Contemporary models of personality assume a hierarchical structure in which broader traits contain narrower traits. Individual differences in response styles also constitute a source of score variance. In this study, the bifactor model is applied to separate these sources of variance for personality subscores. The procedure is illustrated using data for two personality inventories—NEO Personality Inventory–Revised and Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire. The inclusion of the acquiescence method factor generally improved the fit to acceptable levels for the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire, but not for the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised. This effect was higher in subscales where the number of direct and reverse items is not balanced. Loadings on the specific factors were usually smaller than the loadings on the general factor. In some cases, part of the variance was due to domains being different from the main one. This information is of particular interest to researchers as they can identify which subscale scores have more potential to increase predictive validity.
AlujaA.BlanchA.GarcíaL. F.GarcíaO.EscorialS. (2012). Zuckerman–Kuhlan–Aluja Personality Questionnaire as a predictor of MCMI-III Personality Disorder Scales: The role of facets. Personality and Mental Health, 6, 217-227. doi:10.1002/pmh.1185
2.
AlujaA.CuevasL.GarcíaL. F.GarcíaO. (2007). Prediction of the MCMI-III personality disorder scores by NEO-PI-R dimensions and facets in Spanish and American samples. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 307-321.
3.
AlujaA.GarcíaO.RossierJ.GarcíaL. F. (2005). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 591-604. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.014
4.
AlujaA.KuhlmanM.ZuckermanM. (2010). Development of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ): A factor/facet version of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 416-431. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.497406
5.
AnglimJ.GrantS. L. (2014). Incremental criterion prediction of personality facets over factors: Obtaining unbiased estimates and confidence intervals. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 148-157. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.005
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 73, 1321-1354. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x
7.
AshtonM. C.PaunonenS. V.LeeK. (2014). On the validity of narrow and broad personality traits: A response to Salgado, Moscoso and Berges (2013). Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 24-28. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.019
BarrettG. V.MiguelR. F.HurdJ. M.LuekeS. B.TanJ. A. (2003). Practical issues in the use of personality tests in police selection. Public Personnel Management, 32, 497-517. doi:10.1177/009102600303200403
10.
BidermanM. D.NguyenN. T.CunninghamC. J. L.GhorbaniN. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 417-429. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.001
11.
CaiL. (2010). A two-tier full-information item factor analysis model with applications. Psychometrika, 75, 581-612. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9178-0
12.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2010a). Exploratory and higher order factor analyses of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) adolescent subsample. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 223-235. doi:10.1037/a0022046
13.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2010b). Investigation of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 22, 827-836. doi:10.1037/a0020429
14.
ChenF. F.HayesA.CarverC. S.LaurenceauJ. P.ZhangZ. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 219-251. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x
15.
ChristiansenN. D.RobieC. (2011). Further consideration of the use of narrow trait scales. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 43, 183-194. doi:10.1037/a0023069
16.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
17.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
18.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2
19.
DannerD.AichholzerJ.RammstedtB. (2015). Acquiescence in personality questionnaires: Relevance, domain specificity, and stability. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 119-130. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.004
20.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
21.
DudleyN. M.OrvisK. A.LebieckiJ. E.CortinaJ. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40
22.
DyceJ. A.O’ConnorB. P. (1998). Personality disorders and the five-factor model: A test of facet-level predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 31-45.
23.
EganV.DearyI.AustinE. (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. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00242-1
24.
FerrandoP. J.Lorenzo-SevaU.ChicoE. (2009). A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 364-381.
25.
GarcíaL. F.EscorialS.GarcíaO.BlanchA.AlujaA. (2012). Structural analysis of the facets and domains of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ) and the NEO PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 156-163. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.645935
26.
GignacG. E.BatesT. C.JangK. L. (2007). Implications relevant to CFA model misfit, reliability, and the five-factor model as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1051-1062. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.024
27.
GignacG. E.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639-662. doi:10.1080/00273171.2013.804398
28.
HopwoodC. J.DonnellanM. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332-346. doi:10.1177/1088868310361240
29.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
30.
JudgeT. A.RodellJ. B.KlingerR. L.SimonL. S.CrawfordE. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875-925. doi:10.1037/a0033901
31.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18, 182-191. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182
32.
MakranskyG.MortensenE. L.GlasC. A. (2012). Improving personality facet scores with multidimensional computer adaptive testing: An illustration with the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 20, 3-13. doi:10.1177/1073191112437756
33.
MarshH. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifacts?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810-819.
34.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.NagengastB.MorinA. J.Von DavierM. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257-284. doi:10.1037/a0032773
35.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.CoffmanD. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11, 344-362. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344
36.
McAbeeS. T.OswaldF. L.ConnellyB. S. (2014). Bifactor models of personality and college student performance: A broad versus narrow view. European Journal of Personality, 28, 604-619. doi:10.1002/per.1975
37.
McCraeR. R. (2014). A more nuanced view of reliability specificity in the trait hierarchy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 97-112. doi:10.1177/1088868314541857
38.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
39.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587-596. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1
40.
McCraeR. R.HerbstJ. H.CostaP. T.Jr. (2001). Effects of acquiescence on personality factor structures. In RiemannR.OstendorfF.SpinathF. (Eds.), Personality and temperament: Genetics, evolution, and structure (pp. 217-231). Berlin, Germany: Pabst Science.
41.
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. doi:10.1177/1088868310366253
42.
McCraeR. R.ZondermanA. B.CostaP. T.Jr.BondM. H.PaunonenS. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
43.
McDonaldR. P.HoM. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
44.
MeadeA. W.JohnsonE. C.BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568-592. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
45.
MuthénB.Du ToitS. H.SpisicD. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Psychometrika, 75, 1-45.
46.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
O’ConnorM. C.PaunonenS. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual differences, 43, 971-990. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017
49.
O’NeillT. A.PaunonenS. V. (2013). Breadth in personality assessment: Implications for understanding and prediction of work behavior. In ChristiansenN. D.TettR. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 299-332). New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<609::AID-JOB1828>3.0.CO;2-K
51.
PanayiotouG. M.KokkinosC.SpanoudisG. (2004). Searching for the “Big Five”’ in a Greek context: The NEO-FFI under the microscope. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1841-1854. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.005
52.
PatrickC. J.HicksB. M.NicholP. E.KruegerR. F. (2007). A bifactor approach to modeling the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 118-141. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.118
53.
PaunonenS. V.AshtonM. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524
54.
PaunonenS. V.RothsteinM. G.JacksonD. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389-405. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3<389::AID-JOB917>3.0.CO;2-G
55.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
56.
RammstedtB.FarmerR. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1137-1145. doi:10.1037/a0033323
57.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
58.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
59.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2012). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129-140. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
60.
RobertsB. W.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.GoldbergL. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x
61.
RollandJ. P.ParkerW. D.StumpfH. (1998). A psychometric examination of the French translations of NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71, 269-291. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_13
62.
SalgadoJ. F.MoscosoS.BergesA. (2013). Consci-entiousness, its facets, and the prediction of job performance ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 74-84. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12018
63.
SalgadoJ. F.MoscosoS.SanchezJ. I.AlonsoP.ChoragwickaB.BergesA. (2014). Validity of the five-factor model and their facets: The impact of performance measure and facet residualization on the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 325-349. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.903241
64.
SavaleiV.FalkC. F. (2014). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 407-424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2014.931800
65.
SchmitzN.HartkampN.BaldiniC.RollnikJ.TressW. (2001). Psychometric properties of the German version of the NEO-FFI in psychosomatic outpatients. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 713-722. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00173-2
66.
SeoD. G.WeissD. J. (2015). Best design for multidimensional computerized adaptive testing with the bifactor model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75, 954-978. doi:10.1177/0013164415575147
67.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718-737. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718
68.
StuckyB. D.EdelenM. O. (2014). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183-206). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
69.
TackettJ. L.DaoudS. L. S. B.De BolleM.BurtS. A. (2013). Is relational aggression part of the externalizing spectrum? A bifactor model of youth antisocial behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 149-159. doi:10.1002/ab.21466
WooS. E.ChernyshenkoO. S.LongleyA.ZhangZ. X.ChiuC. Y.StarkS. E. (2014). Openness to experience: Its lower level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 29-45. doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.806328
72.
ZuckermanM.AlujaA. (2014). Measures of sensation seeking. In BoyleG. J.SaklofskeD. H.MatthewsG. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 352-380). London, England: Academic Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
