Measuring personality traits with ultra-short scales: A study of the ...

E. Romero et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5
into a single factor and the dimension became diluted as part of its
content shifted to Conscientiousness.
These difficulties with Agreeableness are common in the TIPI
literature and should not be ignored (Ehrhart et al., 2009; Hofmans
et al., 2008). The body of results obtained with TIPI in various languages
suggests that the measurement of Agreeableness could be
improved. Interestingly, Agreeableness has also been difficult to
capture with other short scales (Rammstedt & John, 2007), which
could suggest that this dimension is difficult to assess with only
a few adjectives or short sentences. The potential evaluative connotations
of some Agreeableness descriptors (e.g. sympathetic,
quarrelsome) should certainly not be overlooked, and the influence
of social desirability and response biases in completing short scales
such as the TIPI should be examined in greater depth.
This study has a few limitations of its own. First, a complete
analysis of the usefulness of the TIPI should involve prospective
studies to obtain scores on the criterion measures at a later time.
Second, as with most studies in this field, the measurement method
(self-reports for both predictors and criteria) may be contaminating
the correlations. The common method bias is a non-trivial
problem in studies of this type and its effects should be analyzed
systematically in further studies. The use of different measurement
methods is highly recommended and should not be overlooked in
trait psychology. Additionally, proposals have been made for different
statistical ways of identifying and correcting the effects of
common method variance (see for example, Richardson, Simmering,
& Sturman, 2009). Studies explicitly intended to examine these
effects are needed in order to more accurately assess the validity of
short scales. Finally, it is necessary to recall that the TIPI is based
on the Big Five model, which has been criticized in recent years
in spite of its popularity (Block, 2010). Its cross-cultural replicability
is also being questioned (De Raad et al., 2010). The elaboration
of new scales should incorporate the latest findings in this field, in
order to offer personality measures that are backed by more extensive
investigation of personality trait structure.
In spite of these limitations and the need for greater refinement,
the results of this study support the potential of the TIPI as an efficient
measuring instrument for the Big Five dimensions. We agree
with other authors (such as Muck et al., 2007) that it would be
aberrant to state that scales such as the TIPI could replace the traditional
traits scales in all types of research. A short scale is unwarranted,
for example, when personality is the main focus, when
specific facets of personality are being examined, for in-depth clinical
assessments or when enough time and resources are available
to administer more comprehensive scales. However, developing
new, viable short scales can help the scientific community examine
traits in multiple areas of psychological research and expand the
scope of the science of individual differences. The TIPI has already
facilitated interesting studies in political psychology, market
research and Internet use psychology (see http://homepage.psy.
utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/gosling/scales_we.htm). Such a
cost-effective, widely applicable instrument also has potential
for large-scale cross-cultural studies.
In summary, researchers should be warned against indiscriminate
use of ultra-short scales and refinement of the scales should
continue. However, where brevity is a priority, the potential benefits
of short scales merit consideration.
References
Aluja, A., García, O., & García, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three
structural models for personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-RS,
and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,
713–725.
Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale
for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33–47.
Block, J. (2010). The Five-Factor framing of personality and beyond: Some
ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-
E) and NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P., Levert, E., Ostendorf, F., Mlacic, B., Diblas, L., et al. (2010).
Only three factors of personality description are fully replicable across
languages: A comparison of 14 traits taxonomies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 160–173.
Dematteis, M. B. (2009). Estudio de la calidad psicométrica de una escala breve para
evaluar la personalidad [Psychometric study of an abbreviated instrument to
assess personality]. Anuario de Proyectos e Informes de Investigación de Becarios
de Investigación, 6, 223–230.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of
143 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
197–229.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for
a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
Diener, D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Nadler, K., &
Bradshaw, K. (2009). Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of
the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
900–905.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr., (2003). A very brief measure
of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
504–528.
Herzberg, P. Y., & Brahler, E. (2006). Assessing the Big-Five personality domains via
short forms – A cautionary note and a proposal. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 22, 139–148.
Hofmans, J., Kuppens, P., & Allik, J. (2008). Is short in length short in content? An
examination of the domain representation of the Ten Item Personality
Inventory scales in Dutch language. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
750–755.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory. Berkeley, CA:
University of California, Berkeley.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York:
Guilford.
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being
measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.
Muck, P. M., Hell, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2007). The construct validation of a short fivefactor
model instrument: A self-peer study on the German adaptation of the
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-G). European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 23, 166–175.
Palomera, R., & Bracket, M. (2006). Frequency of positive affect as a possible
mediator between perceived emotional intelligence and life satisfaction.
Ansiedad y Estrés, 12, 231–239.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A
10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal
of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three
perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and
correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12,
762–800.
Romero, E., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., Luengo, M. A., & Sobral, J. (2003). The self-control
construct in the general theory of crime: An investigation in terms of
personality psychology. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 61–86.
Romero, E., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & Villar, P. (2012). Life aspirations, personality
traits and subjective well-being in a Spanish sample. European Journal of
Personality, 26, 45–55.
Romero, E., Villar, P., Luengo, M. A., & Gómez-Fraguela, J. A. (2009). Traits, personal
strivings and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 535–546.
Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Lostao, L., Joiner, T. E., Santed, M. A., & Valiente, R. M. (1999).
Escalas PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: Validación factorial y convergencia
transcultural [The PANAS scales of positive and negative affect: Factor
validation and cross-cultural convergence]. Psicothema, 11, 37–51.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Schultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between
personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.
TEA Ediciones (1999). Inventario de personalidad NEO revisado (NEO PI-R) e
Inventario NEO reducido de cinco factores (NEO-FFI) [Revised NEO Personality
Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory] Madrid: TEA.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common
biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 999–1002.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, 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.
Please cite this article in press as: Romero, E., et al. Measuring personality traits with ultra-short scales: A study of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)
in a Spanish sample. Personality and Individual Differences (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.035