The Turkish adaptation of the ten-item personality inventory/On-maddeli kisilik olcegi'nin Turk kulturu'ne uyarlanmasi.
Personality is one of the important areas of psychology and is addressed as the whole of organized emotional, cognitive, social and physical characteristics in the literature. In addition, personality is addressed as the whole of characteristics which are innate, which are shaped by interaction with the environment and which do not change easily (1,2).
Psychiatrists who work on the subject of personality focus on how a person differentiates from others and resembles others. Personality characteristics differentiate a person from others and form the basis of the predictions directed towards the future behaviors of the person (3). Personality hypotheses showed a development from psychoanalytic approach to characteristic approach (psychoanalytic, behavioral, character and phenomenologic, respectively). When the literature is examined, it can be stated that the personality theory which has been mostly emphasized in recent years is the Big-Five Personality Theory (3,4,5).
The basis of the Big-Five Personality Theory is the view that different personality characteristics perceived will be reflected in expressions of daily life in various cultures and individual differences will be coded as different words in the language (3,6). Briefly, the Five Factor model is composed of five subdimensions including extraversion-intraversion, amenability-obstinacy, responsibility-untidiness, emotional balance-imbalance and openness to experience/intelligence-immaturity (7). Extraversion involves characteristics including being lively, clubable, talkative, social and excited. Extravert individuals have more energy, more positive influence and more expectation of positive events compared to introvert individuals and are more sensitive to reward (3,6). The dimension of amenability involves characteristics including being compassionate, polite, respectful, gentle, flexible and safe. Costa and McCrea (8) state that the dimension of amenability involves characteristics including honesty, altruism, confidence and obedience, modesty and mercifulness. Individuals placed in the dimension of obstinacy which is on the other end of amenability have the characteristics including being pessimist, rude, distrustful, uncooperative, merciless, angry and selfish. The dimension of responsibility involves effort for success, competence, task-oriented behavior, regularity, self-discipline and cautiousness. Individuals placed in the dimension of irresponsibility which is on the other end of responmsibility cannot organize themselves sufficiently and have difficulty in establishing their own standards because of insufficient self-discipline and energy (7). Emotional imbalance is represented with the characteristics of being anxious, worried, nervous and distrustful and struggling with oneself all the time. Studies have shown that individuals diagnosed to be neurotic have a high score in the dimension of emotional imbalance. Negative emotions inclusing anxiety, depression, anger and distress are found in the basis of emotional imbalance. The dimension of openness to experience is defined with characteristics including being brave, fond of change, curious, independent, liberal, analytic, having extensive interests and untraditional (3,7). Individuals who are open to experience tend to have active imagination, interest for esthetics, sensitivity to emotions, preference for variation, intellectual curiosity and independent judgement. Individuals in the other dimension of openness to experience are superficial, simple and plain and have considerably traditional attitudes in interpersonal relations (1,2,3).
In the literature, it is observed that different measurement tools have been developed to measure five basic personality traits (3,9,10,11,12,13). One of the scales developed based on the Five Factor Personality Model is the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) (14). The scale is composed of ten items and each item includes two adjectives which had a similar meaning. Because of this method it can be stated that the items of TIPI are far from complex sentence structures. TIPI has English, Spanish (2 versions), Chinese, Chorean, Janapese, German, Farsi, French, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch (2 versions), norvegian and Swedish versions (15). All versions of the scale include 10 items. The items of the scale are answered in a 7-point Likert type scale (14).
When the literature is examined, it is observed that there are scales adapted or developed to measure five-factor personality in Turkey. For example, Somer (6) determined 235 adjectives as determinants of personality and found that the selected adjectives were included under five basic factors as a result of factor analysis. Somer and Goldberg (16) addressed 179 double adjectives and found that the same adjective pairs showed five factor structure both in the Tuyrkish and American samples. In addition, Somer, Tatar and Korkmaz (17) developed a personality scale which was composed of 220 items and which had five basic factors and 17 subdimensions. Bacanli, Ilhan and Aslan (13) developed the Adjective Based Personality Test to measure five factor personality on the basis of adjectives. In the study performed, it was observed that five factors were measured with 40 adjective pairs.
It is observed that the scales adapted or developed to measure five factor personality model in Turkey have multiple items (like 13, 17). As known, measurement tools should be functional in addition to being valid and reliabile (18). The dimension of functionality includes characteristics including being economical, application time, application convenience, scoring convenience and convenience of interpretation of the scores. In this context, TIPS is more functional compared to the other personality scales, since it is short and its items are understandable (14). In addition, it has been emphasized that it is important that scales measuring personality characteristics should be easily understood and applied in a very short time in the literature. For example, Burisch (19) reported that short scalea not only saved time, but also protected the participant from being bored and from excessive tiredness and proposed that there was no individual from whom the true answers can be obtained if the scale was too long. According to Gosling et al. (14), TIPS is more advantageous compared to the other scales, since it is short and understandable. Adaptation of TIPS to the Turkish culture because of its advantages would provide a short and understandable scale which can be used in personality studies and contribute to the literature related with personality. In this context, it was aimed to adapt TIPS to the Turkish culture in this study.
This study is a descriptive study which questions the present situation. The data were obtained from individuals with different ages and cros-sectional study design was used. In the validity study, analysis of the validity of the language was done firstly and afterwards exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed. Subsequently, item analysis was performed. Two kinds of reliability were tested including internal consistency coefficient and test-re-test method for the reliability study.
The participants were selected with the targeted-sampling method and consisted of students who were attending universities in the province of Ankara and a total of 420 participants who were not university students. Data collection tools used in the study were applied to 448 participants. Before data analysis the answers given by the participants to data collection tools were reviewed. As a result of this examination, a total of 28 individuals who left most of the items of the scale empty (at least 5%) or who were observed to have made shifting to the center errors were excluded form the data set. Conclusively, the analyses were performed with the data obtained from a total of 420 participants (212 women (50.9%) and 208 men (49.1%) ) aged between 18 and 25 years. The mean age of the students included in the study was 22.1 and standard deviation was 1.32. While 230 (54.8%) of the participants were university students, 190 (45.2%) were not university students. The mean age was 23.2 (SD = 1.6) in the university students and 23.4 (SD = 1.7) in the participants who were not university students.
Data Collection Tools
The Personal Information Form. The information related with demographic properties of the participants including gender, education status and age were obtained by way of the personal information form.
The Ten-Item Personality Scale. This scale which is consisted of ten items and which was developed by Gosling et al. (14) measures five important personality traits including openness to experience, responsibility, extravesion, amenability and emotional balance. In this 7-point Likert type scale, each subdimension includes two items.
The Five Factor Personality Inventory. The Five Factor Personality Inventory which was developed by Jhon and Srivastava (12) and adapted to Turkish by Evinc (20) is a measurement tool which is composed of 44 items and measures five important personality traits including openness to experience, responsibility, extraversion, amenability and emotional imbalance. The internal consistency coefficients of the scale is within the acceptable reliability limits (openness to experience = ,81; responsibility = ,82; extraversion = ,88; amenability = ,79; emotional imbalance = ,84). In this study group, the factor structure of the scale was examined. As a result of exploratory factor analysis, the original structure with five factors was reached. It was found that these five dimensions explained 54.08% of the total variance.
The Adjective Based Personality Test (ABPT). This scale which was composed of 40 items and which was developed by Bacanli, Ilhan and Aslan (13) is composed of five subfactors including extraversion, emotional imbalance, responsibility, amenability and openness to experience. This scale is used to assign individuals to one of the five basic personality traits including extraversion, emotional imbalance, responsibility, amenability and openness to experience. Five dimensions obtained in the factor analysis related with the structural validity of the scale explains 52.6% of the variance belonging to personality. It was found that the internal consistency coefficients which were calculated for the reliability of the scale ranged between, 73 and,89 and the highest internal consistency coefficient belonged to extraversion (89) and the lowest internal consistency coefficient belonged to emotional imbalance (73). In this study group, the factor structure of the scale was examined and it was found that the five dimensions explained 56.42% of the total variance.
Analysis of the Data
In the analysis of the data, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated for validity of the data. Frequency and percent analysis were used in the analysis of the demographic properties of the participants. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed for structural validity. Two kinds of reliabilities were tested including internal consistency coefficient (alpha) and test-re-test method for the reliability study. SPSS 15.00 and LISREL 8.71 programs were used in the analysis of the data. In the analysis of the data, a significance level of at least, 05 was adopted.
TIPS was adapted to Turkish by performing validity and reliability studies following obtaining approval from the author. The data were collected as individual application and group application in the study. The data were collected from the participants who were university students during class hours with the approval and assistance of instructors and from the participants who were not university students in the workplaces of the participants. The data were collected based on the principle of voluntariness. The participants were given brief information about the objective of the study and then the scales were given to the participants who were willing to participate in the study. Identity information was not asked from the participants. Application of the scales lasted for a period ranging between 10 and 15 minutes. The study data were collected between November 2010 and December 2010 in Ankara.
TIPS was translated to Turkish after contacting with the authors (Samuel D. Gosling, Peter J. Rentfrow ve William B. Swann Jr.) and obtaining approval for adaptation to the Turkish culture. The Turkish translation of TIPS which was originally written in English was made by four academicians working in the university. Afterwards, these translations were collected together and the common aspects were searched and the expressions which showed difference were transformed into common expressions by discussing with the translators. The Turkish form which was created based on expert opinion was translated back to English by four different academicians. The original form and translated form (back to English) were examined by three academicians working in the university and it was concluded that there was no difference between the two forms.
In terms of elucidating if the Turkish form and English form of the scale which was obtained based on expert opinion expressed the same meaning in practice, they were applied to 36 postgraduate students who had well command of English and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated between the scores obtained from the two scales. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was found to be 0.96 (p = 0.000) for the subdimension of openness to experience, 0.94 (p = 0.000) for amenability, 0.93 (p = 0.000) for emotional balance, 0.92 (p = 0.000) for responsibility and 0.97 (p = 0.000) for extraversion. Considering correlation coefficients and expert opinions, it was accepted that parallelism was provided in terms of translation of the scale and language validity was present.
Examination of Factor Structure
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the structural validity of the scale.
Exploratory Factor Analysis. The original scale for which the process of translation from English to Turkish was completed was applied to 348 participants. During data entry, the participants who left at least one item empty were excluded from assessment and factor analysis was performd with the data obtained from 320 participants. The results (KMO = 0.89; 2 = 6582.46; p = 0.00) showed that the data group was compatible with factor analysis (21). One of the most important stages of factor analysis is decision of factor number. According to the results of the Varimax rotation in principle component analysis, 5 factors which explained 65.21% of the change in the scores and which had a self value above 1 were determined. The results of 5-factor structure of the scale obtained as a result of the analysis is shown in (Table 1).
As a result of principle components analysis it was observed that the variance level explained by the scale measured the trait which was aimed to be measured by the scale. Both the original scale and the Turkish form of the scale include 10 items. In the Turkish form of the scale, item loading values range between, 67 and, 86 and there is no item which should be coded reversely. While scoring the scale the total score is not taken and the total score for each subscale is taken. While scoring this scale which is directed to determine dominant personality traits in individuals and assign individuals to one of the personality traits considering the scores obtained from each subscale, it is accepted that the personality trait related with the subscale for which an individual has the highest score is the basic personality trait of that individual (14). The same rules are valid for the Turkish form of the scale.
Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the 5-factor structure of TIPS which is demonstrated with exploratory factor analysis. In application of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlation matrix obtained from 10 items was used as data. Confirmatory factor analysis aims to evaluate how a factorial model composed of observable factors is compatible with actual data (22,23).
Compatibility indexes obtained as a result of the analysis showed that the data observed were highly compatible with the 5-dimension model recommended. (X2/sd) ratio calculated with the confirmatory factor analysis was 2.20 (p = .000) and this value showed that the recommended factor model was highly compatible with the data (22). The fact that the GFI value was found to be 0.95, the IFI value was found to be, 93, the CFI value was found to be, 93, the AGFI value was found to be, 92, the NNFI value was found to be, 91, the RMR value was found to be 0.042 and the RMSEA value was found to be, 037 showed that the 5-factor structure of the scale gave acceptable and valid results as a result of confirmatory factor analysis. The coefficients related with item-factor relations calculated with confirmatory factor analysis are shown in (Figure 1).
As observed in Figure 1, path coefficients range between, 47 and, 88. All of these values are above, 30 and values above, 30 are moderate values (23).
To test the criterion-related validity of TIPS Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) and Adjective Based Personality Test (ABPT) were used. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation results are shown in Table 2.
When Table 2 is examined, it is observed that the dimension of extraversion of TIPS is positively and significantly related with both ABPT extraversion dimension (r = 59, p < 01) and FFPI extraversion dimension (r = 58, p < 01). Similarly, it is observed that the dimension of amenability of TIPS is positively related with both ABPT amenability dimension (r = 58, p < 01) and FFPI amenability dimension (r = 44, p < 01). It is observed that the dimension of responsibility of TIPS is positively and significantly related with both ABPT responsibility dimension (r = 56, p < 01) and FFPI responsibility dimension (r = 57, p < 01). It is observed that the dimension of emotional balance is inversely related with both ABPT emotional imbalance dimension (r = -54, p < 01) and FFPI emotional imbalance dimension (r = -59, p < 01). Finally, it is observed that the dimension of openness to experience is positively and significantly related with both ABPT openness to experience dimension (r = 52, p < 01) and FFPI openness to experience dimension (r = 53, p < 01). Generally, it can be stated that the subdimension of TIPS are moderately significantly related with the scales used for criterion-related validity and these results are sufficient in terms of criterion-related validity.
The results of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses performed to determine structural validity showed that the TIPS which is composed of 10 items and 5 subdimensions was a valid measurement tool to measure personality.
Item total score correlation values were calculated for item distinctivenesses. Item analysis results are presented in (Table 3).
As a result of item analysis, it was observed that corrected item total score correlation ranged between 0.34 and 80. When the item was excluded, alpha values were observed to range between 0.77 and 0.81.
To test the reliability of the scale, analyses related with the internal consistency which is evaluated with Cronbach alpha and test-re-test consistency were performed. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.83 for the subscale of openness to experience, 81 for the subscale of amenability, 0.83 for the subscale of emotional balance, 84 for the subscale of responsibility and 0.86 for the subscale of extraversion. The internal consistencies of the scales were within acceptable limits. The results are shown in (Table 3).
For test-re-test reliability the scale was applied to 60 participants with an interval of 3 weeks; the participants who left minimally one item empty were excluded from the assessment and analysis was performed on the data obtained from 54 participants ( 28 (51.85%) university students, 26 (48.15%) non-university students; 25 (46.3%) male, 29 (53.7%) female). The test re-test reliability coefficient of the scale obtained by calculating from application oft he scale to 54 participants was found tobe, 89 for openness to experience, 87 for amenability, 89 for emotional balance, 87 for responsibility and, 88 for extraversions. Conclusively, it was observed that TIPS was a tool with internal consistency which made consistent measurements.
In this study, the validity and reliability study of TIPS which was developed by Gosling et al. (14) was performed and the scale was adapted to he Turkish culture. The results oft he exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the Turkish version of TIPS was a valid measurement tool to measure personality also in the Turkish culture. In addition, internal consistency coefficients and test-re-test reliability values showed that the scale was a reliable measurement tool also in the Turkish culture. These findings were discussed in the context of the related literature.
Gosling et al. (14) examined only the criterion-related validity for validity and internal consistency and test-re-test reliability for reliability in the development study of TIPS. However, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were not performed for the validity of factor structure when developing the original scale (14). The scale has English, Spanish, Chinese, Chorean, Japanese, German, Persian, French, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish versions. In these versions of the scale, the basic criticism directed towards Gosling et al. was that the scale explained a small percent of the total variance and low internal consistency coefficients emerged. In this context, Soto et al. (15) reported that each subscale included two items and variance explained with such few items and internal consistency coefficients would be low. In addition, Soto et al.(15) proposed that only the criterion-related validity and test-re-test reliability should be tested in the adaptation studies of TIPS. However, both language validity and exploratory and confirmatory factor analayis and item analysis were performed in these studies. The results were found to be better compared to the other versions of the scale. For example, Muck et al. (24) found a considerably low explained variance (about 40%) in the German version of the scale. However, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis performed in the same study showed that the five-factor structure of the scale was confirmed. Hofmans et al. (25) found that the five-factor structure was not confirmed in the Dutch version of the scale. Similarly, Denissen et al. (26) found that the five-factor structure was not confirmed in the Dutch version of the scale and added a new dimension (openness to experiences) to the scale. After this amendment, they found that the scale explained a significant percent of the total variance (about 50%). In contrast to these findings, Ehrhart et al. (27) found that the exploratory factor analysis results of the English version of the scale explained a significant percent of the variance (about 52%) and the results of the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the five-factor structure of the scale. Similarly, Holmes (28) found that the American version of the scale explained 75% of the total variance. The results of the exploratory factor analaysis performed in this study showed that the Turkish version of the scale explained a significant percent of the total variance (65.21%). In addition, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the present structure with 10 items and five subscales was confirmed. In the single study which examined if the factor structure of TIPS was confirmed or not in the literature (24), it was found that the factor structure of the scale was confirmed. A similar result was also obtained in this study. Considering these findings, it can be stated that better results were obtained in the Turkish version of the scale in terms of validity compared to the other versions excluding the American version (28). Different validity results in different versions of TIPS may be related with the differences between cultures. In this context, future studies may be performed interculturally in order to examine if the factor structure is valid in different cultures.
In this study, it was found that the correlation of TIPS with ABPT ranged between, 52 and, 59. These values indicate a moderate level of correlation. When the literature is examined, it can be observed that there are no studies examining the relation between TIPS and ABPT. Although both TIPS and ABPT are based on adjective pairs, ABPT is a scale which is completely developed in the Turkisch culture, while TIPS has been adapted to the Turkish culture. The fact that a moderate relation was found between subscales may be related with this basic difference. As known, the meanings assigned to some adjectives may change from culture to culture. Similarly, in this study, correlations ranging between, 44 and, 59 were found between TIPS and FFPI subscales. These values represent a moderate correlation. Using the same scales Gosling et al. (14) found correlations between TIPS and FFPI ranging between, 65 and 87 (87 for extraversion, 70 for amenability, 75 for responsibility, 81 for emotional balance and, 65 for openness to experience). When the literature is examined, it is observed that criterion related validity was not examined between TIPS and FFPI in the other versions of the scale. When the study of Gosling et al. (14) and this study were compared, it was observed that lower correlations were obtained in this study. The reason for this may be the fact that both scales used were developed in different cultures. Despite moderate correlations, it can be stated that the subscales of TIPS were moderately significantly related with the scales used for criterion-related validity and these results were sufficient in terms of criterion-related validity.
For the reliability study of the scale, two types of reliability were tested including internal consistency coefficient and test-re-test method. The results showed that the internal consistency and test-re-test reliability of the subsclaes were high. While the internal consistency values in this study ranged between, 81 and 86, it was observed that the internal consistency coefficients ranged between, 40 and 73 in the original version of TIPS (14). When the other versions of the scale were examined, it was observed that they had low internal consistency coefficients. For example, Denissen et al. (26) found the internal consistency coefficient to range between, 10 and 61 for the Dutch version, Ehrhart et al. (27) found the internal consistency coefficient to range between, 49 and 76 for the English version, Holmes (28) found the internal consistency coefficient to range between, 36 and 73 for the American version and Muck et al. (24) found the internal consistency coefficient to range between, 43 and 67 for the German version. Considering these findings, it can be stated that the highest internal consistency coefficients were obtained in the Turkish version of the scale among all the other versions. These different internal consistency values may be related with cultural differences. In this context, future studies may be performed interculturally. In addition, the test-re-test reliability values in this strudy ranged between, 87 and 89, while they ranged between, 72 and 80 in the original version of TIPS (14). When these results were compared, it was observed that the test-re-test reliability values of the Turkish version of the scale were higher. When the other versions of scale were examined, it was observed that high test-re-test reliabilities emerged. For example, Denissen et al. (26), found that the test-re-test reliability ranged between, 83 and 96 in the Dutch version of the scale. Similarly, Ehrhart et al. (27) found that the test-re-test reliability ranged between, 76 and 89 in the English version of the scale and Holmes (28) found that the test-re-test reliability ranged between, 65 and 87 in the American version. Generally, it can be stated that all versions of the scale have high test-re-test reliability values. This may be attributed to the fact that the scale is short and understandable.
Based on the findings of this study, a few recommendations related with both future studies and daily life can be made. Firstly, repetition of validity and reliability studies of the scale in different groups may provide new evidence related with the appropriateness of the scale to the Turkish culture. These studies can be conducted with adolescents and adults as well as young participants. As a recommendation, this scale can be used in future empirical studies including some demographic and psychosocial variables by experts including psychiatry healthcare workers, psychiatrists, psychological counselors and social service experts. For example, it can be used in studies aiming to determine the relation between personality traits and variables including depression, life satisfaction, subjective wellness and autonomy and if personality traits differentiated with demographic variables including age gender, socioeconomical level and education status.
In addition to these validity and reliability findings obtained, the most important limitation of this study was the fact that the study group was consisted of only university students and participants who worked at a job and individuals who were not students and who were not working at a job were not included in the study. The reason for this was the fact that it was difficult to reach individuals who were not students and who did not work at a job. Future studies may be conducted considering also this group. Another important limitation of this study was the fact that exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, item analysis and internal consistency coefficient were performed based on the data obtained from the same database. In this context, in future studies, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, item analysis and internal consistency coefficient can be performed based on data obtained from different databases. However, the high values obtained as a result of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicate the validity of the scale in the Turkish culture. In addition, there are criticisms related with measurement of a complex structure like personality with scales with a low number of items in the literature. In this context, it can be recommended that this criticism should be considered in future studies despite the fact that the Turkish culture gained this scale.
Conclusively, it can be stated that TIPS is a valid and reliable measurement tool for the Turkish culture and can be used to measure personality. It is thought that this scale which can be used also in the Turkish youth can also be used both in interdisciplinary and intercultural studies.
(1.) Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol Assess 1992; 4:26-42.
(2.) John OP. The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. Pervin LA editor. Handbook of Pers: Theory and Res. icinde. New York: Guilford Press; 1990; s. 66-100.
(3.) McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality in Adulthood. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003: 48-63.
(4.) Atkinson RL, Atkinson RC, Smith EE Bem DJ, Hoeksema SN. Psikolojiye Giris. Yavuz, A. ceviren. Istanbul: Arkadas Yayinlari; 1999.
(5.) John OP, Donahue EM. The Big Five Inventory: Studies of Reliability and Validity. Berkeley: University of California, Inst Pers and Soc Res; 1998.
(6.) Somer O. Bes faktor kisilik modeli. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari 1998; 1:35-62.
(7.) McCrae RR, Costa PT. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and obsevers. J Pers and Soc Psy 1998; 52:81-90.
(8.) Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI-R: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. FL: Psychol Assess Resources; 1992.
(9.) Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI/FFI Manual Supplement. FL: Psychol Assess Resources; 1998.
(10.) Trapnell PD, Wiggins JS. Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. J Pers and Soc Psy 1990; 59:781-790.
(11.) Hofstee W K, de Raad B, Goldberg LR. Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. J Pers and Soc Psy 1992; 63:146-163.
(12.) John OP, Srivastava S. The big five factor trait taxonomy; History measurement and theoritical perpectives. Pervin LA editor. Handbook of Pers: Theory and Res. icinde. New York: Guilford Press; 1990; s. 102-138.
(13.) Bacanli H, Ilhan T, Aslan S. Bes faktor kuramina dayali bir kisilik olceginin gelistirilmesi: Sifatlara dayali kisilik testi (SDTK). Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi 2009; 7:261-279.
(14.) Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB Jr. A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. J Res in Pers 2003; 37:504-528.
(15.) Soto CJ, John OP Gosling SD ve ark. Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big-Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. J Pers and Soc Psy 2011; 94:718-737.
(16.) Somer O, Goldberg LR. Personality processes and individual differences. J Pers and Soc Psy 1999; 76:431-450.
(17.) Somer O, korkmaz M, Tatar A. kuramdan uygulamaya bes faktor kisilik modeli ve Bes Faktor kisilik Envanteri (5FkE). Izmir: Ege Universitesi yay; 2001.
(18.) Tavsancil E. Tutumlarin Olculmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel yayin Dagitim ltd. Sti; 2002.
(19.) Burisch M. Approaches to personality inventory construction. Am Psy 1984; 39:214-227.
(20.) Evinc GS. Maternal personality characteristics, affective state, and psychopathology in relation to children's attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and comormid symptoms. Unpublished Master Thesis. Ankara: METU; 2004.
(21.) Buyukozturk S. Sosyal Bilimlere Icin Veri Analizi Elkitabi: Istatistik, Arastirma Deseni, SPSS Uygulamalari ve Yorum. Ankara: PEGEM A Yay; 2002.
(22.) Simsek OF Yapisal Esitlik Modellemesine Giris Temel Ilkeler ve LISREL Uygulamalari. Ankara: Ekinoks; 2007.
(23.) Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press; 2005: s. 30-62.
(24.) Muck PM, Hell B, Gosling SD. Construct validation of a short Five-Factor model instrument. Euro J Psychol Assess 2007; 23:166-175.
(25.) Hofmans J, Kuppens P Allik J. Is short in length short in content? An examination of the domain representation of the Ten Item Inventory scales in Dutch language. Pers and Ind Differ 2008; 45:750-755.
(26.) Denissen JJA, Geenen R, Selfhout M, Van Aken MAG. Single-item Big Five ratings in a Soc network design. Euro J Pers 2008; 22:37-54.
(27.) Ehrhart MG, Ehrhart KH, Roesch SC, ve ark. Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Pers and Ind Differ 2009; 47:900-905.
(28.) Holmes M. A study to investigate the reliability and validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory within a British sample. Unpublished Master Thesis. Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, 2010.
Kirikkale University Faculty of Education, Division of Educational Sciences, Department of PCG, Kirikkale, Turkey
Correspondence Address/Yazisma Adresi
Hasan Atak MD, Kirikkale University Faculty of Education, Division of Educational Sciences, Department of PCG, Kirikkale, Turkey Gsm: +90 546 963 00 99 E-mail: email@example.com Received/Gelis tarihi: 07.04.2011 Accepted/Kabul tarihi: 26.04.2012
Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis ends of TIPS Items Factors I find Opennsess to Amenability Emotinal myself ...: experience balance M 5. Open to .86 new experiences, complex M 10. .72 Traditional, noncreative M 7. .86 Sympathetic, warm M 2. Critical, .62 agressive M 9. Calm, .84 emotionally balanced M 4.Anxious, .73 easily disappointed M 3. Reliable, with self-discipline M 8. Dashed, uncareful M 1. Extravert, eager M 6. Withdrawn, silent Self-esteem 2.969 2.443 2.368 Explained 15.526 14.653 13.254 variance Explained total 15.526 30.179 43.433 variance Items Factors I find Responsibility Extraversion myself ...: M 5. Open to new experiences, complex M 10. Traditional, noncreative M 7. Sympathetic, warm M 2. Critical, agressive M 9. Calm, emotionally balanced M 4.Anxious, easily disappointed M 3. Reliable, .82 with self-discipline M 8. Dashed, .76 uncareful M 1. Extravert, .81 eager M 6. Withdrawn, .67 silent Self-esteem 2.225 1.114 Explained 12.454 9.326 variance Explained total 55.887 65.213 variance Table 2. Realtions between TIPS and the other scales Adjective Based Personality Test TIPS factors Extraversion Amenability Responsibility Extraversion .59 * Amenability .58 * Responsibility .56 * Emotional balance Openness to experience Adjective Based Personality Test TIPS factors Emotional Openness experience Extraversion Amenability Responsibility Emotional balance -.54 * Openness to experience .52 * Five-factor Personality Inventory TIPS factors Extraversion Amenability Responsibility Extraversion .58 * Amenability .44 * Responsibility .57 * Emotional balance Openness to experience Five-factor Personality Inventory TIPS factors Emotional Openness to imbalance experience Extraversion Amenability Responsibility Emotional balance -.59 * Openness to experience .53 * * p < .01 Table 3. Results of item analysis and reliability analysis of TIPS When the items is Items Corrected Corrected excluded Scales item-Total item-Total correlation correlation Openness to M-5 .79 .59 experience M-10 .80 .66 Amenability M-7 .80 .46 M-2 .78 .42 Emotional M-9 .77 .55 balance M-4 .81 .63 Responsibility M-3 .77 .69 M-8 .78 .34 Extraversion M-1 .78 .80 M-6 .81 .57 When the items is Cronbach Test-re- excluded Scales Alpha test Openness to .83 .89 experience Amenability .81 .87 Emotional .83 .89 balance Responsibility .84 .87 Extraversion .86 .88
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Research Article/Arastirma Makalesi|
|Publication:||Archives of Neuropsychiatry|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease: an 8-year experience from a single center in Turkey/Sporadik Creutzfeldt-Jacob Hastaligi: Turkiye'den bir...|
|Next Article:||Self-esteem, social phobia and depression status in patients with epilepsy/Epilepsili hastalarda benlik saygisi, sosyal fobi ve depresyon.|