Neo-dimensies en de 5DPT

Een kritische beschouwing
05/06/2015
Dirk van Kampen
Geen reacties
De-Psycholoog-nr.-6-Juni-2015
Issue 6

Samenvatting

NEO DIMENSIONS AND THE 5DPT: A CONTEMPLATED VIEW D. VAN KAMPEN.
Despite the great popularity of the neo-inventories, there are sufficient reasons to look for an alternative instrument. Starting with the criticism that the status of McCrae and Costa’s FFM, both from a lexical (Big Five) and a theoretical perspective, is unclear, Van Kampen’s 5DPT model was presented to give a more adequate description of the basic dimensions of personality, at least from a theoretical stance. Besides, it was argued that several neo-inventories contain items that show unacceptable cross-loadings, whereas the 5DPT items are remarkably factor-pure. Finally, using item-level analyses to investigate the invariance of the FFM dimensions in relation to the sample parameters gender and age, positive results were only obtained for Extraversion and Neuroticism, whereas all 5DPT factors appear to be highly invariant with respect to eight sample parameters, thereby showing that individuals, which diff er from each other in terms of gender, age, education and/or their position on the 5DPT dimensions themselves, attach the same meaning to the 5DPT constructs.

1054 Weergaven
3 Downloads
  • Samenvatting
  • Ffm and big five
  • Theorie-gebaseerd versus Lexicaal
  • Structurele validiteit
    • Item-niveau ladingen en stabiliteit
  • Invariantie in relatie tot steekproefparameters
  • Nogmaals: O of A?
  • Conclusie
  • Literatuurlijst
  • Over de auteur
Log in
Hoewel uitermate populair kunnen tegen het FFM-model van Costa en McCrae, en de daarop gebaseerde NEO-vragenlijsten, diverse bezwaren worden ingebracht. Dirk van Kampen behandelt in dit artikel enkele van deze kritiekpunten. Ook gaat hij, rekening houdend met deze bezwaren, in op de 5DPT en het daaraan ten grondslag liggende model en presenteert die als een serieus te nemen alternatief.

Het in de huidige persoonlijkheidspsychologie waarschijnlijk meest populaire model is Costa en McCrae’s (1985, 1989, 1992a)789 Five Factor Model (FFM). De factorstructuur van dit model berust op een aanpassing van de structuur van een eerder geconstrueerde vragenlijst, de NEO Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1983)37, aan wat later kon worden aangetoond in lexicale Big Five-studies (bijv. Goldberg, 1990, 1992)2223. Dit betekende dat naast de NEO-dimensies Neuroticisme (N), Extraversie (E) en Openheid (O), die door de auteurs verondersteld werden rechtstreeks de Big Five-factoren Emotional Stability (gespiegeld), Surgency en Intellect te vertegenwoordigen, twee andere dimensies aan de NEO-structuur werden toegevoegd, te weten Altruïsme (de Engelse term is Agreeableness; A) en Consciëntieusheid; C – zie bijvoorbeeld McCrae & Costa, 1985).

De schalen voor de vijf dimensies werden gezamenlijk gepubliceerd als de NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985). In een later stadium werden diverse wijzigingen aangebracht, onder andere resulterend in de NEO

Literatuurlijst

  1. Austin, E.J. & Deary, I.J. (2000). The ‘four As’: a common framework for normal and abnormal personality? Personality and Individual Diff erences, 28, 977-995.
  2. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the fi ve-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.
  3. Briggs, S.R. (1992). Assessing the fi ve-factor model of personality description. Journal of Personality, 60, 253-293.
  4. Coolidge, F.L. & Merwin, M.M. (1992). Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: a new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 223-238.
  5. Coolidge, F.L., Segal, D.L., Cahill, B.S. & Archuleta, J.L. (2008). A new five factor model of psychopathology: preliminary psychometric characteristics of the Five-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT). Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1326-1334.
  6. Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P.B. Baltes & O.G. Brim (Eds.) Life span development and behavior, Vol. 3 (p. 65-102). New York: Academic Press.
  7. Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  8. Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  9. Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992a). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  10. Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992b). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Diff erences, 13, 653-665.
  11. Cureton, E.E. & D’Agostino, R.B. (1983). Factor analysis: an applied approach. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K. & Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure of maladaptive personality traits in childhood: a first step toward an integrative developmental perspective for DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 639-657.
  13. De Fruyt, F. & Hoekstra, H.A. (2014). NEO-PI-3 persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst, Handleiding. Amsterdam: Hogrefe.
  14. De Vries, R.E. & Van Kampen, D. (2010). The HEXACO and 5DPT models of personality: a comparison and their relationships with psychopathy, egoism, pretentiousness, immorality, and Machiavellianism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 244-257.
  15. Egan, V., Deary, I. & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: Emerging British norms and an item-level analysis suggest N, A and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual Diff erences, 29, 907-920.
  16. Eysenck, H.J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfi eld: Thomas.
  17. Eysenck, H.J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? – Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Diff erences, 12, 773-790.
  18. Eysenck, H.J. (1994a). The importance of theory in the taxonomy of personality. In B. De Raad, W.K.B. Hofstee & G.L. Van Heck (Eds.) Personality psychology in Europe, Vol. 5 (p. 6-13). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
  19. Eysenck, H.J. (1994b). The Big Five or Giant Three: Criteria for a paradigm. In C.F. Halverson, G.A. Kohnstamm & R.P. Martin (Eds.) The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (p. 37-51). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  20. Eysenck, H.J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: the unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224-1237.
  21. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
  22. Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: the Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
  23. Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
  24. Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
  25. Gore, W.L. (2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and the five-factor model. Master Thesis, University of Kentucky.
  26. Gore, W.L. & Widiger, T.A. (2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and Five-Factor Models of general personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 816-821.
  27. Haven, S. & Ten Berge, J.M.F. (1977). Tucker’s coefficient of congruence as a measure of factorial invariance: an empirical study. Heymans Bulletin, HB 77-290 EX. Groningen: Psychologische Instituten Heymans.
  28. Hendriks, A.A.J. (1997). The construction of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Academisch proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
  29. Hendriks, A.A.J., Hofstee, W.K.B. & De Raad, B. (2011). Five-Factor Personality Inventory II (FFPI-II). Houten: Bohn, Stafl eu van Loghum.
  30. Hoekstra, H.A., Ormel, J. & De Fruyt, F. (1996). Handleiding Big Five persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten NEO-PI-R en NEO-FFI. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  31. Holden, R.R. & Fekken, G.C. (1994). The NEO Five-Factor Inventory in a Canadian context: psychometric properties for a sample of university women. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 441-444.
  32. Hull, D.M., Beaujean, A.A., Worrell, F.C. & Verdisco, A.E. (2010). An item-level examination of the factorial validity of NEO Five-Factor Inventory scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 1021-1041.
  33. Karwautz, A., Rabe-Hesketh, S., Hu, X., Zhao, J., Sham, P. et al. (2001). Individualspecific risk factors for anorexia nervosa: a pilot study using a discordant sister-pair design. Psychological Medicine, 31, 317-329.
  34. Krueger, R.F., Derringer, J., Markon, K.E., Watson, D. & Skodol, A. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.
  35. Livesley, W.J. & Jackson, D.N. (2002). Manual for the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ). Port Huron: Sigma Press.
  36. McCrae, R.R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: joint analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.) Personality psychology: recent trends and emerging directions (p. 237–245). New York: Springer.
  37. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1983). Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 245-255.
  38. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1985). Updating Norman’s ‘adequate taxonomy’: intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
  39. 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.
  40. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Diff erences, 36, 587-596.
  41. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 116-128.
  42. Mooradian, T.A. & Nezlek, J.B. (1996). Comparing the NEO-FFI and Saucier’s mini-markers as measures of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 213-215.
  43. Parker, W.D. & Stumpf, H. (1998). A validation of the five-factor model of personality in academically talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 1005-1025.
  44. Pytlik Zillig, L.M., Hemenover, S.H. & Dienstbier, R.A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847-858.
  45. Rawlings, D. & Freeman, J.L. (1997). Measuring paranoia/suspiciousness. In: Claridge, G. (Ed.) Schizotypy: implications for illness and health (p. 38-60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  46. Ross, S.R., Lutz, C.J. & Bailey, S.E., (2002). Positive and negative symptoms of schizotypy and the Five-Factor model: a domain and facet level analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 53-72.
  47. Samuel, D.B. & Widiger, T.A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the fi ve-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326-1342.
  48. San Martini, P., Di Pomponio, I., Dentale, F. & Van Kampen, D. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Five-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT). Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 261/262, 105-115.
  49. Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of personality: lexical perspectives on the fi ve-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.) The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives (p. 21-50). New York: Guildford Press.
  50. Saulsman, L.M. & Page, A.C. (2004). The fi ve-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055-1085.
  51. South, S.C., Eaton, N.R. & Krueger, R.F. (2010). The connections between personality and psychopathology. In: T. Millon, R.F. Krueger & E. Simonsen (Eds.) Contemporary directions in psychopathology: scientific foundations of the DSM-V and ICD-11 (p. 242-262). New York: Guilford Press.
  52. Tellegen, A. & Waller, N.G. (1987). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
  53. Thalbourne, M.A. (1998). Transliminality: further correlates and a short measure. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 92, 402-419
  54. Van Kampen, D. (1993). The 3DPT dimensions S, E, and N: a critical evaluation of Eysenck’s Psychoticism model. European Journal of Personality, 7, 65-105.
  55. Van Kampen, D. (1996). The theory behind Psychoticism: A reply to Eysenck. European Journal of Personality, 10, 57-60.
  56. Van Kampen, D. (1997). Orderliness as a major dimension of personality: from 3DPT to 4DPT. European Journal of Personality, 11, 211-242.
  57. Van Kampen, D. (2000a). Soortgenootvaliditeit van de 4DPT op basis van de FFPI. Interne Research Nota, Afdeling Klinische Psychologie, VU Amsterdam.
  58. Van Kampen, D. (2000b). Idiographic complexity and the common personality dimensions Insensitivity, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Orderliness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 217-243.
  59. Van Kampen, D. (2005). Pathways to schizophrenic psychosis: a LISREL tested model of the unfolding of the schizophrenic prodrome. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 909-938.
  60. Van Kampen, D. (2006a). The Schizotypic Syndrome Questionnaire (SSQ): psychometrics, validation and norms. Schizophrenia Research, 84, 305-322.
  61. Van Kampen, D. (2006b). The Dutch DAPP-BQ: improvements, lower and higher order dimensions, and relationships with the 5DPT. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20, 81-101.
  62. Van Kampen, D. (2009). Personality and psychopathology: a theory-based revision of Eysenck’s PEN model. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 5, 9-21.
  63. Van Kampen, D. (2011). FFM dimensions and the 5DPT: a factorial study. Interne Research Nota, Afdeling Klinische Psychologie, VU Amsterdam.
  64. Van Kampen, D. (2012). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT): relationships with two lexically based instruments and the validation of the Absorption scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 92-101.
  65. Van Kampen, D. (2014). The SSQ model of schizophrenic prodromal unfolding revised: an analysis of its causal chains based on the language of directed graphs. European Psychiatry., 29, 437-448.
  66. Van Kampen, D., Coolidge, F. & San Martini, P. (2012). Cross-sample and cross-language invariance of the Five-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT): exploratory and confi rmatory analyses using Dutch, American and Italian samples. Personality and Mental Health, 6, 303-324.
  67. Van Kampen, D., Maurer, K., An der Heiden, W. & Hafner, H. (2009). Prodromal unfolding: the validation of the Schizotypic Syndrome Questionnaire model in a sample of fi rst-episode schizophrenic patients. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 3, 137-150.
  68. Widiger, T.A. (2011). The DSM-5 dimensional model of personality disorder: rationale and empirical support. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 222-234.