9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 135

7

The Sixteen Factor Questionnaire (16PF)

Heather E.P. Cattell and Alan D. Mead

INTRODUCTION research and is embedded in a well-established theory of individual differences. This ques- The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire tionnaire’s extensive body of research (16PF) is a comprehensive measure of normal- stretches back over half a century, providing range personality found to be effective in a evidence of its utility in clinical, counseling, variety of settings where an in-depth assess- industrial-organizational, educational, and ment of the whole person is needed. The 16PF research settings (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; traits, presented in Table 7.1, are the result of H.E.P. Cattell and Schuerger, 2003; Conn and years of factor-analytic research focused on Rieke, 1994; Krug and Johns, 1990; Russell discovering the basic structural elements of and Karol, 2002). A conservative estimate of personality (Cattell, R.B., 1957, 1973). 16PF research since 1974 includes more than In addition to discovering the sixteen 2,000 publications (Hofer and Eber, 2002). normal-range personality traits for which the Most studies have found the 16PF to be instrument is named, these researchers iden- among the top five most commonly used tified the five broad dimensions Ð a variant of normal-range instruments in both research the ‘Big Five’ factors (Cattell, R.B., 1957, and practice (Butcher and Rouse, 1996; 1970). From the beginning, Cattell proposed Piotrowski and Zalewski, 1993; Watkins et al., a multi-level, hierarchical structure of per- 1995). The measure is also widely used inter- sonality: the second-order global measures nationally, and since its inception has been describe personality at a broader, conceptual adapted into over 35 languages worldwide. level, while the more precise primary factors reveal the fine details and nuances that make each person unique, and are more powerful in predicting actual behavior. In addition, this HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE factor-analytic structure includes a set of third- 16PF QUESTIONNAIRE order factors, also discussed in this chapter. Due to its scientific origins, the 16PF The history of the 16PF Questionnaire Questionnaire has a long history of empirical spans almost the entire history of standardized 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 136

136 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

Table 7.1 16PF Scale Names and Descriptors Descriptors of Low Range Primary Scales Descriptors of High Range Reserved, Impersonal, Distant Warmth (A) Warm-hearted, Caring, Attentive To Others Concrete, Lower Mental Capacity Reasoning (B) Abstract, Bright, Fast-Learner Reactive, Affected By Feelings Emotional Stability (C) Emotionally Stable, Adaptive, Mature Deferential, Cooperative, Avoids Conflict Dominance (E) Dominant, Forceful, Assertive Serious, Restrained, Careful Liveliness (F) Enthusiastic, Animated, Spontaneous Expedient, Nonconforming Rule-Consciousness (G) Rule-Conscious, Dutiful Shy, Timid, Threat-Sensitive Social Boldness (H) Socially Bold, Venturesome, Thick-Skinned Tough, Objective, Unsentimental Sensitivity (I) Sensitive, Aesthetic, Tender-Minded Trusting, Unsuspecting, Accepting Vigilance (L) Vigilant, Suspicious, Skeptical, Wary Practical, Grounded, Down-To-Earth Abstractedness (M) Abstracted, Imaginative, Idea-Oriented Forthright, Genuine, Artless Privateness (N) Private, Discreet, Non-Disclosing Self-Assured, Unworried, Complacent Apprehension (O) Apprehensive, Self-Doubting, Worried Traditional, Attached To Familiar Openness to Change (Q1) Open To Change, Experimenting Group-Orientated, Affiliative Self-Reliance (Q2) Self-Reliant, Solitary, Individualistic Tolerates Disorder, Unexacting, Flexible Perfectionism (Q3) Perfectionistic, Organized, Self-Disciplined Relaxed, Placid, Patient Tension (Q4) Tense, High Energy, Driven Global Scales Introverted, Socially Inhibited Extraversion Extraverted, Socially Participating Low , Unperturbable Anxiety High Anxiety, Perturbable Receptive, Open-Minded, Intuitive Tough-Mindedness Tough-Minded, Resolute, Unempathic Accommodating, Agreeable, Selfless Independence Independent, Persuasive, Willful Unrestrained, Follows Urges Self-Control Self-Controlled, Inhibits Urges Adapted with permission from S.R. Conn and M.L. Rieke (1994). 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

personality measurement. Instead of being hydrogen and oxygen). For to developed to measure preconceived dimen- advance as a science, he felt it also needed sions of interest to a particular author, the basic measurement techniques for personality. instrument was developed from the unique Thus, through Ð the powerful perspective of a scientific quest to try to new tool for identifying underlying dimen- discover the basic structural elements of sions behind phenomena Ð Cattell personality. believed the basic dimensions of personality ’s personality research could be discovered and then measured. was based on his strong background in the Over several decades, Cattell and his col- physical sciences; born in 1905, he witnessed leagues carried out a program of comprehen- the first-hand awe-inspiring results of sci- sive, international research seeking a ence, from electricity and telephones to auto- thorough, research-based map of normal per- mobiles, airplanes, and medicine. He wanted sonality. They systematically measured the to apply these scientific methods to the widest possible range of personality dimen- uncharted domain of human personality with sions, believing that ‘all aspects of human the goal of discovering the basic elements of personality which are or have been of impor- personality (much as the basic elements of the tance, interest, or utility have already become physical world were discovered and organ- recorded in the substance of language’ ized into the periodic table). He believed that (Cattell, R.B., 1943: 483). They studied these human characteristics such as , traits in diverse populations, using three differ- authoritarianism, altruism, or leadership skills ent methodologies (Cattell, R.B., 1973): could be predicted from these fundamental observation of natural, in-situ life behavior or personality traits (much as water was a L-data (e.g. academic grades, number of traffic weighted combination of the elements of accidents, or social contacts); questionnaire 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 137

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 137

or Q-data from the self-report domain; and research in each new country. Introduction of objective behavior measured in standardized, Web-based administration in 1999 allowed experimental settings or T-data (e.g. number international test-users easy access to admin- of original solutions to problem presented, istration, scoring, and reports in many differ- responses to frustrations). Eventually, this ent languages, using local norms research resulted in the 16 unitary traits of the 16PF Questionnaire shown in Table 7.1. From the beginning, Cattell’s goal was to investigate universal aspects of personality. CATTELL’S THEORY OF PERSONALITY Thus, his University of Illinois laboratory included researchers from many different Primary and secondary-level traits countries who later continued their research abroad. Ongoing collaborative research was From its inception, the 16PF Questionnaire carried out with colleagues around the world, was a multi-level measure of personality for example, in Japan (Akira Ishikawa and based on Cattell’s factor-analytic theory Bien Tsujioka), Germany (Kurt Pawlik and (Cattell, R.B., 1933, 1946). Cattell and his Klaus Schneewind), India (S. Kapoor), South colleagues first discovered the primary traits, Africa (Malcolm Coulter), England (Frank which provide the most basic definition of Warburton, Dennis Child), and Switzerland individual personality differences. These (Karl Delhees). more specific primary traits are more power- Since its first publication in 1949, there ful in understanding and predicting the com- have been four major revisions Ð the most plexity of actual behavior (Ashton, 1998; recent release being the 16PF fifth edition Judge et al., 2002; Mershon and Gorsuch, (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1993). The main goals of 1988; Paunonen and Ashton, 2001; Roberts the latest revision were to develop updated, et al., 2005). refined item content and collect a large, new Next, these researchers factor-analyzed the norm sample. The item pool included the primary traits themselves in order to investi- best items from all five previous forms of gate personality structure at a higher level. the 16PF plus new items written by the test From this, the broader ‘second-order’ or authors and 16PF experts. Items were refined global factors emerged Ð the original Big in a four-stage, iterative process using Five. These researchers found that the large samples. The resulting instrument has numerous primary traits consistently coa- shorter, simpler items with updated lan- lesced into these broad dimensions, each guage, a more standardized answer format, with its own independent focus and function and has been reviewed for gender, cultural, within personality, as described in Table 7.2. and ethnic bias and ADA (Americans With More recently, a similar set of Big Five Disabilities Act) compliance. Psychometric factors has been rediscovered by other characteristics are improved, hand scoring is researchers (Costa and McCrae, 1992a; easier, and the standardization contains over Goldberg, 1990), but using forced, orthogo- 10,000 people. nal factor definitions. The five global factors Because of its international origins, the also have been found in factor analyses of a 16PF Questionnaire was quickly translated wide range of current personality instruments and adapted into many other languages. (as Dr. Herb Eber, one of the original 16PF Since its first publication in 1949, the instru- authors, used to say, ‘These broad factors ment has been adapted into more than 35 lan- validate across very different populations and guages worldwide. These are not simply methods because they are as big as elephants translations, as many questionnaires provide, and can be found in any large data set!’). but careful cultural adaptations, involving Thus, these five ‘second-order’ or global new norms and reliability and validity factors were found to define personality at a 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/087:03PMPage138

Table 7.2 16PF global factors and the primary trait` make-up

Global Factors

Extraversion/Introversion High Anxiety/Low Anxiety Tough-Mindedness/Receptivity Independence/Accommodation Self-Control/Lack of Restraint

(A) Warm-Reserved (C) Emotionally Stable– (A) Warm–Reserved (E) Dominant–Deferential (F) Lively–Serious (F) Lively-Serious Reactive (I) Sensitive–Unsentimental (H) Bold–Shy (G) Rule-conscious/Expedient (H) Bold-Shy (L) Vigilant–Trusting (M) Abstracted–Practical (L) Vigilant–Trusting (M) Abstracted–Practical (N) Private-Forthright (O) Apprehensive–Self-assured (Q1) Open-to-Change/ (Q1) Open-to Change/ (Q3) Perfectionistic–Tolerates (Q2) Self-Reliant–Group-oriented (Q4) Tense–Relaxed Traditional Traditional disorder

Primary Factors 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 139

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 139

higher, more theoretical level of personality. likely to come across as warm, modest, and However, because of their factor-analytic concerned about others, while the second is origins, the two levels of personality are likely to seem bold, talkative, and attention essentially inter-related. The global factors seeking (less concerned about others). Thus, provide the larger conceptual, organizing although both may seek social interaction to framework for understanding the an equal degree, they do so for very different and function of the primary traits. However, reasons and are likely to have a very different the meanings of the globals themselves were impact on their social environment. determined by the primary traits which con- The primary and global levels of 16PF verged to make them up (see Table 7.2). traits combine to provide a comprehensive, For example, the Extraversion/Introversion in-depth understanding of an individual’s global factor was defined by the convergence personality. For example, although knowing of the five primary scales that represent basic someone’s overall level of Self-Control/con- human for moving toward versus scientiousness is important, successfully away from social interaction. Similarly, motivating that person to accomplish a the four primary traits that merged to define particular goal depends on also knowing Tough-Mindedness versus Receptivity whether their self-control is motivated more describe four different aspects of openness to by strong obedience to societal standards the world: openness to feelings and (Rule-Consciousness Ð G+), by a temperamen- (Sensitivity Ð I), openness to abstract ideas tal tendency to be self-disciplined and organ- and imagination (Abstractedness Ð M), open- ized (Perfectionism Ð Q3+), or by a practical, ness to new approaches and ideas (Openness- focused perceptual style (low Abstractedness Ð to-Change Ð Q1), and openness to people M−). Thus, the 16PF Questionnaire can pro- (Warmth Ð A). vide an in-depth, integrated understanding of Cattell’s hierarchical structure is based an individual’s whole personality. on the idea that all traits are inter- correlated in the real world (for example, and anxiety, although conceptu- The super factors of personality: ally quite distinct, are usually strongly inter- third-order factors correlated). Because the basic 16PF primary traits were naturally inter-correlated, they From the beginning, Cattell’s comprehensive could be factor-analyzed to find the secondary- trait hierarchy was three-tiered: A wide sam- level global traits. Thus, the data itself deter- pling of everyday behaviors were factor- mined the definitions of the primary and analyzed to find the primary factors; these global factors (in contrast to the forced primary traits were factor-analyzed, resulting orthogonal definitions of factors in the cur- in the five second-order, global traits; and rently popular Big Five models). then the global factors were factor-analyzed Thus, the global traits provide a broad into third-order traits at the highest, most overview of personality, while the primary abstract level of personality organization traits provide the more detailed information (Cattell, R.B., 1946, 1957, 1973). Factor about the richness and uniqueness of the indi- analysis of secondary factors to find third- vidual. For example, two people may have the order factors was practiced first in the ability same score on global Extraversion but may have domain (e.g. Spearman, 1932), but a few quite different social styles. Someone who is personality theorists have also looked at warm and supportive (A+) but shy and modest this highest level of personality structure (H−) may have the exact same Extraversion (e.g. Eysenck, 1978; Hampson, 1988; score as someone who is socially bold and Digman, 1997; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989). gregarious (H+) but emotionally aloof and Because factor-analytic results at each detached (A−). However, the first person is level depend on the clarity of the traits being 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 140

140 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

factor-analyzed, early attempts to find third- Self-Control or ); but also order traits were less reliable. However, the dimensions of internal perceptual sensi- several independent studies have recently tivity, reactivity, and creativity Ð openness to used large-scale samples to investigate the feelings, imagination, esthetics, and new third-order factor structure of the 16PF ideas (global Receptivity/openness versus (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996; Dancer and Woods, Tough-Mindedness). Note that higher levels 2007; Gorsuch, 2007; Lounsbury et al., of Self-Control/conscientiousness are related 2004). H.E.P. Cattell (1996) applied a common to lower levels of openness/Receptivity: factor analysis to the global traits of the Thus, highly conscientiousness, self-con- 16PF Fifth Edition norm sample (n = 2,500), trolled people also tend to be tough-minded and found two well-defined third-order fac- and less open to emotions and new ideas. tors. Richard Gorsuch (pers. comm., 12 Conversely, those who are more impulsive February 2007) applied a common factor and undisciplined also tend to be more analysis to the 16PF global scores of 11,000 creative and open to feelings and ideas subjects, and found two very similar third- (and to experience life more vividly). This order factors. Most recently, Dancer and third-order factor is well illustrated in the Woods (2007) found very similar results contrasting styles of having a conscientious working with a sample of 4,405 working focus on concrete, objective, practical , and this factor pattern is presented in tasks, versus occupations that focus on Table 7.3. abstract, imaginative, and innovative ideas. Each of these independent studies found Thus, superfactor II might be called self- the same two-factor solution. The first factor, disciplined practicality versus unrestrained factor I, involves human activities that are creativity. directed outward toward the world. This The fifth global factor, Anxiety/neuroti- includes both Extraversion (movement cism, then loads on both of these third-order toward social engagement, ‘communion’ factors. This suggests that the distress or ‘attachment’), as well as Independence described by Anxiety could arise either in the (mastery/dominance of the social and non- inward/outward engagement domain or in the social environment). Thus, third-order factor more internalized unrestrained creativity/ self- I encompasses tendencies to move assertively disciplined practicality domain. Additionally, outward into the world toward both social high levels of distress may affect either of connection and toward exploration/mastery these areas. This is consistent with the wide of the environment, and might be called range of outward and inward human capaci- active outward engagement. ties that can potentially become unbalanced, Third-order factor II involves internal or can be affected by . types of processes and events. It includes These results are consistent with Cattell’s first the age-old dimension of instinctual original belief that these third-order factors impulsivity versus self-restraint (global may not represent personality traits in the usual sense, but might reflect some broad, abstract level of sociological or biological influences on human (Cattell, R.B., 1957; Table 7.3 Varimax rotated factor loadings 1973). For example, there may be some of the second-order factors of the 16PF5 questionnaire (n = 4,405) biological/neurological structure that affects Rotated factor I Rotated factor II outward engagement versus inhibition (super- Extraversion 0.821 factor I), or affects control/ Independence 0.669 restraint and perceptual sensitivity/reactivity Anxiety −0.638 −0.522 (superfactor II). Definition and understanding Self-control 0.816 of these third-order factors await further Tough-mindedness 0.737 investigation. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 141

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 141

Comparison of the 16PF global methods, Costa and McCrae’s results do not scales with other five-factor models replicate (McKenzie, 1998). Instead, appro- priate factoring (see R.B. Cattell, 1978; For over 50 years, the 16PF has included the Gorsuch, 1983) of the original matrix pro- broad, second-order dimensions currently duces the five 16PF global factors, rather called ‘the Big Five’ (Cattell, R.B., 1946; than the three orthogonal NEO factors that Krug and Johns, 1986). In fact, Cattell located Costa and McCrae chose to use. three of these five factors in his earliest stud- A range of studies comparing the five 16PF ies of temperament (1933) Ð which Digman global factors and the set of NEO Big Five fac- (1996) called ‘the first glimpse of the Big tors show a striking resemblance between the Five’. Four of the five current traits were two (Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E.P. Cattell, already described in Cattell’s 1957 book. All 1996; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Gerbing and five traits have been clearly identified and Tuley, 1991; Schneewind and Graf, 1998). scorable from the questionnaire since the These studies show strong correlational and release of the fourth edition around 1970. factor-analytic alignment between the two Although Cattell continued to believe that models: Between the two extraversion factors, there were more than five factors, so have between anxiety and neuroticism, between many other prominent (Block, self-control and conscientiousness, between 1995; Fiske, 1994; Hogan et al., 1996; tough-mindedness/receptivity and openness- Jackson et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2005; to-experience, and between independence and Ostendorf, 1990; Saucier 2001). dis-. In fact, the average correla- The 16PF scales and items also played an tion between the 16PF global factors and their important role in the development of the other respective NEO five factors are just as high as Big Five factor models (e.g. Costa and those between the NEO five factors and the McCrae, 1976, 1985; Norman, 1963; Big Five markers which the NEO was devel- McKenzie et al., 1997; Tupes and Christal, oped to measure (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996; 1961). For example, the first NEO manual Goldberg, 1992). The alignments among the (Costa and McCrae, 1985: 26) describes the Big Five models are summarized in Table 7.4. development of the questionnaire as beginning However, there are important differences with cluster analyses of 16PF scales, which between the two models. Although propo- these researchers had been using for over nents of the other five-factor models have done 20 years in their own research. However, this much in the last decade to try to bring about origin, or even acknowledgement of the exis- a consensus in psychology about the exis- tence of the five 16PF global factors, does not tence of five global factors, their particular appear in any current accounts of the develop- set of traits have been found to be problem- ment of the Big Five (Costa and McCrae, atic. In the development process, the NEO 1992a; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). Big Five factors were forced to be statisti- Furthermore, when the 16PF correlation cally uncorrelated or orthogonal for reasons matrix, which was used in the original devel- of theoretical and statistical simplicity. opment of the Big Five, is re-analyzed However, few have found this as a satisfactory using more modern, rigorous factor-analytic approach for defining the basic dimensions

Table 7.4 Alignments among the three main five-factor models 16PF (Cattell) NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae) Big Five (Goldberg) Extraversion/Introversion Extraversion Surgency Low Anxiety/High Anxiety Neuroticism Emotional stability Tough-Mindedness/Receptivity Openness Intellect or culture Independence/Accommodation Agreeableness Agreeableness Self-Control/Lack of Restraint Conscientiousness Conscientiousness or dependability 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 142

142 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

of human personality. For example, Big Five (Wiggins, 2003), the five-factor model has no supporter Jack Digman (1997) stated: ‘The factor that centrally includes either domi- apparent orthogonality of the Big Five is a nance or warmth. Rather factor analyses of direct result of the general employment of the NEO-PI-R show that the central traits of varimax rotation, a procedure that imposes dominance and warmth are widely dispersed rather than finds independent factors.’Additi- and spread thinly among several of the five onally, Loevinger writes: factors, particularly extraversion There is no reason to believe that the bedrock of and agreeableness (H.E.P. Cattell, 1996; personality is a set of orthogonal ... factors, unless Child, 1998; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Costa you think that nature is constrained to present us and McCrae, 1992). a world in rows and columns. That would be con- However, in the 16PF Questionnaire, the venient for many purposes, particularly given the Independence global factor is organized statistical programs already installed on our com- puters. But is this realistic? (1994: 6) around traits of assertiveness and influence in the world (high scorers are dominant, The decision to impose orthogonal loca- independent-minded and innovative, low tions had fundamental effects on the resulting scorers are deferential, cooperative, and factors and their meanings. In his analysis agreeable). Thus, the 16PF global Independ- of this basic issue of factor analysis, Child ence factor is defined around traits of domi- states: nance or ‘agency’, while in the NEO model, Oblique solutions can spread the common vari- the basic trait of dominance is split and ance between and within factors; orthogonal rota- relegated to small roles in several factors tion can only spread variance between factors. including extraversion and dis-agreeableness That is why it is so important to carry out an oblique solution, to allow no escape of important (where dominance is centered in a negative, variance ... Unfortunately, the orthogonal compro- hostile context). mise disguises both the relationship between In a similar way, factor-analyses of the domains and the number of factors which could NEO-PI-R have found that the basic trait of possibly be present in hyperspace. (1998: 353–354) warmth (or communion) is also divided, with In contrast to the orthogonal definitions low loadings on several factors including that were fundamental to the development of extraversion and agreeableness (H.E.P. Cattell, the NEO factors, recent studies have found 1996; Child, 1998; Conn and Rieke, 1994; that the NEO five factors are actually sub- Smith et al., 2001). However, in the 16PF, stantially inter-correlated (Carnivez and Allen, Warmth plays a central role in Extraversion, 2005; Goldberg, 1992; Smith et al., 2001). the factor that focuses on the basic dimensions Even the latest NEO-PI-R manual (Costa of interpersonal relating. Additionally, these and McCrae, 1992: 100) shows neuroticism factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R indicate that and conscientiousness to inter-correlate − the openness trait (called ‘intellect’ in 0.53, and extraversion and openness to inter- Goldberg’s model) tends to focus more on cog- correlate 0.40. Goldberg’s Big Five markers nitive or intellectual curiosity, rather than also show substantial inter-correlations. equally measuring the whole domain, which These inter-correlations contradict the origi- includes openness to feelings, emotions, and nal premise on which the NEO Big Five fac- esthetics. Also, the Big Five factor ‘conscien- tors were defined. tiousness’ appears to be narrower in content The forced orthogonal factor locations of than 16PF Self-Control and doesn’t include the the five-factor model have had substantial whole domain of human methods for self- effects on the meanings of the traits. For control and self-restraint versus impulsivity example, although the basic traits of domi- (Roberts et al., 2005). nance (or agency) and warmth (or communion) Thus, the imposed orthogonality of the have long been seen as two of the most fun- NEO has had multiple impacts on its damental dimensions of human personality factor definitions. Furthermore, researchers 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 143

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 143

have found that when oblique methods are just as well with other Big Five domains than used on the NEO-PI-R items, allowing the data their own (even the test authors stated that itself to determine factor definitions, the result- the 1992 revision of the NEO was prompted ing factor definitions are different, and show by the fact that the facets for neuroticism and more clarity and simple structure than do the extraversion did not cohere psychometrically current NEO-PI-R factors (Child, 1998). (McCrae and Costa, 1992)). For example, However, the biggest difference between Roberts et al. (2005) found that three of the the two approaches is the method of develop- six conscientiousness facets do not adhere to ment of the primary level traits. In the 16PF that domain, but are as strongly related to Questionnaire, the first-order primary trait other Big Five domains as they are to consci- definitions are based on decades of scientific entiousness. research, and have been confirmed in a wide Overall, the strong correlations of many range of independent studies (see the section facets with theoretically unrelated domains on Validity). In contrast, the NEO-PI primary- and facets bring into question the definition level personality facets were decided by of the Big Five factors. This lack of adher- consensus among a small group of psycholo- ence of the NEO facets to their assigned gists (who selected what they felt should domains is inconsistent with the basic model appear in each NEO domain). Child (1998) of the questionnaire (and probably a result of comments: the non-empirical origins of the facets). Thus, a number of important issues have It does seem miraculous that the personality been raised about the integrity of the NEO domains divided exactly into six facets. Of course, as the NEO PI-R is a “top-down” theory, the model, as a result of both the arbitrary choice researchers can choose whatever number they of trait meanings and orthogonal global wish before tying up the parcel. The snag with this factor definitions. procedure is its arbitrary nature and proneness to Another important distinction between the creating factors or traits to fit a theory. (1998: 352) 16PF and other questionnaires is the contex- This method of selecting the fundamental tualized nature of its items. For example, facets of personality raises some basic ques- items on the NEO-PI-R involve a high degree tions about the NEO model. First of all, this of transparent self-rating or self-assessment arbitrary approach to choosing the facets of traits (e.g. ‘I’m an even-tempered person’; leaves them open to debate by every other ‘I am dominant, forceful, and assertive’; ‘I am who happens to conceptualize known as a warm and friendly person’). personality differently (e.g. Gough, 1987; Although this type of transparent item may Hogan et al., 1996; Wiggins, 2003). More do well in research settings, in most assess- importantly, these facets are now used to ment situations where there are strong moti- define and calculate scores on the basic vational components, these items tend to be Big Five factors, which have resulted in vulnerable to distortion. For example, vari- changed definitions of the Big Five domains ous studies have found that the basic factor themselves. structure of the NEO-PI-R is different in job Additionally, many correlational and applicant samples, thus bringing into question factor-analytic studies have found the under- the validity of the questionnaire in settings lying factor structure of the NEO facets where and social desirability are inconsistent and confusing, and that the issues (Schmit and Ryan, 1993; Smith et al., domains do not actually hold together (Child, 2001). In contrast, 16PF items tend to be 1998; Church and Burke, 1994; Conn and more indirect and involve more contextualized Rieke, 1994; Loevinger, 1994; Parker et al., questions about actual behavior or experience 1993; Roberts et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2001). (e.g. ‘When I find myself in a boring situa- These researchers have found that a large tion, I usually “tune out” and daydream about proportion of the NEO facets actually correlate other things’; ‘I hardly ever feel hurried or 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 144

144 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

rushed as I go about my daily tasks’; ‘I some- ized-ten scores) ranging from 1 to 10, with a times feel that I need my friends more than mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2.0. they need me’). The latest standardization includes over Furthermore, there is substantial research 10,000 people and was published in 2001. indicating that self-ratings are different Because the questionnaire is un-timed and from observer ratings in their factor struc- has simple, straightforward instructions, ture, and that they are only moderately cor- administration requires minimal supervision related with actual behavior (e.g. Paunonen, in either individual or group settings. 1993; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989). This Administration time is about 35Ð50 minutes suggests that much of the variance or mean- for paper-and-pencil format, and about ing in self-ratings is not explained by the 25Ð40 minutes for computer administration. actual trait value, but rather is substantially Easy scoring procedures are provided affected by self- or self-image. for paper-and-pencil, computer, or Internet For example, self-ratings do not capture the formats. The publisher provides various scor- important dimensions of personality that are ing services (mail-in, fax, software, and outside of a person’s awareness or inconsis- Internet) and a range of interpretive reports tent with their self-image. Therefore, indi- for different applications. Detailed instruc- rect questions that ask about actual everyday tions for administration and scoring can be behavior (as 16PF items do) tend to measure found in numerous places (H.E.P. Cattell personality more accurately, than asking and Schuerger, 2003; Russell and Karol, a person to rate themselves on the trait Ð 2002). particularly where social desirability is The questionnaire is available in many dif- involved or when no validity scales are ferent languages (international translations available on the instrument. exceed 35 languages worldwide). Unlike many commercially available personality measures, recent 16PF translations are cul- turally adapted, with local norms and relia- BASIC FEATURES OF THE 16PF bility and validity information available in QUESTIONNAIRE individual manuals. Internet administration also allows use of international norms for First published in 1949, the 16PF Question- scoring, plus reports in over a dozen different naire has had four major revisions, in 1956, language groups. 1962, 1968, and the fifth edition in 1993 The 16PF traits are also measured in par- (Cattell, R.B. et al.). The latest edition con- allel versions for younger age ranges. For tains 185 multiple-choice items, with a three- example, the 16PF Adolescent Personality point answer format. Item content is Questionnaire measures the 16PF traits in non-threatening, asking about daily behavior, 12Ð18 year olds (Schuerger, 2001). A shorter interests, and opinions. The short ability scale (20-minute) version of the questionnaire, con- items (Factor B) are grouped together at the sisting of a subset of somewhat-shortened end of the questionnaire with separate scales, was developed for use in employee instructions. The questionnaire is written at selection settings Ð the 16PF Select (Cattell, a fifth grade reading level, and meant for R.B. et al., 1999). The 16PF Express use with people 16 years and older. (Gorsuch, 2006) provides a very short, The instrument provides scores on the 15-minute measure of all the traits (with 16 primary scales, 5 global scales, and 3 four or five items per factor). The 16PF traits response bias scales. All personality scales are also appear in the PsychEval Personality bipolar (have clear, meaningful definitions at Questionnaire (PEPQ; Cattell, R.B. et al., both ends), and are given in ‘stens’ (standard- 2003), a comprehensive instrument which 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 145

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 145

includes both normal and abnormal personal- RELIABILITY AND HOMOGENEITY ity dimensions. Test–retest reliability TestÐretest reliabilities (measuring temporal USES AND APPLICATIONS consistency or stability) are documented in the 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual Because of its strong scientific background, (Conn and Rieke, 1994). For the 16PF primary the 16PF Questionnaire is used in a wide scales, testÐretest reliabilities average 0.80 range of settings, including industrial/organi- over a two-week interval (ranging from 0.69 zational, counseling and clinical, basic to 0.87), and 0.70 over a two-month interval research, educational, and medical settings. (ranging from 0.56 to 0.79). The five global The instrument’s ability to provide compre- scales of the 16PF Questionnaire show even hensive, objective information in an efficient higher testÐretest reliabilities (they have manner makes it a particularly powerful tool more items); they average 0.87 for a two- for industrial/organization applications, such week interval (ranging from 0.84 to 0.91), as employee selection, promotion, develop- and 0.78 for a two-month interval (ranging ment, coaching, or outplacement counseling. from 0.70 to 0.82). The questionnaire is also widely used in International 16PF editions also show career counseling settings. strong testÐretest reliabilities. For example, Although the 16PF Questionnaire is a two-week testÐretest reliabilities for the measure of normal-range personality, it can Norwegian edition average 0.80 for primary be used in counseling/clinical settings to pro- scales and 0.87 for global scales (IPAT, vide an in-depth, integrated picture of the 2004b); for the German edition, primary whole person. Many experts have promoted scale reliabilities average 0.83 over a one- the use of normal-range measures in clinical month interval (Schneewind and Graf, settings (e.g. Butcher and Rouse, 1996; 1998); for the Danish edition, primary scale Costa and McCrae, 1992b). For example, reliabilities average 0.86 over a two-week 16PF dimensions have proven useful in effi- interval (IPAT, 2004c); and for the French ciently developing a comprehensive picture edition, one-month reliabilities average 0.73 of the whole person (including strengths and (IPAT, 1995). weaknesses), facilitating rapport and empathy, helping clients develop greater self-aware- ness, identifying relevant adjustment issues, Internal consistency choosing appropriate therapeutic strategies, and planning developmental goals (H.B. and Internal consistency indicates the degree of H.E.P. Cattell, 1997; Karson et al., 1997). inter-relatedness or homogeneity of the items Information about questionnaire interpre- in a scale, and is thus a good estimate of reli- tation can be found in numerous 16PF ability for narrowly defined scales. Internal resource books. These include the test manu- consistency estimates for the 16PF primary als, clinically oriented interpretive books scales on a diverse sample of 4,660, range (e.g. H.B. Cattell, 1989; Karson et al., 1997; from 0.66 to 0.86, with a mean of 0.75 (Conn Meyer, 1996), resource books for I/O settings and Rieke, 1994). Normal internal consis- (e.g. Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Lord, tency estimates are not appropriate for the 1999; Watterson, 2002); and comprehensive global scales, because of their heterogeneous interpretive guidebooks (e.g. H.E.P. Cattell nature as weighted composites of primary and Schuerger, 2003; H.E.P. Cattell, 2007), scales. However, recently developed equa- plus computer-generated interpretive reports. tions (F. Drasgow, pers. comm., January 2005) 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 146

146 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

for estimating internal consistency in hetero- where rXC is the criterion-related validity of geneous composites were applied, and aver- the scale, riC is the criterion correlation of age 0.87 over the five global scales (S. Bedwell, item i, and other terms are as defined in pers. comm., February 2007). Equation 7.1. The term involving a ratio of Internal consistency for international numbers of items in Equation 7.1 approaches versions of the instrument also meets profes- one quickly and can be ignored. The remain- sionally accepted standards. For example, der of Equation 7.1 looks quite like Equation Cronbach alphas averaged 0.74 in the 7.2; both equations contain ratios of sums German edition (Schneewind and Graf, with similar denominators. The denominator 1998), 0.72 in the French edition (Rolland is maximized when the items are highly cor- and Mogenet, 1996), 0.75 in the Japanese edi- related (and a large denominator leads to a tion (IPAT, 2007), 0.69 in the Chinese edition small ratio). The key difference between the (Jia-xi and Guo-peng, 2006), and 0.73 in the two equations is that the ratio is subtracted Spanish-American or Pan-Spanish edition from 1 in Equation 7.1. (H.E.P. Cattell, 2005). Thus, opposite conditions lead to maxi- mization of Equations 7.1 and 7.2. Equation 7.1 shows that internal consistency is maxi- mized when items are highly correlated, and Too much homogeneity? Equation 7.2 shows that criterion-related Test developers often select items to maxi- validity is maximized when items are uncor- mize the internal consistency of a scale by related. In practical terms, this means it is deleting heterogeneous items. Cattell and mathematically impossible to simultaneously others (Cattell, R.B. and Tsujioka, 1964; maximize reliability and validity of a scale. Rosnowski, 1987) have questioned this prac- Therefore, test developers must choose tice because it can lead to seemingly highly between making very homogeneous scales reliable scales which actually measure only a that reliably predict only a narrow set of very narrow, homogeneous segment of the behaviors versus creating more heteroge- target construct, or measure it only in a narrow neous scales that measure more comprehen- group of people. sive scale content. Because the predictive In fact, personality scales can be too homo- validity of a scale is the ultimate measure of geneous. Lord (1980: 9) shows how, for its worth, internal consistency reliability dichotomous items, a single scale cannot should not be the main criterion used in scale maximize both internal consistency reliability development. and validity. Reliability may be defined as:

n ⎛ ∑ σ2 ⎞ FACTORIAL VALIDITY ρ = ⎜1− i ⎟ XX ' − σσρ (7.1) n 1⎝ ∑∑ ijij⎠ One important source of validity for the 16PF Questionnaire has been factor-analytic where n is the number of items on the studies of the structure of the primary and scale, rXX′ is the internal consistency reliabil- global traits across diverse samples of people ity, rij is the correlation of items i and j, and (e.g. Boyle, 1989; Carnivez and Allen, 2005; si and sj are the standard deviations of items H.E. Cattell, 1996; Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; i and j. Validity may be defined as: Cattell, R.B. and Krug, 1986; Chernyshenko et al., 2001; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Dancer ∑ σ ρ ρ = iiC and Woods, 2007; Gerbing and Tuley, 1991; XC ∑∑ σσρ (7.2) R. Gorsuch, pers. comm., February 2007; ijij Hofer et al., 1997; Krug and Johns, 1986; 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 147

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 147

McKenzie et al., 1997; Ormerod et al., 1995). Edition Administrator’s Manual (Russell These studies have used exploratory and con- and Karol, 2002) and the 16PF Fifth Edition firmatory factor analysis to confirm the Technical Manual (Conn and Rieke, 1994) number, identity, and independence of the present correlations between the 16PF primary factors; and to confirm the number, primary and global scales and a range of identity, and primary factor make-up of the other measures of normal, personality. global factors. These include the California Psychological For example, Dancer and Woods (2007) Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Myers-Briggs factor-analyzed the primary traits in a sample Type Indicator (Myers and McCaulley, of 4,414 business employees and found 1985), the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae, strong support for the 16PF global factor 1992a), the Personality Research Form structure. R. Gorsuch (pers. comm., February (Jackson, 1989), the Coopersmith Self-Esteem 2007) factor-analyzed the primary traits to Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), the Holland find the global traits on a sample of 11,000 occupational themes, as well as other meas- test-takers, and then applied a common factor ures of creativity, leadership, and social analysis to the globals to confirm the third- skills. These results consistently validate the order factors. Hofer et al. (1997) used confir- meanings of the 16PF scales. matory factor analysis and structural There are numerous independent studies equation modeling tests of factorial invari- showing strong relationships between the ance to study the measurement properties 16PF scales and other questionnaire scales; of the questionnaire across six large, diverse, for example, Boyle (1989) studied relation- samples (n = 30,732), and concluded that ships with the Eysenck and Comrey scales; ‘the factor structure of the 16PF holds Dancer and Woods (2007) investigated rela- remarkably well across radically different tionships with the FIRO-B; and many studies samples of people, across gender, and across have investigated the relationships between different forms of the 16PF’ (266). the 16PF scales and the NEO-PI scales Factor analyses of international editions (Carnivez and Allen, 2005; H.E.P. Cattell, have also confirmed the structure of the 16PF 1996; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Gerbing and primary and global traits. For example, factor Tuley, 1991). analyses have confirmed the factor structure International 16PF editions have also in the German edition (Schneewind and Graf, shown strong relationships with other instru- 1998), the French edition (Rolland and ments. For example, the Japanese 16PF Mogenet, 1996), the Japanese edition (IPAT, manual (IPAT, 2007) provides inter-correla- 2007), the Chinese edition (Jia-xi tions with the OPQ and the SPI (a Myers- and Guo-peng, 2006), the Castilian Spanish Briggs type measure); the German edition edition (Prieto et al., 1996), the Italian edi- provides inter-correlations and multi-level tion (Argentero, 1989), the South African factor analyses with the NEO-PI-R, the PRF, edition (Van Eeden and Prinsloo, 1997; and the Locus of Control Inventory Schepers and Hassett, 2006); the Norwegian (Schneewind and Graf, 1998); the Dutch edition (IPAT, 2004b); and the Dutch edi- Manual provides inter-correlations with the tion (IPAT, 2004a). MBTI as well as with peer-ratings of person- ality (IPAT, 2004a); the French edition (IPAT, 1995) provides inter-correlations with the CPI, the Gordon Personality CONSTRUCT VALIDITY Inventory, and the MBTI; and Schepers and Hassett (2006) provide correlational, factor- Construct validity of the 16PF scales has analytic, and canonical correlations between been demonstrated by their correlations with the South African 16PF and the Locus of scales on other instruments. The 16PF Fifth Control Inventory. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 148

148 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

PREDICTIVE VALIDITY Employee selection, promotion, and development For over half a century, the 16PF Questionnaire has proven useful in understanding and pre- The 16PF Questionnaire has proven itself dicting a wide range of important behaviors, invaluable in making a range of organiza- thus providing a rich source of information tional decisions, such as employee hiring, for test users. For example, the instrument promotion, development, coaching, has been effective in predicting such diverse outplacement, and retirement counseling. areas as creativity (Guastello and Rieke, There is an extensive body of research 1993b), social skills and empathy (Conn and demonstrating the 16PF Questionnaire’s Rieke, 1994), marital compatibility (Russell, ability to predict a wide variety of 1995), and leadership potential (Conn and occupational profiles (Cattell, R.B. et al., Rieke, 1994), as well as over a hundred occu- 1970; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Guastello and pational profiles (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; Rieke, 1993a, 1993b; Russell and Karol, Conn and Rieke, 1994; Schuerger and 2002; Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Watterson, 1998; Walter, 2000). Walter, 2000). Additionally, the 16PF has The 16PF Questionnaire has been particu- been useful in predicting many important larly productive in the domain of basic person- job-related dimensions, for example, ality measurement research. For example, in creativity (Guastello and Rieke, 1993b), studies of underlying personality structure leadership styles (Watterson, 2002), team (Roberts et al., 2005), research into measure- roles and team climate (Burch and ment equivalence across cultures (Ellis and Anderson, 2004; Fisher et al., 1998), social Mead, 2000); studies into differences between skills (Conn and Rieke, 1994), job training peer-ratings and self-reports (IPAT, 2004a), success (Tango and Kolodinsky, 2004), and and studies of response bias (Christiansen job satisfaction (Lounsdbury et al., 2004). et al., 1994) and social desirability (Seisdedos, International versions have also been 1996). The instrument has also been useful in effective in predicting important work social and , for example, dimensions, for example, punctuality, job in studies of social perception and judgments preparedness, and ability to work alone in (Rohmer and Louvet, 2004), attributional style the Netherlands (IPAT, 2004a); call-center (Wang and Zhang, 2005), cognitive style and customer service performance in Britain decision-making (Bisset, 2000), and cult mem- (Williams, 1999); and leadership effective- bership (Kintlerova, 2000). ness ratings in Norwegian managers The measure has also been productive in (Hetland and Sandal, 2003). educational settings, for example, in predicting Note that almost all research results are academic achievement (Schuerger, 2001), char- linear and assume that ‘more is better’ on acteristics of college drop-outs (Sanchez personality dimensions, which may not be et al., 2001), choice of college major or spe- the case. For example, although police offi- cialization (Hartung et al., 2005), and university cers as a group generally score above aver- sports participation (Arora, 2005). The instru- age on Rule-Consciousness (G+); higher ment has also been useful in medical studies, on-the-job performance is often predicted by for example, of treatment issues in end-stage lower scores on Rule-Consciousness within liver disease (Bonaguidi, 1996) and illnesses this above average group Ð probably because such as coronary artery disease (Miller et al., extremely G+ people may be rigidly rule- 1996) or cancer (Nair et al., 1993). Because of bound (Adcox et al., 1999). Therefore, job space limitations, this review will focus on two performance results need to be taken in broad areas of use: organizational applications, the context of the group’s general score such as employee selection and career develop- range, and curvilinear relationships should ment, and counseling and clinical uses. be considered. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 149

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 149

Meta-analytic job performance innovative goals, tend to score higher on + evidence Openness-to-Change (Q1 ), Abstractedness (M+), Reasoning Ability (B+); average Over two decades, a large body of evidence (below other managers) on Extraversion has shown that various Big Five measures of traits such as Warmth (A), Forthrightness personality are valid predictors of job per- (N), and Group-Orientation (Q2); and aver- formance (Hough and Ones, 2001; Hurtz and age to below on Rule-Consciousness (G−) Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., (H.B. Cattell, 1989; Walter, 2000; Watterson, 1991). Indeed, the 16PF Questionnaire shows 2002). On the other hand, managers who are even greater ability to predict occupational in applied manufacturing and operations outcomes through its more fine-grained pri- roles tend to score below average on mary traits, which are more powerful in cap- Abstractedness (M−) and Sensitivity (I−), turing important variance about specific and above average on Rule-Consciousness behaviors (Ashton, 1998; Judge et al., 2002; (G+) and Perfectionism (Q3+). Many studies Mershon and Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen and have predicted other aspects of managerial Ashton, 2001; Gorsuch, 2006). style such as achievement motivation or supervision style, such as task-oriented versus relationship-oriented focus (Clark and Clark, 1990; Dutta, 1995; Guastello and Managers, executives, and leaders Rieke, 1993a; Hinton and Barrow 1976; The 16PF Questionnaire has a long history of Johns et al., 1980; Roy, 1995; Walter, 2000). identifying the personality traits of success- Similar results have also been found in ful supervisors, managers, executives, and international samples, such as German man- other leaders (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; agers, executives, and consultants (Schneewind Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999; Cattell, R.B. and and Graf, 1998); Norwegian managers and Stice, 1954; Christiansen et al., 1994; Conn executives (IPAT, 2004b); middle- and senior- and Rieke, 1994; Guastello and Rieke, level British managers (Bartram, 1992; Singh, 1993a; Johns et al., 1980; Roy, 1995; 1989; Williams, 1999); high-performing Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter, Japanese managers (IPAT, 2006); autocratic 2000; Watterson, 2002). These studies con- versus democratic styles of managers in sistently indicate that three clusters of traits India (Singh and Kaur, 2001); and predic- are important for managerial success. First, tions of management level and income in effective managers tend to be higher on Dutch samples (IPAT, 2004a). Global Independence and its primary traits of Dominance (E+), Social Boldness (H+), and + Openness-to-Change (Q1 ). Second, leaders Entrepreneurship tend to be below average on Anxiety and its traits of Apprehension (O−) and Emotional Aldridge (1997) studied the of Stability (C+). Third, leaders tend to be entrepreneurs and found them to be signifi- above average on Extraversion and its cantly below average on anxiety traits Ð low traits of Warmth (A+), Social Boldness (H+), on Apprehensiveness (Self-Assured (O−)) Liveliness (F+), and Group-Orientation and above average on Emotional Stability (Q2−). Leaders also tend to be above average (C+). They were also above average on on Reasoning Ability (B+), and somewhat Independence and its traits of Dominance above average on self-control traits. (E+), Social Boldness (H+), and Openness- Many of these studies also predicted impor- to-Change (Q1+). They were also higher on tant differences in management style and Self-Reliance (Q2+), Rule-Consciousness behaviors. For example, top-level executives (G+), and Reasoning Ability (B+), and low whose roles involve developing long-term, on Sensitivity (Utilitarian (I−)). 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 150

150 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

H.B. Cattell confirmed many of these samples, for example in several groups of results in her applied research (H.B. Cattell, British salespeople (Williams, 1999), German 1989; H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, 1997), salespeople (Schneewind, 1998), and identifying traits that distinguished entrepre- Norwegian salespeople (IPAT, 2004b). neurs from other executives: innovative thinking (Openness-to-Change (Q+)); ability to step back and focus on the ‘big picture’ Social/helping occupations (Abstractedness (M+)); and a preference for working independently (Self-Reliance (Q2+)). 16PF profiles have also been identified for Aldridge (1997) and Fraboni and Saltstone social or helping occupations such as teach- (1990) also found that entrepreneurs tended ing, counseling, customer service, human to be less sociable than regular managers resource personnel, ministers/priests, nurses, (low Warmth (A−), and low Trust (L+)), and and physical therapists (e.g. Cattell, R.B. prefer to work independently (Self-Reliance et al., 1970; H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, (Q2+)). Many of these results have also been 1997; Phillips et al., 1985; Roy, 1995; confirmed in international samples, for Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter, example, Norwegian entrepreneurs (IPAT, 2000). People in social/helping occupations 2004b). Thus, the traits that particularly dis- tend to be above average on Extraversion, and tinguish entrepreneurs from other business particularly on Warmth (A+); they also tend to managers include traits that cluster around be below average on Tough-Mindedness (in qualities of innovation and self-reliance. the Receptive/open direction) Ð above average on Sensitivity (I+) and Open-to-Change (Q1+). They also tend to be below average on − − Sales Anxiety: Relaxed (Q4 ), Self-Assured (O ), Trusting (L−), and Emotionally Stable (C+); Many studies have identified a similar 16PF and above average on Self-Control traits of profile for effective salespeople (e.g. Cattell, Perfectionism (Q3) and Rule-Consciousness R.B. et al., 1970; Guastello and Rieke, 1993b; (G+). These results have been validated in var- Rieke and Russell, 1987; Schuerger and ious international samples, such as British Watterson, 1991; Tucker, 1991; Walter, counselors of adolescents (Lee, 1994) and 2000). Salespeople tend to be high on customer service personnel (Williams, 1999). Extraversion and its traits of Warmth (A+), Social Boldness (H+), Liveliness (F+), and − Group-Orientation (Q2 ). They also tend Police, security, and protective to be low on Anxiety and its sub-traits of service personnel Apprehensiveness (Self-Assured (O−)), Vigi- lance (Trusting (L−)), and high on Emotional The 16PF Questionnaire has a long history of Stability (C+). They also tend to be somewhat predicting the personality profiles of effective above average on Independence and its traits police officers, prison guards, firefighters, of Social Boldness (H+) and Dominance and other protective service and security per- (E+); and somewhat above average on Rule- sonnel (e.g. Adcox et al., 1999; Cattell, R.B. Consciousness (G+) and Reasoning Ability et al., 1970; Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999; H. Eber, (B+). Thus, salespeople tend to be generally pers. comm., 10 February 2007; Hofer et al., similar to managers; however, salespeople 1997; IPAT, 2003; Jones et al., 2006; tend to be even higher on the traits of Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter, Extraversion (especially F+, H+, and A+) and 2000). These studies indicate that protective lower on Anxiety traits (more Self-Assured service officers tend to be calm and resilient (O−), and are Stable (C+)). This profile has under stress (low Anxiety, Emotionally Stable also been validated in numerous international (C+); Self-Assured (O−); and Trusting (L−)). 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 151

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 151

They also tend to be responsible, self- Creativity disciplined, and task-focused (high self-con- trol; Rule-Conscious, G+; Perfectionistic, Many studies have examined the relationship Q3+; Practical, M−; and Serious, F−). They between 16PF scores and creativity. Conn and also tend to be tough and pragmatic (high on Rieke (1994) summarized much of this Tough-Mindedness; Unsentimental (I−); research, and these results have been Practical (M−); and Traditional (Q1−)). confirmed in recent American and interna- Additionally, protective service personnel are tional samples (e.g. Joy and Hicks, 2004; consistently bold and fearless (high on Social Jurcova, 2000; Roy, 1995, 1996). Consistent Boldness (H+), but not on other Extraversion predictors of creativity include high scores on traits), and somewhat above average on Independence and its primary scales + + Dominance (E+). Dominance (E ), Social Boldness (H ), and + These results have been confirmed across Openness-to-Change (Q1 ); low scores on very large samples. For example, Herb Tough-Mindedness (in the Receptive or open Eber’s sample of 30,700 police officers con- direction) and its traits of Openness-to-Change + + firms all 12 of the trait findings noted above (Q1 ), Sensitivity (I ), and Abstractedness + (H. Eber, pers. comm., 10 February, 2007). (M ); and somewhat below average scores Additional trait patterns have been found to on Self-Control (unrestrained). These results be associated with particular job roles and have been confirmed in international samples, functions, for example, officers who work for example in Norwegian artists (IPAT, alone versus in community-patrol situations, 2004b) and in Korean, American, Finnish, and those who perform investigative roles, or Slovak students (Shaughnessy et al., 2004). those who work on high-stress assignments tend to show particular trait profiles. Career development counseling and coaching Scientific, technology, and research personnel The 16PF Questionnaire is widely used in career development planning, counseling, and Distinct 16PF profiles have also been found coaching, both inside and outside organiza- for scientific or technological professions tions, to help clients understand their strengths such as computer scientists, physicists, engi- and limitations, and plan self-development neers, and research and development person- goals and effective career paths (Carson, 1998; nel (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; Schuerger and Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970; H.E.P. Cattell and Watterson, 1998; Walter, 2000). In addition Schuerger, 2003; Conn and Rieke, 1994; Krug to being high on Abstract Reasoning (B+), and Johns, 1990; Lowman, 1991; Schuerger, they tend be high on Independence and its 1995; Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; traits of Dominance (E+) and Openness-to- Watterson, 2002). In addition to using the Change (Q1+); low on Extraversion Traits of numerous 16PF occupational profiles to Reserved (A−), Serious (F−), and Self- determine personÐjob fit, the questionnaire Reliant (Q2+); and below average on Anxiety has been useful because of its long history of traits of Self-Assured (O-), Relaxed (Q4−), predicting the six Holland RIASEC occupa- and Emotionally Stable (C+). These results tional dimensions (Schuerger and Watterson, have been confirmed in international sam- 1998; Schuerger and Sfiligoj, 1998). There ples, for example, groups of Norwegian is also empirical evidence of the relationship researchers, engineers, and computer pro- between 16PF scores and important career out- grammers (IPAT, 2004b), British engineers comes such as career satisfaction (Lounsbury (Williams, 1999), and German technical pro- et al., 2004) and job-training success (Tango fessionals (Schneewind and Graf, 1998). and Kolodinsky, 2004). 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 152

152 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

Counseling and clinical uses the two partners’ unique traits combine and interact (Russell, 1995). In particular, 16PF The 16PF Questionnaire was developed as a research has predicted various aspects of measure of normal adult personality, and marital satisfaction as a function of absolute cannot be used to diagnosis psychiatric disor- or relative levels of personality traits. For ders (e.g. Lally, 2003). However, 16PF example, Krug (1976) found that different dimensions have proven quite useful in coun- types of marital dissatisfaction were related seling and clinical settings; for example, in to large score differences between partners quickly developing a picture of the individ- on certain traits. He also found that dissatis- ual’s overall personality functioning (includ- faction in wives was related to particular per- ing strengths and weaknesses), in facilitating sonality traits in husbands, while husbands’ the development of empathy and rapport, dissatisfaction was related to largely different helping the client gain greater self-awareness, traits in wives. planning developmental goals, anticipating Russell (1995) studied 321 couples and the course of therapy, selecting optimal ther- found that several aspects of marital satisfac- apeutic interventions, and identifying rele- tion were related to higher levels of particu- vant adjustment issues (H.B. Cattell, 1989; lar 16PF traits. She also found that several Karson et al., 1997; Meyer, 1996; Russell, 16PF traits predicted greater consensus 1995; Schuerger, 2001). between the partners on important topics, 16PF scores have also been successful in and that better problem-solving communica- predicting a diverse range of behaviors of tion was related to another set of traits. She interest to clinicians; for example, effects of also found that 16PF traits predicted more group therapy (Wang and Li, 2003), war- traditional gender roles in relationships. related stress (Poikolainen, 1993), alienation Craig and Olson (1995) also studied 145 (Yi-Hui et al., 2004), types of substance marital therapy clients, and found that five abuse (Carey et al., 1995), suicidal tenden- different 16PF trait clusters represented dif- cies (Ferrero et al., 1997), delinquency ferent marital types that required different (Junmai, 2005), law-breaking tendencies types of therapeutic goals. (Low et al., 2004), and excessive Internet use (Xiaoming, 2005). One source of useful clinical information SUMMARY has been the qualitative research carried out in clinical settings (H.B. Cattell, 1989; The 16PF Questionnaire is a comprehensive H.B. Cattell and H.E.P. Cattell, 1997; Karson and widely used measure of normal, adult et al., 1997). For example, H.B. Cattell stud- personality which was developed from ied over 1,100 clients who were assessed or factor-analytic research into the basic struc- treated over a 20-year period, and found that tural elements of personality. First published specific 16PF score combinations were in 1949, and now in its fifth edition, the ques- related to distinct patterns of thinking, feel- tionnaire is based on Cattell’s multi-level ing, and behavior. She found that score com- personality theory, and measures 16 primary binations predicted individuals’ capacity for factors, 5 global or second-stratum factors insight and , difficulties in (the original Big Five), and 2 third-stratum establishing trust and rapport, sensitivity to factors. Although this chapter could not power dynamics in relationships, effective review the decades of research on the 16PF treatment modalities, and capacity for suc- Questionnaire, a summary of reliability stud- cessful termination. ies indicates that the questionnaire provides The 16PF Questionnaire has proven par- reliable information, and a selection of valid- ticularly useful in marital or couples counsel- ity studies illustrates how the instrument is ing, where it provides information about how used effectively in a variety of contexts. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 153

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 153

REFERENCES Personality and Individual Differences, 10(12): 1289–99. Adcox, K., Taylor, W. and Mead, A.D. (1999) Burch, G.S.J. and Anderson, N. (2004) ‘Measuring ‘Leveraging personality assessment to reduce person-team fit: Development andvalidation of law enforcement officers’ accidents’, Paper the team selection inventory’, Journal of presented at the Annual Meeting of the Managerial Psychology, 19(4): 406–26. Society for Industrial and Organizational Butcher, J.N. and Rouse, S.V. (1996) ‘Personality: Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Individual differences and clinical assessment’, Aldridge, J.H. (1997) ‘An occupational person- Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 87–111. ality profile of the male entrepreneur as Carnivez, G.L. and Allen, T.J. (2005) ‘Convergent assessed by the 16PF Fifth Edition’, unpub- and factorial validity of the 16PF and the lished doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State NEO-PI-R’, Paper presented at the Annual University. Convention of the American Psychological Argentero, P. (1989) ‘Second-order factor Association, Washington, DC. structure of Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor Carey, G., Stallings, M.C., Hewitt, J.K. and Questionnaire’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Fulker, D.W. (1995) ‘The familial relationships 68(3): 1043–47. among personality, substance abuse, and Arora, S. (2005) ‘Personality profiles of univer- other problem behavior in adolescents’, sity sports players’, Social Science International, Behavior Genetics, 25(3): 258. 21(2): 115–20. Carson, A.D. (1998) ‘The integration of inter- Ashton, M.C. (1998) ‘Personality and job per- ests, aptitudes and personality traits: A test formance: The importance of narrow traits’, of Lowman’s Matrix’, Journal of Career Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: Assessment, 6(1): 83–105. 289–303. Cattell, H.E.P. (1996) ‘The original big five: A Bartram, E. (1992) ‘The personality of UK man- historical perspective’, European Review of agers: 16PF norms for short-listed applicants’, , 46(1): 5–14. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Cattell, H.E.P. (2005) Spanish-American 16PF Psychology, 65: 159–72. Questionnaire Technical Manual: A Pan- Birkett-Cattell, H. (1989) The 16PF: Personality Spanish Psychological Assessment. Champ- in Depth. Champaign, IL: Institute for aign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Personality and Ability Testing. Testing. Birkett-Cattell, H. and Cattell, H.E.P. (1997) Cattell, H.E.P. (2007) Exploring your 16PF 16PF Cattell Comprehensive Personality Profile, Oxford: Oxford Psychologist Press. Interpret-ation Manual. Champaign, IL: Cattell, H.E.P. and Schuerger, J.M. (2003) Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Essentials of the 16PF Assessment. Bisset, I.A. (2000) ‘Comment on Gadzella New York: John Wiley & Sons. and Penland (1995) Creativity and critical Cattell, R.B. (1933) ‘Temperament tests:II’, thinking’, Psychological Reports, 86(3): British Journal of Psychology, 23: 308–29. 848–50. Cattell, R.B. (1943) ‘The description of person- Block, J. (1995) ‘A contrarian view of the five- ality: Basic traits resolved into clusters’, factor approach to personality description’, Journal of Abnormal and , Psychological Bulletin, 117(2): 187–215. 38: 476–506. Bonaguidi, F., Michelassi, C., Trivella, M.G., Cattell, R.B. (1946) The Description and Carpeggiani, C., Pruneti, C.A., Cesana, G. Measurement of Personality. New York: and L’Abbate, A. (1996) ‘Cattell’s 16 PF and Harcourt, Brace and World. PSY Inventory: Relationship between person- Cattell, R.B. (1957) Personality and Motivation ality traits and behavioral responses in Structure and Measurement. New York: patients with acute myocardial infarction’, World Book. Psychological Reports, 78(2): 691–702. Cattell, R.B. (1973) Personality and Mood by Boyle, G.J. (1989) ‘Re-examination of the Questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. major personality factors in the Cattell, Cattell, R.B. (1978) The Scientific Use of Factor Comrey and Eysenck scales: Were the factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. New solutions of Noller et al. optimal?’, York: Plenum. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 154

154 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K. and Cattell, H.E.P. Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (1990) Measures of (1993) 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire. Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Library of America. Ability Testing. Conn, S.R. and Rieke, M.L. (1994) The 16PF Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P. and Fifth Edition Technical Manual. Champaign, Kelly, M.L. (1999) The 16PF Select Manual. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Coopersmith, S. (1981) Self-esteem Inventories. Ability Testing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P., Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1976) ‘Age differ- Russell, M.T. and Bedwell, S. (2003) The ences in personality structure: A cluster ana- PsychEval Personality Questionnaire. lytic approach’, Journal of Gerontology, 31: Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and 564–70. Ability Testing. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO- Cattell, R.B. Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. PI-R Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen Personality FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992a) Revised Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. NEO-PI-R Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Cattell, R.B. and Krug, S.E. (1986) ‘The number and NEO-PI-R Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-PI- of factors in the 16PF: A review of the evi- R-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: dence with special emphasis on methodolog- Psychological Assessment Resources. ical problems’, Educational and Psychological Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992b) ‘Normal Measurement, 46(3): 509–22. personality assessment in clinical practice: Cattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F. (1954) ‘Four formu- The NEO Personality Inventory’, Psychological lae for selecting leaders on the basis of per- Assessment, 4(1): 5–13. sonality’, Human Relations, 7(4): 493–507. Craig, R.J. and Olson, R.E. (1995) ‘16 PF profiles Cattell, R.B. and Tsujioka, B. (1964) ‘The impor- and typologies for patients seen in marital ther- tance of factor-trueness and validity versus apy’, Psychological Reports, 77(2): 187–94. homogeneity and orthogonality in test Dancer, L.J. and Woods, S.A. (2007) ‘Higher- scales’, Educational and Psychological order factor structures and intercorrelations of Measurement, 24(1): 3–30. the 16PF5 and FIRO-B’, International Journal Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S. and Chan, K.Y. of Selection and Assessment, 14(4): 385–91. (2001) ‘Investigating the hierarchical factor Digman, J.M. (1990) ‘Personality structure: structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: Emergence of the five-factor model’, Annual An application of the Schmid-Leiman Review of Psychology, 41: 417–40. orthogonalisation procedure’, Educational Digman, J.M. (1996) ‘A curious history of the and Psychological Measurement, 61(2): five-factor model’, in J.S. Wiggins (ed.), The 290–302. Five-factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Child, D. (1998) ‘Some technical problems in Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. the use of personality measures in occupa- Digman, J.M. (1997) ‘Higher order factors of tional settings illustrated using the “Big- the big five’, Journal of Personality and Social Five”’, in S. Shorrocks-Taylor (ed.), Directions Psychology, 73(6): 1246–56. in , : Whurr Dutta, R.D. (1995) ‘Differences in personality Publishing, pp. 346–64. factors of experienced teachers, physicians, Christiansen, N.D., Goffin, R.D., Johnston, N.G. bank managers, and fine artists’, Psychological and Rothstein, M.G. (1994) ‘Correcting for Studies, 40(1): 51–6. faking: Effects on criterion-related validity Ellis, B.B. and Mead, A.D. (2000) ‘Assessment and individual hiring decisions’, Personnel of the measurement equivalence of a Psychology, 47(4): 847–60. Spanish translation of the 16PF Questionnaire’, Church, A.T. and Burke, P.J. (1994) ‘Exploratory Educational and Psychological Measurement, and confirmatory tests of the Big-Five and 60(5): 787–807. Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional Eysenck, H. (1978) ‘Superfactors P, E, and N in models’, Journal of Personality and Social a comprehensive factors space’, Multivariate Psychology, 66(1): 93–114. Behavioral Research, 13(2): 475–82. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 155

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 155

Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Wong, J. Hofer, S.M. and Eber, H.W. (2002) ‘Second- (1998) ‘Cognitive style and team role prefer- order factor structure of the Cattell Sixteen ence’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Personality Factor Inventory (16PF)’, in B. De 13(8): 544–57. Raad and M. Perugini (eds), Big-Five Fiske, D.W. (1994) ‘Two cheers for the Big Five! Assessment. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber, Psychological Inquiry’, 5: 123–4. pp. 397–404. Fraboni, M. and Saltstone, R. (1990) ‘First and Hofer, S.M., Horn, J.L. and Eber, H.W. (1997) ‘A second generation entrepreneur typologies: robust five-factor structure of the 16PF: Dimensions of personality’, Journal of Social Strong evidence from independent rotation Behavior and Personality, 5: 105–13. and confirmatory factorial invariance proce- Gerbing, D.W. and Tuley, M.R. (1991) ‘The dures’, Personality and Individual Differences, 16PF related to the five-factor model of per- 23(2): 247–69. sonality: Multiple-indicator measurement Hogan, J., Brinkmeyer, K. and Hogan, R. (1996) versus the a priori scales’, Multivariate Hogan Personality Inventory Form manual. Behavioral Research, 26(2): 271–89. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Goldberg, L.R. (1990) ‘An alternative “descrip- Hough, L.M. and Ones, D.S. (2001) ‘The struc- tion of personality”: The big-five factor ture, measurement, validity, and use of per- structure’, Journal of Personality and Social sonality variables in industrial, work, and Psychology, 59(6): 1216–29. organisational psychology’, in N. Anderson, Goldberg, L.R. (1992) ‘The development of D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran markers for the big-five factor structure’, (eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Psychological Assessment, 4(1): 26–42. Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1). London: Gorsuch, R.L. (1983) Factor Analysis (2nd rev Sage, pp. 233–77. edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (2000) ‘Personality Gorsuch, R.L. (2006) The 16PF Express Edition: and job performance’, Journal of Applied A Supplemental Chapter to the 16PF Fifth Psychology, 85(6): 869–79. Edition Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, IPAT (1995) 16PF5 Manuel: French Version. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Gough, H.G. (1987) California Psychological Ability Testing. Inventory Administrator’s Guide. Mountain IPAT (2003) The Protective Service Report View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993a) The Personality and Ability Testing. 16PF and Leadership: Summary of Research IPAT (2004a) Dutch 16PF5 User’s Manual. Findings 1954–1992. Champaign, IL: Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Ability Testing. Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993b) Selecting IPAT (2004b) 16PF5 Manual: Norwegian Successful Salespersons with the 16PF. Form A Version. Champaign, IL: Institute for Validity Studies. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Personality and Ability Testing. IPAT (2004c) 16PF5 Manual: Danish Version. Hampson. S.E. (1988) The Construction of Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Personality (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Ability Testing. Hartung, P.J., Borges, N.J. and Jones, B.J. IPAT (2005) 16PF5 Manual: Swedish Version. (2005) ‘Using person matching to predict Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and career specialty choice’, Journal of Ability Testing. Vocational Behavior, 67(1): 102–17. IPAT (2006) The 16PF5 User’s Manual: South Hetland, H. and Sandal, G.M. (2003) African Version. Champaign, IL: Institute for ‘Transformational leadership in Norway: Personality and Ability Testing. Outcomes and personality correlates’, IPAT (2007) Japanese 16PF5 technical manual. European Journal of Work and Organizational Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Psychology, 12(2): 147–70. Ability Testing. Hinton, B.L. and Barrow, J.C. (1976) ‘Personality Jackson, D.N. (1989) Personality Research Form correlates of the reinforcement propensities of Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment leaders’, Personnel Psychology, 29(1): 61–6. Systems. 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 156

156 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

Jackson, D.N., Paunonen, S.V. and Tremblay, P.F. structure defined by the 16PF’, Psychological (2000) Six Factor Personality Questionnaire. Reports, 59: 683–93. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1990) ‘The 16 Jia-xi, C. and Guo-peng, C. (2006) ‘[The valid- Personality Factor Questionnaire’, in E.E. ity and reliability research of 16PF 5th in Watkins and V.L. Campbell (eds), Testing in China]’, Chinese Journal of , Counseling Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 14(1): 13–46. Erlbaum. Jones, J.W., Newhouse, N.K. and Stowers, M.R. Lally, S.J. (2003) ‘What tests are acceptable for (2006) Civilian Police Officer Profiles: An IPAT use in forensic evaluations? A survey of Technical Report. Champaign, IL: Institute for experts’, Professional Psychology: Research Personality and Ability Testing. and Practice, 34(5): 491–8. Johns, E.F., Schuerger, J.M. and Watterson, Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B. and Ashton, M.C. D.G. (1980) ‘Personality measures as predic- (2005) ‘Personality traits beyond the Big Five: tors of managerial performance and salaries. Are they within the HEXACO space?’, Paper presented at the meeting of the Journal of Personality, 73(5): 1437–63. Midwest Society for Multivariate Experimental Lee, R.E. (1994) ‘Personality characteristics of Psychology, May, St. Louis, MO. very desirable and undesirable childcare Joy, S. and Hicks, S. (2004) ‘The need to be dif- workers in a residential setting’, Psychological ferent: Primary trait structure and impact on Reports, 74: 579–84. projective drawing’, Creativity Research Loevinger, J. (1994) ‘Has psychology lost its Journal, 16(2 and 3): 331–9. conscience?’, Journal of Personality Assess- Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A., Locke, E.A. ment, 62(1): 2–8. and Thoresen, C.J. (2002) ‘The scientific Lord, F.M. (1980) Applications of Item merit of valid measures of general concepts: Response Theory to Practical Testing Personality research and core self-evalua- Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. tions’, in J.M. Brett and F. Drasgow (eds), The Lord, W. (1999) 16PF5: Overcoming Obstacles Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based to Interpretation. Windsor: NFER-Nelson Empirical Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Publishing Company (available from IPAT). pp. 55–77. Lounsbury, J., Park, S.H., Sundstrom, E., Junmei, J. (2005) ‘[A Research on the Personality Williamson, J.M. and Pemberton, A.E. (2004) Traits of Young Criminals]’, Psychological ‘Personality, career satisfaction, and life satis- Science (China), 28(1): 217–9. faction: Test of a directional model’, Journal Jurcova, M. (2000) ‘Socialna kompetentnost of Career Assessment, 12(4): 395–406. tvorivych adolescentov – jej kognitivne a Low, J.M., Williamson, D. and Cottingham, J. osobnostni zdroje [ of cre- (2004) ‘Predictors of university student law- ative adolescents – its cognitive and person- breaking behaviors’, Journal of College ality sources]’, Ceskoslovenske Psychologie, Student Development, 45(5): 535–48. 44(6): 481–92. Lowman, R.L. (1991) The Clinical Practice of Karson, M., Karson, S. and O’Dell, J. (1997) Career Assessment. Washington, DC: 16PF Interpretation in Clinical Practice: A American Psychological Association. Guide to the Fifth Edition. Champaign, IL: McKenzie, J. (1998) ‘Fundamental flaws in the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Five Factor Model: A re-analysis of the semi- Kintlerova, T. (2000) ‘Osobnostni charakteris- nal correlation matrix from which the tiky clenov siekt a kultov [Personality “Openness-to-Experience” factor was characteristics of members of sects and extracted’, Personality and Individual Differ- cults]’, Ceskoslovenske Psychologie, 44(2): ences, 24(4): 475–80. 180–9. McKenzie, J., Tindell, G. and French, J. (1997) Krug, S.E. (1976) ‘Personality correlates of mar- ‘The great triumvirate: Agreement between ital satisfaction and conflict’, unpublished lexically and psycho-physiologically based manuscript, Institute for Personality and models of personality’, Personality and Ability Testing. Individual Differences, 22(2): 269–77. Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1986) ‘A large-scale Mershon, B. and Gorsuch, R.L. (1988) ‘Number cross-validation of second-order personality of factors in the personality sphere: Does 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 157

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 157

increase in factors increase predictability of Piotrowski, C. and Zalewski, C. (1993) ‘Training real-life criteria?’, Journal of Personality and in psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved Social Psychology, 55(4): 675–80. PsyD and PhD clinical psychology programs’, Meyer, R.G. (1996) The Clinician’s Handbook Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(2): (5th edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon/ 394–405. Longman. Prieto, J.M., Gouveia, V.V. And Ferandez, M.A. Miller, T.Q., Smith, T.W., Turner, C.W., Guijarro, (1996) ‘Evidence on the primary source trait M.L. and Hallet, A.J. (1996) ‘Una rassegna structure in the Spanish 16PF Fifth Edition’, meta-analitica della ricerca su ostilita e salute European Review of Applied Psychology, fisica [A meta-analytic review of research on 46(1): 33–43. hostility and physical health]’, Bollettino di Rieke, M.L. and Russell, M.T. (1987) Narrative Psicologia Applicata, 220: 3–40. Score Report user’s guide. Champaign, Myers, I.B. and McCaulley, M.G. (1985) Manual: IL: Institute for Personality and Ability A Guide to the Development and Use of the Testing. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mountain View, Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. and Goldberg, L.R. (2005) ‘The structure of Norman, W.T. (1967) 2800 Personality Trait conscientiousness: an empirical investigation Descriptors: Normative Operating Charac- based on seven major personality question- teristics for a University Population. Ann naires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1): 103–39. Arbor: University of Michigan, Department Rohmer, O. and Louvet, E. (2004) ‘Familiarite et of Psychology. reactions affectives de l’egard des personnes Ormerod, M.B., McKenzie, J. and Woods, A. handicapes physiques [Familiarity and affec- (1995) ‘Final report on research relating to tive reactions regarding physically handi- the concept of five separate dimensions of capped persons]’, Bulletin de Psychologie, personality – or six including intelligence’, 57(2): 165–70. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(4): Rolland, J.P. and Mogenet, J.L. (1996) ‘Evidence 451–61. on the primary dimensions of the 16PF5 Ostendorf, F. (1990) Language and Personality French Form’, European Review of Applied Structure: On the Validity of the Five-factor Psychology, 46(1): 25–31, Model of Personality. Regensburg, Germany: Rosnowski, M. (1987) ‘Use of tests manifesting S. Roderer Verlag. sex differences as measures of intelligence: Parker, J.D.A., Bagby, R.M. and Summerfeldt, Implications for measurement bias’, Journal L.J. (1993) ‘Confirmatory factor analysis of of Applied Psychology, 72(3): 480–3. the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Roy, D.D. (1995) ‘Differences in personality fac- Differences’, 15(4): 463–6. tors of experienced teachers, physicians, Paunonen, S.V. (1993) ‘Sense, nonsense, and the bank managers, and fine artists’, Psychological Big-Five factors of personality’, Paper pre- Studies, 40: 51–6. sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Roy, D.D. (1996) ‘Personality model of fine Psychological Association, August, Toronto. artists’, Creativity Research Journal, 9(4): Paunonen, S.V. and Ashton, M.S. (2001) ‘Big 391–4. Five factors and facets and the prediction of Russell, M.T. (1995) The 16PF Couple’s behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Counseling Report User’s Guide. Champaign, Psychology, 81(3): 524–39. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Peabody, D. and Goldberg, L.R. (1989) ‘Some Russell, M.T. and Karol, D. (1994) 16PF Fifth determinants of factor structures from Edition Administrator’s Manual with personality-trait descriptors’, Journal of Updated Norms. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3): Personality and Ability Testing. 552–67. Salgado, J. (1997) ‘The five factor model of Phillips, D.A., Carlisle, C.S., Hautala, R. and personality and job performance in the Larson, R. (1985) ‘Personality traits and teacher- European Community’, Journal of Applied student behaviors in physical education’, Psychology, 82(1): 30–43. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4): Sanchez, M.M., Rejano, E.I. and Rodriguez, 408–16. Y.T. (2001) ‘Personality and academic 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 158

158 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

productivity in the university student’, Social Smith, M.A., Moriarty, K.O. and Lutrick, E.C. Behavior and Personality, 29(3): 299–305. (2001) ‘Exploratory factor analysis of the Saucier, G. (2001) ‘Going beyond the Big-Five’, NEO-PI-R for job applicants: Evidence against paper presented at the Annual Conference the Big Five’, paper presented at the of the American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial (August), San Francisco. and Organizational Psychology, (April), Schepers, J.M. and Hassett, C.F. (2006) ‘The San Diego. relationship between the Fourth Edition Spearman, C. (1932) The Abilities of Man. (2003) of the Locus of Control Inventory and London: Macmillan. the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Tango, R.A. and Kolodinsky, P. (2004) Fifth Edition’, South African Journal of ‘Investigation of placement outcomes Industrial Psychology, 32(2): 9–18. 3 years after a job skills training program for Schmit, M.K. and Ryan, A.M. (1993) ‘The Big- chronically unemployed adults’, Journal of Five in personnel selection: Factor structure Employment Counseling, 41(2): 80–92. in applicant and non-applicant populations’, Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. and Rothstein, M. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6): (1991) ‘Personality measures as predictors 966–74. of job performance: A meta-analytic Schneewind, K.A. and Graf, J. (1998) 16- review’, Personnel Psychology, 44(4): Personlichkeits-Factoren-Test Revidierte 703–42. Fassung Test-Manual [The 16 Personality Tucker, T.L. (1991) ‘Investigating sales effective- Factor Test – Revised Version Test Manual]. ness in the automobile industry in relation to Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Hans Huber. personality variables as measured by the Schuerger, J.M. (1995) ‘Career assessment and 16PF Questionnaire’, unpublished disserta- the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire’, tion, Fuller Theological Seminary. Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2): 157–75. Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.E. (1961) Recurrent Schuerger, J.M. and Sfiligoj, T. (1998) ‘Holland Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. codes and the 16PF global factors: Sixty-nine Tech. Rep. Nos 61–67. Lackland, TX: US Air samples’, Psychological Reports, 82: Force Aeronautical Systems Division. 1299–306. Van Eeden, R. and Prinsloo, C.H. (1997) ‘Using Schuerger, J.M. and Watterson, D.G. (1998) the South African version of the 16PF in a Occupational Interpretation of the 16PF multicultural context’, South African Journal Questionnaire. Cleveland, OH: Watterson of Psychology, 27(3): 151–9. and Associates. Walter, V. (2000) 16PF Personal Career Deve- Seisdedos, N. (1996) ‘The “IM” (Impression lopment Profile Technical and Interpretive Management) Scale’, European Review of Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Applied Psychology, 46(1): 45–54. Personality and Ability Testing. Shaughnessy, M.F., Kang, M.H., Greene, M., Wang, Y. and Li, Y. (2003) ‘[The effect of group Misutova, M., Suomala, J. and Siltala, R. counseling on improvement of self-confidence (2004) ‘16 PF personality profile of gifted of college students]’, Chinese children: Preliminary report of an interna- Journal, 17(4): 235–9. tional study’, North American Journal of Wang, C. and Zhang, N. (2005) ‘[, 6(1): 51–4. Correlates of Attributional Style in Singh, S. (1989) ‘Projective and psychometric Undergraduates]’, Chinese Journal of Clinical correlates of managerial success’, British Psychology, 13(1): 53–4. Journal of Projective Psychology, 34: Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., Nieberding, R. 28–36. and Hallmark, R. (1995) ‘Contemporary Singh, S. and Kaur, R. (2001) ‘A comparative practice of psychological assessment study of the personality characteristics, of clinical psychologist’, Professional motives, and work values of the autocratic Psychological Research and Practice, 26: and democratic executives’, Journal of the 54–60. Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Watterson, D.G. (2002) The 16PF Leadership 27(1–2): 143–9. Coaching Report Manual. Champaign, 9781412946520-Ch07 5/7/08 7:03 PM Page 159

THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF) 159

IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Xiaoming, Y. (2005) ‘[The mental health prob- Testing. lems of internet-addicted college students]’, Wiggins, J.S. (2003) Paradigms of Personality Psychological Science (China), 28(6): 1476–8. Assessment. Guilford Press. Yi-Hui, T., Hai, H. and Liang-Xin, L. (2004) Williams, R. (1999) 16PF5: Profiling Personality ‘[Relationship among the family functioning, for Potential – A Data Supplement to the personality, and alienation of adolescents]’, UK Edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12(2): Personality and Ability Testing. 158–60.