Reliability and Validity of the Indonesian Version of Big Five Inventory Muhammad Rizal Fadhli Wibowo*, Whisnu Yudiana, Ilham Phalosa Reswara, Bagus Wahyu Jatmiko Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jl. Raya Bandung-Sumedang Km. 21, Jatinangor, 45363, Indonesia *E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract Big Five Factor inventory (BFI) is widely used to measure personality. Although several studies have measured the reliability and validity of the 44-item Big Five Inventory, there is only a limited number of research measuring the psychometric properties of the Indonesian adaptation of the Big Five Inventory. The present study examines the reliability and validity of the Indonesian version of the Big Five Inventory. The study involved a large sample comprised of 3,882 college students aged 15-22 years old. The instrument was administered on-site for data collection. Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis were conducted to measure the reliability and validity of the instrument. The results showed considerable reliability for items measuring the scales of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism, while the items for Agreeableness and Openness to experience were slightly below standard. Meanwhile, an analysis examining the number of factors of BFI revealed eight factors instead of the original five proposed by the Five Factor Model (FFM) that served as a framework for BFI. There were 11 items that did not fit with the scales. Further development is required to create a more valid instrument. Keywords— Big Five Inventory, Indonesia, reliability, validity
1. Introduction The Five Factor Model (FFM) is one of the most used theories to describe one’s personality. According to the Five Factor Model, human personality can be described in five basic dimensions, namely Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to experience (McCrae & John, 1992). The five dimensions are also known as the Big Five, which is a term first coined by Goldberg (1981), and both terms are often used interchangeably. The simplicity of the theory in describing one’s personality makes the Big Five a widely used theory across nations and cultures. It has been suggested that the Five Factor Model is a universal model to describe one’s personality structure. Several research have exhibited the universality of the Five Factor Model’s construct by demonstrating its applicability in every culture despite differences in language, religion, and history (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Allik, 2002; McCrae et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2007). As such, the Big Five has become a common way to describe personality among researchers (Soto & John, 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011). Several instruments to measure the Big Five have been developed, reflecting a high level of interest in the Five Factor Model (Worrell & Cross Jr., 2004). Some of the
most well-known instruments are the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised as well as its shorter version, NEOFive Factor Index (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Trait Descriptive Adjective (Goldberg, 1992), and the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991). Compared to other instruments, the Big Five Inventory (BFI) is shorter and can be completed in minutes. The BFI was developed specifically as a brief and psychometrically proper measure of the FFM (John & Srivastava, 1999).In addition to the interest in the development of the BFI's structure and form to enhance its validity and efficiency, questions about the universality of the BFI have also been addressed recently. Even though originally developed in English, the instrument has been translated into many different languages (Schmitt et al., 2007). Consequently, validity and reliability tests for the Big Five Inventory are necessary when the instrument is used in countries with different cultural perspectives and languages. Studies have been done to examine the psychometric properties of the Big Five Inventory in several countries. Worrell and Cross Jr. (2004) examined the reliability and validity of BFI with a sample of African-Americans, extracting all of the hypothesized five factors with their sample. Based on Cronbach’s alpha and salient loadings on factors, the results demonstrated moderate reliability of scores on the BFI subscales. Overall, the results suggested that the FFM as measured by the BFI can be applied to
African-American college students. Similarly, the French version of BFI was examined using a large number of French college students and the analysis revealed that the French BFI also managed to extract all the hypothesized five factors, with all five factors showing good internal consistencies (Plaisant et al., 2010). In Malaysia, the BFI has been examined using a sample of nurses, revealing that only four factors could be extracted: Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to experience (Hee, 2014). All four of the extracted factors in the Malaysian study were found to be reliable. Furthermore, Alansari (2016) examined the psychometric properties of the Arabic translation of BFI with a sample that consisted of college students in Kuwait and found that the Arabic translation of BFI had satisfactory levels of reliability and validity on all five scales (Alansari, 2016).
sample of Indonesian college students from multiple ethnic backgrounds.
In Indonesia, there have been a limited number of studies examining the psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the Big Five Inventory. One such study was done by Mastuti (2005), who used factor analysis on a sample of 110 Javanese college students. The results extracted six factors, which included Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Morality. Another study was by McCrae et al. (2005) who collected data from 50 cultures, including Indonesia. Using 196 Indonesian college students as a sample, satisfactory internal consistency was found for every scale. Schmitt et al. (2007) also conducted a large-scale study across 56 countries, in which Indonesia and other South and Southeast Asian countries were included. Fifty-five male and 56 female Indonesian college students were involved in this study. For countries in South and Southeast Asia, good internal reliability was found for Conscientiousness (.71) and Neuroticism (.77). In contrast, Extraversion (.64), Agreeableness (.57), and Openness to experience (.68) had reliability coefficients below .70. Ramdhani (2012) worked on an Indonesian version of the 44-item BFI with both language and cultural adaptations, analyzing its psychometric properties using CFA and reliability analysis. CFA was conducted to confirm the hypothesized model, more particularly to ascertain whether the Indonesian BFI would yield the same results as the FFM. The results obtained from the 44-item model showed that the model did not reach the fitness criteria, and thus the model had to be modified, eventually revealing high reliability on all five dimensions: Extraversion (.73), Agreeableness (.76), Conscientiousness (.78), neuroticism (.74), and Openness (.79). On the other hand, using a sample of Sundanese adolescents, Rizkiyani et al. (2015) examined the psychometric properties of the Indonesian Big Five Inventory and found that only Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism scales showed satisfactory internal consistencies.
B. Instrument
Indonesia is a diverse society that is home to approximately 1,300 ethnic and subethnic groups (Na’im & Syaputra, 2011). Considering that previous Indonesian studies on BFI had never used a large sample comprised of multiethnic individuals, the present study aimed to examine the internal consistency and the structural validity of the Indonesian Big Five Inventory using a large
2. Methods A. Sample A sample of 3,887 first-year college students in a university in Bandung took part in this study. The sample was comprised of 2,237 males (57.6%) and 1,645 females (42.4%), aged 15 to 22 (M=17.83 years, SD=.721). Data collection was carried out during psychological testing in a university in Bandung. Participants were then asked to complete the Indonesian BFI and to provide some demographic information. No incentive was given for participation.
The Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991) has its theoretical roots in the Five Factor Model. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) consists of 44 items that measure five bipolar scales: Extraversion (E; 8 items), Agreeableness (A; 9 items), Conscientiousness (C; 9 items), Neuroticism (N; 8 items), and Openness to experience (O; 10 items). The Big Five Inventory used in this study was the Indonesian version of the BFI, which was translated by the second author of the current study. Participants were asked to express their degree of agreement for every question on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Out of 44 items, sixteen were negatively worded and thus were scored reversely (i.e., items 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43). A personality profile with a score for each scale was obtained as a result of the measurement (John & Srivastava, 1999). C. Data Analysis Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis was conducted to analyze the reliability of the instrument and the reliability of each scale. Validity based on internal structure was examined by exploratory factor analysis. Both the reliability and validity measures were analyzed using SPSS version 21.
3. Results Table 1.
Mean and Standard Deviation
Scale Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness
N of items 8 9 9 8 10
Mean 26.75 34.08 29.23 23.61 36.76
Standard Deviation 6.528 4.905 5.973 6.265 5.506
The results showed that the Openness to experience scale had the highest mean score (M=36.76, SD=5.506), followed by Agreeableness (M=34.08, SD=4.905), Conscientiousness (M=36.76, SD=5.973), Extraversion (M=26.75, SD=6.528), and Neuroticism (M=23.61, SD=6.265), respectively. An analysis using corrected item-total item correlation was conducted to examine the item discrimination index.
All items under the Extraversion scale had good ability to differentiate, with every item having an item discrimination index above .3. As for the Agreeableness scale, two items were found to have unsatisfactory discrimination indexes, namely item number 12 (.287) and item number 42 (.288). All items under the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism scales, on the other hand, had good item discrimination indexes, although three items under the Openness to experience scale had item discrimination indexes below the standard. Overall, a total of five items had relatively low discrimination indexes. Table 2.
Item Differentiation Index
Scale
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness to experience
Item Number 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37 42 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 41 44
Item Discrimination Index .649 .506 .573 .379 .714 .529 .664 .645 .415 .345 .287 .403 .390 .386 .424 .402 .288 .559 .302 .448 .461 .586 .627 .382 .423 .505 .633 .548 .564 .569 .369 .519 .541 .532 .455 .337 .223 .367 .454 .477 .059 .225 .458 .480
Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was conducted to examine internal consistency of the instrument. The results for each factor were .687 for Openness to experience, .846 for Extraversion, .690 for Agreeableness, .787 for Conscientiousness, and .816 for Neuroticism. Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the scores. Rotated matrix using Varimax method was carried out as Worrell and
Cross Jr. (2004) did. The correlations among the extracted factors were then examined. The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (49641.701, p < .001) and the KaiserMeyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was adequate (.876), suggesting that the results could be analyzed further. Eight factors were found after the extraction. The hypothesized five factors only accounted for 41.149% of the scores, while including all eight factors predicted 50.278% of the scores. The first factor was Extraversion, represented by seven items from the Extraversion scale. The items, ordered respectively from the highest to the lowest factor loading, were items number 21: cenderung pendiam (Tends to be quiet), 31: Pemalu dan sulit mengekspresikan perasaan (Is sometimes shy, inhibited), 1: Suka berbicara (Is talkative), 6: Hanya berbicara ketika diminta atau ada tujuan (Is reserved), 36: Mudah bergaul dengan orang lain (Is outgoing, sociable), 11: Energik, bersemangat (Is full of energy), and 26: Percaya diri dalam mengungkapkan pendapat (Has an assertive personality). The second extracted factor was Neuroticism, represented by items number 4: Mudah merasa tertekan dan sedih (Is depressed, blue), 19: Sering merasa khawatir (Worries a lot), 14: Mudah merasa tegang (Can be tense), 9: Tenang dan dapat mengatasi stres dengan baik (Is relaxed, handles stress well), 34: Tetap tenang dalam stiuasi yang sulit (Remains calm in tense situations), 39: Mudah merasa gugup (Gets nervous easily), 29: Mudah murung (Can be moody), and 24: Memiliki emosi yang stabil, tidak mudah marah (Is emotionally stable, not easily upset). The third factor was Conscientiousness, as represented by six items from the Conscientiousness scale that included items number 28: Tekun menyelesaikan tugas sampai dengan selesai (Perseveres until the task is finished), 3: Mengerjakan seluruh tugas sampai dengan selesai (Does a thorough job), 23: Cenderung malas dalam menyelesaikan tugas (Tends to be lazy), 43: Mudah teralihkan dalam mengerjakan tugas (Is easily distracted), 13: Pekerja yang teliti (Is a reliable worker), and 33: Tepat waktu (Does things efficiently). The fourth extracted factor was Agreeableness, represented by items number 7: Penolong dan tidak mementingkan diri sendiri (Is helpful and unselfish with others), 32: Mudah untuk menghargai orang lain (Is considerate and kind to almost everyone), 17: Mudah memaafkan (Has a forgiving nature), 22: Ramah terhadap orang lain (Is generally trusting), 27: Tidak peduli dengan orang lain.
Table 3.
Rotated Component Matrix
E5A_21 E7C_31 E1A_1 E2B_6 E8C_36 E3_11 E6_26 N1_4 N4A_19 N3_14 N2A_9 N7C_34 N8C_39 N6B_29 N5B_24 C6D_28 C1A_3 C5D_23 C9A_43 C3B_13 C7C_33 A2B_7 A7D_32 A4A_17 A5_22 A6C_27 A9C_42 O1A_5 O5_25 O4_20 O3_15 E4B_16 O2_10 O9B_41 O6B_30 O10_44 A3B_12 A8D_37 A1A_2 C2B_8 O7A_35 C4C_18 C8_38
1 .844 .765 .737 .696 .663 .552 .496
2
dalam seni, musik, dan sastra (Is sophisticated in art, music or literature). These items could be recognized as 3
4
5
6
7
8
.742 .695 .691 .667 .664 .636 .573 .443 .795 .749 .749 .630 .505 .391
O8_40
(Can be cold and aloof), and 42: Senang bekerjasama dengan orang lain (Likes to cooperate with others). The fifth factor was Openness to experience, which contained five items mainly from the Openness to experience scale, including items number 5: Mudah memunculkan ide baru (Is original, comes up with new ideas), 25: Suka menciptakan hal-hal baru (Is inventive), 20: Aktif berimajinasi (Has an active imagination), 15: Berfikir kritis terhadap permasalahan (Is ingenious), and 10: Memiliki minat terhadap berbagai hal (Is curious about many different things). However, there was one item -- item number 16: Antusias dalam menanggapi segala hal (Generates a lot of enthusiasm) -- from the Extraversion scale that was grouped into this factor. The sixth factor consisted of three items from the Openness to experience scale, namely items 41: Kurang memiliki minat terhadap keindahan, seni (Has few artistic interest), 30: Menghargai nilai seni dan keindahan (Values artistic, aesthetic experiences), and 44: Terampil
.606 .596 .590 .589 .484 .476 .741 .730 .561 .559 .445 .355 .873 .798 .757 .709 .681 .416 -.567 .523 .487 .372
measurements of the Aesthetics factor, which is a facet of Openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992, as cited in John & Srivastava, 1999). The seventh factor contained three items from the Agreeableness scale, namely items number 12: Terkadang berselisih dengan orang lain (Starts quarrels with others), 37: Terkadang bersikap kasar dengan orang lain (Is sometimes rude to others), and 2: Cenderung mencari kesalahan orang lain (Tends to find fault with others), as well as an item from the Conscientiousness scale, which was item number 8: Terkadang agak ceroboh (Can be somewhat careless). The last extracted factor was represented by items number 35: Menyukai rutinitas (Prefers work that is routine), 18: Cenderung tidak terencana (Tends to be disorganized), 38: Dapat membuat rencana dan menjalankannya (Makes plans and follows through with them), and 40: Suka merefleksikan pengalaman yang didapatkan (Likes to
reflect, play with ideas), which belong to the Openness to experience and Conscientiousness scales. Clearly, some items were grouped outside their supposed scales. In particular, an item from the Extraversion scale (item 16) was grouped among the Openness scale items, while three items from the Conscientiousness scale (items 8, 18, and 38) were not grouped together with the other six items from the Conscientiousness scale. Also, upon extraction, items from the Agreeableness scale were found split between two different groups.
4. Discussion The present study psychometrically evaluated an Indonesian version of BFI in terms of its reliability and validity based on its internal structure. Using Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis, it was found that Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion scales of the Indonesian BFI had satisfactory reliability coefficients for most purposes in basic research (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005). However, the internal consistencies of the other two scales, i.e., Agreeableness and Openness to experience, did not reach an adequate level. The result is consistent with the finding of Rizkiyani et al. (2015), in which the same two scales failed to demonstrate satisfactory reliability levels when tested on a group of Sundanese adolescents. Taken together, these findings suggest that the results may have been affected by errors in measurement. As mentioned earlier, several items did not belong in their supposed scales when extracted using exploratory factor analysis, suggesting that these items did not actually measure their intended constructs. One such example is an item originally from the Extraversion scale (i.e., item 16) that was discovered to measure Openness to experience instead. As reliability depends on the extent to which all items measure the same characteristic (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005), items that fail to measure the constructs of their intended scales or items and instead measure some other construct can lower the reliability index of the scales. Such was the case for both the Agreeableness and Openness to experience scales, whereby some items were not grouped together with other items from the same scales. With regard to the universality of the Big Five, the present study failed to replicate exactly the applicability of the Five Factor Model. While the exploratory factor analysis did produce the five factors of the FFM, three additional factors were extracted. One of the additional extracted factors can be referred to as Aesthetics, which is a facet of Openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992, as cited in John & Srivastava, 1999). By using a more diverse sample from multiple ethnic backgrounds, this study managed to extract more factors than the previous study conducted by Mastuti (2005) using Javanese college students. As such, cultural influences may have accounted for the differences in results, which can perhaps be explained by Triandis and Suh's (2002) argument that the development of personalities is influenced by cultures.
Although universality in personality may indeed exist, it is maintained that some culture-specific aspects also result in variations in personality (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Havill et al. (1998) and Wiggins and Trapnell (1997) (as cited in Graziano & Tobin, 2002) argued that Agreeableness is the least understood factor among the five dimensions. Agreeableness was found to be sensitive to cultural differences and could not always clearly be differentiated from the loads of certain facets of other dimensions (Rolland, 2002). The Agreeableness scale has also been observed to be the least reliable scale in various versions of the BFI, including the Spanish (BenetMartinez & John, 1998), Dutch (Denissen et al., 2008) and Italian (Fossati et al., 2011) versions. A specific factor that seems difficult to be identified in Asian countries is Openness to experience. Some authors (e.g., John et al., 2008; Parker & Stumpf, 1998, as cited in Rizkiyani et al., 2015) have argued that the Openness factor is problematic and the most difficult factor to define. Mastor et al. (2000) argued that people in collectivistic cultures may perceive the Openness factor differently from those in individualistic cultures, which in turn affects the psychometric properties of the factor. There are several limitations to the current study. Firstly, this study used a relatively homogeneous sample in terms of age. Therefore, it may be necessary for future research to include in the sample individuals with a more diverse age range. Second is the fact that the present study did not take into account gender and cultural differences, which also leaves room for improvement in future research.
5. Conclusions A study using a large sample consisting of individuals from multiple ethnic backgrounds had never been done previously in Indonesia, and thus the present study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Indonesian Big Five Inventory using such a sample. In summary, although the Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness scales demonstrated good reliability levels, analysis of the Agreeableness and Openness to experience scales did not produce satisfactory results. The exploratory factor analysis conducted in this study resulted in eight instead of the expected five factors, therefore casting some doubt on the universality of the Big Five, it may also well be that the Indonesian version of BFI still needs to be improved and remains subject to further psychometric evaluations, as two scales of the instrument were found to have unsatisfactory internal consistencies and several items were found not to precisely measure their intended constructs.
References Alansari, B. (2016). The Big Five Inventory (BFI): Reliability and validity of its Arabic translation in non clinical sample. 24th European Congress of Psychiatry/European Psychiatry, 33S, S114-S289. Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). lLos cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the big
five in spanish and english. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., (2011). Personality and individual differences (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: The British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Costa Jr., P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo personality inventory– revised (neo-pi-r) and neo five-factor inventory (neo-ffi) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Denissen, J.J.A., Geenen R., van Aken, M.A.G, Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 152-157. Fossati, A., S. Borroni, D. Marchione and C. Maffei, (2011). The Big Five Inventory (BFI): Reliability and validity of its Italian translation in three independent nonclinical samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 50-58. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 145-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Graziano, W. G. & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70, 5. Havill, V. L., Besevegis, E., & Mouroussaki, S. (1998). Agreeableness as a diachronic human trait. Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five, 49-64. Hee, O. C. (2014). Validity and reliability of the Big Five personality traits scale. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 5 (4), 309-315. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California,Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In John O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press. John, O.P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (Vol. 2, pp: 102-138). New York: Guildford. Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Psychological testing principles, applications, and issues. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Mastor, K.A., Jin, P., & Cooper M., (2000). Malay culture and personality: A Big Five perspective. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 95-111. Mastuti, E.. (2005). Analisis faktor alat ukur kepribadian Big Five (adaptasi dari IPIP) pada mahasiswa suku Jawa (Factor analysis on the Big Five personality instrument (adapted from IPIP) in Javanese university students). Insan, 7, 264-276. McCrae, R.R. & Allik, J. (2002). The Five- Factor Model of personality across culture. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. McCrae, R.R. & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. McCrae, R. R. & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. McCrae, R.R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the 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.
Na’im, A. & Syaputra, H. (2011). Kewarganaegaraan, Suku Bangsa, Agama, dan Bahasa Sehari-hari Penduduk Indoneseia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. Plaisant, O., Courtois, R., Reveillere, C., Mendelsohn, G. A., & John, O. P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory francais (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Annales Medico-Psychologiques, 168, 97-106. Ramdhani, N. (2012). Adaptasi bahasa dan budaya Inventori Big Five. Jurnal Psikologi, 39(2), 189-207. Rizkiyani, F., Shahadan, M. A., & Yudiana, W. (2015). The Indonesian Big Five Inventory (BFI) in a Sundanese adolescent sample: Personality structure and psychometric properties. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(14), 58-66. Rolland, J. P. (2002). Cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality. In McCrae, R.R. & J. Allik, (Eds.), The FiveFactor Model of personality across culture. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Schmitt, D.P., Allik J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 38, 173-212. 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, 8490. Triandis, H. C. & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160. Worrell, F. C. & Cross Jr., W. E. (2004). The reliability and validity of Big Five Inventory scores with African American college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 18-32.
