Big Five Assessment

By de Boele Raad, Marco Perugini. 2002

295 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Critique of the five-factor model of personality (2008, unknown): “An optimal model will be replicable across methods, cross-culturally generalizable, comprehensive, and high in utility” (cf. De Raad & Perugini, 2002).”
Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. (2007, methodology): “In such cases, FFM self-report inventories and brief clinician rating scales can be used (De Raad & Perugini, 2002; Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson , Samuel, Olson & Widiger, 2006).”
Broad versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behaviour across cultures (2003, background): “…that the factors that reside at the top of the personality hierarchy are exactly five in number and, furthermore, can be labelled as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Neuroticism (see De Raad & Perugini, 2002; McCrae & John, 1992; Paunonen & Ashton, 1998).”
Cross‐culturally recurrent personality factors: analyses of three factors (2005, background): “Especially during the last one or two decades an abundance of studies has appeared that sustains the significance of the Big Five model (see De Raad, 2000; De Raad & Perugini, 2002; Wiggins, 1996).”