compulsory critique neo pi r

Running Head: A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

A critique of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Elizabeth A. Forsyth

Bond University

Author Note

This critique was submitted by Elizabeth Forsyth, Humanities and Social Sciences,

Bond University as partial course assessment for PSYC13-302: Personality and

Individual Differences.

A CRITIQUE OF THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTROY

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992)

measures the five latent personality variables proposed by the Five Factor Model

(FFM) (Norman, 1961). The FFM incorporates broad, normative traits that underlie

key individual differences. The factors and related traits are Neuroticism which

measures emotional stability, Extraversion which measures outgoingness and docility,

Openness to Experience which measures conventionality and curiosity, Agreeableness

which measures amiability and competitiveness, and Conscientiousness which

measures goal striving and self-regulation (Costa & McCrae, 2008).

This essay will introduce the theoretical history and development of the NEO-

PI-R. The demonstrated psychometric properties of the test will then be discussed

followed details on administration and scoring of the test. The clinical utility of the

test will then be discussed followed by a discussion of practical strengths and

weaknesses, specifically pertaining to protocol validity. From these discussions,

suggestions for the appropriate clinical use of the NEO-PR-I will be made.

Theoretical Basis, Test Development and Test Format

The Five Factor Model conceptualises personality variables according to Trait

Theory. Trait theory identifies consistent, lasting individual differences effecting

emotion, behaviour and cognition (McCrae & Costa, 2008). The theoretical strength

of the FFM is its foundation in comprehensive literary revision (Costa & McCrae,

1980). FFM re-structured facets were originally acknowledge in the 16 Factor Model

(Cattel, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970) and reflect consistencies with other measures

(McCrae & Costa, 2008). Eyensck and Eyensck’s (1975) Extraversion (E) and

Neuroticism (N) were originally proposed alongside Openness to Experience (O). O

emerged through consistencies in the work of Rogers (1961), Fitzgerald (1966) and

Cattel, Eber & Tatsuoka (1970). This led to the release of the NEO-PI, which was

2


revised to incorporate full facet-scales of Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness

(C). The identification and conceptualization of A and C drew from the 1960’s

taxonomy approach of Norman (1963) and Tupes & Christal (1963) (McCrae &

Costa, 1987).

To effectively operationalise these personality constructs, pilot trait items were

formulated in accordance with previously psychometrically established measures

(Costa & McCrae, 2008). Targeted factor analysis on large, adult tests specified items

with the highest correlations as potential traits for each factor (Costa & McCrae,

2008). Factor items were then selected using their discriminative validity with respect

to factors they were not intended to represent (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In doing this,

Costa & McCrae (2008) identified unique constructs pertaining to each factor and a

set of self-evaluating items. Selection using discriminant validity strengthened the

soundness of these items as quantifiable measures of each factor by minimising

overlap between factor’s traits.

The NEO-PR-I contains 240 self-report items (Form S). The factor scales are

each measured according to six underlying traits. These traits are measured using

eight items rated on a five-point scale. The 30 trait scores, six facet measures for each

of the five factors, provide a cumulative score for each factor and also help to indicate

an individuals precise expression their factor scores (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Form R

records observer’s scores with test items written in third person. Scoring is either done

by hand or via Professional Assessment Report software. In this way the test provides

a detailed measure of an individuals tendency regarding these factors and their unique

expression of each factor. This aids in individual diagnosis and treament of a client.

Psychometrics of the NEO-PI-R

3


The forefather of the NEO-PI-R, the NEO-PI, was well established

psychometrically (Furnham, Crump & Whelan, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1985;

McCrae, 1987). Thus, the NEO-PI-R is predisposed to psychometric accuracy when

capturing the latent factor variables.

The NEO-PI-R has shown strong reliability in normative populations.

Reported Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability coefficients for factor scores range

between .86 - .96 (Kurtz, Lee & Sherker, 1999;Paunonen, 2003). Paunonen (2003)

also reported that Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability coefficients for the NEO-PI-R

ranged between .86 - .89, compared to .72 - .86 for other Five Factor measures.

Clinical populations have reported less internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha (α)

reliability coefficients ranging from .64 - .81 (Trull, Useda, Costa & McCrae, 1995).

Less consistency has been demonstrated when analyzing facet-level responses

with Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability coefficients ranging from .51 - .86 (McCrae &

Costa, 2008). This finding is consistent with the biological and environmental origin

of some traits. Furthermore, highly consistent facet scores would indicate extreme

levels of a trait, likely to be maladaptive and associated with psychopathology. This

idea that facet scores represent individual nuances is supported by McCrae, Martin

and Costa (2005) who reported that facets with Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability

coefficients less than .70 show evidence of heritability, consistency with third party

observer ratings and longitudinal stability.

Test-retest analysis has indicated strong short-term and long-term temporal

stability of factor scores. A two-year test-retest reported Pearson’s (r) correlation

coefficients ranging from .83 to .91 (McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond & Paulhus, 1998).

A ten-year test-retest reported Pearson’s (r) correlation coefficients of .70 for facet

scores and .81 for factor scores (Terraccian, Costa & McCrae, 2006).

4


Peer and spouse observer scores have been used in research to confirm the

validity of individual protocols and factor predictive abilities. Importantly, these

observer ratings have demonstrated consistency and stability with Cronbach’s alpha

(α) reliability coefficients ranging between .88 and .93 (McCrae, Martin & Costa,

2005) and test-retest Pearson’s (r) correlation coefficients ranging between .70

and .86 (Kurtz, Lee & Sherker, 1994).

Furthermore, the NEO-PI-R shows strong construct validity. Acceptable inter-

correlations between the NEO-PI-R and relevant factors within three and four factor

measures (r = .80, p < .001) have been shown, validating the convergence with like

factors (Alujaa, Garcı Ja & Garcı Ja, 2002). Pearson’s (r) correlation coefficients of the

NEO-PI-R and adjective scales are also strong: r = .85 (McCrae & Costa, 2008).

Correlation coefficients for the NEO-PI-R, the NEO-FFI and FF- NPQ are reported as

r = .59 (Paunonen, 2003). This correlation supports the validity of the NEO-PI-R

measures given the NEO-FFI and the FF-NPQ are designed for younger and illiterate

responders.

The face validity of the NEO-PI-R further strengthens the validity of its

construct measurement. Simple and short items are used in the NEO-PR-I, for

example, “I only act rashly when I am upset” to measure impulsivity (Costa &

McCrae, 1992). Concurrent validity tests support this. NEO-PI-R factor scores and

linearly or inversely related criterions show preditcable correlations. For example,

Neuroticism and Intelligence: r = -.33, and O and Liberal Arts: r = .38 (Paunonen,

2003). Facet scores have shown high predictive relevance with clinical measures also.

Specifically, facets scores accounted for 60% of variance (R2) in Schizophrenia scale

scores and 65% of variance (R2) in Pscyhasthenia scale scores from the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) (Quirk, Christiansen, Wagner &

5


McNulty, 2003). Similarly, strong divergence was shown between NEO-PI-R factors

and theoretically unrelated MMPI-2 scales (Quirk et al., 2003) such as Openness and

Paranoia, (r = -.02, ns) Agreeableness and Masculinity/Femininity (r = -.03, ns) and

Extraversion and Feminine Role (r = .06, ns) (Quirk et al., 2003).

Gender-specific and unisex normative information for NEO-PI-R scores were

developed using samples of American men and women (N= 2,273) selected to match

age and race data from the 1995 US census (Samuel et al., 2010). These norms may

offer some reliable basis for Australian respondents with western backgrounds.

However, indigenous Australian respondents have no reliable normative information

to guide the interpretation of their scores.

Gender norms for males and females follow consistent gender differences, for

example, a raw score of 134 on N equates to T-scores of 80 and 73 for a male and

female respectively. Factor T-scores are bracketed in the following manner: 65 or

more is classified as very high, 55-65 is classified high, 45-55 is classified as average,

35-45 is classified as low and 25-35 is very low (Carter et al. 2001; Costa & McCrae,

2008). Clinical prototypes have been established using expert’s Likert ratings (very

low: 1, to very high: 5) of each traits level in prototypical responses of individuals

with disordered personalities (Lynam & Widiger, 2001). This aids the diagnostic

utility of the NEO-PI-R.

The NEO-PI-R factors have been replicated cross-culturally (McCrae & Allik,

2002). Similar personality profiles have been found between historically and

geographically related cultures (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005) supporting the scalar

equivalence of the measure (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). Translations are available

for 40 different languages. Localised T-scores are available for 15 countries with

further normative information to come (Costa & McCrae, 2008). This allows for the

6


comparison of scores between multiple cultures and aids intensive research into

cultural differences (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). This also means consistent,

culturally relevant trait measurement is possible using the NEO-PI-R.

Administration of the NEO-PI-R

The administration of NEO-PR-I is outlined in the manual. Administration can

be either verbal or paper (Costa & McCrae, 2008). The measure is designed for

participants aged 18 or older (Costa & McCrae, 2008). To minimize disordered

answering, clinicians are advised to clearly explain the purpose and privacy of

responses to engage high cooperation and provide ample testing time and a

comfortable setting.

The test is copyrighted and registered as a Level B assessment, requiring a

bachelor degree in Psychological Science or in a similar field (McCrae & Costa,

2008). Scoring is regarded as simple and relatively easy (NZCER, 2011) and testing

time is approximately 40 minutes (NZCER, 2011).

The cost of the test is substantially less than other tests, with reusable response

forms, S and R, available in sets of 10 for $92.00 and scoring sheets available in sets

of 25 for $82. Software response analysis costs $7.90 per test. Unlimited analysis is

available using the NEO Software System costing $495.00 (NZCER, 2011).

Clinical Utility, Incremental Validity and Treatment planning

Unlike assessments such as MMPI–2 and the Personality Assessment

Inventory (PAI) which are specifically designed to measure and diagnose clinical

pathology, the NEO-PI-R measures normal traits. These five traits operationalised in

the NEO-PI-R are important indicators of vulnerability to psychopathology in light of

Paul E. Meehl’s diathesis-stress model (Peterson, 2006). Research indicates that

NEO-PI-R pathology prototypes are convergent with other measures of the same

7


disorder, divergent with unrelated disorders, criterion predictive and temporally stable

(Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis, 2004). The clinical module of the NEO-PI-R software

highlights a protocol similarity to clinical prototypes (Costa & McCrae, 2008).

Alongside a clinical interview, this information can strongly suggest correct diagnosis

(Costa & McCrae, 2008). In this way the NEO-PI-R provides trait information to

supplement the findings of a clinical interview. This may provide a more

comprehensive means of assessing a client, rather than diagnosis via psychometric

testing alone.

Practically, however, it must be considered if the NEO-PI-R’s clinical utility

and incremental validity is supported when compared to more direct measure of

psychopathology, given the financial and temporal costs involved with each test.

Research by Quirk et al. (2003) specifically compared MMPI-2 scores and NEO-PI-R

scores for a large sample (N=1342) of drug abusing patients diagnosed with Axis I

and Axis II disorders. NEO-PI-R’s N factor was accounted for 48-63% of the variance

in depression and Pscyhasthenia MMPI-2 scales respectively. Factor scores of

Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness showed mild improvement to

MMPI-2 classifications of depressive disorders, bipolar, PTSD, and borderline

Personality Disorders. The facet scores increased Overall Correct Classification by

10% for all disorders except depressive disorders and narcissistic PD, for which OCC

increased by 5% (Quirk, Christiansen, Wagner and McNulty, 2003). Therefore

incremental validity and diagnostic efficiency of the NEO-PI-R interpretation is sound

when compared to a classic measure of psychopathology such as the MMPI-2.

While the increase in OCC is not excessive, facets scores also provide

insightful information for treatment planning (Costa & McCrae, 2008). Facets show

strong predictive validity for future behaviour and so highlight effective treatments for

8


the individual. Simple applications, such as extravert patients involved in supportive

group therapy and introverts in interpretative group therapy (Ogrodniczuk, Piper,

Joyce, McCallum & Rosie, 2003), guide broad treatment approaches.

Practical Considerations

Strengths of the NEO-PI-R are its reliability, predictive validity and

incremental validity with regards to other prominent pathology measures. The

constructs and their operationalization can be considered sound measures of key

individual differences. The support for factor structures across cultures makes the

NEO-PI-R a valuable measure for Australian clinicians given the diverse

demographic they treat. This is useful for building understanding between clinician

and client. Furthermore, measuring normal traits identifies client’s strengths and

weaknesses, which guides diagnosis and also personalised treatment.

It must be a practical consideration, if not a limitation, that the NEO-PI-R

lacks validity scales for social desirability (SD) or positive presentation management

(PPM). Large cooperative samples have established statistically unlikely answer

strings (Costa & McCrae, 2008) with 6 consecutive strongly dislikes, 9 disagrees, 10

neutrals, 14 agrees or 10 strong agrees rendering a test invalid (Costa & McCrae,

2008). Unobtrusive validity checks like this are argued to help maintain client and

clinician trust (McCrae & Costa, 2008). 2% of normal population protocols are

deemed invalid (McCrae & Costa, 2008) indicating high levels of honest scores. This

has been attributed the unobtrusive validity checks (McCrae & Costa, 2008) and

balance keying, which controls for acquiescence and nay-saying (Costa & McCrae,

2008).

Factor structure has also been examined cross-culturally using samples of high

PPM respondents and normative samples. Factor structure remained stable despite

9


varying levels of SD and PPM (Marshall, De Fruyt, Rolland & Bagby, 2005).

Significant differences were found, however, between the mean factor scores of high

PPM and normative participants. These were differences were in a socially desirable

direction. For example, on average, the high PPM group scored significantly lower on

N whilst scoring higher on E, C and A compared to normative responders. This

indicates that PPM has the potential to influence factor scores.

This is an important consideration given that forensic and pathological patients

show heightened levels of PPM (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Clearly elements of their

personality are deemed socially inappropriate. This is evidenced by 24% of drug

dependent outpatients supplying invalid protocols (Carter et al., 2001). Thus as a

clinician administering the NEO-PI-R, the incorporation of Effort Testing Scales and

Social Desirability Scales would yield the most objective view of a clients responses.

Conclusions and suggestions for clinical use

It is clear that the NEO-PI-R is a valuable measure of normal personality

traits. It affords considerable understanding of a clients present strengths and

weaknesses and likelihood of disordered personality. The facet-level scores should be

used to guide treatment because of their high concurrent and predictive validity and

ability to capture individual nuances.

There is a marked lack of information for Australian indigenous norms.

Clearly the NEO-PI-R should be used cautiously with this client demographic unless

there is clear evidence to suggest that western norms can reliably guide interpretation.

Normative information is available for many cultures within the Australian

population, and these norms should be kept in mind where western norms would not

be appropriate.

10


Clinicians specializing in pathological presentation and forensic populations

should strongly consider the need for SD and PPM or NPP validity checks. Clients of

this background are differentially motivated to distort responses. Thus the high

protocol validity rates of normative samples should not be used to assure valid

protocols in pathological and forensic patients. Furthermore, measures such as the

MMPI-2 and Personality Assessment Inventory may be more suitable to these

populations due to the lack of inbuilt validity checks. That being said, the incremental

validity and lower cost of the NEO-PI-R may justify its inclusion in a battery of tests

for overall assessment.

The NEO-PI-R is a valuable personality measure in both clinical and research

fields. This measure assures in-depth understanding of an individual, but its use

should be considered alongside the presence of relative norms. The progress of

cultural research using this measure will undoubtedly address this in years to come.

11


References

Alujaa, A., Garcı Ja, O. & Garcı Ja, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s

three structural models for personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R,

EPQ-RS and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual

Differences, 33: 713–725. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00186-6.

Carter, J. A., Herbst, J. H., Stoller, K. B., King, V. L., Kidorf, M. S., Costa, P. T., &

Brooner, R. K. (2001). Short-Term Stability of NEO–PI–R Personality Trait

Scores in Opioid-Dependent Outpatients. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors,15, 255–260. doi: 10.1037//0893-164X.15.3.255.

Cattel, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). The Handbook of the Sixteen

Personality-Factor Questionnaire. Champaign IL: Institute of Personality and

Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T, & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a

key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B., Baltes & O. G., Brim

(Eds.), Life span development and behaviour, 3, 65-102. New York: Academic

Press.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-

R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Neo Inventories. In R. P. Archer & S. R.

Smith (Eds.), Personality Assessment, (213-243). New York: Routledge.

Eyensck, H. J., & Eyensck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eyensck Personality

Questionnaire. San Diego: EDITS.

Fitzgerald, E. T. (1966). Measurement of openness to experience: A study of

regression in the service of the ego. Journal of Personality and Social

12


Psychology, 4, 655-663. Doi: 10.1037/h0023980

Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Whelan, J. (1997). Validating the NEO Personality

Inventories using assessor’s ratings. Personality and Individual Differences,

22, 669-675. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00261-9.

Kurtz, J., E., Lee, P., A., & Sherker, J., L. (1999). Internal and temporal reliability

estimates for informant ratings of personality using the NEO-PI-R and IAS,

Personality Assessment, 6, 103-113. doi: 10.1177/107319119900600201

Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five factor model to represent

DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach, Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 110: 401-412. doi: 10.1037/10021-843X.110.3.401

Marshall, M. B., De Fruyt, F. D., Rolland, J., & Bagby, M., R. (2005). Socially

desirable responding and the factor stability of the NEO-PI-R, Psychological

Assessment, 17, 379-384. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.379.

Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004). The validity of the five-factor

model prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples, Personality

Assessment, 16, 310-322. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.310.

McCrae, R. R., & Allick, J. (Eds.). (2002). The Five-Factor Model of personality

across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequate taxonomy”:

Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in

questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52, 82-90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.

13


McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The Revised Neo Personality Inventory (NEO-

PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.) Sage handbook of

personality theory and assessment, Volume 2: Personality Measurement and

Testing (179-196). California: SAGE Publications Incorporated.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A., (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more

readable revised NEO Personality Inventory, Journal of Personality Assessment,

84, 261-270. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05.

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T., (2005). Personality profiles of

cultures: Aggregate personality traits, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

89, 407-425. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407.

McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998).

Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and

peer ratings studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 1041-1055. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.1041.

New Zealand Counsel for Educational Research (2011). Neo Personality Inventory

Revised. Accessed on 6/10/2011. URL: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pts/neo-

personality-inventory-revised.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:

Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings, Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. doi: 10.1037/h0040291.

Ogrodiniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., McCallum M., & Rosie, J. S. (2003).

NEO five factor personality traits as predictors of response to two forms of

group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 53, 417-

442. doi: 10.1521/ijgp.53.4.417.42832.

14


Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of

Behaviour, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 441, doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.277.

Peterson, D. R. (2006). Paul E. Meehl’s contributions to personality assessment,

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 201-204. Doi: 10.1037/0021-

843X.115.2.201.

Quirk, S. W., Christiansen, N. D., Stuart, W., Wagner, S. H., & McNulty, J. (2003).

On the Usefulness of Measures of Normal Personality for Clinical

Assessment: Evidence of the Incremental Validity of the Revised NEO

Personality Inventory, Psychological Assessment, 151, 311-325. doi:

10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.311.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. New

York: Houghton Mifflin.

Samuel, D. B., Ansell, E. A., Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Markowitz, J. C., Skodol

A. E., & Grilo, C. M. (2010). The Impact of NEO PI–R Gender Norms on the

Assessment of Personality Disorder Profiles, Psychological Assessment, 22,

539-545, doi: 10.1037/a0019580.

Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Personality plasticity after age

30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999-1009. doi:

10.1177/0146167206288599.

Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R (1995). Comparison of the

MMPI–2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the

NEO-PI-R, Psychological Assessment, 7, 508–516. doi: 10.1037/1040-

3590.7.4.508.

15


Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961/1992). Recurrent personality factors based on

trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1992.tb00972.x.

Whiteside, S., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using

a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity, Personality and

Individual Differences, 30, 669-689. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7.

16

compulsory critique neo pi r

Documents