Psychometric properties of the Slovak translation of the NEO-PI-R questionnaire

Journal title RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA
Author/s Elena Lisà, Milan Kohút
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2022/3
Language English Pages 20 P. 1-20 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/rip2022oa14728
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The study aimed to verify the psychometric properties of the NEO-PI-R Slovak translation. The self-report sample consisted of 1.062, a retested sample of 122, and an observer rater of 371 persons. In self-assessments, Cronbach's alfa of domains ranged from .88 (Openness) to .92 (Neuroticism). In observer ratings, the reliability ranged from .89 (Extraversion) to .95 (Conscientiousness). The stability of the test-retest showed an average correlation of r = .81 after three months. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors that explained the variance of 60.45%. The agreement between the observers and the self-assessments was at a mean level of .58. The Slovak translation of NEO-PI-R follows the psychometric standards for reliability and construct validity. The study did not follow the educational level and mental health of the research participants.

Keywords: ; NEO-PI-R; reliability; validity; exploratory factor analysis; observer ratings

  1. Aluja, A., García, O., García, L.F., & Seisdedos, N. (2005). Invariance of the “NEO-PI-R” factor structure across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1879-1889.
  2. Benešová, A. (2012). Zhoda pri posudzovaní osobnosti partnerských dvojíc. [Consistency in the rating and self-assessment of personality in partners/spouses]. Bachelor thesis, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava.
  3. Branco e Silva, L., & Laher, S. (2012). Exploring the Utility of the NEO-PI-R in a Sample of South African University Students. IFE Psychologia, 20(1), 19-48.
  4. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Hahn, R., & Comrey, A.L. (2001). Factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R Inventory and the Comrey Personality Scales in Italy and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 217-228.
  5. Cheek, J.M. (1982). Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: Apeer-rating study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1254-1269.
  6. Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegenʼs three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93-114.
  7. Coaley, K. (2010). An Introduction to Psychological Assessment and Psychometrics. London: Sage.
  8. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEOPI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  9. Costa, P.T., Terracciano, A., Uda, M., Vacca, L., Mameli, C., Pilia, G., Zonderman, A.B., Lakatta, E., Schlessinger, D., & McCrae, R.R. (2006). Personality Traits in Sardinia: Testing Founder Population Effects on Trait Me ans and Va ri ance s . Behavior Genetics, 37, 376-387. DOI: 10.1007/s10519-006-9103-6
  10. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. DOI: 10.7275/jyj1-4868
  11. Coulacoglou, C. & Saklofske, D.H. (2017). Recent Advances in Psychological Assessment and Test Construction. In: Psychometrics and Psychological Assessment (3-25). Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-802219-1.00001-8
  12. Evers, A., Muñiz, J., Bartram, D., Boben, D., Egeland, J., Fernández-Hermida, J. R., Frans, Ö., Gintiliené, G., Hagemeister, C., Halama, P., Iliescu, D., Jaworowska, A., Jiménez, P., Manthouli, M., Matesic, K., Schittekatte, M., Sümer, H. C., & Urbánek, T. (2012). Testing practices in the 21st century: Developments and European psychologistsʼopinions. European Psychologist, 17(4), 300-319.
  13. Funder, D.C, Kolar D.C., & Blackman, M.C. (1995). Agreement Among Judges of Personality: Interpersonal Relations, Similarity, and Acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 656-672.
  14. Funder, D.C., & Dobroth, K.M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 409-418.
  15. Furnham, A., Guenole, N., Levine, S.Z., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). The NEO Personality Inventory Revised: Factor Structure and Gender Invariance From Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Analyses in a High-Stakes Setting. Assessment, 20, 14-23. DOI: 10.1177/1073191112448213
  16. Gignac, G.E. (2009). Partial confirmatory factor analysis: Described and illustrated on the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 40-47. DOI: 10.1080/00223890802484126
  17. Hesselmark, E., Eriksson, J.M., Westerlund, J., & Bejerot, S. (2015). Autism Spectrum Disorders and Self-reports: Testing Validity and Reliability Using the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1156-1166. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-014-2275-7
  18. Hoffman, P.D., Buteau, E., & Fruzzetti, A.E (2007). Borderline Personality Disorder: NeoPersonality Inventory Ratings of Patients and Their Family Members. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 53(3), 204-215.
  19. Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and social psychology review: an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 14(3), 332-346. DOI: 10.1177/1088868310361240
  20. Hřebíčková, M. (2002). Vnitřní konzistence čeké verze NEO osobnostního inventáře (NEO-PI-R). [Internal consistency of the Czech version of the NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)]. Československá psychologie, 46(6), 521-535.
  21. Hřebíčková, M. (2004). NEO osobnostní inventář. [NEO personality inventory]. Praha: Testcentrum.
  22. Hřebíčková, M., & Urbánek, T. (2002). Shoda při posuzování osobnosti. Consistency in personality assessment]. In F. Baumgartner, M., Frankovský, M., Kentoš (Eds.): Sociálne procesy a osobnosť 2002. Zborník príspevkov. Košice: Ústav experimentálnej psychológie SAV, 129 -133.
  23. Hřebíčková, M., Urbánek, T., Čermák, I. (2002). Psychometrické charakteristiky NEO osobnostního inventáře (NEO-PI-R) pro sebeposouzení a posouzení druhého. [Psychometric characteristics of NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) for self-assessment and assessment of the other]. Brno: Psychologický ústav Akademie věd ČR.
  24. Ispas, D., Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., & Johnson, R.E. (2014). Exploring the Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality: The Romanian NEO PI-R. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/0022022114534769
  25. John, O.P., & Robins, R.W. (1993). Determinants of Interjudge Agreement on Personality Traits: The Big Five Domains, Observability, Evaluativeness, and Unique Perspective of the Self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521-551. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x
  26. Källmen, H., Wennberg, P., & Bergman. H. (2010). Psychometric properties and norm data of the Swedish version of the NEO-PI-R. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 65(5), 311-314. DOI: 10.3109/08039488.2010.545433
  27. Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
  28. Lednárová, M. (2012). Zhoda pri posudzovaní osobnosti súrodeneckých dvojíc. [Consistency in the rating and self-assessment of personality in siblings]. Bachelor thesis, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava.
  29. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big-five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491.
  30. Marshall, M.B., De Fruyt, F., Rolland, J.P., & Bagby, R.M. (2005). Socially Desirable Responding and the Factorial Stability of the NEO PI-R.
  31. Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 379-384. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.379
  32. Martin, T.A., Costa, P.T., Oryol, V.E., Rukavishnikov, A.A., & Senin, I.G. (2002). Application of The Russian NEO-PI-R. In: R.R. McCrae et al. (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, (261-277). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  33. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A fivefactor theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. DOI: 10.4324/9780203428412
  34. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257-273). The Guilford Press.
  35. 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.
  36. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Martin, T.A., Oryol, V.E., Senin, I.G., et al. (2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(2), 179-201.
  37. Mikulíková, S. (2012). Zhoda pri posudzovaní osobnosti. [Consistency in the rating and self-assessment of personality]. Bachelor thesis, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava.
  38. Pajtinková, T. (2011). Zhoda pri posudzovaní a sebaposudzovaní osobnosti u súrodencov. [Consistency in the rating and self-assessment of personality in siblings] Diplomová práca. Bratislava: Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava.
  39. Pažítková, N. (2011). Zhoda medzi sebaposúdením a objektívnym posúdením osobnosti kamarátmi a rodičmi. [Consistency in the rating and selfassessment of personality in friends and parents]. Bachelor thesis, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava.
  40. Rolland, J.P., Parker, W.D., & Stumpf, H. (1998) A Psychometric Examination of the French Translations of NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI, Journal of Personality Assessment, 71(2), 269-291. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_13
  41. Strelau, J. (2001). The concept and status of trait in research on temperament. European Journal of Personality, 15(4), 311-325. DOI: 10.1002/per.412
  42. Terracciano, A. (2003). The Italian version of the NEO PI-R: conceptual and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(8), 1859-1872. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00035-7
  43. Urbina, S. (2004). Essential of Psychological Testing. Hoboken: John Wiley.
  44. Vassend, O. & Skrondal, A. (2011). The NEO personality inventory revised (NEO-PI-R): Exploring the measurement structure and variants of the fivefactor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1300-1304. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.002

  • Comparing burnout among client facing and non client facing employees using the Copenhagen burnout inventory Karol Kováč, Elena Lisá, in Discover Public Health 604/2025
    DOI: 10.1186/s12982-025-01003-9

Elena Lisà, Milan Kohút, Psychometric properties of the Slovak translation of the NEO-PI-R questionnaire in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA" 3/2022, pp 1-20, DOI: 10.3280/rip2022oa14728