The Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) has enjoyed global popularity due to its good balance of content coverage and brevity and has been officially translated into 12 languages in addition to the original English version. The current study aimed to further enhance the cultural accessibility of the BFI-2 by translating it into the Korean language and comprehensively validating the Korean version in two South Korean samples: working adults and college students. Across the two samples, the Korean BFI-2 demonstrated good reliability (e.g., test-retest reliability, Cronbach’s alpha), construct validity (e.g., convergent/discriminant validity), and criterion-related validity with a wide range of outcome measures. Additionally, we compared the psychometric properties of the Korean BFI-2 to those of the original English and Chinese versions to further establish its comparability with other language versions. Overall, our results demonstrate that the Korean BFI-2 is a reliable and valid personality measure that can be confidently used by other researchers. Implications, limitations, and future directions were discussed.
AllenM. S.WalterE. E. (2018). Linking big five personality traits to sexuality and sexual health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000157
2.
AnglimJ.HorwoodS.SmillieL. D.MarreroR. J.WoodJ. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2023). Multiple group alignment for exploratory and structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2127100
BerryC. M.OnesD. S.SackettP. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410
8.
BoggT.RobertsB. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887
BrownA.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410375112
11.
BucherM. A.SuzukiT.SamuelD. B. (2019). A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations with mental health treatment outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review, 70, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.002
12.
CaoM.DrasgowF. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
13.
ChenC.LeeS. Y.StevensonH. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
14.
ChoiJ.KwonS.ZhangB. (2025). A structural after measurement approach to bifactor predictive models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2024.2385951
15.
CohenS.KamarckT.MermelsteinR. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
16.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
17.
CronbachL. J.GleserC. G. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. University of Illinois Press.
18.
DannerD.LechnerC. M.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2021). Modelling the incremental value of personality facets: The domains-incremental facets-acquiescence bifactor showmodel. Assessment, 35(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2268
19.
DienerE. D.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
20.
EhrhartK. H.RoeschS. C.EhrhartM. G.KilianB. (2008). A test of the factor structure equivalence of the 50-item IPIP five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248869
21.
FlakeJ. K.McCoachD. B. (2018). An investigation of the alignment method with polytomous indicators under conditions of partial measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1374187
22.
GnambsT.SchroedersU. (2020). Cognitive abilities explain wording effects in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Assessment, 27(2), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117746503
23.
GoldbergL. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7–28.
24.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
25.
HuJ.ConnellyB. S. (2021). Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within-subjects studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3–4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12338
26.
HulinC. L. (1987). A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: Fidelity across languages. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002187018002001
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
29.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). Big Five Inventory (BFI) [Database record]. APA PsycTests.
30.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
31.
JudgeT. A.HellerD.MountM. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
32.
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(6), 875–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
33.
KimL. E.JörgV.KlassenR. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2
34.
KimS. Y.KimJ. M.YooJ. A.BaeK. Y.KimS. W.YangS. J.ShinI. S.YoonJ. S. (2010). Standardization and validation of big five inventory-Korean version (BFI-K) in elders. Korean Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 17(1), 15–25.
35.
KlotzA. C.SwiderB. W.KwonS. H. (2023). Back-translation practices in organizational research: Avoiding loss in translation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001050
36.
KohútM.KohútováV.ŽitnýP.HalamaP. (2020). Further validation of Slovak Big Five Inventory 2: 6-months test-retest stability and predictive power. Studia Psychologica, 62(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2020.03.803
37.
LemmensJ. S.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2009). Development and validation of a game addiction scale for adolescents. Media Psychology, 12(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802669458
38.
LiL.ZhangB.SunT.DrasgowF. (2025). The more contextualized, the more valid: Effects of contextualization strategies on forced-choice measurement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 40, 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09983-2
39.
LiM.ZhangB.LiL.SunT.BrownA. (2024). Mixed-keying or desirability-matching in the construction of forced-choice measures? An empirical investigation and practical recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 28(2), 296–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281241229784
40.
Lorenzo-SevaU.Ten BergeJ. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
41.
LuoJ.ZhangB.CaoM.RobertsB. W. (2023). The stressful personality: A meta-analytical review of the relation between personality and stress. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 128–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104002
42.
MammadovS. (2022). Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 222–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12663
43.
MurisP.MerckelbachH.OtgaarH.MeijerE. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070
OrganD. W.RyanK. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
48.
PiedmontR. L.ChaeJ. H. (1997). Cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality: Development and validation of the NEO PI-R for Koreans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022197282001
49.
RadM. S.MartinganoA. J.GingesJ. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115
50.
RammstedtB.DannerD.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2018). Validation of the short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and their German adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000481
51.
RevelleW. R. (2017). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University.
52.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
53.
SaucierG. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
54.
ShchebetenkoS.KaluginA. Y.MishkevichA. M.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2020). Measurement invariance and sex and age differences of the Big Five Inventory–2: Evidence from the Russian version. Assessment, 27(3), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860901
55.
ShiD.SongH.LewisM. D. (2019). The impact of partial factorial invariance on cross-group comparisons. Assessment, 26(7), 1217–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117711020
56.
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(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
57.
SpectorP. E.BauerJ. A.FoxS. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know?Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019477
58.
SpectorP. E.LiuC.SanchezJ. I. (2015). Methodological and substantive issues in conducting multinational and cross-cultural research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111310
59.
SpeerA. B.WegmeyerL. J.TenbrinkA. P.DelacruzA. Y.ChristiansenN. D.SalimR. M. (2023). Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(11), 1812–1833. https://doi.org/doi/10.1037/apl0001099
SunT.ZhangB.CaoM.DrasgowF. (2022). Faking detection improved: Adopting a Likert item response process tree model. Organizational Research Methods, 25(3), 490–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211002904
62.
VedelA.WellnitzK. B.LudekeS.SotoC. J.JohnO. P.AndersenS. C. (2020). Development and validation of the Danish Big Five Inventory-2: Domain- and facet-level structure, construct validity, and reliability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000570
63.
WetzelE.LüdtkeO.ZettlerI.BöhnkeJ. R. (2016). The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment, 23(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714
64.
ZhangB.CaoM.TayL.LuoJ.DrasgowF. (2020). Examining the item response process to personality measures in high-stakes situations: Issues of measurement validity and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12353
65.
ZhangB.LiY. M.LiJ.LuoJ.YeY.YinL.ChenZ.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2022). The Big Five Inventory–2 in China: A comprehensive psychometric evaluation in four diverse samples. Assessment, 29(6), 1262–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211008245
66.
ZhangB.LuoJ.LiJ. (2024). Moving beyond Likert and traditional forced-choice scales: A comprehensive investigation of the graded forced-choice format. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 59(3), 434–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2023.2235682
67.
ZhangB.SunT.CaoM.DrasgowF. (2021). Using bifactor models to examine the predictive validity of hierarchical constructs: Pros, cons, and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 530–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120915522
68.
ZellE.LesickT. L. (2022). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses. Journal of Personality, 90(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12683
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.
