This study addressed the cross-cultural suitability of an adapted version of the Fifteen Factor Questionnaire (15FQ+) in South Africa. Criteria for changes to the items of the original 15FQ+ included comprehension and cultural appropriateness. The instrument was administered in English to a pool of 16 339 participants from all parts of South Africa who had applied for entry-level police jobs in the South African Police Services (SAPS). Bias was studied at construct and item level. A higher level of overall structural equivalence was reported for the adapted version when compared with results found in research with the original version. However, some scales remain problematic. A slight decrease in the number of biased items was also found for the adapted version and it was concluded that item bias is not a major problem in this version. Despite these results pointing to the apparent adequacy of the adaptations, only marginal increases were found in terms of the internal consistencies when compared to the original version and for the black groups, in particular, consistency levels remained low. These low levels of consistency continue to limit the usefulness of the questionnaire.
APA/AERA/NCME. (2000). Standards for educational and psychological testing.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
2.
AbrahamsF. (1996). The cross-cultural comparability of the Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory (16PF). Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria
3.
AbrahamsF. (2002). Fair usage of the 16PF (SA 92) in South Africa: A response to C. H. Prinsloo and I. Ebersohn. South African Journal of Psychology, 32, 58–61
4.
AbrahamsF.MauerK. F. (1999a). The comparability of the constructs of the 16PF in the South African context.Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25, 53–59
5.
AbrahamsF. (1999b). Qualitative and statistical impact of home language on responses to the items of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 29, 76–86
6.
ChanW.HoR. M.LeungK.ChaD. K-S.YungY-F. (1999). An alternative method for evaluating congruence coefficients with Procrustes rotation: A bootstrap procedure. Psychological Methods, 4, 378–402
7.
Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa, Vol. 400, no 19370. Cape Town, 19 October 1998
8.
HambletonR. J. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244
9.
HambletonR. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC Test Translation and Adaptation Guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 164–172
10.
HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.) (2004). Adapting educational tests and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment.Mawhaw: Erlbaum
11.
HarknessJ. A. (2003) Questionnaire translation. In MohlerJ. A.Van de VijverF.J.R.HarknessP. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 35–56). New York: Wiley
12.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.DrasgowF.MeadA. D. (1994). Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 245–256
13.
MeiringD. (2000, June). Revisiting the cross-cultural comparability of the 16 Personality Factor Inventory (16PF) in the South African context. Paper presented at the Industrial Psychology Conference (incorporating the Psychometrics Conference), Pretoria, South Africa
14.
MeiringD.Van de VijverA.J.R.RothmannS.BarrickM.R. (2005). Construct, item, and method bias of cognitive and personality measures in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(1), 1–8
15.
MellenberghG. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105–118
16.
MuthénB. O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 338–354
PrinslooC. H.EbersohnI. (2002). Fair usage of the 16PF in personality assessment in South Africa: A response to Abrahams and Mauer with special reference to issues of research methodology. South African Journal of Psychology, 32, 48–57
SpenceB. A. (1982). A psychological investigation into the characteristics of black guidance teachers. Unpublished Master's dissertation, University of Pretoria
21.
TactH. (1999). The cross-cultural validity and compatibility of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Unpublished Master's dissertation, University of Pretoria
22.
TaylorI. A. (2000). The construct comparability of the NEO PI-R Questionnaire for Black and White employees. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein
23.
TaylorT. R.BoeyensJ. C. A. (1991). A comparison of black and white responses to the South African Personality Questionnaire.Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
24.
ThissenD. (1984). MULTILOG: A user's guide.Mooresville: Scientific Software
TylerG. (2002). A review of the 15FQ+ Personality Questionnaire.Pulloxhill, UK: Psychometrics Limited
27.
van de VijverF. J. R. (2003). Bias and equivalence: Cross-cultural perspectives. In HarknessJ. A.Van de VijverF. J. R.MohlerP. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 143–155). New York: Wiley
28.
van de VijverF. J. R.HambletonR. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99
29.
van de VijverF.J.R.LeungK. (1997a). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In BerryJ. W.PoortingaY. H.PandeyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1) (pp. 257–300). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
30.
van de VijverF.J.R. (1997b). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research.Newbury Park: Sage
31.
van de VijverF.J.R.PoortingaY. H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 141–156
32.
WalliceT.BirtM. (2003). A comparison of native and non-native English-speaking groups’ understanding of the vocabulary contained within the 16PF (S A92). South African Journal of Psychology, 33, 182–190
