Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60)...

Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 591–604www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R andan alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60)

in Swiss and Spanish samples

Anton Aluja a,*, Oscar Garc�ıa b, J�erome Rossier c, Luis F. Garc�ıa a

a Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Lleida, Complex de la Caparrella,

s/n 25192 Lleida, Catalonia, Spainb European University of Madrid, Spainc University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Received 10 October 2003; received in revised form 14 April 2004; accepted 6 May 2004

Available online 2 July 2004

Abstract

Three different short versions of the NEO-PI-R were compared: The NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R, and anew short version developed in the current study (NEO-60). This new version is intended to improve the

psychometric characteristics of the original NEO-FFI, specially in regard to the factor structure at the item-

level. A French version of the NEO-PI-R was given to 1090 Swiss subjects, whereas the Spanish (Castilian)

version of the NEO-PI-R was administered to 1006 Spanish subjects. Results replicate the limitations of the

NEO-FFI already found in other countries. Compared to the NEO-FFI, reliability coefficients and factor

structure was enhanced by the NEO-FFI-R and the NEO-60 in both samples, although substantial dif-

ferences were not found. The factor structure of the NEO-60 shows the best fit since only three items do not

load mainly on their own factor in both samples. Besides, correlations between items and NEO-PI-Rdomain scores are also higher for the items included in the NEO-60 version. On the other hand, convergent

correlations with the NEO-PI-R dimensions were satisfactory irrespective of the version, and confirmatory

factor analyses show slight differences among the different models generated after the three short versions.

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: NEO-FFI; NEO-FFI-R; NEO-PI-R; NEO-60; Five-Factor Model; Personality

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-973-70-23-26; fax: +34-973-70-23-26.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Aluja).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.014

mail to: [email protected]

592 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 591–604

1. Introduction

Costa and McCrae (1985) published the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and subse-quently the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989). The NEO-PI has 181 self-report items distributedover five scales: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.NEO-FFI was a shortened version of 60 items (12 by scale) of the NEO-PI. It was constructedwith the best items after a factor analysis. This short version has been studied in differentcountries. Holden�s results (1992) (Holden & Fekken, 1994) show alpha reliability indexes be-tween 0.76 and 0.87, and between 0.73 and 0.87 in two different Canadian university studentsamples.Costa and McCrae (1992) published a revised version of 240 items (NEO-PI-R). They also

developed a short version of this revised questionnaire (named NEO-FFI as well). Reliabilityindexes range between 0.68 and 0.86 in the American sample. Rolland, Parker, and Stumpf (1998)obtained reliability indexes oscillating between 0.62 and 0.84, and between 0.50 and 0.84 in bothuniversity student and military French samples, respectively. Later, Borkenau and Ostendorf(1993), and Schmitz, Hartkamp, Baldini, Rollnik, and Tress (2001) analysed the psychometricproperties of the German version of the NEO-FFI. They found reliability indexes between 0.71and 0.85, and between 0.66 and 0.84, respectively. A study conducted on a British sample, Egan,Deary, and Austin (2000) obtained reliability indexes between 0.72 and 0.87. Similarly results wereobtained in NEO-FFI versions in Poland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic(Hreb�ıckov�a et al., 2002).Regarding exploratory factor analyses, Holden and Fekken (1994) found that 55 of 60 items

had loadings larger than 0.30 on their own factor when a principal components analysis withVarimax rotation was carried out. Items O3, O8, A9, A29, and A34 showed lower loadings.Salient secondary loadings were not found. Rolland et al. (1998) performed a Procrustes rotationof the item factor solution for each of the French samples to the structures reported by Borkenauand Ostendorf (1993), and Holden and Fekken (1994) for German and Canadian population,respectively. The Procrustes solution obtained in the French student sample (using the Borkenauand Ostendorf�s matrix as the target) showed loadings below 0.30 for the E57, O3, O8, O18, O38and A29 items. Congruence indexes between both factor solutions range between 0.86 and 0.95.On the other hand, the Procrustes factor matrix between the French student and military samplesshowed lower congruencies (between 0.79 and 0.86). Items with loadings below 0.30 were E22,E57, O3, O8, O18, O33, O38, O53, A19, A34, A49 and A59. The factor structure found by Egan etal. (2000) also showed several items with loading below 0.30 (E27, E32, E47, E52, E57, O3, O8and O38). 1 The Neuroticism and Conscientiousness factors were the most invariant acrossstudies, while the Openness, Extraversion and Agreeableness dimensions present more misplaceditems.Structural equation modelling techniques have also been performed to analyse the factor

structure of the NEO-FFI. The goodness-of-fit-indexes are unsatisfactory in the Holden andFekken�s (GFI: 0.68, AGFI: 0.66, CFI: 0.48), Hrebickov�a et al.�s (GFI: 0.65, RMESA: 0.17) and

1 In the original paper (Egan et al., 2000) NEO-FFI items were renumbered from 1 to 12 for every dimension. For

comparative purposes, number items mentioned in the text correspond to the NEO-FFI numeration.

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 591–604 593

Schmitz et al.�s (GFI: 0.84, AGFI: 0.83, RMR: 0.15) studies (Holden & Fekken, 1994; Hreb�ıckov�aet al., 2002; Schmitz et al., 2001). This poor fit is probably due to the large number of parametersanalysed (Raykov, 1998), as well as the strong assumptions for the simple structure model to fit(Aluja, Garc�ıa, & Garc�ıa, 2004).According to this evidence, McCrae and Costa (2004) have proposed a revised version of the

NEO-FFI (NEO-FFI-R). They replaced 14 items of the original version by items taken from theNEO-PI-R. These new items were selected based on four criteria: (1) to minimise the effects ofacquiescence, (2) to increase the correlations with NEO-PI-R factor scores, (3) to diversify itemcontent by selecting items from underrepresented facets, and (4) to increase the intelligibility ofthe items. Internal reliability coefficients of the NEO-FFI-R scales range from 0.75 to 0.82.The goal of the present study is to analyse the psychometric properties of the NEO-FFI, NEO-

FFI-R, and an alternative short form of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The participants were divided into two samples. The Swiss sample was formed by 1090 adultsubjects. The average age was 33.54 (SD ¼ 14:76) for males (N ¼ 620), and 33.45 (SD ¼ 14:46)for females (N ¼ 470). The Spanish sample was composed of 1006 undergraduate students. Themean age was 22.16 (SD ¼ 4:81) for males (N ¼ 367), and 22.31 (SD ¼ 5:08) for females(N ¼ 639). The participation was voluntary in both countries. Also, an individual profile of thedescriptive results of some of the studied personality dimensions was offered to each subject inorder to maintain sufficient motivation in the Spanish sample.

2.2. Measures

The French (Rolland, 1998) and Spanish (Aluja, Garc�ıa, & Garc�ıa, 2002) versions of the NEO-PI-R were administered to the corresponding sample. The NEO-PI-R allows the assessment of thefive main dimension of the FFM termed: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness toExperience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). The answer format is a 5-pointLikert-type scale (0-4), ranging from ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ (0) to ‘‘Strongly agree.’’ (4).

2.3. Procedure for developing a new short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60)

In order to improve the factor structure of the short form of the NEO-PI-R, we intended toselect the best 60 items. Firstly, we conducted a principal components analysis with Varimaxrotation on the 240 items of the NEO-PI-R, separately for the Swiss and Spanish samples. Fivefactors were explicitly requested. We selected the items that presented their highest loadings on theappropriate factor in both samples. Secondly, we conducted a principal components analysis withVarimax rotation separately on the 48 items of each domain. Note that the items selected in thefirst phase are also included in these analyses. One factor was explicitly required. Items with thehighest loadings on the extracted factor in both samples were added to those selected in the first


phase until completing the amount of 12 items per scale. The number of items extracted from thefollowing NEO-PI-R facets were: 5 (N1), 4 (N3), 1 (N4), 2 (N6), 4 (E1), 3 (E2), 2 (E4), 3 (E6), 4(O1), 3 (O2), 5 (O5), 2 (A1), 3 (A2), 4 (A4), 3 (A5), 3 (C2), 3 (C3), 2 (C4), and 4 (C5).

3. Results

3.1. Exploratory factor analysis

Table 1 shows the factor solution when the original NEO-FFI items were analysed. In the Swisssample, we obtained a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy: 0.82, and theBartlett�s Test of Sphericity (BTS): Approx. Chi-Square: 13,746.96; df: 1770 (p < 0:001). In theSpanish sample, the indexes obtained were: 0.83, and 14,451.29 (df: 1770; p < 0:001). The varianceexplained by the five factors extracted was 30.26%, and 29.59% in the Swiss and Spanish samples,respectively. Items 2 E162, O78, O88, A164 had loadings lower than 0.30 on both samples. Takinginto account both countries, another six items (N1, E67, O163, A44, A104, C45) were misplacedin some samples. All congruence coefficients between the Swiss and Spanish samples were above0.90.Table 2 shows the factor solution of the revised version (NEO-FFI-R). We obtained a KMO

measure of sampling adequacy: 0.86 and BTS: Approx. Chi-Square: 17,157.77; (df: 1770;p < 0:001) for the Swiss sample. For the Spanish sample, values were 0.86 and 15,933 (df: 1770;p < 0:001) for the KMO measure of sampling adequacy, and BTS: Approx. Chi-Square,respectively. The variance accounted for in the five factors was 34.79%, and 34.41% in the Swissand Spanish samples, respectively. Six items did not load appropriately in any sample (E162, O48,A44, A184, A104, C95). If we consider both samples simultaneously, another four items (N1,O163, A139, C45) were misplaced in some samples. All congruence coefficients were above 0.90.The factor structure obtained for the NEO-60 version appears in Table 3. In the Swiss sample,

we obtained a KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.87, and a BTS: Approx. Chi-Square:20,803.32 (df: 1770; p < 0:001). For the Spanish sample, KMO measure of sampling adequacywas: 0.86, whereas BTS: Approx. Chi-Square reached the 18,981.40 value (df: 1770; p < 0:001).Only A34 does not fit well in any sample. Another two items (N1, A139) were also misplaced inthe Spanish sample. All congruence coefficients were above 0.90.The same sample was used for both developing and evaluating the NEO-60 version. Conse-

quently, the better properties for the NEO-60 over the other NEO forms may be spurious. Itwould be important to cross-validate these findings. In a further analysis, around half of eachsample, randomly selected, was used for developing a new version following the procedure abovedescribed. There were no sharp differences with the NEO-60 version in any country. Later, a 5-factor solution including those items was obtained for the other half of each sample. All con-gruence coefficients between the derivation and the validation sample in both countries werehigher than 0.95. So, the better properties for the NEO-60 were not due to this bias.

2 For comparative purposes, all items will be numbered according to the NEO-PI-R numeration.

Table 1

Principal components with Varimax rotation solutions of the original NEO-FFI items in the Swiss and Spanish samples

Item (a) Item (b) Switzerland Spain

N E O A C N E O A C

1 1 0.60 )0.09 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.27 )0.04 0.01 0.16 0.22

6 136 0.60 )0.05 )0.14 0.23 )0.08 0.67 )0.14 )0.06 )0.04 )0.0911 86 0.63 )0.02 )0.04 0.07 )0.10 0.65 0.02 )0.05 0.00 0.08

16 11 0.61 )0.12 0.09 )0.02 )0.10 0.54 )0.18 0.13 0.04 )0.0221 91 0.63 )0.06 0.01 )0.21 0.04 0.60 0.02 0.04 )0.32 )0.0226 41 0.63 )0.04 0.00 0.12 )0.11 0.68 )0.05 0.02 )0.12 )0.0831 61 0.70 )0.10 )0.01 0.08 )0.01 0.43 )0.04 )0.01 0.10 0.02

36 6 0.43 0.06 0.03 )0.41 )0.01 0.44 )0.09 0.02 )0.31 0.02

41 221 0.61 )0.11 )0.11 0.00 )0.31 0.69 )0.04 )0.09 )0.09 )0.1746 71 0.70 )0.18 0.14 )0.02 )0.11 0.59 )0.30 0.12 )0.01 0.00

51 26 0.65 )0.02 )0.04 )0.08 )0.19 0.55 0.00 )0.12 )0.07 )0.1256 76 0.41 0.04 0.07 )0.08 )0.18 0.52 0.00 0.01 )0.04 )0.09

2 37 0.07 0.63 )0.06 0.05 )0.11 0.15 0.56 )0.01 0.08 0.03

7 237 )0.04 0.56 0.08 0.08 0.01 )0.10 0.58 0.06 0.03 )0.0512 147 )0.25 0.50 0.01 0.05 )0.11 )0.37 0.54 0.01 0.24 )0.0117 122 0.04 0.52 0.22 0.20 0.04 )0.08 0.61 0.14 0.16 0.15

22 142 )0.05 0.42 0.09 )0.28 0.03 )0.06 0.50 0.08 )0.30 )0.0827 67 )0.02 0.31 )0.04 0.26 )0.21 )0.04 0.25 )0.06 0.52 )0.0232 107 )0.16 0.53 0.05 )0.13 0.22 )0.36 0.58 0.10 )0.13 0.15

37 177 )0.35 0.66 )0.03 0.11 0.11 )0.31 0.72 0.01 0.09 0.03

42 87 )0.46 0.47 0.01 0.15 0.00 )0.51 0.38 0.01 0.10 )0.0447 197 0.02 0.47 )0.03 )0.21 0.34 )0.01 0.49 0.14 )0.26 0.15

52 227 )0.16 0.50 )0.02 )0.09 0.47 )0.17 0.55 0.05 )0.12 0.36

57 162 )0.14 0.10 )0.07 )0.29 )0.01 )0.19 0.10 0.02 )0.19 )0.03

3 93 0.14 )0.02 0.40 0.12 )0.42 0.06 0.02 0.39 0.07 )0.288 78 )0.11 )0.05 0.11 0.01 )0.28 )0.14 )0.17 0.02 )0.06 )0.4113 98 0.03 )0.02 0.63 0.01 )0.01 0.06 0.09 0.59 0.05 0.03

18 28 )0.12 )0.14 0.39 0.15 )0.10 )0.14 )0.04 0.30 0.21 0.08

23 128 0.11 0.06 0.60 0.12 )0.05 0.01 )0.03 0.64 0.23 0.01

28 108 )0.15 0.16 0.36 )0.04 0.04 )0.09 0.16 0.34 )0.13 )0.0333 163 0.21 )0.04 0.43 0.09 0.02 )0.11 )0.04 0.24 0.16 0.07

38 88 )0.07 0.01 0.27 )0.09 0.02 )0.13 )0.13 0.09 0.03 )0.0943 188 0.12 0.06 0.64 0.06 0.01 0.13 0.10 0.69 0.02 0.01

48 173 0.00 0.01 0.60 0.23 0.00 )0.05 )0.08 0.63 0.08 0.02

53 203 )0.08 0.14 0.66 )0.06 0.11 )0.03 0.18 0.58 )0.22 0.22

58 23 0.00 0.07 0.55 )0.24 )0.20 0.03 0.05 0.60 )0.28 )0.07

4 44 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.31 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.04 0.28 0.20

9 229 )0.18 )0.11 )0.04 0.50 0.15 )0.26 )0.04 )0.10 0.41 0.10

14 14 0.04 0.12 )0.03 0.50 0.20 )0.03 0.05 0.04 0.46 0.12

19 19 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.50 )0.01 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.47 0.07

24 4 )0.13 0.16 0.02 0.59 0.04 )0.23 0.19 0.04 0.45 )0.0729 64 )0.24 )0.04 0.09 0.39 )0.18 )0.31 )0.09 0.17 0.36 )0.0434 164 )0.16 0.26 0.03 0.29 0.09 )0.10 0.43 )0.05 0.17 0.12

39 74 0.03 0.31 0.05 0.53 )0.01 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.61 )0.06(continued on next page)


Table 1 (continued)


N E O A C N E O A C

44 59 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.48 )0.16 )0.21 )0.08 )0.01 0.50 0.04

49 104 0.12 0.21 0.15 0.34 0.22 0.11 0.21 0.07 0.23 0.31

54 109 )0.01 )0.17 )0.06 0.44 )0.06 0.17 )0.18 )0.13 0.39 )0.0159 39 )0.04 )0.12 )0.04 0.56 0.07 )0.05 )0.09 0.10 0.53 0.04

5 40 0.01 )0.01 )0.11 0.13 0.61 0.01 )0.03 )0.08 0.07 0.52

10 25 )0.16 )0.03 )0.14 0.10 0.64 )0.14 )0.02 )0.05 )0.04 0.64

15 70 )0.12 )0.11 0.02 0.05 0.58 )0.04 )0.26 0.03 )0.02 0.42

20 15 )0.01 )0.03 0.00 0.23 0.58 )0.02 0.08 0.03 0.12 0.59

25 50 )0.07 0.16 0.01 )0.22 0.54 )0.04 0.17 0.07 )0.07 0.66

30 55 )0.19 )0.05 )0.11 0.08 0.60 )0.25 )0.18 0.03 0.15 0.55

35 110 0.08 0.21 0.10 )0.14 0.57 )0.06 0.22 0.05 )0.03 0.71

40 135 )0.08 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.54 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.09 0.40

45 45 )0.18 )0.15 0.04 0.15 0.50 )0.20 )0.04 0.05 0.37 0.24

50 85 )0.17 0.15 0.01 )0.07 0.61 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.69

55 130 )0.20 )0.07 0.00 0.15 0.59 )0.27 )0.13 )0.01 0.16 0.57

60 200 0.04 0.11 0.14 )0.22 0.49 0.05 0.17 0.04 )0.06 0.66

% 12.0 4.43 6.77 6.77 6.60 8.67 6.94 4.97 5.86 7.94

CC 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.93

(a) NEO-FFI items.

(b) NEO-PI-R items.

Loadings larger than ±0.30 are in boldface. %: Variance accounted by factor. CC: Congruence Coefficients.


3.2. Descriptives

Table 4 shows means, standard deviations, kurtosis, skewness, and alpha coefficients in bothsamples for the NEO-FFI, NEO-FFI-R and NEO-60 items. The skewness and kurtosis areusually considered as a normality test. Values outside the )1 to +1 interval have been suggested asindicators of normality violation (Muth�en & Kaplan, 1985). The kurtosis and skewness valuesindicate that all scales have a normal and symmetrical distribution. Compared to the NEO-FFIand the NEO-FFI-R, alpha coefficients were somewhat better for the NEO-60. They rangedbetween 0.78 and 0.87 in the Swiss sample, and between 0.70 and 0.82 in the Spanish sample.

3.3. Correlation analyses

Table 5 shows the correlations between the items of the three short versions, NEO-FFI, NEO-FFI-R and NEO-60, and the five NEO-PI-R dimensions separately. Given that including theitems to be correlated could artificially increase the correlations, the five NEO-PI-R dimensionsscores were computed subtracting the corresponding item (and the 12 items when correlated withthe short version of the scale). Note that the mean correlation increased slightly for the NEO-60version in the five domains, especially for the Openness dimension. However, convergent corre-lations were satisfactory for the three short versions, and similar to the coefficients reported byMcCrae and Costa (2004).

Table 2

Principal components with Varimax rotation solutions of the NEO-FFI-R items in the Swiss and Spanish samples


N E O A C N E O A C

1 1 0.62 )0.06 0.04 0.10 0.16 0.27 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.20

– 186 0.37 )0.03 0.10 )0.12 0.00 0.64 )0.04 0.05 )0.19 )0.0211 86 0.63 0.02 )0.02 0.10 )0.10 0.65 0.02 )0.04 0.04 0.07

16 11 0.60 )0.07 0.09 0.04 )0.12 0.55 )0.14 0.13 0.11 )0.0421 91 0.65 )0.07 )0.01 )0.16 0.03 0.64 )0.01 0.02 )0.25 )0.0226 41 0.60 0.00 0.03 0.16 )0.12 0.68 )0.08 0.03 )0.06 )0.0931 61 0.71 )0.07 0.02 0.11 )0.02 0.47 0.04 )0.05 0.16 0.01

36 6 0.46 )0.06 0.01 )0.34 0.01 0.47 )0.15 0.02 )0.21 0.03

41 221 0.60 )0.08 )0.10 0.07 )0.32 0.68 )0.08 )0.08 )0.08 )0.1646 71 0.71 )0.14 0.13 0.04 )0.13 0.63 )0.23 0.10 0.11 )0.0251 26 0.64 )0.02 )0.03 )0.06 )0.21 0.55 )0.05 )0.11 )0.07 )0.1156 76 0.42 0.04 0.08 )0.08 )0.19 0.53 )0.03 0.01 )0.03 )0.07

2 37 0.05 0.68 )0.07 )0.07 )0.10 0.15 0.63 )0.05 0.00 0.04

7 237 )0.06 0.54 0.07 )0.01 0.04 )0.11 0.53 0.07 )0.12 )0.02– 127 )0.10 0.38 0.01 0.23 )0.13 )0.06 0.42 )0.09 0.43 )0.0417 122 0.01 0.62 0.20 0.08 0.06 )0.09 0.67 0.13 0.04 0.16

22 142 )0.06 0.37 0.05 )0.38 0.04 )0.03 0.46 0.05 )0.40 )0.05– 7 )0.13 0.47 )0.10 0.00 )0.14 )0.05 0.48 )0.03 0.19 )0.0732 107 )0.16 0.45 0.03 )0.25 0.26 )0.35 0.51 0.10 )0.27 0.19

37 177 )0.36 0.57 )0.02 )0.03 0.16 )0.32 0.66 0.02 )0.08 0.07

– 32 0.05 0.57 0.13 0.11 0.01 )0.14 0.58 0.06 0.27 0.10

47 197 0.02 0.39 )0.07 )0.32 0.37 0.03 0.45 0.09 )0.34 0.19

52 227 )0.16 0.41 )0.06 )0.21 0.51 )0.13 0.51 0.02 )0.20 0.40

57 162 )0.13 0.07 )0.12 )0.32 )0.02 )0.16 0.12 0.00 )0.20 )0.06

– 123 0.17 0.10 0.53 )0.11 )0.11 0.20 0.21 0.37 )0.26 )0.17– 48 )0.05 0.31 0.23 )0.03 0.25 0.03 0.21 0.30 0.00 0.24

13 98 0.01 )0.03 0.63 )0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.60 0.03 0.03

18 28 )0.11 )0.04 0.37 0.15 )0.10 )0.13 0.03 0.27 0.23 0.08

23 128 0.07 0.05 0.62 0.08 )0.02 0.00 0.02 0.63 0.23 0.00

– 213 0.06 0.06 0.41 )0.03 )0.30 0.01 0.06 0.35 )0.07 )0.2833 163 0.23 )0.02 0.43 0.09 0.05 )0.09 0.01 0.23 0.14 0.06

– 133 0.24 0.30 0.42 )0.01 0.08 0.17 0.32 0.30 )0.20 0.06

43 188 0.08 0.03 0.65 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.69 0.00 0.01

48 173 )0.03 0.07 0.59 0.21 0.02 )0.06 )0.06 0.64 0.10 0.01

53 203 )0.10 0.11 0.64 )0.11 0.13 )0.03 0.10 0.57 )0.28 0.24

58 23 )0.01 0.03 0.53 )0.27 )0.18 0.02 )0.03 0.60 )0.32 )0.07

4 44 0.01 0.21 0.10 0.27 0.25 0.06 0.21 0.12 0.19 0.20

– 189 )0.03 0.04 0.01 0.61 0.09 )0.14 )0.01 0.04 0.60 0.10

14 14 0.01 0.21 )0.02 0.45 0.22 )0.07 0.11 0.09 0.40 0.10

– 169 )0.03 )0.13 )0.07 0.37 )0.06 0.04 )0.09 )0.02 0.51 0.08

– 84 0.19 0.02 )0.17 0.48 0.04 0.16 0.00 )0.12 0.53 0.00

– 139 )0.18 0.11 0.12 0.31 0.04 )0.06 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.05

– 184 )0.14 0.28 0.17 0.27 0.00 )0.06 0.42 0.10 0.20 0.07

39 74 0.00 0.39 0.07 0.44 0.02 )0.01 0.29 0.05 0.53 )0.07(continued on next page)


Table 2 (continued)


N E O A C N E O A C

44 59 0.23 0.25 0.17 0.44 )0.13 )0.24 0.05 0.00 0.46 0.02

49 104 0.09 0.24 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.14 0.17 0.31

54 109 )0.05 )0.08 0.01 0.43 )0.07 0.13 )0.13 )0.08 0.39 )0.0359 39 )0.07 0.01 )0.01 0.65 0.08 )0.08 0.05 0.11 0.57 0.02

5 40 0.02 )0.02 )0.12 0.14 0.61 0.03 )0.01 )0.06 0.10 0.50

10 25 )0.15 )0.06 )0.15 0.11 0.64 )0.12 )0.04 )0.06 )0.04 0.64

– 95 )0.21 )0.21 )0.13 0.25 0.26 )0.34 )0.13 )0.06 0.35 0.12

20 15 )0.01 0.01 )0.01 0.20 0.57 )0.04 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.59

25 50 )0.06 0.09 )0.01 )0.25 0.55 0.01 0.15 0.05 )0.07 0.67

30 55 )0.18 )0.06 )0.14 0.09 0.60 )0.22 )0.11 0.00 0.20 0.54

35 110 0.08 0.13 0.08 )0.19 0.58 )0.04 0.18 0.02 )0.03 0.74

40 135 )0.09 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.55 )0.03 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.41

45 45 )0.18 )0.14 0.01 0.16 0.50 )0.25 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.22

50 85 )0.16 0.08 )0.02 )0.14 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.69

55 130 )0.18 )0.05 )0.04 0.16 0.58 )0.23 )0.09 )0.03 0.18 0.56

60 200 0.03 0.02 0.14 )0.26 0.48 0.04 0.10 0.07 )0.07 0.68

% 11.8 6.10 5.79 4.35 7.46 11.8 6.38 4.29 5.18 7.48

CC 0.91 0.96 0.95 0.90 0.94

(a) NEO-FFI items: Replaced items (–) are indicated.

(b) NEO-PI-R items. Loadings larger than ±0.30 are in boldface.

%: Variance accounted by factor. CC: Congruence Coefficients.


3.4. Confirmatory factor analysis

A CFA was performed over the variance–covariance matrix through the AMOS 4.01 statisticalpackage (Arbuckle, 1999). The estimation method used was Maximum Likelihood. The size of thesample and the normality of the variables allow for the use of such an estimation method (seeTable 4). In the simple structure model every scale was linked to one factor only. In order toachieve the model identification, regression coefficients of the error terms over the endogenousvariables were fixed to 1. The models to be tested included five correlated factors. Fit indexes areshown in Table 6. Irrespective of the version and country, all values point to an unsatisfactory fitexcept for the RMSEA index. This fit index also reflects a worse fit of the NEO-60 model com-pared to the NEO-FFI in the Swiss sample, and to both NEO-FFI and NEO-FFI-R models in theSpanish one.

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to compare three different short versions of the NEO-PI-R intwo non-English speaking countries (Switzerland and Spain) to test which version is moreadvisable to be used in the Five-Factor Model (FFM) research. Previous limitations in the factorstructure of the original NEO-FFI have been reported by other authors in different countries. To

Table 3

Principal components with Varimax rotation solutions of the NEO-60 items in the Swiss and Spanish samples

Item (*) Switzerland Spain

N E O A C N E O A C

1 0.62 )0.05 0.05 )0.01 0.15 0.28 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.21

26 0.59 )0.02 0.00 )0.15 )0.22 0.54 )0.04 )0.10 )0.10 )0.1441 0.64 )0.05 0.06 0.13 )0.13 0.68 )0.09 0.05 )0.07 )0.0961 0.71 )0.08 0.04 )0.02 )0.03 0.47 )0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00

71 0.65 )0.15 0.17 )0.07 )0.13 0.60 )0.24 0.14 0.06 )0.0186 0.63 0.02 0.00 0.03 )0.11 0.63 0.03 )0.03 0.02 0.05

91 0.63 )0.08 0.03 )0.24 0.04 0.60 )0.05 0.07 )0.27 )0.02121a;b 0.60 )0.10 0.08 )0.04 )0.06 0.33 )0.02 0.11 0.11 0.22

136b 0.64 )0.03 )0.06 0.25 )0.12 0.69 )0.15 )0.04 0.01 )0.11151a;b 0.59 0.02 )0.06 )0.11 0.13 0.64 0.03 )0.05 )0.12 0.08

161a;b 0.62 )0.13 )0.01 0.09 )0.16 0.61 )0.10 )0.06 0.02 )0.20221 0.60 )0.08 )0.06 )0.04 )0.33 0.69 )0.05 )0.07 )0.15 )0.17

7a )0.11 0.49 )0.08 0.03 )0.12 )0.01 0.51 )0.01 0.15 )0.0632a 0.07 0.58 0.11 0.11 0.02 )0.13 0.58 0.08 0.23 0.08

37 0.05 0.71 )0.06 )0.07 )0.10 0.17 0.64 )0.03 )0.02 0.03

62a;b )0.07 0.58 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.42 0.07 0.08 0.19

107 )0.19 0.43 0.04 )0.11 0.24 )0.36 0.48 0.07 )0.21 0.18

117a;b )0.08 0.44 0.21 0.03 0.10 )0.24 0.45 0.00 )0.07 0.03

122a;b 0.03 0.63 0.19 0.08 0.05 )0.08 0.68 0.14 0.03 0.14

152a;b )0.10 0.45 0.14 0.03 0.09 )0.02 0.56 0.09 )0.10 0.03

177 )0.34 0.58 )0.02 0.05 0.15 )0.31 0.69 )0.01 )0.08 0.05

197 0.00 0.36 )0.06 )0.23 0.33 )0.01 0.39 0.10 )0.30 0.15

217a;b )0.06 0.61 0.01 )0.06 )0.17 0.13 0.62 )0.03 )0.06 )0.04237 )0.05 0.55 0.08 0.02 0.04 )0.11 0.57 0.07 )0.12 )0.03

23 )0.05 0.04 0.57 )0.26 )0.15 )0.01 )0.03 0.61 )0.29 )0.0553a;b )0.05 0.00 0.61 0.10 )0.08 )0.16 )0.04 0.66 0.03 )0.0163a;b 0.03 0.09 0.53 )0.19 )0.11 0.19 0.19 0.41 )0.29 )0.3293a 0.13 0.00 0.46 0.04 )0.40 0.08 0.09 0.46 0.03 )0.3298 0.03 )0.02 0.59 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.54 0.04 0.05

123a;b 0.14 0.12 0.53 )0.13 )0.10 0.19 0.22 0.41 )0.26 )0.20128 0.08 0.06 0.58 0.09 )0.01 )0.01 0.06 0.58 0.23 0.00

173 0.00 0.06 0.60 0.24 0.04 )0.07 )0.07 0.64 0.15 0.03

188 0.09 0.03 0.62 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.64 )0.01 0.03

203 )0.11 0.12 0.67 )0.06 0.16 )0.06 0.11 0.60 )0.28 0.27

213a 0.06 0.07 0.44 )0.06 )0.32 0.00 0.05 0.36 )0.05 )0.29233a;b )0.12 0.07 0.65 )0.03 0.08 )0.09 0.10 0.59 )0.24 0.25

4b )0.11 0.24 0.03 0.56 0.06 )0.27 0.28 0.02 0.32 )0.0634a;b )0.20 0.14 0.09 0.28 )0.05 )0.13 0.21 0.03 0.12 0.03

39 )0.01 )0.06 )0.02 0.70 0.06 )0.08 0.03 0.11 0.63 0.03

49a;b )0.04 )0.02 )0.14 0.53 0.01 0.03 0.01 )0.17 0.43 0.05

84a;b 0.28 0.00 )0.16 0.54 0.03 0.23 0.00 )0.09 0.63 )0.03139a;b )0.14 0.07 0.12 0.32 0.05 )0.04 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.06

144a;b 0.40 )0.08 )0.15 0.50 )0.06 0.41 )0.13 )0.14 0.50 )0.15159a;b )0.08 )0.08 )0.05 0.67 0.06 )0.09 0.01 0.11 0.68 0.16

(continued on next page)


Table 3 (continued)

Item (*) Switzerland Spain

N E O A C N E O A C

189b 0.02 )0.03 0.02 0.66 0.08 )0.14 )0.02 0.05 0.68 0.11

199a;b 0.03 0.14 0.20 0.52 )0.12 )0.28 0.06 )0.04 0.37 0.00

229b )0.14 )0.03 0.00 0.44 0.13 )0.27 0.06 )0.09 0.38 0.09

234a;b 0.30 0.08 )0.10 0.58 0.00 0.18 )0.04 )0.05 0.62 )0.08

15 0.02 0.02 )0.03 0.19 0.57 )0.02 0.11 0.02 0.10 0.55

25 )0.12 )0.03 )0.15 0.12 0.62 )0.07 0.02 )0.06 )0.03 0.63

40 0.04 0.00 )0.13 0.14 0.61 0.04 0.02 )0.08 0.11 0.51

50 )0.08 0.10 )0.03 )0.21 0.57 0.02 0.18 0.07 )0.06 0.67

70b )0.07 )0.07 )0.03 0.05 0.59 0.03 )0.22 0.04 0.06 0.44

85 )0.19 0.12 )0.05 )0.10 0.61 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.67

110 0.06 0.14 0.06 )0.12 0.59 )0.03 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.71

130 )0.16 0.00 )0.04 0.17 0.58 )0.20 )0.04 )0.04 0.20 0.56

135 )0.05 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.55 )0.03 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.41

145a;b )0.14 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.61 )0.19 0.12 0.04 )0.08 0.59

195a;b 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.10 0.60 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.56

235a;b )0.09 )0.10 0.00 )0.07 0.62 )0.02 )0.07 )0.04 )0.18 0.60

% 9.25 6.45 7.27 8.65 7.01 8.52 7.22 6.48 6.61 8.23

CC 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.90 0.95

(*) NEO-PI-R items: (a) Not in the NEO-FFI, (b) not in the NEO-FFI-R. Loadings larger than ±0.30 are in boldface.

%: Variance accounted by factor. CC: Congruence Coefficients.


surpass such limitations, McCrae and Costa (2004) have developed a revised version (NEO-FFI-R). A new version (NEO-60) is proposed in the current study.Results show that the NEO-FFI does not fit perfectly to a five-factor structure. Our results

replicated this pattern of results since 10 items had loadings lower than 0.30 on their ownfactor in one of the samples. Similar findings were found for the NEO-FFI-R since 10 itemswere also misplaced in some samples. In this sense, the best factor solution was obtained by theNEO-60 version. Only three items did not load appropriately in the Swiss or Spanish sample.Moreover, the number of secondary loadings (taking the �0.30 as the cut-off value) was morereduced. However, congruence coefficients across countries were satisfactory for the three shortversions.Around half of the items are reversed keyed to control for acquiescence in the NEO-FFI and

NEO-FFI-R. In the NEO-60, 23 of 60 items were reversed keyed. In spite of the fact that we didnot select the items based on this criterion, no more than two thirds of the items are keyed in thesame direction, so the acquiescence bias is controlled for in this version. However, note thatthe proportion of reversed items is not constant across scales. Most of them were located on theAgreeableness scale, while both Extraversion and Conscientiousness scales had two reversed itemsonly.Regarding the alpha coefficients, the three versions reached acceptable values in the two

samples, although the NEO-FFI-R and NEO-60 present slightly higher coefficients. Neuroticismand Conscientiousness present the highest reliability indexes across versions. Improvementscompared to the NEO-FFI are best observed for the Extraversion and Openness scales.

Table 4

Statistical descriptives (means [M ], standard deviations [SD], kurtosis [K], skewness [S]) and alpha coefficients (a) for every scale in the three NEO-FFI versions

M SD K S a

SWITZERLAND

(mean age: 34.22

[SD: 14.99],

n ¼ 1090)

NEO-FFI N 22.94 8.50 )0.487 0.121 0.85

E 27.84 6.09 )0.050 )0.159 0.74

O 29.64 6.30 )0.198 )0.156 0.71

A 31.48 6.04 0.682 )0.450 0.71

C 30.96 7.33 )0.093 )0.348 0.83

NEO-FFI-R N 23.83 8.19 )0.431 0.110 0.83

E 28.87 6.08 0.145 )0.174 0.73

O 31.58 6.55 )0.081 )0.195 0.76

A 31.18 6.06 0.299 )0.374 0.70

C 30.66 6.98 )0.045 )0.347 0.81

NEO-60 N 23.89 8.54 )0.456 0.082 0.87

E 31.20 6.50 0.185 )0.334 0.78

O 30.35 7.54 )0.126 )0.289 0.82

A 28.58 6.98 0.193 )0.337 0.78

C 31.83 7.18 0.074 )0.462 0.84

SPAIN (mean age:

22.25 [SD: 4.89],

n ¼ 1006)

NEO-FFI N 22.59 9.06 )0.392 0.256 0.82

E 29.58 7.72 )0.216 )0.363 0.78

O 27.86 6.84 )0.505 )0.099 0.71

A 34.71 6.26 0.367 )0.630 0.71

C 33.08 7.88 )0.201 )0.467 0.83

NEO-FFI-R N 23.48 9.04 )0.431 0.207 0.82

E 29.73 7.50 )0.247 )0.337 0.77

O 30.66 7.22 )0.334 )0.176 0.71

A 36.15 6.63 0.180 )0.681 0.71

C 33.38 7.66 )0.127 )0.498 0.79

NEO-60 N 23.92 8.74 0.268 )0.337 0.82

E 31.54 7.82 )0.456 )0.173 0.80

O 27.64 8.82 )0.168 )0.328 0.80

A 30.78 6.87 )0.596 0.335 0.70

C 32.85 7.95 )0.489 )0.192 0.82

A.Alujaetal./Perso

nality

andIndivid

ualDifferen

ces38(2005)591–604

601

Table5

CorrelationsabetweentheoriginalNEO-FFI,NEO-FFI-R,andNEO-60itemswithNEO-PI-RdimensionsintheSwiss(Sw)andSpanish(Sp)samples

Neuroticism

Extroversion

Openness

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI-R

NEO-60

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI-R

NEO-60

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI-R

NEO-60

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

Sw

Sp

10.477

0.158

10.477

0.158

10.477

0.158

37

0.526

0.485

70.401

0.393

70.401

0.393

23

0.450

0.493

23

0.450

0.493

23

0.450

0.493

60.418

0.430

60.418

0.430

26

0.567

0.490

67

0.288

0.292

32

0.407

0.504

32

0.407

0.504

28

0.320

0.168

28

0.320

0.168

53

0.475

0.481

11

0.495

0.457

11

0.495

0.457

41

0.512

0.572

87

0.382

0.439

37

0.526

0.485

37

0.526

0.485

78

0.101

0.005

48

0.215

0.286

63

0.480

0.422

26

0.567

0.490

26

0.567

0.490

61

0.605

0.411

107

0.446

0.526

107

0.446

0.526

62

0.429

0.273

88

0.213

0.098

98

0.466

0.404

93

0.454

0.426

41

0.512

0.572

41

0.512

0.572

71

0.600

0.559

122

0.445

0.559

122

0.445

0.559

107

0.446

0.526

93

0.454

0.426

123

0.483

0.445

98

0.466

0.404

61

0.605

0.411

61

0.605

0.411

86

0.553

0.514

142

0.382

0.427

127

0.284

0.297

117

0.368

0.400

98

0.466

0.404

128

0.474

0.443

123

0.483

0.445

71

0.600

0.559

71

0.600

0.559

91

0.534

0.591

147

0.362

0.558

142

0.382

0.427

122

0.445

0.559

108

0.294

0.315

133

0.419

0.365

128

0.474

0.443

76

0.419

0.475

76

0.419

0.475

121

0.529

0.237

162

0.196

0.218

162

0.196

0.218

152

0.336

0.406

128

0.474

0.443

163

0.350

0.200

173

0.460

0.430

86

0.553

0.514

86

0.553

0.514

136

0.502

0.558

177

0.522

0.637

177

0.522

0.637

177

0.522

0.637

163

0.350

0.200

173

0.460

0.430

188

0.513

0.538

91

0.534

0.591

91

0.534

0.591

151

0.454

0.532

197

0.419

0.417

197

0.419

0.417

197

0.419

0.417

173

0.460

0.430

188

0.513

0.538

203

0.506

0.472

136

0.502

0.558

186

0.327

0.550

161

0.497

0.496

227

0.434

0.526

227

0.434

0.526

217

0.502

0.485

188

0.513

0.538

203

0.506

0.472

213

0.437

0.322

221

0.595

0.642

221

0.595

0.642

221

0.595

0.642

237

0.411

0.450

237

0.411

0..450

237

0.434

0.450

203

0.506

0.472

213

0.437

0.322

233

0.519

0.470

Mean

0.523

0.488

Mean

0.508

0.487

Mean

0.535

0.480

Mean

0.401

0.461

Mean

0.406

0.453

Mean

0.436

0.461

Mean

0.383

0.332

Mean

0.424

0.380

Mean

0.476

0.445

N0.792

0.802

N0.799

0.803

N0.791

0.809

E0.724

0.800

E0.770

0.800

E0.726

0.731

O0.756

0.720

O0.770

0.755

O0.730

0.693

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

40.511

0.378

14

0.399

0.325

40.511

0.378

15

0.484

0.474

15

0.484

0.474

15

0.484

0.474

14

0.399

0.325

39

0.534

0.500

34

0.345

0.327

25

0.536

0.522

25

0.536

0.522

25

0.536

0.522

19

0.396

0.391

44

0.289

0.302

39

0.534

0.500

40

0.548

0.464

40

0.548

0.382

40

0.548

0.464

39

0.534

0.500

59

0.350

0.338

49

0.406

0.369

45

0.495

0.289

45

0.495

0.289

50

0.467

0.536

44

0.289

0.302

74

0.398

0.382

84

0.377

0.337

50

0.467

0.536

50

0.467

0.536

70

0.571

0.382

59

0.350

0.338

84

0.377

0.337

139

0.334

0.313

55

0.489

0.481

55

0.489

0.481

85

0.490

0.582

64

0.330

0.262

104

0.313

0.272

144

0.358

0.209

70

0.571

0.382

85

0.490

0.582

110

0.435

0.587

74

0.398

0.382

109

0.335

0.260

159

0.497

0.505

85

0.490

0.582

95

0.343

0.247

130

0.563

0.550

104

0.313

0.272

139

0.334

0.313

189

0.523

0.445

110

0.435

0.587

110

0.435

0.587

135

0.451

0.338

109

0.335

0.260

169

0.229

0.317

199

0.454

0.325

130

0.563

0.550

130

0.563

0.550

145

0.511

0.505

164

0.189

0.146

184

0.420

0.433

229

0.360

0.242

135

0.451

0.338

135

0.451

0.338

195

0.509

0.470

229

0.360

0.242

189

0.523

0.445

234

0.441

0.333

200

0.412

0.545

200

0.412

0.545

235

0.580

0.494

Mean

0.367

0.316

Mean

0.375

0.352

Mean

0.428

0.359

Mean

0.495

0.479

Mean

0.476

0.461

Mean

0.512

0.492

A0.713

0.601

A0.769

0.668

A0.722

0.635

C0.777

0.778

C0.785

0.787

C0.785

0.765

aAllcorrelationsaresignificant(p

<0:001),exceptitemsO78(0.005;n.s.)andO88(0.098;p<0:002)oftheNEO-FFIintheSpanishsample.


Table 6

Goodness-of-Fita Indexes for the models of NEO-FFI, NEO-FFI-R, and NEO-60

Models v2b dfc v2/df RMR GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA

Switzerland NEO-FFI 7058.254 1700 4.152 0.085 0.784 0.767 0.668 0.054

NEO-FFI-R 7426.134 1700 4.368 0.085 0.776 0.759 0.636 0.056

NEO-60 7990.105 1700 4.700 0.089 0.769 0.751 0.671 0.058

Spain NEO-FFI 6875.217 1700 4.044 0.107 0.769 0.751 0.649 0.055

NEO-FFI-R 6953.069 1700 4.090 0.155 0.761 0.743 0.638 0.055

NEO-60 8046.153 1700 4.733 0.123 0.745 0.725 0.639 0.061a RMR: Root Mean square Residual. GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index. AGFI: Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index. CFI:

Comparative Fit Index. RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.b The associated p values were always lower than 0.001.c df: Degrees of Freedom.


Although the exploratory factor analyses support the theoretical structure, previous evidenceabout the fit of structural equation models applied to personality questionnaires, including NEO-PI-R, have shown an unsatisfactory fit when simple structure models were estimated (McCrae,Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996; Vassend & Skrondal, 1995, 1997). CFA modelsconducted on the NEO-FFI have not been an exception (Egan et al., 2000; Holden & Fekken,1994; Schmitz et al., 2001). Therefore, to obtain a good fit for the simple structure model was notexpected. In order to improve the fit, it would be necessary to include the correlations among errorterms of the observed variables (Aluja, Garc�ıa, & Garc�ıa, 2003; McCrae et al., 1996). But, it couldbe hypothesised that a model generated after the NEO-60 would present a better fit than a modelbased on the NEO-FFI or the NEO-FFI-R since the exploratory factor structure seems moresound. Unexpectedly, the NEO-60 fits worse in both countries. This fact argues against theusefulness of the simple structure CFA models in personality research (McCrae et al., 1996).Summing up, previous evidence suggests the necessity of improving the short version of the

NEO-PI-R (NEO-FFI). In this sense, McCrae and Costa (2004) have proposed a new shortmeasure (NEO-FFI-R). However, results show that the NEO-FFI-R does not outperform theNEO-FFI. This fact cast doubts over the necessity to replace the old version by the new one. Thisimportant finding should be replicated in other languages (e.g. English). The NEO-60 has beendeveloped using the consistency of the factor structure as the main criterion. Based on thisprocedure, 27 items in respect of the NEO-FFI (and 27 items in respect of the NEO-FFI-R aswell) were replaced. The main difference arises in the exploratory factor analysis. The most robuststructure is obtained by the NEO-60. However, the three short versions present acceptable alphacoefficients and congruence across countries.

References

Aluja, A., Garc�ıa, O., & Garc�ıa, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman�s three structural models forpersonality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-RS, and Goldberg�s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality andIndividual Differences, 33, 713–725.

Aluja, A., Garc�ıa, O., & Garc�ıa, L. F. (2003). Dimensionality of the EPQ-RS: Structure equation modelling analysis.Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 449–460.


Aluja, A., Garc�ıa, O., & Garc�ıa, L. F. (2004). Replicability of the three, four and five Zuckerman�s personality super-factors: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the EPQ-RS, ZKPQ-III-R, and NEO-PI-R. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 1093–1108.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos 4.01. Chicago: Smallwaters Corp.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-F€unf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae [NEO-Five-Factor Inventory according to Costa and McCrae]. G€ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional manual. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-

R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: Emerging British norms and an item-level analysis suggest N,

A and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 907–920.

Holden, R. R. (1992). Associations between the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory and the NEO Five Factor

Inventory in a non-clinical sample. Psychological Reports, 71, 1039–1042.

Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1994). The NEO five factor inventory in a Canadian context: Psychometric properties

for a sample of university women. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 441–444.

Hreb�ıckov�a, M., Urb�anek, T., Cerm�ak, I., Szarota, P., Fickov�a, E., & Orlick�a, L. (2002). The NEO Five-Factor

Inventory in Czech, Polish, and Slovak contexts. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of

personality across cultures (pp. 53–78). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 587–596.

McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of

factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.

Muth�en, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likertvariables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.

Raykov, T. (1998). On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Personality and Individual

Differences, 24, 291–293.

Rolland, J. P. (1998). Manuel de l�inventaire NEO-PI-R (Adaptation franc�aise) [Manual of the NEO-PI-R, Frenchadaptation]. Paris: ECPA.

Rolland, J. P., Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A psychometric examination of the French translations of the

NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71, 269–291.

Schmitz, N., Hartkamp, N., Baldini, C., Rollnik, J., & Tress, W. (2001). Psychometric properties of the German version

of the NEO-FFI in psychosomatic outpatients. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 713–722.

Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (1997). Validation of the NEO Personality Inventory and the Five-Factor Model. Can

findings from exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis be reconciled? European Journal of Personality, 11, 147–

166.

Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (1995). Factor analytic studies of the NEO Personality Inventory and the Five-Factor

Model: The problem of high structural complexity and conceptual indeterminacy. Personality and Individual

Differences, 19, 135–147.

Date post:	28-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	udl
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60)...

Documents