This paper comments on unusual results recently published by Byravan and Ramanaiah. Their factor analysis of the 16PF and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised showed the scales of the two tests to be largely unrelated. However, two recent factor analyses of these tests show strong relationships between the two sets of global factors—as strong as between the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised five factors and Goldberg's big-five factors. Possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ByravanA.RamanaiahN. V. (1995) Structure of the 16PF Fifth Edition from the perspective of the five-factor model. Psychological Reports, 76, 555–560.
2.
CattellH. E. (1995) The original big-five: a historical perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York City, NY.
3.
ConnS. R.RiekeM. L. (Eds.) (1994) The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
4.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
5.
DigmanJ. M. (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. In RosenzweigM. R.PorterL. W. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Vol. 41. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Pp. 417–440.
6.
GoldbergL. R. (1992) The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
7.
SaucierG.GoldbergL. R. (1995) The language of personality: lexical perspectives on the five-factor model. In WigginsJ. S. (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives for the five-factor model. New York: Guilford.
