CONFIRMATORY (SEM) AND SEMICOMFIRMATORY (ESEM) FACTOR ANALYSIS OF A SHORT VERSION OF THE BIG FIVE INVENTORY IN PERUVIAN DRUG ADDICTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21134/haaj.v21i2.604Keywords:
BFI, addictions, SEM, ESEMAbstract
Several publications support personality assessment from big five dimensions analyzed through psychometric instruments such as the BFI; however, there are not many validated studies in drug-dependent patients despite the need for such studies. Objective: The structure and internal consistency of the BFI and a short form without inverse items (BFI 28) were analysed and compared using the SEM and ESEM approach. Method; The properties of the BFI were reviewed and then the inverse items were removed to assess the quality of the BFI 28 between the two approaches. Results: The ESEM of the BFI pointed out problems in its latent structure (ICF < 0.80) and low internal consistency in Extraversion. However, the BFI 28 improved qualitatively and showed favorable goodness-of-fit and ICF > 0.80 in both the SEM and ESEM approaches, except that the ESEM showed omega coefficients < .70 in Conscientiousness and Extraversion. Conclusion: the presence of the inverse items affects the structure and consistency of the BFI. Likewise, the BFI and BFI 28 are influenced by the clinical, educational or socioeconomic characteristics of the sample when they are not similar to those usually studied.
Downloads
References
Ato, M., López, J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales en psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. doi: 10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.729
Chiorri, C., Marsh, H. W., Ubbiali, A., & Donati, D. (2016). Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance across gender of the Big Five Inventory through exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 88 – 99. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1035381
Domínguez, S., Merino, C., Zamudio B., & Guevara-Cordero, C. (2018). Big Five Inventory en Universitarios Peruanos. Resultados preliminares de su validación. Psyche, 20(10), 1-12. doi:10.7764/psykhe.27.2.1052
Domínguez, S., & Merino, C. (2018a). Estructura interna del BFI-10P y BFI-15P: un estudio complementario con enfoque CFA y ESEM. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 10(3), 22-34. doi:10.30882/1852.4206.v10.n3.21037
Domínguez, S., & Merino, C. (2018b). Dos versiones breves del Big Five Inventory en universitarios peruanos: BFI-15p y BFI-10p. Liberabit, 24(1), 81-96. doi:10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n1.06
Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 354-370. doi:10.1037/a0030841
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M. & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory — versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Kunnel John, R., Xavier, B., Waldmeier, A., Meyer, A., & Gaab J. (2019) Psychometric Evaluation of the BFI-10 and the NEO-FFI-3 in Indian Adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (1057), 1-10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01057
Malgady, R. (2007). How skewed are psychological data? A standardized index of effect size. The Journal of General Psychology, 134(3), 355-359. doi:10.3200/GENP.134.3.355-360
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., 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(3), 552-566. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 463-466. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90074-D
RStudio Team (2015). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA. Disponible en: https://www.rstudio.com/
Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., Klein, M. C., Beierlein, C., & Kovaleva, A. (2013a). Eine kurze skala zur messung der fünf dimensionen der persönlichkeit. Methoden, Daten, Analysen, 7(2), 233-249. doi:10.12758/mda.2013.013
Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013b). Correcting big five personality measurements for acquiescence: An 18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27, 71-81. doi:10.1002/per.1894
Ruiz, M. A., Pincus, A. L., & Schinka, J.A. (2008). externalizing pathology and the five-factor model: a meta-analysis of personality traits associated with antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, and their co-occurrence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, (4), 365-388. doi:10.1521/pedi.2008.22.4.365
Salgado, E., Vargas-Trujillo, E., Schmutzler, J. & Wills-Herrera, E. (2016). Uso del Inventario de los Cinco Grandes en una muestra colombiana. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 34(2), 365-382. doi:10.12804/apl34.2.2016.10
Soldz, S. & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five Personality Traits and the Life Course: A 45-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 208–232. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2243
Solís, M. (2015). The dilemma of combining positive and negative items in scales. Psicothema, 27 (2), 192-199. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72737093010
Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano Fernández, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: a questionable practice. Psicothema 30, 149–158. Disponible en: http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/4463.pdf
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., Boer, M. R. van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J.,Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
Tomás, J., Sancho, P., Oliver, A, Galiana, L., & Melendez, C. (2012) Efectos de método asociados a ítems invertidos vs ítems en negativo. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 29(2),105-115. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=243030190001
Vigil, A., Navarro, D., & Morales, F. (2020). To reverse or not reverse Likert.type ítems: that is the question. Psicothema, 32(1), 109-114. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.286
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Health and Addictions Journal/Revista Salud y Drogas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in this journal agree to the journal's statement of ethical principles and to the following terms:
The rights of the published material shall belong to their respective authors. Articles published in HAAJ may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license, and may be read, copied, distributed, printed, searched, or linked to in the full text of this journal without prior permission from the publisher or author, provided that HAAJ and the authors are acknowledged and not used for commercial purposes.
Authors may include the work in institutional repositories or other publications as long as this journal is acknowledged and properly cited.
The HAAJ editorial team encourages authors to disseminate their published work through any means (conferences, classes, lectures, talks, etc.) and/or platforms (social networks, repositories, websites, etc.).
HAAJ follows the Core Practices of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
How to Cite
