Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Native Korean speakers attending English-speaking universities in the United States (47 men, 37 women) were administered Form S (self-report) or Form R (observer's ratings) of both the English and Korean language versions of the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory. Analyses of internal consistency reliability, Pearson correlation coefficients, and t tests computed across languages and within forms suggested chat the Korean translations of Form S and Form R were essentially equivalent to the English originals. Using the Korean versions of the Form S and Form R domains, correlations were computed between self-reported personality traits and the traits as rated by each participant's spouse. The resulting correlation matrix supported the convergent and discriminant validity of this Korean translation of the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Church

A. T.

Katigbak

S. M.

(1989) Internal, external, and self-report structure of personality in a non-western culture: An investigation of cross-language and cross-cultural generalizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 857–872.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1988) Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO-Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992a) Professional manual: Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992b) Trait psychology comes of age. In Sonderegger

T. B.

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Psychology and aging. Lincoln, NE: Univer. of Nebraska Press. Pp. 169–204.

Digman

J. M.

(1989) Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.

Digman

J. M.

(1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990) An alternative “Description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992) The development of markers of the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1993) The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.

10.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.

11.

Piedmont

L. R.

Chae

J. 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, 103–131.

12.

Szirmák

De Raad

(1994) Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 8, 95–117.

13.

Widiger

T. A.

(1992) Review of the NEO Personality Inventory. In Kramer

J. J.

Conoley

J. C.

(Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Univer. of Nebraska Press. P. 606.

14.

Yang

K-S.

Bond

H. M.

(1990) Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087–1095.

Psychometric Properties of a Korean Version of the Revised Neo-Personality Inventory

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References