Running Head: A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

A critique of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory Elizabeth A. Forsyth Bond University

Author Note

This critique was submitted by Elizabeth Forsyth, Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University as partial course assessment for PSYC13-302: Personality and Individual Differences.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) measures the five latent personality variables proposed by the Five Factor Model (FFM) (Norman, 1961). The FFM incorporates broad, normative traits that underlie key individual differences. The factors and related traits are Neuroticism which measures emotional stability, Extraversion which measures outgoingness and docility, Openness to Experience which measures conventionality and curiosity, Agreeableness which measures amiability and competitiveness, and Conscientiousness which measures goal striving and self-regulation (Costa & McCrae, 2008). This essay will introduce the theoretical history and development of the NEOPI-R. The demonstrated psychometric properties of the test will then be discussed followed details on administration and scoring of the test. The clinical utility of the test will then be discussed followed by a discussion of practical strengths and weaknesses, specifically pertaining to protocol validity. From these discussions, suggestions for the appropriate clinical use of the NEO-PR-I will be made. Theoretical Basis, Test Development and Test Format The Five Factor Model conceptualises personality variables according to Trait Theory. Trait theory identifies consistent, lasting individual differences effecting emotion, behaviour and cognition (McCrae & Costa, 2008). The theoretical strength of the FFM is its foundation in comprehensive literary revision (Costa & McCrae, 1980). FFM re-structured facets were originally acknowledge in the 16 Factor Model (Cattel, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970) and reflect consistencies with other measures (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Eyensck and Eyenscks (1975) Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N) were originally proposed alongside Openness to Experience (O). O emerged through consistencies in the work of Rogers (1961), Fitzgerald (1966) and Cattel, Eber & Tatsuoka (1970). This led to the release of the NEO-PI, which was

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY revised to incorporate full facet-scales of Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C). The identification and conceptualization of A and C drew from the 1960s taxonomy approach of Norman (1963) and Tupes & Christal (1963) (McCrae & Costa, 1987).

To effectively operationalise these personality constructs, pilot trait items were formulated in accordance with previously psychometrically established measures (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Targeted factor analysis on large, adult tests specified items with the highest correlations as potential traits for each factor (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Factor items were then selected using their discriminative validity with respect to factors they were not intended to represent (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In doing this, Costa & McCrae (2008) identified unique constructs pertaining to each factor and a set of self-evaluating items. Selection using discriminant validity strengthened the soundness of these items as quantifiable measures of each factor by minimising overlap between factors traits. The NEO-PR-I contains 240 self-report items (Form S). The factor scales are each measured according to six underlying traits. These traits are measured using eight items rated on a five-point scale. The 30 trait scores, six facet measures for each of the five factors, provide a cumulative score for each factor and also help to indicate an individuals precise expression their factor scores (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Form R records observers scores with test items written in third person. Scoring is either done by hand or via Professional Assessment Report software. In this way the test provides a detailed measure of an individuals tendency regarding these factors and their unique expression of each factor. This aids in individual diagnosis and treament of a client. Psychometrics of the NEO-PI-R

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY The forefather of the NEO-PI-R, the NEO-PI, was well established psychometrically (Furnham, Crump & Whelan, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1985; McCrae, 1987). Thus, the NEO-PI-R is predisposed to psychometric accuracy when capturing the latent factor variables. The NEO-PI-R has shown strong reliability in normative populations.

Reported Cronbachs alpha () reliability coefficients for factor scores range between .86 - .96 (Kurtz, Lee & Sherker, 1999;Paunonen, 2003). Paunonen (2003) also reported that Cronbachs alpha () reliability coefficients for the NEO-PI-R ranged between .86 - .89, compared to .72 - .86 for other Five Factor measures. Clinical populations have reported less internal consistency with Cronbachs alpha () reliability coefficients ranging from .64 - .81 (Trull, Useda, Costa & McCrae, 1995). Less consistency has been demonstrated when analyzing facet-level responses with Cronbachs alpha () reliability coefficients ranging from .51 - .86 (McCrae & Costa, 2008). This finding is consistent with the biological and environmental origin of some traits. Furthermore, highly consistent facet scores would indicate extreme levels of a trait, likely to be maladaptive and associated with psychopathology. This idea that facet scores represent individual nuances is supported by McCrae, Martin and Costa (2005) who reported that facets with Cronbachs alpha () reliability coefficients less than .70 show evidence of heritability, consistency with third party observer ratings and longitudinal stability. Test-retest analysis has indicated strong short-term and long-term temporal stability of factor scores. A two-year test-retest reported Pearsons (r) correlation coefficients ranging from .83 to .91 (McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond & Paulhus, 1998). A ten-year test-retest reported Pearsons (r) correlation coefficients of .70 for facet scores and .81 for factor scores (Terraccian, Costa & McCrae, 2006).

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY Peer and spouse observer scores have been used in research to confirm the validity of individual protocols and factor predictive abilities. Importantly, these observer ratings have demonstrated consistency and stability with Cronbachs alpha () reliability coefficients ranging between .88 and .93 (McCrae, Martin & Costa, 2005) and test-retest Pearsons (r) correlation coefficients ranging between .70 and .86 (Kurtz, Lee & Sherker, 1994).

Furthermore, the NEO-PI-R shows strong construct validity. Acceptable intercorrelations between the NEO-PI-R and relevant factors within three and four factor measures (r = .80, p < .001) have been shown, validating the convergence with like factors (Alujaa, Garc a & Garc a 2002). Pearsons (r) correlation coefficients of the NEO-PI-R and adjective scales are also strong: r = .85 (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Correlation coefficients for the NEO-PI-R, the NEO-FFI and FF- NPQ are reported as r = .59 (Paunonen, 2003). This correlation supports the validity of the NEO-PI-R measures given the NEO-FFI and the FF-NPQ are designed for younger and illiterate responders. The face validity of the NEO-PI-R further strengthens the validity of its construct measurement. Simple and short items are used in the NEO-PR-I, for example, I only act rashly when I am upset to measure impulsivity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Concurrent validity tests support this. NEO-PI-R factor scores and linearly or inversely related criterions show preditcable correlations. For example, Neuroticism and Intelligence: r = -.33, and O and Liberal Arts: r = .38 (Paunonen, 2003). Facet scores have shown high predictive relevance with clinical measures also. Specifically, facets scores accounted for 60% of variance (R2) in Schizophrenia scale scores and 65% of variance (R2) in Pscyhasthenia scale scores from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) (Quirk, Christiansen, Wagner &

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY McNulty, 2003). Similarly, strong divergence was shown between NEO-PI-R factors and theoretically unrelated MMPI-2 scales (Quirk et al., 2003) such as Openness and Paranoia, (r = -.02, ns) Agreeableness and Masculinity/Femininity (r = -.03, ns) and Extraversion and Feminine Role (r = .06, ns) (Quirk et al., 2003).

Gender-specific and unisex normative information for NEO-PI-R scores were developed using samples of American men and women (N= 2,273) selected to match age and race data from the 1995 US census (Samuel et al., 2010). These norms may offer some reliable basis for Australian respondents with western backgrounds. However, indigenous Australian respondents have no reliable normative information to guide the interpretation of their scores. Gender norms for males and females follow consistent gender differences, for example, a raw score of 134 on N equates to T-scores of 80 and 73 for a male and female respectively. Factor T-scores are bracketed in the following manner: 65 or more is classified as very high, 55-65 is classified high, 45-55 is classified as average, 35-45 is classified as low and 25-35 is very low (Carter et al. 2001; Costa & McCrae, 2008). Clinical prototypes have been established using experts Likert ratings (very low: 1, to very high: 5) of each traits level in prototypical responses of individuals with disordered personalities (Lynam & Widiger, 2001). This aids the diagnostic utility of the NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R factors have been replicated cross-culturally (McCrae & Allik, 2002). Similar personality profiles have been found between historically and geographically related cultures (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005) supporting the scalar equivalence of the measure (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). Translations are available for 40 different languages. Localised T-scores are available for 15 countries with further normative information to come (Costa & McCrae, 2008). This allows for the

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY comparison of scores between multiple cultures and aids intensive research into cultural differences (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). This also means consistent, culturally relevant trait measurement is possible using the NEO-PI-R. Administration of the NEO-PI-R

The administration of NEO-PR-I is outlined in the manual. Administration can be either verbal or paper (Costa & McCrae, 2008). The measure is designed for participants aged 18 or older (Costa & McCrae, 2008). To minimize disordered answering, clinicians are advised to clearly explain the purpose and privacy of responses to engage high cooperation and provide ample testing time and a comfortable setting. The test is copyrighted and registered as a Level B assessment, requiring a bachelor degree in Psychological Science or in a similar field (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Scoring is regarded as simple and relatively easy (NZCER, 2011) and testing time is approximately 40 minutes (NZCER, 2011). The cost of the test is substantially less than other tests, with reusable response forms, S and R, available in sets of 10 for $92.00 and scoring sheets available in sets of 25 for $82. Software response analysis costs $7.90 per test. Unlimited analysis is available using the NEO Software System costing $495.00 (NZCER, 2011). Clinical Utility, Incremental Validity and Treatment planning Unlike assessments such as MMPI2 and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) which are specifically designed to measure and diagnose clinical pathology, the NEO-PI-R measures normal traits. These five traits operationalised in the NEO-PI-R are important indicators of vulnerability to psychopathology in light of Paul E. Meehls diathesis-stress model (Peterson, 2006). Research indicates that NEO-PI-R pathology prototypes are convergent with other measures of the same

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

disorder, divergent with unrelated disorders, criterion predictive and temporally stable (Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis, 2004). The clinical module of the NEO-PI-R software highlights a protocol similarity to clinical prototypes (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Alongside a clinical interview, this information can strongly suggest correct diagnosis (Costa & McCrae, 2008). In this way the NEO-PI-R provides trait information to supplement the findings of a clinical interview. This may provide a more comprehensive means of assessing a client, rather than diagnosis via psychometric testing alone. Practically, however, it must be considered if the NEO-PI-Rs clinical utility and incremental validity is supported when compared to more direct measure of psychopathology, given the financial and temporal costs involved with each test. Research by Quirk et al. (2003) specifically compared MMPI-2 scores and NEO-PI-R scores for a large sample (N=1342) of drug abusing patients diagnosed with Axis I and Axis II disorders. NEO-PI-Rs N factor was accounted for 48-63% of the variance in depression and Pscyhasthenia MMPI-2 scales respectively. Factor scores of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness showed mild improvement to MMPI-2 classifications of depressive disorders, bipolar, PTSD, and borderline Personality Disorders. The facet scores increased Overall Correct Classification by 10% for all disorders except depressive disorders and narcissistic PD, for which OCC increased by 5% (Quirk, Christiansen, Wagner and McNulty, 2003). Therefore incremental validity and diagnostic efficiency of the NEO-PI-R interpretation is sound when compared to a classic measure of psychopathology such as the MMPI-2. While the increase in OCC is not excessive, facets scores also provide insightful information for treatment planning (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Facets show strong predictive validity for future behaviour and so highlight effective treatments

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY for the individual. Simple applications, such as extravert patients involved in

supportive group therapy and introverts in interpretative group therapy (Ogrodniczuk, Piper, Joyce, McCallum & Rosie, 2003), guide broad treatment approaches. Practical Considerations Strengths of the NEO-PI-R are its reliability, predictive validity and incremental validity with regards to other prominent pathology measures. The constructs and their operationalization can be considered sound measures of key individual differences. The support for factor structures across cultures makes the NEO-PI-R a valuable measure for Australian clinicians given the diverse demographic they treat. This is useful for building understanding between clinician and client. Furthermore measuring normal traits identifies clients strengths and weaknesses, which guides diagnosis and also personalised treatment. It must be a practical consideration, if not a limitation, that the NEO-PI-R lacks validity scales for social desirability (SD) or positive presentation management (PPM). Large cooperative samples have established statistically unlikely answer strings (Costa & McCrae, 2008) with 6 consecutive strongly dislikes, 9 disagrees, 10 neutrals, 14 agrees or 10 strong agrees rendering a test invalid (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Unobtrusive validity checks like this are argued to help maintain client and clinician trust (McCrae & Costa, 2008). 2% of normal population protocols are deemed invalid (McCrae & Costa, 2008) indicating high levels of honest scores. This has been attributed the unobtrusive validity checks (McCrae & Costa, 2008) and balance keying, which controls for acquiescence and nay-saying (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Factor structure has also been examined cross-culturally using samples of high PPM respondents and normative samples. Factor structure remained stable despite

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY varying levels of SD and PPM (Marshall, De Fruyt, Rolland & Bagby, 2005).

10

Significant differences were found, however, between the mean factor scores of high PPM and normative participants. These were differences were in a socially desirable direction. For example, on average, the high PPM group scored significantly lower on N whilst scoring higher on E, C and A compared to normative responders. This indicates that PPM has the potential to influence factor scores. This is an important consideration given that forensic and pathological patients show heightened levels of PPM (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Clearly elements of their personality are deemed socially inappropriate. This is evidenced by 24% of drug dependent outpatients supplying invalid protocols (Carter et al., 2001). Thus as a clinician administering the NEO-PI-R, the incorporation of Effort Testing Scales and Social Desirability Scales would yield the most objective view of a clients responses. Conclusions and suggestions for clinical use It is clear that the NEO-PI-R is a valuable measure of normal personality traits. It affords considerable understanding of a clients present strengths and weaknesses and likelihood of disordered personality. The facet-level scores should be used to guide treatment because of their high concurrent and predictive validity and ability to capture individual nuances. There is a marked lack of information for Australian indigenous norms. Clearly the NEO-PI-R should be used cautiously with this client demographic unless there is clear evidence to suggest that western norms can reliably guide interpretation. Normative information is available for many cultures within the Australian population, and these norms should be kept in mind where western norms would not be appropriate.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY Clinicians specializing in pathological presentation and forensic populations

11

should strongly consider the need for SD and PPM or NPP validity checks. Clients of this background are differentially motivated to distort responses. Thus the high protocol validity rates of normative samples should not be used to assure valid protocols in pathological and forensic patients. Furthermore, measures such as the MMPI-2 and Personality Assessment Inventory may be more suitable to these populations due to the lack of inbuilt validity checks. That being said, the incremental validity and lower cost of the NEO-PI-R may justify its inclusion in a battery of tests for overall assessment. The NEO-PI-R is a valuable personality measure in both clinical and research fields. This measure assures in-depth understanding of an individual, but its use should be considered alongside the presence of relative norms. The progress of cultural research using this measure will undoubtedly address this in years to come.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY References Alujaa, A., Garc a O.

12

Garc a L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckermans

three structural models for personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-RS and Goldbergs 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual Differences, 33: 713725. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00186-6. Carter, J. A., Herbst, J. H., Stoller, K. B., King, V. L., Kidorf, M. S., Costa, P. T., & Brooner, R. K. (2001). Short-Term Stability of NEOPIR Personality Trait Scores in Opioid-Dependent Outpatients. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,15, 255260. doi: 10.1037//0893-164X.15.3.255. Cattel, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). The Handbook of the Sixteen Personality-Factor Questionnaire. Champaign IL: Institute of Personality and Ability Testing. 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 behaviour, 3, 65-102. New York: Academic Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Neo Inventories. In R. P. Archer & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Personality Assessment, (213-243). New York: Routledge. Eyensck, H. J., & Eyensck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eyensck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego: EDITS. Fitzgerald, E. T. (1966). Measurement of openness to experience: A study of regression in the service of the ego. Journal of Personality and Social

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY Psychology, 4, 655-663. Doi: 10.1037/h0023980 Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Whelan, J. (1997). Validating the NEO Personality Inventories using assessors ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 669-675. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00261-9. Kurtz, J., E., Lee, P., A., & Sherker, J., L. (1999). Internal and temporal reliability estimates for informant ratings of personality using the NEO-PI-R and IAS, Personality Assessment, 6, 103-113. doi: 10.1177/107319119900600201 Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five factor model to represent DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110: 401-412. doi: 10.1037/10021-843X.110.3.401 Marshall, M. B., De Fruyt, F. D., Rolland, J., & Bagby, M., R. (2005). Socially desirable responding and the factor stability of the NEO-PI-R, Psychological Assessment, 17, 379-384. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.379.

13

Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004). The validity of the five-factor model prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples, Personality Assessment, 16, 310-322. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.310.

McCrae, R. R., & Allick, J. (Eds.). (2002). The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Normans adequate taxonomy: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710. 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, 82-90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

14

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The Revised Neo Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.) Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Volume 2: Personality Measurement and Testing (179-196). California: SAGE Publications Incorporated. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A., (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory, Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261-270. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T., (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407-425. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407. McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer ratings studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1041-1055. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.1041.

New Zealand Counsel for Educational Research (2011). Neo Personality Inventory Revised. Accessed on 6/10/2011. URL: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pts/neopersonality-inventory-revised. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. doi: 10.1037/h0040291. Ogrodiniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., McCallum M., & Rosie, J. S. (2003). NEO five factor personality traits as predictors of response to two forms of group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 53, 417442. doi: 10.1521/ijgp.53.4.417.42832.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

15

Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of Behaviour, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 441, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.277. Peterson D. R. (2006). Paul E. Meehls contributions to personality assessment Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 201-204. Doi: 10.1037/0021843X.115.2.201. Quirk, S. W., Christiansen, N. D., Stuart, W., Wagner, S. H., & McNulty, J. (2003). On the Usefulness of Measures of Normal Personality for Clinical Assessment: Evidence of the Incremental Validity of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Psychological Assessment, 151, 311-325. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.311. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapists view of psychotherapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Samuel, D. B., Ansell, E. A., Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Markowitz, J. C., Skodol A. E., & Grilo, C. M. (2010). The Impact of NEO PIR Gender Norms on the Assessment of Personality Disorder Profiles, Psychological Assessment, 22, 539-545, doi: 10.1037/a0019580. Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Personality plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999-1009. doi: 10.1177/0146167206288599. Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R (1995). Comparison of the MMPI2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the NEO-PI-R, Psychological Assessment, 7, 508516. doi: 10.1037/10403590.7.4.508.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961/1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225-251. doi: 10.1111/j.14676494.1992.tb00972.x.

16

Whiteside, S., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669-689. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7.