黎紅艷 徐建平 陳基越 范業(yè)鑫,2

(1北京師范大學(xué)心理學(xué)院, 應(yīng)用實(shí)驗(yàn)心理北京市重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室, 北京 100875)(2首都醫(yī)科大學(xué)宣武醫(yī)院, 北京 100503)

1 引言

大五人格問卷(Big Five Inventory, BFI-44)自1991年開發(fā)以來, 得到了研究者們的持續(xù)關(guān)注。在其基礎(chǔ)上, 相繼產(chǎn)生了多種不同語言的版本和修訂版, 并被廣泛應(yīng)用于教育、臨床、家庭咨詢、組織行為等研究領(lǐng)域(Blüml, Kapusta, Doering,Br?hler, Wagner, & Kersting, 2013; Gerend, Aiken,& West, 2004; Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury,2007; Koh et al., 2014; McAbee & Oswald, 2013;Zaidi, Wajid, Zaidi, Zaidi, & Zaidi,2013)。

1.1 BF I的理論基礎(chǔ)及發(fā)展

BFI是以 Goldberg (1981)提出的“大五” (Big Five)人格結(jié)構(gòu)為理論基礎(chǔ)發(fā)展出來的人格測驗(yàn)。有研究者發(fā)現(xiàn), 很多人格特質(zhì)只能通過形容詞進(jìn)行描述, 大約有1715個(gè)形容詞能清晰的表示出人格的原型(Prototype) (Angleitner, Ostendorf, &John, 1990)。John等人通過因素分析, 從這1715個(gè)表示人格原型的形容詞中選出了“大五”各維度中因素載荷最高的形容詞(John & Srivastava,1999), 并采用詞匯學(xué)取向的“大五”人格理論構(gòu)建BFI。但是, 為了詳盡描述人格特質(zhì), 提高作答一致性, 編制者在每道題目中選用了 1～2個(gè)最能表現(xiàn)大五人格結(jié)構(gòu)的人格描述形容詞, 并增加了對形容詞描述或說明性的信息, 因而每道題目被編制成一個(gè)短語而非詞匯。例如, 開放性維度中的特質(zhì)詞匯“獨(dú)創(chuàng)的” (original), 在 BFI中被編制為“具有獨(dú)創(chuàng)性, 會產(chǎn)生新點(diǎn)子” (is original, comes up with new ideas); 盡責(zé)性維度中的特質(zhì)詞匯“堅(jiān)持不懈的” (persevering), 在BFI中被編制為“堅(jiān)持到任務(wù)完成” (perseveres until the task is finished)(John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008)。最初, BFI有BFI-44和BFI-54兩個(gè)版本, 但是BFI-54中有10道題目計(jì)分不便, 現(xiàn)在已基本不再使用; 研究者公開發(fā)表的測驗(yàn)為 BFI-44 (John, Donahue, &Kentle,1991; John et al., 2008)。

隨著BFI-44研究需求的增加, 也為了在國際上廣泛應(yīng)用且便于跨文化研究比較, 各國研究者在BFI-44原版的基礎(chǔ)上, 先后修訂并產(chǎn)生了德、法、荷、韓、意、匈、挪等 7種語言的版本, 并有相關(guān)的研究文獻(xiàn)發(fā)表 (Denissen, Geenen, van Aken, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Engvik & F?llesdal,2005; Farkas & Orosz, 2013; Fossati, Borroni,Marchione, & Maffei, 2011; Kim et al., 2010; Lang,Lüdtke, & Asendorpf, 2001; Plaisant, Srivastava,Mendelsohn, Debray, & John, 2005)。在伯克利人格實(shí)驗(yàn)室官方網(wǎng)站(http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/～johnlab/bfi.htm), 除了以上這些語言的版本, 還有中、立、瑞三種語言版本。其中, BFI-44中文版測驗(yàn)題目可見 http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/～johnlab/pdfs/BFI-Chinese.pdf。在BFI-44研究與使用過程中, 研究者還相繼修訂開發(fā)出了BFI-25、BFI-S、BFI-K、BFI-10、BFI-20五個(gè)簡版BFI測驗(yàn)(Engvik& Clausen, 2011; Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005; John et al., 1991; Rammstedt &John, 2005; Rammstedt &John, 2007)。目前, BFI多個(gè)測驗(yàn)版本中使用最為廣泛的是BFI-44。

1.2 問題提出

不同語言版本的 BFI-44在各個(gè)國家的廣泛應(yīng)用中, 研究者發(fā)現(xiàn)測驗(yàn)的信度水平會隨著施測樣本的變化而變化, 但只有少數(shù)研究者探究了其跨樣本時(shí)的信度穩(wěn)定性。例如, 有研究者將 28種語言的BFI-44在56個(gè)國家的18,378名被試中進(jìn)行了施測,發(fā)現(xiàn)各維度的α系數(shù)處于 0.76～0.79之間(Schmitt,Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martínez, 2007)。此外, 還有研究者探究了BFI-44在55個(gè)國家不同性別的差異,其平均α系數(shù)為 0.72(Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, &Allik, 2008)。但大多數(shù)研究只提供了研究中單一樣本的α系數(shù), 沒有考慮到測驗(yàn)的信度水平在不同樣本中具有變異性。因此, 很有必要對已有文獻(xiàn)中使用的BFI-44測驗(yàn)信度進(jìn)行元分析, 為BFI-44使用者提供一個(gè)有代表性的α系數(shù)參考值和范圍。

信度是心理測量學(xué)的基本概念, 指測驗(yàn)的可靠程度, 它表現(xiàn)為測驗(yàn)結(jié)果的一貫性、一致性和穩(wěn)定性。信度是反映測驗(yàn)結(jié)果受到隨機(jī)誤差影響程度的指標(biāo), 是評價(jià)測驗(yàn)質(zhì)量的最基本的指標(biāo)之一(Guttman, 1945; 張力為, 2002)。信度是效度的必要不充分條件, 一個(gè)測驗(yàn)要有效度必須要有信度, 沒有信度就沒有效度。如果一個(gè)測驗(yàn)測量的數(shù)據(jù)不準(zhǔn)確, 就不能有效地解釋和說明所研究的現(xiàn)象。由于對一個(gè)測驗(yàn)進(jìn)行多次施測時(shí), 信度不是測驗(yàn)工具固有不變的屬性, 它會隨著施測條件而變化, 在具體應(yīng)用中, 它指的是測驗(yàn)結(jié)果的可靠程度。針對信度的可變性, Vacha-Haas (1998)提出了“信度概化” (reliability generalization)的概念,并用這種概化理論思想來指導(dǎo)信度的元分析技術(shù)。信度概化的目的是確定某一測驗(yàn)工具在不同研究中α系數(shù)的變化范圍, 該測驗(yàn)工具信度的變異性, 以及影響測驗(yàn)信度水平的變量(Vacha-Haas,1998)。有研究者指出, 信度概化已經(jīng)成為對測驗(yàn)α系數(shù)進(jìn)行元分析的主要方法之一(Rodriguez &Maeda, 2006)。它將已有研究中的α系數(shù)作為研究樣本, 通過描述統(tǒng)計(jì)、回歸分析等方法, 探究影響α系數(shù)變異的預(yù)測源, 分析它們?yōu)槭裁磿Ζ料禂?shù)有影響以及如何影響, 為研究者在今后的研究中使用BFI-44時(shí)提供參考, 注意平衡自己的研究需求與α系數(shù)變異預(yù)測源之間的關(guān)系, 并為后來測驗(yàn)的使用者提供一些建議。本研究將采用一種最新的信度概化技術(shù)(Rodriguez & Maeda, 2006)對BFI-44的信度進(jìn)行元分析。

2 研究方法

2.1 文獻(xiàn)來源及篩選步驟

檢索了包含Proquest系列在內(nèi)的共計(jì)17個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)庫中自1991年1月1日至2014年4月4日共24年來有關(guān)BFI的學(xué)術(shù)期刊文獻(xiàn)和書籍。(1)標(biāo)題查找。在數(shù)據(jù)檢索的“標(biāo)題”欄中輸入關(guān)鍵詞“Big Five Inventory”或簡寫 “BFI”, 查詢到文獻(xiàn) 20 篇。(2)摘要查找。在數(shù)據(jù)庫檢索“摘要”欄中輸入關(guān)鍵詞“Big Five Inventory”或“BFI”, 并在“引用作者”一欄中輸入“John, Donahue & Kentle”, 去掉重復(fù)文獻(xiàn)后, 查到文獻(xiàn)165篇, 其中1991～2009年間共67篇, 2010年至今共98篇。(3)全文查找。在數(shù)據(jù)庫檢索“全文”欄中輸入關(guān)鍵詞“Big Five Inventory”,刪除與前兩種查找方法重復(fù)的文獻(xiàn)后, 共收集到571篇文獻(xiàn), 其中1991～2009年間共230篇, 2010年至今共341篇。三種查詢方法查詢到1991年至今有關(guān)BFI的學(xué)術(shù)期刊文獻(xiàn)、書籍共計(jì)756篇。

在 CNKI數(shù)據(jù)庫中, 使用關(guān)鍵詞“Big Five Inventory”在“標(biāo)題”或“英文摘要”或“全文”或“參考文獻(xiàn)”欄中搜索, 共查找到26篇中文文獻(xiàn)。

總共查找中、英文文獻(xiàn)782篇。其中, 有129篇報(bào)告了研究中 BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù), 有 85篇除報(bào)告了各維度的α系數(shù), 還報(bào)告了被試樣本量、被試國籍、測驗(yàn)語言版本、被試平均年齡、男女比例(通過計(jì)算獲得)等人口學(xué)變量信息。在這85篇文獻(xiàn)中, 部分論文包括了多個(gè)子研究, 共計(jì)包括110個(gè)樣本。本研究最終用于對BFI-44 的α系數(shù)進(jìn)行元分析以及研究α系數(shù)變異的預(yù)測源的85篇文獻(xiàn)都是英文文獻(xiàn), 大多數(shù)發(fā)表在“Journal of personality and social psychology(IF: 5.51),Journal of personality(IF: 2.94)Personality and Individual Differences(IF: 1.88)”, 其文章引用率和期刊在專業(yè)領(lǐng)域的影響力都比較高。

以往的研究一般都會對影響α系數(shù)變異最重要的樣本特定因素進(jìn)行編碼。Vacha-Haase (1998)對《貝姆性別量表》(BSRI)的α系數(shù)元分析中, 考察了樣本量、測驗(yàn)類型、測驗(yàn)語言版本、國籍等變量對測驗(yàn)α系數(shù)的影響。有研究者利用信度概化方法對《工作倦怠量表》的α系數(shù)進(jìn)行元分析時(shí), 探究了樣本量、測驗(yàn)語言版本、被試的職業(yè)、國籍等變量對α系數(shù)的影響(Wheeler, Vassar,Worley, & Barnes, 2011)。還有研究者選取樣本量、中國南北區(qū)域差異、男女比例、平均年齡、健康類型等作為MMPI問卷各分量表α系數(shù)元分析的預(yù)測變量(焦璨, 張潔婷, 吳利, 張敏強(qiáng), 2010)。在本研究涉及到的 110個(gè)研究樣本中, 可選擇的預(yù)測變量有種族、樣本量、被試國籍、測驗(yàn)語言版本、被試平均年齡、交往時(shí)間、工齡、男女?dāng)?shù)量等變量。其中, 樣本量、被試國籍、測驗(yàn)語言版本、平均年齡、男女比例(通過計(jì)算獲得)在 110個(gè)研究樣本中信息完整。因此, 本研究中把這 5個(gè)變量作為考察BFI-44信度水平的預(yù)測變量。

在 5個(gè)變量中, 被試樣本量、平均年齡、男女比例為連續(xù)變量; 被試國籍和測驗(yàn)語言版本為分類變量, 對其進(jìn)行虛無編碼。由于BFI-44最先由美國的研究者以英語修訂發(fā)表, 因此本研究將被試國籍編碼為美國(1)、非美國(0)兩類, 測驗(yàn)語言版本相應(yīng)編碼分為英語(1)、非英語(0)。

3 研究結(jié)果

3.1 BF I各維度的代表性信度水平

Rodriguez和 Maeda (2006)認(rèn)為,α系數(shù)會隨著樣本的變化而變化, 但先前的信度元分析沒有涉及到α系數(shù)的抽樣分布(Vacha-Haase, 1998;Vacha-Haase, Kogan, Tani, & Woodall, 2001)。于是,他們對Vacha-Haase的信度概化方法進(jìn)行了改進(jìn),運(yùn)用樣本量加權(quán)方法和T轉(zhuǎn)換加權(quán)方法, 使信度估計(jì)更準(zhǔn)確。其中,T轉(zhuǎn)換是一個(gè)假設(shè)檢驗(yàn)的過程,提出虛無假設(shè)H0是“所有樣本中BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)沒有顯著差異”。通常, 先采用Q檢驗(yàn)來對該假設(shè)進(jìn)行驗(yàn)證。然后, 將各個(gè)研究樣本的α系數(shù)采用公式轉(zhuǎn)換成本研究選用了 85篇文獻(xiàn)中的110個(gè)樣本α系數(shù)的算術(shù)平均數(shù)、樣本量加權(quán)平均數(shù)和T轉(zhuǎn)換加權(quán)平均數(shù)進(jìn)行計(jì)算。轉(zhuǎn)換公式及Q檢驗(yàn)公式為：

表1 BF I-44各維度α系數(shù)的各類平均數(shù)

三種算法中, BFI-44問卷E維度的α系數(shù)處于0.824～0.855間, A維度處于0.745～0.794間, C維度處于0.792～0.823間, N維度處于0.813～0.833間, O維度處于0.788～0.796間。各維度的α系數(shù)都接近或超過0.8, 其中樣本量加權(quán)平均數(shù)和T轉(zhuǎn)換加權(quán)平均數(shù)兩種算法的結(jié)果比較相似。除開放性維度外, 其他維度T轉(zhuǎn)換加權(quán)計(jì)算的平均數(shù)都比采用另兩種算法得到的數(shù)值高。

五個(gè)分維度Q檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果為：QE(109) = 3579.601,QA(109) = 2242.416,QC(109) = 2150.65,QN(109) =1918.299,QO(109) = 1860.496, 各維度的Q檢驗(yàn)都達(dá)到顯著水平(p<0.0001)。說明樣本中各維度的α系數(shù)差異顯著。

3.2 BF I各維度α系數(shù)變異的預(yù)測源

以T轉(zhuǎn)換量為因變量,wi為權(quán)重, 進(jìn)行加權(quán)最小二乘回歸分析, 探究BFI-44信度系數(shù)變異的預(yù)測源(Rodriguez & Maeda, 2006)。結(jié)果如表2所示。

表2結(jié)果顯示, 樣本量對BFI量表中的A、C、N和O維度的α系數(shù)有影響,ΔR2分別為19.2%、4%、8.5%、15%。其中, 樣本量對 A、C起正向預(yù)測作用, 對N、O起負(fù)向預(yù)測作用。國籍對E、A、C維度α系數(shù)起正向預(yù)測作用,ΔR2分別為10.5%、20.5%、15.6%。男女比例對E、C、O維度α系數(shù)有影響,ΔR2分別為10.3%、20%、6.4%,其中, 男女比例對E、O維度的α系數(shù)起正向預(yù)測作用, 對 C維度起負(fù)向預(yù)測作用。測驗(yàn)的語言版本和被試的平均年齡對各維度的α系數(shù)影響沒有達(dá)到顯著水平。

表2 BF I-44各維度α系數(shù)回歸分析表

4 討論

從元分析結(jié)果可知, 在各個(gè)國家的 110個(gè)樣本研究中, BFI-44各分量表的α系數(shù)介于0.745～0.855間。通常, 人格量表的信度比智力測驗(yàn)要低,α系數(shù)不低于0.6即可接受(戴海琦, 張峰, 陳雪楓,2011)。研究表明 BFI-44在國籍、語言版本、樣本量、被試平均年齡、男女比例等不同情境中的應(yīng)用是穩(wěn)定的。在國內(nèi)發(fā)表的26篇文獻(xiàn)中, 只有4篇完整地報(bào)告了各維度的信度, 很多研究則犯了“信度引入” (reliability induction)的錯(cuò)誤, 在自己的研究中報(bào)告的是前人研究中測驗(yàn)的信度, 缺少自己研究樣本施測數(shù)據(jù)的信度值, 把前人的研究結(jié)果作為判斷測驗(yàn)質(zhì)量的依據(jù)。國內(nèi)其余的研究, 甚至沒有對其信度做任何描述, 這在一定程度上阻礙了對國內(nèi)研究中所使用的測驗(yàn)進(jìn)行信度概化研究, 影響了測驗(yàn)可靠性和有效性的進(jìn)一步提升(焦璨等, 2010)。在今后研究中, 研究者應(yīng)意識到“信度引入”的錯(cuò)誤所在, 并能夠有意識地完整報(bào)告自己研究中使用的測驗(yàn)施測數(shù)據(jù)的信度系數(shù)。

在選取的 5個(gè)預(yù)測源中, 樣本量、國籍、男女比例對不同維度的α系數(shù)均有影響, 而測驗(yàn)語言和平均年齡對各維度的α系數(shù)均沒有影響。在A、C維度中, 樣本量越大,α系數(shù)越高; 而在N、O維度中,α系數(shù)則隨著樣本量增大而減小。這可能是由于樣本選取方法不科學(xué)導(dǎo)致分?jǐn)?shù)出現(xiàn)偏態(tài)分布。例如, 用于本研究元分析的樣本中, 很多研究都采取方便取樣, 樣本缺乏代表性, 或者在抽樣過程中沒有考慮到樣本的國籍、男女比例等人口學(xué)變量, 而這些變量都會對BFI-44不同維度的信度水平產(chǎn)生顯著影響。有研究選用1013名學(xué)生被試施測BFI-44, 其中男生占63%, 女生占37%,平均年齡21.88歲, 年齡標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差為0.74, 測驗(yàn)的信度范圍處于 0.54～0.74間(Furnham, Nuygards, &Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013), 而Soh和Jacobs (2013)利用BFI-44對165名學(xué)生和在職人員施測時(shí), 男女比例分別為42%和53%, 年齡跨度為18～59歲,測驗(yàn)的信度范圍達(dá)到 0.76～0.87。以上說明, 有時(shí)簡單盲目地增加樣本量不僅不能提高測驗(yàn)的信度水平, 反而會造成相反的結(jié)果, 因此, 應(yīng)注意分層或分類抽樣。

結(jié)果顯示, 國籍對 BFI-44測驗(yàn)的 E、A、C三維度α系數(shù)起正向預(yù)測作用。在美國實(shí)施的研究中,α系數(shù)高于其他國家研究的值, 因?yàn)锽FI最先由美國的研究者開發(fā)而成, 在其他國家的樣本中應(yīng)用施測時(shí), 由于文化差異、不同地區(qū)的人所具有的某種穩(wěn)定的人格特征不同, 問卷言語表達(dá)等因素會造成被試?yán)斫獾钠? 進(jìn)而影響其信度水平。有研究者對 462名美國被試進(jìn)行施測,BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)為E (0.88)、A (0.79)、C(0.82)、N (0.84)、O (0.83), 均值為 0.83 (John &Srivastava, 1999)。John等人(2008)對829名美國和加拿大被試進(jìn)行施測, BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)為：E (0.86)、A (0.79)、C (0.82)、N (0.87)、O (0.83),均值為0.83。在美國和加拿大樣本中, BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)介于0.75～0.90之間。而韓語版BFI-44在韓國人群中施測, 各維度的α系數(shù)為E (0.52)、A (0.61)、C (0.75)、N (0.71)、O (0.75), 均值為 0.67(Kim et al., 2010)。此外, 德語版各維度的α系數(shù)介于0.67～0.82之間(Lang et al., 2001), 明顯低于美國樣本。

男女比例變量會對BFI-44不同維度的α系數(shù)起不同的作用。在E、O維度中, 男性越多,α系數(shù)越高; 而在 C維度中, 女性越多,α系數(shù)越高,表明男女在人格結(jié)構(gòu)中的差異也會影響測驗(yàn)的α系數(shù)。有研究者利用 BFI-44測驗(yàn)探究全世界 55個(gè)國家不同性別的被試在人格得分上的差異, 結(jié)果顯示很多國家的女性在神經(jīng)質(zhì)、外傾性、宜人性和盡責(zé)性等維度上的分?jǐn)?shù)都高于男性(Schmitt et al., 2008)。此外, 有研究者發(fā)現(xiàn), 女性在神經(jīng)質(zhì)和宜人性兩個(gè)維度中得分高于男性, 但其他三個(gè)維度得分與男性沒有明顯差異(Costa, Terracciano,& McCrae, 2001)。除神經(jīng)質(zhì)維度外, 男女比例對其他四個(gè)維度的影響并沒有形成一致的結(jié)果。

被試年齡對其BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)沒有影響, 其結(jié)果與之前研究一致。Denissen 等人(2008)在荷蘭通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)邀請本國 6948名被試完成了BFI-44測驗(yàn), 年齡跨度從 10歲至 70歲, 經(jīng)過多樣本分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 被試在各個(gè)年齡段的得分差異不大, 且BFI-44結(jié)構(gòu)很穩(wěn)定。而本研究中語言版本對BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)都沒有影響, 這一結(jié)果與前人研究不符, Caruso (2000)利用信度概化方法對NEO人格測驗(yàn)α系數(shù)分析中發(fā)現(xiàn), 英語和非英語版本的測驗(yàn)對E、N、O三個(gè)維度的α系數(shù)有影響。這可能是因?yàn)楸狙芯烤C合了很多研究結(jié)果,整合了單一研究的差異。如有研究者利用英、德、中三種語言版本BFI測驗(yàn)對三個(gè)國家被試施測時(shí),德國樣本中有些維度的α系數(shù)高于美國被試(Gunkel, Schlaegel, Langella, & Peluchette, 2010)。該結(jié)果還有待于今后的研究者通過收集原始數(shù)據(jù),進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步驗(yàn)證。

比較 BFI-44與其簡版測驗(yàn), 結(jié)果表明,BFI-10與 BFI-44各維度的相關(guān)雖達(dá)到 0.7以上,但英語版和德語版的BFI-10對BFI-44的解釋率分別為 55%和 62%, 因此使用簡版問卷會存在一些隱患(Rammstedt & John, 2007)。同時(shí), 有研究對不同長度版本的五因素人格測驗(yàn)進(jìn)行比較后發(fā)現(xiàn), 測驗(yàn)的信度水平隨測驗(yàn)題目數(shù)量的增多而提高。使用題目數(shù)量過少的問卷, 會增加測驗(yàn)結(jié)果犯一類錯(cuò)誤和二類錯(cuò)誤的概率, 進(jìn)而對整個(gè)問卷的結(jié)果產(chǎn)生影響, 因此, 建議在施測時(shí)采用中等長度的問卷(Credé, Harms, Niehorster, & Gaye-Valentine, 2012)。

5 結(jié)論及應(yīng)用建議

運(yùn)用信度概化方法對85篇BFI-44英文文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行元分析后得出以下結(jié)論：

(1)用于信度概化分析的樣本間 BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)差異顯著。

(2) BFI-44各維度的α系數(shù)均接近或高于0.8,其中E、N維度的α系數(shù)高于其他3個(gè)維度。

(3)被試樣本量、國籍、男女比例均對BFI-44測驗(yàn)不同維度的α系數(shù)有影響。樣本量對 A、C維度的α系數(shù)起正向預(yù)測作用, 對N、O維度的α系數(shù)起負(fù)向預(yù)測作用; 國籍對E、A、C維度的α系數(shù)起正向預(yù)測作用; 男女比例對E、O維度的α系數(shù)起著正向預(yù)測作用, 對 C維度則起負(fù)向預(yù)測作用。測驗(yàn)的語言版本和被試的平均年齡對各維度的α系數(shù)沒有顯著影響。

BFI-44語言版本多樣, 在世界范圍內(nèi)應(yīng)用廣泛, 各維度α系數(shù)均接近 0.8, 且該測驗(yàn)僅由 44道形容詞短語題目構(gòu)成, 簡短省時(shí), 建議在國內(nèi)推廣使用。使用時(shí)建議報(bào)告研究中測驗(yàn)工具施測數(shù)據(jù)的信度水平, 并進(jìn)一步考察其信效度。在使用中還應(yīng)注意抽取被試的方法, 注意平衡地區(qū)差異、男女比例對其信度水平的影響。

帶*為進(jìn)入元分析文獻(xiàn)。

戴海琦, 張峰, 陳雪楓 (主編). (2011).心理教育測量. 廣州: 暨南大學(xué)出版社.

焦璨, 張潔婷, 吳利, 張敏強(qiáng). (2010). MMPI 在中國應(yīng)用的信度概化研究.華南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào): 社會科學(xué)版,(4),48–52.

張力為. (2002). 信度的正用與誤用.北京體育大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào),25(3), 348–350.

*Abu Elanain, H. M. (2010). Work locus of control and interactional justice as mediators of the relationship between openness to experience and organizational citizenship behavior.Cross Cultural Management, 17(2), 170–192.

*Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012).A status-enhancement account of overconfidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718–766.

Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., & John, O. P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study.European Journal of Personality,4(2), 89–118.

*Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P.,Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2007).Personality and ethical decision-making in research: The role of perceptions of self and others.Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 15–34.

*Avsec, A., Masnec, P., & Komidar, L. (2009). Personality traits and emotional intelligence as predictors of teachers’psychological well-being.Psiholo?ka Obzorja, 18, 73–86.

*Aziz, S., & Jackson, C. J. (2001). A comparison between three and five factor models of Pakistani personality data.Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1311–1319.

*Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(3), 729–750.

*Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (2000). Toward the development of quasi-indigenous personality constructs:Measuring Los Cinco Grandes in Spain with indigenous Castilian markers.American Behavioral Scientist, 44(1),141–157.

Blüml, V., Kapusta, N. D., Doering, S., Br?hler, E., Wagner,B., & Kersting, A. (2013). Personality factors and suicide risk in a representative sample of the german general population.PloS One, 8(10), e76646.

*Cabello, R., Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., &Gross, J. J. (2013). A Spanish adaptation of the emotion regulation questionnaire.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 234–240.

Caruso, J. C. (2000). Reliability generalization of the NEO personality scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 236–254.

*Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Furr, R. M. (2011). Metainsight: Do people really know how others see them?.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 831–846.

*Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006).The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments.Learning and Individual Differences,16(2), 129–144.

*Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186–202.

*Clark, J., Boccaccini, M. T., Caillouet, B., & Chaplin, W. F.(2007). Five factor model personality traits, jury selection,and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 641–660.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001).Gender differences in personality traits across cultures:Robust and surprising findings.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A.(2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874–888.

*Daugherty, J. R., Kurtz, J. E., & Phebus, J. B. (2009). Are implicit motives “Visible” to Well-Acquainted others?.Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 373–380.

*De Oliveira, E. A., Braun, J. L., Carlson, T. L., & de Oliveira, S.G. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward foreign-born and domestic instructors.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(2), 113–125.

*De Rooij, S. R., Veenendaal, M. V., R?ikk?nen, K., &Roseboom, T. J. (2012). Personality and stress appraisal in adults prenatally exposed to the Dutch famine.Early Human Development, 88(5), 321–325.

*Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy:Romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults.Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(2), 257–277.

*Denissen, J. J. A., Butalid, L., Penke, L., & van Aken, M. A.G. (2008). The effects of weather on daily mood: A multilevel approach.Emotion, 8(5), 662–667.

*Denissen, J. J., Geenen, R., van Aken, M. A., Gosling, S. D.,& Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI).Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 152–157.

*DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138–1151.

*Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly,D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92(6), 1087–1101.

*Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011).Attachment insecurities and the processing of threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in insecure people's coping strategies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 78–93.

Engvik, H., & F?llesdal, H. (2005). The big five inventory p?norsk.Tidsskrift for Norsk, Psykologforening, 42, 128–129.

Engvik, H., & Clausen, S. (2011). Norsk kortversjon av big five inventory (BFI-20).Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening,48(9), 869–872.

*Exline, J. J. (2012). Humility and the ability to receive from others.Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 31(1), 40–50.

*Farkas, D., & Orosz, G. (2013). The link between ego-resiliency and changes in Big Five traits after decision making: The case of Extraversion.Personality and Individual Differences,55(4), 440–445.

Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Marchione, D., & Maffei, C. (2011).The Big Five Inventory (BFI).European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 50–58.

*Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Feeney, J., & Maffei, C. (2012).Predicting borderline personality disorder features from personality traits, identity orientation, and attachment styles in Italian nonclinical adults: Issues of consistency across age ranges.Journal of Personality Disorders, 26(2),280–297.

*Furnham, A., Nuygards, S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T.(2013). Personality, assessment methods and academic performance.Instructional Science, 41(5), 975–987.

*Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904–917.

*Gámez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C.,Suzuki, N., & Watson, D. (2014). The Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire: Development and initial validation.Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 35–45.

*Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verplanken, B., & Maio, G. R.(2012). Communal narcissism.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 854–878.

Gerend, M. A., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2004).Personality factors in older women's perceived susceptibility to diseases of aging.Journal of Personality, 72(2), 243–270.

Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005).Assessment of Big Five personality characteristics in the SOEP(Research Notes 4).Berlin, German: German Institute of Economic Research.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences:The search for universals in personality lexicons.In L.Wheeler (Eds),Review of personality and social psychology(Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007).Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34–48.

*Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E.(2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379–398.

*Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., Langella, I. M., & Peluchette, J.V. (2010). Personality and career decisiveness: An international empirical comparison of business students'career planning.Personnel Review, 39(4), 503–524.

Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability.Psychometrika, 10(4), 255–282.

*Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 763–779.

*Hawass, H. H. (2012). Committed salesforce: An investigation into personality traits.International Journal of Business and Management, 7(6), 147–160.

*Hepler, J., & Albarracín, D. (2013). Attitudes without objects:Evidence for a dispositional attitude, its measurement, and its consequences.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 1060–1076.

*Hill, E. M., Billington, R., & Kr?geloh, C. (2013). The cortisol awakening response and the big five personality dimensions.Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5),600–605.

*Hodson, G., Rush, J., & MacInnis, C. C. (2010). A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't): Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 660–682.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991).The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54.Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of Personality:Theory and Research(2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York:Guilford.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. In O. P.John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research(pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

*Joshanloo, M., & Afshari, S. (2011). Big five personality traits and self-esteem as predictors of life satisfaction in Iranian Muslim University students.Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 105–113.

*Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2014).What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality.Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 199–221.

*Kahn, J. H., Barr, L. K., & Schneider, J. W. (2008).Individual differences in emotion expression: Hierarchical structure and relations with psychological distress.Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 27(10), 1045–1077.

*Kang, J. Y. M., & Johnson, K. K. (2013). M-Consumer segmentation: M-Communication, M-Distribution, and M-Accessibility.International Journal of Marketing Studies,5(1), 86–95.

*Kao, P., & Craigie, P. (2014). Effects of English usage on facebook and personality traits on achievement of students learning English as a foreign language.Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 17–24.

*Kardum, I., Hudek-Knezevic, J., & Krapic, N. (2012). The structure of hardiness, its measurement invariance across gender and relationships with personality traits and mental health outcomes.Psychological Topics, 21(3), 487–507.

*Kardum, I., & Hudek-Knezevic, J. (2012). Relationships between five-factor personality traits and specific healthrelated personality dimensions.International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12(3), 373–387.

*Kendler, K. S., Myers, J., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, T.(2011). Borderline personality disorder traits and their relationship with dimensions of normative personality: A web-based cohort and twin study.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 123(5), 349–359.

*Killian, K. D. (2012). Development and validation of the emotional Self-Awareness questionnaire: A measure of emotional intelligence.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(3), 502–514.

Kim, S. Y., Kim, J. M., Yoo, J. A., Bae, K. Y., Kim, S. W.,Yang, S. J., & Yoon, J. S. (2010). Standardization and validation of Big Five Inventory-Korean Version (BFI-K)in Elders.Korean Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 17(1),15–25.

Koh, J. S., Ko, H. J., Wang, S. M., Cho, K. J., Kim, J. C.,Lee, S. J.,... Serretti, A. (2014). The association of personality trait on treatment outcomes in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: An exploratory study.Journal of Psychosomatic Research,76(2), 127–133.

*Komar, S., Komar, J. A., Robie, C., & Taggar, S. (2010).Speeding personality measures to reduce faking: A self-regulatory model.Journal of Personnel Psychology,9(3), 126–137.

Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte und psychometrische ?quivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen.Diagnostica, 47(3), 111–121.

*Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2),304–326.

*Izquierdo, A. L. G., Villagrasa, P. J. R., & Izquierdo, M. G.(2009). Los" big five" y el efecto moderador de la resistencia en el agotamiento emocional.Revista de Psicología del Trabajoy de las Organizaciones, 25(2), 135–147.

*Mahoney, J. M., & Stasson, M. F. (2005). Interpersonal and personality dimensions of behavior: FIRO-B and the Big Five.North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 205–216.

*Marcus, B., Machilek, F., & Schütz, A. (2006). Personality in cyberspace: Personal Web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 1014–1031.

McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition.Psychological Assessment,25(2), 532–544.

*McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2004).Gratitude in intermediate affective terrain: Links of grateful moods to individual differences and daily emotional experience.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 295–309.

*Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006).Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 862–877.

*Mol, E. M., Monbaliu, E., Ven, M., Vergote, M., & Prinzie,P. (2012). The use of night orthoses in cerebral palsy treatment: Sleep disturbance in children and parental burden or not?.Research in Developmental Disabilities,33(2), 341–349.

*Myszkowski, N., & Storme, M. (2012). How personality traits predict design-driven consumer choices.Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 641–650.

*Naragon-Gainey, K., Watson, D., & Markon, K. E. (2009).Differential relations of depression and social anxiety symptoms to the facets of extraversion/positive emotionality.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(2), 299–310.

*Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality.Journal of Research in Personality, 40(2), 179–208.

*Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(1), 116–130.

*Páez, D., Seguel, A. M., & Martínez-Sánchez, F. (2013).Incremental validity of alexithymia, emotional coping and humor style on happiness and psychological well-being.Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(5), 1621–1637.

*Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. A., & Wentworth, P. A. (1997).Generativity and authoritarianism: Implications for personality, political involvement, and parenting.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1202–1216.

*Peterson, C. H., Casillas, A., & Robbins, S. B. (2006). The student readiness inventory and the big five: Examining social desirability and college academic performance.Personality and Individual Differences, 41(4), 663–673.

*Phillips, T. R., Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y., & Patrick, C. J.(2014). Further development and construct validation of MMPI-2-RF indices of global psychopathy, fearlessdominance, and impulsive-antisociality in a sample of incarcerated women.Law and Human Behavior, 38(1),34–46.

*Plaisant, O., Srivastava, S., Mendelsohn, G. A., Debray, Q.,& John, O. P. (2005, March). Relations entre le “Big Five Inventory” fran?ais et le manuel diagnostique des troubles mentaux dans un échantillon clinique fran?ais.Annales Médico-psychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique, 163(2),161–167.

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K).Diagnostica, 51(4), 195–206.

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German.Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212.

*Ready, R. E., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Correspondence of psychiatric patient and informant ratings of personality traits,temperament, and interpersonal problems.Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 39–49.

*Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J.,Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates.Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 105(6), 996–1012.

*Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains and facets of the five factor model.Journal of Personality, 69(2), 199–222.

*Ro, E., & Clark, L. A. (2013). Interrelations between psychosocial functioning and adaptive- and maladaptiverange personality traits.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,122(3), 822–835.

Rodriguez, M. C., & Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha.Psychological Methods, 11(3), 306–322.

*Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-tohead comparison in the prediction of personality,self-identity, and adjustment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49–65.

*Schaumberg, R. L., & Flynn, F. J. (2012). Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown: The link between guilt proneness and leadership.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103(2), 327–342.

*Schlotz, W., Yim, I. S., Zoccola, P. M., Jansen, L., & Schulz,P. (2011). The perceived stress reactivity scale: Measurement invariance, stability, and validity in three countries.Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 80–94.

*Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005).Justice Sensitivity: Assessment and Location in the Personality Space.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202–259.

Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez,V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,38(2), 173–212.

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008).Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182.

*Schroder, K. E., & Ollis, C. L. (2013). The Coping Competence Questionnaire: A measure of resilience to helplessness and depression.Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 286–302.

*Schueller, S. M. (2012). Personality fit and positive interventions: Extraverted and introverted individuals benefit from different happiness increasing strategies.Psychology, 3(12), 1166–1173.

*Selfhout, M., Denissen, J., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2009).In the eye of the beholder: perceived, actual, and peer-rated similarity in personality, communication, and friendship intensity during the acquaintanceship process.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1152–1165.

*Sheese, B. E., Brown, E. L., & Graziano, W. G. (2004).Emotional expression in cyberspace: Searching for moderators of the Pennebaker disclosure effect via e-mail.Health Psychology, 23(5), 457–464.

*Shmotkin, D., & Keinan, G. (2011). Who is prone to react to coinciding threats of terrorism and war? Exploring vulnerability through global versus differential reactivity.Community Mental Health Journal, 47(1), 35–46.

*?im?ek, ?. F. (2011). An intentional model of emotional well-being: The development and initial validation of a measure of subjective well-being.Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 421–442.

*?im?ek, ?. F., & Kocay?rük, E. (2013). Affective reactions to one’s whole life: Preliminary development and validation of the ontological well-being scale.Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 309–343.

*Soh, L., & Jacobs, K. E. (2013). The biasing effect of personality on self-estimates of cognitive abilities in males and females.Personality and Individual Differences,55(2), 141–146.

*Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J.(2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041–1053.

*Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011).Comparative validity of brief to medium-length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires.Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995–1010.

*Ulu, I. P., & Tezer, E. (2010). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, adult attachment, and big five personality traits.The Journal of Psychology, 144(4), 327–340.

Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies.Educational and Psychological Measurement,58(1), 6–20.

Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L. R., Tani, C. R., & Woodall, R. A.(2001). Reliability generalization: Exploring variation of reliability coefficients of MMPI clinical scales scores.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 45–59.

*Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). e-Perceptions: personality impressions based on personal websites.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 123–132.

Wheeler, D. L., Vassar, M., Worley, J. A., & Barnes, L. L. (2011).A reliability generalization meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for the Maslach Burnout Inventory.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 231–244.

*Worrell, F. C., & Cross, W. E. (2004). The reliability and validity of Big Five Inventory scores with African American college students.Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(1), 18–32.

*Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2009). Remaining time and opportunities at work: Relationships between age, work characteristics, and occupational future time perspective.Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 487–514.

Zaidi, N. R., Wajid, R. A., Zaidi, F. B., Zaidi, G. B., & Zaidi,M. T. (2013). The big five personality traits and their relationship with work engagement among public sector university teachers of Lahore.African Journal of Business Management, 7(15), 1344–1353.

*Zhang, R. P., & Tsingan, L. (2014). Extraversion and neuroticism mediate associations between openness,conscientiousness, and agreeableness and affective well-being.Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1377–1388.

*Zupan?i?, M., & Kav?i?, T. (2014). Student personality traits predicting individuation in relation to mothers and fathers.Journal of Adolescence, 37, 715–726.