A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling
Abstract
NEO instruments are widely used to assess Big Five personality factors, but confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) conducted at the item level do not support their a priori structure due, in part, to the overly restrictive CFA assumptions. We demonstrate that exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), an integration of CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), overcomes these problems with responses (N = 3,390) to the 60-item NEO-Five-Factor Inventory: (a) ESEM fits the data better and results in substantially more differentiated (less correlated) factors than does CFA; (b) tests of gender invariance with the 13-model ESEM taxonomy of full measurement invariance of factor loadings, factor variances-covariances, item uniquenesses, correlated uniquenesses, item intercepts, differential item functioning, and latent means show that women score higher on all NEO Big Five factors; (c) longitudinal analyses support measurement invariance over time and the maturity principle (decreases in Neuroticism and increases in Agreeableness, Openness, and Conscientiousness). Using ESEM, we addressed substantively important questions with broad applicability to personality research that could not be appropriately addressed with the traditional approaches of either EFA or CFA.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The choice to use exploratory rather than confirmatory factor analysis was based on findings indicating that CFA is overly restrictive when conducting item level analyses.
“The choice to use exploratory rather than confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in this part of the study was based upon findings indicating that CFA is overly restrictive when conducting item level analyses (e.g., Marsh et al., 2010).”
From What Does the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) Really Measure? (2014) · cites this paper as Marsh et al., 2010
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788 · see citing works
Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance
Chen, F. F. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 · Cited by 12,217 · see citing works
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307 · see citing works
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 · Cited by 6,691 · see citing works
Self-citationRoberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 · Cited by 3,318 · see citing works
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.729 · Cited by 1,996 · see citing works
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 · Cited by 1,391 · see citing works
Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: evidence from two national samples
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0012897 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Replicable Item-Cluster Subcomponents in the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
Saucier, G. (1998) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7002_6 · Cited by 188 · cited 4× · see citing works
“However, most of these Big Five studies were not based on analyses at the item level, instead using one of a variety of aggregate scores based on the mean response to different items; for example, facet scores (e.g., McCrae et al., 1996; Saucier, 1998; Small et al., 2003), parcel scores (e.”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV)
Studerus, E., Gamma, A., & Vollenweider, F. X. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012412 · Cited by 683 · see citing works
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029837 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
What Does the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) Really Measure?
Wolgast, M. (2014) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2014.07.002 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
The road to creative achievement: a latent variable model of ability and personality predictors
Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1941 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Wortman, J., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0029322 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0024122 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Self-citationRosellini, A. J., & Brown, T. A. (2011) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191110382848 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Tran, U. S., Glück, T. M., & Nader, I. W. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.21996 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Golay, P., Reverte, I., Rossier, J., Favez, N., & Lecerf, T. (2013) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0030676 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
The personality, motivational, and need-based background of problematic Tinder use
Orosz, G., Benyó, M., Berkes, B., Nikoletti, E., Gál, É., Tóth-Király, I., & Bőthe, B. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.7.2018.21 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
McLarnon, M. J. W., & Tarraf, R. C. (2017) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.049 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
The elusive general factor of personality: The acquaintance effect
Gnambs, T. (2013) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1933 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Delvecchio, G., Garzitto, M., Fagnani, C., Fornasari, L., Stazi, M. A., Picardi, A., Ciappolino, V., Fabbro, F., Altamura, A. C., & Brambilla, P. (2016) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.06.014 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Tolerability, assessment, and prediction of psilocybin-induced altered states of consciousness
Studerus, E. (2012) · University of Zurich · doi:10.5167/uzh-164092 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Interest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET)
Chu, C., Hoff, K. A., Liu, Z., Heimpel, N. F., Greco, A., Oswald, F. L., & Rounds, J. (2026) · Journal of Career Assessment · doi:10.1177/10690727251322520 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Second, to examine the correspondence between CABIN-NET basic interest scales and RIASEC dimensions, we conducted a basic interest-to-RIASEC Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM; Marsh et al., 2009; 2010).”
- Authors
- Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Muthén & Muthén (United States) (US)
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 471-491
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2117183956
- Cited by
- 899
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 51.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- Big Five personality traits, NEO-FFI, exploratory structural equation modeling, factor structure, measurement invariance, gender differences in personality, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, differential item functioning
- MeSH terms
- Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Assessment, Personality Development, Psychometrics, Sex Factors, Time Factors, Models, Statistical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
