Situational effects in trait assessment: The FPI, NEOFFI, and EPI questionnaires

While most researchers do agree now that situations may have an effect in the assessment of traits, the consequences have been neglected, so far: if situations affect the assessment of traits we have to take this fact into account in studies on reliability and validity of measurement instruments and their application. In the theoretical part of this article we provide a more formal exposition of this point, introducing the basic concepts of latent state–trait (LST) theory. LST theory and the associated models allow for the estimation of the situational impact on trait measures in non‐experimental, correlational studies. In the empirical part, LST theory is applied to three well known trait questionnaires: the Freiburg Personality Inventory, the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. It is shown that significant proportions of the variances of the scales of these questionnaires are due to situational effects. The following consequences of this finding are discussed, (i) Instead of the reliability coefficient, the proportion of variance due to the latent trait, the consistency coefficient, should be used for the estimation of confidence intervals for trait scores, (ii) To reduce the situational effects on trait estimates it may be useful to base such an estimate on several occasions, i.e., to aggregate data across occasions. (iii) Reliability and validity studies should not only be based on a sample of persons representative of those to whom the test will be applied; they should also be conducted in situational contexts representative of the intended applications.

[1]  B. Malle,et al.  Questionnaire Response Latencies: Implications for Personality Assessment and Self-Schema Theory , 1997 .

[2]  W. Mischel Personality and Assessment , 1996 .

[3]  R. R. Abidin Parenting Stress Index: Professional Manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources , 1995 .

[4]  G. Caprara,et al.  The big five as tendencies in situations , 1994 .

[5]  Lawrence A. Pervin,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory , 1994 .

[6]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables , 1992 .

[7]  R. McCrae,et al.  An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[8]  R. Steyer,et al.  States and traits in psychological assessment. , 1992 .

[9]  J. Asendorpf Die differentielle Sichtweise in der Psychologie , 1991 .

[10]  Manfred J. Schmitt,et al.  The effects of aggregation across and within occasions on consistency, specificity and reliability. , 1990 .

[11]  J. M. Digman PERSONALITY STRUCTURE: EMERGENCE OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL , 1990 .

[12]  A. Tellegen,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES An Alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure , 2022 .

[13]  Rolf Steyer,et al.  Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability. , 1989 .

[14]  R. Steyer,et al.  A latent state-trait anxiety model and its application to determine consistency and specificity coefficients , 1989 .

[15]  P. Hettema Personality and environment : assessment of human adaptation , 1989 .

[16]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Untersuchungen zum Fünf-Faktoren-Modell der Persönlichkeit und seiner diagnostischen Erfassung , 1989 .

[17]  S Epstein,et al.  Does aggregation produce spuriously high estimates of behavior stability? , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  R. Larsen,et al.  Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  J. P. Rushton,et al.  Behavioral Development and Construct Validity: The Principle of Aggregation , 1983 .

[21]  A. Furnham,et al.  The evidence for interactionism in psychology: A critical analysis of the situation-response inventories , 1983 .

[22]  S. Epstein A research paradigm for the study of personality and emotions. , 1983, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[23]  W. Mischel,et al.  Beyond déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. , 1982 .

[24]  H. Bauer,et al.  Probability Theory and Elements of Measure Theory , 1982 .

[25]  Seymour Epstein,et al.  The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. , 1980 .

[26]  Seymour Epstein,et al.  The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. , 1979 .

[27]  D. Magnusson,et al.  Personality at the crossroads : current issues in interactional psychology , 1977 .

[28]  E. Diener,et al.  Personality research: components of variance attributable to the person and the situation. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  K S Bowers,et al.  Situationism in psychology: an analysis and a critique. , 1973, Psychological review.

[30]  Hans J. Eysenck,et al.  The Eysenck Personality Inventory , 1965 .