Professional Documents
Culture Documents
520 16PF Cattell and Mead
520 16PF Cattell and Mead
7
The Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF)
Heather E.P. Cattell and Alan D. Mead
or Q-data from the self-report domain; and research in each new country. Introduction of
objective behavior measured in standardized, Web-based administration in 1999 allowed
experimental settings or T-data (e.g. number international test-users easy access to admin-
of original solutions to problem presented, istration, scoring, and reports in many differ-
responses to frustrations). Eventually, this ent languages, using local norms
research resulted in the 16 unitary traits of
the 16PF Questionnaire shown in Table 7.1.
From the beginning, Cattell’s goal was to
investigate universal aspects of personality. CATTELL’S THEORY OF PERSONALITY
Thus, his University of Illinois laboratory
included researchers from many different Primary and secondary-level traits
countries who later continued their research
abroad. Ongoing collaborative research was From its inception, the 16PF Questionnaire
carried out with colleagues around the world, was a multi-level measure of personality
for example, in Japan (Akira Ishikawa and based on Cattell’s factor-analytic theory
Bien Tsujioka), Germany (Kurt Pawlik and (Cattell, R.B., 1933, 1946). Cattell and his
Klaus Schneewind), India (S. Kapoor), South colleagues first discovered the primary traits,
Africa (Malcolm Coulter), England (Frank which provide the most basic definition of
Warburton, Dennis Child), and Switzerland individual personality differences. These
(Karl Delhees). more specific primary traits are more power-
Since its first publication in 1949, there ful in understanding and predicting the com-
have been four major revisions – the most plexity of actual behavior (Ashton, 1998;
recent release being the 16PF fifth edition Judge et al., 2002; Mershon and Gorsuch,
(Cattell, R.B. et al., 1993). The main goals of 1988; Paunonen and Ashton, 2001; Roberts
the latest revision were to develop updated, et al., 2005).
refined item content and collect a large, new Next, these researchers factor-analyzed the
norm sample. The item pool included the primary traits themselves in order to investi-
best items from all five previous forms of gate personality structure at a higher level.
the 16PF plus new items written by the test From this, the broader ‘second-order’ or
authors and 16PF experts. Items were refined global factors emerged – the original Big
in a four-stage, iterative process using Five. These researchers found that the
large samples. The resulting instrument has numerous primary traits consistently coa-
shorter, simpler items with updated lan- lesced into these broad dimensions, each
guage, a more standardized answer format, with its own independent focus and function
and has been reviewed for gender, cultural, within personality, as described in Table 7.2.
and ethnic bias and ADA (Americans With More recently, a similar set of Big Five
Disabilities Act) compliance. Psychometric factors has been rediscovered by other
characteristics are improved, hand scoring is researchers (Costa and McCrae, 1992a;
easier, and the standardization contains over Goldberg, 1990), but using forced, orthogo-
10,000 people. nal factor definitions. The five global factors
Because of its international origins, the also have been found in factor analyses of a
16PF Questionnaire was quickly translated wide range of current personality instruments
and adapted into many other languages. (as Dr. Herb Eber, one of the original 16PF
Since its first publication in 1949, the instru- authors, used to say, ‘These broad factors
ment has been adapted into more than 35 lan- validate across very different populations and
guages worldwide. These are not simply methods because they are as big as elephants
translations, as many questionnaires provide, and can be found in any large data set!’).
but careful cultural adaptations, involving Thus, these five ‘second-order’ or global
new norms and reliability and validity factors were found to define personality at a
9781412946520-Ch07
5/7/08
Table 7.2 16PF global factors and the primary trait` make-up
Global Factors
7:03 PM
(A) Warm-Reserved (C) Emotionally Stable– (A) Warm–Reserved (E) Dominant–Deferential (F) Lively–Serious
(F) Lively-Serious Reactive (I) Sensitive–Unsentimental (H) Bold–Shy (G) Rule-conscious/Expedient
(H) Bold-Shy (L) Vigilant–Trusting (M) Abstracted–Practical (L) Vigilant–Trusting (M) Abstracted–Practical
(N) Private-Forthright (O) Apprehensive–Self-assured (Q1) Open-to-Change/ (Q1) Open-to Change/ (Q3) Perfectionistic–Tolerates
(Q2) Self-Reliant–Group-oriented (Q4) Tense–Relaxed Traditional Traditional disorder
Primary Factors
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 139
higher, more theoretical level of personality. likely to come across as warm, modest, and
However, because of their factor-analytic concerned about others, while the second is
origins, the two levels of personality are likely to seem bold, talkative, and attention
essentially inter-related. The global factors seeking (less concerned about others). Thus,
provide the larger conceptual, organizing although both may seek social interaction to
framework for understanding the meaning an equal degree, they do so for very different
and function of the primary traits. However, reasons and are likely to have a very different
the meanings of the globals themselves were impact on their social environment.
determined by the primary traits which con- The primary and global levels of 16PF
verged to make them up (see Table 7.2). traits combine to provide a comprehensive,
For example, the Extraversion/Introversion in-depth understanding of an individual’s
global factor was defined by the convergence personality. For example, although knowing
of the five primary scales that represent basic someone’s overall level of Self-Control/con-
human motivations for moving toward versus scientiousness is important, successfully
away from social interaction. Similarly, motivating that person to accomplish a
the four primary traits that merged to define particular goal depends on also knowing
Tough-Mindedness versus Receptivity whether their self-control is motivated more
describe four different aspects of openness to by strong obedience to societal standards
the world: openness to feelings and emotions (Rule-Consciousness – G+), by a temperamen-
(Sensitivity – I), openness to abstract ideas tal tendency to be self-disciplined and organ-
and imagination (Abstractedness – M), open- ized (Perfectionism – Q3+), or by a practical,
ness to new approaches and ideas (Openness- focused perceptual style (low Abstractedness –
to-Change – Q1), and openness to people M−). Thus, the 16PF Questionnaire can pro-
(Warmth – A). vide an in-depth, integrated understanding of
Cattell’s hierarchical structure is based an individual’s whole personality.
on the idea that all traits are inter-
correlated in the real world (for example,
intelligence and anxiety, although conceptu- The super factors of personality:
ally quite distinct, are usually strongly inter- third-order factors
correlated). Because the basic 16PF primary
traits were naturally inter-correlated, they From the beginning, Cattell’s comprehensive
could be factor-analyzed to find the secondary- trait hierarchy was three-tiered: A wide sam-
level global traits. Thus, the data itself deter- pling of everyday behaviors were factor-
mined the definitions of the primary and analyzed to find the primary factors; these
global factors (in contrast to the forced primary traits were factor-analyzed, resulting
orthogonal definitions of factors in the cur- in the five second-order, global traits; and
rently popular Big Five models). then the global factors were factor-analyzed
Thus, the global traits provide a broad into third-order traits at the highest, most
overview of personality, while the primary abstract level of personality organization
traits provide the more detailed information (Cattell, R.B., 1946, 1957, 1973). Factor
about the richness and uniqueness of the indi- analysis of secondary factors to find third-
vidual. For example, two people may have the order factors was practiced first in the ability
same score on global Extraversion but may have domain (e.g. Spearman, 1932), but a few
quite different social styles. Someone who is personality theorists have also looked at
warm and supportive (A+) but shy and modest this highest level of personality structure
(H−) may have the exact same Extraversion (e.g. Eysenck, 1978; Hampson, 1988;
score as someone who is socially bold and Digman, 1997; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989).
gregarious (H+) but emotionally aloof and Because factor-analytic results at each
detached (A−). However, the first person is level depend on the clarity of the traits being
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 140
Comparison of the 16PF global methods, Costa and McCrae’s results do not
scales with other five-factor models replicate (McKenzie, 1998). Instead, appro-
priate factoring (see R.B. Cattell, 1978;
For over 50 years, the 16PF has included the Gorsuch, 1983) of the original matrix pro-
broad, second-order dimensions currently duces the five 16PF global factors, rather
called ‘the Big Five’ (Cattell, R.B., 1946; than the three orthogonal NEO factors that
Krug and Johns, 1986). In fact, Cattell located Costa and McCrae chose to use.
three of these five factors in his earliest stud- A range of studies comparing the five 16PF
ies of temperament (1933) – which Digman global factors and the set of NEO Big Five fac-
(1996) called ‘the first glimpse of the Big tors show a striking resemblance between the
Five’. Four of the five current traits were two (Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E.P. Cattell,
already described in Cattell’s 1957 book. All 1996; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Gerbing and
five traits have been clearly identified and Tuley, 1991; Schneewind and Graf, 1998).
scorable from the questionnaire since the These studies show strong correlational and
release of the fourth edition around 1970. factor-analytic alignment between the two
Although Cattell continued to believe that models: Between the two extraversion factors,
there were more than five factors, so have between anxiety and neuroticism, between
many other prominent psychologists (Block, self-control and conscientiousness, between
1995; Fiske, 1994; Hogan et al., 1996; tough-mindedness/receptivity and openness-
Jackson et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2005; to-experience, and between independence and
Ostendorf, 1990; Saucier 2001). dis-agreeableness. In fact, the average correla-
The 16PF scales and items also played an tion between the 16PF global factors and their
important role in the development of the other respective NEO five factors are just as high as
Big Five factor models (e.g. Costa and those between the NEO five factors and the
McCrae, 1976, 1985; Norman, 1963; Big Five markers which the NEO was devel-
McKenzie et al., 1997; Tupes and Christal, oped to measure (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996;
1961). For example, the first NEO manual Goldberg, 1992). The alignments among the
(Costa and McCrae, 1985: 26) describes the Big Five models are summarized in Table 7.4.
development of the questionnaire as beginning However, there are important differences
with cluster analyses of 16PF scales, which between the two models. Although propo-
these researchers had been using for over nents of the other five-factor models have done
20 years in their own research. However, this much in the last decade to try to bring about
origin, or even acknowledgement of the exis- a consensus in psychology about the exis-
tence of the five 16PF global factors, does not tence of five global factors, their particular
appear in any current accounts of the develop- set of traits have been found to be problem-
ment of the Big Five (Costa and McCrae, atic. In the development process, the NEO
1992a; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). Big Five factors were forced to be statisti-
Furthermore, when the 16PF correlation cally uncorrelated or orthogonal for reasons
matrix, which was used in the original devel- of theoretical and statistical simplicity.
opment of the Big Five, is re-analyzed However, few have found this as a satisfactory
using more modern, rigorous factor-analytic approach for defining the basic dimensions
of human personality. For example, Big Five (Wiggins, 2003), the five-factor model has no
supporter Jack Digman (1997) stated: ‘The factor that centrally includes either domi-
apparent orthogonality of the Big Five is a nance or warmth. Rather factor analyses of
direct result of the general employment of the NEO-PI-R show that the central traits of
varimax rotation, a procedure that imposes dominance and warmth are widely dispersed
rather than finds independent factors.’Additi- and spread thinly among several of the five
onally, Loevinger writes: factors, particularly extraversion
There is no reason to believe that the bedrock of and agreeableness (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996;
personality is a set of orthogonal ... factors, unless Child, 1998; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Costa
you think that nature is constrained to present us and McCrae, 1992).
a world in rows and columns. That would be con- However, in the 16PF Questionnaire, the
venient for many purposes, particularly given the
Independence global factor is organized
statistical programs already installed on our com-
puters. But is this realistic? (1994: 6) around traits of assertiveness and influence
in the world (high scorers are dominant,
The decision to impose orthogonal loca- independent-minded and innovative, low
tions had fundamental effects on the resulting scorers are deferential, cooperative, and
factors and their meanings. In his analysis agreeable). Thus, the 16PF global Independ-
of this basic issue of factor analysis, Child ence factor is defined around traits of domi-
states: nance or ‘agency’, while in the NEO model,
Oblique solutions can spread the common vari- the basic trait of dominance is split and
ance between and within factors; orthogonal rota- relegated to small roles in several factors
tion can only spread variance between factors.
including extraversion and dis-agreeableness
That is why it is so important to carry out an
oblique solution, to allow no escape of important (where dominance is centered in a negative,
variance ... Unfortunately, the orthogonal compro- hostile context).
mise disguises both the relationship between In a similar way, factor-analyses of the
domains and the number of factors which could NEO-PI-R have found that the basic trait of
possibly be present in hyperspace. (1998: 353–354)
warmth (or communion) is also divided, with
In contrast to the orthogonal definitions low loadings on several factors including
that were fundamental to the development of extraversion and agreeableness (H.E.P. Cattell,
the NEO factors, recent studies have found 1996; Child, 1998; Conn and Rieke, 1994;
that the NEO five factors are actually sub- Smith et al., 2001). However, in the 16PF,
stantially inter-correlated (Carnivez and Allen, Warmth plays a central role in Extraversion,
2005; Goldberg, 1992; Smith et al., 2001). the factor that focuses on the basic dimensions
Even the latest NEO-PI-R manual (Costa of interpersonal relating. Additionally, these
and McCrae, 1992: 100) shows neuroticism factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R indicate that
and conscientiousness to inter-correlate − the openness trait (called ‘intellect’ in
0.53, and extraversion and openness to inter- Goldberg’s model) tends to focus more on cog-
correlate 0.40. Goldberg’s Big Five markers nitive or intellectual curiosity, rather than
also show substantial inter-correlations. equally measuring the whole domain, which
These inter-correlations contradict the origi- includes openness to feelings, emotions, and
nal premise on which the NEO Big Five fac- esthetics. Also, the Big Five factor ‘conscien-
tors were defined. tiousness’ appears to be narrower in content
The forced orthogonal factor locations of than 16PF Self-Control and doesn’t include the
the five-factor model have had substantial whole domain of human methods for self-
effects on the meanings of the traits. For control and self-restraint versus impulsivity
example, although the basic traits of domi- (Roberts et al., 2005).
nance (or agency) and warmth (or communion) Thus, the imposed orthogonality of the
have long been seen as two of the most fun- NEO has had multiple impacts on its
damental dimensions of human personality factor definitions. Furthermore, researchers
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 143
have found that when oblique methods are just as well with other Big Five domains than
used on the NEO-PI-R items, allowing the data their own (even the test authors stated that
itself to determine factor definitions, the result- the 1992 revision of the NEO was prompted
ing factor definitions are different, and show by the fact that the facets for neuroticism and
more clarity and simple structure than do the extraversion did not cohere psychometrically
current NEO-PI-R factors (Child, 1998). (McCrae and Costa, 1992)). For example,
However, the biggest difference between Roberts et al. (2005) found that three of the
the two approaches is the method of develop- six conscientiousness facets do not adhere to
ment of the primary level traits. In the 16PF that domain, but are as strongly related to
Questionnaire, the first-order primary trait other Big Five domains as they are to consci-
definitions are based on decades of scientific entiousness.
research, and have been confirmed in a wide Overall, the strong correlations of many
range of independent studies (see the section facets with theoretically unrelated domains
on Validity). In contrast, the NEO-PI primary- and facets bring into question the definition
level personality facets were decided by of the Big Five factors. This lack of adher-
consensus among a small group of psycholo- ence of the NEO facets to their assigned
gists (who selected what they felt should domains is inconsistent with the basic model
appear in each NEO domain). Child (1998) of the questionnaire (and probably a result of
comments: the non-empirical origins of the facets).
Thus, a number of important issues have
It does seem miraculous that the personality
been raised about the integrity of the NEO
domains divided exactly into six facets. Of course,
as the NEO PI-R is a “top-down” theory, the model, as a result of both the arbitrary choice
researchers can choose whatever number they of facet trait meanings and orthogonal global
wish before tying up the parcel. The snag with this factor definitions.
procedure is its arbitrary nature and proneness to Another important distinction between the
creating factors or traits to fit a theory. (1998: 352)
16PF and other questionnaires is the contex-
This method of selecting the fundamental tualized nature of its items. For example,
facets of personality raises some basic ques- items on the NEO-PI-R involve a high degree
tions about the NEO model. First of all, this of transparent self-rating or self-assessment
arbitrary approach to choosing the facets of traits (e.g. ‘I’m an even-tempered person’;
leaves them open to debate by every other ‘I am dominant, forceful, and assertive’; ‘I am
psychologist who happens to conceptualize known as a warm and friendly person’).
personality differently (e.g. Gough, 1987; Although this type of transparent item may
Hogan et al., 1996; Wiggins, 2003). More do well in research settings, in most assess-
importantly, these facets are now used to ment situations where there are strong moti-
define and calculate scores on the basic vational components, these items tend to be
Big Five factors, which have resulted in vulnerable to distortion. For example, vari-
changed definitions of the Big Five domains ous studies have found that the basic factor
themselves. structure of the NEO-PI-R is different in job
Additionally, many correlational and applicant samples, thus bringing into question
factor-analytic studies have found the under- the validity of the questionnaire in settings
lying factor structure of the NEO facets where motivation and social desirability are
inconsistent and confusing, and that the issues (Schmit and Ryan, 1993; Smith et al.,
domains do not actually hold together (Child, 2001). In contrast, 16PF items tend to be
1998; Church and Burke, 1994; Conn and more indirect and involve more contextualized
Rieke, 1994; Loevinger, 1994; Parker et al., questions about actual behavior or experience
1993; Roberts et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2001). (e.g. ‘When I find myself in a boring situa-
These researchers have found that a large tion, I usually “tune out” and daydream about
proportion of the NEO facets actually correlate other things’; ‘I hardly ever feel hurried or
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 144
rushed as I go about my daily tasks’; ‘I some- ized-ten scores) ranging from 1 to 10, with a
times feel that I need my friends more than mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2.0.
they need me’). The latest standardization includes over
Furthermore, there is substantial research 10,000 people and was published in 2001.
indicating that self-ratings are different Because the questionnaire is un-timed and
from observer ratings in their factor struc- has simple, straightforward instructions,
ture, and that they are only moderately cor- administration requires minimal supervision
related with actual behavior (e.g. Paunonen, in either individual or group settings.
1993; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989). This Administration time is about 35–50 minutes
suggests that much of the variance or mean- for paper-and-pencil format, and about
ing in self-ratings is not explained by the 25–40 minutes for computer administration.
actual trait value, but rather is substantially Easy scoring procedures are provided
affected by self-perception or self-image. for paper-and-pencil, computer, or Internet
For example, self-ratings do not capture the formats. The publisher provides various scor-
important dimensions of personality that are ing services (mail-in, fax, software, and
outside of a person’s awareness or inconsis- Internet) and a range of interpretive reports
tent with their self-image. Therefore, indi- for different applications. Detailed instruc-
rect questions that ask about actual everyday tions for administration and scoring can be
behavior (as 16PF items do) tend to measure found in numerous places (H.E.P. Cattell
personality more accurately, than asking and Schuerger, 2003; Russell and Karol,
a person to rate themselves on the trait – 2002).
particularly where social desirability is The questionnaire is available in many dif-
involved or when no validity scales are ferent languages (international translations
available on the instrument. exceed 35 languages worldwide). Unlike
many commercially available personality
measures, recent 16PF translations are cul-
turally adapted, with local norms and relia-
BASIC FEATURES OF THE 16PF bility and validity information available in
QUESTIONNAIRE individual manuals. Internet administration
also allows use of international norms for
First published in 1949, the 16PF Question- scoring, plus reports in over a dozen different
naire has had four major revisions, in 1956, language groups.
1962, 1968, and the fifth edition in 1993 The 16PF traits are also measured in par-
(Cattell, R.B. et al.). The latest edition con- allel versions for younger age ranges. For
tains 185 multiple-choice items, with a three- example, the 16PF Adolescent Personality
point answer format. Item content is Questionnaire measures the 16PF traits in
non-threatening, asking about daily behavior, 12–18 year olds (Schuerger, 2001). A shorter
interests, and opinions. The short ability scale (20-minute) version of the questionnaire, con-
items (Factor B) are grouped together at the sisting of a subset of somewhat-shortened
end of the questionnaire with separate scales, was developed for use in employee
instructions. The questionnaire is written at selection settings – the 16PF Select (Cattell,
a fifth grade reading level, and meant for R.B. et al., 1999). The 16PF Express
use with people 16 years and older. (Gorsuch, 2006) provides a very short,
The instrument provides scores on the 15-minute measure of all the traits (with
16 primary scales, 5 global scales, and 3 four or five items per factor). The 16PF traits
response bias scales. All personality scales are also appear in the PsychEval Personality
bipolar (have clear, meaningful definitions at Questionnaire (PEPQ; Cattell, R.B. et al.,
both ends), and are given in ‘stens’ (standard- 2003), a comprehensive instrument which
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 145
for estimating internal consistency in hetero- where rXC is the criterion-related validity of
geneous composites were applied, and aver- the scale, riC is the criterion correlation of
age 0.87 over the five global scales (S. Bedwell, item i, and other terms are as defined in
pers. comm., February 2007). Equation 7.1. The term involving a ratio of
Internal consistency for international numbers of items in Equation 7.1 approaches
versions of the instrument also meets profes- one quickly and can be ignored. The remain-
sionally accepted standards. For example, der of Equation 7.1 looks quite like Equation
Cronbach alphas averaged 0.74 in the 7.2; both equations contain ratios of sums
German edition (Schneewind and Graf, with similar denominators. The denominator
1998), 0.72 in the French edition (Rolland is maximized when the items are highly cor-
and Mogenet, 1996), 0.75 in the Japanese edi- related (and a large denominator leads to a
tion (IPAT, 2007), 0.69 in the Chinese edition small ratio). The key difference between the
(Jia-xi and Guo-peng, 2006), and 0.73 in the two equations is that the ratio is subtracted
Spanish-American or Pan-Spanish edition from 1 in Equation 7.1.
(H.E.P. Cattell, 2005). Thus, opposite conditions lead to maxi-
mization of Equations 7.1 and 7.2. Equation
7.1 shows that internal consistency is maxi-
mized when items are highly correlated, and
Too much homogeneity? Equation 7.2 shows that criterion-related
Test developers often select items to maxi- validity is maximized when items are uncor-
mize the internal consistency of a scale by related. In practical terms, this means it is
deleting heterogeneous items. Cattell and mathematically impossible to simultaneously
others (Cattell, R.B. and Tsujioka, 1964; maximize reliability and validity of a scale.
Rosnowski, 1987) have questioned this prac- Therefore, test developers must choose
tice because it can lead to seemingly highly between making very homogeneous scales
reliable scales which actually measure only a that reliably predict only a narrow set of
very narrow, homogeneous segment of the behaviors versus creating more heteroge-
target construct, or measure it only in a narrow neous scales that measure more comprehen-
group of people. sive scale content. Because the predictive
In fact, personality scales can be too homo- validity of a scale is the ultimate measure of
geneous. Lord (1980: 9) shows how, for its worth, internal consistency reliability
dichotomous items, a single scale cannot should not be the main criterion used in scale
maximize both internal consistency reliability development.
and validity. Reliability may be defined as:
ρXX ' =
n ⎛ ∑ σ i2 ⎞ FACTORIAL VALIDITY
⎜1 − ⎟
n − 1 ⎝ ∑ ∑ σ i σ j ρij ⎠
(7.1)
One important source of validity for the
16PF Questionnaire has been factor-analytic
where n is the number of items on the studies of the structure of the primary and
scale, rXX′ is the internal consistency reliabil- global traits across diverse samples of people
ity, rij is the correlation of items i and j, and (e.g. Boyle, 1989; Carnivez and Allen, 2005;
si and sj are the standard deviations of items H.E. Cattell, 1996; Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970;
i and j. Validity may be defined as: Cattell, R.B. and Krug, 1986; Chernyshenko
et al., 2001; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Dancer
ρXC =
∑σ ρ i iC and Woods, 2007; Gerbing and Tuley, 1991;
∑∑σ σ ρ i j ij (7.2) R. Gorsuch, pers. comm., February 2007;
Hofer et al., 1997; Krug and Johns, 1986;
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 147
McKenzie et al., 1997; Ormerod et al., 1995). Edition Administrator’s Manual (Russell
These studies have used exploratory and con- and Karol, 2002) and the 16PF Fifth Edition
firmatory factor analysis to confirm the Technical Manual (Conn and Rieke, 1994)
number, identity, and independence of the present correlations between the 16PF
primary factors; and to confirm the number, primary and global scales and a range of
identity, and primary factor make-up of the other measures of normal, adult personality.
global factors. These include the California Psychological
For example, Dancer and Woods (2007) Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Myers-Briggs
factor-analyzed the primary traits in a sample Type Indicator (Myers and McCaulley,
of 4,414 business employees and found 1985), the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae,
strong support for the 16PF global factor 1992a), the Personality Research Form
structure. R. Gorsuch (pers. comm., February (Jackson, 1989), the Coopersmith Self-Esteem
2007) factor-analyzed the primary traits to Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), the Holland
find the global traits on a sample of 11,000 occupational themes, as well as other meas-
test-takers, and then applied a common factor ures of creativity, leadership, and social
analysis to the globals to confirm the third- skills. These results consistently validate the
order factors. Hofer et al. (1997) used confir- meanings of the 16PF scales.
matory factor analysis and structural There are numerous independent studies
equation modeling tests of factorial invari- showing strong relationships between the
ance to study the measurement properties 16PF scales and other questionnaire scales;
of the questionnaire across six large, diverse, for example, Boyle (1989) studied relation-
samples (n = 30,732), and concluded that ships with the Eysenck and Comrey scales;
‘the factor structure of the 16PF holds Dancer and Woods (2007) investigated rela-
remarkably well across radically different tionships with the FIRO-B; and many studies
samples of people, across gender, and across have investigated the relationships between
different forms of the 16PF’ (266). the 16PF scales and the NEO-PI scales
Factor analyses of international editions (Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E.P. Cattell,
have also confirmed the structure of the 16PF 1996; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Gerbing and
primary and global traits. For example, factor Tuley, 1991).
analyses have confirmed the factor structure International 16PF editions have also
in the German edition (Schneewind and Graf, shown strong relationships with other instru-
1998), the French edition (Rolland and ments. For example, the Japanese 16PF
Mogenet, 1996), the Japanese edition (IPAT, manual (IPAT, 2007) provides inter-correla-
2007), the Chinese edition (Jia-xi tions with the OPQ and the SPI (a Myers-
and Guo-peng, 2006), the Castilian Spanish Briggs type measure); the German edition
edition (Prieto et al., 1996), the Italian edi- provides inter-correlations and multi-level
tion (Argentero, 1989), the South African factor analyses with the NEO-PI-R, the PRF,
edition (Van Eeden and Prinsloo, 1997; and the Locus of Control Inventory
Schepers and Hassett, 2006); the Norwegian (Schneewind and Graf, 1998); the Dutch
edition (IPAT, 2004b); and the Dutch edi- Manual provides inter-correlations with the
tion (IPAT, 2004a). MBTI as well as with peer-ratings of person-
ality (IPAT, 2004a); the French edition
(IPAT, 1995) provides inter-correlations
with the CPI, the Gordon Personality
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY Inventory, and the MBTI; and Schepers and
Hassett (2006) provide correlational, factor-
Construct validity of the 16PF scales has analytic, and canonical correlations between
been demonstrated by their correlations with the South African 16PF and the Locus of
scales on other instruments. The 16PF Fifth Control Inventory.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 148
H.B. Cattell confirmed many of these samples, for example in several groups of
results in her applied research (H.B. Cattell, British salespeople (Williams, 1999), German
1989; H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, 1997), salespeople (Schneewind, 1998), and
identifying traits that distinguished entrepre- Norwegian salespeople (IPAT, 2004b).
neurs from other executives: innovative
thinking (Openness-to-Change (Q+)); ability
to step back and focus on the ‘big picture’ Social/helping occupations
(Abstractedness (M+)); and a preference for
working independently (Self-Reliance (Q2+)). 16PF profiles have also been identified for
Aldridge (1997) and Fraboni and Saltstone social or helping occupations such as teach-
(1990) also found that entrepreneurs tended ing, counseling, customer service, human
to be less sociable than regular managers resource personnel, ministers/priests, nurses,
(low Warmth (A−), and low Trust (L+)), and and physical therapists (e.g. Cattell, R.B.
prefer to work independently (Self-Reliance et al., 1970; H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell,
(Q2+)). Many of these results have also been 1997; Phillips et al., 1985; Roy, 1995;
confirmed in international samples, for Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter,
example, Norwegian entrepreneurs (IPAT, 2000). People in social/helping occupations
2004b). Thus, the traits that particularly dis- tend to be above average on Extraversion, and
tinguish entrepreneurs from other business particularly on Warmth (A+); they also tend to
managers include traits that cluster around be below average on Tough-Mindedness (in
qualities of innovation and self-reliance. the Receptive/open direction) – above average
on Sensitivity (I+) and Open-to-Change
(Q1+). They also tend to be below average on
Sales Anxiety: Relaxed (Q4−), Self-Assured (O−),
Trusting (L−), and Emotionally Stable (C+);
Many studies have identified a similar 16PF and above average on Self-Control traits of
profile for effective salespeople (e.g. Cattell, Perfectionism (Q3) and Rule-Consciousness
R.B. et al., 1970; Guastello and Rieke, 1993b; (G+). These results have been validated in var-
Rieke and Russell, 1987; Schuerger and ious international samples, such as British
Watterson, 1991; Tucker, 1991; Walter, counselors of adolescents (Lee, 1994) and
2000). Salespeople tend to be high on customer service personnel (Williams, 1999).
Extraversion and its traits of Warmth (A+),
Social Boldness (H+), Liveliness (F+), and
Group-Orientation (Q2−). They also tend Police, security, and protective
to be low on Anxiety and its sub-traits of service personnel
Apprehensiveness (Self-Assured (O−)), Vigi-
lance (Trusting (L−)), and high on Emotional The 16PF Questionnaire has a long history of
Stability (C+). They also tend to be somewhat predicting the personality profiles of effective
above average on Independence and its traits police officers, prison guards, firefighters,
of Social Boldness (H+) and Dominance and other protective service and security per-
(E+); and somewhat above average on Rule- sonnel (e.g. Adcox et al., 1999; Cattell, R.B.
Consciousness (G+) and Reasoning Ability et al., 1970; Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999; H. Eber,
(B+). Thus, salespeople tend to be generally pers. comm., 10 February 2007; Hofer et al.,
similar to managers; however, salespeople 1997; IPAT, 2003; Jones et al., 2006;
tend to be even higher on the traits of Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter,
Extraversion (especially F+, H+, and A+) and 2000). These studies indicate that protective
lower on Anxiety traits (more Self-Assured service officers tend to be calm and resilient
(O−), and are Stable (C+)). This profile has under stress (low Anxiety, Emotionally Stable
also been validated in numerous international (C+); Self-Assured (O−); and Trusting (L−)).
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 151
Counseling and clinical uses the two partners’ unique traits combine and
interact (Russell, 1995). In particular, 16PF
The 16PF Questionnaire was developed as a research has predicted various aspects of
measure of normal adult personality, and marital satisfaction as a function of absolute
cannot be used to diagnosis psychiatric disor- or relative levels of personality traits. For
ders (e.g. Lally, 2003). However, 16PF example, Krug (1976) found that different
dimensions have proven quite useful in coun- types of marital dissatisfaction were related
seling and clinical settings; for example, in to large score differences between partners
quickly developing a picture of the individ- on certain traits. He also found that dissatis-
ual’s overall personality functioning (includ- faction in wives was related to particular per-
ing strengths and weaknesses), in facilitating sonality traits in husbands, while husbands’
the development of empathy and rapport, dissatisfaction was related to largely different
helping the client gain greater self-awareness, traits in wives.
planning developmental goals, anticipating Russell (1995) studied 321 couples and
the course of therapy, selecting optimal ther- found that several aspects of marital satisfac-
apeutic interventions, and identifying rele- tion were related to higher levels of particu-
vant adjustment issues (H.B. Cattell, 1989; lar 16PF traits. She also found that several
Karson et al., 1997; Meyer, 1996; Russell, 16PF traits predicted greater consensus
1995; Schuerger, 2001). between the partners on important topics,
16PF scores have also been successful in and that better problem-solving communica-
predicting a diverse range of behaviors of tion was related to another set of traits. She
interest to clinicians; for example, effects of also found that 16PF traits predicted more
group therapy (Wang and Li, 2003), war- traditional gender roles in relationships.
related stress (Poikolainen, 1993), alienation Craig and Olson (1995) also studied 145
(Yi-Hui et al., 2004), types of substance marital therapy clients, and found that five
abuse (Carey et al., 1995), suicidal tenden- different 16PF trait clusters represented dif-
cies (Ferrero et al., 1997), delinquency ferent marital types that required different
(Junmai, 2005), law-breaking tendencies types of therapeutic goals.
(Low et al., 2004), and excessive Internet use
(Xiaoming, 2005).
One source of useful clinical information SUMMARY
has been the qualitative research carried out
in clinical settings (H.B. Cattell, 1989; The 16PF Questionnaire is a comprehensive
H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, 1997; Karson and widely used measure of normal, adult
et al., 1997). For example, H.B. Cattell stud- personality which was developed from
ied over 1,100 clients who were assessed or factor-analytic research into the basic struc-
treated over a 20-year period, and found that tural elements of personality. First published
specific 16PF score combinations were in 1949, and now in its fifth edition, the ques-
related to distinct patterns of thinking, feel- tionnaire is based on Cattell’s multi-level
ing, and behavior. She found that score com- personality theory, and measures 16 primary
binations predicted individuals’ capacity for factors, 5 global or second-stratum factors
insight and introspection, difficulties in (the original Big Five), and 2 third-stratum
establishing trust and rapport, sensitivity to factors. Although this chapter could not
power dynamics in relationships, effective review the decades of research on the 16PF
treatment modalities, and capacity for suc- Questionnaire, a summary of reliability stud-
cessful termination. ies indicates that the questionnaire provides
The 16PF Questionnaire has proven par- reliable information, and a selection of valid-
ticularly useful in marital or couples counsel- ity studies illustrates how the instrument is
ing, where it provides information about how used effectively in a variety of contexts.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 153
Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K. and Cattell, H.E.P. Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (1990) Measures of
(1993) 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire. Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Library of America.
Ability Testing. Conn, S.R. and Rieke, M.L. (1994) The 16PF
Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P. and Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champaign,
Kelly, M.L. (1999) The 16PF Select Manual. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Coopersmith, S. (1981) Self-esteem Inventories.
Ability Testing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P., Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1976) ‘Age differ-
Russell, M.T. and Bedwell, S. (2003) The ences in personality structure: A cluster ana-
PsychEval Personality Questionnaire. lytic approach’, Journal of Gerontology, 31:
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and 564–70.
Ability Testing. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO-
Cattell, R.B. Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. PI-R Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa,
(1970) Handbook for the Sixteen Personality FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992a) Revised
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. NEO-PI-R Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
Cattell, R.B. and Krug, S.E. (1986) ‘The number and NEO-PI-R Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-PI-
of factors in the 16PF: A review of the evi- R-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
dence with special emphasis on methodolog- Psychological Assessment Resources.
ical problems’, Educational and Psychological Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992b) ‘Normal
Measurement, 46(3): 509–22. personality assessment in clinical practice:
Cattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F. (1954) ‘Four formu- The NEO Personality Inventory’, Psychological
lae for selecting leaders on the basis of per- Assessment, 4(1): 5–13.
sonality’, Human Relations, 7(4): 493–507. Craig, R.J. and Olson, R.E. (1995) ‘16 PF profiles
Cattell, R.B. and Tsujioka, B. (1964) ‘The impor- and typologies for patients seen in marital ther-
tance of factor-trueness and validity versus apy’, Psychological Reports, 77(2): 187–94.
homogeneity and orthogonality in test Dancer, L.J. and Woods, S.A. (2007) ‘Higher-
scales’, Educational and Psychological order factor structures and intercorrelations of
Measurement, 24(1): 3–30. the 16PF5 and FIRO-B’, International Journal
Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S. and Chan, K.Y. of Selection and Assessment, 14(4): 385–91.
(2001) ‘Investigating the hierarchical factor Digman, J.M. (1990) ‘Personality structure:
structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: Emergence of the five-factor model’, Annual
An application of the Schmid-Leiman Review of Psychology, 41: 417–40.
orthogonalisation procedure’, Educational Digman, J.M. (1996) ‘A curious history of the
and Psychological Measurement, 61(2): five-factor model’, in J.S. Wiggins (ed.), The
290–302. Five-factor Model of Personality: Theoretical
Child, D. (1998) ‘Some technical problems in Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.
the use of personality measures in occupa- Digman, J.M. (1997) ‘Higher order factors of
tional settings illustrated using the “Big- the big five’, Journal of Personality and Social
Five”’, in S. Shorrocks-Taylor (ed.), Directions Psychology, 73(6): 1246–56.
in Educational Psychology, London: Whurr Dutta, R.D. (1995) ‘Differences in personality
Publishing, pp. 346–64. factors of experienced teachers, physicians,
Christiansen, N.D., Goffin, R.D., Johnston, N.G. bank managers, and fine artists’, Psychological
and Rothstein, M.G. (1994) ‘Correcting for Studies, 40(1): 51–6.
faking: Effects on criterion-related validity Ellis, B.B. and Mead, A.D. (2000) ‘Assessment
and individual hiring decisions’, Personnel of the measurement equivalence of a
Psychology, 47(4): 847–60. Spanish translation of the 16PF Questionnaire’,
Church, A.T. and Burke, P.J. (1994) ‘Exploratory Educational and Psychological Measurement,
and confirmatory tests of the Big-Five and 60(5): 787–807.
Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional Eysenck, H. (1978) ‘Superfactors P, E, and N in
models’, Journal of Personality and Social a comprehensive factors space’, Multivariate
Psychology, 66(1): 93–114. Behavioral Research, 13(2): 475–82.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 155
Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Wong, J. Hofer, S.M. and Eber, H.W. (2002) ‘Second-
(1998) ‘Cognitive style and team role prefer- order factor structure of the Cattell Sixteen
ence’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Personality Factor Inventory (16PF)’, in B. De
13(8): 544–57. Raad and M. Perugini (eds), Big-Five
Fiske, D.W. (1994) ‘Two cheers for the Big Five! Assessment. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber,
Psychological Inquiry’, 5: 123–4. pp. 397–404.
Fraboni, M. and Saltstone, R. (1990) ‘First and Hofer, S.M., Horn, J.L. and Eber, H.W. (1997) ‘A
second generation entrepreneur typologies: robust five-factor structure of the 16PF:
Dimensions of personality’, Journal of Social Strong evidence from independent rotation
Behavior and Personality, 5: 105–13. and confirmatory factorial invariance proce-
Gerbing, D.W. and Tuley, M.R. (1991) ‘The dures’, Personality and Individual Differences,
16PF related to the five-factor model of per- 23(2): 247–69.
sonality: Multiple-indicator measurement Hogan, J., Brinkmeyer, K. and Hogan, R. (1996)
versus the a priori scales’, Multivariate Hogan Personality Inventory Form manual.
Behavioral Research, 26(2): 271–89. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990) ‘An alternative “descrip- Hough, L.M. and Ones, D.S. (2001) ‘The struc-
tion of personality”: The big-five factor ture, measurement, validity, and use of per-
structure’, Journal of Personality and Social sonality variables in industrial, work, and
Psychology, 59(6): 1216–29. organisational psychology’, in N. Anderson,
Goldberg, L.R. (1992) ‘The development of D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran
markers for the big-five factor structure’, (eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and
Psychological Assessment, 4(1): 26–42. Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1). London:
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983) Factor Analysis (2nd rev Sage, pp. 233–77.
edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (2000) ‘Personality
Gorsuch, R.L. (2006) The 16PF Express Edition: and job performance’, Journal of Applied
A Supplemental Chapter to the 16PF Fifth Psychology, 85(6): 869–79.
Edition Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, IPAT (1995) 16PF5 Manuel: French Version.
IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Gough, H.G. (1987) California Psychological Ability Testing.
Inventory Administrator’s Guide. Mountain IPAT (2003) The Protective Service Report
View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993a) The Personality and Ability Testing.
16PF and Leadership: Summary of Research IPAT (2004a) Dutch 16PF5 User’s Manual.
Findings 1954–1992. Champaign, IL: Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Ability Testing.
Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993b) Selecting IPAT (2004b) 16PF5 Manual: Norwegian
Successful Salespersons with the 16PF. Form A Version. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Validity Studies. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Personality and Ability Testing. IPAT (2004c) 16PF5 Manual: Danish Version.
Hampson. S.E. (1988) The Construction of Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Personality (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Ability Testing.
Hartung, P.J., Borges, N.J. and Jones, B.J. IPAT (2005) 16PF5 Manual: Swedish Version.
(2005) ‘Using person matching to predict Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
career specialty choice’, Journal of Ability Testing.
Vocational Behavior, 67(1): 102–17. IPAT (2006) The 16PF5 User’s Manual: South
Hetland, H. and Sandal, G.M. (2003) African Version. Champaign, IL: Institute for
‘Transformational leadership in Norway: Personality and Ability Testing.
Outcomes and personality correlates’, IPAT (2007) Japanese 16PF5 technical manual.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Psychology, 12(2): 147–70. Ability Testing.
Hinton, B.L. and Barrow, J.C. (1976) ‘Personality Jackson, D.N. (1989) Personality Research Form
correlates of the reinforcement propensities of Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment
leaders’, Personnel Psychology, 29(1): 61–6. Systems.
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 156
Jackson, D.N., Paunonen, S.V. and Tremblay, P.F. structure defined by the 16PF’, Psychological
(2000) Six Factor Personality Questionnaire. Reports, 59: 683–93.
Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1990) ‘The 16
Jia-xi, C. and Guo-peng, C. (2006) ‘[The valid- Personality Factor Questionnaire’, in E.E.
ity and reliability research of 16PF 5th in Watkins and V.L. Campbell (eds), Testing in
China]’, Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, Counseling Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
14(1): 13–46. Erlbaum.
Jones, J.W., Newhouse, N.K. and Stowers, M.R. Lally, S.J. (2003) ‘What tests are acceptable for
(2006) Civilian Police Officer Profiles: An IPAT use in forensic evaluations? A survey of
Technical Report. Champaign, IL: Institute for experts’, Professional Psychology: Research
Personality and Ability Testing. and Practice, 34(5): 491–8.
Johns, E.F., Schuerger, J.M. and Watterson, Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B. and Ashton, M.C.
D.G. (1980) ‘Personality measures as predic- (2005) ‘Personality traits beyond the Big Five:
tors of managerial performance and salaries. Are they within the HEXACO space?’,
Paper presented at the meeting of the Journal of Personality, 73(5): 1437–63.
Midwest Society for Multivariate Experimental Lee, R.E. (1994) ‘Personality characteristics of
Psychology, May, St. Louis, MO. very desirable and undesirable childcare
Joy, S. and Hicks, S. (2004) ‘The need to be dif- workers in a residential setting’, Psychological
ferent: Primary trait structure and impact on Reports, 74: 579–84.
projective drawing’, Creativity Research Loevinger, J. (1994) ‘Has psychology lost its
Journal, 16(2 and 3): 331–9. conscience?’, Journal of Personality Assess-
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A., Locke, E.A. ment, 62(1): 2–8.
and Thoresen, C.J. (2002) ‘The scientific Lord, F.M. (1980) Applications of Item
merit of valid measures of general concepts: Response Theory to Practical Testing
Personality research and core self-evalua- Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
tions’, in J.M. Brett and F. Drasgow (eds), The Lord, W. (1999) 16PF5: Overcoming Obstacles
Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based to Interpretation. Windsor: NFER-Nelson
Empirical Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Publishing Company (available from IPAT).
pp. 55–77. Lounsbury, J., Park, S.H., Sundstrom, E.,
Junmei, J. (2005) ‘[A Research on the Personality Williamson, J.M. and Pemberton, A.E. (2004)
Traits of Young Criminals]’, Psychological ‘Personality, career satisfaction, and life satis-
Science (China), 28(1): 217–9. faction: Test of a directional model’, Journal
Jurcova, M. (2000) ‘Socialna kompetentnost of Career Assessment, 12(4): 395–406.
tvorivych adolescentov – jej kognitivne a Low, J.M., Williamson, D. and Cottingham, J.
osobnostni zdroje [Social competence of cre- (2004) ‘Predictors of university student law-
ative adolescents – its cognitive and person- breaking behaviors’, Journal of College
ality sources]’, Ceskoslovenske Psychologie, Student Development, 45(5): 535–48.
44(6): 481–92. Lowman, R.L. (1991) The Clinical Practice of
Karson, M., Karson, S. and O’Dell, J. (1997) Career Assessment. Washington, DC:
16PF Interpretation in Clinical Practice: A American Psychological Association.
Guide to the Fifth Edition. Champaign, IL: McKenzie, J. (1998) ‘Fundamental flaws in the
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Five Factor Model: A re-analysis of the semi-
Kintlerova, T. (2000) ‘Osobnostni charakteris- nal correlation matrix from which the
tiky clenov siekt a kultov [Personality “Openness-to-Experience” factor was
characteristics of members of sects and extracted’, Personality and Individual Differ-
cults]’, Ceskoslovenske Psychologie, 44(2): ences, 24(4): 475–80.
180–9. McKenzie, J., Tindell, G. and French, J. (1997)
Krug, S.E. (1976) ‘Personality correlates of mar- ‘The great triumvirate: Agreement between
ital satisfaction and conflict’, unpublished lexically and psycho-physiologically based
manuscript, Institute for Personality and models of personality’, Personality and
Ability Testing. Individual Differences, 22(2): 269–77.
Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1986) ‘A large-scale Mershon, B. and Gorsuch, R.L. (1988) ‘Number
cross-validation of second-order personality of factors in the personality sphere: Does
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 157
productivity in the university student’, Social Smith, M.A., Moriarty, K.O. and Lutrick, E.C.
Behavior and Personality, 29(3): 299–305. (2001) ‘Exploratory factor analysis of the
Saucier, G. (2001) ‘Going beyond the Big-Five’, NEO-PI-R for job applicants: Evidence against
paper presented at the Annual Conference the Big Five’, paper presented at the
of the American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial
(August), San Francisco. and Organizational Psychology, (April),
Schepers, J.M. and Hassett, C.F. (2006) ‘The San Diego.
relationship between the Fourth Edition Spearman, C. (1932) The Abilities of Man.
(2003) of the Locus of Control Inventory and London: Macmillan.
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Tango, R.A. and Kolodinsky, P. (2004)
Fifth Edition’, South African Journal of ‘Investigation of placement outcomes
Industrial Psychology, 32(2): 9–18. 3 years after a job skills training program for
Schmit, M.K. and Ryan, A.M. (1993) ‘The Big- chronically unemployed adults’, Journal of
Five in personnel selection: Factor structure Employment Counseling, 41(2): 80–92.
in applicant and non-applicant populations’, Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. and Rothstein, M.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6): (1991) ‘Personality measures as predictors
966–74. of job performance: A meta-analytic
Schneewind, K.A. and Graf, J. (1998) 16- review’, Personnel Psychology, 44(4):
Personlichkeits-Factoren-Test Revidierte 703–42.
Fassung Test-Manual [The 16 Personality Tucker, T.L. (1991) ‘Investigating sales effective-
Factor Test – Revised Version Test Manual]. ness in the automobile industry in relation to
Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Hans Huber. personality variables as measured by the
Schuerger, J.M. (1995) ‘Career assessment and 16PF Questionnaire’, unpublished disserta-
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire’, tion, Fuller Theological Seminary.
Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2): 157–75. Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.E. (1961) Recurrent
Schuerger, J.M. and Sfiligoj, T. (1998) ‘Holland Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings.
codes and the 16PF global factors: Sixty-nine Tech. Rep. Nos 61–67. Lackland, TX: US Air
samples’, Psychological Reports, 82: Force Aeronautical Systems Division.
1299–306. Van Eeden, R. and Prinsloo, C.H. (1997) ‘Using
Schuerger, J.M. and Watterson, D.G. (1998) the South African version of the 16PF in a
Occupational Interpretation of the 16PF multicultural context’, South African Journal
Questionnaire. Cleveland, OH: Watterson of Psychology, 27(3): 151–9.
and Associates. Walter, V. (2000) 16PF Personal Career Deve-
Seisdedos, N. (1996) ‘The “IM” (Impression lopment Profile Technical and Interpretive
Management) Scale’, European Review of Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Applied Psychology, 46(1): 45–54. Personality and Ability Testing.
Shaughnessy, M.F., Kang, M.H., Greene, M., Wang, Y. and Li, Y. (2003) ‘[The effect of group
Misutova, M., Suomala, J. and Siltala, R. counseling on improvement of self-confidence
(2004) ‘16 PF personality profile of gifted of college students]’, Chinese Mental Health
children: Preliminary report of an interna- Journal, 17(4): 235–9.
tional study’, North American Journal of Wang, C. and Zhang, N. (2005) ‘[Personality
Psychology, 6(1): 51–4. Correlates of Attributional Style in
Singh, S. (1989) ‘Projective and psychometric Undergraduates]’, Chinese Journal of Clinical
correlates of managerial success’, British Psychology, 13(1): 53–4.
Journal of Projective Psychology, 34: Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., Nieberding, R.
28–36. and Hallmark, R. (1995) ‘Contemporary
Singh, S. and Kaur, R. (2001) ‘A comparative practice of psychological assessment
study of the personality characteristics, of clinical psychologist’, Professional
motives, and work values of the autocratic Psychological Research and Practice, 26:
and democratic executives’, Journal of the 54–60.
Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Watterson, D.G. (2002) The 16PF Leadership
27(1–2): 143–9. Coaching Report Manual. Champaign,
9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 159
IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Xiaoming, Y. (2005) ‘[The mental health prob-
Testing. lems of internet-addicted college students]’,
Wiggins, J.S. (2003) Paradigms of Personality Psychological Science (China), 28(6): 1476–8.
Assessment. Guilford Press. Yi-Hui, T., Hai, H. and Liang-Xin, L. (2004)
Williams, R. (1999) 16PF5: Profiling Personality ‘[Relationship among the family functioning,
for Potential – A Data Supplement to the personality, and alienation of adolescents]’,
UK Edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12(2):
Personality and Ability Testing. 158–60.