The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Domains and Facets: Hierarchical Personality Assessment Using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
Abstract
Personality traits are organized hierarchically, with narrow, specific traits combining to define broad, global factors. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c) assesses personality at both levels, with six specific facet scales in each of five broad domains. This article describes conceptual issues in specifying facets of a domain and reports evidence on the validity of NEO-PI-R facet scales. Facet analysis-the interpretation of a scale in terms of the specific facets with which it correlates-is illustrated using alternative measures of the five-factor model and occupational scales. Finally, the hierarchical interpretation of personality profiles is discussed. Interpretation on the domain level yields a rapid understanding of the individual interpretation of specific facet scales gives a more detailed assessment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
Self-citationThe development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · Cited by 5,530
Neuroticism, Somatic Complaints, and Disease: Is the Bark Worse than the Bite?
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x · Cited by 1,010
Self-citationExtension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.781 · Cited by 707
Cited by
(1999) · Cited by 7,995
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000096 · Cited by 2,075
Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates and cultural boundaries
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141 · Cited by 2,088
Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 · Cited by 1,961
A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Block, J. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 · Cited by 1,682
Metadata
- Authors
- Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality Assessment
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-50
- ISSN
- 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7752
- OpenAlex
- W2000014323
- Cited by
- 2,077
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.