Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Brief Version): Analysis with Item Response Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21615/cesp.5830Keywords:
neuroticism, psychoticism, extraversion, lie, two-parameter logistic model, personality assessment, EPQ-RSAbstract
The aim of this work is to provide new evidence of psychometric quality for the Argentinean adaptation of the brief version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-RS). 1136 people from the general population (52.5% female, mean age = 29.6 years, SD = 11.9) residing in Buenos Aires, Argentina participated. The Argentinean adaptation consists of 42 items with dichotomous response format. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed from the tetrachoric correlation matrix. This allowed replicating the structure proposed by Eysenck for the PEN model (Psychoticism - Extroversion - Neuroticism) and the Lie scale. Subsequently, the two-parameter logistic model was adjusted separately for the items of each scale. The items did not show differential functioning by gender. Items discrimination was moderate-high. Parameters b were located in narrow ranges of each one of the measured traits, which caused the precision of the scales to vary along the trait continuums. The Neuroticism scale provides more information at medium levels of the trait, Psychoticism in the medium-low and Extraversion in the medium-high. The Lie scale showed a relatively flat information function throughout the trait. Evidence of validity based on the relationship with other tests that measure facets of neuroticism and symptomatology is provided. The evidence of validity and reliability obtained offers sufficient quality guarantees for the application of this instrument in the local context and confirms topicality of the theoretical model that operationalizes the EPQ-RS.
Downloads
References
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
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Facundo Juan Pablo Abal, Damián Javier Ursino , Horacio Félix Attorresi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Each manuscript is accompanied by a statement specifyingThat the materials are unpublished, that have not been previously published in printed formatElectronic and that they will not be presented to any other means before knowing the decision of the magazine. ThroughoutIn case, any previous publication, sea in printed or electronic form, must be made known to the editorial staffWriting The authors attach a signed statement stating that, and the manuscript is acceptedFor publication, the rights of reproduction are the exclusive property of the Journal CES Psychology.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
