A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1Get rights and content

Abstract

When time is limited, researchers may be faced with the choice of using an extremely brief measure of the Big-Five personality dimensions or using no measure at all. To meet the need for a very brief measure, 5 and 10-item inventories were developed and evaluated. Although somewhat inferior to standard multi-item instruments, the instruments reached adequate levels in terms of: (a) convergence with widely used Big-Five measures in self, observer, and peer reports, (b) test–retest reliability, (c) patterns of predicted external correlates, and (d) convergence between self and observer ratings. On the basis of these tests, a 10-item measure of the Big-Five dimensions is offered for situations where very short measures are needed, personality is not the primary topic of interest, or researchers can tolerate the somewhat diminished psychometric properties associated with very brief measures.

Introduction

One obvious way to learn about an individual’s standing on a personality trait is simply to enquire directly about that trait. For constructs, such as Extraversion, that are widely understood, it is more straightforward simply to ask a person how extraverted he is than to ask him whether he enjoys the company of others, attends parties frequently, is talkative, outgoing, gregarious, and enthusiastic. That is, why not ask a person one direct question about a trait rather than many questions about the multiple, narrow components that comprise the trait?

The widely accepted answer is that, all things being equal, long instruments tend to have better psychometric properties than short instruments. However, the costs associated with short instruments are not always as great as is feared (Burisch, 1984a, Burisch, 1984b, Burisch, 1997). More important, there are some instances when short instruments permit research that would not be possible using long instruments.

In an ideal world, personality researchers would have sufficient time and resources to exploit the superior content validity and reliability of well-established multi-item instruments. Unfortunately, circumstances are often not ideal and researchers may be faced with a stark choice of using an extremely brief instrument or using no instrument at all. For example, one Internet-based study used a single-item measure to obtain ratings of self-esteem from participants who would be unlikely to dwell at the website long enough to complete a multi-item questionnaire (Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002). Studies that require participants to rate themselves and multiple others on several occasions may also profit from the use of short scales. In one longitudinal study of interpersonal perceptions, participants were required to rate several other group members on several traits on several occasions (Paulhus & Bruce, 1992); multi-item scales would have burdened participants excessively so single-item measures were used. Other useful applications for short instruments include large-scale surveys, pre-screening packets, longitudinal studies, and experience-sampling studies (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001a).

Although single-item scales are usually psychometrically inferior to multiple-item scales, single-item measures do have some advantages. In developing a single-item measure of self-esteem, Robins et al. (2001a) noted that single-item measures “…eliminate item redundancy and therefore reduce the fatigue, frustration, and boredom associated with answering highly similar questions repeatedly” (p. 152; also see Saucier, 1994). Indeed, Burisch, 1984b, Burisch, 1997 showed that short and simple depression scales can be just as valid as long and sophisticated scales. For example, self and peer reports converged just as strongly for a truncated 9-item depression scale (r=.54) as for the full 50-item scale (r=.51). Burisch’s findings suggest that the supposed psychometric superiority of longer scales does not always translate into practice. If the psychometric costs of using short scales are not as steep as might be expected, their relative efficiency make them a very attractive research tool. The widespread use of single-item measures is a testimony to their appeal. Single-item measures have been used to assess such constructs as life-satisfaction (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976), subjective well-being (Diener, 1984; Sandvik, Diener, & Seidlitz, 1993), affect (Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn, 1989), cultural/ethnic identity (Benet-Martı́nez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002), relationship intimacy (Aron, Aron, & Danny, 1992), attachment style (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), intelligence (Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998), and self-esteem (Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, & Gosling, 2001b).

In this report, we evaluate new 5 and 10-item measures of the Big-Five personality dimensions. The Big-Five framework enjoys considerable support and has become the most widely used and extensively researched model of personality (for reviews, see John & Srivastava, 1999, and McCrae & Costa, 1999), although it has not been accepted universally (Block, 1995).

The Big-Five framework is a hierarchical model of personality traits with five broad factors, which represent personality at the broadest level of abstraction. Each bipolar factor (e.g., Extraversion vs. Introversion) summarizes several more specific facets (e.g., Sociability), which, in turn, subsume a large number of even more specific traits (e.g., talkative, outgoing). The Big-Five framework suggests that most individual differences in human personality can be classified into five broad, empirically derived domains.

Several rating instruments have been developed to measure the Big-Five dimensions. The most comprehensive instrument is Costa and McCrae’s (1992) 240-item NEO Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO-PI-R), which permits measurement of the Big-Five domains and six specific facets within each dimension. Taking about 45 min to complete, the NEO-PI-R is too lengthy for many research purposes and so a number of shorter instruments are commonly used. Three well-established and widely used instruments are the 44-item Big-Five Inventory (BFI; see Benet-Martı́nez & John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999), the 60-item NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), and Goldberg’s instrument comprised of 100 trait descriptive adjectives (TDA; Goldberg, 1992). John and Srivastava (1999) have estimated that the BFI, NEO-FFI, and TDA take approximately 5, 15, and 15 min to complete, respectively. Recognizing the need for an even briefer measure of the Big Five, Saucier (1994) developed a 40-item instrument derived from Goldberg’s (1992) 100-item set.

In two studies, we evaluate new 5 and 10-item measures of the Big Five in terms of convergence with an established Big-Five instrument (the BFI), test–retest reliability, and patterns of predicted external correlates. In Study 1, two samples were assessed using both the new five-item instrument and the BFI. Convergent and discriminant validity was examined in a sample of 1704 undergraduate students who were assessed using both instruments. To compare the pattern of external correlates of the 5-item instrument with the pattern of external correlates of the BFI, we also administered a battery of other instruments. To assess the test–retest reliability of the 5-item instrument and of the BFI, a subset of 118 participants were assessed again two weeks after the initial assessment. To evaluate the performance of the measure when used in observer-report format, a second subset of 60 participants were rated by observers after a brief getting acquainted exercise. To examine the measure when used in peer-report format, we also collected peer reports from a new sample of 83 participants.

In Study 2, one sample was assessed using both the 10-item instrument and the BFI. Convergent and discriminant validity was examined in a sample of 1813 undergraduate students who were assessed using both instruments. To compare the pattern of external correlates of the 10-item instrument with those of the BFI, a battery of other instruments was also administered. To evaluate the foci of the scales from the BFI and the 10-item instrument, we also administered the NEO-PI-R to a subset of 180 participants. To assess the test–retest reliability of the 10-item instrument, the same subset of participants were assessed again, six weeks after the initial assessment.

Section snippets

Study 1

The aim of Study 1 was to examine a new 5-item instrument designed to assess the Big-Five personality dimensions. We used four tests to evaluate the instrument, each time comparing the 5-item instrument to the BFI. First, to assess convergent and discriminant validity, we obtained self-ratings, observer ratings, and peer ratings using the 5-item instrument and the BFI.

Second, to assess test–retest reliability, a sub-sample of participants took the revised 5-item instrument and the BFI a second

Study 2

The goal of Study 2 was to develop and evaluate a 10-item measure of the Big-Five personality dimensions. It was important that this new measure retain the brevity of the FIPI, while diminishing the limitations associated with it. We used three tests to evaluate the instrument, each time comparing the 10-item instrument with the BFI. First, to assess convergent and discriminant validity, we obtained self-ratings using both the 10-item instrument and the BFI. Second, to assess test–retest

Summary of findings

Although somewhat inferior to the standard Big-Five instrument examined here, the FIPI and TIPI reached adequate levels in each of the criteria against which it was evaluated: convergent and discriminant validity, test–retest reliability, patterns of external correlates, and (for the FIPI) convergence between self- and observer-ratings. In both measures, Extraversion fared the best across the criteria and Openness and Agreeableness fared least well. Overall our findings suggest that these very

Conclusion

Harm-reduction programs such as methadone clinics and condom distribution programs do not condone harmful behaviors but acknowledge that such behaviors exist and the programs are designed to alleviate the negative consequences of the behaviors. Analogously, we do not encourage the use of very brief measures, but we acknowledge that when brevity is a high priority, researchers may be driven to create their own very short measures of the Big Five or, even worse, to use no measure at all. For such

References (31)

  • M. Burisch

    You don’t always get what you pay for: Measuring depression with short and simple versus long and sophisticated scales

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (1984)
  • R.W. Robins et al.

    Personality correlates of self-esteem

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2001)
  • A. Aron et al.

    Inclusion of Other in Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1992)
  • A.T. Beck

    Depression: Causes and treatments

    (1972)
  • V. Benet-Martı́nez et al.

    ‘Los Cinco Grandes’ Across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1998)
  • V. Benet-Martı́nez et al.

    Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame-switching in biculturals with ‘Oppositional’ vs. ‘Compatible’ cultural identities

    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

    (2002)
  • J. Block

    A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1995)
  • Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). The mathematics identification questionnaire. The University of Texas at Austin,...
  • M. Burisch

    Approaches to personality inventory construction. A comparison of merits

    American Psychologist

    (1984)
  • M. Burisch

    Test length and validity revisited

    European Journal of Personality

    (1997)
  • A. Campbell et al.

    The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions

    (1976)
  • D.T. Campbell et al.

    Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1959)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual

    (1992)
  • L.J. Cronbach et al.

    Construct validity in psychological tests

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1955)
  • E. Diener

    Subjective well-being

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1984)
  • Cited by (5583)

    • Perceptions of perfectionism in groups

      2024, Personality and Individual Differences
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Preparation of this article was supported by a research grant from the University of Texas College of Liberal Arts and National Institutes of Mental Health Grant RO3 MH64527-01A1. We thank Veronica Benet-Martinez, Matthias R. Mehl, and Richard W. Robins for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

    View full text