Cuestionario Revisado de Personalidad de Eysenck (versión reducida): análisis con la teoría de respuesta al ítem

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21615/cesp.5830

Palabras clave:

neuroticismo, psicoticismo, extraversion, sinceridad, modelo logístico de dos parámetros, evaluación de la personalidad, EPQ-RS

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo es aportar nuevas evidencias de calidad psicométrica para la adaptación argentina de la versión reducida del Cuestionario de Personalidad de Eysenck (EPQ-RS). Participaron 1136 personas de población general (52.5% femenino, edad media = 29.6 años, DE = 11.9) residentes en Buenos Aires, Argentina. La adaptación argentina se compone de 42 ítems con formato de respuesta dicotómica. Se realizó un análisis factorial confirmatorio a partir de la matriz de correlaciones tetracóricas. Esto permitió replicar la estructura propuesta por Eysenck para el modelo PEN (Psicoticismo-Extraversión-Neuroticismo) y la escala Sinceridad. Posteriormente, se ajustó el modelo logístico de dos parámetros por separado para los ítems de cada escala. Los ítems no mostraron funcionamiento diferencial según género. La discriminación de los ítems resultó moderada-alta. Los parámetros b se localizaron en rangos acotados de cada uno de los rasgos medidos, lo que originó que la precisión de las escalas varíe en el recorrido de los continuos. La escala Neuroticismo aporta más información en niveles medios del rasgo, Psicoticismo en los medio-bajos y Extraversión en los medio-altos. La escala Sinceridad mostró una función de información relativamente plana en todo el recorrido del rasgo. Se brindan evidencias de validez basadas en la relación con otras pruebas que miden facetas del neuroticismo y sintomatología. Las evidencias de validez y confiabilidad obtenidas ofrecen garantías de calidad suficientes para la aplicación de este instrumento en el contexto local y confirman la vigencia del modelo teórico que operacionaliza el EPQ-RS.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Facundo Juan Pablo Abal, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Doctor en Psicología. Universidad de Buenos Aires y Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina.

Damián Javier Ursino, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Becario de Doctorado Universidad de Buenos Aires. 

Horacio Félix Attorresi , Universidad de Buenos Aires

Licenciado en Ciencias Matemáticas. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. 

Referencias bibliográficas

Abal, F.J.P., Auné, S.E., & Attorresi, H.F. (2015). Relación entre la Deseabilidad Social y los parámetros del Modelo Logístico de tres parámetros. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 5(1), 5-24.

Abal, F. J. P., Auné, S. E., & Attorresi, H. F. (2018). Variación de la escala Likert en el test de Utilidad de la Matemática. Interacciones, 4(3), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.24016/2018.v4n3.134

Abal, F. J. P., Auné, S. E., & Attorresi, H. F. (2019). Construcción de un banco de ítems de Facetas de Neuroticismo para el desarrollo de un test adaptativo. Psicodebate, 19(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.18682/pd.v1i1.854

Abal, F. J. P., Lozzia, G. S., Aguerri, M. E., Galibert, M. S., & Attorresi, H. F. (2010). La escasa aplicación de la Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem en tests de ejecución típica. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 19(1), 111 – 122. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v19.n1.23877

Alexopoulos, D. S., & Kalaitzidis, I. (2004). Psychometric properties of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) Short Scale in Greece. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1205-1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.005

Almiro, P. A, Moura, O., & Simões, M. R. (2016). Psychometric properties of the European Portuguese version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire - Revised (EPQ-R). Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.050

Aluja, A., García, O., & García, F. A. (2003). Psychometric analysis of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Short Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(2), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00206-4

Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2017). The Basics of Item Response Theory Using R. Cham, Suiza: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54205-8

Bauermeister, S., & Gallacher, J. (2020). A psychometric evaluation of the 12-item EPQ-R neuroticism scale in 502,591 UK Biobank participants using item response theory (IRT). BioRxiv 741249, https://doi.org/10.1101/741249

Bech, P. (2016). Neuroticism (Eysenck’s Theory). En V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1-4). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1094-1

Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. En F. M. Lord y M. R. Novick (Eds.). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bowden, S. C., Saklofske, D. H., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Sudarshan, N. J., & Eysenck, D. B. G. (2016). Cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire across 33 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.028

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basics, concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.

Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S.H.C. (2011). IRTPRO 4.2 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Calderón Garrido, C., Navarro González, D., Lorenzo Seva, U., & Ferrando Piera, P. J. (2019). Multidimensional or essentially unidimensional? A multi-faceted factor-analytic approach for assessing the dimensionality of tests and items. Psicothema, 31(4), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.153

Castellanos-Ryan, N., Brière, F.N., O’Leary-Barrett, M., Banaschewski, T., Bokde, A., & Bromberg, U. (2016). The structure of psychopathology in adolescence and its common personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(8), 1039-1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000193

Casullo, M. (2004). Síntomas psicopatológicos en adultos urbanos. Psicología y Ciencia Social, 6(1), 49-57.

Chen, W., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indices for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265-289. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165285

Colledani, D., Anselmi, P., & Robusto, E. (2018). Using Item Response Theory for the development of a new short form of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1834. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01834

Colledani, D., Anselmi, P., & Robusto, E. (2019). Development of a new abbreviated form of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised with multidimensional item response theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.044

Colledani, D., Robusto, E., & Anselmi, P. (2018). Development of a new abbreviated form of the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.037

De Ayala, R. (2009). The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York: Guilford Press.

Derogatis, L. (1994). SCL-90-R. Symptom Checklist-90-R. Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual. Minneapolis: National Computer System.

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage publications.

Dominguez, S., Villegas, G., Yauri, S., Aravena, S., & Ramírez, F. (2013). Análisis psicométrico preliminar de la forma corta del EPQ R en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios de Lima Metropolitana. Avances en Psicología,21(1), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.33539/avpsicol.2013.v21n1.308

Ebesutani, C., Regan, J., Smith, A., Reise, S., Higa-McMillan, C., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012). The 10-Item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, Child and Parent Shortened Versions: Application of Item Response Theory for More Efficient Assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9273-2

Escorial, S., & Navas, M. J. (2007). Analysis of the gender variable in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire–revised scales using differential item functioning techniques. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(6), 990-1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406299108

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum.

Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of Personality. Londres: Routledge y Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality. Londres: Routledge y Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: the three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00915.x

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Londres: Hodder and Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. J. (1996). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (Short). Guilford: Psi-Press.

Eysenck, S. B. G., & Barrett, P. (2013). Re-introduction to cross-cultural studies of the EPQ. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(4), 485-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.022.

Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 21–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1

Ferrando, P. J. (2003). The accuracy o the E, N and P trait estimates: An empirical study using the EPQ-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00053-3

Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29, 236-240. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304

Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2018). Assessing the Quality and Appropriateness of Factor Solutions and Factor Score Estimates in Exploratory Item Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78, 762-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719308

Ferrando, P. J., & Navarro-González, D. (2018). Assessing the quality and usefulness of factor-analytic applications to personality measures: A study with the statistical anxiety scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.014.

Forrest, S., Lewis, C.A., & Shevlin, M. (2000). Examining the factor structure and differential functioning of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(3), 579-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00220-2

Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., & Philipchalk, R. (1992). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): its use among students in England, Canada, the USA and Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(4), 443–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90073-X

Francis, L. J., Lewis, C. A., & Ziebertz, H. (2006). The short-form revised Eysenck personality Questionnaire (EPQ-S): A German edition. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(2), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.197

Furnham, A., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). The Eysenck personality measures: Fifty years of scale development. En G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, y D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2 — Personality measurement and testing (pp. 199–218). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n10

González, I., Déjean, S., Martin, P., & Baccini, A. (2008). CCA: An R Package to Extend Canonical Correlation Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 23(12), 1 - 14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v023.i12

Jylhä, P., & Isometsä, E. (2006). The relationship of neuroticism and extraversion to symptoms of anxiety and depression in the general population. Depression and Anxiety, 23(5), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20167

Katz, Y. J., & Francis, L. J. (1991). The dual nature of the EPQ Lie scale? A study among university students in Israel. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 19(4), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1991.19.4.217

Knežević, G., Lazarević, L. B., Purić, D., Bosnjak, M., Teovanović, P., Petrović, B., & Opačić, G. (2019). Does Eysenck's personality model capture psychosis-proneness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.

Lewis, C. A. & Musharraf, S. (2014). The short form Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQR-S) and the revised abbreviated Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): Urdu translations. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 64(2), 225-226.

Lewis, C. A., Francis, L. J., Shevlin, M., & Forrest, S. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the French translation of the Abbreviated Form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.179

Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361

Lozano, L.M., García-Cueto, E. & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales. Methodology, 4 (2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73

Makransky, G., Mortensen, E. L., & Glas, C. A. (2013). Improving personality facet scores with multidimensional computer adaptive testing: An illustration with the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 20, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112437756

Massey, A. (1980). The Eysenck Personality Inventory Lie Scale: Lack of insight or …? The Irish Journal of Psychology, 4(3), 172-174.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Min, H., Zickar, M. & Yankov, G. (2018). Understanding item parameters in personality scales: An explanatory item response modeling approach, Personality and Individual Differences, 128, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.012

Mitchell, R. L. C., & Kumari, V. (2016). Hans Eysenck's interface between the brain and personality: Modern evidence on the cognitive neuroscience of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.009

Muñiz, J. (2018). Introducción a la psicometría: teoría clásica y TRI. Madrid: Pirámides.

Muñiz, J., García-Cueto, E. & Lozano, L. M. (2005). Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38 (1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.021

Muraki, E. & Muraki, M. (2016). Generalized Partial Credit Model. En W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory, Volume One: Models (pp. 127-135). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press

Muthén, L. & Muthén, B. (2010). Mplus User’s Guide, 6th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nieto, M. D., Abad, F. J., Hernández-Camacho, A., Garrido, L. E., Barrada, J. R., Aguado, D. & Olea, J. (2017). Calibrating a new item pool to adaptively assess the Big Five. Psicothema, 29(3), 390-395. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.391

Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further Investigation of the Performance of S-χ2 : An Item Fit Index for Use With Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289- 298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621603027004004

Reise, S. & Waller, N. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153553

Reise, S. P. & Revicki, D. A. (2015). Handbook of Item Response Theory Modeling Applications to Typical Performance Assessment. Nueva York: Routledge.

Reise, S. P. & Waller, N. G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169001400105

Reise, S. P., & Rodriguez, A. (2016). Item response theory and the measurement of psychiatric constructs: some empirical and conceptual issues and challenges. Psychological Medicine, 46(10), 2025–2039. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716000520

Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual review of clinical psychology, 5, 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153553

Revelle, W. (2016). Hans Eysenck: Personality theorist. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.007

Samejima, F. (2016). Graded response models. En W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory, Volume One: Models (pp. 95-108). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press

Sanchez, R. O. & Ledesma, R. D. (2009). Análisis psicométrico del Inventario de Síntomas Revisado (SCL-90-R) en población clínica. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, 18(3), 265-274.

Squillace, M., Picón Janeiro, J., & Schmidt, V. (2013). Adaptación local del Cuestionario Revisado de Personalidad de Eysenck (Versión abreviada). Evaluar, 13, 19-37. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v13.n1.6794

Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological methods, 16(2), 209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353

Tiwari, T., Singh, A. L, & Singh, I. L. (2009). The Short-Form Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: A Hindi edition (EPQRS-H). Industrial psychiatry journal, 18(1), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.57854

Toland, M. (2013). Practical guide to conducting an item response theory analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(1), 120-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613511332

Toland, M. D., Sulis, I., Giambona, F., Porcu, M., & Campbell, J. M. (2017). Introduction to bifactor polytomous item response theory analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.001

Wiberg, M. (2012). Can a multidimensional test be evaluated with unidimensional item response theory? Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.670416

Descargas

Publicado

2022-02-03

Cómo citar

Abal, F. J. P., Ursino, D. J., & Attorresi , H. F. (2022). Cuestionario Revisado de Personalidad de Eysenck (versión reducida): análisis con la teoría de respuesta al ítem. CES Psicología, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.21615/cesp.5830

Número

Sección

Artículos Originales