How Should the Internal Structure of Personality Inventories Be Evaluated?

By Christopher J. Hopwood, M. B. Donnellan. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2010

644 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/928d050da4904f7bc3844cb6ef0182eee76f5167

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Initial Construction of a Maladaptive Personality Trait Model and Inventory for DSM-5 (2011, background): “…(CFA) because strong a priori hypotheses about the structure of these scales would be premature, and because simple structure CFA models are not realistic for personality data, in that many manifest personality variables tend to show meaningful factor cross loadings (Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010).”
Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (2015, methodology): “As a minimum, researchers should acknowledge the limitations of the approach and rigid cutoff values to prevent the “Henny Penny” problem described by Hopwood and Donnellan (2010).”
Motives for Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Personality Correlates and Coworker Ratings of OCB (2012, methodology): “The reason for this is that the personality facet scales included in omnibus personality inventories are substantially deviated from simple structure, and a CFA model assuming such a structure would not provide a reasonably good fit to the data and would sacrifice the fit of the model as a whole (se”
What Does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Really Measure? (2011, methodology): “…of this and broader concerns about the usefulness of established conventions used to interpret model fit indexes (e.g., Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004), Hopwood and Donnellan (2010) have suggested that researchers interpret CFA fit indexes within a local context by using the fit of the models that are…”
Crowdsourcing and personality measurement equivalence: A warning about countries whose primary language is not English (2015, methodology): “Item parcels were created (items were randomly assigned to three parcels per factor; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000) to test the oblique five-factor structure of the BFI, due to known problems fitting item-level indicators (Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010).”
Chinese University Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism (2015, methodology): “Finally, to assess the relationship of discipline, enculturation, and gender to knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding plagiarism, three-way betweensubjects analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were run on the participants’ scores for the 14 PoP scales separately, with discipline, year of study, and g”
Fear of Death and Supernatural Beliefs: Developing A New Supernatural Belief Scale to Test the Relationship (2013, neutral): “…strict adherence to cut-offs for evaluating model fit is unwarranted (P. Barrett, 2007; Chen, Curran, Bollen, Kirby, & Paxton, 2008; Goffin, 2007; Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010; Jackson, Gillaspy, & Purc-Stephenson, 2009; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Steiger, 2000, 2007) because the optimal cut-offs…”