大五人格测验在中国应用的信度概化分析

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.01.16

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 对过去20年(1994~2013年)间国内有关大五人格测验的研究文献进行信度概化分析。结果表明:(1)检索到的文献中约68.15%存在"信度引入"现象;(2)未加权估计中,A和O的均值最低,N和C的均值最高,国内所得结果均略低于国外(O除外),而后者的变异性略大(E除外);采用α系数效果量方法,在随机效应模型中,N的估计值最高,O和A的估计值最低;(3)回归分析显示,分数均值、量表来源和南北地域差异是N维度信度的预测变量;量表来源、文章专业类型、测验版本和测验记分对E维度信度具有预测作用;样本量、文章专业类型和量表来源是O维度信度的预测变量;量表来源、文章专业类型、项目数和样本类型对A维度信度具有预测作用;量表来源、项目数、文章专业类型和测验记分是C维度信度的预测变量。

关键词: 大五人格测验, 信度概化, &alpha, 系数, 元分析

Abstract: In this paper, we attempted to analysis the reliability generalization on studies of the Big-Five factor personality tests during the last 20 years (1994~2013) in China. The results showed that:(1) Among all studies, 68.15% caused reliability induction phenomenon. (2) In the unweighted estimating, the lowest reliability coefficient was found for the Agreeableness and Openness, whereas the highest was found for the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. What's more, the reliabilities from Chinese researchers were less than Western counterparts, except the Openness. And the latter had higher variance, except the Extraversion. With the meta-analysis of coefficient alpha, the coefficient alpha of Neuroticism was the highest, whereas Agreeableness and Openness were the lowest, in the random effects model. (3) The result of multivariate regression analysis indicated that sample characteristics such as the mean of scores, regional differences between the south and the north, inventory origin had predictive functions on the reliability for Neuroticism; inventory origin, paper types, testing version, and testing pointing were the main predictor variable for the reliability for Extraversion; sample size, paper types, and inventory origin had predictive functions on the reliability for Openness; paper origin, paper types, the number of the items, and sample types had predictive functions on the reliability for Agreeableness; inventory origin, the number of the items, paper types, and testing pointing were the main predictor variable for the reliability for Conscientiousness.

Key words: Big-Five factor personality tests, reliability generalization, alpha coefficient, meta-analysis

中图分类号:

B844

罗杰, 周瑗, 陈维, 潘运, 赵守盈. 大五人格测验在中国应用的信度概化分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(1): 121-128.

LUO Jie, ZHOU Yuan, CHEN Wei, PAN Yun, ZHAO Shouying. A Reliability Generalization of the Big-Five Factor Personality Tests in China[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2016, 32(1): 121-128.

参考文献

Adelson, J. L., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Measuring the mathematical attitudes of elementary students:The effects of a four-point or five-point likert-type scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(5), 796-807.

Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics emics derived etics:the operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24(6), 721-735.

Botella, J., Suero, M., & Gambara, H. (2010). Psychometric inferences from a meta-analysis of reliability and internal consistency coefficients. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 386-397.

Burisch, M. (1984). You don't always get what you pay for:Measuring depression with short and simple versus long and sophisticated scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(1), 81-98.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The big five questionnaire:a new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(3), 281-288.

Caruso, J. C. (2000). Reliability generalization of the NEO personality scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 236-254.

Caruso, J. C., & Edwards, S. (2001). Reliability generalization of the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(2), 173-184.

Chang, L. (1994). A Psychometric evaluation of four-point and six-point likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205-215.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources. Inc.

Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874-888.

Duijsens, I. J., & Diekstra, R. W. (1995). The 23BB5:a new bipolar Big Five questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(5), 753-755.

Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105-146). New York:American Council on Education and Macmillan.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.

Hakstian, A. R., & Whalen, T. E. (1976). A k-sample significance test for independent alpha coefficients. Psychometrika, 41(2), 219-231.

Hedges, L.V. & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Higgins, J.P.T. & Thompson, S.G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley:University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. R., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy:History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. Handbook of Personality:Theory and Research (3th). New York:The Guilford Press, 114-158.

Lachin, J. M. (2004). The role of measurement reliability in clinical trials. Clinical Trials, 1(6), 553-566.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). More reasons to adopt the five-factor model. American Psychologist,44(2), 451-452.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). 78 members of the personality profiles. Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective:Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547-561.

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less:A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212.

Rodriguez, M. C., & Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 11(3), 306-322.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers:a brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.

Shields, A. L., Howell, R. T., Potter, J. S., & Weiss, R. D. (2007). The michigan alcoholism screening test and its shortened form:a meta-analytic inquiry into score reliability. Substance Use and Misuse, 42(11), 1783-1800.

Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2000). Psychometrics is datametrics:the test is not reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2):174-195.

Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization:exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(1), 6-20.

Vacha-Haase, T., Henson, R., & Caruso, J. C. (2002). Reliability generalization:moving toward improved understanding and use of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 562-569.

Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L. R., Tani, C. R., & Woodall, R. A. (2001). Reliability generalization:exploring variation of reliability coefficients of MMPI clinical scales scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 45-59.

Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Sample compositions and variabilities in published studies versus those in test manuals:validity of score reliability inductions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 509-522.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in "Big Five Factors" personality assessment:reliability generalization across studies and measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 224-235.

Wheeler, D. L., Vassar, M., Worley, J. A., & Barnes, L. L. B. (2011). A reliability generalization meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for the maslach burnout inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 231-244.

Wilkinson, L. (1999). The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Statistical Inference. Statistical methods in psychology journals:Guidelines and explanations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(8), 594-604.

Yang, J., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Dai, X. Y., Yao, S. Q., Cai, T. S., & Gao, B. L. (1999). Cross-Cultural Personality Assessment in Psychiatric Populations:The NEO-PI-R in the People's Republic of China. Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 359-368.

戴晓阳, 吴依泉. (2005). NEO-PI-R在16~20岁人群中的应用研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 13(1), 14-18.

戴晓阳, 姚树桥, 蔡太生, 杨坚. (2004). NEO个性问卷修订本在中国的应用研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 18(3), 170-174.

关丹丹, 张厚粲. (2004). 信度的再认识与信度概括化研究. 心理科学, 27(2), 445-448.

黄希庭, 范蔚. (2001). 人格研究中国化之思考. 西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 27(6), 45-50.

黄希庭. (2004). 再谈人格研究的中国化. 西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 30(6), 5-9.

焦璨, 吴利, 张敏强, 张文怡. (2009). 信度概化研究的新进展评析. 学术研究, 40(2), 54-59.

焦璨, 张洁婷, 吴利, 张敏强. (2010). MMPI在中国应用的信度概化研究. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), 36(4), 48-52.

焦璨, 张敏强, 张洁婷, 吴利, 张文怡. (2011). EPQ信度概化的跨文化比较及其启示. 心理科学, 34(6), 1488-1495.

黎红艳, 徐建平, 陈基越, 范业鑫. (2015). 大五人格问卷(BFI-44)信度元分析——基于信度概化方法. 心理科学进展, 23(5), 755-765.

罗杰, 戴晓阳. (2011a). "大五"人格测验在我国使用情况的元分析. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(6), 740-742.

罗杰, 戴晓阳. (2015b). 中文形容词大五人格量表的初步编制Ⅰ:理论框架与测验信度. 中国临床心理学杂志, 23(3), 381-385.

罗杰, 赵守盈, 潘运, 戴晓阳. (2013). 青少年时间管理倾向量表的信度概化分析. 中国心理卫生杂志, 27(4), 305-309.

王登峰. (1994). 人格特质研究的大五因素分类. 心理学动态, 2(1), 34-41.

王孟成, 戴晓阳, 姚树桥. (2010). 中国大五人格问卷的初步编制Ⅰ:理论框架与信度分析. 中国临床心理学杂志, 18(5), 545-548.

温忠麟, 叶宝娟. (2011). 测验信度估计:从α系数到内部一致性信度. 心理学报, 43(7), 821-829.

杨坚. (1997). 个性结构研究中的五因素模式. 中国临床心理学杂志, 5(1), 56-60.

周晖, 钮丽丽, 邹泓. (2000). 中学生人格五因素问卷的编制. 心理发展与教育, 16(1), 48-54.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	谢和平, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 邓素娥, 段朝辉. 记忆的生成绘图效应及其边界条件：一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 29-43.
[2]	牛湘, 冉光明. 同伴关系与幼儿问题行为关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 473-487.
[3]	程阳春, 黄瑾. 近似数量系统与数学能力的关系:一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 379-390.
[4]	高峰, 白学军, 章鹏, 曹海波. 中国青少年父母教养方式与自杀意念的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 97-108.
[5]	谢云天, 史滋福, 尹霖, 兰洛. 中国父母教养方式与儿童学业成绩关系的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 366-379.
[6]	牛凯宁, 李梅, 张向葵. 青少年友谊质量和主观幸福感的关系:一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 407-418.
[7]	颜志强, 苏彦捷. 认知共情和情绪共情的发展差异:元分析初探[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(1): 1-9.
[8]	辛素飞, 岳阳明, 辛自强. 1996至2016年中国老年人心理健康变迁的横断历史研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(6): 753-761.
[9]	雷丽丽, 冉光明, 张琪, 米倩文, 陈旭. 父母教养方式与幼儿焦虑关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(3): 329-340.
[10]	周丽, 王福兴, 谢和平, 陈佳雪, 辛亮, 赵庆柏. 积极的情绪能否促进多媒体学习?基于元分析的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 697-709.
[11]	李松, 冉光明, 张琪, 胡天强. 中国背景下自我效能感与心理健康的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 759-768.
[12]	辛素飞, 王一鑫. 中国大学生成就动机变迁的横断历史研究:1999~2014[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 288-294.
[13]	辛素飞, 岳阳明, 辛自强, 林崇德. 1996至2015年中国老年人社会支持的变迁:一项横断历史研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 672-681.
[14]	颜志强, 苏彦捷. 共情的性别差异:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 129-136.
[15]	顾红磊, 温忠麟. 多维测验分数的报告与解释:基于双因子模型的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(4): 504-512.