Introduction
The NEO-PI-R questionnaire was created as an operationalization of the Five-Factor Personality Model. The test includes factor analysis of linguistic designations of personality traits; comparing the results of questionnaires for the diagnosis of personality traits with other questionnaires and assessments of third-party observers. Finally, it incorporates an analysis of the genetic aspects of personality. The advantage of this test is that the methods generally measure barely five personality traits. However, when using NEO PI-R, the test measures not only traits but their components – aspects or facets. However, a clear shortcoming of the test can be identified in the fact that it is not an indicator for identifying mental disorders in the subject. Moreover, particular problems arise with the consistency in the final test result. Yet, the technique has reasonable validity and reliability and was chosen as an object for consideration in the paper.
Relevancy to Specialization or a Related Profession
Psychological diagnosis of personality, as indicated, relies on various groups of standardized and non-standardized methods. The leading place among them is currently occupied by personality questionnaires. On the formal side, personality questionnaires are a group of psychodiagnostic methods and tasks in which are presented in the form of questions or statements. Questions in NEO PI-R are formulated in such a way that, by answering them, the subject informs the experimenter about his state of health. In addition, the test takes into account typical behaviors in various situations. The person answering the questions evaluates their personality from various points of view and highlights the features of his relationships with others. NEO PI-R allows one to obtain information that characterizes the personality of the subject in a wide range – from the characteristics of his physical and mental state to his moral, ethical and social views.
An important advantage of NEO-PI-R is that the questionnaire is a measurement tool, that is, the results of filling it out can be expressed in numbers and compared with each other. It contains scales that are aimed at describing individual personality characteristics and measuring individual characteristics of a person (Cohen et al., 2022). Statistical analysis of the data makes it possible to compare the individual score on each of the scales with the average results of the corresponding group of respondents.
Test Purpose and Content, Skills, and/or Constructs Assessed
One of the most authoritative models in the area of personality traits establishment is NEO PI-R, which distinguishes five factors in the personality structure. This theory is based on the lexical approach, which states that the main features of personality can be found in the language. In the methodology, so-called ipsative questions are presented, in which the respondent has to make a forced choice between two alternatives. A certain artificiality lies in the fact that none of the alternatives may reflect the true preferences of the subject. Nevertheless, scales constructed according to the ipsative principle make it possible to effectively overcome the tendency of subjects to give socially desirable answers (Abad et al., 2018). Each main factor (higher order factor), in addition, includes lower order factors – subfactors, or facets. Facets are the more specific features (or components of generalized features) that make up each of the five Big Five factors (Uliaszek et al., 2019). Without these sub-factors, the understanding of the main factors may be incomplete and, in some cases, even inaccurate.
“Negative emotionality” or “neuroticism” as reflected in the “N Factor” is the tendency to experience negative emotions. “Involvement in the outside world”, or “E-factor”, otherwise can be called extraversion. The scale shows whether a person likes to be among people, how full of energy and enthusiasm, and positive emotions he is (Maples-Keller et al., 2019). The scale “openness to new experience”, “O-factor”, shows how much a person is interested in expanding their own horizons, learning new things, meeting new people, and visiting new places. The “attachment” factor (“cooperation”, “A-factor”) shows how harmoniously a person exists in society and opposes prosocial and collective orientation to egocentrism. Finally, the “controlling” scale (“self-regulation”, “self-control”, “C factor”) shows how conscientiously a person performs his duties, his purposefulness, organization, and motivation.
Normative Sample, Sampling Procedures, and Intended Population
In NEO PI-R tests (unlike tests that are developed for subjects with a particular pathology), ideally, a sample from the general population of subjects is required, i.e. from the general population (from the entire population of the country), in which all possible indicators occur. In the process, to obtain a norm and determine the general population, it is important to have a sample of about 10,000 or more subjects (Uliaszek et al., 2019). This is due to the fact that the sample if one is talking about a general sample, must be stratified (social status, age, gender); at the same time, each group should have at least 300 people. From the population, a group of people is selected – a standardization sample – which is actually tested, and with its help the general population is estimated.
Required Training, Knowledge, and Skills of Test Users
Training required for performing NEO-PI-R tests could be done in an online format. As such, Psychological Assessment Resources (n.d.) offer online training on NEO-PI-R, presenting information on each instrument, sample items, and normative and clinical data. Groth-Marnat and Wright (2016) suggest that practitioners need to obtain knowledge correlated to measurement, main interpretive hypotheses, descriptive statistics, variables, expectations of diverse contexts, and other matters of clinical practice. S-qualified person can administer the NEO-PI-R test; however, the automation system allows people without qualifications to self-administer the test, and then send it to the professionals (Psych Press, n.d.). Test users should also know how to evaluate the legal, ethical, and professional issues related to test usage. For instance, truth-in-testing legislation requires descriptions of a test’s purpose, subject matter, measures, and procedures (Cohen et al., 2022). Moreover, members of professions that administer psychological tests should know their codes of professional ethics that define standards of care related to diagnostic services (Cohen et al., 2022). Psychological tests are complex and require training to avoid errors.
Test Technical Quality
Content validity is defined as confirmation that the test items reflect all aspects of the area of ​​behavior being studied. The construct validity of the NEO PI-R test is demonstrated as completely as possible by the description of the variable that the test is intended to measure. The validity of test could be compared to that of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent–Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF) and the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV (MCMI-IV). As such, Sharf and Rogers (2019) have conducted research about the validity of MMPI-A-RF, using a criterion that required correlations to be larger than.20. The study discovered that almost half of the MMPI-A-RF RC items matched the requirement, demonstrating good convergent and discriminant validity (Sharf and Rogers, 2019). As for MCMI-IV, the search did not yield satisfactory articles on the MCMI-IV, especially within the US population. However, Alareqe’ et al.’s (2021) study explores the test’s earlier version, MCMI-III, and discovers that it is psychometrically credible for analyzing such a foreign culture as Arabic. Hence, both tests are relatively valid, although their results might not be appropriate for all cases.
Yet, NEO PI-R seems to be the most valid among the compared tests due to one particular fact. Namely, Uliaszek at al.’s (2019) research demonstrates the most detailed observation of the evidence that contributes to the validity of NEO PI-R. The study participants were 1930 adults from a university-affiliated mental health and addiction hospital. The article addresses evidence of validity to assess the presence of demoralization by operating two sets of analyses. The researchers discussed construct validity, concentrating on discriminant and convergent validity. The study examined differences in NEOdem (demoralization scale) across diverse psychiatric disorders and identified varying levels of NEOdem, with borderline personality disorder showing the highest rates (1.46) and pathological gambling demonstrating lower scores (.09). The authors state that the disorder specific relationships contribute to the construct validity of the demoralization subscale in NEO-PI-R. Thus, the test seems to be the most scientific study among all, as well as its result validate whatever the factors of assessing the result is used.
Next, test reliability indicates the adequacy of an assessment throughout a specified period. It could be defined as the test’s ability to protect information from motivational (conscious and unconscious) distortions and social desirability of responses (Abad et al., 2018). In NEO PI-R questionnaire, statistics are conducted by applying a lie scale (Louie et al., 2018). Falsification of answers, the likelihood of which should be remembered in situations characterized by a high degree of social control over the results obtained by the subject, is extremely rare. For instance, Bleidorn et al. (2020) collected data from students in a Midwestern university to address reliability estimates focusing on test-retest reliability. Coefficient alpha ranged from.69 to.95 at the first assessment and from.76 to.96 at the second assessment after two weeks, but the average estimates were.86 both times. In another study, the authors concentrated on interrated consistency that reflects the degree to which different respondents give similar evaluations (Cohen et al., 2022). The authors gathered data from twins and two informant reports from their spouses and friends, with the mean cross-rater agreement being.48 at first appraisal and.47 at the 5-year follow-up. The estimates indicated sufficient concurrence between self- and peer-reported scores of a healthy personality. Overall, upon completing all the studies, the authors determined the features of healthy personality functioning, which can be described in terms of the NEO-PI-R.
NEO PI-R’s reliability results also could be compared with similar tests. For MMPI-A-RF, Semel et al. (2021) addressed reliability estimates by assessing internal consistency reliability with coefficient alpha, one of the most frequently used measures ranging from 0 to 1. The resulting triarchic scales indicated satisfactory internal consistency reliabilities in the two samples of the research, with sample’s scores demonstrating patterns of validity consistent with initial hypotheses. In turn Alareqe’ et al.’s (2021) study discusses reliability estimates and internal consistency for MCMI-III (MCMI-IV’s earlier version), with the acceptable standard value of reliability as.70 of Cronbach’s alpha. Thus, NEO PI-R is better than MCMI-IV due to greater reliability and a number of existing research, although MMPI-A-RF is of similar quality as NEO PI-R.
Test Materials, Cost, and Administration Times
The technical cost of the tests and the cost of materials are low. However, it is important to clarify that the cost of the test includes the technical equipment used by the respondent (Louie et al., 2018). NEO PI-R uses automated technologies that could be accessed online, namely Professional Report Service: the participants can fill the scannable forms and send them for analysis of the specialists. One can purchase a manual explaining how to use the technology, which costs $121 (PAR, 2021). MMPI-A-RF requires particular certification for to acquire its materials (such as manuals), so it might be costly. MCMI-IV’s inventory usually includes printed materials, the sources of which could be easily found. Thus, NEO PI-R seems to be the most accessible alternative among the tests.
Moreover, administration of NEO PI-R time does not take much effort and expense, since the process is partly automated. One can even self-administrate the test (Psych Press, n.d.). It can be contrasted with MMPI-A-RF that is time-consuming and laborious, leading to errors (Stein, 2021) MCMI-IV is slightly easier to administrate than MMPI-A-RF, but NEO PI-R is oriented for knowledgeable but inexperienced test users. This is a software testing method that is performed using special software tools that are in turn required to execute a set of test cases. Test measurements give results with probabilistic accuracy and the true result is not at a point, but at a certain interval on the scale. Hence, NEO PI-R is easily administrated if one compares it to the other discussed tests.
Advances in Technology
The NEO PI-R test is a partially automated questionnaire with automatically calculated data. Test automation can significantly speed up the release of a software product and reduce the cost of a test iteration (Abad et al., 2018). When using Professional Report Service, clients fill out a scannable answer sheet with their replies to the NEO PI-R questions. Then, test users return the completed answer sheets, and PAR evaluates and scores the replies within 24 hours, prepare a 7- to 8-page tailored Interpretive Report for each customer, and ship the results back (PAR, 2021). The other available option is NEO Software System: when one enters results from a finished print management or apply the NEO PI-R, the software generates an unlimited number of interpretative reports (PAR, 2021). In contrast, MMPI-A-RF and MCMI-IV are not automated and might seem somewhat outdated since they are performed through traditional paper questionnaires. Thus, the NEO PI-R questionnaire greatly simplifies the work and allows one to summarize machine data.
APA Ethical Guidelines
First of all, the principle of using grades is necessary to consider the candidate and compare him with others. Bases for Assessments and Informed Consent in Assessments will be accepted so that the candidate understands where and by whom the results will be studied. Release of Test Data and Test Construction are responsible for the intelligibility and adequacy of the test during the survey (APA, 2017). Interpreting Assessment Results and Assessment by Unqualified Persons implies that the results will be evaluated by qualified employees (APA, 2017). Obsolete Tests and Outdated Test Results and Explaining Assessment Results mean that all relevant results will be fully explained. Test Scoring and Interpretation Services and Maintaining Test Security are responsible for requiring a third-party reviewer to evaluate results.
Evidence of Test Bias/Fairness and Multicultural Considerations
In recent decades, ethnocultural specificity has become increasingly important in the process of self-identification of individuals and social communities. However, it should be said that NEO PI-R focuses on those traits that are inherent in each personality (Louie et al., 2018). Participants of the test understand the questions if they have 8th grade reading level. Therefore, they perform as is planned by the test creators, so the fairness of multicultural assessment is nondiscriminatory (Przeworski et al., 2021). For achieving more fairness, the participants should be gathered from various populations, reflecting the diversity of education attainment, marital status, race, and ethnicity Yet, Groth-Marnat and Wright (2016) state that NEO-PI-R sample could be criticized, as the participants are relatively better educated than the general population. It was shown that these demographics answer more honest, resulting in greater test reliability. This criticism is appropriate since Bleidorn et al. (2020) and Uliaszek et al.’s (2019) studies discussed earlier indeed research students rather than uneducated people. Thus, the test might be somewhat biased as for the educational background of its participants, although other unfairness has not been revealed yet.
Conclusion
The five-factor model presents common, independent measures that characterize individual differences between adults. There is agreement among researchers regarding the dimension of the language space of descriptive personal categories. The content of the constructs should be clarified by comparing the questionnaire with other dispositional differential personality scales. In the course of such a comparison, more attention should be paid to the differences found between NEO PI-R is and other personality scales and related constructs. It can be recommended to conduct applied studies of the applicability of NEO PI-R is to characterize special groups of subjects.
References
Abad, F. J., Sorrel, M. A., Garcia, L. F., & Aluja, A. (2018). Modeling general, specific, and method variance in personality measures: Results for ZKA-PQ and NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 25(8), 959-977.
Alareqe, N. A., Roslan, S., Nordin, M. S., Ahmad, N. A., & Taresh, S. M. (2021). Psychometric properties of the million clinical multiaxial inventory–III in an Arabic clinical sample compared with American, Italian, and Dutch cultures.Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-16. Web.
APA. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Web.
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Samuel, D. B., & Donnellan, M. B. (2020). The healthy personality from a basic trait perspective.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1207-1225. Web.
Cohen, R. J., Schneider, W.J., & Tobin, R. (2022). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Groth-Marnat, G., & Wright, A. J. (2016). Handbook of psychological assessment (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Louie, J. F., Kurtz, J. E., & Markey, P. M. (2018). Evaluating circumplex structure in the interpersonal scales for the NEO-PI-3. Assessment, 25(5), 589-595.
Maples-Keller, J. L., Williamson, R. L., Sleep, C. E., Carter, N. T., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Using item response theory to develop a 60-item representation of the NEO PI–R using the International Personality Item Pool: Development of the IPIP–NEO–60. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(1), 4-15. Web.
Przeworski, A., Peterson, E., & Piedra, A. (2021). A systematic review of the efficacy, harmful effects, and ethical issues related to sexual orientation change efforts. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 28(1), 81.
Psychological Assessment Resources (n.d.). NEO personality inventory-revised. PAR. Web.
Psych Press. (n.d.). NEO PI-R. Web.
Rajinikanth, R. (2020). Personality Traits of Police officers: An Overview Of NEO PI-R Five factor Model. Think India Journal, 23(4), 7-12.
Semel, R. A., Pinsoneault, T. B., Drislane, L. E., & Sellbom, M. (2021). Operationalizing the triarchic model of psychopathy in adolescents using the MMPI-A-RF (restructured form). Psychological Assessment. 33(4), 311–325. Web.
Sharf, A. J., & Rogers, R. (2019). Validation of the MMPI-A-RF for youth with mental health needs: A systematic examination of clinical correlates and construct validity.Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 42(3), 527-538. Web.
Stein, S. (2021) Review of the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory–adolescent–restructured. In J.F. Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.), The twenty-first mental measurements yearboo. Buros Center for Testing.
Uliaszek, A. A., Al-Dajani, N., Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2019). Cross-validation of the demoralization construct in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 159. Web.