1987Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyRequires access

Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors?

Patricia Noller, Henry G. Law, Andrew L. Comrey

Open publisher page 170 citations

Abstract

We administered the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF), the Comrey Personality Scales (CPS), and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) to a sample of 669 Australians that was controlled in composition for age, sex, and social class. Factor analyses derived from analyzing scales of the three inventories in the same matrix produced a group of factors that were similar to the five robust factors of personality found in studies that used ratings by others. Two of the factors were similar to the two EPI scales and five were similar to five of the eight CPS scales. One of these five factors was similar to a single 16 PF scale. The 16 PF scales were highly overlapping and factorially complex, an indication that fewer than 16 separate constructs are measured at the primary level. There were, however, clear relations between the five factors and the second-order factor structure of the 16 PF, as Karson and O'Dell (1976) described.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We administered the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF), the Comrey Personality Scales (CPS), and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) to a sample of 669 Australians that was controlled in composition for age, sex, and social class. Factor analyses derived from analyzing scales of the three inventories in the same matrix produced a group of factors that were similar to the five robust factors of personality found in studies that used ratings by others. Two of the factors were similar to the two EPI scales and five were similar to five of the eight CPS scales. One of these five factors was similar to a single 16 PF scale. The 16 PF scales were highly overlapping and factorially complex, an indication that fewer than 16 separate constructs are measured at the primary level. There were, however, clear relations between the five factors and the second-order factor structure of the 16 PF, as Karson and O'Dell (1976) described.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 170 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

We administered the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF), the Comrey Personality Scales (CPS), and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) to a sample of 669 Australians that was controlled in composition for age, sex, and social class. Factor analyses derived from analyzing scales of the three inventories in the same matrix produced a group of factors that were similar to the five robust factors of personality found in studies that used ratings by others. Two of the factors were similar to the two EPI scales and five were similar to five of the eight CPS scales. One of these five factors was similar to a single 16 PF scale. The 16 PF scales were highly overlapping and factorially complex, an indication that fewer than 16 separate constructs are measured at the primary level. There were, however, clear relations between the five factors and the second-order factor structure of the 16 PF, as Karson and O'Dell (1976) described.

Key concepts: Psychology, Personality, Social psychology, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Big Five personality traits, Alternative five model of personality, 16PF Questionnaire, Extraversion and introversion

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? — Research Paper | ScholarLens