Top

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2012

Age-neutrality of the NEO-PI-R: Potential Differential Item Functioning in Older Versus Younger Adults

Auteurs: Joke Van den Broeck, Gina Rossi, Eva Dierckx, Barbara De Clercq

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 3/2012

Abstract

Geriatric researchers and clinicians often have to deal with a lack of valid personality measures for older age groups (e.g., Mroczek, Hurt, & Berman, 1999; Zweig 2008), which hampers a reliable assessment of personality in later life. An age-neutral measurement system is one of the basic conditions for an accurate personality assessment across the lifespan, both longitudinally and cross-sectionally. In the present study, we empirically investigate the age-neutrality of one of the most widely used personality measures (i.e., the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992)), by examining potential Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Overall, results indicate that the vast majority (92.9 % at domain-level and 95 % at facet-level) of the NEO PI-R items was similarly endorsed by younger and older age groups with the same position on the personality trait of interest, corroborating the NEO PI-R’s age neutrality. However, Differential Test Functioning (DTF) analyses revealed large DTF for Extraversion, and facet A6 (Tender-Mindedness). Results are discussed in terms of their implications for using the current format of the NEO PI-R in older aged samples.

vorige artikel Thin Slice Sampling of Video Footage for Mother/Child Interaction: Application to Single Cases

volgende artikel Social Disconnection and Hazardous Drinking Mediate the Link Between Perfectionistic Attitudes and Depressive Symptoms

DIF analyses are well suited to detect how systematically biased an item is for one group versus an other group, controlling for true group-mean differences (Balsis et al. 2007, p. 172).

Our rationale for this was the following: in deriving their thresholds Penfield and Algina (2006) argued that a collective large level of DIF in a group of items exist if 25 % or more of the items are categorized as having moderate or large magnitudes of DIF based on the ETS classification scheme (i.e. if 25 % or more of the items have an absolute value of log(α_MH) greater than or equal to 0.43. They also suggest that MH and LA-Lor have similar meanings in terms of DIF magnitude. Because we wanted to reduce the Type I error, a Bonferroni correction was applied and an adjusted LA-Lor cut-off value of 1.08 (instead of 0.64) was used to flag items with large DIF. In line, we made a similar adjustment for the DTF thresholds. For example: Penfield and Algina consider the variance of DIF effect large when weighted v² > 0.14, using an LA-Lor value of 0.43 as critical value. Since we adhere to a stringent LA-Lor critical value (>1.08) we adjusted this to v² > 0.35 (i.e. 0.14/0.43*1.08).

A similar reasoning was handled at facet-level. Here we used a stringent LA-Lor critical value of 0.92, leading to an adjusted v² ≥ 0.30 for large DTF (i.e. 0.14/0.43*0.92).

Abrams, R. C., & Bromberg, C. E. (2006). Personality disorders in the elderly: a flagging field of inquiry. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1013–1017.PubMedCrossRef

Abrams, R. C., & Bromberg, C. E. (2007). Personality disorders in the elderly. Psychiatric Annals, 37(2), 123–127.

Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67–91.CrossRef

Agronin, M. E., & Maletta, G. (2000). Personality disorders in late life: understanding and overcoming the gap in research. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 3, 4–18.CrossRef

Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Martin, M. (2008). Long-term correlated change in personality traits in old age. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 545–557.PubMedCrossRef

Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. B. (2011). Differential item functioning on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire is minimal in demographically matched mediators and nonmediators. Assessment, 18(1), 3–10.PubMedCrossRef

Balsis, S., Gleason, M. E. J., Woods, C. M., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2007). An item response theory analysis of DSM-IV personality disorder criteria across younger and older age groups. Psychology and Aging, 22(1), 171–185.PubMedCrossRef

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In: Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Theoretical models of human development, 5th edn (pp. 1029–1143)

Camilli, G., & Congdon, P. (1999). Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–341.

Caspi, A., & Bem, D. J. (1990). Personality continuity and change across the life course. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 549–569). New York: Guilford.

Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Mai, N. T. Q., French, B. F., Katigbak, M. S., & Ortiz, F. A. (2011). Are cross-cultural comparisons of personality profiles meaningful? Differential item and facet functioning in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1068–1089.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Cohen, A. S., Kim, S. H., & Baker, F. B. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning in the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 335–350.CrossRef

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 407–423.CrossRef

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.PubMedCrossRef

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Psychology and Aging, 1, 144–149.PubMedCrossRef

De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000). Assessing adolescents’ personality with the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 7(4), 329–345.PubMedCrossRef

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.CrossRef

Edwards, M. C., & Edelen, M. O. (2009). Special topics in item response theory. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 178–185). London: SAGE Publication Ltd.CrossRef

Gattamorta, K. A. (2009). A comparison of adjacent categories and cumulative DSF effect estimators. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Miami in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami

Haan, N., Millsap, R., & Hartka, E. (1986). As time goes by: change and stability in personality over fifty years. Psychology and Aging, 1, 220–232.PubMedCrossRef

Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2007). NEO PI-R en NEO-FFI. Handleiding. Amsterdam: Hogrefe.

Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.PubMedCrossRef

Kagan, J. (1969). The three faces of continuity in human development. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 53–65). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude-change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416–425.PubMedCrossRef

Liu, I. M., & Agresti, A. (1996). Mantel-Haenszel-type inference for cumulative odds ratio with a stratified ordinal response. Biometrics, 52, 1223–1234.PubMedCrossRef

Maiden, R. J., Peterson, S. A., Caya, M., & Hayslip, B. (2003). Personality changes in the old-old: a longitudinal study. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 31–39.CrossRef

Mantel, N. (1963). Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom. Extension of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 690–700.

Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.PubMed

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.PubMedCrossRef

Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297–334.CrossRef

Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. American Psychologist, 24, 1012–1018.PubMedCrossRef

Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.PubMedCrossRef

Mroczek, D. K., Hurt, S. W., & Berman, W. H. (1999). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of personality disorders in older adults. In E. Rosowsky, R. C. Abrams, & R. A. Zweig (Eds.), Personality disorders in older adults (1st ed., pp. 135–150). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oltmanns, T. F., & Balsis, S. (2010). Assessment of personality disorders in older adults. In: Lichtenberg, P. A. (Ed.) Handbook of Assessment in Clinical Gerontology. Academic/Elsevier (pp. 101–122)

Penfield, R. D. (2005). DIFAS: differential item functioning analysis system. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 150–151.CrossRef

Penfield, R. D. (2007a). DIFAS 4.0. Differential item functioning analysis system: user’s manual. Unpublished manuscript

Penfield, R. D. (2007b). An approach for categorizing DIF in polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(3), 335–355.CrossRef

Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2003). Applying the Liu-Agresti estimator of the cumulative common odds ratio to DIF detection in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 353–370.CrossRef

Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2006). A generalized DIF effect variance estimator for measuring unsigned differential test functioning in mixed format tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(4), 295–312.CrossRef

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 3–27.

Savla, J., Davey, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Whitfield, K. E. (2007). Replicating the NEO PI-R factor structure in African-American older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1279–1288.CrossRef

Segal, D. L., Coolidge, F. L., & Rosowsky, E. (2006). Personality disorders and older adults. Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. New Jersey: Wiley.

Tackett, J. L., Balsis, S., Oltmanns, T. F., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). A unifying perspective on personality pathology across the life span: developmental considerations for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 687–713.PubMedCrossRef

Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of NEO PI-R scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 493–506.PubMedCrossRef

Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v.2.0b: software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood ratio tests for differential item functioning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.

Van den Broek, A., & de Haan, J. (2000). Cultuur tussen competitie en competentie. Contouren van het cultuurbereik in 2030. Amsterdam: Boekmanstudies.

Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233.

Zweig, R. A. (2008). Personality disorder in older adults: assessment challenges and strategies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3), 298–305.CrossRef

Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233–251.CrossRef

Titel: Age-neutrality of the NEO-PI-R: Potential Differential Item Functioning in Older Versus Younger Adults
Auteurs: Joke Van den Broeck
Gina Rossi
Eva Dierckx
Barbara De Clercq
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9287-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2012

An Examination of the Latent Structure of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale

Childhood Characteristics of Adolescent Inpatients with Early-Onset and Adolescent-Onset Disruptive Behavior

Thin Slice Sampling of Video Footage for Mother/Child Interaction: Application to Single Cases

Coping with Stress, Coping with Violence: Links to Mental Health Outcomes Among At-risk Youth

Social Disconnection and Hazardous Drinking Mediate the Link Between Perfectionistic Attitudes and Depressive Symptoms

Adolescent Self-Reports of Social Anxiety: Can They Disagree with Objective Psychophysiological Measures and Still Be Valid?