Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005: 112: 126–133 Copyright
Blackwell Munksgaard 2005

All rights reserved ACTA PSYCHIATRICA

DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00551.x
SCANDINAVICA

The Temperament and Character

Inventory-Revised (TCI-R): psychometric
characteristics of the French version
Pelissolo A, Mallet L, Baleyte J-M, Michel G, Cloninger CR, Allilaire
J-F, Jouvent R. The Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised
(TCI-R): psychometric characteristics of the French version.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005: 112: 126–133.
Blackwell Munksgaard 2005.
Objective: To explore the psychometric characteristics of a modified
version of the Cloninger’s personality questionnaire, the Temperament
and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R).
Method: A 482-subject sample, including clinical and non-clinical
subjects, completed the TCI-R. We performed principal component
analyses and explored the factorial structure of the questionnaire, and
the internal consistency of each dimension.
Results: The factorial structure of the TCI-R was well defined as
expected and similar to those shown with the TCI. Robust factors were
obtained for Reward Dependence and Persistence in the TCI-R, even
more clearly than in the original TCI. All dimensions obtained higher
alpha Cronbach coefficients with the TCI-R than with the TCI. We
obtained highly satisfying reliability coefficients in test-retest and TCI/
TCI-R comparisons.
Conclusion: The TCI-R seems to have similar psychometric and
feasibility characteristics as those of the initial version, but with
significant improvements in terms of factorial structure and internal
consistency of most dimensions.
A. Pelissolo1, L. Mallet1,
J.-M. Baleyte1, G. Michel2,
C. R. Cloninger3, J.-F. Allilaire1,
R. Jouvent1
1
Psychiatry Department and CNRS UMR 7593, H
pital
Piti-Salptrire, AP-HP, Paris, France, 2UFR Arts et
Sciences Humaines, Tours University, Tours, France and
3
Departments of Psychiatry and Genetics, Washington
University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
Key words: character; personality; psychometric;
questionnaire; temperament; validation
Dr Antoine Pelissolo, Service de psychiatrie adulte,
H
pital Piti-Salptrire, 47, bd de l'H
pital, 75013
Paris, France.
E-mail: antoine.pelissolo@psl.aphp.fr
Accepted for publication February 21, 2005

personality traits (6, 7), genetic studies of person-

Introduction
The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)
was developed by Robert Cloninger, based on the
Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ),
with the goal of assessing the seven factors of the
psychobiological model of personality (1–4). The
TCI is a 240-item true/false questionnaire measur-
ing the four dimensions of temperament [novelty
seeking (NS), harm avoidance (HA), reward
dependence (RD), and persistence (P)] and three
dimensions of character [self-directedness (SD),
cooperativeness (C), and self-transcendence (ST)];
25 facets are also measured as subscales of the
seven main TCI dimensions.
The TPQ and the TCI have been used exten-
sively in research studies worldwide during the past
15 years. We identified 377 original peer-reviewed
papers published between 1988 and 2002 using
these questionnaires (5). The main application
domains are neurobiological correlations of
ality (8), and numerous clinical and etiological
studies in psychiatry and psychosomatic (9–12).
The TCI has been translated and validated in
various countries. The validity and the reliability of
the original American version of the TCI have been
established in the general US community (2).
Translated versions of the TCI have been validated
in general population studies with the Swedish
(13), Japanese (14), Dutch (15, 16), German (17),
Korean (18), Finnish (19), and recently Chinese
(20). These studies have established the factorial
and internal validity of the questionnaire in the
various languages. Similar results have been
obtained in clinical samples (16, 21–25). Test-
retest across 1–3-month intervals suggests a good
temporal reliability (18, 26). Convergent and con-
current validity of the TCI with several models or
traits of personality have been explored, in partic-
ular with Millon’s system (27, 28), Coolidge’s
system (28), the Rorschach test (29), the

126
 Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

five-factor model of personality (30–32), and a (mostly related to character dimensions), and 51
measure of alexithymia (33). new items have been introduced in the TCI-R,
The French version of the TCI has been valid- including five validity items (ÔPlease circle the
ated in a 602-subject normative community sample number xÕ).
(34). Psychometric data have also been obtained in iii) The constitution of the four temperament
clinical samples, and various test-retest reliability dimensions and the three character dimensions has
studies have been conducted in normal, psychi- been modified and homogenized, with an increase
atric, and addictive subjects (26, 35). A confirmat- of subscales measuring RD and P for a total of 29
ory factor analysis has been used in order to TCI-R subscales (see Table 1).
evaluate the internal structure of the French TCI in The last point is perhaps the most important
a sample of 689 subjects (36). Pélissolo et al. (11) because RD initially included P in the first model
used the French TCI in a large sample of social described by Cloninger (i.e. the TPQ). These two
phobics, and this questionnaire has been used with dimensions were later distinguished for psycho-
Belgian depressive patients (37). Interestingly, the metric reasons, so there was only one short scale
mean scores and the internal structure of the measuring P and three scales measuring RD. This
French TCI were very similar in the validation may explain why RD and P are the least robust
studies carried out in France and in Belgium (34, dimensions in most populations (11, 19). Never-
38). theless, Persistence appeared to be a very relevant
Thus, the TCI seems to allow a reliable assess- construct with, for example, a prognostic value for
ment of the seven dimensions and subdimensions relapse in alcohol dependence following treatment
of Cloninger’s model of personality, with a stable (43) and a significant correlation with cerebral
internal structure and numerous indices of external activity (7). Only a Spanish version of the TCI-R
validity. However, a clinical instrument is always has been studied in a published paper to date, with
improvable, and some authors have suggested that rather good psychometric characteristics (44). The
the factorial structure of the TCI could be streng- TCI-R is available at http://psychobiology.wustl.
thened (36, 39, 40). The most frequent psychomet- edu.
ric limitations emerging in validation studies of the The French version of the TCI-R was developed
TCI are the weak reliability parameters (test-retest in several steps following classical guidelines,
reliability, internal structure and consistency) including translation by four bilingual clinicians,
obtained for persistence and reward dependence, back-translation by a native English speaker
the unequal numbers of subscales for all dimen- unaware of the original version of the TCI-R,
sions, and the true-false response mode which is revision item-by-item of this back-translation by R.
known to be less reliable than Likert modalities. Cloninger, population testing, and final consensus
These observations and the psychometric analyses of all participants. Only two items from the TCI
emerging from more than 10 years of TCI utiliza- were modified. The final version has been approved
tion recently led Cloninger to propose a new by Cloninger in 2000.
version of this questionnaire, named TCI-Revised Although a majority of items in the TCI-R were
(TCI-R). The major differences between the two present in the TCI, the modifications of items and
versions are the following: subscores, as well as the change in the answer
i) The response mode has been modified: true/ mode, led to significant differences between the two
false statements in the TCI, and five points rating scales and thus to the necessity of a new validation
scale in the TCI-R (1, definitively false; 2, mostly or of this questionnaire.
probably false; 3, neither true nor false, or about
equally true or false; 4, mostly or probably true; 5, Table 1. Comparison of scales composition in the TCI and in the TCI-R
definitively true). This modality is meant to TCI TCI-R
improve the reliability of the responses, because
moderate answers are possible; various currently No. of No. of No. of No. of
subscales items subscales items
used personality questionnaires include this
response pattern with satisfying psychometric Novelty seeking (NS) 4 40 4 35
characteristics (41, 42). In particular, the more Harm avoidance (HA) 4 35 4 33
Reward dependence (RD) 3 24 4 30
informative response set was designed to improve Persistence (P) 1 8 4 35
the precision of measuring the subscales without Self-directedness (SD) 5 44 5 40
increasing the number of items. Cooperativeness (C) 5 42 5 36
ii) The total number of items is the same in both Self-transcendence (ST) 3 33 3 26
Total items 25 226 (+14 not 29 235 (+5
versions, i.e. 240 but only 189 items are common to analysed) validity items)
TCI and TCI-R; 37 items have been eliminated

127
Pelissolo et al.
Aims of the study
The current paper presents the first validation data
on the French version of the TCI-R in clinical and
non-clinical subjects, with an emphasis on analy-
sing its factor structure and reliability. This paper
has two objectives: i) to determine if the TCI-R
shares important psychometric characteristics with
the TCI (with the implication that the validation
data obtained with the TCI could be transferred to
the TCI-R), and ii) to know if this new version
provides some significant psychometrics superior-
ity when compared with the TCI.
Material and methods
Subjects
Three groups of subjects were included in this
study: 333 psychiatric patients (group 1), 71
neurological patients (group 2) and 78 non-clinical
subjects (group 3). Psychiatric patients represent
the population in which the questionnaire is the
more frequently used, but Cloninger’s model can
be also applied in neurological samples (45), and in
non-clinical subjects (7). Our choice was to include
a large sample of subjects coming from various
settings (e.g. inpatients and outpatients), to be
representative of habitual users of the TCI.
Group 1 subjects were psychiatric out- and
in-patients, with or without personality disorders
and varying mood and anxiety disorders, who
presented for treatment to the Psychiatric Depart-
ment of the Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital,
Paris, France. Exclusion criteria were age under
18 years, diagnoses of organic brain disorder,
lifetime diagnosis of schizophrenia or other chronic
psychosis, mental retardation or insufficient intel-
lectual capacity to complete a relatively complex
set of tests, or an inability to speak French
adequately.
Group 2 subjects were out- and in-patients who
presented for treatment to the Neurological
Department of the Pitié-Salpétrière University
Hospital, essentially for Parkinson’s disease
(Hoehn and Yahr score Ôoff medicationÕ between
4 and 5; and Ôon medicationÕ between 0 and 3) or
multiple sclerosis (mean Expanded Disability
Severity Scale score 7). The same exclusion criteria
as those used for patients in group 1 were applied.
Group 3 subjects were non-clinical subjects from
the community (mostly members of the hospital
staff), selected on the bases of the absence of major
psychiatric disorder history and of their Hospital
Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale scores: sub-
jects with anxiety and/or depression subscores of
128
11 or more were excluded, according to the
classical cut-off values used with this scale (46).
Measurement instruments and procedure
All subjects filled in the TCI-R, which was
analysed in accordance with the calculation
method indicated by R. Cloninger: the scores of
each facet were obtained by the sum of all
correspondent items (1–5, directly or after inver-
sion for reverse items), and the scores of the seven
main dimensions were calculated as the sum of the
correspondent facets. We use modified scores
(between 0 and 100) in clinical practice to facilitate
individual interpretation, but in this paper we
present only non-transformed raw scores.
Subjects from the groups 1 and 3 filled in also
the HAD scale (46, 47). This scale has been used to
explore the correlations between the TCI dimen-
sions and anxiety and depression levels. Patients
from group 1 were interviewed with the Mini
International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI),
version 5.0.0, to describe axis I main psychiatric
diagnoses (48).
To estimate test-retest reliability of the TCI-R
and its stability over time, we asked 21 psychiatric
patients from the group 1 and 15 non-clinical
subjects from the group 3 to fill in the question-
naire twice, with about a 3-week interval for the
psychiatric patients and a 1-week interval for the
non-clinical subjects. Lastly, we asked 15 other
non-clinical subjects from the group 3 to fill in the
TCI-R and, about 1 week later, the TCI in order to
compare the two questionnaires.
Statistical analyses
All analyses were carried out with version 10.1 of
the SPSS statistical software. The mean scores in
the total population were computed for each of the
seven main dimensions and 29 facets. Their asso-
ciations with age (Pearson r coefficients) and sex
(t-test) were explored. The differences between the
three groups were studied, taking into account age
and sex as covariates (General Linear Model). The
association between TCI-R scores and HAD anxi-
ety and depression scales (Pearson r coefficients)
were explored in the total population and then
separately in the three groups. At the level of
individual items of the TCI-R, the mean percent-
age of answers for each response was calculated.
The internal consistency of the scores and
subscores of the TCI-R were calculated
through the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the
whole population. We performed two explorat-
ory principal-components analysis with Varimax
 Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

transformation, one for the temperament subscales Table 2. Mean scores and Cronbach alpha coefficients for TCI-R dimensions and
facets on the whole sample (n ¼ 482)
and one for the character subscales, in accordance
with the methods used in similar previous studies No. of items Mean SD Cronbach alpha
on the TCI (2, 13, 34). Temperament and character
Novelty seeking (NS) 35 100.6 15.3 0.80
scales were factor analysed separately because
Exploratory excitability (NS1) 10 30.0 5.5 0.59
temperament and character show strong non- Impulsiveness (NS2) 9 24.4 5.6 0.70
linearities in development that cannot be Extravagance (NS3) 9 27.7 6.8 0.78
adequately specified by the linear assumptions of Disorderliness (NS4) 7 18.6 4.3 0.46
Harm avoidance (HA) 33 109.0 21.3 0.92
factor analysis (49). Anticipatory worry (HA1) 11 35.6 7.9 0.81
In order to explore test-retest reliability, intra- Fear of uncertainty (HA2) 7 25.1 5.4 0.74
class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated Shyness (HA3) 7 22.7 6.6 0.85
for the two assessments in psychiatric patients and Fatigability (HA4) 8 25.7 6.9 0.83
Reward dependence (RD) 30 100.1 14.9 0.84
in non-clinical subjects for each TCI-R dimension. Sentimentality (RD1) 8 29.5 4.3 0.55
In the same way, Spearman rho correlation coef- Openness to warm communication (RD2) 10 32.9 6.9 0.79
ficients between TCI and TCI-R scores were Attachment (RD3) 6 18.4 5.4 0.78
calculated for the non-clinical subjects who filled Dependence (RD4) 6 19.3 3.7 0.47
Persistence (PS) 35 114.0 21.0 0.92
in the two versions. Eagerness of effort (PS1) 9 29.0 5.8 0.75
Work hardened (PS2) 8 26.8 5.7 0.78
Ambitious (PS3) 10 31.9 7.0 0.80
Results Perfectionist (PS4) 8 26.3 6.0 0.78
Self-directedness (SD) 40 131.8 20.0 0.88
Samples Responsibility (SD1) 8 27.2 5.6 0.72
Purposeful (SD2) 6 19.6 5.2 0.76
The total sample consisted of 482 subjects; males Resourcefulness (SD3) 5 16.0 3.8 0.68
Self-acceptance (SD4) 10 33.4 7.5 0.75
account for 54.1% of this group, and the mean age
Enlightened second nature (SD5) 11 35.6 6.9 0.78
was 41.3 ± 15.6 years. No significant differences Cooperativeness (C) 36 133.4 15.2 0.81
were obtained concerning the sex ratio among the Social acceptance (C1) 8 30.1 4.8 0.72
three groups, but there were important variations Empathy (C2) 5 18.1 3.3 0.61
Helpfulness (C3) 8 29.3 3.8 0.53
concerning the mean ages, being lowest in group 3 Compassion (C4) 7 26.1 6.2 0.63
(32.5 ± 13.3) and highest in group 2 (59.5 ± Pure-hearted conscience (C5) 8 29.8 4.3 0.45
10.0). These statistically significant variations were Self-transcendence (ST) 26 69.4 15.4 0.85
coherent with the composition of the groups Self-forgetful (ST1) 10 29.7 7.1 0.74
Transpersonal identification (ST2) 8 20.6 5.6 0.71
(highest mean age in neurological patients), but Spiritual acceptance (ST3) 8 19.1 6.6 0.77
must be taken into account in future analyses.
The mean HAD scores confirmed the presence of
high levels of anxious symptoms (11.9 ± 4.3) and 103.4, P < 0.001), C (129.0 vs. 137.2, P < 0.001),
moderate depressive symptoms (8.2 ± 4.8) in and more slightly concerning SD (129.8 vs. 133.6,
group 1, and low levels of anxious (6.3 ± 2.4) P ¼ 0.04).
and depressive symptoms (3.5 ± 2.5) in group 3. Comparing the scores obtained in the three
The most frequently observed diagnoses from the groups, and taking age and sex into account, more
MINI in group 1 patients were (lifetime and/or significant differences (P < 0.001) were obtained:
current disorders): depressive disorder (60.4%),
i) for harm avoidance, with highest scores in
social phobia (28.2%), and panic disorder (20.4%).
group 1 (115.5 ± 19.4) compared with group
2 (99.1 ± 18.8) and group 3 (90.2 ± 15.9),
Mean scores and correlations ii) for persistence, with highest scores in group 2
(123.2 ± 17.0) compared with group 3
No serious acceptability or comprehension diffi-
(117.6 ± 17.1) and group 1 (111.2 ± 21.9),
culties appeared in the completion of the TCI-R.
iii) for self-directedness, lowest scores in group 1
The mean scores of main dimensions and facets on
(127.2 ± 19.8) compared with group 3
the whole sample are shown in Table 2.
(142.4 ± 15.7) and to group 2 (142.1 ± 16.4).
On the whole sample, significant (but low)
correlations were obtained between age on the Moderate significant correlations were observed
one hand and NS (r ¼ )0.24, P < 0.001), SD between HA and HAD-anxiety (r ¼ 0.52), between
(r ¼ 0.17, P < 0.001), ST (r ¼ 0.15, P ¼ 0.001), HA and HAD-depression (r ¼ 0.49), between SD
and C (r ¼ 0.11, P ¼ 0.02), on the other hand. and HAD-anxiety (r ¼ )0.39), between SD and
There were significant differences between males HAD-depression (r ¼ )0.43), and between RD
and females in terms of RD (respectively 96.1 vs. and HAD-depression (r ¼ )0.28).

129
Pelissolo et al.

Answer-to-item analysis Table 3. Correlations between temperament and character scores of the TCI-R

The mean percentages of responses to each degree NS HA RD P SD C

of the 5-point response scale were the following, on HA )0.30
the whole sample: RD 0.30 )0.23
PS )0.01 )0.39 0.12
i) response 1 (definitively false): 18.1 ± 10.6% SD )0.06 )0.60 0.15 0.36
ii) response 2 (mostly or probably false): C )0.04 )0.23 0.47 0.20 0.41
18.3 ± 9.8% ST 0.19 )0.12 0.17 0.31 )0.06 0.19
iii) response 3 (neither true nor false, or about HA, harm avoidance; RD, reward dependence; PS, persistence; SD, self-directed-
equally true or false): 23.4 ± 10.1% ness; C, cooperativeness; ST, self-transcendence.
iv) response 4 (mostly or probably true): Correlations with P-values £0.01 and abs(r) ‡0.30 are shown in bold.
24.1 ± 9.8%
v) response 5 (definitively true): 15.6 ± 11.9% 1 or more. Three factors were identified for
temperament subscales, accounting for 64.2% of
These mean percentages were about the same the variance (Table 4). This solution corresponds
when the three groups were considered individu- to the rationally defined dimensions, except for
ally. NS1 which loaded negatively on factor 2 (HA).
Because this new version of the TCI gives the Three factors were also identified for character
choice to answer Ôneither true nor false, or about subscales (Table 5), accounting for 55.6% of the
equally true or falseÕ (response 3), it is of interest to variance, and corresponding closely to the three
know if some items frequently received this hypothesized dimensions, except for SD4 which
response. The five items with the highest rates of loaded moderately on factors 2 and 3, but not on
this response were item 161 (ÔI think I will have factor 1 (SD).
very good luck in the futureÕ) from HA1 (43% of We performed also a global principal component
response 3), item 130 (ÔIt is easy for other people to analyses on the 29 subscores of the TCI-R (data not
get close to me emotionallyÕ) from RD2 (40%), shown). Seven factors were identified, accounting
item 230 (ÔI usually have good luck in whatever I for 65% of the total variance. However, NS and SD
try to doÕ) from HA1 (38%), item 233 (ÔIndividual loaded on the same factor of this solution, and RD
rights are more important than the needs of any and C did not load on clearly defined factors.
groupÕ) from RD4 (38%), and item 240 (ÔI am
quick to volunteer when there is something to be
doneÕ) from PS1 (37%). Test-retest reliability and correlation with the TCI
There was a slight, but significant, correlation In order to explore its test-retest reliability, the
between the percentage of Ô3Õ answers and the TCI-R was administered twice in 21 patients (11
numeration of the item (r ¼ 0.17, P < 0.001), males and 10 females, mean age 38.1 ± 13.3) from
reflecting perhaps an enhanced trend to response group 1, with a 3-week interval, and in 16 subjects
Ô3Õ because of fatigue or lassitude during the course
of the questionnaire completion. Table 4. Principal component analysis of temperament subscales (Varimax trans-
formation including factors with eigenvalue of 1 or more)

Internal consistency and factor structure Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

The internal consistency of the main dimensions NS1 0.18 )0.48 0.38 0.27
NS2 0.01 0.78
and of the facets has been explored by the mean of NS3
)0.08
)0.01
)0.08
0.07 0.25 0.73
the alpha Cronbach coefficient, presented in NS4 )0.19 )0.28 )0.03 0.68
Table 2. All main dimension coefficients were HA1 )0.14 0.82 )0.03 )0.01
superior or equal to 0.80, and those of the facets HA2 )0.13 0.77 0.08 )0.17
HA3 )0.15 0.72 )0.26 )0.13
varied from 0.45 (C5 – Pure-hearted Conscience) to HA4 )0.22 0.69 )0.01 0.06
0.85 (HA3 – shyness) with a mean at 0.70. RD1 0.27 0.19 0.63 0.14
The correlation matrices of the seven main RD2 0.14 )0.34 0.77 0.18
dimensions are shown in Table 3. The highest RD3 )0.06 )0.26 0.76 0.10
RD4 )0.25 0.17 0.61 )0.30
correlations were obtained between HA and SD PS1 0.75 )0.26 0.14 0.00
()0.60), SD and C (0.41), and HA and P ()0.39). PS2 0.84 )0.30 )0.06 )0.08
Two principal component analyses were per- PS3 0.85 )0.11 0.02 )0.06
PS4 0.87 0.05
formed for temperament and character subscores )0.08 )0.15
Explained variance (%) 27.7 16.6 11.8 8.0
separately, with Varimax orthogonal transforma-
tion taking into account factors with eigenvalues of Loadings with absolute values of 0.40 or more are shown in bold.

130
 Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

Table 5. Principal component analysis of character subscales (Varimax transfor- questionnaire, in three different populations, in
mation including factors with eigenvalue of 1 or more)
order to compare them to those of the original
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 TCI. We obtained general psychometric features
for the TCI-R that were very close to those of the
SD1 0.72 0.22 )0.25
TCI, i.e. the factorial structure was similar to those
SD2 0.75 0.06 0.20
SD3 0.85 0.08 0.02 shown with the French version in general and
SD4 0.07 0.47 )0.43 clinical populations (34, 38, 50). The correlations
SD5 0.81 0.17 )0.03 with HAD scores were also consistent with previ-
C1 0.25 0.67 0.03
C2 0.23 0.53 0.32
ous data (50, 51). The principal component ana-
C3 0.26 0.69 0.08 lyses of temperament and character dimensions
C4 0.08 0.70 0.01 showed that only two subscores, NS1 and SD4,
C5 )0.08 0.54 0.08 loaded on factors different from their rationally
ST1 0.82
ST2
)0.08
0.18
)0.04
0.16 0.77
defined dimensions, but the same results have been
ST3 )0.08 0.19 0.69 obtained with the TCI (34). The differences
Explained variance (%) 27.2 16.6 11.7 between the three groups, especially the higher
HA scores and the lower SD scores in psychiatric
Loadings with absolute values of 0.40 or more are shown in bold.
patients, were consistent with numerous studies
comparing TCI profiles of depressive and anxious
(eight males and eight females, mean age patients with non-psychiatric subjects (11, 37).
30.5 ± 10.4) from group 3, with an 1-week inter- Moreover, despite our small sample size, the
val. The mean scores of the seven main dimensions comparison of the two versions of the question-
of the TCI-R at T1 and T2, in both groups, and the naire showed very satisfying correlation coeffi-
ICCs are presented in Table 6. All ICCs were cients, confirming that the TCI and TCI-R scores
above 0.80, although significant reductions in measure very close dimensions. The lowest corre-
HAD-A and HAD-D scores were observed in lation coefficients were obtained for RD (r ¼ 0.75)
psychiatric patients. and P (r ¼ 0.77), which are the two most modified
Similarly, a comparison of TCI and TCI-R main factors in the TCI-R.
scores was conducted in 23 subjects from group 3 The psychometric improvements provided by the
(13 females and 20 males, mean age 28.3 ± 12.6), TCI-R could be seen in two aspects:
both questionnaires being administered twice with
a 1-week interval and a balanced order of comple- i) the principal component analysis of tempera-
tion (11 subjects completed the TCI first, and 12 ment dimensions supplied particularly robust
subjects completed the TCI-R first). The raw scores factors for RD and P, which was not the case
of the two versions could not be compared directly, with the TCI (19, 23, 34).
but the spearman rho correlation coefficients ii) the Cronbach alpha coefficients of all dimen-
between both completions were between 0.75 (for sions were above 0.80 and, except for C, which
RD) and 0.82 (for SD). obtained the same results in both versions
(alpha ¼ 0.81), all dimensions obtained higher
alpha coefficients than with the TCI (34),
Discussion suggesting better internal consistencies for
We explored various psychometric characteristics each dimension measured. This was partic-
of this new version of Cloninger’s personality ularly significant for RD (alpha ¼ 0.84 instead

Table 6. Results of the test-retest study for the main TCI-R dimensions

Psychiatric patients (n ¼ 21) Non-clinical subjects (n ¼ 15)

T1 T2 ICC T1 T2 ICC

Novelty seeking 101.1 € 14.9 101.7 € 15.1 0.91 102.8 € 15.2 103.0 € 14.7 0.93
Harm avoidance 118.1 € 20.2 112.5 € 19.8 0.81 91.4 € 16.2 93.1 € 17.1 0.89
Reward dependence 100.9 € 15.8 100.1 € 14.9 0.83 101.5 € 14.9 101.9 € 14.0 0.86
Persistence 110.7 € 20.3 111.1 € 20.8 0.83 119.5 € 17.1 117.9 € 18.3 0.90
Self-directedness 128.2 € 18.1 130.0 € 19.3 0.82 140.1 € 19.4 140.5 € 20.7 0.93
Cooperativeness 132.2 € 20.1 133.1 € 20.3 0.90 139.1 € 19.1 138.6 € 20.5 0.88
Self-transcendence 70.2 € 15.1 69.1 € 15.9 0.87 67.1 € 18.0 68.3 € 19.2 0.82
HAD anxiety 12.9 € 4.6 9.1 € 4.8 0.60 6.7 € 3.6 6.2 € 3.9 0.70
HAD depression 8.6 € 4.4 6.8 € 5.1 0.60 3.2 € 2.2 3.3 € 2.3 0.73

ICC, intra-class correlation coefficient.

131
Pelissolo et al.
of 0.68) and for P (alpha ¼ 0.92 instead of
0.49), for whom the increased number of items
could play a role in the improvement of their
internal consistency (the number of items is
include in Cronbach alpha formula), but this
explanation is not applicable for other dimen-
sions. Indeed, all of them involve fewer items
in the TCI-R than in the TCI (see Table 1).
These results indicate that RD and P have
become, in the TCI-R, as reliable as other factors
of the model and, thus, can be used for specific
explorations (predictive value, psychobiological
correlations, etc.), which would not have been
possible with the TCI for psychometric reasons.
More generally, the greater precision of the TCI-R
allows reliable measurement of the 29 subscales.
Cloninger has recently provided a detailed theor-
etical basis for the clinical significance of the
subscales in personality assessment, so future
work with the TCI-R can now provide more
refined understanding of the psychobiological
basis of mental health and its disorders (4).
Moreover, the test-retest and temporal reliability
of the TCI-R dimensions in psychiatric and non-
clinical subjects were strong, even if in relatively
modest samples. These results are similar or better
than those obtained with the TCI in several
populations (1, 26, 50).
The answer-to-item analysis showed interesting
results for this new version of the questionnaire.
Indeed, the distribution of the five degrees of
response was relatively well balanced. The response
3 (Ôneither true nor false, or about equally true or
falseÕ) received the maximum of choices
(23.4 ± 10.1%), reflecting the difficulties experi-
enced by many patients when faced with a large
number of the items, but this option did not distort
the sensibility and the interpretability of the results.
Thus, the multi-choice answer modality, which did
not alter the ability of participants to complete the
questionnaire, likely has more psychometric
advantages than inconveniences, as hoped for.
In all, this revised version of the TCI seems to
have similar psychometric characteristics as those
of the initial version, but with significant improve-
ments in terms of factorial structure and internal
consistency of most dimensions, in particular
reward dependence and persistence.
Acknowledgements
The authors of the French translation of the TCI-R are: A.
Pélissolo, C. Notides, C. Musa, M. Téhérani, J.-P. Lépine. We
thank Cécile Béhar for her clinical work, and Stephanie Llyod
for her helpful review of the manuscript. Preliminary data
obtained from a smaller population were presented in the form
132
of a poster at the 1st ÔCongrès de l’EncéphaleÕ (Paris, 8–10
January 2003).
References
1. Cloninger CR, Przybeck TR, Svrakic DM, Wetzel RD. The
Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): a guide to its
development and use. St Louis, Missouri: Center for psy-
chobiology of personality, Washington University, 1994.
2. Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. A psychobio-
logical model of temperament and character. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1993;50:975–990.
3. Cloninger CR. A systematic method for clinical description
and classification of personality variants. Arch Gen Psy-
chiatry 1987;44:573–588.
4. Cloninger CR. Feeling good: the science of well-being. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
5. Pélissolo A, Jouvent R. Le modèle psychobiologique de
personnalité de Cloninger: revue des publications de
recherche de 1986 à 2002. Paris: 1er Congrès de l’Encép-
hale, Abstract in Encéphale 2003;28:12.
6. Sugiura M, Kawashima R, Nakagawa M et al. Correlation
between human personality and neural activity in cerebral
cortex. Neuroimage 2000;11:541–546.
7. Gusnard DA, Ollinger JM, Shulman GL et al. Persistence
and brain circuitry. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;
100:3479–3484.
8. Benjamin J, Osher Y, Kotler M et al. Association between
tridimensional personality questionnaire (TPQ) traits and
three functional polymorphisms: dopamine receptor D4
(DRD4), serotonin transporter promoter region (5-
HTTLPR) and catechol O-methyltransferase (COMT).
Mol Psychiatry 2000;5:96–100.
9. Freeman EW, Schweizer E, Rickels K. Personality factors in
women with premenstrual syndrome. Psychosom Med
1995;57:453–459.
10. Guillem F, Bicu M, Semkovska M, Debruille JB. The
dimensional symptom structure of schizophrenia and its
association with temperament and character. Schizophr
Res 2002;56:137–147.
11. Pelissolo A, Andre C, Pujol H et al. Personality dimensions
in social phobics with or without depression. Acta Psy-
chiatr Scand 2002;105:94–103.
12. Etter JF, Pelissolo A, Pomerleau C, DE Saint-Hilaire Z.
Associations between smoking and heritable temperament
traits. Nicotine Tob Res 2003;5:401–409.
13. Brandstrom S, Schlette P, Przybeck TR et al. Swedish
normative data on personality using the Temperament and
Character Inventory. Compr Psychiatry 1998;39:122–128.
14. Kijima N, Tanaka E, Suzuki N et al. Reliability and validity
of the Japanese version of the Temperament and Character
Inventory. Psychol Rep 2000;86:1050–1058.
15. De LA Rie SM, Duijsens IJ, Cloninger CR. Temperament,
character, and personality disorders. J Personal Disord
1998;12:362–372.
16. Duijsens IJ, Spinhoven P, Goekoop JG et al. The Dutch
temperament and character inventory (TCI): dimensional
structure, reliability and validity in a normal and psychi-
atric outpatient sample. Pers Individ Dif 2000;28:487–499.
17. Richter J, Brändström S, Przybeck T. Assessing personality:
the Temperament and Character Inventory in a cross-cul-
tural comparison between Germany, Sweden, and the
USA. Psychol Rep 1999;84:1315–1330.
18. Sung SM, Kim JH, Yang E et al. Reliability and validity of
the Korean version of the Temperament and Character
Inventory. Compr Psychiatry 2002;43:235–243.

19. Miettunen J, Kantojarvi L, Ekelund J et al. A large popu-
lation cohort provides normative data for investigation of
temperament. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2004;110:150–157.
20. Parker G, Cheah YC, Parker K. Properties of the tem-
perament and character inventory in a Chinese sample.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 2003;108:367–373.
21. Kleifield EI, Sunday S, Hurt S, Halmi KA. Psychometric
validation of the Tridimensional Personality Question-
naire: application to subgroups of eating disorders. Compr
Psychiatry 1993;34:249–253.
22. Svrakic DM, Whitehead C, Przybeck TR, Cloninger CR.
Differential diagnosis of personality disorders by the seven-
factor model of temperament and character. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1993;50:991–999.
23. Gutierrez F, Torrens M, Boget T et al. Psychometric
properties of the Temperament and Character Inventory
(TCI) questionnaire in a Spanish psychiatric population.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 2001;103:143–147.
24. Sato T, Narita T, Hirano S et al. Factor validity of the
temperament and character inventory in patients with
major depression. Compr Psychiatry 2001;42:337–341.
25. Ignjatovic TD, Svrakic DM. Western personality models
applied in Eastern Europe: Yugoslav data. Compr Psy-
chiatry 2003;44:51–59.
26. Gourion D, Pelissolo A, Lepine JP. Test-retest reliability of
the Temperament and Character Inventory in patients with
opiate dependence. Psychiatry Res 2003;118:81–88.
27. Bayon C, Hill K, Svrakic DM et al. Dimensional assess-
ment of personality in an out-patient sample: relations of
the systems of Millon and Cloninger. J Psychiatr Res
1996;30:341–352.
28. Griego J, Stewart SE, Coolidge FL. A convergent validity
study of Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inven-
tory with the Coolidge Axis II Inventory. J Personal Dis-
ord 1999;13:257–267.
29. Fassino S, Amianto F, Levi M, Rovera GG. Combining the
rorschach test and the temperament character inventory: a
new perspective on personality assessment. Psychopathol-
ogy 2003;36:84–91.
30. De Fruyt F, Van De Wiele L, Van Heeringen C. Cloninger’s
psychobiological model of temperament and character and
the Five-Factor Model of personality. Pers Individ Dif
2000;29:441–452.
31. MacDonald DA, Holland D. Examination of the psycho-
metric properties of the temperament and character
inventory self-transcendence dimension. Pers Individ Dif
2002;32:1013–1027.
32. Ramanaiah NV, Rielage JK, Cheng Y. Cloninger’s tem-
perament and character inventory and the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory. Psychol Rep 2002;90:90.
33. Grabe HJ, Spitzer C, Freyberger HJ. Alexithymia and the
temperament and character model of personality. Psych-
other Psychosom 2001;70:261–267.
34. Pelissolo A, Lepine JP. Normative data and factor structure
of the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) in the
French version. Psychiatry Res 2000;94:67–76.
Psychometric study of the TCI-revised
35. Pelissolo A, Veysseyre O, Lepine JP. Validation of a com-
puterized version of the temperament and character
inventory (TCI) in psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatry Res
1997;72:195–199.
36. Gana K, Trouillet R. Structure invariance of the Tem-
perament and Character Inventory. Pers Individ Dif
2003;34:1–13.
37. Hansenne M, Reggers J, Pinto E et al. Temperament and
character inventory (TCI) and depression. J Psychiatr Res
1999;33:31–36.
38. Hansenne M, Le Bon O, Gauthier A, Ansseau M. Belgian
normative data of the Temperament and Character
Inventory. Eur J Psychol Assess 2001;17:56–62.
39. Ball SA, Tennen H, Poling JC et al. Personality, tempera-
ment, and character dimensions and the DSM-IV person-
ality disorders in substance abusers. J Abnorm Psychol
1997;106:545–553.
40. Tomita T, Aoyama H, Kitamura T et al. Factor structure of
psychobiological seven-factor model of personality: a
model-revision. Pers Individ Dif 2000;29:709–727.
41. Costa JR PT, Mccrae RR. NEO-PI-R: professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.
42. Schumacker RE, Beyerlein ST. Confirmatory factor analysis
with different correlation types and estimation methods.
Struct Equation Model 2000;7:629–636.
43. Sellman JD, Mulder RT, Sullivan PF, Joyce PR. Low per-
sistence predicts relapse in alcohol dependence following
treatment. J Stud Alcohol 1997;58:257–263.
44. Gutierrez-Zotes JA, Bayon C, Montserrat C et al. Tem-
perament and Character Inventory revised (TCI-R).
Standardization and normative data in a general popula-
tion. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 2003;32:8–15.
45. Kaasinen V, Nurmi E, Bergman J et al. Personality traits and
brain dopaminergic function in Parkinson’s disease. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:13272–13277.
46. Herrmann C. International experiences with the Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale – a review of validation data
and clinical results. J Psychosom Res 1997;42:17–41.
47. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and
Depressive Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–370.
48. Lecrubier Y, Sheehan DV, Weiller E et al. The Mini
International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) a short
diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity
according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry 1997;12:224–231.
49. Cloninger CR, Svrakic NM, Svrakic DM. Role of person-
ality self-organization in development of mental order and
disorder. Dev Psychopathol 1997;9:881–906.
50. Pélissolo A. Le questionnaire de personnalité TCI (Tem-
perament and Character Inventory): validation de la ver-
sion française et application en psychiatrie. PhD Thesis,
Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université Paris 7, 2000.
51. Pelissolo A, Corruble E. Personality factors in depressive
disorders: contribution of the psychobiologic model
developed by Cloninger. Encephale 2002;28:363–373.
133