Download pdf - Validation of the French Version of the HiPIC (Rossier, 2007)

8/17/2019 Validation of the French Version of the HiPIC (Rossier, 2007)

1/8

J.Rossier et al.: ValidationoftheFrenchHiPIC European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):125–132© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Validation of the French Version

of the Hierarchical PersonalityInventory for Children (Hi PIC)

Influence of Gender and Age on Personality Traitsin 8- to 12-Year-Olds

Jérôme Rossier1, Vincent Quartier1, Raluca Enescu2, and Alex Iselin31Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, 2Institute of Criminology,

University of Lausanne, 3Primary State School of Nyon, all Switzerland

Abstract. The study was designed to investigate the psychometric properties of the French version and the cross-language replicability

of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC). The HiPIC is an instrument to assess the five dimensions of the five-factor

model for children. Subjects were 552 children aged between 8 and 12 years, rated by one or both parents. At the domain level, reliability

ranged from .83 to .93 and at the facet level, reliability ranged from .69 to .89. Differences between genders were congruent with thosefound in the Dutch sample. Girls scored higher on Benevolence and Conscientiousness. Age was negatively correlated with Extraversion

and Imagination. For girls, we also observed a decrease of Emotional Stability. A series of exploratory factor analyses confirmed the

overall five-factor structure for girls and boys. Targeted factor analyses and congruence coefficients revealed high cross-language repli-

cability at the domain and at the facet levels. The results showed that the French version of the H iPIC is a reliable and valid instrument

for assessing personality with children and has a particularly high cross-language replicability.

Keywords: personality assessment, five-factor model, children, HiPIC, cross-language replicability

Introduction

Thefive-factor model (FFM) is currently themost common

dimensional approach to personality traits (Digman, 1990;

Rossier, Meyer de Stadelhofen, & Berthoud, 2004). Ac-

cording to this model, five broad and independent dimen-

sions are sufficient to describe personality traits. These di-

mensions are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to ex-

perience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (McCrae& Costa, 1999). The validity of this model has been as-

sessed mainly with adults but also with younger age groups

(Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Lamb, Chuang, Wessels,

Broberg, & Hwang, 2002; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Howev-

er, there are few inventories that are specifically devoted

to assessing children’s personality according to the FFM.

Mervielde and De Fruyt (1999) developed the Hierar-

chical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC) specifi-

cally for assessing the personality of children between 6

and 12 years. This inventory was developed using a bot-

tom-up strategy (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002). This strat-

egy was roughly based on the idea of analyzing the latent

structure of personality traits among individuals of the de-fined age group. An analysis of parental free-descriptors of

children aged 3 to 12 years from seven countries (Belgium,

China, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, and the

United States) allowed identifying five basic dimensions

(Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998; Mer-

vielde & Asendorpf, 2000). A pool of experts created a set

of items for three age groups (5–7, 8–10, and 11–13 years)

based on the set of more than 9000 Flemish parental de-

scriptions. A first analysis allowed selecting the items

based on their contribution to the homogeneity of their di-

mension (one of the five dimensions identified in the pre-vious studies) and their communalities. Facets scales were

identified empirically by using principal component anal-

ysis with oblimin rotation. Finally, the number of items perfacet was restricted to eight. The three age-specific inven-

tories were structurally very similar (factor congruence co-

efficients >.90) and had a great number of items in com-

mon. For this reason, the authors proposed a common in-

ventory allowing personality assessment for children from

6 to 12 years.

The HiPIC, which measures 18 facets grouped in five

dimensions, Extraversion, Benevolence, Conscientious-

ness, Emotional Stability, and Imagination (Mervielde &

De Fruyt, 2002), showed good conceptual and empiricalcorrespondence with theFFM(De Fruyt,Mervielde, Hoek-

DOI 10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.125

© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):125–132


2/8

stra, & Rolland, 2000). Several studies confirmed the good

psychometricproperties of theHiPICwith both clinical and

nonclinical samples and α reliabilities for domains and fac-

ets were usually above .80 (Mervielde & Asendorpf, 2000;

Van Leeuwen, De Fruyt, & Mervielde, 2004). The stabilitycoefficients for the five domains of the HiPIC across a 3-

year interval were high and ranged from .59 for Emotional

Stability to .76 for Imagination (Mervielde & De Fruyt,

2002). De Fruyt and Vollrath (2003) studied the convergent

and discriminant validities in Flemish and German-speak-

ing Swiss samples. The median convergent validity coeffi-

cient for facet scales for each domain was equal or above

.65. This structure was found to be highly replicable across

age groups, samples, and genders. However, the structural

cross-language replicability of the HiPIC was never sys-

tematically studied.

The HiPIC has been used in several research fields. For

example, in the field of developmental psychology, Van

Leeuwen, De Fruyt, and Mervielde (2004) studied the re-

lation between children’s personality, in terms of dimen-

sions or types, and adolescent behavioral and emotional

problems. They observed that the overcontrolled type,

characterized by low levels of Emotional Stability and Ex-

traversion, was associated with higher levels of emotional

or internalizing problems. In the field of clinical psychol-

ogy, De Clercq, De Fruyt, and Van Leeuwn (2004) studied

the relation between adaptive personality functioning and

personality pathology or maladaptive personality function-

ing in a sample of nonclinical adolescents. Considering

correlations equal or above .30 , they observed a negativeassociation between Conscientiousness and antisocial per-

sonality disorder symptoms; between Extraversion and

schizoid and avoidant personality disorder symptoms; be-

tween Benevolence and paranoid, schizotypal, antisocial,

borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorder

symptoms; and between Emotional Stability and paranoid,

borderline,avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive

personality disorder symptoms. Finally, in the field of pe-

diatrics, De Clercq, De Fruyt, Koot, and Benoit (2004)

studied the relationship between quality of life and person-

ality in children who survived cancer. They observed that

Benevolence, Emotional Stability, and Imagination con-

tributed to the prediction of self-reported quality of life.Personality differences according to gender can already

be observed during childhood. For example, De Fruyt and

Vollrath (2003) observed in a sample aged from 6 to 14

years (rated by parents) that girls had higher scores on Be-

nevolence and Conscientiousness than boys but they did

not observe any gender difference on Emotional Stability.

At the facet level, on average, girls obtained higher scores

than boys on E2, B5, C2, C3, and C4 and lower scores on

E4, B2, and I2. Allik, Laidra, Realo, and Pullmann (2004),

using the NEO-FFI in a sample of children aged 12 to 18,

found that girls were more extraverted than boys. In a large

sample of 1,959 American adolescents aged 14 to 18, Mc-

Crae and colleagues (2002) observed, using the same in-ventory, that girls scored significantly higher than boys on

Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness.

In a sample of 317 American students from Grades 5 to 8,

Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Finch (1997) found that

girls rated themselves as lower on Emotional stability and

higher on Agreeableness than boys. Costa, Terracciano,and McCrae (2001) observed that adult gender differences

in personality traits were highly consistent across cultures.

Women usually reported themselves to be higher on Neu-

roticism and Agreeableness. No large differences were ob-

served for Conscientiousness and for Extraversion and

Openness, clear gender differences were only observed at

the facet level. Thus, adult gender differences seem to be

rather clear in comparison to gender differences during

childhood and adolescence. However, gender differences

usually reported by studies with children or adolescents

point in the same direction.

Concerning the development of personality traits, many

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have concluded

that most personality changes occur before the age of 30,

with only modest changes thereafter (Costa & McCrae,

2002). Lamb and colleagues (2002) studied personality de-

velopment between 2 and 15 years, and observed an in-

crease in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and a de-

cline in Extraversion. Neuroticism increased slightly until

8 and remained stable thereafter. Openness increased be-

tween 2 and 4, remained stable between 4 and 8, and de-

creased thereafter. Concerning personality development in

adolescence, McCrae and colleagues (2002) found that ad-

olescentsbetween age12 and16 increased in Opennessand

that girls also increased in Neuroticism. No consistentchanges in Extraversion, Agreeableness, or Conscientious-

ness were found. They noted that personality traits might

be relatively fluid from age 12 to age 16. Moreover, Gra-

ziano, Jensen-Campell, and Finch (1997) did not find any

age differences in personality between students in the fifth

through eighth grades. A cross-sectional study with chil-

dren between 12 and 18 years by Allik and colleagues

(2004) showed an increase with age on the Openness di-

mension and a decrease on the Agreeableness and Consci-

entiousness dimensions. Thus, results from studies of per-

sonality development during childhood and adolescent are

heterogeneous. These studies suggest that Agreeableness

and Conscientiousness increase and that Extraversion de-creases during childhood, and that Openness increases and

that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness decrease during

adolescence. However, age differences are of modest am-

plitude.

Concerning adult trait development, Neuroticism, Ex-

traversion, and Openness usually show moderate declines

whereas Agreeableness and Conscientiousness increase

between age 18 and 30 (McCrae et al., 2002). This pattern

of development suggests that individuals with age become

less emotional and better socialized. Robins, Fraley, Rob-

erts, and Trzesniewski (2001) also reported increases on

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and a decline on

Neuroticism between age 18 and 22. They also observedan increase on Openness that might show a curvilinear pat-

126 J. Rossier et al.: Validation of the French HiPIC

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):125–132 © 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers


3/8

tern, increasing between 18 and 22, and decreasing there-

after. After age 30, Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Open-

ness continue to decline slowly. There are conflicting re-

sults concerning the course of Agreeableness and Consci-

entiousness (Costa, Herbst, McCrae, & Siegler, 2000;McCrae et al., 1999; Rossier, Wenger, & Berthoud, 2001).

All these studies suggest a personality development of

modest amplitude throughout the lifespan (usually an in-

crease on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and a de-

cline on Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness) and

large samples and well-constructed measures are needed in

order to detect them accurately.

The aim of this study was to investigate the psychomet-

ric properties of the French version and more precisely the

structural validity of the HiPIC. Particular attention was

paid to structural invariance according to gender and lan-

guage. Indeed, cross-language or cross-cultural replicabil-

ity is an important validity indicator for measurements

based on models claiming to be universal such as the FFM

(Rossier, Dahourou, & McCrae, 2005). This research also

examined the effects of parent and child gender and age on

the mean level of higher and lower level personality traits.

Method

Sample

The parents of 1,250 pupils attending five different state

schools in the French-speaking part of Switzerland were

asked to complete the HiPIC. At least one of the parents of

552 of these children (44.2%) returned the questionnaire.

A parent rating was obtained for 276 girls (mean age =

10.09, SD = 1.17) and 276 boys (mean age = 10.13, SD =

1.22), all aged between 8 and 12. The sample was made up

of 47 eight-year-old children, 133 nine-year-olds, 174 ten-

year-olds, 107 eleven-year-olds and 91 twelve-year-olds.

Of these, 74.1% of the children were rated by their mother,

11.1% by their father, and 13.9% by both parents.

Measure

The French version of the HiPIC (Mervielde & De Fruyt,

1999) is made up of 144 items assessing 18 facets, eight

items per facet, hierarchically structured under five do-

mains.Extraversionis made up of four facet scales: shyness

(E1), expressiveness (E2), optimism (E3), and energy (E4).

Benevolence is made up of five facet scales: egocentrism

(B1), irritability (B2), compliance (B3), dominance (B4),

and altruism (B5). Conscientiousness is made up of four

facet scales: achievement striving (C1), order (C2), con-

centration (C3), and perseverance (C4). Emotional Stabil-

ity is made up of two facets: anxiety (S1) and self-confi-

dence (S2). Finally, Imagination is made up of three facets:creativity (I1), curiosity (I2), and intellect (I3). Responses

are made on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The Cronbach’s αof the original Flemish version for domains and facets all

exceeded .80.

Translation

All 144 HiPIC items were translated into French by a team

of experts in developmental, educational, or personality

psychology and checked by the authors of this inventory

who are fluent in French. Amendments were made and re-

viewed. This process continued until the authors agreed

with this French translation.

Procedure

The HiPIC was distributed in the classrooms by the teach-

ers to the children, who had to bring this questionnaire to

their parents. Parents were asked to rate their children and

could return the questionnaire free of charge directly to the

University of Lausanne, in order to warranty an anonymous

participation. This research complied with the ethical rules

of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Results

Descriptive,α

Coefficients, and Influence of Gender and Age

Table 1 summarizes means, standard deviations, kurtosis,

skewness, and α values for the total sample, and separately

for girls and boys. Globally, the observer (mother, father,

or both) had no impact on the mean levels for the five do-

mains. For this reason, this variable was not considered in

the analyses presented hereafter. Indeed, the observer had

only a slight impact on two of the facet scales. Fathers rated

their child slightly higher on B2, F (2, 546) = 3.75, p = .02

(d = .36) and S2, F (2, 546) = 3.03, p = .04 (d = .26). The

internal consistencies estimated by coefficient α were ad-

equate and similar to those found in the Flemish sample.For the five global scales the internal consistencies ranged

from .85 to .93 and from .86 to .93 for girls and boys, re-

spectively. The internal consistencies of the facet scales

ranged from .68 to .89 ( Mdn = .81) for girls and from .70

to .88 ( Mdn = .83) for boys. For the five main scales and

for the facets, the kurtosis and skewness values indicated

that the distributions were normal and symmetrical (all val-

ues below 1 in absolute magnitude).

We analyzed the gender differences and found that girls

had significantly higher scores on Benevolence, t (550) =

2.07, p = .04, (d = .18) and Conscientiousness, t (550) =

4.07, p < .001, (d = .35). An analysis at the facet level

showed that girls had significantly higher scores on E2,t (550) = 3.57, p < .01, (d = .30); B5, t (550) = 3.16, p = .002,

J. Rossier et al.: Validation of the French HiPIC 127



4/8

(d = .27); C1, t (550) = 2.18, p = .03, (d = .19); C2, t (550)

= 4.74, p < .001, (d = .40); C3, t (550) = 3.53, p < .001, (d

= .30); and C4, t (550) = 2.84, p = .005, (d = 0.24); and lower

scores on E4, t (550) = –3.53, p < .001, (d = .30); B2, t (550)

= –2.22, p = .03, (d = .19); and I2, t (550) = –1.97, p = .04,

(d = .17). Age correlated negatively with Extraversion and

Imagination both forgirls andboys (see Figure1).Forgirls,

age also correlated negatively with Emotional Stability. An

analysis at the facet level is presented in Table 1.

Structural Validity

In order to assess the structural validity, we conducted a

principal component exploratory factor analysis with vari-

max rotation of the 18 facet scales. In order to compare the

factorial structure with the theoretical structure of the in-

ventory, we chose to extract five factors explaining 71.72%

of the variance. The first six eigenvalues were 5.77, 3.02,

1.76, 1.40, .96, and .72. The structure matrix (see Table 2)

showed that Factor 1 correlated well with all the facets of

the Conscientiousness domain, that Factor 2 correlated

well with all the facets of the Benevolence domain, thatFactor 3 correlated well with all the facets of the Extraver-

sion domain, that Factor 4 correlated well with the two fac-

ets of the Emotional Stability domain, and that Factor 5

correlated well with all the facets of the Imagination do-

main. All facets loaded primarily on the intended factors.

However, five facets had secondary loadings higher than

.40. A very close association was observed between the

five factors obtained from the principal factor analysis with

varimax rotation and the five domain scale scores of the

HiPIC. Factor 1 was associated with Conscientiousness (r

= .94), Factor 2 with Benevolence (r = –.92), Factor 3 withExtraversion (r = .90), Factor 4 with Emotional Stability (r

= .92), and Factor 5 with Imagination (r = .88).

Two independent principal component analyses with

varimax rotation were carried out and five factors were ex-

tracted in order to compare the factorial structure with the

theoretical structure for girls and boys. For girls, the five

factors explained 71.96% of the total variance. The first six

eigenvalues were 6.03, 2.88, 1.84, 1.29, .92, and .73. A

very close association was observed between the five fac-

tors and the five domains of the HiPIC. Factor 1 was asso-

ciated with Conscientiousness (r = .94), Factor 2 with Be-

nevolence (r = –.90), Factor 3 with Imagination (r = .80),

and Factor 4 with Emotional Stability (r = .92). However,the correlation between Factor 5 and Extraversion was

Table 1. Domain and facet scale αs, means, SD, and correlations with age by child gender and α, kurtosis, and skewness

coefficients

Girls Boys

HiPIC α Mean SD r α Mean SD r α K S Extraversion .86 3.62 .48 –.17** .89 3.61 .55 –.18** .88 .59 –.43

E1: Shyness .76 2.44 .70 .12* .80 2.46 .77 .12 .78 –.21 .41

E2: Expressiveness .70 3.57 .67 –.17** .78 3.35 .76 –.14* .75 –.33 –.22

E3: Optimism .75 4.03 .54 –.07 .84 4.00 .65 –.13* .80 .61 –.66

E4: Energy .77 3.34 .73 –.12 .77 3.56 .74 –.14* .77 –.30 –.07

Benevolence .91 3.59 .51 –.09 .91 3.49 .54 .03 .91 .28 –.55

B1: Egocentrism .68 2.42 .60 .13* .70 2.46 .65 –.02 .69 .16 .52

B2: Irritability .87 2.56 .87 .14* .88 2.73 .95 –.08 .88 –.68 .32

B3: Compliance .82 3.59 .68 –.09 .84 3.50 .73 .02 .83 –.11 –.29

B4: Dominance .78 2.76 .74 –.07 .71 2.73 .68 –.08 .75 –.02 .39

B5: Altruism .87 4.08 .67 –.05 .88 3.89 .72 –.10 .88 .42 –.71

Conscientiousness .93 3.48 .64 –.05 .93 3.26 .66 –.11 .93 –.32 –.11

C1: Achievement Striving .79 3.58 .72 –.03 .81 3.45 .76 –.19** .80 –.27 –.26

C2: Order .86 3.32 .84 –.05 .85 2.97 .89 –.05 .86 –.67 .01

C3: Concentration .85 3.66 .79 –.02 .83 3.42 .80 –.04 .84 –.65 –.17

C4: Perseverance .77 3.37 .70 –.06 .79 3.19 .75 –.07 .79 –.23 –.14

Emotional Stability .85 3.17 .66 –.13* .86 3.19 .69 –.05 .86 –.54 –.17

S1: Anxiety .83 2.94 .85 .10 .83 2.87 .84 –.03 .83 –.71 .01

S2: Self-confidence .70 3.28 .64 –.14* .73 3.25 .68 –.15* .72 –.23 –.32

Imagination .92 3.94 .59 –.17** .91 3.94 .60 –.18** .91 .49 –.61

I1: Creativity .84 3.89 .73 –.17** .85 3.79 .82 –.10 .84 –.19 –.53

I2: Curiosity .84 4.00 .65 –.13* .87 4.11 .68 –.16** .86 –.15 –.58

I3: Intellect .89 3.92 .76 –.13* .88 3.92 .77 –.16** .89 –.31 –.53

* p < .05** p< .01




5/8

slightly smaller (r = .72). The E4 loaded on Factor 3 instead

of Factor 5 and the B5 loaded on Factor 5 instead of Factor

2. Two facets had secondary loadings higher than .40 (see

Table 2). For boys, the five factors explained 71.66% of the

total variance. The first six eigenvalues were 5.58, 3.19,

1.73, 1.54, 1.04, and .67. A very close association was ob-

served between the five factors obtained from the principal

factor analysis with varimax rotation and the five domain

scale scores of the HiPIC. Factor 1 was associated with

Conscientiousness (r = .93), Factor 2 with Benevolence (r

= –.93), Factor 3 with Extraversion (r = .92), Factor 4 with

Emotional Stability (r = .93), and Factor 5 with Imagina-

tion (r = .90). However, five facets had secondary loadings

higher than .40.

In order to assess the structural similarity between girls

and boys’ personality structures, the structure matrices ob-

tained for both genders were subjected to an orthogonal

Procrustes rotation (McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, &

Table 2. Results of the principal component analyses with Varimax rotation of the French version of the HiPIC for the

total sample and by gender, and congruence coefficients after targeted factor analyses

Total sample Girls Boys

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 CC F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 CC F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 CC

E1 –.06 .08 –.71 –.41 –.02 .98 –.03 .00 –.07 –.51 –.66 .99 –.06 .13 –.70 –.40 –.09 .97

E2 .03 .18 .71 .10 .25 .99 .01 .28 .28 .23 .67 .96 .00 .13 .70 .10 .37 .99

E3 .22 –.27 .64 .30 .21 .97 .25 –.25 .38 .31 .53 .95 .17 –.30 .64 .35 .20 .99

E4 –.19 .31 .58 –.02 .20 .92 –.24 .25 .62 .12 .26 .64 –.12 .28 .71 –.10 .00 .97

B1 –.17 .80 –.23 –.23 –.02 .99 –.13 .78 –.03 –.25 –.28 .99 –.18 .81 –.17 –.24 –.02 .99

B2 –.31 .68 .08 –.41 –.03 .99 –.30 .73 .01 –.34 –.07 .99 –.29 .63 .19 –.47 –.01 .98

B3 .55 –.64 . 07 .02 –.04 .99 .59 –.57 –.10 –.01 .23 .98 .49 –.69 –.01 .06 –.04 .99

B4 .12 .74 .34 .21 .01 .99 .06 .78 .08 .22 .26 .97 .17 .71 .36 .21 .07 .99

B5 .21 –.46 .63 –.21 .11 .98 .16 –.32 .14 –.19 .74 .98 .19 –.56 .56 –.17 .20 .98

C1 .80 .15 .24 –.08 .29 .99 .77 .14 .33 –.03 .23 .99 .83 .12 .25 –.11 .24 .98

C2 .81 –.19 –.09 .00 –.03 .99 .79 –.17 –.01 –.01 –.10 .96 .80 –.23 –.09 .01 –.09 .99

C3 .82 –.20 –.02 .26 .15 .99 .85 –.14 .12 .21 .06 .98 .79 –.25 –.08 .32 .10 .98

C4 .71 –.32 .15 .25 .23 .94 .73 –.22 .24 .30 .12 .89 .66 –.43 .10 .23 .23 .94

S1 .02 .18 –.06 –.89 –.06 .99 –.03 .22 –.05 –.88 –.03 .99 .03 .13 –.03 –.89 –.05 .99

S2 .28 .06 .31 .75 .19 .99 .30 .08 .24 .75 .21 .99 .26 .04 .30 .78 .19 .99

I1 .04 –.08 .13 .07 .85 .99 .21 –.11 .79 .05 .06 .99 –.06 –.07 .09 .08 .85 .99

I2 .27 .05 .33 .06 .74 .99 .36 .05 .75 .09 .19 .99 .29 .00 .32 .03 .74 .99

I3 .43 .06 .19 .37 .53 .99 .49 .02 .48 .37 .21 .95 .45 .10 .12 .35 .52 .99

CC .98 .99 .99 .99 .97 .98 .97 .99 .95 .97 .90 .96 .98 .98 .99 .99 .99 .98

Note. E1: Shyness; E2: Expressiveness; E3: Optimism; E4: Energy; B1: Egocentrism; B2: Irritability; B3: Compliance; B4: Dominance; B5:Altruism; C1: Achievement Striving; C2: Order; C3: Concentration; C4: Perseverance; S1: Anxiety; S2: Self-confidence; I1: Creativity; I2:

Curiosity; I3: Intellect; CC : Congruence coefficients. The correlations above .40 in absolute magnitude are in bold. All congruence coefficientsare in italics.

Figure 1. Mean level for the five main

dimensions according to age.




6/8

Paunonen, 1996). The total congruence coefficient be-

tween girls and boys was .97. The congruence coefficients

were .97, .99, .98, .98, and .89 for Extraversion, Benevo-

lence, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Imagi-

nation, respectively. At facet level, variable congruence co-efficients ranged from .67 to 1.00 ( Mdn = .98). Only the

facet E4 had a coefficient lower than .90. Note that coeffi-

cients above .90 indicate replicability (Mulaik, 1972).

Cross-Language Stability

To assess cross-language replicability, the structure matri-

ces obtained in our French-speaking sample were subjected

to an orthogonal Procrustes rotation using the Flemish

structure matrices as the target (Mervielde & De Fruyt,

2002, p. 140). For the global-structure matrix the total con-

gruence coefficient was .98. The congruence coefficients

were .99, .99, .98, .99, and .97 for Extraversion, Benevo-

lence, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Imagi-

nation, respectively (see Table 2). At facet level, congru-

ence coefficients ranged from .92 to .99 ( Mdn = .99). Thus,

all domains and facets were associated to a coefficient

higher than .90.

To assess cross-language replicability for girls and boys,

two independent orthogonal Procrustes rotations were car-

ried out using the Flemish structure matrices as the target.

For girls, the total congruence coefficient was .96. Thecon-

gruence coefficients were .95, .99, .97, .97, and .90 for Ex-

traversion, Benevolence, Conscientiousness, EmotionalStability, and Imagination, respectively. At facet level, con-

gruence coefficients ranged from .64 to .99 ( Mdn = .98).

Only two facets had a coefficient lower than .90: E4 with

a coefficient of .64 and C4 with a coefficient of .89. For

boys, the total congruence coefficient was .98. The congru-

ence coefficients were .99, .98, .98, .99, and .99 for Extra-

version, Benevolence, Conscientiousness, Emotional Sta-

bility, and Imagination, respectively. At facet level, congru-

ence coefficients ranged from .94 to .99 ( Mdn = .99). Thus,

all domains and facets had a coefficient higher than .90.

Discussion

The internal consistencies of the scales for girls and boys

are similar to those found with the original version (Mer-

vielde & De Fruyt, 2002). The scale with the highest inter-

nal reliability is Conscientiousness for both girls and boys.

The scale with the lowest internal reliability is Emotional

Stability for both girls and boys. The α values of the facet

scales are generally slightly lower in this Swiss sample

compared to the Flemish sample. However, all reliabilities

are acceptable.

Concerning gender differences, girls score higher than

boys on Benevolence and Conscientiousness, and at thefacet level, girls score higher on E1, B5, C2, C3, C4, and

score lower on E4, B2, and I2, as in the sample of De Fruyt

and Vollrath (2003). These results show that there are gen-

der differences on personality traits even in preadolescents.

However, according to Cohen’s d gender differences are

associated with small effect sizes and these variations aresomewhat differentfrom the gender differencesusually ob-

served with adolescent or adult samples on Neuroticism

(Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001) and Extraversion

(Allik et al., 2004). Indeed, no sex differences for Emotion-

al Stability have been observed in our sample, but the re-

sults of this study compared to the gender differences re-

ported by Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) or Gra-

ziano and colleagues (1997) suggest gender differences in

Agreeableness from childhood to adulthood. The differenc-

es on Neuroticism and Extraversion might appear only at

adolescence. Thus, gender differences in this sample glob-

ally follow the general trend found in other samples as-

sessed with the HiPIC, but the pattern is slightly different

compared to studies with older samples.

Concerning the development of personality traits, we

observed only modest changes from age 8 to age 12. The

results show a decline in Extraversion and Imagination for

both girls and boys, and a decline in Emotional Stability

for girls. However, the effect sizes are always small. The

decline in Extraversion was also observed by Lamb and

colleagues (2002), but Allik and colleagues (2004) ob-

served that usually individuals are never more extraverted

than at the age of 16. This increase in Extraversion might

occur after the age of 12. The decline in Imagination is

congruent with the pattern observed by Lamb and col-leagues with preadolescents. The decline in Emotional Sta-

bility is in line with the steep decline in self-esteem from

age 9 to age 13, especially for girls, reported by Robins and

colleagues (2002). We also observed a decline in Self-Con-

fidence. In oursample themean levels for Benevolenceand

Conscientiousness remained stable whereas Lamb and col-

leagues observed a significant increase on these two di-

mensions. This increase was associated with a very small

effect size (d = .10) for Agreeableness and medium effect

size (d = .57) for Conscientiousness. However, it is very

difficult to compare results between these different studies

and the discrepancies might be the result of, for example,

the assessment methods (parents ratings vs. self-reports),the assessment instruments, or differences in age groups.

The principal component analysis with a varimax rotation

allowed extracting five factors closely associated with the

five theoretical dimensions. An analysis for girls and boys

confirmedtheinvarianceofthisstructure accordingto gender

with a total congruence coefficient of .97. All dimensions

were associated with a congruence coefficient of .90or high-

er. However, E4 loaded on the expected factor for boys but

on the Imagination factor for girls. This was the only facet

with a congruence coefficient lower than .90. This slight dif-

ference between the structure found for girls and boys was

not observed with the original Flemish version (Mervielde &

De Fruyt, 2002). This difference might be attributed to thesample selection, the translation, or the cultural context.




7/8

Cross-language replicability is an important criterion for

assessing the validity of a model claiming that personality

traits are universal, such as the FFM (Rossier, 2005). This

is especially important for a measurement that was devel-

oped in a specific language as is the case with the H iPIC.The congruence coefficients after a targeted factor analysis

show that the cross-language replicability of the HiPIC is

very high. For all dimensions congruence coefficients are

equal to or higher than .97. This result is similar to those

observed using other self-rating instruments to assess the

FFM (Aluja, Garcìa, Rossier, & Garcìa, 2005; Rossier, Da-

hourou, & McCrae, 2005). Separate analyses conducted for

girls and boys confirmed this high cross-language replica-

bility. Theonly difference is that mentionedabove concern-

ing E4. This study clearly confirms the cross-language rep-

licability of the five dimensions of the HiPIC, but there is

a slight shift for one facet scale, and this for girls only.

As a conclusion, the French version of the HiPIC is a

reliable and valid tool for assessing children’s personality

traits. The internal consistencies are satisfactory and simi-

lar to those found with the original Flemish version. Dif-

ferences between genders are congruent with those ob-

served using the same instrument with other samples of

preadolescents, but slightly different to thoseobservedwith

adolescent or adult samples, especially concerning Emo-

tional Stability. This might indicate that these differences

develop with age. This study shows several correlations

between personality traits and age. The cross-language and

cross-gender replicability of the structure underlying the

HiPIC was very high.

Acknowledgments

We thank Filip De Fruyt and Barbara De Clercq for cor-

recting the French translation of the HiPIC. We also thank

all teachers and parents who participated in this study.

References

Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullmann, H. (2004). Person-ality development from 12 to 18 years of age: Changes in mean

levels and structure of traits. European Journal of Personality,

18, 445–462.

Aluja, A., García, O., Rossier, J., & García, L.F. (2005). Compar-

ison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short

version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish sam-

ples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 591–604.

Asendorpf, J.B., & vanAken, M.A.G.(2003). Validity of BigFive

personality judgments in childhood: A 9-year longitudinal

study. European Journal of Personality, 17 , 1–17.

Costa, P.T., Jr., Herbst, J.H., McCrae, R.R., & Siegler, I.C. (2000).

Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic maturation, and re-

sponse to life events. Assessment , 7 , 365–378.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (2002). Looking backward:Changes in the mean levels of personality traits from 80 to 12.

In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality

science (pp. 219–237). New York: Guilford.

Costa, P.T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R.R. (2000). Gender

differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and

surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 81, 322–331.

De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2004). A “little

five” lexically basedperspectiveon personalitydisorder symp-

toms in adolescence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18,

479–499.

De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Koot, H.M., & Benoit, Y. (2004).

Quality of life in children surviving cancer: A personality and

multiinformant perspective. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,

29, 579–590.

De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H.A., & Rolland, J.-P.

(2000). Assessing adolescents’ personality with the NEO-PI-

R. Assessment , 7 , 329–345.

De Fruyt, F., & Vollrath, M. (2003). Interparent agreement on

higher and lower level traits in two countries. Effects of parentand child gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,

289–301.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the

five-factormodel. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Finch, J.F. (1997).

The self as a mediator between personality and adjustment.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 392–404.

Kohnstamm, G.A., Halverson, C.F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V.L.

(1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Develop-

mental antecedents of the Big Five? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lamb, M.E., Chuang, S.S., Wessels, H.,Broberg, A.G., & Hwang,

C.P. (2002). Emergence and construct validation of the Big

Five in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their on-togeny in Sweden. Child Development , 73, 1517–1524.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of

personality. In L.A. Perving & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of

personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.139–153). New

York: Guilford.

McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Jr., de Lima, P.M., Simoes, A., Osten-

dorf, F., Angleitner, A., et al. (1999). Age differences in per-

sonality across the adult lifespan: Parallels in five cultures. De-

velopmental Psychology, 35, 466–477.

McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W.D.,

Mills, C.J., De Fruyt, F., et al. (2002). Personality traits devel-

opment from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional,

and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 1456–1468.McCrae, R.R., Zonderman, A.B., Costa, P.T., Jr., Bond, M.H., &

Paunonen, S.V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in

the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor

analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.

Mervielde, I., & Asendorpf, J. (2000). Variable centered and per-

son-centeredapproaches to childhood personality. In S. Hamp-

son (Ed.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 1,

pp. 37–76). London: Routledge.

Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierar-

chical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mer-

vielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personal-

ity psychology in Europe. Proceedings of the Eighth European

Conference on Personality Psychology (pp. 107–127). Neth-erlands: Tilburg University Press.




8/8

Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits

with the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B.

De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment

(pp. 129–146). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Mulaik, S.A. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Robins, R.W., Fraley, R.C., Roberts, B.W., & Trzesniewski, K.H.

(2001). A longitudinal study of personality change in young

adulthood. Journal of Personality, 69, 617–640.

Robins, R.W., Trzesniewski, K.H., Tracy, J.L., Gosling, S.D., &

Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the lifespan. Psy-

chology and Aging, 17 , 423–434.

Rossier, J. (2005). A review of the cross-cultural equivalence of

several frequently used personality inventories. International

Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5, 175–188.

Rossier, J., Dahourou, D., & McCrae, R.R. (2005). Structural and

mean level analyses of the five-factor model and locus of con-

trol: Further evidence from Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 36 , 227–246.Rossier, J., Meyer de Stadelhofen, F., & Berthoud S. (2004). A

comparison of the hierarchical structures of the NEO-PI-R and

of the 16PF5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment ,

20, 27–38.

Rossier, J., Wenger, S., & Berthoud, S. (2001). Validation interne

de la version française du NEO-PI-R et influence de l’âge, du

sexe et de la profession [Internal validation of the French ver-

sion of the NEO-PI-R and impact of age, gender, and profes-

sion]. Psychologie et Psychométrie, 22, 59–82.

Shiner, R.L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in child-

hood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and con-sequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44,

2–32.

Van Leeuwen, K., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2004). A longi-

tudinal study of the utility of the resilient, overcontrolled, and

undercontrolled personality types as predictors of children’s

and adolescents’ problem behavior. International Journal of

Behavioral Development , 28, 210–220.

Jérôme Rossier

Institute of Psychology

University of LausanneAnthropole-3127

CH-1015 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel. +41 21 692 32 72

Fax +41 21 692 32 65

E-mail [email protected]

