The Evolution of Intelligence: The Costs of Progressive ...



A General Factor of Personality in the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey,

the California Psychological Inventory, and the Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory., and the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire

J. Philippe Rushton1* and Paul Irwing2

1Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada

Tel.: 519-661-3685; E-mail: rushton@uwo.ca

2Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

E-mail: paul.irwing@homecall.co.uk 

Running Head: A GFP in the ZKPQ

(Draft September 17, 2008; 18 pages, 4,017 words, 5 Tables, 5 Figures)

Abstract

In five studies, we analyzed the inter-scale correlations from well-known personality inventories and observed whether a General Factor of Personality (GFP) occupies the apex of the hierarchy. In Study 1, we found a GFP accounted for 00% of the variance in the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (N = 2,917) in a model that went from 10 primary traits to 3 higher-order traits (Social Activity, Introversion-Extraversion, and Emotional Health), and then to the GFP. In Study 2, we found a GFP explained 00% of the variance in Cattell’s 16 PF (N = 10,261) in a model that went from the 16 primaries to 5 higher-order traits (Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness, Independence, Self-Control), and then to the GFP. In Study 3, we found a GFP explained 00% of the variance in the California Psychological Inventory (N = 6,000) in a model that went from 20 primaries to 5 higher-order traits (Ascendance, Dependability, Conventionality, Originality, Femininity/Masculinity), and then to the GFP. In Study 4, we found a GFP accounted for 00% of the variance in two versions of the Temperament and Character Inventory (Ns = 803, 482) with mean loadings: Novelty Seeking, 0.00; Harm Avoidance, 0.00; Reward Dependence, 0.00; Persistence, 0.00; Self-Directedness, 0.00; Cooperativeness, 0.00; and Self-Transcendence, 0.00. In Study 5, we found a GFP accounted for 00% of the variance in the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (N = 3,715) with loadings: Neuroticism-Anxiety, 0.00; Activity, 0.00; Sociability, 0.00; Impulsive Sensation Seeking, 0.00; and Aggression-Hostility, 0.00.

Keywords: Big One, General Factor of Personality, GFP, GZTS, California Psychological Inventory, CPI, Cattell 16 PF, Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire, ZKPQ.

1. Introduction

In this paper we test the hypothesis that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) occupies the apex of the multifactorial hierarchy in the same way that g, the general factor of mental ability, occupies the apex in the organization of cognitive abilities. In previous studies, we have extracted a GFP from the inter-scale correlations observed in the Big Five, the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire, the Comrey Personality Scales, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, the EAS temperament scales, and an eclectic set of 35 traits measured agnostic as to the factor structure of personality (Rushton, Bons, & Hur, 2008; Rushton & Irwing, 2008). In this paper we use structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine whether a GFP can be extracted from the inter-scale correlations from validation samples in the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS), Cattell’s 16 PF, the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI),. and the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ).

2. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey

2.1. Method

J. P. Guilford (1897-1987) may rightly be regarded as the first to systematically apply factor analytic techniques to personality structure and arrive at substantive conclusions. Beginning in the 1930s, his work culminated in the publication of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS; Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949). After 25 years of further research, Guilford, Zimmerman, and Guilford (1976) summarized much of it in a 457-page Handbook.

The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS) consists of 10 personality and temperament factors: G - General Activity (Energy vs. Inactivity); R – Restraint (Seriousness vs. Impulsiveness); A – Ascendance (Social Boldness vs. Submissiveness); S – Sociability (Social Interest vs. Shyness); E - Emotional Stability (Evenness of Mood vs. Fluctuation of Moods); O – Objectivity (Thick-skinned vs. Hypersensitive); F – Friendliness (Agreeableness vs. Belligerence); T – Thoughtfulness (Reflective vs. Disconnected); P - Personal Relations (Tolerance vs. Hypercritical); and M – Masculinity (Hardboiled vs. Sympathetic). The GZTS is hierarchical with three main higher-order traits emerging from numerous factor-analytic investigations (Guilford et al., 1976): SA – Social Activity (General Activity, Ascendance, Sociability); IE – Introversion-Extraversion (Restraint, Thoughtfulness); and EH – Emotional Health (Emotional Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness, Personal Relations).

2.2. Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the inter-scale correlations for the 10 GZTS factors, averaged by us from the correlations provided separately for 2,465 men and 452 women by Guilford et al. (1976), which they had averaged from 11 sets of correlations for men and five sets for women. The results in Table 1 are based on the overall mean (N = 2,917). Shown in the diagonal are the alpha coefficients from the original sample (mainly N = 912 college students).

(Insert Table 1 About Here)

(Insert Figure 1 About Here)

In order to evaluate model fit we relied mainly on the standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the non-normed fit index (NNFI), as indicated by the simulations of Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999). We adopted cut-off points of ( 0.05 for the SRMSR, about 0.06(~0.08) for the RMSEA, and ≥ 0.95 for the NNFI, which also conform to more recent recommendations (Shermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller, 2003). We interpret these guides flexibly as advised by Marsh, Hau, & Grayson (2005), who document numerous difficulties with over rigid interpretations of fit indices.

As a first step, an exploratory factor analysis of the ten scales was first conducted with Mplus using maximum likelihood estimation and promax rotation, testing for factor solutions ranging from two to five factors. While the RMSEA index suggested a four-factor solution to provide the most adequate fit (RMSEA=.061), an investigation of factor loadings suggested the plausibility preferablity of a three factor-solution in terms of each factor having being defined by at least two item loadings, three to four such loadings being the generally preferred minimum (Figure 1). This three-factor model was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 7.12, starting with a first order confirmatory factor analysis and then a higher-order factor analysis which included a GFP. With the addition of four additional factor loadings, which ranged from .19 to .25 in the Mplus solution, and three four correlated errors, the former provided an adequate fit to the data with the slight exception of indication made by the NNFI (χ2 = 338.8538.07; df = 258; P < 0.001=0.0; SRMSR = 0.03442; RMSEA = 0.06580; NNFI = 0.930). The three higher order-factors were as follows: Extraversion (General Activity, Ascendance, Sociability, Friendliness), Self-control (Restraint, Thoughtfulness) and Emotional Health (Emotional Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness, Personal Relations, Masculinity) as defined by major factor loadings ≥ 0.30. The higher-order factor model (see Figure 1) also provided a good fit to the data, although the NNFI was again slightly outside the cut-off point (χ2 = 366.40; df = 27; P < =0.001; SRMSR = 0.039; RMSEA = 0.065; NNFI = 0.93). All factor loadings were significant at the P < 0.0015 level. The GFP accounted for 35.7% of the variance in the three first-order factors and 21% of the total reliable variance

3. Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

3.1. Method

Raymond B. Cattell is perhaps the best known of the factor analysts of personality structure. When he first published the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) in 1949 it was a revolutionary concept to describe the whole of human personality this way. Now in its fifth edition, the 16 PF measures 16 primary factor scales and five second-order factors (Cattell & Mead, 2008; Corn & Rieke, 1994). There are 185 items (10 to 15 for each primary scale and 12 for an Impression Management scale).

The 16 dimensions are: Warmth (Reserved vs. Outgoing; Factor A); Reasoning (Concrete vs. Abstract; Factor B); Emotional Stability (Reactive vs. Mature; Factor C); Dominance (Deferential vs. Forceful; Factor E); Liveliness (Restrained vs Spontaneous; Factor F); Rule-Consciousness (Expedient vs. Dutiful; Factor G); Social Boldness (Timid vs. Venturesome; Factor H); Sensitivity (Utilitarian vs. Sentimental; Factor I); Vigilance (Trusting vs. Skeptical; Factor L); Abstractedness (Practical vs. Imaginative; Factor M); Privateness (Forthright vs. Discreet; Factor N); Apprehension (Self-Assured vs. Self-Doubting; Factor O); Openness to Change (Traditional vs. Experimenting; Factor Q1); Self-Reliance (Group-Oriented vs. Individualistic; Factor Q2); Perfectionism (Undisciplined vs. Disciplined; Factor Q3); Tension (Patient vs. Impatient; Factor Q4).

The 16PF model is hierarchical with the five higher-order factors of Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness, Independence, and Self-Control, themselves inter-correlating. Thus, Extraversion correlates -0.29 with Anxiety, -0.24 with Tough-Mindedness, 0.42 with Independence, and -0.05 with Self-Control. Anxiety correlates -0.16 with Tough-Mindedness, -0.11 with Independence, and -0.28 with Self-Control. Tough-Mindedness correlates -0.29 with Independence and 0.47 with Self-Control. Independence correlates -0.25 with Self-Control.

3.2. Results and Discussion

Table 2 shows the inter-scale correlations among the 16 primary traits for a stratified normative sample of the U.S. general population (N = 10,261, based on the 2000 census; Maraist & Russell, 2002). Shown in the diagonal are the scale reliabilities from the same sample.

(Insert Table 2 About Here)

(Insert Figure 2 About Here)

34. The California Psychological Inventory

34.1. Method

Harrison Gough is another early personality researcher to produce an omnibus inventory for use with normal persons (Gough, 1957). Now in its third edition, the full version of the California Psychological Inventory consists of 434 true-false questions providing scores on 20 “folk concept scales” (Gough & Bradley, 1996). An eclectic approach was taken to item selection and scale construction: 13 scales were developed by empirical methods comparing items against nominations, ratings, and life outcomes; four scales were developed by the internal consistency method; and the remaining three scales by a mixture of the empirical and internal procedures.

The 20 CPI scales are: Dominance (High scorers are confident and task oriented); Capacity for Status (High scorers are ambitious and have many interests); Sociability (High scorers are sociable and outgoing); Social Presence (High scorers are self-assured and spontaneous); Self-acceptance (High scorers have a good opinion of themselves); Independence (High scorers are self-sufficient and persistent in seeking goals); Empathy (High scorers are perceptive of social nuances); Responsibility (High scorers are reliable); Socialization (High scorers are well-organized and seldom get in trouble); Self-control (High scorers take pride in being self-disciplined and try to control their temper); Good Impression (High scorers want to make a good impression); Communality (High scorers fit in easily); Well-being (High scorers feel good about themselves and are optimistic about the future); Tolerance (High scorers tend to be fair minded and reasonable); Achievement via Conformance (High scorers have a strong drive to do well and like to work in settings where expectations are clearly defined); Achievement via Independence (High scorers have a strong drive to do well and like to work in settings that encourage initiative); Intellectual Efficiency (High scorers can keep on at a task where others might give up); Psychological-Mindedness (High scorers are insightful and understand the feelings of others); Flexibility (High scorers like variety and are imaginative); Femininity/Masculinity (Among males, high scorers tend to be high-strung and sensitive; among females, sympathetic).

Factor analyses of the scales suggest five higher-order constructs. These are: Ascendance (Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, Independence, Empathy); Dependability (Self-control, Good Impression, Responsibility, Socialization, Well-being, Tolerance); Conventionality (Communality, Socialization, Well-being); Originality (Flexibility, Achievement via Independence, Tolerance), and Femininity/Masculinity (Femininity/Masculinity).

34.2. Results and Discussion

The 3rd edition of the CPI was standardized on 6,000 people from many different socioeconomic backgrounds including high school and college students, blue collar workers, and prisons. Table 23 gives the inter-scale correlations reported by Gough and Bradley (1996, p. 62). Shown in the diagonal are the alpha coefficients, also from the manual (p. 58). A principal axis factor analysis found the GFP accounted for 43% of the variance on the full uncorrected matrix.

(Insert Table 23 About Here)

(Insert Figure 2 about here)

As a first step, an exploratory factor analysis of the 20 scales was conducted with Mplus using maximum likelihood estimation and promax rotation, testing for factor solutions ranging from one to eight factors. While a seven-factor solution was found to provide a close fit based on the RMSEA index (RMSEA=0.065), inspection of the solution showed that one of the factors had only one factor loading above 0.3. A six factor solution, with a slightly less fit (RMSEA=0.074), was deemed as the next best alternative with all factors compriseding of at least two item loadings greater than 0.3. TAll of these findings were interpreted as indicating that only six factors are reliably measured by the CPI, but that it is comprised of more than six dimensions. Consequently, the six-factor solution was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.72. The process began with a first order confirmatory analysis, followed by a higher-order analysis with two higher-order factors, and finally with the correlation between the two second-order factors replaced by the GFP, identified by assuming equality of factor loadings.

Initially, only loadings ≥ 0.3003 from the Mplus solution were included in the LISREL analysis. In order to provide an adequate fit, it was necessary to include an additional seven factor loadings, which had ranged in magnitude from 0.07 – 0.29 in the original Mplus solution. The requirement for cross-factor loadings is indicative of a degree of multi-dimensionality in the primary scales of the CPI. Furthermore, eight correlated errors, ranging from 0.05 to 0.13 in magnitude, were required to attain an adequate fit. We interpret these correlated errors as being indicative of one ore more additional factors, which could not be reliably modeled, in conformity with findings from the exploratory analysis. The fit indices for the final six-factor solution (see Figure 2x) indicated a close fit with the exception of the RMSEA (χ2 = 7232.82; df = 132; P < 0.00; SRMSR = 0.043; RMSEA = 0.095; NNFI = 0.96). First-order factors found were: Ascendance (Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, Empathy, Intellectual Efficiency); Independence (Dominance, Independence); Originality (Capacity for Status, Empathy, Tolerance, Achievement via Independence, Intellectual Efficiency, Psychological-mindedness, Flexibility); Dependability (Self-control, Good Impression, Communality, Well-being); Femininity/Masculinity (Social Presence, Independence, Well-being, Femininity/Masculinity) and Conventionality (Independence, Responsibility, Socialization, Communality, Well-being, Tolerance, Achievement via Conformance, Flexibility) as defined by major factor loadings ≥ 0.30.

In order to elucidate the second-order factor structure, we subjected the Phi matrix from the first-order solution to a second Mplus analysis. This suggested two second-order factors, in addition to the five first-order factors, which model was subject to confirmatory analysis using LISREL. The resultant model, as presented in Figure 21, again provides close fit to the data according to the SRMSR and NNFI, while the RMSEA falls outside the cut-off point (χ2 = 8972.82; df = 133; P < 0.001; SRMSR = 0.054; RMSEA = 0.098; NNFI = 0.95). A total of ten correlated errors, ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 in magnitude, were required to attain this level of fit. Although the fit indices indicate a slightly poorer fit for the second-order factor model, as the differences are rather small, we conclude that the second-order factors provide an adequate fit to the data and that the second-order factor structure is supported. Finally, we replaced the correlation between the second-order factors by a GFP, which was identified by setting the factor loadings equal (see Figure 2x). The resultant model has the same fit as the second-order model shown above. The GFP accounted for 35% of the variance in the two second-order factors, 1217% of the variance in the five first-order factors, and 19.5% of the total reliable variance.

(Insert Figure 3 About Here)

45. The Temperament and Character Inventory

45.1. Method

Robert Cloninger developed the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) to assess the seven factors of his psychobiological model of personality (Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic, & Wetzel, 1994). The TCI is a 240-item true/false questionnaire measuring four dimensions of temperament (Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, Reward Dependence, Persistence) and three dimensions of character (Self-Directedness, Cooperativeness, Self-Transcendence). Each of the seven TCI dimensions, with the sole exception of Persistence, is defined by facet traits which are summed to yield a total score. They are: Novelty Seeking (Exploratory Excitability, Impulsiveness, Extravagance, Disorderliness); Harm Avoidance (Anticipatory Worry, Fear of Uncertainty, Shyness, Fatigability); Reward Dependence (Sentimentality, Attachment, Dependence); Self-Directedness (Responsibility, Purposefulness, Resourcefulness, Self-Acceptance, Congruent); Cooperativeness (Social Acceptance, Empathy, Helfulness, Compassion, Pure-Hearted); and Self-Transcendence (Self-Forgetful, Transpersonal Identification, Spiritual Acceptance).

The TCI has been used extensively in research studies worldwide during the past 15 years and translated and validated in various countries. A Revised Version has appeared (TCI-R) with the true/false format being replaced by five point rating scales (1 = definitively false; 5 = definitively true); with 51 item changes; and with an increase and balancing in subscales for a total of 29 TCI-R subscales (e.g., several added to the Persistence factor). A full psychometric analysis was done on the French version of the TCI-R with a 482-subject sample from Paris, including clinical and non-clinical subjects who were 54% male with a mean age of 41 years (Pelissolo, Mallet, Baleyte, Michel, Cloninger, Allilaire, & Jouvent, 2005). Principal component analyses and internal consistencies showed a more robust factor structure and higher alpha coefficients than with the TCI.

45.2. Results and Discussion

Table 4 gives the inter-scale correlations among the TCI factors. Those above the diagonal are taken from an original sample given in the 1994 manual based on 803 college students (54% female) in introductory psychology classes (Cloninger et al., 1994, p. 95, Table 10.5). Those below the diagonal are taken from the 2005 TCI-R from Paris, France (Pelissolo et al., 2005). In the diagonal are the alpha coefficients from Pelissolo.

(Insert Table 4 About Here)

(Insert Figure 4 About Here)

Prior to running the analyses, weighted means of the correlations from the two samples were computed. The resulting inter-correlations among the 18 TCI scales were then subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using Mplus, with maximum likelihood estimation and promax rotation as the methods of analysis. Factor solutions ranging from one to three factors were tested. While the RMSEA indicesices suggested relatively poor fit for the three solutions, a three-factor solution was deemed most plausible based on both the fit indicesex and factor loadings.

With only loadings ≥ 0.3003 from the Mplus output included, the three-factor solution was subsequently subjected to confirmatory analysis using LISREL 8.72. In order to provide an adequate fit, it was necessary to add in three factor loadings, which had ranged in magnitude from 0.04 – 0.27 in the original Mplus solution. Furthermore, two correlated errors (0.12, -0.17) were required to attain an adequate fit. Following previous logic, we interpret the requirement for cross factor loadings and correlated errors as indicating a small degree of mulit-dimensionality, and the presence of weak unmodelled factors, respectively.The fit indices for the resultant model (see Figure 3x) indicated a close fit with the exception of the NNFI which was slightly below the cut-off point (χ2 = 33.69; df = 5; P < 0.001; SRMSR = 0.024; RMSEA = 0.067; NNFI = 0.93). First-order factors found were: Alpha (Harm Avoidance, Persistence, Self-Directedness); Beta (Novelty Seeking, Self-Directedness, Self-Transcendence); and Gamma (Reward Dependence, Cooperativeness, Self-Transcendence) as defined by major factor loadings ≥ 0.30. With the removal of a non-significant factor loading and an additional factor loading included, the higher-order GFP factor model provided an excellent fit to the data (χ2 = 22.12; df = 6; P < =0.001; SRMSR = 0.018; RMSEA = 0.046; NNFI = 0.97). The GFP accounted for 49.3% of the variance in the three first-order factors and 23.5% of the total reliable variance.

6. The Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire

6.1. Method

Marvin Zuckerman developed the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ) within the framework of his Alternative Five Personality Model (Zuckerman, 2008; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). After comparing structures based on 3, 4, 5, and 6 factor solutions of several personality questionnaires, Zuckerman et al. (1993) concluded that both the three- and five-factor models were robust and reliable. They opted for using the items most clearly defining the five factors, excluding those showing a strong social desirability influence.

The resulting 99-item version contained the following scales: Impulsive-Sensation Seeking (High scorers show a lack of planning and tend to act without thought); Neuroticism-Anxiety (High scorers are easily upset and prone to worry); Aggression-Hostility (High scorers have a quick temper and are impatient with others); Activity (High scorers have energy and like challenging work); Sociability (High scorers are outgoing and like to be with people). There is also an Infrequency validity scale (High scorers tend to over-endorse socially desirable statements). The ZKPQ has been adapted in different countries and languages.

There is no manual for the ZKPQ. Therefore, in order to establish inter-scale correlations, we searched on Google Scholar under ZKPQ and picked the first four published studies, which yielded five sets of inter-scale correlations. The first, by Zuckerman et al. (1993), gave the ZKPQ-III to two sets of U.S. undergraduates (Ns = 589, 187). The second, by Aluja, Garcia, and Garcia (2003), also from Spain, was based on 1,006 university students. The next study was of the Spanish (Catalan) translation, given to 933 university students aged 18 to 25 (Gomà-i-Freixanet, Valero, Puntí, & Zuckerman, 2004). Subsequently, Gomà-i-Freixanet and Valero (2008) standardized the test on the general population with 1,000 adults aged 18 to 88 years.

6.2. Results and Discussion

We used unit weighting to combine the correlations for the four samples (N = 3,715). Table 5 presents the mean of the five sets of inter-scale correlations from the ZKPQ. Shown in the diagonal are the alpha coefficients.

(Insert Table 5 About Here)

(Insert Figure 5 About Here)

57. Discussion

Our analyses provide robust evidence for the existence of a general personality factor in both the CPI and TCI, and somewhat more moderate support in the GZTS. The current paper raises to nine the number of personality scales in which we have found a GFP, counting all measures of the Big 5 just once (Rushton & Irwing, 2008, 2009; Rushton et al., 2008). There are many factors which may attenuate the magnitude of higher-order factor loadings, including inadequate measures, incorrect analytic techniques, sampling variability, range restriction, the presence of moderator variables, and lack of reliability, to name but a few. Problems of scale construction, which bias factor loadings in unpredictable ways may be a particular problem for personality scales, since the standard of psychometrics in this field has attracted significant criticism from methodologists (Borsboom, 2006). This may explain the variation in our findings, and in the light of this, the cumulative evidence for a GFP may be regarded as substantial. In any case, tThe five sets of analyses reported here unequivocally support the existence of a general personality factor, together with a number of more minor factors. Most previous tests of the GFP hypothesis have relied on assessments of the Big Five (Musek, 2007; Rushton & Irwing, 2008) although the GFP has also been found using the EAS temperament traits and an eclectic set of 35 traits assembled agnostic as to the underlying structure of personality (Rushton et al., 2008). The current analyses considerably further broaden the array of assessment contexts in which a GFP has been identified.

An objection which might be made to our conclusion is that our tests of the GFP are incomplete since the presence, in all three cases, of correlated errors indicates the existence of one or more additional unmeasured factors. This argument has merit. However, we make a distinction between factors which underlie primary scales and those which are reliably measured. In the case of the GZTS, CPI and TCI, both our Mplus exploratory factor analysis and our confirmatory analyses suggest that while there are additional factors underlying these scales, nevertheless, these factors cannot be reliably modeled. As argued above, this is a general problem with personality scale, so the choice is to test for the GFP broadly following our procedures, or not to test for it at all. However, to some extent our analyses of each of these scales has had an exploratory character, so a test of the generalizability of our findings is required in large population representative samples.

References

Aluja, A., Garcia, O., & Garcia, L. F. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman personality questionnaire (ZKPQ-III-R): A study of a shortened form. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1083-1097.

Boer, D. P., Starkey, N. J., & Hodgetts, A. M. (2008). The California Personality Inventory-434 and 260-item editions. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and testing: Vol. II. Personality measurement and assessment (pp. 97-112). London: Sage.

Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and testing: Vol. II. Personality measurement and assessment. London: Sage.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (2001). 16 PF Fifth Edition Manual. Pearson Education Inc.

Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). 16PF fifth edition: Technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Gomà-i-Freixanet, M. & Valero, S. (2008). Spanish normative data of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ) in a general population sample. Psicothema, 20, 318-324.

Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., Valero, S., Puntí, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire in a Spanish sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 134-146.

Gough, H. G., (1957). California Psychological Inventory. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed). Mountain View, CA: CPP.

Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1949). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey: Manual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply Co.

Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., Guilford, J. P. (1976). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Handbook: Twenty-five years of research and applications. San Diego, CA: Edits.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structural modeling: Sensitivity to underparametrized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure modeling: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Maraist, C. C., & Russell, M. T. (2002). 16PF fifth edition: Norm suppleent. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213-1233.

Pelissolo, A., Mallet, L., Baleyte, J.-M., Michel, G., Cloninger, C. R., Allilaire, J.-F., & Jouvent, R. (2005). The Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R): Psychometric characteristics of the French version. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, 112, 126-133.

Rushton, J. P., Bons, T. A., & Hur, Y-M. (2008). The genetics and evolution of a general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1136-1149.

Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2008). A general factor of personality from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 679-683.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.

Zuckerman, M. (2008). Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): An operational definition of the alternative Five Factor Model of personality. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and testing: Vol. II. Personality measurement and assessment (pp. 219-238). London: Sage.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757-768.

Table 1.

Inter-scale correlations among the 10 factors of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey

(Averaged over sex; N = 2,917; decimal points omitted)

| |G |R |A |

| |ImpSS |N-A|Agg-Hos |

| | |nx | |

| |ImpSS |N-A|Agg-Hos |

| | |nx | |

|ImpSS |N-Anx |Agg-Hos |Act

|Sy | |ImpSS |N-Anx |Agg-Hos |Act

|Sy | |ImpSS |(79) | | | | | |(80) | | | | | |N-Anx |04 |(84) | | | | |14 |(85) | | | | |Agg-Hos |22 |12 |(67) | | | |28 |17 |(70) | | | |Act |20 |-01 |08 |(74) | | |26 |04 |07 |(72) | | |Sy |20 |-06 |11 |13 |(76) | |24 |-06 |09 |13 |(76) | |

Note. ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation Seeking; N-Anx = Neurotic-Anxiety; Agg-Hos = Aggressive-Hostility; Act = Activity; Sy = Sociability.

GZTS

[pic]

CPI

[pic]

TCI

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download