Open Access

Standardization of the NEO-PI-3 in the Greek general population

  • Konstantinos N Fountoulakis1Email author,
  • Melina Siamouli1,
  • Stefania Moysidou2,
  • Eleonora Pantoula2,
  • Katerina Moutou2,
  • Panagiotis Panagiotidis3,
  • Marina Kemeridou2,
  • Eirini Mavridou2,
  • Efimia Loli4,
  • Elena Batsiari5,
  • Antonio Preti6,
  • Leonardo Tondo7, 8,
  • Xenia Gonda9,
  • Nisreen Mobayed10,
  • Kareen Akiskal11,
  • Hagop Akiskal12,
  • Paul Costa13 and
  • Robert McCrae14
Annals of General Psychiatry201413:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-014-0036-9

Received: 23 September 2014

Accepted: 11 November 2014

Published: 5 December 2014

Abstract

Background

The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-3) includes 240 items corresponding to the Big Five personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) and subordinate dimensions (facets). It is suitable for use with adolescents and adults (12 years or older). The aim of the current study was to validate the Greek translation of the NEO-PI-3 in the general Greek population.

Material and methods

The study sample included 734 subjects from the general Greek population of whom 59.4% were females and 40.6% males aged 40.80 ± 11.48. The NEO-PI-3 was translated into Greek and back-translated into English, and the accuracy of the translation was confirmed and established. The statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA), the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, and the calculation of Pearson product–moment correlations. Sociodemographics groups were compared by ANOVA.

Results

Most facets had Cronbach’s alpha above 0.60. Confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable loading of the facets on their own hypothesized factors and very good estimations of Cronbach’s alphas for the hypothesized factors, so it was partially supportive of the five-factor structure of the NEO-PI-3.The factors extracted with Procrustes rotation analysis can be considered reasonably homologous to the factors of the American normative sample. Correlations between dimensions were as expected and similar to those reported in the literature.

Discussion

The literature suggests that overall, the psychometric properties of NEO-PI-3 scales have been found to generalize across ages, cultures, and methods of measurement. In accord with this, the results of the current study confirm the reliability of the Greek translation and adaptation of the NEO-PI-3. The inventory has comparable psychometric properties in its Greek version in comparison to the original and other national translations, and it is suitable for clinical as well as research use.

Keywords

Five-factor personality inventory NEO-PI-3 Standardization Psychometrics

Introduction

The NEO Inventories were developed by Paul T. Costa, Jr. and Robert R. McCrae. Because it assessed Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to experience, its original version, developed in 1978, is known as the NEO inventory (NEO-I). The NEO-I measured only three of the Big Five personality traits [1] and was subsequently revised in 1985 to include all five traits under the new title ‘NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI).’ It was further refined as the NEO-PI-R [2]. Its latest version is the NEO-PI-3 [3].

The NEO-PI-3 includes 240 items corresponding to the Big Five personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to xperience) and subordinate dimensions (facets). It is suitable for use with adolescents and adults (12 years or older). Item responses are made on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Electronic and print forms of the inventories are available. Administration of the full version of the NEO-PI-3 takes between 30 and 40 min. Assessment should not be evaluated if there are more than 40 items missing.

The aim of the current study is to validate the Greek translation of the NEO-PI-3 in the general Greek population.

Material and methods

The study sample included 734 subjects from the general Greek population (436 females, 59.4%; 298 males, 40.6%). Their mean age was 40.80 ± 11.48 years (range 25–67 years): 39.43 ± 10.87 years (range 25–65 years) for females and 42.82 ± 12.06 years (range 25–67 years) for males.

The NEO-PI-3 was translated into Greek by KNF and back-translated into English by two other authors (MS and KM). The originators of the instrument and KNF verified the accuracy of the translation and its conformity to the original version. Discrepancies were discussed until an agreement was reached. This final version was then refined to ensure it is easily understandable.

Statistical analysis

All data were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All tests were two-tailed. According to the Bayesian interpretations, the chance of replication in future studies is low for p values between 0.05 and 0.01, moderate for p values between 0.01 and 0.001, and high for p < 0.001 [4].

First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequency tables) were calculated for the items and subscales proposed by Costa and McCrae [5]. Second, with the aim of studying the structure of the NEO-PI-3, a confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA), was conducted at the facets level (see below); a targeted rotation of principal components was also evaluated using congruence coefficients with the American normative sample.

Scale reliability was measured by Cronbach’s alpha. For group comparisons, reliability values of 0.7 are considered satisfactory while subscales values approximately 0.6 are considered acceptable [6]. However, it has been argued that internal consistency is less important than retest reliability [7].

The Pearson product–moment correlation method was used to determine the presence or absence of variable correlation. This method was chosen due to its robustness with regards to normality assumptions and for its simple interpretability. For Pearsons r, the suggested threshold for effect sizes were r = 0.10 = small effect, r = 0.24 = medium effect, and r = 0.37 = large effect [8].

Sociodemographics groups were compared by ANOVA.

Confirmatory factorial analysis

CFA was carried out with the lavaan package [9] running in R [10]. The lavaan package has been shown to generate the same results as other software packages [11]. Mardia’s kurtosis was used to check for multivariate non-normality: Mardia’s kurtosis = 1,194, z = 30.78, p < .0001.

Maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and the Satorra–Bentler scaled test statistic were used to test CFA models; this method was chosen because it was unlikely to be affected by deviation from normality in data [12]. Chi square is the traditional fit index used to evaluate an overall model as it assesses the magnitude of discrepancy between the sample and the fitted covariance matrices [13]. However, the use of the chi square test to assess this model fit was found unsatisfactory for a number of reasons [14], including its sensitivity to sample size. The ratio of chi square to the degrees of freedom (df) was calculated, with ratios larger than 3 indicating poor fit [15]. Additional parameters for fit estimation were the following: the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). RMSEA values of 0.08 or lower, SRMR values of 0.09 or lower, and CFI values of 0.90 or higher are considered acceptable [13],[16].

Two models were tested, a rather unlikely, unidimensional model, which assumes that all facets load on a single factor, and the a priori expected five-factor model, in which all facets were linked to its own latent factor only, the so-called simple structure [17],[18]. The more complex models were not tested because they are based on cross-loading (as well as several cross-loadings), which prevents a clear attribution of the predictor to the latent variable it is expected to measure. As a matter of fact, it has been found that increasing the measure’s complexity to comply with the CFA standard led to a reduced convergent and discriminant validity [17].

When CFA failed to reach fit, the orthogonal Procrustes rotation was proposed as a method to test the replicability of the NEO-PI-3 personality factors [18]-[20]. A dedicated script running in SPSS of the program that performs the orthogonal Procrustes rotation was used to execute the analysis (courtesy of Professor Robert R. McCrae).

According to a shared convention, factor loadings higher than 0.71 (accounting for 50% of variance or more) are considered excellent, 0.63 (40%) very good, 0.55 (30%) good values around 0.45 (20%) fair, and values below 0.32 (10% of variance) poor [21].

Congruence between potentially homologous factors across samples was evaluated using the coefficient of congruence (CC). The CC index ranges from −1.00 (perfect negative similarity) to 1.00 (perfect positive similarity), with zero indicating complete dissimilarity [22]. Reported thresholds for agreements between factors are as follows: very high = 0.90 or above; high = 0.80 to 0.89; and moderate = 0.70 to 0.79 [23].

Results

The study sample was convenient and somewhat representative of the country’s active population with some overrepresentation of younger ages and clerks (Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1

Composition of the study sample in terms of gender and age in comparison to the general population according to the Greek National Statistics Service for 2009

Age group

Greek population (approximation for 2009)

Study sample

Total population

11,282,751

734

Males vs. females

48% vs. 52%

40.6% vs. 59.4%

25–29 years old

11.02%

25.81%

29–34 years old

11.31%

12.90%

34–39 years old

10.00%

15.44%

40–44 years old

10.00%

13.13%

44–49 years old

9.21%

10.60%

50–54 years old

8.92%

10.14%

55–59 years old

6.83%

8.29%

60–64 years old

7.09%

3.69%

Table 2

Occupation characteristics of the study sample

 

Count

Percentage

He/she used to work but is currently unemployed

0

0.00

He/she never worked and neither does now

0

0.00

Clerk (civil or private)

338

63.41

Free professional (tradesman, craftsman)

62

11.63

Doctor, lawyer, engineer, priest, teacher, etc.

75

14.07

Student (college or university)

12

2.25

Blue collar worker (construction worker, farmer)

26

4.88

Housewife

20

3.75

Total

533

100.00

Internal consistency reliabilities and mean scores for the Greek NEO-PI-3 facets

Mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and internal consistency scores (with 95% confidence of interval) for the 30 NEO-PI-3 facets are shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Mean values for the domains and the facets of the Greek NEO-PI-3

NEO-PI-3 facet

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

Cronbach’s alpha (95% CI)

Cronbach’s alpha (United States)

Neuroticism

89.06

19.59

0.05

0.19

  

 N1: Anxiety

17.39

5.05

−0.14

−0.14

0.724 (0.693–0.753)

0.72

 N2: Hostility

14.25

4.15

0.24

0.45

0.582 (0.534–0.626)

0.69

 N3: Depression

14.07

4.92

0.23

−0.15

0.708 (0.674–0.739)

0.80

 N4: Self-consciousness

15.43

3.99

0.21

0.05

0.467 (0.406–0.523)

0.66

 N5: Impulsivity

15.48

3.87

0.13

−0.07

0.425 (0.360–0.486)

0.63

 N6: Vulnerability

12.44

4.45

0.26

0.27

0.685 (0.649–0.718)

0.70

Extraversion

108.68

15.97

−0.03

−0.15

  

 E1: Warmth

21.10

4.10

−0.58

1.01

0.648 (0.608–0.685)

0.73

 E2: Gregariousness

18.17

4.43

−0.08

−0.13

0.613 (0.569–0.654)

0.77

 E3: Assertiveness

15.90

4.14

0.18

0.05

0.589 (0.543–0.633)

0.76

 E4: Activity

18.64

3.79

0.10

0.02

0.501 (0.445–0.554)

0.61

 E5: Excitement-seeking

15.66

3.96

0.04

0.13

0.445 (0.382–0.503)

0.63

 E6: Positive emotions

19.21

4.30

−0.28

0.28

0.636 (0.594–0.674)

0.77

Openness

104.83

16.31

0.27

0.21

  

 O1: Fantasy

16.07

4.77

0.22

−0.18

0.676 (0.640–0.711)

0.76

 O2: Aesthetics

18.02

5.15

−0.07

0.01

0.729 (0.698–0.757)

0.79

 O3: Feelings

19.38

3.55

0.06

−0.04

0.437 (0.374–0.497)

0.71

 O4: Actions

15.26

3.70

0.12

0.22

0.423 (0.358–0.484)

0.55

 O5: Ideas

16.88

4.83

0.07

−0.05

0.694 (0.659–0.726)

0.79

 O6: Values

18.82

3.75

0.84

0.17

0.548 (0.497–0.596)

0.69

Agreeableness

116.37

15.82

−0.14

0.11

  

 A1: Trust

17.23

4.40

−0.31

−0.11

0.651 (0.612–0.688)

0.82

 A2: Straightforwardness

20.28

4.31

−0.23

0.05

0.535 (0.483–0.585)

0.67

 A3: Altruism

22.39

4.07

−0.59

0.59

0.669 (0.631–0.704)

0.74

 A4: Compliance

17.48

4.63

−0.25

−0.13

0.645 (0.605–0.683)

0.68

 A5: Modesty

17.82

3.37

−0.08

0.05

0.301 (0.221–375)

0.70

 A6: Tender-mindedness

21.18

3.61

−0.57

0.96

0.431 (0.367–0.492)

0.58

Conscientiousness

121.60

19.22

−0.16

−0.09

  

 C1: Competence

19.86

3.70

−0.14

0.29

0.511 (0.455–0.562)

0.65

 C2: Order

19.79

4.94

−0.32

−0.08

0.708 (0.675–0.739)

0.68

 C3: Dutifulness

22.79

4.34

−066

0.85

0.655 (0.616–0.692)

0.64

 C4: Achievement-striving

20.44

4.16

−0.30

0.05

0.636 (0.595–0.674)

0.73

 C5: Self-discipline

20.35

4.32

−0.92

0.01

0.655 (0.616–0.691)

0.81

 C6: Deliberation

18.37

4.66

−0.22

−0.03

0.684 (0.648–0.717)

0.70

Most facets exhibited Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.60, the accepted limit of internal consistency reliability for subscales. A few facets exhibited Cronbach’s alpha values lower than 0.50. Overall, the internal consistency reliability measures of the Greek translation were somewhat lower than those observed in the original American sample.

Skewness was always below [3.00] while kurtosis was always below [8.00], indicating that there was no univariate non-normality in the distribution of facet scores.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Greek NEO-PI-3

The unidimensional model was rejected on the basis of the fit indexes: chi square = 4,975.31, df = 405, p < 0.0001; CFI = 0.387; RMSEA = 0.124 (95%CI: 0.121–0.127); SRMR = 0.137.

The a priori expected five-factor model had a better fit for all indexes (Table 4).
Table 4

Confirmatory factor analysis of the facets of the Greek NEO-PI-3

 

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Openness to experience

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

N1: Anxiety

0.724

    

N2: Hostility

0.638

    

N3: Depression

0.823

    

N4: Self-consciousness

0.606

    

N5: Impulsivity

0.466

    

N6: Vulnerability

0.738

    

E1: Warmth

 

0.723

   

E2: Gregariousness

 

0.571

   

E3: Assertiveness

 

0.332

   

E4: Activity

 

0.457

   

E5: Excitement-seeking

 

0.415

   

E6: Positive emotions

 

0.691

   

O1: Fantasy

  

0.480

  

O2: Aesthetics

  

0.714

  

O3: Feelings

  

0.567

  

O4: Actions

  

0.422

  

O5: Ideas

  

0.681

  

O6: Values

  

0.435

  

A1: Trust

   

0.359

 

A2: Straightforwardness

   

0.496

 

A3: Altruism

   

0.874

 

A4: Compliance

   

0.408

 

A5: Modesty

   

0.282

 

A6: Tender-mindedness

   

0.675

 

C1: Competence

    

0.665

C2: Order

    

0.536

C3: Dutifulness

    

0.713

C4: Achievement-striving

    

0.706

C5: Self-discipline

    

0.799

C6: Deliberation

    

0.603

Estimated Cronbach’s alpha

.830

.717

.723

.719

.826

 

Robust chi square

Chi square/df

CFI

RMSEA (90%CI)

SRMR

Expected

p > .05

<3

> .900

<.08 (<.08)

<.09

Observed

3,241.44, df = 395, p < .0001

8

.618

.099 (.096–.102)

.119

Overall, the fit was still poor. However, loading of the facets on their own hypothesized factors was acceptable, and the estimated Cronbach’s alphas for the hypothesized factors were very good.

Procrustes rotation analysis of the Greek NEO-PI-3

The Procrustes rotation analysis revealed a good replication of the expected five-factor structure of the NEO-PI-3.

The loading of the facets on their own factors was good to excellent with few exceptions (Table 5).
Table 5

Factor loadings for Greek NEO-PI-3 facet scales after Procrustes rotation

 

Factor

VCC

NEO-PI-3 facet

N

E

O

A

C

 

N1: Anxiety

.80

–.08

–.05

.00

–.02

.99a

N2: Angry hostility

.68

–.04

–.13

–.41

–.06

.98a

N3: Depression

.80

–.24

–.03

.05

–.15

.97a

N4: Self-consciousness

.67

–.16

–.16

.18

–.06

.97a

N5: Impulsiveness

.56

.34

.06

–.35

–.26

.98a

N6: Vulnerability

.59

–.24

–.09

–.08

–.49

.96a

E1: Warmth

–.16

.61

.11

.47

.21

.98a

E2: Gregariousness

–.32

.54

.07

.14

.00

.96a

E3: Assertiveness

–.34

.38

.07

–.51

.27

.94a

E4: Activity

–.06

.53

–.03

–.15

.47

.94a

E5: Excitement-seeking

.02

.52

.43

–.23

–.06

.87b

E6: Positive emotions

–.25

.71

.22

.12

–.05

.95a

O1: Fantasy

.12

.18

.58

–.14

–.34

.99a

O2: Aesthetics

.14

.08

.76

.12

.09

.99a

O3: Feelings

.28

.44

.51

.04

.22

.98a

O4: Actions

–.23

.08

.53

–.20

–.07

.90b

O5: Ideas

–.14

.00

.78

–.01

.15

.99a

O6: Values

–.06

.09

.55

–.02

–.03

.96a

A1: Trust

–.27

.33

–.05

.51

–.11

.92b

A2: Straightforwardness

–.06

–.03

–.04

.64

.19

.98a

A3: Altruism

.02

.34

.06

.59

.46

.93b

A4: Compliance

–.23

–.14

–.07

.73

–.02

.99a

A5: Modesty

.23

–.09

–.17

.48

.10

.95a

A6: Tender-mindedness

.13

.32

.05

.57

.32

.88b

C1: Competence

–.29

.25

.07

–.03

.65

.98a

C2: Order

.02

–.08

–.04

.07

.65

.95a

C3: Dutifulness

.03

.21

.01

.39

.68

.90b

C4: Achievement-striving

–.08

.29

.06

–.05

.75

.99a

C5: Self-discipline

–.29

.07

.00

.15

.74

.98a

C6: Deliberation

–.24

–.30

.00

.25

.66

.99a

Congruencec

.97a

.96a

.94a

.96a

.96a

.96a

Note. N = 734. These are principal components rotated to the American normative target (Costa and McCrae, [5]). Loadings greater than .40 in absolute magnitude are given in boldface type. Highest loadings are marked in italics.

Abbreviations: NEO-PI-3 NEO Personality Inventory-3, N Neuroticism, E Extraversion, O Openness, A Agreeableness, C Conscientiousness, VCC variable congruence coefficient.

aCongruence higher than that of 99% of rotations from random data; bCongruence higher than that of 95% of rotations from random data; cFactor/total congruence coefficient with target matrix.

Only a minority of facets also loaded on a different factor than their own with an absolute factor loading higher than 0.40.

CC values for potentially homologous factors across samples were within high to very high interval. The extracted factors in the Greek sample can be considered reasonably homologous to their counterparts in the American normative sample.

Scores on the five dimensions of the Greek NEO-PI-3

The pattern of raw mean scores is similar to that seen in the US and elsewhere (Table 6).
Table 6

Mean values and correlations for the big five factors of the Greek NEO-PI-3

 

Mean (95% CI)

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Openness to experience

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

89.06 (87.64–90.48)

    

Extraversion

108.68 (107.52–109.84)

−0.546*

   

Openness

104.43 (103.21–105.66)

−0.108**

0.466*

  

Agreeableness

116.37 (115.23–117.52)

−0.255*

0.545*

0.130**

 

Conscientiousness

121.60 (120.20–122.99)

−0.506*

0.457*

0.113**

0.635*

*p < .0001; **p < .05.

As expected, Neuroticism was negatively related to the other factors, Extraversion was positively related to Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness was positively related to Conscientiousness. The links between Openness and Agreeableness or Conscientiousness were less evident but in the expected direction. Correlation between factors was never so high as to prevent discriminant validity.

Differences by gender, age, and education on the Greek NEO-PI-3

Females scored higher than males on the Neuroticism and the Openness factors. Males scored marginally higher than females on the Conscientiousness factor (Table 7).
Table 7

Differences by gender (females–males, after standardizing the scores as z -scores using the total samples M and SD) and correlation with age and education on the Greek NEO-PI-3

 

dsex

r

Age

Education

N1: Anxiety

.57

–.05

–.01

N2: Angry hostility

.25

.01

–.01

N3: Depression

.39

.02

–.04

N4: Self-consciousness

.30

.05

–.12

N5: Impulsiveness

.30

–.13

.02

N6: Vulnerability

.52

–.03

–.03

E1: Warmth

–.06

.05

–.05

E2: Gregariousness

.13

–.10

–.01

E3: Assertiveness

–.29

–.05

.09

E4: Activity

–.01

.04

–.04

E5: Excitement-seeking

–.18

–.30

.09

E6: Positive emotions

.00

–.17

.03

O1: Fantasy

.14

–.29

.14

O2: Aesthetics

.20

–.07

.21

O3: Feelings

.26

–.16

.18

O4: Actions

.14

–.23

.16

O5: Ideas

.00

–.17

.23

O6: Values

.08

–.24

.26

A1: Trust

–.09

.16

–.02

A2: Straightforwardness

.14

.08

.01

A3: Altruism

–.01

.11

–.08

A4: Compliance

.06

.20

–.09

A5: Modesty

.03

.15

–.06

A6: Tender-mindedness

.03

.09

–.01

C1: Competence

–.31

.07

.05

C2: Order

.06

.07

–.02

C3: Dutifulness

.00

.09

.00

C4: Achievement-striving

–.21

–.02

.05

C5: Self-discipline

–.16

.09

–.01

C6: Deliberation

–.15

.13

–.01

Overall, the pattern of gender differences is similar to what one sees around the world, except that Greek females did not score higher than males on Agreeableness.

Age and education were modestly related to Greek NEO-PI-3 facets.

Discussion

The current paper reports on the results of the Greek translation of the NEO-PI-3. Most facets exhibited Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.60, though overall, the internal consistency reliability measures of the Greek translation were lower than those observed in the original American sample. Confirmatory factor analysis failed to reach the predefined fit. However, it showed acceptable loading of the facets on their own hypothesized factors and very good estimations of Cronbach’s alphas for these factors; therefore, it partly supports the five-factor structure of the NEO-PI-3. Principle components after Procrustes rotation closely resembled the factors of the American normative sample. Correlations between dimensions were as expected and similar to those reported in the literature.

The literature suggests that, overall, the psychometric properties of NEO-PI-R scales have been found to generalize across ages, cultures, and methods of measurement [7].

The internal consistency originally reported for both NEO-PI-R domains (N = 0.92, E = 0.89, O = 0.87, A = 0.86, C = 0.90) as well as facets (0.56–0.81) was high. The internal consistency of the NEO-PI-3 was similar to that of the NEO-PI-R, with alphas ranging from 0.89–0.93 for domains and 0.54–0.83 for facets [24],[25]. The literature appears to support the internal consistencies listed in the manual. The Filipino translation of the NEO-PI-R has internal consistency of domain scores ranging from 0.78–0.90 [26], with facet alphas having a median of 0.61 [27].

Test-retest reliability (administered 3 months later) of an early version of the NEO-PI domains was N = 0.87, E = 0.91, and O = 0.86 [28]. The test-retest reliability reported in the manual of the NEO-PI-R over 6 years was N = 0.83, E = 0.82, O = 0.83, A = 0.63, and C = 0.79. Costa and McCrae pointed out that this not only shows good reliability of the domains but also that they are stable over long periods of time (past the age of 30), as the scores more than 6 years apart were only marginally different from the scores measured a few months apart [5]. Other research has also shown acceptable test-retest reliability. A 2001 study by Kurtz and Parrish on the short-term test-retest reliability yielded alpha coefficients 0.9–0.93 for domains and 0.70–0.91 for facets after a 1-week interval [29]. A 2006 study by Terracciano et al. [30] on long-term test-retest reliability yielded alpha coefficients 0.78–0.85 for domains and 0.57–0.82 for facets after a 10-year interval.

In terms of criterion validity, Conard (2006) found that Conscientiousness significantly predicted the GPA (grade point average) of college students, more so than by using Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores alone [31]. Garcia et al. correlated a Spanish version of the NEO to predictors of teacher burnout in Sevilla, Spain. Neuroticism was related to the ‘emotional exhaustion’ factor of burnout with a correlation coefficient equal to 0.44. Agreeableness related to the ‘personal accomplishment’ factor of burnout (which is negatively scored when predicting burnout) exhibited a score of r = 0.36 [32]. A group of authors in 2006 found that in a minority students population, the Extraversion trait was correlated to Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy (CDMSE) with r = 0.30, while Neuroticism was strongly related to Career Commitment after controlling for CDMSE (r = 0.42) [33]. Finally, in 2007, Korukonda reported that Neuroticism was positively related to computer anxiety, while Openness and Agreeableness were negatively related to each other [34].

Cross-cultural stability of an instrument can be considered evidence of its validity. A huge amount of cross-cultural research has been carried out on the Five-Factor model of personality by utilizing the NEO-PI-R and its shorter version, the NEO-FFI. A collection of selected papers from various researchers across the globe have been presented covering various issues in cross-cultural research on the FFM [35]. This monograph has also presented data for the FFM from several cultures. The robustness of the FFM has been proven across different cultures; these include but are not limited to the following: Chinese [36],[37], Estonian and Finnish [38], Filipino and French [39], Indian [40], Portuguese [41], Russian [42], South Korean [43], Turkish [44], Vietnamese [45], sub-Saharan cultures like Zimbabwean [46], Austrian, former East and West German, and Switzerland’s culture [47]. On the basis of the data from 16 cultures, it has been suggested that the concepts of Neuroticism, Openness, and Conscientiousness are cross-culturally valid, while Extraversion and Agreeableness are components of interpersonal circumflex and are more sensitive to cultural context [48]. It is interesting to note that in the Zuckerman five-factor model ‘Openness to experience’ is deliberately excluded because Zuckerman suggested that it does not meet the criteria for a truly ‘basic’ factor of personality [49]. Furthermore, it seems that the age differences in the five factors of personality across the adult life span are paralleled in samples from Germany, Italy, Portugal, Croatia, and South Korea [50]. The age and gender differences and fluctuations found in the original American sample [3] were generally confirmed in an analysis of the data from 51 cultures [51]-[53]. These findings are paralleled by the results of the current Greek validation study.

In conclusion, we submit that the results of the current study confirm the reliability of the Greek translation and adaptation of the NEO-PI-3. The inventory has comparable psychometric properties in its Greek version as in the original and other national versions, although with somewhat lower values, and it is suitable for clinical as well as research use in Greek speaking populations.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Third Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(2)
Research associate Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(3)
Department of Psychiatry, 424 Military Hospital
(4)
Mental Health Hospital of Thessaloniki
(5)
Psychologist in private practice
(6)
Center of Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics, University Hospital, University of Cagliari, Italy, and Centro Medico Genneruxi
(7)
Mood Center LucioBini
(8)
McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School
(9)
Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University
(10)
Department of Psychiatry, University of California
(11)
Studies of Temperament and Creativity
(12)
International Mood Center, University of California
(13)
Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience Biomedical Research Center
(14)

References

  1. Shock NW, Greulich RC, Andres R, Arenberg D, Costa PT, Lakatta EG: Normal Human Aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. 1984, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. Costa PT, McCrae RR: The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. 1985, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FLGoogle Scholar
  3. McCrae RR, Martin TA, Costa PT: Age trends and age norms for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 in adolescents and adults. Assessment. 2005, 12 (4): 363-373. 10.1177/1073191105279724.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Katki H: Invited commentary: evidence-based evaluation of p values and Bayes factors. Am J Epidemiology. 2008, 168 (4): 384-388. 10.1093/aje/kwn148.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa PT, McCrae RR: NEO PI-R Professional Manual. 1992, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., Odessa, FLGoogle Scholar
  6. Nunnally JC: Psychometric Theory. 1978, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY, 2Google Scholar
  7. McCrae RR, Kurtz JE, Yamagata S, Terracciano A: Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011, 15 (1): 28-50. 10.1177/1088868310366253.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 1988, Taylor & Francis, Hillsdale, NJ, 2Google Scholar
  9. Rosseel Y: Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012, 48 (2): 1-36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: the R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011. Available online at . ISBN 3-900051-07-0., [http://www.R-project.org/]
  11. Narayanan A: A review of eight software packages for structural equation modelling. Am Statistican. 2012, 66: 129-138. 10.1080/00031305.2012.708641.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF: The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1996, 1: 16-29. 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu L, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999, 6: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Tanaka JS: Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. Testing Structural Equation Models. Edited by: Bollen KA, Long JS. 1993, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 10-39.Google Scholar
  15. Byrne BM: A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Model. 1989, Springer-Verlag, New York, NYView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Browne MW, Cudeck R: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models. Edited by: Bollen KA, Long JS. 1993, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 136-161.Google Scholar
  17. Herrmann A, Pfister HR: Simple measures and complex structures: is it worth employing a more complex model of personality in Big Five inventories?. J Res Pers. 2013, 47: 599-608. 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. McCrae RR, Zonderman AB, Costa PT, Bond MH, Paunonen SV: Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO Personality Inventory: confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996, 70: 552-566. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Terracciano A: The Italian version of the NEO PI-R: conceptual and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation. Pers Individ Dif. 2003, 35 (8): 1859-1872. 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00035-7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Aluja A, Garcia O, Garcia LF, Seisdedos N: Invariance of the “NEO-PI-R” factor structure across exploratory and confirmatory y factor analyses. Personal Individ Differ. 2005, 38: 1879-1889. 10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Comrey AL, Lee HB: A First Course in Factor Analysis. 1992, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 2Google Scholar
  22. Tucker LR: A Method for the Synthesis of Factor Analysis Studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). 1951, Department of the Army, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Sakamoto S, Kijima N, Tomoda A, Kambara M: Factor structures of the Zung self-rating depression scale (SDS) for undergraduates. J Clin Psychol. 1998, 54 (4): 477-487. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199806)54:4<477::AID-JCLP9>3.0.CO;2-K.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McCrae RR, Costa PT: NEO Inventories: Professional Manual. 2010, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., Lutz, FLGoogle Scholar
  25. De Fruyt F, De Bolle M, McCrae RR, Terracciano A, Costa PT: Assessing the universal structure of personality in early adolescence: the NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment. 2009, 16 (3): 301-311. 10.1177/1073191109333760.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Church AT, Katigbak MS: Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines. Int J Psychol. 2002, 37 (3): 129-148. 10.1080/00207590143000315.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Katigbak MS, Church AT, Guanzon-Lapena MA, Carlota AJ, Del P: Are indigenous personality dimensions culture specific? Philippine inventories and the five-factor model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002, 82 (1): 89-101. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McCrae RR, Costa PT: Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. Personal Individ Differ. 1983, 4 (3): 245-255. 10.1016/0191-8869(83)90146-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurtz JE, Parrish CL: Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: the case of the NEO PI-R. J Pers Assess. 2001, 76: 315-332. 10.1207/S15327752JPA7602_12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Terracciano A, Costa PT, McCrae RR: Personality plasticity after age 30. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006, 32 (8): 999-1009. 10.1177/0146167206288599.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Conard MA: Aptitude is not enough: how personality and behavior predict academic performance. J Res Pers. 2006, 40 (3): 339-346. 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. García FJC, Muñoz EMP, Ortiz MÁC: Personality and contextual variables in teacher burnout. Personal Individ Differ. 2005, 38 (4): 929-940. 10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang N, Jome LM, Haase RF, Bruch MA: The role of personality and career decision-making self-efficacy in the career choice commitment of college students. J Career Assess. 2006, 14 (3): 312-332. 10.1177/1069072706286474.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Korukonda AR: Differences that do matter: a dialectic analysis of individual characteristics and personality dimensions contributing to computer anxiety. Comput Hum Behav. 2007, 23 (4): 1921-1942. 10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. McCrae RR, Allik J: The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures. 2002, Kluwer AcademicPublisher, New York, N.YView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Yik MSM: Universal Aspects of Chinese Personality Structure. 1996, Oxford University Press, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  37. Yik MSM, Bond MH: Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: creating a culturally balanced scale. Int J Psychol. 1993, 28: 75-95. 10.1080/00207599308246919.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Pulver A, Allik J, Pulkkinen L, Hämäläinen M: The Big Five personality inventory in two non-Indo-European languages. Eur J Personal. 1995, 9 (2): 109-124. 10.1002/per.2410090205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Pilar GH, Rolland JP, Parker WD: Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: the revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1998, 29: 171-188. 10.1177/0022022198291009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Lodhi PH, Deo S, Belhekar VM: The Five-Factor Model of Personality in Indian Context: Measurement and Correlates. 2002, Kluwer AcademicPublisher, New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  41. Lima MP: Personality and Culture: The Portuguese Case. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publisher, New York, N.YView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin TA, Oryol VE, Rukavishnikov AA, Senin IG: Applications of the Russian NEO-PI-R. XXVIIth International Congress of Psychology. 2000, National Academies, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  43. Piedmont RL, Chae JH: Cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality: development and validation of the NEO-PI-R for Koreans. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1997, 28 (2): 131-155. 10.1177/0022022197282001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Gülgöz S: Five-Factor Model and NEO-PI-R in Turkey. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publisher, New York, N.YView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Leininger A: Vietnamese American Personality and Acculturation: An Exploration Between Personality Traits and Cultural Goals. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publisher, New York, N.YView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Piedmont RL, Bain E, McCrae RR, Costa PT: The Applicability of Five Factor Model in sub Saharan Culture: The NEO-PI-R in Shona. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publisher, New York, N.YView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Angleitner A, Ostendorf F: The FFM: a comparison of German speaking countries (Austria, Former East and West Germany, and Switzerland). XXVIIth International Congress of Psychology. 2000, National Academies, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  48. Rolland JP: Cross-Cultural Validity of the Five Factor Model of Personality. XXVIIth International Congress of Psychology. 2000, National Academies, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  49. Zuckerman M: Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): an Alternative Five-Factorial Model. 2002, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  50. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Pedroso De Lima M, Simoes A, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Marusic I, Bratko D, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Chae JH, Piedmont RL: Age differences in personality across the adult life span: parallels in five cultures. Dev Psychol. 1999, 35 (2): 466-477. 10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.466.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. McCrae RR: Trait psychology and culture: exploring intercultural comparisons. J Pers. 2001, 69 (6): 819-846. 10.1111/1467-6494.696166.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. McCrae RR: NEO-PI-R Data from 36 Cultures: Further Intercultural Comparisons. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publisher, New York, NYView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. McCrae RR, Terracciano A: Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005, 89 (3): 407-425. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Fountoulakis et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement