Classical psychometrics held that scores on a personality measure were determined by the trait assessed and random measurement error. A new view proposes a much richer and more complex model that includes trait variance at multiple levels of a hierarchy of traits and systematic biases shaped by the implicit personality theory of the respondent. The model has implications for the optimal length and content of scales and for the use of scales intended to correct for evaluative bias; further, it suggests that personality assessments should supplement self-reports with informant ratings. The model also has implications for the very nature of personality traits.
AshtonM. C.de VriesR. E.LeeK. (2017). Trait variance and response style variance in the scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5). Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 192–203.
2.
BentlerP. M. (2017). Specificity-enhanced reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 22, 527–540.
3.
BorkenauP.LieblerA. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657.
4.
CostaP. T., Jr.McCraeR. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.
5.
CostaP. T., Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). Trait psychology comes of age. In SondereggerT. B. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 39. Psychology and aging (pp. 169–204). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
6.
CostaP. T., Jr.McCraeR. R.LöckenhoffC. E. (2019). Personality across the life span. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 423–448.
7.
HenryS.MõttusR. (2019). Item retest correlations [Data file]. Retrieved from https://osf.io/cjwtb/
8.
KruegerR. F.DerringerJ.MarkonK. E.WatsonD.SkodolA. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.
9.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.
10.
LordF. M.NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
McCraeR. R. (2015). A more nuanced view of reliability: Specificity in the trait hierarchy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 97–112.
12.
McCraeR. R. (2018a). Method biases in single-source personality assessments. Psychological Assessment, 30, 1160–1173.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T., Jr. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
15.
McCraeR. R.KurtzJ. E.YamagataS.TerraccianoA. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 28–50.
16.
McCraeR. R.MõttusR.HrˇebícˇkováM.RealoA.AllikJ. (2018). Source method biases as implicit personality theory at the domain and facet levels. Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jopy.12435
17.
McCraeR. R.SutinA. R. (2007). New frontiers for the five-factor model: A preview of the literature. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 423–440. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00021.x
18.
MõttusR.AllerhandM. H. (2018). Why do traits come together? The underlying trait and network approaches. In Zeigler-HillV.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: Vol. 1. The science of personality and individual differences (pp. 130–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
MõttusR.KandlerC.BleidornM.RiemannR.McCraeR. R. (2017). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 474–490.
20.
MõttusR.SinickJ.TerraccianoA.HrˇebícˇkováM.KandlerC.AndoJ.. . . JangK. L. (2018). Personality characteristics below facets: A replication and meta-analysis of cross-rater agreement, rank-order stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pspp0000202
21.
PassiniF. T.NormanW. T. (1966). A universal conception of personality structure?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 44–49.
22.
PaunonenS. V.AshtonM. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.
23.
PiedmontR. L. (1998). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Clinical and research applications. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
24.
PiedmontR. L.McCraeR. R.RiemannR.AngleitnerA. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582–593.
25.
RothM.AltmannT. (2019). A multi-informant study of the influence of targets’ and perceivers’ social desirability on self-other agreement in ratings of the HEXACO personality dimensions. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 138–147.
26.
SchmidtF. L.LeH.IliesR. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206–224.
27.
SeebothA.MõttusR. (2018). Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions. European Journal of Personality, 32, 186–201.
28.
SingerJ. A. (2005). Personality and psychotherapy: Treating the whole person. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143.
30.
WoodD.GardnerM. H.HarmsP. D. (2015). How functionalist and process approaches can explain trait covariation. Psychological Review, 122, 84–111.
31.
WoodD.QiuL.LuJ.LinH.TovW. (2018). Adjusting bilingual ratings by retest reliability improves estimation of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 1325–1339.
