This paper examines four major instruments used to measure the Big Five personality traits: the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Five Factor Personality Inventory (Somer, Korkmaz & Tatar, 2002), the Trait Descriptive Adjective scale (Goldberg, 1992), and the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991). Drawing on published research, the paper compares each instrument's reliability (Cronbach's alpha), validity, item format, administration time, and methodological fit. The discussion highlights trade-offs between brevity and depth, noting that no single instrument is ideal for all research contexts. Researchers are advised to select a scale based on the specific demands of their study design.
Personality traits make up the defining characteristics of an individual. Schmutte and Ryff (1997) define personality traits as describing "individual propensities toward stable patterns of behavior and thought, that often are neither inherently good nor inherently bad." Psychologists generally assess five factors of personality, known as the Big Five personality factors. These five factors include neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. There are multiple scales designed to measure such factors. This paper examines four major instruments used to measure the Big Five personality traits: the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Five Factor Personality Inventory developed by Somer, Korkmaz & Tatar in 2002 (Tok, 2011), the Trait Descriptive Adjective scale (Goldberg, 1992), and the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991).
When deciding on an instrument to measure personality, a researcher must take into account the scale's validity, reliability, and preferred methodology. For this reason, there are often a variety of scales associated with any given variable, and personality is no exception. John and Srivastava (1999) argue there are too many options, stating that "although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales" (p. 2). They further note that some scales measure similar concepts while others measure completely different constructs (John & Srivastava, 1999). To assess personality in relation to the Big Five, a researcher must choose a scale that reliably measures the factors in a way that fits the methodology.
One popular scale used to measure the Big Five factors is the short form of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory developed by Costa and McCrae (1992). This instrument uses five scales, each measuring one of the five factors. Each scale contains 12 questions that use a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from disagree to agree. This short form is derived from the revised long-format version but is believed to hold reliability with an average Cronbach's alpha of .78 across the five factors (John & Srivastava, 1999). The scale was originally developed for use with middle-aged adults (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and has shown validity when compared to spousal responses (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Salami (2011) used this scale to measure personality in a study examining the relationship between personality, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence. Salami found a significant relationship between all five factors of personality and psychological well-being, with a positive relationship for all factors except neuroticism. Salami found the scale to be reliable, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .70 to .87 across the five scales. Salami's research utilized questionnaires to measure personality. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory is considered by some to have the highest reliability among Big Five measurements (John & Srivastava, 1999) and is designed for use when the methodology calls for self-report questionnaires.
"Compares two additional Big Five instruments and their trade-offs"
"Evaluates the BFI's efficiency and phrase-based item format"
"Summarizes strengths and weaknesses of all four instruments"
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.