Running Head: 16 PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE 1

Analysis of 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

Susan McGilloway

Walden University

August 18, 2010

2

Abstract

The following analysis consists of a discussion of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

(16PF) Fifth Edition within the context of Gordon Allport’s and Raymond Cattell’s theory of

trait structure. Recognizing the complexity of assessing personality and the necessity of

empirically supported assessment, Cattell developed a method of analyzing forced responses

related to 16 basic factors of personality. Combining data, self-report, and observer report his

method provides a comprehensive analysis of personality. The 16PF, now well respected as the

paramount personality assessment, provides flexibility in diverse settings.

3

16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

Prior to WWII, Freud’ psychoanalytic approach dominated personality theory that

focused on negative instincts, drives, energy processes, defense mechanisms and motivations that

lead to the dysfunction of the personality. Contemporaries of Freud, Jung and Adler, developed

theories that deviated from Freud’s approach, however, Freud remained the primary theoretician

of the time. Some 70 years later, with the movement to assess soldiers for suitability as officers

in WWII, Murray dominated personality exploration in the United States with a process that

modeled German assessment measures based on identification of general characteristics and

motivation.. Post WWII, with the focus on humanistic psychology, Maslow, Rogers, and Allport

dominated research and .proliferated the field with literature that influenced subsequent theories

of personality assessment (Hogan Assessment Systems, 2010).

Theoretical and Conceptual History

Significant to Raymond Cattell and the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is the

work of Gordon Allport. Following the publication of his dissertation and subsequent

employment at Harvard, Allport taught the first Theory of Personality course in 1924 and 1925

entitled Personality: Its Psychological and Social Aspects. With his book Personality: A

Psychology Interpretation, Allport positioned personality within the realm of psychology, and

outlined his trait theory. In 1961 he published an updated version entitled Pattern and Growth in

Personality (Carducci, 2009).

In Allport’s quest to find a comprehensive yet explicable description of personality, he

developed what is known as Trait Theory. According to Allport, traits are the fundamental

elements of personality. They define the unique, generally stable characteristics of an individual

(Carducci, 2009). The manner in which one views the world and is perceived is congruent with

4

the basic sense of self that characterizes that individual from others. While there are common

traits that emerge as a result of universal experiences in anthropological evolution individuals

respond to reality in a distinctive style congruent to their universal, group, and personal identity.

Allport (1961), as cited in Carducci (2009), states, "Personality is the dynamic organization

within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior

and thought” (p. 260).

According to Carducci (2009), the basic assumptions of Allport’s theory include

“Personality is a dynamic organization in a state of continuous growth…is psychosocial in nature

as it combines the mind and body…is [sic] a determinant of behavior… is [sic] an expression of

each person’s uniqueness” (p. 260). Allport (1961) as cited in Carducci (2009) defines the basic

element of personality as trait – “a neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many

stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide an equivalent (meaningfully and

consistent) form [sic] of adaptive and expressive behavior (Allport, 1961, p. 347) ” (p. 261).

Allport posited models for studying traits as “nomothetic” (p. 261) (common to all people) and

“idiographic” (p. 261) (unique to the individual). He further defines traits as “cardinal” (p. 263)

(dominant) “central” (p. 263) (prevailing) and “secondary” (p.263) (flexible). Additionally, he

expanded the concepts to a “cultural construct” (p. 264), as both culture and individual

determined – thus placing his theory within the context and understanding of cultural influences.

Deviating from Freud, Allport further distinguished traits as having “functional

autonomy” (Allport, 1961) as cited in (Carducci, 2009, p. 266) – an independent response to

current stimuli rather than being dependent upon childhood experience (Maddhi, 1996) as cited

in Carducci (2009). According to Carducci (2009), he further delineated “preservative functional

autonomy” (p. 266) (recurring) and “propriate functional autonomy” (p. 266) (leading to self

5

perception). Borrowing from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, this approach placed the person on a

continuum measuring personality within the context of maturity.

Moreover, he incorporated values as intricate aspects of personality. Adapting Eduard

Spranger (1928) as cited in Carducci (2009), he distinguishes values as “theoretical, economic,

aesthetic, social, political, and religious [sic] (Carducci, 2009, p. 267). This grouping of values

formed the basis for the Study of Values Scale (Allport et al., 1960) as cited in Carducci (2009).

Allport proposed using the scale for measurement of personality for marital and career

counseling.

Using Allport’s concept, Raymond Cattell, believing that personality guides behavior,

and must be supported empirically, began to develop his theory of personality assessment. To

assess personality, Cattell combined three data systems – L-data (records), Q-data (self report

questionnaires), and T-data (observation) to formulate evidence-based composites that would

forecast behavior (Carducci, 2009). According to Carducci (2009), he expanded Allport’s trait

structure to what he termed “surface traits” (p. 272) as clusters of observable behaviors and

“source traits” (p. 272) as fundamental character. Cattell further distinguished traits as

“common” (p. 273) and “unique” (p. 273), “ability” (p. 273), “temperament”, (Cattell, p. 233)

and “dynamic” (Cattell, p. 233), and “constitutional” (p. 273) or biological, and “environmental”

(p. 273). Ackerman (2009) adds “…for an historical footnote, 'dynamic' referred to motivational,

conative, or volitional traits, and is generally traced to Woodworth's 'dynamic psychology' –

which was identified as functional psychology plus motivation…” (p. 249).

Additionally, enlightened by Pearson’s factor analysis, according to Carducci (2009),

Cattell began empirical studies using this method to assess personality traits with a sequential

approach. The procedure involved “data collection” (p. 274), “establishment of a correlation

6

matrix (p. 274), and “development of a factor matrix” (p. 275). He designed a process “in which

he incorporated factor loading…a numerical index of the extent to which each specific

behavioral is related to each factor” (p. 275) similar to the relationship measured by a correlation

coefficient. To predict behavior Cattell used a “Behavioral Specification Equation” (p. 276)

followed by a “Prediction of Behavior” (p. 276) thus the origins of the factor analysis for the

16PF (R.B. Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993, R.B. Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) as cited in

Carducci (2009).

Description

The 16PF, first published in 1949 using the factor analysis, with subsequent editions in

1956, 1962, 1967-69 and the 5th Edition in 1993 with 38 new items (McClellan, 2004), is a 185

item multi-dimensional forced choice personality inventory (Carducci, 2009). The assessment is

designed for individual or group administration as well as hand or computer scoring. The

examinee is given three choices including a question mark. There are 15 reasoning ability items

that have three different choices. Test time is 35-40 minutes with paper scoring and 25-35

minutes when administered on the computer. The test taker must complete at least 13 items, and

is encouraged to answer all items with the initial response that comes to mind (McClellan, 2004).

Scoring protocol consists of raw score counting, raw score conversion from the General

Population Norms (McClellan, 2004, para 3), transfer of scores to the record form, conversion of

raw to sten scores, transfer of factor scores to the record, charting of the sten scores, calculation

of the five global factors, and interpretation. The technical manual provides detailed instructions

for scoring and interpretation. Table 1 illustrates the 16 primary factors.

7

Table 1

Sixteen Primary Factors (Straker, 2003)

Factor High Range Low Range

A Warmth Warmhearted Reserved

B Reasoning Abstract Concrete

C Emotional Stability Stable Reactive

E Dominance Dominant Deferential

F Liveliness Lively Serious

G Rule-Consciousness Rule-Conscious Expedient

H Social Boldness Socially Bold Shy

I Sensitivity Sensitive Utilitarian

L Vigilance Suspicious Trusting

M Abstractness Imaginative Practical

N Privateness Forthright Unpretentious

O Apprehension Insecure Self-Confident

Q1 Openness to Change Experimenting Not Likely to Change

Q2 Self-Reliance Self-Sufficient Group Dependent

Q3 Perfectionism Compulsive Careless of Social Rules

Q4 Tension Tense Relaxed

Note. From “16PF Factors” by D. Straker, 2003, http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/16pf.htm .

Copyright 2003 by Syque. Adapted with permission of the author.

8

In addition to the 16 Primary Personality Factors, the Five Global Factors are scored,

converted, and transferred to the record as well. Table 2 illustrates the high and low range

descriptors for the Five Global Factors. Within the Global Factors, high and low descriptors of

Primary Factors appear. Dancer and Woods (2006) support the construct validity of the Five

Global Factors in its alignment with the Big Five factor structure. These findings contradict

previous research of Costa and McCrae (1992) as cited in Dancer and Woods (2006) suggesting

that the Global Factors aligned with only four factors.

Table 2

Five Global Factors (Conn & Rieke, 1994) as cited in Cattell and Meade (2008).

High Global Factors Low

EX Extraverted Extraversion IntrovertedAX High Anxiety Anxiety Neuroticism Low AnxietyTM Tough-Minded Tough Mindedness ReceptiveIN Independent Independence AccommodatingSC Controlled Self Control Unrestrained

Note. From “16PF Factors” by D. Straker, 2003, http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/16pf.htm .

Copyright 2003 by Syque. Adapted with permission of the author.

Table 3 illustrates the Response Style of the test taker. Response Styles are indications of

the manner in which the individual answered the questions. Impression Management expresses

the degree that the test taker responses are socially desirable or undesirable. Infrequency

indicates the number of middle or noncommittal responses on the part of the test taker.

Acquiescence indicates the degree to which the test taker agreed to items no matter what the

question asked.

9

Table 3

Three Response Style Indices (Cattell, 2003, p. 170)

Response Style High Score Low Score

IM Impression Management Socially Desirable Socially Undesirable

INF Infrequency Frequent Middle Responses

Infrequent MiddleResponses

ACQ Acquiescence True Response Repeated Balance of True/False Responses

Note. From “16PF Factors” by D. Straker, 2003, http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/16pf.htm .

Copyright 2003 by Syque. Adapted with permission of the author.

Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, and Williams (2006) suggest that the Likert (1932) as

cited in Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, and Williams (2006) Item Response Theory (IRT) bases

the test takers response upon the mismatch between the item and the self perception of the test

taker. They suggest instead that an ideal point model in which the test taker responds to an item

according to how closely it matches self-perception may be more accurate thereby providing

more psychometrically reliability and predictive validity.

According to Carducci (2009), “the 16PF continues to be a be a leader among published

personality tests” ( Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005, p. 408)” (p. 276). Twenty-five hundred

subjects randomly, selected from 4,449 individuals, comprised the normed sample.

Demographics matched the 1990 U.S. Census figures. There are two discrepancies in age and

education level (McClellan, 2004). Notably, “in the 15- to 17-year age group, the percent in

sample was 13.2% and the percent in census was 4.6%” (McClellan, para 6). Additionally, there

10

were a disproportionate number of college level graduates as compared to high school graduates

(McClellan, 2004).

The Global Factors test-retest range at two weeks was .84-.91 indicating a strong

reliability coefficient. The Primary Factors reliability coefficients ranged from .69-.87 – slightly

lower than the Global Factors. Internal consistency ranged from .64-.85 with a mean score of .74

using Cronback’s coefficient alpha and values (McClellan, 2004). Hough (1990) as cited in

Cattell & Schuerger (2003) indicated that criterion validity remained stable taking into

consideration test taker distortion in responses.

Test Uses

Rather than speculate regarding possible uses, the following circumstances indicate some

areas in which the 16PF has been effective. Rahti, Prabhugaonkar, Jadhav, Shanker, and Dhavale

(2008) utilized the 16PF to investigate the personality characteristics of post graduate medical

students to determine whether traits influenced the student’s decision to pursue medical or

surgical specialties. Results indicated that the majority of students fell within the average range

of factor scoring. Additionally, no significant personality differences between students who

chose medical and surgical specialties.

Jung-Shaarawy (2009) utilized the 16PF to examine the personality traits of incarcerated

female felons at the Arizona State Prison Complex - Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona to predict

possible offenders as well as provide mental health services for those already within the prison

system. The following results were significant. Female felons were found to be “less warm and

outgoing, less intelligent, less adaptive and mature, more assertive, more dutiful, more

gregarious, less sensitive, more suspicious and skeptical, less creative and idea-oriented, less

11

private and discreet, less self-doubting and worried, more self-sufficient, less organized and self-

disciplined, and less tense and driven than the general population” (p. 71).

Lingiardi, Falanga, and D’Augelli (2005), using the Italian translation of the 16PF,

studied the relationship between personality factors and homophobia. Their findings indicated

that there was a correlation between personality factors and homophobia and that military

personnel and male college students had a greater degree of homophobia than female college

students. Significant characteristics of military personnel were “low self-esteem, insecure

personality, super-ego harshness, conformity, and conservatism” (p. 11). Similar characteristics

were present in male college students.

Some additional uses were in relation to career decision making, marriage stability,

compatibility of couples, determining personality characteristics of police officers, clergy

members, and suicide attempters (Carducci, 2009). The 16PF has proven useful in a variety of

settings and is appropriate for diverse cultures (Carducci, 2009). The assessment has been

translated into numerous languages making it an internationally accepted tool. One exception is

its translation into African languages (van Eeeden & Mantsha, 2007). According to Pearson

Assessments, the 16PF is applicable in the following settings: private practice, hospitals,

forensics, corrections, neuropsychology, health psychology, public safety (Pearson Education

Inc., 2010).

Manuel, Borges, and Gerzina (2005), suggested a correlation between personality

characteristics and competence in clinical skills of medical students. Students completed the

16PF and the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) III. Results indicated a correlation between high

scores for warmth and low scores for privateness correlated with higher scores on the CSA III.

These results were beneficial in providing training for future physicians.

12

Critique

Significant strengths of the 16PF are readability of the manual, explicable scoring

procedure, (McClellan, 2004), quantitative measurement, and scientific approach (Carducci,

2009). Rotto (2004) suggests its longevity as a personality assessment is a significant strength.

The 16PF is perhaps the most well known instrument for measuring personality characteristics of

the normal adult population. Psychometric strengths are strong reliability coefficient, standard

error of measurement within the range for the test, well-defined rationale and normed sample.

Significant weaknesses are the absence of validation reports in the technical manual,

absence of published data, complexity of interpretation requiring advanced training (Rotto,

2004). McClellan (2004) suggests the use of the question mark as the middle response may

encourage an infrequency response style. The complexity of the 16 factor personality structure

may be intimidating to the novice user. Due to the complexity of the factor analytic approach, the

16PF has received some criticism of its replicability across dissimilar samples and diverse

variables. Cattell (1946c) as cited in Revelle (2009) addresses the issue by suggesting the

“principle of parallel proportional profiles” (p. 2) that permits the analysis of dissimilar samples

and multiple variables. According to Revelle (2009), with the evolution of factorial analysis, the

principle proposed in Cattell (1946c) as cited in Revelle (2009) is now possible. Psychometric

weaknesses are overrepresentation of 15-17 year olds in the sample, underrepresentation of age

65 and over (McClellan, 2004). The 16PF utilizes a “Random scale (RAND; Conn & Rieke,

1994)” (p.227) as cited in Pietrzak and Korcuska (2007) that identifies responses not related to

particular content. Pietrzak and Korcuska (2007) suggest that an additional item content response

scale be used as well to assess the accuracy of responses. Additionally, Clark and Blackwell

(2007) suggest that the reading level deviates from the 5th grade level stated in the technical

13

manual, that certain questions require sight ability so the 16PF would not be appropriate for the

blind, and, linguistically, the assessment may present issues for clients for whom English is their

second language.

Ethical considerations preclude the use of the 16PF for formal diagnostic purposes as it is

not designed to assess psychopathology (McClellan, 2004). All other ethical considerations as

outlined in the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics (2005) regarding the

administration and use of assessments are applicable; namely, E.1.a. Assessment, E.1.b. Client

Welfare, E.2 Competence to Use and Interpret Assessment Instruments, E.3 Informed Consent in

Assessment, E.4 Release of Data to Qualified Professionals, E.6 Instrument Selection,

Conditions of Assessment Administration, E.8 Multicultural Issues/Diversity in Assessment, E.9

Scoring and Interpretation of Assessments, and E.13 Forensic Evaluation: Evaluation for Legal

Proceedings.

The American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association,

National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, NCME) (1999) applicable to

employment testing are to be followed when the 16PF is used as a means of candidate selection.

Applicable standards for candidate selection are 14.1 - 14.11. The test administrator is advised to

consider all standards applicable to administrator competence, test selection and use, test

environment, as well as diverse linguistic considerations. Civil rights legislation requires gender-

normed scoring procedures. The 16PF meets this requirement (McClellan, 2004).

Personal Applicability

The 16PF is suitable for use within a college counseling center and particularly

applicable for students with poor academic achievement and for general personality

understanding. The 16PF provides insight into strengths, challenges, and motivation style that

14

may prove advantageous in counseling. The 16PF provides valuable information salient to

occupational suitability.

Although not designed for use in diagnosing clinical psychopathology, the use of the

16PF to explore personality characteristic of suicide attempters may prove valuable for the

clinician in predicting individuals who are prone to suicide attempt (Carducci, 2009) .

Additionally, its use to determine personality characteristics of individuals to predict offenders

and multiple offenders for the development of rehabilitation services (Jung-Shaarawy, 2009).

Evolutionary and social psychology places personality within the context of

anthropology, environmental evolution, and personality characteristics that are responses to

societal trends (Carducci, 2009). One example is the cultural evolution of females as nurturers

and males as hunters and gatherers. Will the societal evolution of females as corporate leaders,

combat personnel, single parent heads of households create a shift in gender personality

characteristics? Will use of the 16PF to examine the prevalence of the openness to change factor

within the population predict that the next generation of females will be less nurturing and more

aggressive? Cultural personality traits effect such spheres as reproductive trends, mate selection,

and gender dominance (Carducci, 2009). Will trait theory, and specifically such assessments as

the 16PF, be useful in forecasting females and males with personalities most likely to evolve in

a certain direction as a result of societal influences?

Personality theory was relatively stagnant for some 70 years following the introduction of

Freud’s concept of the subconscious and its influence on behavior. The ensuing 70 years has

provided significant scientific advances in the area of personality and the ability to measure its

effect on behavior and, in some instances, predict behavior. Now ten years into the new

millennium, scientific advances in genomics and neuroscience, and its relationship to

15

personality, provides an exciting outlook for the next 70 years for clinicians currently engaged in

personality psychology and in subsequent generations.

16

References

AERA, APA, & NCME. (2004). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: AERA.

American Counseling Association (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Carducci, B. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and application.

Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell, Inc., pp. 259-284.

Cattell, H., & Meade, A. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire. In The Sage

Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. (pp. 135 – 159). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Cattell, H., & Schuerger, J. (2003). Essentials of 16 PF assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons.

Cattell, R. (2009). Personality structure and measurement II: The determination and utility of

trait modality. British Journal of Psychology, 100(Suppl), 233-248.

doi:10.1348/000712608X344807.

Clark, W., & Blackwell, T. (2007). Test Review. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(4), 247-

250. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Dancer, L., & Woods, S. (2006). Higher-Order Factor Structures and Intercorrelations of the

16PF5 and FIRO-B. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 14(4), 385-391.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00360.x.

Hawkins, T. Anne (2005).  Personality factors and other predictors of academic success in

medical students. Ph.D. dissertation, West Virginia University, United States -- West

Virginia. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication

No. AAT 3191225).

17

Hogan Assessment System. (2010). The history of personality. Retrieved August 14, 2010, from

http://www.hoganassessments.com/history-of-personality

Huntsinger, C., & Jose, P. (2006). A Longitudinal Investigation of Personality and Social

Adjustment Among Chinese American and European American Adolescents. Child

Development, 77(5), 1309-1324. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00936.x.

Jung-Shaarawy, R.. Derivation of female felon norms for the Sixteen Personality Factor

Questionnaire. Psy.D. dissertation, Alliant International University, Los Angeles, United

States -- California. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.

(Publication No. AAT 3368128).

Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & D'Augelli, A. (2005). The Evaluation of Homophobia in an Italian

Sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(1), 81-93. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-1002-z.

Manuel, R., Borges, N., Gerzina, H. (2005). Personality and clinical skills: any correlation?

Academic Medicine Supplement, 80(10), S30-S33.

McClellan, M. (2004). [Review of the test 16 PF5]. In The twelfth mental measurements

yearbook. Available from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/detail?

vid=5&hid=111&sid=dd527ea9-fc1f-4350-bf69-

5105288b92d6%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1za

XRl#db=loh&AN=12121671

Pietrzak, D., & Korcuska, J. (2007). The discrimination of fully randomized and partially

randomized responding from nonrandomized responding on the sixteen personality factor

questionnaire-fifth edition. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development

(American Counseling Association), 39(4), 226-238. Retrieved from Academic Search

Complete database.

18

Revelle, W. (2009). Personality structure and measurement: The contributions of Raymond

Cattell. British Journal of Psychology, 100(Suppl), 253-257.

doi:10.1348/000712609X413809.

Rotto, P. (2004). [Review of the test 16 PF5]. In The twelfth mental measurements yearbook.

Available from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/detail?

vid=5&hid=111&sid=dd527ea9-fc1f-4350-bf69-

5105288b92d6%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1za

XRl#db=loh&AN=12121671

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2006). Examining assumptions about

item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for

scale development and scoring?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 25-39.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.25.

van Eeden, R., & Mantsha, T. (2007). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the

translation of the 16PF5 into an African language. South African Journal of Psychology,

37(1), 62-81. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.