Common method variance in NEO-FFI and IPIP personality measurement

Including a method factor on which all items loaded significantly improved fit of CFAs of both IPIP and NEO-FFI data. Fit was further improved by separating the method factor into two factors representing construct-positive and construct-negative items. The criterion-related validity of conscientiousness increased when uncontaminated by method bias. PRESS PARAGRAPH This research extends previous findings of contamination of personality scores by common method bias to the popular NEO-FFI measure of personality traits. Previous studies have found that responses to the IPIP Five Factor Model personality assessment are contaminated by common method bias, and that factors representing constructpositive and construct-negative items contribute separately to that contamination. The present research found similar results for the NEO-FFI measure, indicating almost 14 percent of total variance in responses is associated with such response biases. The effects of this contamination on validity are shown and suggestions for dealing with it are discussed.

[1]  José M. Tomás,et al.  Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale: Two Factors or Method Effects. , 1999 .

[2]  H W Marsh,et al.  Positive and negative global self-esteem: a substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  D. Paulhus.  Measurement and control of response bias. , 1991 .

[4]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[5]  Ann Marie Ryan,et al.  The Big Five in Personnel Selection: Factor Structure in Applicant and Nonapplicant Populations , 1993 .

[6]  L. R. Goldberg.  A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models , 1999 .

[7]  W. E. Hensley,et al.  Dimensions of Rosenburg's Self-Esteem Scale , 1976, Psychological reports.

[8]  William H. Glick,et al.  Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? , 1998 .

[9]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[10]  N. Nguyen,et al.  Time on task mediates the conscientiousness - performance relationship , 2008 .

[11]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS , 2007 .

[12]  J. Nunnally.  Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .

[13]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Testing the "Side-Bet Theory" of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations , 1984 .

[15]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool , 2006 .

[16]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Correlates of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Method Effects , 2006 .

[17]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Measures Of Personality And Social Psychological Attitudes , 1991 .

[18]  N. Nguyen,et al.  Structural equation models of faking ability in repeated measures designs , 2004 .

[19]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  Dennis Doverspike,et al.  Comparison of factor structures and criterion-related validity coefficients for two measures of personality based on the five factor model. , 1996 .

[21]  R. Motl,et al.  Longitudinal Invariance of Self-Esteem and Method Effects Associated With Negatively Worded Items , 2002 .

[22]  Joseph A. Cote,et al.  Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing across 70 Construct Validation Studies , 1987 .

[23]  S. Lirtzman,et al.  Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations. , 1970 .