Abstract
This paper explores self- and informant-reports of social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills and the cross-cultural adaptation of the Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory (BESSI) in Brazil. Study 1 (N = 185) examined self-informant agreement of SEB skills and assessed BESSI’s internal structure (N = 1,049). Study 2 (N = 123) focused on the convergence of BESSI’s domain and facet scores with personality variables and tested their temporal stability. The results showed that (1) informant-reports had higher means than self-reports, (2) agreement was higher for the Social Engagement domain and lower for the Innovation domain, and (3) BESSI demonstrated strong validity and reliability evidence for use in Brazil. In sum, BESSI’s domains and facets were accurately perceived by informants.
Introduction
“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.” –Lord Kelvin
Social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills refer to an individual’s adeptness in thinking, feeling, and behaving, specifically tailored to the demands of particular situations (Soto et al., 2022). These skills are not only desirable, but also associated with relevant outcomes such as academic learning, wages, mental and physical health, and well-being (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2024). Given the relevance of SEB skills, their evaluation, monitoring, and proper development can be essential in developing countries. To contribute to such an endeavor, the study’s main goal is to evaluate variations in SEB skills assessments by self and informants. Although the Behavioral, Emotional, Social Skills Inventory (BESSI) includes an informant-report version, and evaluating SEB skills from an informant’s perspective can enhance assessment quality and improve test score reliability and validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Eid & Diener, 2006), the agreement between self- and informant-reports has not yet been tested.
This study represents the first to investigate self-reports and close informant-reports (e.g., romantic partners, friends, and family members) of SEB skills using the BESSI. Doing so required working towards a supporting, but also important goal—developing a robust and psychometrically sound adaptation of the BESSI into Brazilian Portuguese, which we call the BESSI-BR. Moreover, another relevant characteristic of this investigation is that it is the first study that assesses SEB skills using the BESSI’s innovative framework in a non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) context.
SEB Skills Framework and the BESSI
Numerous terms have been proposed to describe SEB skills, including non-cognitive skills, 21st-century skills, soft skills, socioemotional skills, and character strengths (Abrahams et al., 2019; Berg et al., 2017; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). This terminological diversity stems from the interdisciplinary nature of the research and the varying emphases researchers place on these skills (Soto et al., 2022). Advancing the understanding and promotion of SEB skills requires establishing reference points to create a shared path, thus providing a solid foundation (e.g., taxonomy) for progress in this field (Napolitano et al., 2021).
SEB skills encompass a broad spectrum of behaviors, including social interactions and collaboration, emotional management and regulation, and the pursuit of both short-term tasks and long-term goals (Napolitano et al., 2021). These skills are viewed as capacities, reflecting the ability to exhibit specific behaviors when demanded by a situation, in contrast to personality traits, which describe a person’s typical behaviors across situations (Soto et al., 2022). For example, Social Engagement reflects capacities for initiating interactions, communicating effectively, and participating actively in social contexts. Cooperation refers to skills involved in supporting others, resolving interpersonal challenges, and maintaining positive, collaborative relationships. Self-Management encompasses skills that enable individuals to plan, stay organized, control impulses, and pursue goals in both the short and long term. Emotional Resilience captures the ability to manage stress, recover from setbacks, and regulate negative emotions in demanding situations. Finally, Innovation includes skills that support curiosity, creativity, flexible thinking, and the willingness to explore new ideas or approaches.
These conceptualizations bring implications for assessment and might only be partially captured for different methods. For example, the self- and informant-report versions of the BESSI do not directly measure how well individuals actually behave in concrete situations; instead, they assess perceived capacities (Breil et al., 2022). In other words, both BESSI’s versions evaluate how well people believe they can do certain things, and how capable close others perceive them to be. These perceived capacities are theoretically and practically important, as they are linked to important life outcomes and guide individuals’ choices and self-regulation (Soto et al., 2022). However, they do not fully substitute for behavior-based assessments that capture actual skill expression in specific situations.
The structural and theoretical framework of the BESSI is presented in Figure 1 and is closely associated with the Big Five model of personality traits (Soto et al., 2022). More specifically, in this framework, Social Engagement (BESSI) bears similarities to Extraversion (Big Five), Cooperation (BESSI) resembles Agreeableness (Big Five), Self-Management (BESSI) relates to Conscientiousness (Big Five), Emotional Resilience (BESSI) shares characteristics with Neuroticism (Big Five), and finally, Innovation (BESSI) can be compared to Openness to Experience (Big Five). Behavioral, emotional, and social skills theoretical framework for the BESSI (Soto et al., 2022)
This alignment between the BESSI skills framework and the Big Five personality traits is intentional, as SEB skills encompass social, emotional, and behavioral characteristics that align with the Big Five traits (Abrahams et al., 2019). However, the key distinction is that the Big Five traits describe how someone tends to behave averaged across situations, whereas SEB skills describe how someone is capable of behaving when they want or need to do so in a particular situation (Soto et al., 2022). Thus, SEB skills correlate substantially with the Big Five traits, but still provide some unique information beyond traits for describing behavior and predicting outcomes (Lechner et al., 2022; Soto et al., 2022). This relationship underscores the importance of exploring their similarities and differences in research on structure, assessment, development, and outcomes (Napolitano et al., 2021).
The BESSI constitutes a new and comprehensive instrument for evaluating SEB skills (Soto et al., 2022). This inventory comprises 196 items that evaluate 32 facets (e.g., Time Management, Energy Regulation) that measure more specific skills, and five broader domains (e.g., Social Engagement, Cooperation, Self-Management, Emotional Resilience, and Innovation). Besides the 5 domains and their 25 respective facets, the authors identified eight interstitial or compound facets (e.g., Energy Regulation, Impulse Regulation, Adaptability) that do not neatly fit within one specific domain (Figure 1) and are instead associated with two or more domains. The five SEB domains represent broad, overlapping categories rather than strict, mutually exclusive categories. Nevertheless, they constitute a useful foundation for developing a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing and assessing SEB skills (Soto et al., 2022).
In previous research, three models (e.g., 32 Facets CFA Model, Higher-Order Five-Domain CFA Model, and Bifactor Five-Domain ESEM Model) have been implemented to address the BESSI’s internal structure. Identifying the same BESSI structures across different contexts is relevant to ensure that the same hypothesized constructs (e.g., BESSI’s domains and facets) make sense or apply to new contexts in which they were not originally developed. Thus, testing these models across cultures is relevant to understanding the generalizability of BESSI’s theoretical framework and allowing cross-cultural investigations. See Appendix A for a detailed description of the models, pros and cons, and utility for researchers and practitioners.
Agreement Between Informant- and Self-Reported Perceptions of SEB Skills
SEB skills are most often assessed using self-reports, which generally provide valid and reliable results (Primi et al., 2016). However, to capture additional nuances and offer a more comprehensive evaluation, the BESSI also includes an informant-report version that can be completed by teachers, family members, or other relevant informants. However, to our knowledge no previous study has examined self-informant agreement using the BESSI.
Integrating informant reports should enhance SEB skills assessments by providing additional perspectives from distinct sources, thereby reducing personal biases (e.g., social desirability and unawareness of relevant characteristics) and improving overall validity and reliability scores (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Eid & Diener, 2006). In other words, informant-ratings often complement or supplement self-reported data (McCrae & Weiss, 2007) and are useful in clinical and educational settings.
In the clinical context, it has been suggested that patients present biases in how they rate their symptoms (e.g., Enns et al., 2000; Mörstedt et al., 2015), leading to an unreliable picture of their condition. Informant-ratings are not free from biases either, especially when requiring inferences about the target (e.g., personality ratings) instead of ratings of explicit attributes (e.g., counting observable behaviors; Hoyt & Kerns, 1999). However, informants provide information from different perspectives that can aid in diagnosing disorders or predicting relevant outcomes. For example, Miller et al. (2005) demonstrated the incremental validity of informant-ratings in assessing personality traits based on the Big Five taxonomy. The study found that informant-ratings provided by significant others added significant predictive value in identifying personality disorder (PD) features, as measured by a standardized clinical interview. Specifically, informant-ratings explained an additional 8% to 20% of the variance in PD features above and beyond self-reports alone, with the greatest incremental validity observed in diagnosing antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders.
More often than not, informant ratings converge moderately with self-reports (i.e., rs = .20–.30; Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes et al., 2015), which can be seen as a valuable, systematic difference in informants’ perspectives rather than an indication of measurement error or informant biases (De Los Reyes et al., 2015; Kraemer et al., 2003). Building on this perspective, Makol and colleagues (2020) carefully selected informants based on their regular and meaningful interactions with adolescents in different contexts. Parents were chosen because they provide insights into behaviors that occur at home, while adolescents offered self-reports reflecting their internal experiences. Unfamiliar peers or confederates were included to rate how the adolescent behaves in social situations outside the family. This triangulation approach added significant incremental validity, explaining an additional 13% to 29% of the variance in externally observed social anxiety scores and referral status.
In the absence of raters from different contexts, informant-ratings from the same setting can still yield clinically useful information. For instance, it has been shown that teacher ratings of classroom behavior are particularly effective in distinguishing between children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and their peers without the disorder compared to ratings of extra-class raters (Kazdin et al., 1983). Extra-class raters, in turn, provide information that is more aligned with direct observations of on-task behavior. This difference seems to stem from the fact that teachers provide broader, more global information about students that is formed over time, compared to specific, situational behaviors that are typically observed by trained informants unfamiliar with students (Cosper & Erickson, 1984; Humphries et al., 2012).
However, not all informants can provide accurate evaluations, and not all skills are likely to be observed similarly. Previous research on person perception indicates that the informant reports’ agreement depends on the relationship quality between the informant and the target individual, as well as the visibility of the characteristic (Funder, 1995). In this perspective, romantic partners, close friends, and family members present high quality relationships, while classmates, co-workers, and strangers present less informative relationships resulting in lower agreement rates. Regarding trait visibility, extraversion tends to present higher agreement in informant evaluations because the trait consists of behaviors that are easily observed (e.g., being talkative, dominant, enthusiastic). On the other hand, openness to experience and neuroticism show lower agreement due to informants’ difficulty in knowing internal states and feelings (e.g., diverse interests or negative affects) that are not visible to informants.
In a comprehensive meta-analysis investigating agreement between informants and targets, Connelly and Ones (2010, Study 2) found low to moderate mean observed self–other correlations (r̅) for: extraversion (mean r = .41, r̅ ranging from .48 for family members, .40 for friends, and .22 for strangers), conscientiousness (mean r of .37, r̅ ranging from .42 for family members, .38 for friends, and .13 for strangers), emotional stability (mean r = .34, r̅ ranging from .43 for family members, .33 for friends, and .08 for strangers), openness (mean r = .34, r̅ ranging from .43 for family members, .37 for friends, and .12 for strangers), and agreeableness (mean r = .29, r̅ ranging from .37 for family members, .29 for friends, and .09 for strangers). Moreover, a recent meta-analytic comparison between self- and informant-reported means of personality factors showed similar means for close informants (Kim et al., 2019). Considering the Big Five traits share conceptual similarities with the BESSI’s framework (Soto et al., 2022), we expect similar agreement values across different informants and targets in the Brazilian context.
Noteworthy, recent work combining BESSI-assessed skill self-concepts with behavioral observations in structured interpersonal simulations has shown that skill self-concepts can display only modest associations with observer-rated skill expression, depending on the skill domain (Breil et al., 2022). Together, these considerations underscore the importance of distinguishing between the theoretical construct of SEB skills, perceptions of those skills as captured by self- and informant-reports, and direct behavioral indicators of how individuals actually respond to situational demands. In the present study, we focus on self- and informant-reported BESSI scores as complementary perspectives on perceived SEB capacities.
Among the five BESSI domains, Emotional Resilience is probably the most likely to show weaker correspondence with behavioral evaluations (Breil et al., 2022). By definition, Emotional Resilience refers to how well people can regulate stress, stay calm, and recover from negative emotions (Soto et al., 2022). Much of this process is internal (thoughts, physiological activation, effortful regulation) and therefore only partially visible in overt behavior. In many situations, individuals can appear calm, cooperative, or even cheerful while still feeling highly distressed. As a result, self-reports may capture perceived coping and inner experience, whereas observer-based behavioral ratings will be driven mainly by what “leaks out” (e.g., visible agitation, avoidance, or tension), which is often limited and situation-dependent.
In contrast, domains such as Social Engagement and Cooperation are heavily defined by clearly observable interpersonal behaviors (speaking up, approaching others, offering help, resolving conflict), so it is easier for behavioral informants to detect and agree on them, and therefore they are more likely to align with self- or informant-rated skills when the situation affords their expression. Innovation and Self-Management may also show some discrepancies depending on the context (e.g., short lab tasks are not ideal to see long-term planning or creativity), but conceptually, Emotional Resilience is the most “hidden” and internally focused of the five, making low or modest convergence between self-rated skills and behavioral evaluations especially likely (Breil et al., 2022).
Finally, it is important to recognize an inherent limitation of self-report assessments of social, emotional, and behavioral skills. Self-reports primarily capture individuals’ perceived capacities rather than their actual performance in specific situations. Within the conceptual framework of the BESSI, skills are understood as context-dependent abilities that are enacted when situational demands require them. Consequently, their assessment through self-report instruments is inevitably influenced by constraints in self-insight, variability in metacognitive awareness, and potential biases in self-evaluation. As a result, individuals may overestimate or underestimate their true levels of skill expression. Self-report scores should therefore be interpreted as indicators of perceived skill capacity rather than direct measures of objectively demonstrated skill. This distinction highlights the importance of complementing self-report assessments with external ratings or behavioral indicators when the goal is to capture the actual enactment of skills in real-world contexts.
BESSI in Brazil
The potential benefits of developing SEB skills for Brazilians, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who must rely more on their abilities due to limited external resources (Pancorbo & Laros, 2017), highlight the necessity for more scientific investigations in the country. As noted in our initial reference attributed to Lord Kelvin, having a proper and available instrument to measure SEB skills constitutes the first step to developing SEB skills for Brazilians. The availability of BESSI in Brazil would increase the opportunities for research and practical interventions, as it is a freely available instrument that can be used in large-scale surveys, military, educational, and organizational interventions, and other applied contexts.
Investigating the BESSI within the Brazilian context is also relevant for assessing the robustness of its theoretical framework in a non-WEIRD nation. Brazil is characterized as a developing country that exhibits profound cultural diversity and social inequality—approximately 80% of the highest income earners are White, while individuals self-identifying as Afro-descendant constitute 76% of the bottom 10% income bracket (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE], 2008). This income disparity underscores the systemic exclusion of Afro-descendant Brazilians—who represent 53.6% of the population—from access to education, wealth, and political power. Despite these disparities, notable Brazilian figures such as Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Joaquim Barbosa, Pelé, Paulo Freire, and Gisele Bündchen have made significant contributions on the global stage in politics, anti-corruption efforts, sports, education, and sustainability. Consequently, fostering SEB skills in Brazil could substantially benefit a considerable portion of its population.
Examining SEB skills in Brazil is particularly important because cultural norms surrounding social interaction, emotional expression, cooperation, and self-regulation differ meaningfully from those in WEIRD settings (Hofstede et al., 2010), potentially shaping both the development and expression of these skills. By situating the BESSI within a culturally diverse and socioeconomically heterogeneous environment such as Brazil, the present study helps clarify which aspects of SEB skills reflect universal human capacities and which may be sensitive to cultural expectations, socialization practices, and contextual demands, thereby contributing to a more culturally grounded and globally relevant understanding of SEB skills. For example, skills related to emotional resilience or cooperation may manifest differently in contexts marked by greater social inequality, stronger family networks, or distinct interpersonal norms, underscoring the value of examining SEB skills beyond traditional WEIRD samples.
From a psychological perspective, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory identifies Brazil as a more collectivistic society, scoring 38 on a scale of zero to 100, where higher values denote more individualistic cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010). In Brazil, there is a pronounced emphasis on group harmony and interdependence, often at the expense of individual pursuits, which aligns with the cultural importance of familial and communal bonds (Zanon et al., 2024a, 2024b). This collectivist orientation starkly contrasts with the more individualistic cultures, such as the USA and other countries where the BESSI has previously been adapted (e.g., Germany [Lechner et al., 2022], Spain [Postigo et al., 2024], and Italy [Feraco et al., 2024]). According to Hofstede’s classification, the USA scores 91 (the highest score, indicative of extreme individualism), Germany scores 72, Spain scores 51, and Italy scores 76. Given that most psychological instruments are originally developed in WEIRD populations (e.g., North America, Western Europe, and Australia), which do not represent global diversity, these instruments may fail to maintain their psychometric properties (e.g., internal structure, factor loadings, and mean scores) when applied in culturally, socioeconomically, or linguistically distinct settings. Therefore, evaluating the psychometric properties of the BESSI in Brazil represents a pivotal step toward advancing both research and intervention strategies within this diverse and complex cultural milieu.
The Current Study
The present investigation aims to evaluate the agreement between self- and informant-reports of SEB skills. To achieve these aims, we initially adapted the BESSI to Brazil. Two independent yet complementary studies are used to address these goals. The first study investigates (1) the agreement between different informants and self-reported scores of SEB skills, (2) the unidimensionality of all 32 facets in the self- and informant-report version, and (3) the BESSI’s internal structure, testing theoretical models to investigate its internal structure in the self-reported version. Importantly, agreement across close informants (family members, romantic partners, and close friends) and self-reports of SEB skills has not been reported to date and can provide additional convergent validity evidence for the BESSI and the SEB skills literature.
The second study investigates (1) the relationships of the BESSI’s domains and facets with the Big Five personality factors and their facets, as well as with life satisfaction and self-esteem, (2) the temporal stability of the BESSI’s scores over a two-week period, and (3) the incremental validity of BESSI over and above a Big Five trait measure to predict life satisfaction and self-esteem. Previous findings suggest high correlations between the BESSI’s domains and Big Five factors, as well as high stability over short periods and incremental validity of the BESSI over and above Big Five measures (Postigo et al., 2024; Soto et al., 2022). Considering the similar framework of BESSI and Big Five, it is relevant to assess the unique amount of variance that BESSI predicts over and above the BFI and vice-versa. For this reason, we chose to investigate the incremental validity of the BESSI over and above the BFI in predicting life satisfaction and self-esteem.
Life satisfaction and self-esteem are key indicators of psychological adjustment, and both are consistently linked to broad personality traits, especially higher extraversion and low neuroticism (e.g., Lucas & Diener, 2008; Orth & Robins, 2014). In the Brazilian context, some studies found moderate correlations of life satisfaction with neuroticism (−.32 < r < −.46) and low correlations with extraversion (.14 < r < .28, Rosin et al., 2014; Hutz et al., 2014), while self-esteem presents moderate to strong correlations with neuroticism (r = −.64), with extraversion (r = .37), and low correlation with agreeableness (r = .27).
However, SEB skills may help explain that some people manage to build satisfying lives and positive self-views beyond what traits alone can capture. Whereas the Big Five (measured with the BFI-2) describe how people typically behave, the BESSI assesses what people are capable of doing when situations demand it. Thus, capacities like regulating emotions, cooperating, engaging socially, staying organized, or generating new ideas may more directly support effective goal pursuit, good relationships, and successful coping in everyday life, which are central pathways to higher life satisfaction and self-esteem. Therefore, testing whether BESSI domains show incremental validity over and above the BFI-2 in predicting life satisfaction and self-esteem is important to clarify whether SEB skills provide unique information about well-being that is not already captured by broad personality traits.
Drawing from the previous research reviewed above, we formulated the following expectations to guide the present study: 1. We expected each of the 32 BESSI facets to show essentially unidimensional structure in both the self-report and informant-report versions. 2. We expected the BESSI’s theoretical structure of 32 facets and five broad domains to provide an adequate fit to adult data in Brazil. 3. We expected the BESSI to show satisfactory internal consistency, with reliability estimates generally at or above .70 for both facets and domains. 4. Based on prior work suggesting that interpersonal behavior is especially visible in the social domain, we expected self–informant agreement on SEB skills to be relatively stronger for the Social Engagement domain and its facets, and relatively weaker for Innovation and Emotional Resilience. 5. Consistent with the BESSI framework, we expected each BESSI domain to correlate substantially with its corresponding Big Five personality factor (e.g., Innovation with Openness, Self-Management with Conscientiousness, Social Engagement with Extraversion, Cooperation with Agreeableness, and Emotional Resilience with Neuroticism). 6. Given robust links between positive affectivity/emotional stability and well-being, we expected the Emotional Resilience and Social Engagement domains to show particularly strong associations with life satisfaction and self-esteem, relative to the remaining domains (Cooperation, Innovation, and Self-Management). 7. We expected the BESSI’s domains and facets to show substantial short-term test–retest reliabiliby over the study interval. 8. Finally, we expected the BESSI domains to demonstrate incremental validity by explaining additional variance in life satisfaction and self-esteem over and above the variance accounted for by a Big Five trait measure.
Study 1: Internal Structure of the BESSI and Multiple Informant-Report-Based Evidence
Method
Participants and Procedures
Self-Reported Version of the BESSI-BR
The initial sample was comprised of 1,492 participants who completed the self-reported version of the BESSI-BR. The survey was shared through social media channels and distributed via emails to educational institutions, which were encouraged to forward it to their students. A hyperlink was provided for direct access to the Informed Consent Form and the online questionnaire. Thirteen participants under 18 years old and 105 individuals who failed to answer attentional items accurately were excluded.
The remaining missing data were handled using intra-individual mean imputation (Shrive et al., 2006) at the facet and parcel levels. 1 Each BESSI facet comprises six items. When participants answered at least 50% of the items within a facet (i.e., three or more items), we computed the mean of the available items and used this value to impute the missing items for that facet; if fewer than three items were answered, the facet score was left missing. For the parcel-level models, parcels were formed by two items each. When at least one item in a parcel was answered, we used the available item (or the mean of both, when present) as the parcel score; if neither item was answered, the parcel was coded as missing. The final sample therefore consisted of 1,103 individuals, with more females (60.3%) than males (36.9%), and 2.8% identifying as another gender. The age range was 18 to 76 years (M = 29.9, SD = 10.5). Ethnically, the majority identified as Caucasian (67.4%), followed by Black (7.3%), mixed race (18.0%), and other ethnicities (Indigenous, Asian, or other) comprising 7.3% of the sample. Sexual orientation varied, with 65.5% identifying as heterosexual, 17.7% as bisexual, 6.0% as homosexual, 9.8% as other, and 1.0% choosing not to specify. Marital status distribution included individuals who were never married (59.6%), married (21.5%), separated or divorced (3.0%), widowed (0.4%), others (12.4%) and 3.1% choosing not to specify. Educational levels were diverse, with 13.5% completing high school, 35.2% having an incomplete college education, 19.4% completing college, 31.0% having some graduate or professional training and 0.9% choosing not to specify. Regarding occupation, 43.6% were employed, 18.6% were not currently working, 13.9% were retired, 23.0 other status and 0.9% chose not to disclose their status. Geographically, all 27 Brazilian states were represented, and participants were distributed across the five regions of Brazil: North (3.9%), Northeast (15.5%), Midwest (6.7%), Southeast (22.3%), and South (50.3%). Although diverse, this is a convenience sample not fully representative of the Brazilian population.
Informant-Reported Version of the BESSI-BR
The sample used to test agreement across self- and informant reports comprised 184 participants, aged 18 to 67 years (M = 30.3, SD = 11.6), who served as informants reporting on individuals who previously completed the self-report version of the BESSI-BR. The gender distribution was 58.7% female, 39.1% male, and 2.2% identified with other gender identities. Participants reported on various relationships, with 34.8% providing information about a friend, 44.0% about a romantic partner, 8.2% about one of their parents, 10.3% about a sibling, and 2.7% relating to other unspecified types of relationships. We requested that informants in the friend and romantic partner groups had known the participant for at least two years.
Cross-Cultural Adaptation of BESSI-BR
The BESSI was adapted for Brazil through the back-translation method and following the International Test Commission (2010) guidelines for test adaptation. Two bilingual doctoral students specializing in psychometrics and with experience in personality assessment were responsible for independently translating the items into Brazilian Portuguese. The focus was on the meaning of the items rather than translating them literally. To ensure the quality of the translation, a researcher with extensive knowledge in psychometrics and a doctoral student with expertise in linguistics synthesized the translations. In this process, each item was evaluated for comprehensibility, idiomatic equivalence, semantic equivalence to the original item, as well as grammatical and lexical adequacy, resulting in a synthesis of the two translations.
The synthesized version, along with the original scale, was sent to two bilingual judges who evaluated the adequacy of the constitutive and operational definitions of each facet for Brazilian culture. Subsequently, they assessed the clarity and relevance of each item individually. Any flagged items were reviewed by the working group. The third stage consisted of evaluating the items by a focus group composed of five undergraduate students. The working group discussed suggestions, and minor changes were made to eight items. The items were then back-translated and sent for evaluation to Christopher J. Soto, one of the authors of the English-language BESSI. His evaluation indicated that fifteen items could be further improved. The working group revised them again and returned them to him, who confirmed their appropriateness.
During the scale adaptation process, the researchers employed an approach that emphasized the cultural context of the elements involved, aiming to capture not only the item text itself but also its underlying intent. As a result, some words were added, removed, or replaced in the adapted items throughout the process. When uncertainties arose within the working group due to these modifications, it was decided to retain both versions of the items to allow the final choice to be based on subsequent analyses. In total, 17 additional, alternative item translations were created.
Some examples illustrate the process undertaken. The item “Follow a schedule” was initially translated as “Seguir uma agenda.” In English, however, “schedule” refers to a plan or list of activities, events, or appointments organized chronologically. The simple translation to Portuguese did not seem to capture this meaning fully, as “seguir uma agenda” appeared to be more related to having an organized routine or a general plan for the day, week, or month, without necessarily detailing each appointment. Thus, an alternative item “Seguir uma agenda de compromissos” was added. The process used to create the remaining alternative item translations are described in Appendix B.
Data Collection
Following approval from the Ethics Committee, an online questionnaire was developed utilizing a bespoke website platform constructed by a doctoral candidate. This questionnaire encompassed sociodemographic questions alongside administering the BESSI-BR. Dissemination of the survey occurred via social media channels and email distribution, facilitated by a hyperlink granting access to both the informed consent form and the online questionnaire. Participants could complete the questionnaire using desktop computers, tablets, or smartphones. At the end of the BESSI questionnaire, participants were encouraged to nominate an individual with whom they shared a close interpersonal relationship to provide feedback on their skills. Clear communication was provided to participants regarding the purpose of the study, aiming to adapt the instrument for use in Brazil and explore skill perception agreement and disparities. The average completion time for the questionnaire, including self-report and other-report assessments, was approximately 35 minutes. Participation was voluntary, and participants were not compensated or otherwise incentivized.
Data Analytic Plan
Item Selection
We used Discrimination Index (DI, corrected item-total correlation) to evaluate the adequacy of new items, compared with the original items. For details, see Appendix C and Table D1.
Facets’ Dimensionality
To evaluate whether all the BESSI-BR’s facets were unidimensional, 32 EFAs (one for each facet) were conducted on the polychoric correlation matrix using the FACTOR software. Initially, we assessed the adequacy of the data using the traditional Kayser-Meyer-Olkin index (KMO) and the Measure of Sample Adequacy (MSA; Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2021), with MSA values above .50 considered adequate (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2021). Unidimensionality was also analyzed using eight different criteria: (a) Unidimensional Congruence (UniCo), (b) Explained Common Variance (ECV), (c) Mean of Item Residual Absolute Loadings (MIREAL), (d) percentage of explained variance of the first and second factor, (e) appropriate number of factors to retain, determined by the optimal implementation of Parallel Analysis (Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011), (f) Minimum Average Partial Test (MAP), (g) Empirical Kaiser Criteria (EKC), and (h) the traditional fit indices Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR). The recommendations of Calderón-Garrido et al. (2019) indicate that UniCo >0.95, ECV >0.85, and MIREAL <0.30 indicate unidimensionality. Moreover, GFI >0.95, TLI >0.95, CFI >0.95, and RMSR <0.06 suggest good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These statistics and indices were analyzed using FACTOR 12.01.02 (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006). An exception was the Empirical Kaiser Criterion (EKC), which was computed in RStudio 2024.09.1 using the EFAtools package.
BESSI-BR Internal Structure Models
To investigate the BESSI-BR’s domain- and facet-level structure, we fit a series of models. The first was the 32-Facets CFA Model. Following Soto et al. (2022), this model had three item parcels as indicators for each of the 32 facets, and all facets were intercorrelated; no cross-loadings among facets, and no measurement errors among the indicators were estimated. Latent variable variances were fixed at one to establish the metric. We used parcels because our models were large and complex, and parceling provides more stable and reliable indicators by reducing item-level random error. To facilitate convergence and improve interpretability at the domain level, we combined items into small two-item parcels, following recommendations that parceling is appropriate when the goal is to estimate higher-order structural relations with more robust indicators (Little et al., 2013).
The second model investigated was the Higher-Order Five-Domain CFA Model. This model also had the same three item parcels used as indicators for each of the 32 facets, plus five second-order domains (e.g., latent factors). The five higher-order domains were estimated as combinations of facets as follows: Self-Management domain was estimated by 16 facets (Time Management, Organizational Skill, Capacity for Consistency, Task Management, Detail Management, Rule-Following Skill, Responsibility Management, Goal Regulation, Decision-Making Skill, Energy Regulation, Ethical Competence, Impulse Regulation, Information Processing Skill, Self-Reflection Skill, Adaptability, and Capacity for Independence), Social Engagement domain was estimated by eight facets (Leadership Skill, Persuasive Skill, Expressive Skill, Conversational Skill, Energy Regulation, Self-Reflection Skill, Adaptability, and Capacity for Independence), Cooperation domain was estimated by eight facets (Perspective-Taking Skill, Capacity for Trust, Capacity for Social Warmth, Teamwork Skill, Ethical Competence, Self-Reflection Skill, Adaptability, and Capacity for Independence), Emotional Resilience domain was estimated by eight facets (Stress Regulation, Capacity for Optimism, Anger Management, Confidence Regulation, Impulse Regulation, Self-Reflection Skill, Adaptability, and Capacity for Independence). The five higher-order domains were allowed to correlate, no residual correlations among the indicators were estimated, and all latent variances from domains and facets were set to one to establish the metric.
The third tested model was the Bifactor Five-Domain Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM). This model comprises 32 facets (estimated by their referent three parcels) plus five overarching domains estimated by all 96 parcels. Target rotation was used to constrain the positions of the five domain factors (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Specifically, the Self-Management domain was freely estimated by parcels from its 16 corresponding theoretical facets while the remaining 48 parcels were targeted to present near-zero factor loadings. The Social Engagement, Cooperation, Emotional Resilience, and Innovation domains were each freely estimated by the parcels from their 8 corresponding theoretical facets (while the remaining 72 parcels were targeted to present near-zero factor loadings). The five overarching domains were allowed to intercorrelate, no residual correlations among the indicators were estimated, and all latent variances from domains and facets were set to one to establish the metric. Target rotation was implemented in this exploratory model to align the factor solution with specific theoretical expectations, enabling a more flexible and theoretically consistent interpretation of the resulting factors (Muthén & Muthén, 2017).
This is not a pre-registered report, but all data, code, and materials are available at https://osf.io/7efmp/overview.
Results
Descriptive Statistics, Discrimination Indices, and Internal Consistency of the BESSI-BR Domains and Facets Skills (N = 1,103; Self-Reported Version)
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; S = skewness; K = kurtosis; DI = Discrimination Index is a statistical measure used in psychometrics to assess how well an item distinguishes between high and low performers. Correlations above .30 are considered good, with higher corrected item-test correlations indicating better item discrimination (Ferketich, 1991). α = Cronbach’s alpha; ω = McDonald’s omega.
Descriptive Statistics, Discrimination Indices, and Internal Consistency of the BESSI-BR Domains and Facets Skills (N = 184; Informant Version)
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; S = skewness; K = kurtosis; DI = Discrimination Index, which measures how well an item differentiates between high and low performers. Correlations above .30 are considered good, and higher corrected item-test correlations indicate better item discrimination (Ferketich, 1991); α = Cronbach’s alpha; ω = McDonald’s omega.
Analyzing Alternative Items and Choosing the Final Set
From the 17 alternative items created, 15 were chosen to substitute for the original items (see Appendices B, D, and Table D1, for details). For example, the original item “Seguir uma agenda [Follow a schedule]” (DI = .69), was substituted with the new item “Seguir uma agenda de compromissos [Follow a schedule of appointments]” (DI = .73). All subsequent analyses described below are based on the final set of 192 BESSI-BR items.
Internal Structure of the BESSI-BR
The internal structure was examined four ways: (a) EFAs to investigate the unidimensionality of each facet, (b) a CFA of the 32 Facets Model, (c) a CFA of the Higher-Order Five-Domain Model, and (d) an ESEM of the Bifactor Five-Domain model.
Unidimensionality of Each Facet of the BESSI-BR (Self- and Informant-Report Versions)
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Each of the 32 Facets of BESSI-BR (N = 1,103; Self-Reported Version)
Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test; MSA = Measure of Sampling Adequacy (values below .50 indicate poor item measurement); UniCo = Unidimensional Congruence; ECV = Explained Common Variance; MIREAL = Mean of Item Residual Absolute Loadings. Data can be treated as essentially one-dimensional if UniCo >.95, ECV >.85, and MIREAL <.30 (Ferrando & Lorenzo-Seva, 2018). V1 (%) = Percentage of variance explained by the first factor; V2 (%) = Percentage of variance explained by the second factor; PA = Number of factors to retain determined by Parallel Analysis; MAP = Minimum Average Partial; EKC = Empirical Kaiser Criterion; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; RMSR = Root Mean Square of Residuals. All analyses used WLS estimation.
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Each of the 32 Facets of BESSI-BR (N = 184; Observer Report Version)
Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test; MSA = Measure of Sampling Adequacy (values below .50 indicate poor item measurement); UniCo = Unidimensional Congruence; ECV = Explained Common Variance; MIREAL = Mean of Item Residual Absolute Loadings. Data can be treated as essentially one-dimensional if UniCo >.95, ECV >.85, and MIREAL <.30 (Ferrando & Lorenzo-Seva, 2018). V1 (%) = Percentage of variance explained by the first factor; V2 (%) = Percentage of variance explained by the second factor; PA = Number of factors to retain determined by Parallel Analysis; MAP = Minimum Average Partial; EKC = Empirical Kaiser Criterion; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; RMSR = Root Mean Square of Residuals. All analyses used WLS estimation.
The results indicated that almost all facets show strong unidimensionality for the self-report version—the range for UniCo was .91-1.00 (M = .98), for ECV was .74-.97 (M = .90) and for MIREAL was .13-.42 (M = .22). Exceptions were the facets of Time Management, Capacity for Trust, Persuasive Skill, and Adaptability that did not fulfill all criteria for unidimensionality. However, these facets had a dominant first factor explaining at least three times more variance than the second factor, and evidence from parallel analysis indicated that the unidimensional solution was the most adequate for each of these facets. In sum, results from Table 3 suggest that all facets were unidimensional.
Similarly, almost all domains and facets had good discrimination indices for the informant-report version. The exception was the Innovation domain, which showed a lower discrimination index (DI = .25) for the following item “Make music”. All domains and facets had good levels of reliability (α and ω > .79).
Regarding the unidimensionality of each informant facet (Table 4), EFAs and psychometric indexes show strong evidence for almost all facets. The range for UniCo was .91–1.00 (M = .98), for ECV was .74–.98 (M = .90) and for MIREAL was .13–.42 (M = .22). Exceptions were the Time Management, Capacity for Trust, Persuasive, and Adaptability facets, which had somewhat lower ECV, MIREAL, and RSMR values. However, these facets present a predominant factor that explains at least three times as much variance than the second factor and parallel analyses indicated one factor. Together, this evidence supported the unidimensionality of all facets.
Theoretical Models
Fit Statistics for the 32 Facets CFA Model, for the Higher-Order Five-Domain CFA Model, and for the Bifactor Five-Domain ESEM of the BESSI’s Structure (N = 1,103; WLSMV Estimator)
Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation model. In the 32 Facets CFA Model each facet is estimated by three indicators (item parcells), all facets are intercorrelated, and there are no cross-loadings or measurement errors estimated. In the Higher-Order Five-Domain CFA model each facet is estimated by three indicators (item parcells), the five (correlated) domains estimated by their correspondent facets, and no measurement errors are estimated. In the Bifactor Five-Domain ESEM model each facet is estimated by three indicators (item parcells), the five domains are estimated by all facets and intercorrelated. However, the facets that do not theoretically belong to their specific domains are restricted to present a close-to-zero loading (target rotation). χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; *** = p < .001.
Consistent with previous research using the English language BESSI, the Higher-Order Five-Domain CFA Model fit poorly (see also Sewell et al., 2024; Soto et al., 2022). This likely happened because it is a more restrictive model that sets to zero non-expected cross-loadings of facets belonging to distinct domains. Given the related nature of these skills, this constrained model was inadequate for representing the skill relationships of the BESSI-BR.
Factor Loadings and Inter-Domain Correlations of the Bifactor Five-Domain (ESEM) Model. (N = 1,103; WLSMV Estimator)
Note. ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; The three parcels of each facet are the average of the two items that comprise it (Items 1 and 4, Items 2 and 5, and Items 3 and 6); All bolded values represent factor loadings that were freely estimated in their respective and expected domains. Non-bolded factor loadings represent parameters restricted to present close-to-zero values. All factor loadings are statistically significant, except those flagged in italics. All inter-domain correlations are statistically significant (p < .001).
Self-Report and Multiple Informant-Report Correlations
Self-Report and Informant-Report Descriptives and Correlations for BESSI-BR
Note. N varies by scale; domain-level N shown in header. No significant statistical differences were found between the correlations of friends and partners. No significant statistical differences were found between the correlations of friends and family members, except for Organizational Skill (z = −2.56, p = .01) and Capacity for Trust (z = 2.41, p = .02). No significant statistical differences were found between the correlations of romantic partners and family members, except for Capacity for Trust (z = 2.31, p = .02).
A post hoc analysis of the standardized difference between self-reported and informant-reported SEB skills revealed an unexpected trend: individuals generally underestimated their SEB abilities across almost all skills, as compared with informant-reports, with the notable exception of stress regulation (Table D2). Taken together, the agreement correlations provide the first evidence to date that BESSI scores show substantial agreement between self-reports and informant-reports.
To address a reviewer’s concern, we run additional analyses to test whether the lack of overestimation in self-reported SEB skills stemmed from a pattern of over- and underestimation that cancelled each other out. To test this, we examined the distribution of self–informant discrepancies across all SEB domains. Across most domains, self-ratings were slightly lower than observer ratings (mean differences typically between −0.2 and −0.6 points). Importantly, the discrepancy pattern did not follow a bimodal distribution. The majority of participants underestimated their skills relative to observers (≈55%), a smaller proportion overestimated their skills (≈23%), and about one-fifth showed approximate agreement (≈22%; defined as differences within ±0.3 SD of the observer ratings for that domain, corresponding to a small effect size, Cohen’s d) (Figure 2). Differences between self- and informant-ratings were modest, with most values falling within ±1 point, and the distributions were unimodal and centered near zero. These results indicate that our conclusions are not an artifact of opposing subgroups cancelling each other out, but rather reflect a consistent, modest tendency toward underestimation in self-reports. Distribution of self–informant discrepancy scores across SEB skill domains
Study 1 Discussion
This study evaluated the agreement between self- and informant-reports of SEB skills in Brazil and provided foundational evidence for the BESSI-BR. The internal structure analyses supported the BESSI’s theoretical organization into five broad domains—Self-Management, Social Engagement, Cooperation, Emotional Resilience, and Innovation—showing that the 32 facets form an interrelated but non-redundant set of skills (Soto el at., 2022). Although the Higher-Order Five-Domain Model did not meet recommended CFI and TLI thresholds, this pattern is consistent with findings from the United States, Germany (Lechner et al., 2022), Italy (Feraco et al., 2024), and Spain (Postigo et al., 2024), suggesting that lower homogeneity among facets within domains may be a common characteristic of SEB skills rather than a sample-specific artifact. In contrast, the Bifactor Five-Domain Model provided a good fit, reinforcing the conceptualization of SEB skills as capacities that share both general variance and domain-specific components. These findings highlight the importance of modeling SEB skills in a way that captures their multidimensional but hierarchically organized nature.
The informant version of the BESSI-BR also demonstrated strong initial psychometric properties, confirming that close others can reliably rate individuals’ SEB capacities. Analyses of self–informant agreement revealed a differentiated pattern across domains. As expected, agreement was highest for Social Engagement—likely because these behaviors (e.g., communication, sociability, enthusiasm) are highly observable in everyday interactions. In contrast, Innovation and some facets of Emotional Resilience showed lower agreement, consistent with the idea that these capacities involve more internal processes or context-dependent behaviors that may be less visible to close others. The moderate correlations observed for Self-Management and Cooperation suggest that while these skills are partially observable, they may not be uniformly visible across relationships or situations. The tendency for individuals to rate themselves slightly lower than their informants further suggest a mild self-deprecation pattern, which may reflect cultural norms regarding modesty or a limited awareness of one’s own skill expression.
Taken together, these results provide the first evidence of self–informant agreement for any version of the BESSI and strengthen the validity of the BESSI-BR as a tool for assessing SEB skills in Brazil. Beyond supporting the instrument’s structural soundness, the findings offer insight into how different SEB domains are perceived by the self and by close others, underscoring the value of integrating multiple perspectives when assessing these capacities. Building on these findings, Study 2 extends the validation process by examining associations between SEB skills and relevant constructs such as the Big Five, life satisfaction, and self-esteem, by evaluating the incremental utility of SEB skills beyond personality traits, and by assessing short-term test–retest stability.
Study 2: Convergent and Incremental Validity and Test-Retest Reliability Evidence of the BESSI-BR
Method
Participants and Data Collection
Data for Study 2 were collected from a sample of 125 undergraduate psychology students (two participants were excluded because they completed last than half of the questionnaire), aged 18 to 44 years (M = 23.44, SD = 5.33), residing in the South (n = 79) and Northeast (n = 44) regions of Brazil, with Portuguese as their native language. The gender distribution was 78.05% female and 21.95% male. The majority of participants identified as White (60.2%), followed by Black (22.8%), Brown (15.4%), and other (1.6%). Regarding sexual orientation, 58.5% identified as heterosexual, 22% as bisexual, 16.9% as homosexual, and 2.6% as belonging to other categories. To assess test-retest reliability, all participants were invited to complete the same survey again after 14 days. A total of 95 participants responded to the BESSI-BR at both time points.
Data from the Southern sample were collected in a pencil-and-paper format during classes at a public university. Data from the Northeast sample were collected through email recruitment directed to all psychology students at a public university. Interested participants responded to the email and received a Google Forms link to complete the survey. No financial or other rewards were offered for participation. However, participants were incentivized to participate by receiving feedback on their skills and personality characteristics. On average, participants took 35 minutes to complete all questions. Data were collected in April 2024.
Measures
SEB Skills
The Brazilian self-reported version of the Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory-Brazil (BESSI-BR) was used to evaluate SEB Skills. As described in Study 1, the BESSI-BR is made up of 192 items that assess five major domains (e.g., Self-Management, Social Engagement, Cooperation, Emotional Resilience, and Innovation) and 32 facets. The BESSI-BR instruction asks participants to rate the items on a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all well) to 5 (extremely well) how well they are able to enact the skills (e.g., make music). The domains and facets are presented in Figure 1. Evidence for the BESSI-BR reliability and internal structure validity can be seen in Study 1. For the present Study 2, internal consistency was high at both the domain level (M α = .94, range = .91 to .97; M ω = .94, range = .91 to .97) and the facet level (M α = .86, range = .77 to .94; M ω = .87, range = .71 to .95). Table D3 shows descriptive statistics and internal consistency for all BESSI-BR domains and facets.
Personality
The Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2; Soto & John, 2017), adapted for Portuguese by Pires et al. (2023), was used to assess the Big Five personality traits. The BFI-2 comprises five factors and 15 facets, totaling 60 items, which are rated on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The factors, with their respective facets in parentheses, are Openness (Aesthetic Sensitivity, Creative Imagination, Intellectual Curiosity), Conscientiousness (Productiveness, Responsibility, Organization), Extraversion (Assertiveness, Energy Level, Sociability), Agreeableness (Compassion, Respectfulness, Trust), and Neuroticism (Anxiety, Depression, Emotional Volatility). For the present sample, internal consistency was high at both the domain level (M α = .88, range = .82 to .90; M ω = .88, range = .82 to .90) and the facet level (M α = .78, range = .59 to .93; M ω = .79, range = .64 to .93).
Life Satisfaction
The Brazilian Portuguese version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was used to evaluate life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985; Zanon et al., 2014). It is a one-factor, five-item instrument that assesses satisfaction with different life domains. Each item is answered on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In this study, the scale presented good internal consistency (ω = .87).
Self-Esteem
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), adapted for Brazil by Hutz and Zanon (2011), was used to evaluate self-esteem. It is a unidimensional measure consisting of ten statements that assess global self-esteem. Items are answered on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). In this study, the scale presented good internal consistency (ω = .93).
Results
Test-Retest Reliability
Correlations Between the BESSI-BR Skill Facets and Domains With Big Five Personality Traits, Life Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Test-Retest Over Two Weeks (N = 123)
Note. BFI-2 = Big Five Inventory–2; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. O = Open-Mindedness. C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism. The highest correlation of each facet is bolded. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. All test-retest correlations were statistically significant at p < .001.
Convergent Evidence With the Big Five Traits
Correlations of the BESSI Skill Facets With BFI-2 Facet-Level Convergent Measures (N = 123)
Note. BFI-2 = Big Five Inventory–2. O = Open-Mindedness; C. = Conscientiousness; E. = Extraversion; A. = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism. IC = Intellectual Curiosity; ES = Aesthetic Sensitivity; CI = Creative Imagination; OR = Organization; PR = Productiveness; RE = Responsibility; SO = Sociability; AS = Assertiveness; EL = Energy Level; CO = Compassion; RP = Respectfulness; TR = Trust; AN = Anxiety; DP = Depression; VO = Emotional Volatility. Correlations higher than .40 are bolded. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Incremental Validity of SEB Skill Domains and Big Five Personality Factors on Satisfaction With Life and Self-Esteem Using Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses (N = 123)
Note. BFI-2 = Big Five Inventory-2. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 9 reveals a clear pattern of relationships between the BESSI and BFI-2 facets, demonstrating alignment within their respective domains and factors. Specifically, facets of innovation correlate positively with openness, self-management with conscientiousness, social engagement with extraversion, agreeableness with cooperation, and emotional resilience negatively with neuroticism. Furthermore, the BESSI facets that are not shared across domains show a more coherent alignment with the BFI-2 facets compared to those that are interstitial or compound. Consistent with findings from previous studies (e.g., Soto et al., 2022), these results indicate substantial convergence between SEB skills and personality traits that refer to similar thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
Convergent Evidence With Other Outcomes
As expected based on prior research, the Self-Management domain and facets had moderate to high (.27 < r < .52) correlations with life satisfaction and self-esteem. The Social Engagement (.21 < r < .60), Cooperation (.20 < r < .44), and Emotional Resilience (.22 < r < .67) domains and facets had varying, but mostly moderate correlations with life satisfaction and self-esteem. The Innovation domain and facets had low or close-to-zero (.03 < r < .19) correlations with life satisfaction and self-esteem. Compound skills had a moderate correlation with life satisfaction (.25 < r < .45), and self-esteem (.35 < r < .45).
Incremental Validity
Given the substantial convergence between SEB skills and Big Five personality traits, we concluded Study 2 by testing whether SEB skills can provide unique information above and beyond traits. Specifically, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were implemented to evaluate the amount of incremental variance that the BESSI’s domains had beyond the Big Five factors (and vice-versa) when predicting life satisfaction and self-esteem (Table 10). Results indicated the BESSI’s domains, when added using the enter method, contributed significant unique variance to the prediction of life satisfaction (4%), and to self-esteem (7%) over and above the Big Five factors. In turn, the Big Five factors showed a smaller, but still significant, incremental prediction of life satisfaction (2%), and self-esteem (3%) over and above the BESSI’s domains.
Study 2 Discussion
Study 2 provided further support for the BESSI-BR by demonstrating high short-term test–retest reliability, expected patterns of convergence with personality traits, and meaningful incremental validity beyond the Big Five. The strong test–retest correlations indicate that perceived SEB skills remain highly stable over a brief interval, consistent with theoretical accounts that view SEB capacities as relatively enduring but still amenable to change over time (Soto et al., 2022). This finding complements the structural validity results from Study 1 by showing that BESSI-BR scores are not only psychometrically coherent but also temporally consistent.
The observed associations between BESSI-BR domains and BFI-2 traits further reinforce the conceptual links between skills and personality. Strong and moderate correlations—such as the robust association between Self-Management and Conscientiousness—confirm that individuals who tend to behave in organized, disciplined ways also perceive themselves as capable of enacting those behaviors when needed. These convergences likely reflect both substantive overlap (i.e., individuals with a strong capacity for a behavior tend to perform it regularly) and methodological factors (e.g., shared self-report format), suggesting that the line between skills and traits is partly conceptual and partly operational. Importantly, these results also highlight the need for future multi-method designs to disentangle trait–skill relations more precisely—for example, by comparing self- and informant-reported skills with observer-rated behavior or informant-reported personality traits (Breil et al., 2022).
The associations between SEB skills and well-being outcomes similarly aligned with expectations: Innovation showed weak associations with life satisfaction and self-esteem, Self-Management showed modest links, and Social Engagement, Cooperation, and Emotional Resilience displayed moderate relationships. These patterns suggest that skills related to emotional regulation and social connection are particularly relevant for psychological well-being in the Brazilian context (Rosin et al., 2014). Critically, the BESSI-BR demonstrated incremental validity above and beyond the Big Five, indicating that SEB skill capacities capture unique aspects of functioning that are not fully explained by broad personality traits. This provides strong evidence that skill-based models add value to existing trait-based frameworks, especially when predicting adaptive outcomes such as life satisfaction and self-esteem.
Overall, the findings from Study 2 extend those from Study 1 by offering a more comprehensive picture of the BESSI-BR’s reliability and validity, and by showing that perceived SEB capacities are not reducible to personality traits. Together, Studies 1 and 2 provide a strong foundation for the use of the BESSI-BR in research and applied settings, while also pointing to important future directions for multi-method assessment and longitudinal investigation.
General Discussion
In this study, we evaluated the agreement between self- and informant-reports of SEB skills, while also adapting the BESSI (Napolitano et al., 2021; Soto et al., 2022) for the Brazilian Portuguese context. Our results add to the current SEB skills literature by providing evidence that people do not inflate their skills estimation in self-reports in Brazil—which reduces the general concern about social desirability for low-stakes assessments. Another key finding was that close informants (e.g., romantic partners, family members, or close friends) can accurately estimate Emotional Resilience in the Brazilian context. This is relevant because informant-reports of neuroticism tend to present low agreement in WEIRD contexts (Connelly & Ones, 2010). Moreover, this study provides robust validity and reliability evidence for the BESSI-BR.
Developing the BESSI-BR
The BESSI is a comprehensive inventory for assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills, and we believe the BESSI-BR will be useful for researchers and applied professionals seeking a publicly available tool for assessing SEB skills. The development of BESSI-BR was based on international guidelines (ITC, 2010) and robust psychometric analysis. The BESSI-BR showed good psychometric properties, which are comparable to the original US-English BESSI and its adaptations to German (Lechner et al., 2022), Italian (Feraco et al., 2024) and Spanish (Postigo et al., 2024).
Structural Validity
Similar to the US-English, German, Italian, and Spanish versions, the BESSI-BR facets are predominantly unidimensional and present good reliability and CFA fit indices. The support for the 32 Facet Model shows that the proposed facets are related but not redundant, and the support for the Bifactor Five-Domain Model shows that the selected indicators contribute to the estimation of the facets and domains following the BESSI theoretical framework. Together, these results indicate validity evidence for the internal structure of the BESSI-BR.
Self-Informant Agreement
The results of our self-informant analyses suggest that agreement was lower for innovation skills compared to other domains—which is consistent with the low agreement in judgments of Openness (e.g., Funder & Dobroth, 1987; John & Robins, 1993). Like Openness, most skills associated with this domain are cognitive (Zillig et al., 2002) and, thus, less visible, possibly forcing informants to rely on invalid cues to judge targets’ innovation skills. The exception was the artistic skill facet, which informants judged with moderate agreement. This might be because many artistic outputs (e.g., drawing, painting, or making music) are visible to informants, which is not the case for the remaining skills in this domain.
Judgments of social engagement skills (domain and facets) showed, on average, moderate agreement. Still, contrary to our predictions, they do not seem to be significantly higher than emotional resilience. This is surprising considering that, unlike Extraversion (the Big Five domain that corresponds with social engagement skills), Neuroticism (the Big Five domain that corresponds with emotional stability skills) is thought to be particularly difficult to judge (Funder, 2012; Kenny & West, 2008; Lippa & Dietz, 2000; Powell & Goffin, 2009; Vazire, 2010; Watson, 1989) as it contains mostly affective content (Zillig et al., 2002). Several factors could explain the relatively high agreement in judgments of emotional resilience. One possibility is that we relied on close informants (i.e., friends, family members, and romantic partners), who are better positioned to judge targets’ emotional stability skills given the intimacy of these relationships (Connelly & Ones, 2010) and their higher probability of observing targets in situations that demand emotional resilience.
Another possibility pertains to culture. Most research on the agreement of personality judgments takes place in WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) countries (Henrich et al., 2010), and little is known about the rest of the world, which might differ in the expression of judgement-relevant features like emotional expression (Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008; Triandis, 1989; Triandis & Suh, 2002). In Brazil, cultural norms regarding emotional expression can provide some insights into the higher-than-expected agreement of judgments of emotional resilience. For instance, while there is an expectation for emotional control in Brazil, a lack of such control does not necessarily result in negative judgments from others (Mograbi et al., 2019). In addition, Latin American cultures—including Brazil—are characterized by a high degree of interdependence and emotional expressivity (Krys et al., 2022). This might indicate that Brazilians may feel more comfortable expressing negative emotions, which can be better gauged by close informants to make accurate judgments.
Another intriguing finding was that post hoc analysis of the standardized difference between the means of self- and informant-reported SEB skills revealed a general pattern of self-effacement across nearly all SEB skills, except stress regulation. This was surprising considering the recent meta-analytic evidence showing no mean-level differences in reports on the Big Five when comparing self-reports and ratings from close informants (Kim et al., 2019). The authors raise the possibility that the lack of bias in self-reports of personality traits could stem from the similar desirability of these traits, which may not hold for certain skills. Thus, people might be more likely to self-enhance abilities rather than traits. However, our results suggest that this is not the case for SEB skills.
Although this is only speculative, other possibilities for the pattern of self-effacement in SEB skills in our study could lie in cultural factors or the higher proportion of females in our sample. For instance, people from collectivistic cultures tend to evaluate themselves less favorably than those in individualistic cultures (Atwater et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2012), and females tend to underestimate their abilities in self-report measures (Furnham, 2005; Furnham & Rawles, 1995). Finally, we cannot rule out the possibility of a positivity effect, which reflects the tendency of people to judge close others more positively than others’ own assessment of themselves (Vazire, 2006).
Test-Retest Reliability
The BESSI demonstrated high correlations over a two-week period, indicating strong test-retest reliability. This is important because it confirms the consistency and stability of the BESSI in measuring SEB skills over time, ensuring that the results are reliable and not influenced by short-term fluctuations.
Criterion and Incremental Validity
The simple correlations between the BESSI-BR’s SEB skills, life satisfaction, and self-esteem are consistent with those between their corresponding Big Five domains and life satisfaction (Jovanović, 2019; Robins et al., 2001; Schimmack et al., 2002a, 2002b; Suldo et al., 2015). Regarding incremental validity, the results showed that the combined use of the BESSI-BR and BFI-2 predicted 39% of the variance in life satisfaction, with the BESSI accounting for an additional 4% of the variance exclusively. Similarly, for self-esteem, the combined measures explained 50% of the variance, with the BESSI-BR contributing an exclusive 7% of the variance. A similar amount of incremental variance (4% on average) of the BESSI over and above the BFI-2 was found in the original study of Soto et al. (2022) with other relevant variables. Interestingly, the BFI-2 traits contributed smaller (but still statistically significant) amounts of incremental validity above and beyond the BESSI skills. These results indicate that—despite their strong convergence—SEB skills still provide unique behavioral information beyond traits, and this unique information matters for predicting consequential outcomes.
Broader Implications
Informant reports, in addition to self-reports, increase both the quantity and quality of information about people (Lee & Ashton, 2006), providing psychologists, teachers, and managers with greater confidence in decision-making and better prediction of external criteria. The moderate agreement of SEB skills found on informant reports along with the self-deprecation effect, indicate the BESSI-BR has the potential to be successfully used in different contexts (e.g., military, educational, organizational, and clinical) in its self- and observed-reported versions providing valid and complimentary evidence to evaluate, monitor, and diagnose participants’ weaknesses and strengths.
For low-stake purposes, the BESSI-BR can be used to evaluate intervention programs to increase SEB skills in the army, companies, schools, and counseling centers. Such interventions can be designed to attend to different demands in distinct contexts (e.g., one school might be interested in the development of self-management skills in its students, while another in innovative skills). The development of SEB skills is particularly important for children, adolescents, and young adults living under vulnerable conditions (i.e., low socioeconomic status, neighborhood and intrafamilial violence, racism and discrimination, unemployment and underemployment) to make their dreams come true.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
The current study has several strengths, including a rigorous adaptation procedure, a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the BESSI-BR, and the inclusion of both self-reports and informant-reports. Nonetheless, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, both life outcome criteria—self-esteem and life satisfaction—were assessed solely via self-report. This reliance on a single method may have inflated associations due to shared method variance. Future research should incorporate informant-reports and objective indicators of well-being to reduce these concerns.
Second, our data were obtained from convenience samples composed of university students and individuals recruited through social media and email distribution. This sampling strategy may have introduced selection bias, as evidenced by the overrepresentation of women and the predominance of participants who were relatively well-educated and identified as Caucasian. These demographic characteristics may have influenced our results by restricting the variability in SEB skills, personality traits, and well-being indicators. Thus, the generalizability of the findings to more socioeconomically, ethnically, and educationally diverse populations is limited. Future studies should examine the BESSI-BR in broader, more representative samples to evaluate whether the present results replicate across contexts.
Third, we did not collect self- and informant-reports of both skills and personality within the same sample, nor did we obtain ratings from multiple informants per participant, which prevents us from disentangling differences between skills and personality from sample-specific characteristics (e.g., non-WEIRD context) and from evaluating informant agreement, thereby constraining the strength of our conclusions. Future research can address this limitation by collecting data from the self and multiple informants on both SEB skills and personality traits.
Fourth, regarding statistical power, a priori analyses indicated that at least 61 participants would be needed to detect correlations of .35 (α = 0.05, power = 0.80). The informant–family member group (N = 34) was therefore underpowered. Although we retained this group because several moderate to large correlations reached statistical significance, these results should be interpreted with caution.
Finally, future research should examine whether informant-reported SEB skills more closely correspond to actual behavioral expression than self-concepts, and whether informant-reports provide incremental validity in predicting relevant outcomes. Such work would benefit from the use of the BESSI-BR in more diverse samples, including educational, organizational, and military settings.
Conclusion
In sum, the present research extends the research literature on social, emotional, and behavioral skills in multiple ways. First, it shows that the BESSI-BR is a reliable and valid tool for assessing SEB skills in a non-WEIRD cultural context. Second, it provides the first evidence to date of substantial agreement between BESSI self-reports and informant-reports. Third, it contributes further evidence that SEB skills converge substantially with the Big Five personality traits, while still providing some unique information for describing behavior and predicting consequential outcomes. We are therefore confident that the BESSI-BR will prove to be a useful assessment for Brazilian, Portuguese, and international researchers and practitioners.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Am I More Skilled than I Think? Investigating the Agreement Between Self- and Informant-Reports of Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Skills in Brazil
Supplemental Material for Am I More Skilled than I Think? Investigating the Agreement Between Self- and Informant-Reports of Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Skills in Brazil by Marcelle Fernandes, Cristian Zanon, Lucas G. C. Sá, Rodrigo R. Fabretti, Ana C. A. Cruz, Taís B. Silva, Madison N. Sewell, Christopher M. Napolitano, Christopher Soto, Brent W. Roberts in Personality Science.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
Not applicable.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author Contributions
Marcelle Fernandes: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, writing – original draft, project administration.
Cristian Zanon: conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing – original draft, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition.
Lucas G. C. Sá: methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing – original draft.
Rodrigo R. Fabretti: conceptualization, formal analysis, resources, writing – original draft, project administration, funding acquisition.
Ana C. A. Cruz: resources, writing – original draft.
Taís B. Silva: resources, writing – original draft.
Madison N. Sewell: writing - review and editing.
Christopher M. Napolitano: writing - review and editing.
Christopher J. Soto: methodology, software, formal analysis and writing - review and editing.
Brent W. Roberts: conceptualization, methodology, writing - review and editing.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) - Brazil.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Christopher M. Napolitano, Christopher J. Soto and Brent W. Roberts hold the copyright of the BESSI.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Note
Appendix
References
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.
