The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessment of the Five Factor Model
Abstract
We review the current state of the science with respect to the assessment of the Five Factor Model (FFM), a robust structural model of personality that emerged from two distinct traditions: The lexical and questionnaire traditions. The lexical tradition is predicated on the hypothesis that important individual differences in personality are encoded as single words in language. This bottom-up tradition has suggested that five broad factors account for much of the personality variation observed among individuals: Extraversion (or Surgency), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness (or Dependability), Neuroticism (vs. Emotional Stability), and Openness to Experience (or Intellect/Culture). The questionnaire tradition emphasizes the measurement of similar constructs, largely through top-down development of measures. We examine the strengths and limitations associated with existing measures of the FFM and related models, focusing on measures rooted in the lexical and questionnaire traditions. We also consider maladaptive FFM measures and conclude by analyzing important issues in the FFM assessment literature.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
We attempted to mitigate selection bias by administering personality assessments of different lengths (300 versus 44 items) and distinct theoretical traditions (questionnaire versus lexical).
“We attempted to mitigate selection bias by administering personality assessments of different lengths (300 versus 44 items) and distinct theoretical traditions (questionnaire versus lexical11).”
From A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
As a secondary measure, we used the BFI, a 44-item measure developed in the lexical tradition.
“As a secondary measure, we used the BFI69, a 44-item measure developed in the lexical tradition11.”
From A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models
Serapio-García, G., Safdari, M., Crepy, C., Sun, L., Fitz, S., Romero, P., Abdulhai, M., Faust, A., & Matarić, M. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01115-6 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Simms, L., Williams, T. F., & Simms, E. N.
- Venue
- Oxford Handbooks Online
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2016-04-07
- OpenAlex
- W2398060291
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 2.47
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Keywords
- Big Five personality traits, personality assessment, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience, personality differences
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