________________________________________

Study 4
Overview

The purpose of this study was to examine the criterion-related validity of the APSI in middle

and high schools. Although there are many different variables one could examine in this context, our
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 11
choice of criteria was based on three considerations: 1) frequent prior usage in adolescent research,

especially personality-related research; 2) availability of data sources to the research team; and 3)

relatively large sample sizes. Accordingly, we chose to examine school grades (which have been

extensively researched as a criterion variable in adolescent personality research—see, for example:

Hakstian & Gale, 1979; Mandryk & Schuerger, 1974; and Oakland, 1969), school attendance

(which has been widely studied as a criterion variable in general and personality-related adolescent

research—see, for example: Corville-Smith, Ryan, Adams, & Dalicandro, 1998; Hirata & Sako,

1998-1999 ; Rollings, King, Tonge, Heyne, & Young, 1998; Walker, Grantham-McGregor, Himes,

Williams, & Duff, 1998); and incidence of behavior problems at school operationalized as

disciplinary actions--which has served as a criterion variable in many general and personality-related

adolescent research studies (see, for example— Kluwin, 1985; Morrison & D'Incau, 1997; Stewart,

Bond, McBride-Chang, Fielding, Deeds, & Westrick, 1998; Wallis & Barrett, 1998).

All data for this study were obtained from an archival source representing data collected in

two school systems. “School A” was a semi-rural county school system in Southeastern Tennessee

which had 97.6% white students, 1.6% African-American students, and .8% “Other.” Data were

collected from students in all 6th, 9th, and 12th grades in middle and high school systems as part of a

broader study by the school system of employability and curriculum planning. “School B” was an

inner-city, magnet school in Southeastern Tennessee which had predominantly minority students

with 15.7% white students, 83.4% African-American students, and .9% “Other.” Data were

collected from all four grades in a convenience sample as part of a broader study by the high school

of student characteristics.

Participants

School A: A total of 1353 students participated in this study (including the 939 participants in

Study 3), with 562 6th graders, 450 9th graders, and 341 12th graders. The percentages of male and
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 12
female students by grade were: 6th grade—50%male/50% female; 9th grade—48% male/52% female;

12th grade—46% male/54% female.

School B: A total of 222 students participated in this study with 49% male (51% female),

including 117 9th graders, 21 10th graders, 6 11th graders, and 78 12th graders. Racial status was not

collected in this school. In view of the sample sizes by grade, all subsequent analyses for School B

are based on the total sample.

Measures

APSI. After making minor item revisions and deletions, the APSI was used for this study with

each subscale measured by 11 items. The same APSI was used for all grades in both School A and B.

In addition, grades and absence data were collected in both schools, and behavior problem data were

collected in School A.

Grade-point-average. Cumulative grade point average (GPA) was recorded for each student

on a standard 4.0 scale. The mean GPA = 2.89 with standard deviation = .95.

Absences. Cumulative absences to date were recorded for each student. The mean number

of absences = .71 with standard deviation = .76

Behavior Problems. Behavior problems were operationalized as total the number of

disciplinary actions formally recorded for each student. Disciplinary actions included suspensions,

detentions, and parent conferences. The distribution for this measure was highly skewed, so we note

here that the modal number of problems = 2 with mean number of behavior problems = 3.02 and

standard deviation = 3.05

Procedure

For both School A and School B, after reviewing the purpose of the study, all students in

class on a given day were administered the adolescent personality inventory by school counselors.

Students wrote their social security numbers at the top of the form. These numbers were used to

match with student records and obtain the criterion data. For School A, students were offered a
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 13
summary of their results, with 88% accepting this offer. In School B all students were given personal

summaries of results.

Results and Discussion

Table 2 displays Cronbach alpha coefficients for each subscale by grade and for the total

sample for School A and B. As can be seen in this table, the coefficient alphas were fairly consistent

for each scale across the three grades. For the total sample in School A, the coefficient alphas

ranged from .73 for Openness to .75 for Conscientiousness, .79 for Agreeableness, and .81 for both

Neuroticism and Extraversion. For School B, the coefficient alphas ranged from .79 for Neuroticism

to .81 for Openness and Agreeableness, and .82 for Conscientiousness and Extraversion

__________________________________________

Insert Tables 2 - 4 about here

__________________________________________

Table 3 summarizes the correlations between the personality measures and each of the three

criterion variables by grade and for the total sample in School A, while Table 4 summarizes the same

correlations for the full sample in School B. For School A, significant correlations were observed

between all five personality measures and GPA for all grades and total sample with the exception of

Openness with GPA for 12th graders, with correlations ranging in magnitude between .18 and .26

(all significant at the p<.01) for the total sample. For Absences, only the Neuroticism measure was

significantly related for the 6th grade (r=.21, p<.01), 12th grade (r=.12, p<.05), and total sample

(r=.13, p<.01). For Behavior Problems, Agreeableness was negatively and significantly related in all

groups while extraversion was negatively and significantly related in the 6th grade, 9th grade, and total

sample. For School B, significant correlations were observed between four personality measures and

GPA: Agreeableness (r=.46, p<.01), Neuroticism (r=-.23, p<.05), Extraversion (r=.32, p<.01),

and Openness (r=.28, p<.01). For School B, significant correlations were observed between the

same four personality measures and attendance: Agreeableness (r=-.30, p<.01), Neuroticism (r= .
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 14
19, p<.05), Extraversion (r=-.29, p<.01), and Openness (r=-.26, p<.01). When the analyses

performed in this study were disaggregated by sex, there were similar correlations for males and

females with almost all differences residing in the hundredths place in the correlations.

As a whole, the results of this study provide support for the criterion-related validity of the

APSI with consistent evidence of a significant relationship between GPA and the adolescent Big Five

traits as well as some evidence for specific traits being significantly related to absences and behavior

problems. It should be noted, however, that the magnitude of the statistically significant correlations

for the absences and behavior problems were modest.

Study 5

Overview

The purpose of this study was to examine convergence of indicators (Messick, 1989) by

correlating measures of each of the Big Five traits from the APSI with measures of corresponding

traits assessed by the NEO-FFI scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which is one of the most widely used

adult Big Five instruments. College students were used to avoid problems with any potential

reading difficulty of the NEO-FFI.

Participants

All participants were college students attending a large, Southeastern University: 107

undergraduate students enrolled in a lower-division psychology course, with 43% male, 57% female,

and median age of 18.

Measures

All participants were administered the APSI and the NEO-FFI, a 60-item, shortened form of

the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 15
Procedure

The study was announced during class time and students were offered extra credit for their

participation. Informed consent forms and the questionnaires were distributed in class. Participants

were allowed to take the questionnaire packet home and return it to the researcher one week later at

the beginning of class.

Results and Discussion

Table 5 displays the correlations for common traits from the APSI and the NEO-FFI, both as

observed correlations and as corrected for attenuation in both measures (Nunnally & Bernstein,

1994).

__________________________________________

Insert Table 5 about here

__________________________________________

As can be seen in Table 5, the highest convergence was for Neuroticism for which the

correlation between the APSI and NEO—FFI was r=.83 (p<.01). The lowest convergence was for

Openness with same-trait correlations of r=.69 (p<.01). When these correlations are corrected for

attenuation, which indicates what the estimated “true” correlation would be if there were no errors or

measurement present in either measure (Nunnally & Bernstein, ibid), the magnitudes are in most

cases very high, indicating a very high degree of convergence of indicators of common traits.

Study 6

Overview

In an effort to explore the construct validity of the APSI scales, we administered the APSI in

conjunction with two well-known and widely used measures of normal personality—the 16 PF (Fifth

Edition) and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. We also intercorrelated the APSI scales with a group

intelligence test—the Otis Lennon Test of Mental Maturity.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 16
Participants

The participants were 80 college students enrolled in an upper division psychology course at

a large, Southeastern University, with 40% male, 60% female, median age = 21.

Measures

All participants were administered the APSI, the 16 PF Form A (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka,

1970), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G (Myers & McCaulley, 1989), and the Otis-Lennon

Test of Mental Maturity (Otis & Lennon, 1969).

Procedure

All instruments were given during regular class time as part of a series of demonstrations of

psychological tests and inventories.

Results and Discussion

Tables 6 through 9 below present the resulting correlations. Even though the APSI was

designed for adolescents and the 16PF and MBTI were designed for adults, there is evidence for the

convergence of related indicators in the relatively high correlations of the Extraversion scale from the

APSI and the 16 PF (r=.62, p<.01) and the MBTI (r=.59, p<.01); APSI Conscientiousness and 16

PF Rule Consciousness (r=.57, p<.01) and MBTI Perceiving (r=-.76, p<.01); APSI Emotional

Stability and 16 PF Emotional Stability (r=.66, p<.01); and APSI Openness and 16 PF Openness

(r=.68, p<.01). In addition, the APSI scale of Openness was modestly but significantly correlated

with general intelligence as measured by the Otis-Lennon Test of Mental Maturity—(r=.26, p<.05),

which is consistent with theoretical specifications of Openness (De Raad, 2000; Goldberg, 1990) as

well as previous research (Ashton, Lee, Vernon, & Jang, 2000).

Study 7

Overview

The purpose of this study was to conduct a “known groups” validation (Crano & Brewer,

1973) using the APSI subscales. The choice of groups was based on their differing from each other
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 17
on common characteristics which are publicly recognized and on the accessibility of the samples to

the research team. Accordingly, two school teachers at one school participating in this research

identified one intact group of “high functioning” students--a leadership group for which students in

a leadership development program were selected on the basis of exemplary school citizenship,

including pro-social classroom behavior, participation in school activities and organizations, and

grades. They also identified an intact “low functioning” group of students as an at-risk for dropout

group, consisting of students who had been identified by eighth grade teachers and counselors as

being at risk of dropping out because of negative behaviors observed in and outside of class by

teachers and guidance counselors. In the first comparison, regular high school students were

compared to the high-functioning leadership group, with the expectation that high-functioning group

would score higher than the regular students on the ASPI variables. In the second comparison,

regular 9th grade high school students were compared to the low function, at-risk students a group

expected to score low on the APSI variables. The known groups were drawn from a high school in

the same city school system as the regular high school students used in these comparisons.

Participants

For the first comparison regular group, there were 275 9th grade high school students from a

city school system in Southeastern Tennessee. Of these, 43% were male (57% female) and the mean

age was 14.30. For the 42 9th graders in the “at-risk” group, 62% were male (38% female) and the

mean age was 14.7.

For the second comparison regular group there were 454 high school students from the same

school system participating in Study 3. Of these, 46% were male (54% female) and the mean age was

16.49; and 48% were in Grade 10, 3% in Grade 11, and 49% in Grade 12. The leadership group

was comprised of 24 students; with 33% male (67% female), mean age = 16.96, and 13% were in

Grade 10, 37% in Grade 11, and 50% in Grade 12.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 18
Measures

The only measure in this study was the APSI.

Procedure

After reviewing the purpose of the study, all students in class on a given day were

administered the adolescent personality inventory by teachers or counselors. All students were

offered a summary of their results.

Results and Discussion

A series of independent samples t tests were run on all five APSI traits for each comparison

group with results summarized in Table 6 along with the effect sizes for each comparison as

measured by Cohen’s (1988) d statistic. Ninth grade students at risk of dropout scored significantly

lower than regular ninth grade students on four traits: agreeableness-- t(314)=3.06, p<.01,

conscientiousness-- t(313)=2.14, p<.05, extraversion--t(312)=2.10, p<.05, and openness--

t(315)=3.65, p<.01. Leadership students in Grades 10-12 scored significantly higher than regular

students in Grades 10-12 on three traits: agreeableness-- t(478)=4.07, p<.01, conscientiousness--

t(478)=2.09, p<.05, extraversion-- t(476)=3.98, p<.01 and lower on neuroticism-- t(478)=3.11,

p<.01. These results indicate that in the case of both the leadership and at-risk-for-dropout groups,

the known comparison groups differed from each other in a logically expected direction for four of

the five APSI traits. It should be noted, though, that the effect sizes for these comparisons are in

what Cohen (ibid) would term the “small” to “medium” ranges for effect size.

__________________________________________

Insert Table 9 about here

__________________________________________

Study 8
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 19
Overview

The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the

subscales in the final version of the APSI. After deleting three items with item-total correlations

below .40, a final set of data were collected on the APSI from students in another high school

(“School C”). School C was a city school located in Southeastern Tennessee which had 80% white

students, 16% African-American students, and 4% “Other.” All data for this study were obtained

from an archival source collected as part of a larger study by the high school of student

characteristics. Data were collected from students in grades 9 through 12 .

Participants

A total of 1061 students participated in this study, including 276 9th graders, 292 10th

graders, 287 11th graders, and 206 12th graders. For the total sample, 49% were male/51% female,

and the mean age was 15.47.

Procedure

After reviewing the purpose of the study, all students in class on a given day were

administered the APSI by school counselors and teachers. All students were given personal

summaries of results.

Results

Table 10 displays the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all five subscales

of the APSI along with the coefficient alpha for each subscale. As can be seen from Table 10, all

coefficient alphas were at least .80 or greater, ranging from .80 for Openness, to .82 for

Agreeableness, .84 for Conscientiousness, and .85 for Neuroticism and Extraversion. These

coefficient alphas are comparable to what are found for other Big Five personality measures. For

example, Costs and McCrea (1992) report a median coefficient of .89 for the NEO PI-R. The

subscale intercorrelations ranged in magnitude from -.09 to .43 with lower intercorrelations involving

Neuroticism and higher intercorrelations involving Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 20
pattern of intercorrelations is similar to, for example, the NEO-PIR, for which the correlations range

from a low of -.53 to a high of .43 (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

__________________________________________

Insert Table 10 about here

__________________________________________

General Discussion

The present series of studies, which involved a total of 3752 students at different schools and

grade levels, was successful in developing a reliable and valid measure of adolescent Big Five

personality traits. A fairly high level of internal consistency reliability was demonstrated for all five

subscales at age levels ranging from 18 year-old high school Seniors down to 11 and 12-year-old

sixth-graders. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis in Study 3 confirmed the five-factor

structure of the ASPI. The findings of Study 4 demonstrate for all five traits substantial overlap

with corresponding subscales of the NEO—FFI, which is one of the most widely researched adult

Big Five scales. These results provide additional evidence of what De Raad (2000) terms “the

overwhelming picture of the Big Five…as a replicable structure”.

Evidence regarding validity cannot be answered by any single finding, but the present set of

studies provides evidence of several different forms of validity. Study 2 results demonstrate

convergent validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) for Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness vis-à-

vis same-trait teacher ratings. Although these correlations were not consistently significant or of high

magnitude, this was a first study of such relationships and it may well be that further research will

find convergent validity for conscientiousness and neuroticism, especially if multiple raters and other

rating sources are considered (e.g., school counselors, parents).

The results of Study 4 provide evidence for the criterion-related validity for the Adolescent

Big Five factors in terms of significant correlations with grades across grade levels. There is some

support for the criterion-related validity of APSI in terms of Emotional Stability in relation to
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 21
Absences and Agreeableness in relation to Behavior Problems, though the magnitudes of the

statistically significant correlations are low and accounting for 2-4% of the shared variance.

Although it is beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss these particular results in

detail, we note that while the connection between the Big Five personality traits and grades is fairly

straightforward in the case of Conscientiousness and Openness and perhaps even Neuroticism, the

rationale for a positive relationship between grades and either Extraversion and Agreeableness is less

clear, unless one regards being sociable and agreeable as well as making good grades as

manifestations of general pro-social adolescent behavior (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). We note that

the pattern of correlations was slightly different for the two schools where data were collected,

which may reflect inter-school variability in grading practices and policies or perhaps unmeasured

pupil differences. Further research should examine the generalizability of Big Five personality-grade

validities across different school settings. In any event, these results provide additional evidence for

personality-grade relationships which have been found in other adolescent research (e.g., Oakland,

1969; Barton, Dielman, & Cattell, 1972; Watterson, Schuerger, & Melnyk, 1976; Mandryk &

Schuerger, 1974). It will be interesting to see if future research on these adolescent Big Five traits

can confirm the finding that personality variables account for unique variation in grades even when

controlling for mental ability (Cattell, Barton, & Dielman, 1972; Mandryk & Schuerger, 1974). One

other implication of the results of Study 3 should also be noted. The APSI Big Five traits

demonstrate reliability and criterion-related validity in an overwhelmingly white school system as

well as a predominantly African-American high school, which is auspicious for the generalizability of

the APSI across different racial/ethnic groups.

The results of Study 5 provide evidence for the nomological validity (Messick, 1989) of the

APSI Big Five traits through the convergence of indicators of common traits. Future research

could address the relative merits of the different indicators in terms of predictive and concurrent
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 22
validity as well as explore the construct validity of the APSI in terms of cognate scales such as the

HSPQ.

The findings of Study 6 present evidence bearing on the construct validity of the APSI as

related to the 16 PF, MBTI, and Otis Lennon intelligence test. Fairly high correlations were

observed for the APSI measures and logically related and common constructs on the 16 PF and

MBTI and, consistent with prior theory and research the APSI Openness scale was found to be

modestly but significantly related to general intelligence.

The results of Study 7 support the known groups validity (Crano & Brewer, 1973) of the

APSI. Although the sample sizes were relatively small, the results of this study indicate that both the

leadership group, which we interpret as a high functioning group of students, and the “at risk” group,

which we interpret as a low functioning group of students, can be distinguished on the APSI Big Five

traits--especially Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion. There are a variety of other

forms of known-groups validation that could be performed in the future, including studies of

dropouts, students who fail grades, and adjudicated offenders as well as valedictorians, service award

winners, and students who skip grades

As a validated measure of the "Big Five" Personality traits for adolescents, the APSI paves

the way for several lines of future research on adolescent personality using the Big Five model. One

promising line of inquiry concerns adolescent personality development (Lerner & Galambos, 1998).

Similarly, the APSI could be used to study Big Five predictors of many different criteria, including

school achievement, family relationships, and interpersonal functioning. It can also be used to

support studies of adolescent vocational development and future career success (cf. Judge, Higgins,

Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) . The APSI could augment research on adolescents at risk for behavioral

problems, including personality correlates of stress responses and styles of coping (cf. Hoffman,

Levy-Schiff, & Malinski, 1996; Medvedova, 1998). The APSI may also provide a resource for

identifying early predictors of juvenile delinquency (e.g., John et al., 1994). In general, the APSI has
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 23
the potential to serve an important function in further developing the nomological network of the Big

Five personality dimensions in adolescence.

In conclusion, this series of eight studies provides multiple forms of evidence for the

psychometric integrity of the APSI – Adolescent Personal Style Inventory – a measure of the "Big

Five" Personality traits designed specifically for adolescents. Hopefully, future studies on the APSI

can extend its validation as well as inform adolescent theory and research.
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 24
References

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and

emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.

Psychological Bulletin, 101(2) 213-232.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid intelligence, crystallized

intelligence, and the openness/intellect factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(2),

198-207.

Barton, K., Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1971). The prediction of school grades from

personality and IQ measures. Personality, 2, 325-333.

Barton, K., Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1972). Personality and IQ measures as predictors of

school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 398-404.

Bratko, D. & Marusic, I. (1997). Family Study of the big five personality dimensions. Personality

and Individual Differences, 23, 365-369.

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait,

multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality

Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability

Testing.

Cattell, H. E. P. (1996). The original big five: A historical perspective. European Review of Applied

Psychology, 46, 5-14.

Cattell, R. B., Barton, K., & Dielman, T. E. (1972). Prediction of school achievement from

motivation, personality, and ability measures. Psychological Reports, 30, 35-43.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, M. D., & Johns, E. (1968). Manual and Norms for the High School

Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, Illinois, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 25
Corville-Smith, J., Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., Dalicandro, T. (1998). Distinguishing absentee

students from regular attenders: The combined influence of personal, family, and school

factors. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 27, 629-640.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five

-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through

adulthood. In C.F. Halverson, Jr., G.A. Kohnstamm, & R.P. Martin (Eds.), The developing

structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139-155).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crano, W. D. & Brewer, M. B. (1973). Principles of research in social psychology. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Validation as evaluation argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds). Test

validity. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five Personality Factors (The Psycholexical Approach to

Personality). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

Dielman, T. E., Barton, K., Cattell, R. B. (1971). The prediction of junior high school achievement

from objective motivation tests. Personality, 2, 279-287.

Digman, J. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of

Personality, 37, 195-214.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of

Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 26
Digman, J. M. & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.

Digman, J. M. & Shmelyov, A. (1996). The structure of temperament and personality in Russian

children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 341-351.

Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Ehrler, D. J., Evans, J. G., McGhee, R. L (1999). Extending the Big-Five theory into childhood: A

preliminary investigation into the relationship between Big-Five personality traits and

behavior problems in children. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 451-458.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five structure. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Graziano, W. G. & Eisenberg, N . H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795-824).

San Diego: Academic.

Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L. & Finch, J. (1997). The self as a mediator between personality

and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 392-404.

Graziano, W. G. & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in adolescence: Personality and

adjustment during a developmental transition. Journal of Personality, 60, 425-439.

Hakstian, A.R & Gale, C. A. (1979). Validity studies using the Comprehensive Ability Battery

(CAB): III. Performance in conjunction with personality and motivational traits. Educational

& Psychological Measurement, 39, 389-400

Heaven, P.C.L. (1996). Personality and self-reported delinquency: Analysis of the "Big Five"

personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 47-54.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 27
Hirata, S., Sako, T. (1998-1999). Perceptions of school environment among Japanese junior high

school, non-attendant, and juvenile delinquent students. Learning Environments Research,

1, 321-331.

Hoffman, M., Levy-Shiff, R., & Malinski, D. (1996). Stress and adjustment in the transition to

adolescence: Moderating effects of neuroticism and extroversion. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 25(2), 161-175.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Vernon, P. A. (1996a). The genetic basis of personality at different ages:

A cross-sectional twin study. Personality & Individual Differences, 21, 299-301.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Vernon, P. A. (1996b). Heritability of the big five personality dimensions

and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577-591

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G. & Hair, E. C. (1996). Personality and relationships as

moderators of interpersonal conflict in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 148-164.

John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The “Little

Five”: Exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in

adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160-178.

Joreskog, K. G. & Sorobom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with SIMPLIS

command language. Chicago: Scientific Software.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits,

general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52,

621-652.

Kohnstamm, G. A., Mervielde, I., Besevegis, E., & Halverson, C. F. (1995). Tracing the Big Five in

parents’ free descriptions of their children. European Journal of Personality, 9, 283-304.

Kluwin, T. N. (1985). Profiling the deaf high school student who is a problem in the classroom.

Adolescence, 20, 863-875.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 28
Larson, L. M. & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Convergence of vocational interests and personality:

Examples in an adolescent gifted sample. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 91-112.

Lay, C., Kovacs, A., & Danto, D. (1998). The relation of trait procrastination to the big-five factor

conscientiousness: An assessment with primary-junior school children based on self-report

scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 187-193.

Lerner, R. & Galambos, N. (1998). Adolescent development: Challenges and opportunities for

research, programs, and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 413-446.

Mandryk, T. R. & Schuerger, J. M. (1974). Cross-validation of the HSPQ as a predictor for high

school grades. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 449-454.

McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model across instruments and observers.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-727.

Medvedova, L'uba. (1998). Personality dimensions--"Little Five"--and their relationships with coping

strategies in early adolescence. Studia Psychologica, 40, 261-265

Mervielde, I. (1994). Trait theory: Back to the future. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 153-156.

Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the Big Five as a model for teachers’

ratings of individual differences among children aged 4-12 years. Personality and Individual

Differences, 18, 525-534.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.) Educational Measurement (3rd. Edition).

London:Collier.

Microsoft Corporation. (2000) Microsoft Word 2000. Redmond, Washington.

Morrison, G. M. & D'Incau, B. (1997). The web of zero-tolerance: Characteristics of students who

are recommended for expulsion from school. Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 316-

335.

Myers, I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (1985) Manual: A guide to the development and use of the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 29
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oakland, J. A. (1969). Measurement of personality correlates of academic achievement in high

school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, 452-457.

Ormerod, M. B., McKenzie, J., & Woods, A. (1995). Final report on research relating to the

concept of five separate dimensions of personality--or six including intelligence. Personality

& Individual Differences, 18, 451-461.

Otis, A. S. & Lennon, R. T. (1969). Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test Technical Handbook.

New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Parker, W. D. & Stumpf, H. A validation of the five-factor model of personality in academically

talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality & Individual Differences, 25,

1005-1025.

Robins, R. John, O. & Caspi, A. (1994). Major dimensions of personality in early adolescence: The

big five and beyond. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The

developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 267-

292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Robins, R. W. John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996) Resilient,

overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 157-171.

Rollings, S., King, N., Tonge, B., Heyne, D., Young, D. (1998). Cognitive-behavioural intervention

with a depressed adolescent experiencing school attendance difficulties. Behaviour Change,

15, 87-97.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and

outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122-135.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 30
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., McBride-Chang, C., Fielding, R., Deeds, O., & Westrick, J. (1998).

Parent and adolescent contributors to teenage misconduct in Western and Asian high school

students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 847-869.

Tucker, L. R. & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.

Victor, J. B. (1994). The five-factor model applied to individual differences in school behavior. In C.

F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of

temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. (pp. 335-370). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wallis, J. R. & Barrett, P. M. (1998). Adolescent adjustment and the transition to high school.

Journal of Child & Family Studies, 7, 43-58.

Walker, S. P., Grantham-McGregor, S. M., Himes, J. H., Williams, S., & Duff, E. M. (1998). School

performance in adolescent Jamaican girls: Associations with health, social and behavioural

characteristics, and risk factors for dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 21,109-122.

Watterson, D. G., Schuerger, J. M., & Melnyk, G. I. (1976). The addition of personality measures to

ability measures for predicting and understanding school achievement. Multivariate

Experimental Clinical Research, 2, 113-122.

Wiggins, J. S. & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big

Five. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of

personality psychology (pp. 737-765). San Diego, CA: Academic.

 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 31
Table 1

Adolescent Personality Inventory Sample Items by Subscale

________________________________________________________________________________

Dimension Sample Items

Neuroticism I have a bad temper.

I get mad easily.

Sometimes I don't feel like I'm worth much.

Extraversion I have a lot of energy when I am around other people.

It is hard for me to make new friends.

I smile a lot when I am around other people.

Openness I like to read books on different subjects.

I like to take classes where I learn something I never knew before.

I like TV shows about how people live in other places in the world.

Agreeableness I try to get along with other people, even if I don’t agree with them.

If anybody says something mean to me, I say something mean right back to them.

I am easy to get along with.

Conscientiousness I always finish everything I start.

I am always very careful when I am doing school work.

I put away all of my things when I am done with them.

________________________________________________________________________________
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 32

Table 2

Study 3: Coefficient Alphas for each Subscale by Grade

________________________________________________________________________________

School A School B
Subscale 6th 9th 12th Total Sample Total Sample

Agreeableness .77 .82 .76 .79 .81

Conscientiousness .73 .75 .77 .75 .82

Neuroticism .78 .83 .85 .81 .79

Extraversion .76 .83 .82 .81 .82

Openness .71 .79 .71 .73 .81

________________________________________________________________________________
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 33

Table 3

Study 4: Personality-Criterion Correlations by Grade and Total Sample (All) for School A

________________________________________________________________________________

Criterion

GPA Absences Behavior Problems

Subscale 6th 9th 12th All 6th 9th 12th All 6th 9th 12th All

Agreeableness .27** .27** .18** .26** -.04 -.08 -.02 -.02 -.15** -.15** -.13* -.16**

Conscientiousness .22** .18** .11* .18** -.06 - .10 -.10 -.08 -.03 -.07 -.08 -.04

Neuroticism -.24**-.17** -.16** -.19** .21** .09 .12* .13** .08 .12* .01 .08

Extraversion .24** .17** .06 .19** -.08 -.05 .05 -.02 -.11* -.09* -.02 -.10**

Openness .15** .22** .14* .19** .00 -.09 -.06 -.03 .01 -.03 .05 .00

________________________________________________________________________________

Note:
For Grade 6, the above correlations are based on sample sizes of 376 for GPA, 403 for

Absences, and 561 for Behavior Problems. For Grade 9, the above correlations are based on sample

sizes of 356 for GPA, 375 for Absences, and 448 for Behavior Problems. For Grade 12, the above

correlations are based on sample sizes of 309 for GPA, 316 for Absences, and 341 for Behavior

Problems. For the total sample, the above correlations are based on sample sizes of 1052 for GPA,

1105 for Absences, and 1350 for Behavior Problems.

* p<.05 **p<.01
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 34
Table 4

Study 4: Personality-Criterion Correlations for Total Sample for School B

________________________________________________________________________________

Criterion
Subscale GPA Absences

Agreeableness .46** -.30**

Conscientiousness -.03 -.08

Neuroticism -.23** .20**

Extraversion .32* -.29**

Openness .28** -.26**

________________________________________________________________________________

Note:
The above correlations are based on sample sizes of 181 for GPA and 182 for Absences.

* p<.05 **p<.01
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 35

Table 5

Study 5: Observed and Corrected for Attenuation Correlations of Common Factors from the

Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale and the NEO-FFI

________________________________________________________________________________

Correlations

Subscale Observed Corrected for

Correlation Attenuation1

Agreeableness .68** .87**

Conscientiousness .69** .82**

Neuroticism .83** .98**

Extraversion .77** .95**

Openness .60** .75**

________________________________________________________________________________

Note: n=107.
1
To correct for attenuation, the observed correlation was divided by the square root of the reliability

of the Adolescent Big Five measure multiplied by the reliability of the corresponding NEO-FFI

measure.

** p<.01
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 36
Table 6

Correlations between Scales on the APSI and the 16 PF (Fifth Edition)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APSI Scales
Agreea- Conscien- Emotional Extra- Open-

16 PF Scales bleness tiousness Stability version ness

A Warmth .36** .10 .28* .30** -.16
B Reasoning .05 .10 .24* .06 .20
C Emotional Stability .01 .03 .66** .25* .11
E Dominance -.50 .02 .15 .26* -.14
F Liveliness -.02 -.39** .36** .56** .25*
G Rule Consciousness .22 .59** -.31* -.40** -.25*
H Social Boldness .07 -.23* .42** .66** .06
I Sensitivity .33** .16 .08 -.19 .16
L Vigilance -.26* .13 -.43** -.34* -23*
M Abstractedness -.13 -.66** -.02 .23* .52**
N Privateness .14 .29**` -.35** -.50** -.01
O Apprehension .35** .20 -.55** -.50** -.01
Q1 Openness .04 -.40** .27* .44** .68**
Q2 Self-Reliance -.24* .41** -.25* -.52** -.23*
Q3 Perfectionism .12 .72** -.28* -.52** -.23*
Q4 Tension -.22 .19 -.47** -.38** -.31**
Extraversion1 .14 -.30** .41 .62** .10
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Second-order factor
*p<.05 **p<.01
Note: n=80. Correlations of logically related and equivalent constructs are in shaded cells.
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 37

Table 7

Correlations between scales on the APSI and the Myers-Briggs Temperament Inventory (MBTI)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MBTI Scales
APSI Scale: Extraversion Intuitive Feeling Perceiving

(Introversion) (Sensing) (Thinking) (Judging)

Agreeableness .27** -.07 .22* .07
Conscientiousness -.04 -.49 -.12 -.54**
Emotional Stability .24* .09 .09 .25**
Extraversion .55** -.01 .02 .07
Openness .08 .44** .07 .28**
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: n=80. Correlations of logically related and equivalent constructs are in shaded cells.
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 38

Table 8

Correlations between scales on the APSI and the Otis Lennon Mental Abilities Test

APSI Scale:

__________________________________________________________________________

APSI Scale Otis-Lennon Total Score

Agreeableness -.10

Conscientiousness .00

Emotional Stability .02

Extraversion -.15

Openness .26*

__________________________________________________________________________

*p<.05

Note: n=80
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 39
Table 9

Study 7: Summary of Means, t Tests, and Cohen’s d Effect Size Estimates for Known Group

Comparisons on the APSI

________________________________________________________________________________

Comparison Groups

Regular vs At-Risk

Mean/SD Mean/SD t test Cohen’s d

Agreeableness 3.58/.59 3.27/.72 t(314)=3.06** .35

Conscientiousness 3.33/.66 3.10/.57 t(313)=2.14* .24

Neuroticism 1.82/.67 2.00/.72 t(315)=1.58 .18

Extraversion 3.92/.62 3.71/.68 t(312)=2.10* .24

Openness 3.50/.59 3.13/.71 t(315)=3.65** .41

Regular vs. Leadership

Mean/SD Mean/SD t test Cohen’s d

Agreeableness 3.49/.59 3.98/.45 t(478)=4.07** .37

Conscientiousness 3.25/.63 3.53/.58 t(478)=2.09* .19

Neuroticism 1.98/.68 1.54/.55 t(478)=3.11** .28

Extraversion 3.89/.58 4.37/.49 t(476)=3.98** .36

Openness 3.43/.54 3.56/.54 t(477)=1.18 .11

________________________________________________________________________________

*p<.05 **p<.01
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 40
Table 10

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for APSI Subscales

________________________________________________________________________________

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Neuroticism (1) --- -.15 -.09 -.33 -.11

Extraversion (2) --- .43 .38 .29

Openness (3) --- .36 .33

Agreeableness (4) --- .31

Conscientiousness (5) ---

Coefficient alpha .85 .85 .80 .82 .84

Mean 1.81 3.92 3.46 3.56 3.31

Standard Deviation .67 .61 .59 .61 .67

________________________________________________________________________________

n=1058
 Development of an Adolescent Big Five Personality Scale 41

FIGURE 1 GOES HERE. IT IS IN A SEPARATE FILE (FIGURE1.XLS)