A Tshivenda version of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Fifth Edition (16PF5) was developed using a back-translation design. The translated version was administered to a Tshivenda-speaking sample. Analyses were done at an item level, specifically in terms of the contribution of the items to the reliability of the 16 primary factors. Results indicated that many of the items would have to be excluded if the aim were to achieve acceptable reliability, and even then the reliability coefficients would remain low. In the case of a number of the ineffective items, translation changed the meaning of the items because of the absence of an equivalent concept in the target language, difficulty in translating idiomatic expressions, potential confusion due to the use of the negative form, and translation errors. Trends that indicate cultural differences in the manifestation of constructs were also observed and these were related to cultural norms (e.g., the expression of emotions) and experiential factors (e.g., job-related experience). A literal translation of the questionnaire proved to be insufficient and the findings of this study need to be considered in further adaptations of the test. The theoretical and methodological issues highlighted here have implications for the translation of this questionnaire into other African languages as well as for the adaptation of personality questionnaires in general.
AbrahamsF.MauerK. F. (1999a). The comparability of the constructs of the 16PF in the South African context. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25(1), 53–59
2.
AbrahamsF.MauerK. F. (1999b). Qualitative and statistical impacts 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
3.
BluntP.JonesM. L. (1997). Exploring the limits of Western leadership theory in East Asia and Africa. Personnel Review, 26(1/2), 6–23
4.
BrackenB. A.BaronaA. (1991). State of the art procedures for translating, validating and using psychoeducational tests in cross-cultural assessment. School Psychology International, 12(1–2), 119–132
5.
ClaassenN. C. W. (1997). Cultural differences, politics and test bias in South Africa. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 297–307
6.
ClaassenN. C. W.HugoH. L. E. (1993). The relevance of the general Scholastic Aptitude Test (GSAT) for pupils who do not have English as their mother tongue (Report ED-21). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
7.
ClaassenN. C. W.KrynauwA. H.HoltzhausenH.MatheWaga M. (2001). A standardisation of the WAIS-III for English-speaking South Africans.Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
8.
ClaassenN. C. W.SchepersJ. M. (1990). Groepverskille in akademiese intelligensie verklaar op grond van verskille in sosio-ekonomiese status (Group differences in academic intelligence that can be explained by differences in socio-economic status). South African Journal of Psychology, 20, 294–302
9.
ConnS. R.RiekeM. L. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual.Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing
10.
De BruinG. P. (2005, August). Cross-cultural psychological assessment in Africa: Lessons learnt in South Africa. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference of Psychological Assessment, Budapest
11.
De BruinG. P.SchepersJ. M.TaylorN. (2005, June). Construct validity of the 16PF 5th Edition and the Basic Traits Inventory. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Industrial Psychology Conference, Pretoria
12.
EllisB. B. (1995, August). Examination of the measurement equivalence of a Spanish version of the 16PF using item response theory. Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the APA, New York
13.
FoxcroftC. D. (1997). Psychological testing in South Africa: Perspectives regarding ethical and fair practices. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 229–235
14.
GrieveK. (2005). Factors affecting assessment results. In FoxcroftC.RoodtG. (Eds.), An introduction to psychological assessment in the South African context (2nd ed.) (pp. 224–241). Cape Town: Oxford University Press
15.
GrieveK.van EedenR. (1997). The use of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for adults and the implications for research and practical application in South Africa. Paper presented at a national symposium on intelligence testing in South Africa, Pretoria
16.
HambletonR. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229–244
17.
HambletonR. K.KanjeeA. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 147–157
18.
HeuchertJ. W. P.ParkerW. D.StumpfH.MyburghC. P. H. (2000). The five-factor model of personality in South African college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(1), 112–125
19.
HornB. S. (2000). A Xhosa translation of the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Unpublished master's dissertation, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa
20.
KanjeeA. (2005). Cross-cultural test adaptation and translation. In FoxcroftC.RoodtG. (Eds.), An introduction to psychological assessment in the South African context (2nd ed.) (pp. 57–68). Cape Town: Oxford University Press
21.
LaherS. (2007). Personality reconceptualised: A Millonian approach?. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 82–95
22.
MareeD. J. F. (2002). Properties of and South African norms for the 16PF Fifth Edition (Technical Report). Johannesburg: Jopie van Rooyen and Partners
23.
MarsellaA. J.DubanoskiJ.HamadaW. C.MorseH. (2000). The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical, conceptual, and methodological issues and considerations. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(1), 41–62
24.
McCraeR. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival of personality and culture studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(1), 10–31
25.
MeiringD.van de VijverF. J. Rde BruinG.P.RothmannS. (2006). Personality structure in South Africa: Commonalities of three comprehensive measures (Draft article)
26.
MeiringD.van de VijverF. J. R.RothmannS. (2006). Bias in an adapted version of the 15FQ+ in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 340–356
27.
MeiringD.van de VijverF. 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, 1–8
28.
NellV. (1994). Interpretation and misinterpretation of the South African Wechsler-Bellevue Adult Intelligence Scale: A history and a prospectus. South African Journal of Psychology, 24(2), 100–109
29.
NellV. (1997). Science and politics meet at last: The insurance industry and neuropsychological norms. South African Journal of Psychology, 27(1), 43–49
30.
OwenK. (1991). Test bias: The validity of the Junior Aptitude Tests (JAT) for various population groups in South Africa regarding constructs measured. South African Journal of Psychology, 21, 112–118
31.
OwenK. (1992). The suitability of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 149–159
32.
OwenK. (1996). Test bias and test fairness. In OwenK.TaljaardJ. J. (Eds.), Handbook for the use of psychological and scholastic tests of the HSRC (Revised edition), (pp. 77–96). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
33.
PiedmontR. L.BainE.McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (2002). The applicability of the five-factor model in a sub-Saharan culture: The NEO-PI-R in Shona. In McCraeR. R.AllikJ. (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 155–173). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
34.
PrinslooC. H. (1992). Manual for the use of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire: South African 1992 version (16PF, SA92).Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
35.
PrinslooC. H. (1998). The factor structure and readability of the South African English version of the Fifth Edition of the American 16PF (Report to the External Advisory Committee).Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
36.
PrinslooC. H.EbersöhnI. (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(3), 48–57
37.
RalstonD. A. (1995). Cultural accommodation: The effect of language on the response of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 714–727
38.
RetiefA. (1992). The cross-cultural utility of the SAPQ: Bias or fruitful differences?. South African Journal of Psychology, 22, 202–207
39.
RussellM. T.KarolD. L. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition administrator's manual.Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing
40.
Shuttleworth-EdwardsA. B.KempR. D.RustA. L.MuirheadJ.HartmanN.RadloffS. (2004). Cross-cultural effects on IQ test performance: A review and preliminary normative indications on WAIS-III test performance. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26(1), 903–920
41.
StumpfH. (1993). The factor structure of the Personality Research Form: A cross-national evaluation. Journal of Personality, 61, 27–48
42.
TaylorI. (2000). The construct comparability of the NEO-PI-R Questionnaire for Black and White employees. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
43.
TaylorT. R.BoeyensJ. C. A. (1991). The comparability of the scores of blacks and whites on the South African Personality Questionnaire: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Psychology, 21, 1–11
44.
TollmanS. G.MsenganaN. B. (1990). Neuropsychological assessment: Problems in evaluating the higher mental functioning of Zulu-speaking people using traditional western techniques. South African Journal of Psychology, 20, 20–24
45.
van den BergA. R. (1996). Intelligence tests. In OwenK.TaljaardJ. J. (Eds.), Handbook for the use of psychological and scholastic tests of the HSRC (Revised edition), (pp. 157–190). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
46.
van de VijverF. J. R.PoortingaY. H. (1992). Testing in culturally heterogeneous populations: When are cultural loadings undesirable?. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8(1), 17–24
47.
van de VijverF. J. R.TanzerN. H. (1997). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 263–279
48.
van der ColffL. (2003). Leadership lessons from the African tree. Management Decision, 41(3), 257–261
49.
van EdeD. M. (1996). How to adapt a measuring instrument for use with various culture groups: A practical step-by-step introduction. South African Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), 153–160
50.
van EedenR. (1993). The validity of the Senior South African Individual Scale — Revised (SSAIS-R) for children whose mother tongue is an African language: Private schools.Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
51.
van EedenR.PrinslooC. H. (1997). Using the South African version of the 16PF in a multicultural context. South African Journal of Psychology, 27, 151–159
52.
van EedenR.TaylorT. R.du ToitR. (1996). Adaptation and standardization of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Fifth Edition (16PF5) in South Africa: A feasibility study (Client report). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
53.
van EedenR.van TonderM. (1995). The validity of the Senior South African Individual Scale – evised (SSAIS-R) for children whose mother tongue is an African language: Model C schools.Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
54.
van EedenR.VisserD. (1992). The validity of the Senior South African Individual Scale — Revised (SSAIS-R) for different population groups. South African Journal of Psychology, 22, 163–171
55.
WallisT.BirtM. (2003). A comparison of native and non-native English-speaking groups' understanding of the vocabulary contained within the 16PF (SA92). South African Journal of Psychology, 33(3), 182–190
56.
WilsonD.DoolabhA.CooneyJ.KhalpeyM.SiddiquiS. (1990). A cross-cultural validation of the Personality Research Form in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 1–12
