[Personality] What is an indicator that allows for easy assessment of the Big Five, a long-standing trait measurement scale? (Oshio et al., 2012)
Personality research is primarily handled in the field of psychology, but it can also be considered a "proximal field" in management, where it is used as an antecedent to leadership and other concepts. Therefore, we will delve into personality research again this time.
Oshio, A., & Abe, S. (2012). An attempt to create a Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 40-52.
What kind of paper is this?
This paper creates a Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), a shortened version of the scale that measures the five factors known as the Big Five, and examines its reliability and validity.
※ This time, I will omit the introduction of each Big Five factor. If you are interested, please check my past posts.
In this study, multiple surveys were conducted on a total of 902 people (376 men, 526 women) to verify the reliability and validity of the scale, and sufficient values were shown for the reliability of each subscale (5 factors).
(Although the reliability of the conscientiousness/diligence item was slightly low, the result that each factor looks at something different was obtained.)
The "Big Five" representing personality traits
According to the authors,"In recent personality trait theory, the most solid findings have been accumulated by the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990, 1992) and the Five Factor Model (McCrae & Costa, 1987)."
they say.
In addition, it has been reported that the same Big Five structure as overseas is confirmed in Japan, and it can be said to bea scale representing personality traits.
Originally, the Big Five was measured with 60 items. Meanwhile, Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann (2003) created the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), whichmeasures the five traits of the Big Five with only 10 items.
Gosling et al. (2003) realized the slimming down from 60 to 10 items by selecting items according to the following five criteria from the Big Five scale and the "Adjective Big Five Scale" found by examining adjectives, which is called lexical research.
Cover a wide range of meanings while referring to the sub-factors of the Big Five
Include positive and negative items that express each aspect of the Big Five
Do not include items that lead to extreme responses (ceiling effects or floor effects)
Avoid items that simply indicate the opposite meaning
Avoid redundant expressions
Gosling et al. (2003) initially also created a scale that measures each of the 5 factors with 1 item each, that is,a scale that measures with 5 items. They quantitatively compared and analyzed that with the 10-item TIPI and revealed that the TIPI was superior.
TIPI subsequently spread to various academic fields such as social psychology, political psychology, and labor economics, and translations were made one after another overseas. In the midst of this, Professor Oshio and his colleagues grasped the need for a shortened version in Japan and began creating a Japanese version.
As a result of the survey and analysis, compared to overseas research,sufficient reliability was shown, and it was able to measure common elements with the five factors of the Big Five scale in existing research to date. In other words, it can be said that Big Five traits can be measured even with a shortened version.
Why was the Japanese version of the TIPI (TIPI-J) developed?
Generally, from the perspective of psychometrics, compared to scales measured with many items, measurement using a small number of items is sometimes viewed as problematic. On the other hand, it is said that in research situations where it is difficult to use a large number of items due to survey constraints, a simple measure that ensures a certain level of reliability and validity is often required (Gosling et al., 2003).
For example, cases with significant constraints on the number of items, such as internet-based surveys or large-scale epidemiological studies, can be considered (if it is too long, respondents may drop out midway).
Also, when conducting repeated measurements on multiple subjects, it is necessary to reduce the burden on respondents.
Recently, in companies, employees have to answer so many surveys that "survey fatigue" seems to be occurring. Under these circumstances, it is thought that the concise TIPI can be an effective tool for efficiently measuring each aspect of the Big Five.
In fact, when you consider that 10 items are sufficient where 60 were previously required, this is convenient...!
Other Japanese version scale development research
While researching, an interesting fact was discovered. Surprisingly, around the same time, a paper regarding a "Big Five Short Version Scale" was published in another academic journal.
Namikawa, T., Tani, I., Wakita, T., Kumagai, R., Nakane, A., & Noguchi, H. (2012). Development of the Big Five Scale Short Version and examination of its reliability and validity. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 83(2), 91-99.
However, this is not a Japanese version of the TIPI, but rather research that developed a short version of the original 60 items. Ultimately, a Japanese Big Five scale short version with 29 questions was developed.
As of September 9, 2023, with 77 citations on Google Scholar, it is imagined that this is a reasonably utilized scale in Japanese papers. (It is rare to find more than 50 citations in Japanese papers.)
On the other hand, the TIPI-J development paper explained above has 139 citations. This one gives the impression of having greater influence.
Reflections
It is interesting that the 10-item and 29-item scales for measuring the personality trait known as the Big Five were developed around the same time, and that both have a certain number of citations.
If it is a study that looks at the correlation or influence relationship with other factors using the Big Five as a single factor, TIPI-J could be used; if one intends to look precisely at the relationship between the five sub-dimensions and other factors, the 29-item short version could be used.
On the other hand, if used as a diagnostic tool, such as a trait diagnostic test, I feel the original 60 questions would be used. (Although I haven't checked...)
It is a learning experience once again to see that various scale developments have been made precisely because it is a personality trait scale that represents psychology.
If such traits are also one form of diversity, then differences in inclusion due to the diversity of traits might also become a subject of research in the future.