A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory

By R. McCrae, Paul T. Costa. 2004

1,181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d2738522cc106e0c21d4415c5b23248c84ba988

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Jüri Allik
2. R. McCrae
3. J. Rossier
4. Helle Pullmann
5. R. Mõttus
6. Anton Aluja
7. L. F. García
8. Ó. García

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Jüri Allik
2. R. McCrae
3. J. Rossier
4. Helle Pullmann
5. R. Mõttus
6. Stephen M. Smith
7. M. Whiteman
8. Ian J. Deary

Citations in the corpus

• Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland (2005, methodology): “For the purposes of the current study, however, a 5-factor model is employed due to the general consensus that exists about what those factors are; models with a higher number of factors are not entirely in agreement about what a 6th, 7th or nth factor would be.”
• The Five Factor Model of personality and evaluation of drug consumption risk (2015, methodology): “…for five factors are presented in Table 3: means, standard deviations, normative data (means and standard deviations for the population following McCrae & Costa (2004) [28]), 95% confidence intervals, kurtosis (kurtosis is a measure of flatness/‘peakedness’ of the distribution shape compared to…”
• Critique of the five-factor model of personality (2008, neutral): “representative adjective samples from various languages (cf. Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & Allik, 2002; McCrae et al., 2004).”
• A Review of the Factors Associated with Marital Satisfaction (2017, background): “…attributes, one of the most important and influential mod - els to study personality attributes has been the five-factor model in recent years [45], which is as follows: According to some researchers, neuroticism level is the most stable and strongest predictor of marital dissatisfaction, and…”
• Horse personality: Variation between breeds (2008, background): “For example, McGreevy and Thomson (2006) note that, for the purposes of racing, thoroughbreds must be highly reactive to stimuli and therefore have heightened flight responses.”
• The NEO–PI–3: A More Readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory (2005, result): “Columns 8 and 9 of Table 3 report cross-observer correlations, which compare favorably to most studies using adults (cf. McCrae et al., 2004).”
• Toward More Readable Big Five Personality Inventories (2006, background): “Some other studies have also suggested that several items of the NEO-PI-R should be modified since they are either out of date (“I believe that the ‘new morality’ of permissiveness is no morality at all”) or too difficult for some populations (Costa & McCrae, 1997; McCrae & Cos- ta, 2004).”