Advertisement

Concurrent validity and expanded interpretation of the M5–50

  • Craig Warlick
  • Paul B. Ingram
  • M. Alexandra Vuyk
  • Karen D. Multon
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The M5–50 is a brief 50 item international personality item pool public-domain five-factor model personality instrument. While public-domain instruments can facilitate social justice by allowing access to instruments to those who may not have the financial resources to use a pay-to-use instrument, public-domain measures may lack the scrutiny given to pay-to-use instruments. This study provides scrutiny through examining the concurrent validity evidence of the M5–50 by correlating it to the proprietary NEO-PI-3. Additionally, to provide additional validity, this study also correlates the M5–50 domains with well-documented relationships with religious fundamentalism. Regarding the NEO-PI-3, the domains of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness appear to well represent their NEO-PI-3 domain counterparts, whereas Extraversion and Agreeableness had weak relationships with some facet-level content. Openness to Experience on the M5–50 appears able to align with both the Openness/Intellect model and a unified domain structure suggested by traditional five-factor model literature as M5–50 domains and items most strongly correlate with the Aesthetics and Ideas facets in the NEO-PI-3 Openness domain. Regarding religious fundamentalism, the M5–50 domain of Openness had an inverse relationship with fundamentalism, while extraversion had a positive relationship with fundamentalism. Interpretive recommendations for the M5–50 and recommendations for future development of brief, IPIP-based Openness to Experience domains are discussed.

Keywords

IPIP NEO-PI-3 M5–50 Personality Five-factor model 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Data Statement

The datasets for this study are not publicly available, but they are available upon reasonable request. The dataset we would provide would strip out individual item responses and they would provide composite information only.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47–54.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid intelligence, crystalized intelligence, and the openness/intellect factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 198–207.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, J. (2010). The five factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10478401003596626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridges, A. N., Wormley, K. A., Leavitt, I. W., & McCord, D. M. (2016). Personality differences in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking individuals with self-reported anorexia. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 29(5).  https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2015-0116.
  6. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlucci, L., Tommasi, M., & Saggino, A. (2011). Socio-demographic and five factor model variables as predictors of religious fundamentalism: An Italian study. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 33(2), 253–268.  https://doi.org/10.1163/157361211X576609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, C. A., Knotts, H. G., McCord, D. M., & Johnson, A. (2013). Taking personality seriously: The five-factor model and public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(4), 397–415.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012446509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO inventories: NEO™ personality inventory-3 (NEO™-PI-3) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  14. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883–892.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny yet effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In N. I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gomez, R. (2006). Gender invariance of the five-factor model of personality among adolescents: A mean and covariance structure analysis approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 755–765.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.012.
  21. Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ big-five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011.
  22. Hofmans, J., Kuppens, P., & Allik, J. (2008). Is short in length short in content? An examination of the domain representation of the ten item personality inventory scales in Dutch language. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 750–755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horton, J. J., & Chilton, L. B. (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings from EC ‘10: The 11 th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 209–218). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1807342.1807376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoyt, A. L., Rhodes, R. E., Hausenblas, H. A., & Giacobbi, P. R., Jr. (2009). Integrating five-factor model facet-level traits with the theory of planned behavior and exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(5), 565–572.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 39–49.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0601_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingram, P. B., Kelso, K. M., & McCord, D. M. (2011). Empirical correlates and expanded interpretation of the MMPI-2-RF restructured clinical scale 3 (cynicism). Assessment, 18(1), 95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110388147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingram, P. B., Boan-Lenzo, C., & Vuyk, M. A. (2013). Openness/intellect in a 50-item IPIP instrument. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(6), 600–605.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913481448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, J. A. (1994). Clarification of factor five with the help of the ABC model. European Journal of Personality, 8, 311–334.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonassaint, C. R., Siegler, I. C., Barefoot, J. C., Edwards, C. L., & Williams, R. B. (2011). Low life course socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with negative NEO PI-R personality patterns. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(1), 13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-009-9069-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh, H. W., Ludtke, O., Muthen, B., Asparohov, T., Morin, A. J., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's mechanical Turk. Behavioral Research, 44, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCord, D.M. (2002). M5–50 Questionnaire [Administration and scoring materials]. Retrieved from http://paws.wcu.edu/mccord/m5-50/
  33. McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, G. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of openness to experience? A test of the O/I model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 571–574.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adaptation of basic traits: A five-factor model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 108–125.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Socha, A., Cooper, C. A., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the M5-50: An implementation of the international personality item Pool item set. Psychological Assessment, 22, 43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the big five inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 84–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Warlick, C. A., Multon, K. D., Ingram, P. B., & Vuyk, M. A. (2017). Profiling religious fundamentalism’s associations with vocational interests. Journal of Career Development, 44(3), 266–279.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316647514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warlick, C. A., Ingram, P. B., IV, Ternes, M. S., & Krieshok, T. S. (2018). An investigation into the structural form of the O* NET–interest profiler–short form. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(3), 503–514.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717714544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williamson, P. W., Hood, R. W., Jr., Ahmad, A., Sadiq, M., & Hill, P. C. (2010). The Intratextual fundamentalism scale: Cross-cultural application, validity evidence, and relationship with religious orientation and the Big 5 factor markers. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 13(7–8), 721–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of KansasKansasUSA
  2. 2.Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychological SciencesTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  4. 4.Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Independencia Nacional y ComunerosUniversidad Católica Nuestra Señora de la AsunciónAsunciónParaguay

Personalised recommendations