Beş Faktör Kişilik Ölçeğinin Kısa Formunun geliştirilmesi

Amaç: Beş Faktör Kişilik Ölçeğinin tarama amaçlı geniş örneklem kullanımlarında, uzunluğu nedeniyle hem zorluklar yaşanmakta, hem de sağlıksız sonuçlar elde edilebilmektedir. İki yüz yirmi maddeden oluşan ölçek beş faktör ile on yedi alt boyutla değerlendirilmektedir. Ancak sadece beş faktör sonucu istendiğinde ölçeğin tamamının uygulanması zaman, emek, ekonomik değer kaybına neden olmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu çalışmayla ölçeğin beş faktör puanları vermeye yönelik kısa formunun geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: İlgili çalışmalar doğrultusunda ölçeğin 5239 kişilik norm grubu verisi ikiye bölünmüştür. Verinin 2000 kişilik ilk yarısı madde seçmek için, 3239 kişilik ikinci yarısı da çapraz geçerlilik çalışması için kullanılmıştır. Oluşturulan kısa form, üçüncü çalışma kapsamında 1518 kişiye uygulanarak ilk iki çalışma sonuçları bu veriyle test edilmiştir. Bulgular: Madde Yanıt Kuramı ile ölçekten beş faktöre 76, sosyal istenilirlik boyutuna altı, kontrol maddesi olarak da üçü seçilmiştir. Kısa formun geçerliliği, kısa ve uzun form arasında bağıntıların belirlenmesi için birçok farklı yöntemlerle incelenmiştir. Üç veri grubunda da kısa form ile uzun form arasında faktörlerin her biri için yüksek bağıntı katsayıları bulunmuştur. Kısa formun yapısal geçerliliği açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleriyle gösterilmiştir. Üç çalışma verisinde de kısa form güvenilirlikleri uzun form güvenilirliklerine yakın değerlerde gerçekleşmiştir. Kısa formun üçüncü çalışmada incelenen testtekrar test bağıntıları da yüksektir. Tüm sonuçlarda beş faktörün birbirine çok yakın değerler gösterdikleri bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Geliştirilen 85 maddeli kısa formun hem beş faktör modeline uyduğu, hem de uzun form yapısını koruduğu görülmüştür. İki form arasındaki çok sayıdaki güçlü bağıntılar ise kısa formun uzun formu iyi temsil ettiğini göstermiştir.

The development of Short-Form Five Factor Personality Inventory

Objective: Five Factor Personality Inventory, when used in large samples for screening purposes may lead to difficulties and unhealthy results because of its length. The inventory contains 220 items and designed to assess five factors and seventeen sub dimensions. However, when only five factors need to be evaluated, administration of the long form of the inventory causes loss of time, effort and economic value. For this reason this study aims to develop a short form of the inventory to assess only the five factors of the scale. Methods: The data of the normative sample of 5239 participants of the inventory was divided into two. The first half consisting of 2000 participants was used for the selection of items, and the second half consisting of 3239 participants was used for cross validity study. The short form constructed was administered to a sample of 1518 participants as a third study. The results of the first two studies were compared with the data of the third study. Results: Out of the long form of the inventory 76 items for the five factors, 6 items for the social desirability dimension and 3 items as control items were selected by using item response theory. Various methods were used to determine the validity of the short form, and the correlations between the long and the short forms. High correlation coefficients were found for each of the factors of the long and the short forms in each of the three analyses of data. Structural validity of the short form was shown by explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability values of the short form were close to the values of the long form in all of the studies. Test retest correlation coefficients of the short form were also high. All of the results showed very close factor values. Conclusion: It was seen that the developed short form of 85 items complied with five factor model and also protected the structure of the long form. Many strong correlations between the two forms showed that the short form represents the long form.

___

Funder DC. Personality. Annu Rev Psychol 2001; 52:197-221.

Ashton MC, Lee K, Goldberg LR, de Vries RE. Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist? Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2009; 13:79-91.

Donnellan MB, Oswald FL, Baird BM, Lucas RE. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol Assess 2006; 18:192-203.

Rammstedt B, Goldberg LR, Borg I. The measure- ment equivalence of Big-Five Factor markers for persons with different levels of education. J Res Pers 2010; 44:53-61.

Goldberg LR. An alternative 'description of per- sonality': the big-five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990; 59:1216-1229.

McCrae RR, John OP. An introduction to the five- factor model and its applications. J Pers 1992; 60:175-215.

Block J. A contrarian view of the five-factor ap- proach to personality description. Psychol Bull

Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol Assess 1992; 4:26-42.

John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. LA Pervin, OP John (Eds.), Hand- book of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press, 1999, p.102-138.

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol 1997; 52:509- 516.

Durrett C, Trull TJ. An evaluation of evaluative personality terms: A comparison of the Big Seven and Five-factor model in predicting psychopatho- logy. Psychol Assess 2005; 17:359.

Mullins-Sweatt SN, Lengel GJ. Clinical utility of the Five-factor model of personality disorder. J Pers 2012; 80:1615-1639.

Saulsman LM, Page AC. The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev 2004; 23:1055-1085.

Tatar A, Bildik T, Saltukoğlu G, Dinçel MG. Klinik

olmayan örneklemde Beş Faktör Kişilik Envanteri belirti tarama amaçlı kullanılabilir mi? Ön Çalışma. FSM İAİTBD 2014; 4:181-199.

Widiger TA, Costa PT. Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: the five-factor model. J Pers 2012; 80:1471-1506.

Bagby RM, Bindseil KD, Schuller DR, et al. Rela- tionship between the five-factor model of per- sonality and unipolar, bipolar and schizophrenic patients. Psychiatry Res 1997; 70:83-94.

Trull TJ, Sher KJ. Relationship between the five- factor model of personality and Axis I disorders in a nonclinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol 1994; 103:350.

Armon G, Toker S. The role of personality in predicting repeat participation in periodic health screening. J Pers 2013; 81:452-464.

Mumpower DL. The fallacy of the short form. J Clin Psychol 1964; 20:111-113.

Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychol Assess 2000; 12:102-111.

Donders J. A short form of the WISC-III for clinical use. Psychol Assess 1997; 9:15-20.

Cole JC, Rabin AS, Smith TL, Kaufman AS. Development and validation of a Rasch-derived CES-D short form. Psychol Assess 2004; 16:360- 372.

Silverstein AB. Agreement between a short form and the full scale as a function of the correlation between them. J Clin Psychol 1989; 45:929-931.

Smith GT, McCarthy DM. Methodological consid- erations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995; 7:300-308.

Silverstein AB. Short forms of individual intelli- gence tests. Psychol Assess 1990; 2:3-11.

Butcher JN, Hostetler K. Abbreviating MMPI item administration: What can be learned from the MMPI for the MMPI-2? Psychol Assess 1990; 2:12-21.

Silverstein AB. Critique of a doppelt-type short form of the WAIS-R. J Clin Psychol 1990; 46:333- 339.

Francis LJ. The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (JEPQR-A) among 13-15 year olds. Pers Individ Dif 1996; 21:835-844.

Costa PT, McCrae RR. Professional Manual for the NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.

Saucier G. Mini-markers: A brief version of Gold- berg's unipolar Big-Five markers. J Pers Assess 1994; 63:506-516.

Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers 2003; 37:504-528.

Tsaousis I, Kerpelis P. The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5 (TPQue5): Psychometric Prop- erties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Meas- ure. Eur J Psychol Assess 2004; 20:180-191.

Buchanan T, Johnson JA, Goldberg LR. Imple- menting a five-factor personality inventory for use on the internet. Eur J Psychol Assess 2005; 21:115-127.

Bacanlı H, İlhan T, Aslan S. Beş faktör kuramına

dayalı bir kişilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: sıfatlara dayalı kişilik testi (SDKT). Türk EBD 2009; 7:261- 279.

Gulgoz S. Five-factor model and the NEO-PI-R in Turkey. RR McCrae, J Allik (Eds.), The Five-factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002, p.175-196.

Somer O, Korkmaz M, Tatar A. Beş Faktör Kişilik

Envanteri'nin geliştirilmesi-I: Ölçek ve alt ölçek- lerin oluşturulması. Turk Psikol Derg 2002; 17:21- 33.

Somer O, Korkmaz M, Tatar A. Kuramdan Uygulamaya Beş Faktör Kişilik Modeli ve Beş Faktör Kişilik Envanteri (5FKE). İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2004.

Levy P. The correction for spurious correlation in the evaluation of short-form tests. J Clin Psychol 1967; 23:84-86.

Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. Third ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Silverstein AB. Equal weighting vs. differential weighting of subtest scores on short forms of Wechsler's intelligence scales. J Clin Psychol

Macdonald P, Paunonen SV. A Monte Carlo comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory. Educ Psychol Meas 2002; 62:921-943.

Chiu T-W, Camilli G. Comment on 3PL IRT Adjustment for Guessing. Appl Psych Meas 2013; 37:76-86.

Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000; 78:350.

Harvey RJ, Hammer AL. Item response theory. Couns Psychol 1999; 27:353-383.

Oswald FL, Shaw A, Farmer WL. Comparing Simple Scoring With IRT Scoring of Personality Measures The Navy Computer Adaptive Person- ality Scales. Appl Psych Meas 2015; 39:144-154.

Holden RR, Fekken GC. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory in a Canadian context: Psychometric properties for a sample of university women. Pers Individ Dif 1994; 17:441-444.

Schut B, Hutzell R, Swint E, Gaston C. CPI short- form incorporating MMPI shared items: Construc- tion, cross validation comparison. J Clin Psychol 1980; 36:940-944.

Zytowski DG, Hudson J. The validity of split-half abbreviations of the WAIS. J Clin Psychol 1965; 21:292-294.

Harvey RJ, Murry WD, Markham SE. Evaluation of three short-form versions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. J Pers Assess 1994; 63:181-184.

Brooker BH, Cyr J. Tables for clinicians to use to convert WAIS-R short forms. J Clin Psychol 1986; 42:982-986.