Trait psychology implicitly assumes consistency of the personal traits. Mischel, however, argued against the idea of a general consistency of human beings. The present article aims to design a statistical procedure based on an adaptation of the π* statistic to measure the degree of intraindividual consistency independently of the measure used. Three studies were carried out for testing the suitability of the π* statistic and the proportion of subjects who act consistently. Results have shown the appropriateness of the statistic proposed and that the percentage of consistent individuals depends on whether test items can be assumed as equivalents and the number of response alternatives they contained. The results suggest that the percentage of consistent subjects is far from 100%, and this percentage decreases when items are equivalent. Moreover, the greater the number of response options, the lesser the percentage of consistent individuals.
Arend, I., Botella, J., Contreras, M. J., Hernández, J. M., & Santacreu, J. (2003). A betting dice test to study the interactive style of risk-taking behavior. The Psychological Record, 53, 217-230.
2.
Bem, D. J. (1983). Further déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency: A response to Mischel and Peake. Psychological Review, 90, 390-393.
3.
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). Predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-520.
4.
Bem, D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85, 485-501.
5.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental scores (pp. 395-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6.
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
7.
Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. A. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459.
8.
Brennan, R. L. (2001). An essay on the history and future of reliability from the perspective of replications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 295-317.
9.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.
10.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
11.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1-38.
12.
Drasgow, F., Levine, M., & Williams, E. A. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67-86.
13.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126.
14.
Epstein, S. (1983a). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 360-392.
15.
Epstein, S. (1983b). The stability of confusion: A reply to Mischel and Peake. Psychological Review, 90, 179-184.
16.
Epstein, S. (1984). The stability of behavior across time and situations. In R. A. Zucker, J. Aronoff, & A. I. Rabin (Eds.), Personality and prediction of behavior (pp. 209-268). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press.
18.
Ferrando, P. J. (2004). Person reliability in personality measurement: An item response theory analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 126-140.
19.
Funder, D. C. (1983a). The consistency controversy and the accuracy of personality judgement. Journal of Personality, 5, 346-359.
20.
Funder, D. C. (1983b). Three issues in predicting more of the people: A reply to Mischel and Peake. Psychological Review, 90, 283-289.
21.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (1983). Behavior as a function of situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 107-112.
22.
Goldman, B. A., Mitchel, D. F., & Egelson, P. E. (1997). Directory of unpublished experimental mental measures (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
Harzem, P. (1984). Experimental analysis of individual differences and personality. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 385-395.
24.
Hattie, J. (1984). An empirical study of various indices for determining unidimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 49-78.
25.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
26.
Hernández, J. M., Sánchez-Balmisa, C., Madrid, B., & Santacreu, J. (2003). La evaluación objetiva de la minuciosidad: Diseño de una prueba conductual [The objective assessment of conscientiousness: The design of a behavioral test]. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 29, 457-479.
27.
Hogan, T. P., Benjamin, K., & Brezonski, K. L. (2000). Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 523-531.
28.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.
29.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental tests scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Ayduk, O. N., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Testa, A. (2001). Person × Situation interactionism in self-encoding (I am... when...): Implications for affect regulation and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 533-544.
31.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley.
32.
Mischel, W. (1990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised: S view after three decades. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 111-134). New York: Guilford.
33.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1-22.
34.
Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1982). Beyond déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 89, 730-755.
35.
Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1983). Some facets of consistency: Replies to Epstein, Funder, and Bem. Psychological Review, 90, 394-402.
36.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, disposition, dynamics and invariance in personality. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
37.
Ozer, D. J. (1986). Consistency in personality: A methodological framework. Berlin: Springer.
38.
Reise, P., & Waller, N. G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 45-58.
39.
Ribes, E. (1990a). La individualidad como problema psicológico: El estudio de la personalidad. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de Conducta, 16, 7-24.
40.
Ribes, E. (1990b). Problemas conceptuales en el análisis del comportamiento [Conceptual problems in behavioral analysis]. México, DF: Trillas.
41.
Ribes, E., & Sánchez, S. (1992). Individual behaviour consistencies as interactive styles: Their relation to personality. The Psychological Record, 42, 369-387.
42.
Rudas, T., Clogg, C. C., & Lindsay, B. G. (1994). A new index of fit based on mixture methods for the analysis of contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 56, 623-639.
43.
Shoda, Y. (1999). A unified framework for the study of behavioral consistency: Bridging person × situation interaction and the consistency paradox. European Journal of Personality, 13, 361-387.
44.
Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (2000). Reconciling contextualism with the core assumptions of personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 14, 407-428.
45.
Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1995). Item response theory in personality research. In P. E. Shrout & T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. 161-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
