Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:45:57.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Examination of the Spanish Translation of the 50-item International Personality Item Pool Big-five Inventory in a Spanish Speaking Peruvian Sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2020

David J. Hughes Open the ORCID record for David J. Hughes [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniel Pizarro de Olazabal ,
Ioannis K. Kratsiotis Open the ORCID record for Ioannis K. Kratsiotis [Opens in a new window] ,
Ricardo Twumasi Open the ORCID record for Ricardo Twumasi [Opens in a new window]  and
Tom Booth
David J. Hughes*
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester (UK)
Daniel Pizarro de Olazabal
Affiliation:
King’s College London (UK)
Ioannis K. Kratsiotis
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester (UK)
Ricardo Twumasi
Affiliation:
King’s College London (UK)
Tom Booth
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh (UK)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David J. Hughes. The University of Manchester. Alliance Manchester Business School. M13 9PL Manchester (UK). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) five-factor model inventories are widely used for personality research and have been translated into multiple languages. However, the extent of the psychometric assessment of translated scales is variable, often minimal. The lack of psychometric scrutiny is particularly problematic because translation is an inherently complex process. Here, we present a structural analysis of one Spanish translation of the 50-item IPIP five-factor inventory in a sample of Peruvian, non-university educated, working adults (n = 778). A global confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) model of the a priori five factors failed to fit. So too did single factor models for four of the five factors, the exception being Neuroticism. Fit was improved via use of an exploratory structural equation measurement model, but the resultant solution showed very poor theoretical coherence. So, we explored the data for systematic measurement artefacts and sought to model them to improve the psychometric properties of the scale. Specifically, the pattern of factor loadings suggested that the lack of coherence might be due to the effects of the valence of item wording (i.e., positively or negatively worded items). CFA models including five substantive factors and a series of method factors modelling shared covariance based on item wording, improved fit and coherence. This investigation suggests that unless method factors are explicitly modelled the tested Spanish translation may not be suitable for use in certain Spanish-speaking countries or samples composed of non-university educated participants. More broadly, the study has implications for many translated scales, especially when used without thorough psychometric evaluation.

Keywords

IPIPFFMpsychometricmethod artefactsSpanish translation
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 23 , 2020 , e18
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling of personality data. Assessment, 21, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114528029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cupani, M. (2009). El cuestionario de personalidad IPIP–FFM: Resultados preliminares de una adaptación en una muestra de preadolescentes argentinos [The IPIP– FFM Questionnaire of Personality: Preliminary results for the adaptation in a sample of young Argentinean adolescents]. Perspectivas en Psicología, 6, 51–58.Google Scholar
Cupani, M., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2016). The development of an alternative IPIP inventory measuring the Big-Five factor markers in an Argentine sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamantopoulos, A., Reynolds, N. L., & Simintiras, A. C. (2006). The impact of response styles on the stability of cross-national comparisons . Journal of Business Research, 59, 925–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.41.020190.002221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F., & Ostendorf, F. (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe , Vol. 7 (pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M., Zalazar-Jaime, M., Piccolo, N., & Cupani, M. (2012, October). Nuevos estudios de validación del Cuestionario de Personalidad IPIP–FFM [New validation studies of the IPIP-FFM Personality Questionnaire] [Conference Paper]. X Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociedades de Estadística. Córdoba, Argentina. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274718129_Nuevos_Estudios_de_Validacion_Del_Cuestionario_De_Personalidad_IPIP-FFMGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310361240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, D. J. (2018). Psychometric validity: Establishing the accuracy and appropriateness of psychometric measures. In Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary approach to survey, scale and test development . Wiley.Google Scholar
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mlačić, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). An analysis of a cross-cultural personality inventory: The IPIP Big-Five Factor markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 168–177. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701267993CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. 8 th Ed. Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & Bosnjak, M. (2017). Acquiescence response styles: A multilevel model explaining individual-level and country-level differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L. R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013). Correcting Big Five Personality Measurements for Acquiescence: An 18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Alvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–158. http://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33Google ScholarPubMed
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.Google Scholar
Valentine, A. (2013). Is translation enough? A study of the item characteristics which influence equivalence between English and Spanish versions of a selection test (Publication No. 3568766) [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hughes et al. Supplementary Materials

Hughes et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Hughes et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 44.8 KB