¡Descarga Validity of Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire: Self-Reports and Ratings - Prof. y más Apuntes en PDF de Psicología solo en Docsity!
GOMÀ-I-FREIXANET, WISMEIJER, VALEROCONSENSUAL VALIDITY OF THE ZKPQ
Consensual Validity Parameters
of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire: Evidence From Self-Reports
and Spouse Reports
Montserrat Gomà-i-Freixanet and Andreas A. J. Wismeijer
Department of Health Psychology Autonomous University of Barcelona
Sergi Valero
Department of Psychiatry Hospital Universitari de la Vall d’Hebron Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
One way of validating questionnaire responses is correlating them with ratings made by exter- nal assessors who know the ratee well: This is known as consensual validity. In this study, we assessed the consensual validity of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ; Zuckerman, 2002; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). A multitrait-multimethod matrix of self-reported and spouse reported personality ratings was used to establish convergent and discriminant validity by means of Campbell & Fiske’s (1959) evaluative criteria. Self-reports of 86 men and 85 women were correlated with their spouses’ re- ports. Intraclass correlations ranged from .47 to .63 for the 5 dimensions, providing strong evi- dence of convergent and discriminant validity. The results obtained favor the use of the ZKPQ as a valid self-report measure of personality traits.
The alternative Five-factor model (AFFM) proposed and described by Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornquist, and Kiers (1991) originated as an alternative to the Five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990) to make up for the latter’s supposed lack of explanatory power. The origins of the FFM and the AFFM were quite different. The former originated in re- search on the lexical properties of adjectives in the lan- guage pertaining to personality descriptors. Costa, McCrae, and Arenberg (1980) started with a three-factor model (Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience), resembling Eysenck’s (1967) model at least in the first two factors. Costa and McCrae (1985) later added two more factors (Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) to bring the model closer to the five factors identified in lexical analy- ses. The model is essentially a descriptive one designed to tap those dimensions of personality identified in the lexical analyses of dictionaries and factor analyses of reduced sub- sets of the personality relevant words. It is essentially atheoretical in its origin and descriptive of traits that are uniquely human and do not translate easily into compara-
tive descriptions of animal behavior traits (e.g., Conscien- tiousness, Agreeableness). The AFFM was being developed at the same time as Costa and McCrae (1985) were developing their own model. In preparation for his book on the Psychobiology of Personal- ity, Zuckerman (1991) began looking for a framework to de- scribe personality traits with biological-evolutionary roots and a potential for comparative analyses. Zuckerman et al. (1991) used questionnaire scales that had already been widely used in human psychobiological research and/or in studies of temperament in children and adults. Factor analy- ses using several markers for each hypothesized trait consis- tently yielded five factors reliably identifiable across genders (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988; Zuckerman et al., 1991). Both Eysenck (1992a, 1992b) and Zuckerman (1992) pointed out that one way of determining which are the basic traits of personality is using a nomological network or a theo- retical underpinning to guide taxonomic studies and lead to theoretical advances and that psychobiological studies of personality provide data for the understanding of the
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 84 (3), 279– Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
neurobiological and genetic underpinnings of personality. Relying only on the encoding of personality traits in lan- guage is treacherous, as this encoding probably reflects the observability of these traits in social interactions and may not necessarily mirror the proportional biological relevance of the traits (Zuckerman, 1992; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). Therefore, using psychobiological data instead allows researchers to explore the biological origins of personality (Eysenck, 1992a). The Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ; Zuckerman, 2002; Zuckerman et al., 1993) was de- veloped to measure the dimensions that constitute the AFFM, namely, Neuroticism-Anxiety (N-Anx), Activity (Act), Sociability (Sy), Impulsive Sensation-Seeking (ImpSS), and Aggression-Hostility (Agg-Host). Since its first publication in 1993, the ZKPQ has undergone extensive psychometric testing, targeting both reliability and validity parameters. Concerning criterion validity, the ZKPQ has been tested in different populations such as team sportsmen and sportswomen (O’Sullivan, Zuckerman, & Kraft, 1998), prostitutes (O’Sullivan, Zuckerman, & Kraft, 1996), and co- caine abusers (Ball, 1995). Several cross-cultural studies have been performed as well using translations in Germany (Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1994), Japan (Shiomi et al., 1996), Israel (I. Montag, 2001), China (Wu et al., 2000), Italy (De Pascalis & Russo, 2003), and Spain (Gomà-i-Freixanet, Valero, Puntí, & Zuckerman, 2004; Kuhlman, Zuckerman, Gomà-i-Freixanet, & Shiomi, 2003). Our aim of this study was to provide data on the consen- sual validity of the ZKPQ using the Catalan translation by Gomà-i-Freixanet et al. (2004). The psychometric evaluation of this version showed good internal consistency and discriminant validity of scales. The mean Cronbach’s alpha for the ZKPQ scales was .76, with values ranging from .67 to .84, indicating adequate internal consistency within scales. Also, the correlations among scales ranged from –.19 to .22, with an absolute mean interscale correlation of .06, indicat- ing adequate discriminant validity. Furthermore, gender dif- ferences in means were in accordance with the original U.S. sample, and the original U.S. factor structure was largely rep- licated with Tucker’s congruence coefficients generally be- ing in the 90s (Gomà-i-Freixanet et al., 2004). The construct validity of a test is defined by the degree to which the test measures the variable(s) that it is designed to measure. This is easy to establish when one has a criterion against which the test can be evaluated, but unfortunately, this is not always the case. One way of overcoming this prob- lem could be what is known as “consensual validation” (Mc- Crae, 1982), meaning that one can validate questionnaire responses by correlating them with ratings made by external assessors who know the ratee well. This method thus pro- vides both reports from observers who can interpret specific overt behaviors as evidence of underlying traits and self-reports that provide unique access to the private thoughts of the rated individual. One of the advantages of this
approach (McCrae & Costa, 1983) is that the artifacts that may influence self-reports (e.g., acquiescence, social desir- ability, and defensive responding) in general may be consid- ered to be independent from those that influence observer reports (e.g., halo effects or effects of stereotypes). An agree- ment between self-reports and observer reports therefore constitutes powerful evidence of consensual validation. In a former article, Gomà-i-Freixanet (1997) gave a detailed overview of factors affecting the accuracy or agreement be- tween self-reports and observer reports. Some of the most important conditions leading to improved accuracy of reports are the instrument itself and the acquaintance between the target and the rater. McCrae & Costa (1983) stated that one could increase the correspondence between the two sources by employing the same instrument for both the target indi- vidual and the rater. Regarding the target–rater acquaintance, it is known that self–peer convergence and interrater reliabil- ity increase with the degree of acquaintance between the judge and the target. Norman and Goldberg (1966) pointed out that, judged against the external criteria of self-reports, raters who have had longer acquaintances with the targets give consistently more accurate ratings. Several authors (e.g., McCrae, 1982; Watson & Clark, 1991) found that spouses are more accurate in assessing personality traits than friends, and friends are more accurate than strangers. This research is the first that aimed to assess the validity of the ZKPQ by means of the consensual validation method us- ing the multitrait-multimethod matrix (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). This approach allows us to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the ZKPQ scales. By convergent va- lidity, it is meant that measures of the same trait should be in agreement even if they are measured with different methods, and discriminant validity refers to different traits that should be distinguished from one another even if they are measured with the same method. As one can see from the previous re- ported literature, self–peer agreement increases with the de- gree of acquaintance between the rater and the ratee. Therefore, we used peer raters well acquainted with their tar- gets: spouses. Thus, the same questionnaire was answered by both members of the couple, spouses were well acquainted with their targets, and using both self-reports and observer reports (from now on referred to as “spouse reports”), we controlled for the artifacts affecting reports in general.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were friends, parents, and relatives of under- graduate and postgraduate students they recruited to partici- pate in the study. Also, some participants were recruited by one of the authors himself (A. Wismeijer), although they did not know the author. The primary convenience sample con- sisted of 88 couples. As occasionally some couples returned
280 GOMÀ-I-FREIXANET, WISMEIJER, VALERO
not lower the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The ICC solves this problem by taking the differences in magnitude between the scores into account. Using this technique, high yet consistent differences between variables will therefore not lead to an inflated correlation. The Type I error rate per comparison was set by default to .05. As the ZKPQ has a total of six scales, and age was in- cluded in the analysis, a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests of .05/7 = .007 was used for the between-participant un- paired t tests. A correction of .05/5 = .01 was used for the self-reports and spouse reports paired t tests, as age and Infreq were not included in these analyses. Finally, an addi- tional principal components analysis (PCA) of the 10 ZKPQ scales scores of self-ratings and spouse ratings was executed. We used this statistical technique, as it fitted optimally to the number of actual observations. Our sample size prevented us from conducting confirmatory factor analysis via structural equation modeling. We forced a five-factor solution and sub- sequently used the Varimax method for rotation. We pre- dicted that if the five factors of the ZKPQ (Infreq scale was left out) would genuinely show consensual validity, each fac- tor in the rotated matrix would be heavily loaded by both the self-ratings and spouse ratings of the same scale.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics from the sample are shown in Table 1. Men and women did not differ significantly on age, although the former were on average 3.20 years older. Means of the scales of the ZKPQ are very similar to the original U.S. ver- sion and to the Catalan version (Gomà-i-Freixanet et al., 2004), and they follow the general trend found in men and women, that is, women score higher on N-Anx and Sy and lower on Imp-SS, and Infreq, although these differences only reached significance on the N-Anx scale. In examining relations between self-data and spouse data, we compared the means across the two methods of data ob- tainment. As was discussed earlier (Gomà-i-Freixanet, 1997), two different patterns might be expected on theoreti- cal grounds. First, researchers who emphasize the biased na- ture of self-report data would predict that self-raters will respond in a more socially desirable manner (i.e., higher lev- els on Sy and generally lower levels on N-Anx, ImpSS, Agg-Host and Infreq) than their spouses. Conversely, those who emphasize the biased nature of spouse-report data would predict that spouses will assign generally lower levels of neuroticism than the self-raters because this trait is less ex- ternally observable (Johnson, 1997). Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the ZKPQ dimensions for self-reports and spouse reports. The data did not support ei- ther contention, as we did not find any significant difference between self-reports and spouse reports.
To examine the internal consistency of self-reports and spouse reports, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha for both. The mean self-reported αfor the ZKPQ scales was .78, with values ranging from .69 to .87. Table 3 shows that N-Anx has the highest internal consistency and Agg-Host the lowest. These coefficients are adequate and very similar to those found in the original U.S. version and even slightly higher than those of the Catalan version. The mean spouse-reported α for the same scales was .81, with values ranging from .77 to .86.
Heteromethod Correlations
Subsequently, ICCs were computed to determine the conver- gent and discriminant validity of the ZKPQ scales. Table 4 shows the multitrait-multimethod matrix with the hetero- method correlations between the self-reports and spouse re- ports. The principal diagonal of this table, underlined, con-
282 GOMÀ-I-FREIXANET, WISMEIJER, VALERO
TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Reported ZKPQ Scales for Men and Women andt Test Comparisons
Men a^ Women b Cohen’s Variable M SD M SD t d Age (years) 39.84 13.50 36.64 12.67 1.57. ZKPQ N-Anx 5.92 4.06 9.84 4.88 –5.73* –. Act 8.35 3.55 7.56 3.79 1.40. Sy 6.58 3.63 6.89 3.51 –0.59 –. ImpSS 7.58 4.09 7.08 4.16 0.79. Agg-Host 7.12 3.33 6.41 2.79 1.50. Infreq 2.13 1.57 1.66 1.48 2.01. Note. ZKPQ = Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire; N-Anx = Neuroticism-Anxiety; Act = Activity; Sy = Sociability; ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation Seeking; Agg-Host = Aggression-Hostility; Infreq = Infrequency. a n = 86. b n = 85.
TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for ZKPQ Scales for Self-Reports and Spouse Reports andt Test Comparisons With Paired Data
Self-Reports a
Spouse Reports b Cohen’s Scale M SD M SD t d ZKPQ N-Anx 7.83 4.90 7.82 4.80 0.04. Act 7.92 3.70 7.95 3.72 –0.10 –. Sy 6.77 3.55 7.15 4.14 –1.34 –. ImpSS 7.37 4.11 7.29 4.19 0.28. Agg-Host 6.76 3.06 6.74 3.75 0.07. Note. ZKPQ = Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire; N-Anx = Neuroticism-Anxiety; Act = Activity; Sy = Sociability; ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation-Seeking; Agg-Host = Aggression-Hostility. a n = 171. b n = 171.
tains the convergent validity coefficients for the five scales. Overall, the results indicate a clear convergent and discriminant pattern. In terms of convergent validity, all scales showed a significant level of self–peer agreement. Total sample convergent correlations ranged from .47 to .63 (absolute mean interscale correlation = .56). Clearly, all convergent correlations were far higher than the so-called “. barrier” (Mischel, 1968). In contrast, all but two of the off-diagonal values assessing discriminant validity stayed below the .3 barrier. Using the criterion that convergent cor- relations should be higher than any other values in its row or column of the heteromethod matrix (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), we found that all the scales displayed a good level of discriminant validity. These results support the construct va- lidity of these specific scales. Self-reports and spouse reports showed a significant level of agreement on each of the scales. Table 5 shows convergent correlations between self-reports and spouse reports for the total sample as well as for men and women separately to analyze any gender-based differences in ratings, that is, whether gender can influence the convergence of spouse ratings on any scale. Note that the cor- relations provided in the first column of Table 5 are the same as the principal diagonal correlations underlined in Table 4. The
95% confidence intervals are provided for these coefficients to show the estimation of population parameters. Convergent correlations ranged from .48 to .60 for men (absolute mean interscale correlation = .54) and .45 to .71 for women (absolute mean interscale correlation = .55). The results for men and women followed the general pat- tern found in the total sample; there were, however, differ- ences in absolute values between men and women in the magnitude of correlations in two scales: Sy and ImpSS. Agree- ment between self-reports and spouse reports was higher for Sy when women assessed men, whereas for the ImpSS scale, agreement was higher when men assessed women. To evaluate the possible influence of the years the partners were living together on the level of agreement between self-reports and spouse reports, we generated a new variable named consensus, which consisted of subtracting for each scale the self-scores from the spouse scores. This new vari- able gave us a measure of the difference between self-reports and spouse-reports scores. None of the correlations between consensus and years living together, which ranged from 0 to 44 years, were significant for any of the scales: N-Anx ( r = .13), Act ( r = .04), Sy ( r = .05), ImpSS ( r = .04), Agg-Host ( r = .07), and Infreq ( r = .09).
PCA
Finally, Table 6 shows the results of the factor analysis of the self-reported and spouse-reported scales (excluding the Infreq scale) using a PCA followed by normalized varimax rotation of the five scales of the ZKPQ. The rationale behind this meth- odological strategy was that if the ZKPQ showed a high degree of consensual validity, then the responses made by both asses- sors should be highly consistent among them for each one of the scales. A PCA that contemplates the assessments of both assessors should consistently gather in each factor self-reports
CONSENSUAL VALIDITY OF THE ZKPQ 283
TABLE 3 Internal Consistency for Self-Reported and Spouse Rated ZKPQ Scales
Alpha Coefficients
Scale Self-Reports Spouse Reports
ZKPQ N-Anx .87. Act .76. Sy .78. ImpSS .80. Agg-Host .69.
Note. ZKPQ = Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire; N-Anx = Neuroticism-Anxiety; Act = Activity; Sy = Sociability; ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation-Seeking; Agg-Host = Aggression-Hostility.
TABLE 4 Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix for Self-Reports and Spouse Reports
Spouse Reports
Scale N-Anx Act Sy ImpSS Agg-Host
Self-Reports N-Anx .63*** –.11 –.07 .04 .16* Act –.02 .47*** .24** .28*** .16* Sy –.15 .16* .54*** .34*** .20** ImpSS –.01 .10 .34*** .63*** .22** Agg-Host .00 –.14 .08 .10 .53***
Note. Convergent correlations are underlined. N-Anx = Neuroticism- Anxiety; Act = Activity; Sy = Sociability; ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation- Seeking; Agg-Host = Aggression-Hostility.
- p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed. *** p < .001, two-tailed.
TABLE 5 Intraclass Correlations With 95% Confidence Interval Between Self-Reports and Spouse Reports for the Total Sample and for Men and Women Separately
Entire Sample a^ Men b^ Women c Scale ICC CI ICC CI ICC CI ZKPQ N-Anx .63 .53 to .71 .54 .37 to .67 .59 .44 to. Act .47 .34 to .58 .48 .29 to .62 .46 .28 to. Sy .54 .42 to .64 .60 .45 to .72 .45 .26 to. ImpSS .63 .53 to .71 .56 .39 to .69 .71 .58 to. Agg-Host .53 .41 to .63 .54 .37 to .68 .53 .36 to. Note. All the correlations were statistically significant at p < .001, two-tailed. ICC = intraclass correlations; CI = 95% confidence interval; ZKPQ = Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire; N-Anx = Neuroticism-Anxiety; Act = Activity; Sy = Sociability; ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation-Seeking; Agg-Host = Aggression-Hostility. a n = 171. b n = 86. c n = 85.
Additional data about convergent and discriminant valid- ity of the ZKPQ scales stem from the PCA executed with self-reports and spouse reports scales scores. Convergent va- lidity indexes are characterized by high and highly similar loadings of the self-reports and spouse reports of the same scale on a given factor. Discriminant validity indexes are characterized by relatively low loadings of the remaining scales on that given factor. The results unambiguously show this pattern of behavior for each pair of reports of the same scale and in every factor. To summarize, the magnitude of the convergent correla- tions found in this study among self-reports and spouse re- ports were larger than typically reported and near the ceiling for self–other agreement (.6 barrier), and the data obtained from the PCA indicate that the consensual validity parame- ters of the ZKPQ are adequate, thus advocating the use of the self-reported ZKPQ as a valid instrument for personality as- sessment. Moreover, the results of this study when discussed in the context of previous research undergone in other cul- tures provide support for the cross-cultural validity of the ZKPQ and the AFFM as a method of evaluating personality functioning. Finally, the use of self-reports and spouse reports obtained with reliable and valid instruments in personality assessment is not only useful for research purposes but for applied pur- poses as well. For example, it could be useful in assisting for diagnosis, tailoring treatment techniques, and predicting compliance and success (Mutén, 1991). Comparisons among self-ratings and spouse ratings could also be useful in some psychotherapeutic formulations and in some assessment con- texts that clearly encourage biased responding such as in se- lection settings or in forensic contexts. It would also be a useful alternative in cases in which the ability to report accu- rately is impaired by cognitive deficits or by psychiatric ill- ness. Thus, using spousal ratings to assess personality in general is a potentially fruitful avenue for future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain with Grant EMER99–18. We thank the students and participants that cooperated in the study and Carmina Puig Sobrevals for her logistical help. Comments by Marvin Zuckerman and by the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Ball, S. (1995). The validity of an alternative Five-factor measure of person- ality in cocaine abusers. Psychological Assessment, 7, 148–154. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310. Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behav- ioral Science, 9, 8–17.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Marital assortment for personality dispositions: Assess- ment with three different data systems. Behavior Genetics, 14, 111–123. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant vali- dation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. Caspi, A., Herbener, E. S., & Ozer, D. J. (1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of personalities: A longitudinal study of married couples. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 281–291. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Arenberg, D. (1980). Enduring disposi- tions in adult males. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 38, 793–800. De Pascalis, V., & Russo, P. (2003). Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire: Preliminary results of the Italian version. Psychological Reports, 92, 965–974. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Eysenck, H. J. (1992a). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673. Eysenck, H. J. (1992b). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C—The role of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867–868. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differ- ences. London: Plenum. Gomà-i-Freixanet, M. (1997). Consensual validity of the EPQ: Self-Reports and Spouse-Reports. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 179–185. Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., Valero, S., Puntí, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Ques- tionnaire in a Spanish sample. European Journal of Psychological Assess- ment, 20, 134–146. Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Hand- book of personality psychology (pp. 73–93). San Diego, CA: Academic. Kuhlman, D., Zuckerman, M., Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., & Shiomi, K. (2003). Cultural and gender differences in personality within three cultures. Manuscript submitted for publication. McCrae, R. R. (1982). Consensual validation of personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 43, 293–303. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Joint factors in self-reports and rat- ings: Neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 245–255. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Different points of view: Self-reports and ratings in the assessment of personality. In J. P. Forgas & M. J. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An interna- tional perspective (pp. 429–439). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Montag, I. (2001). The Hebrew ZKPQ: Preliminary reliability and validity results. Unpublished manuscript. Mutén, E. (1991). Self-reports, spouse ratings, and psychophysiological as- sessment in a behavioural medicine program: An application of the Five-factor model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 449–464. Norman, W. T., & Golberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681–691. Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (1994). A comparison of different instru- ments proposed to measure the Big Five. European Review of Applied Psychology, 44, 45–53. O’Sullivan, D., Zuckerman, M., & Kraft, M. (1996). The personality of prostitutes. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 445–448.
CONSENSUAL VALIDITY OF THE ZKPQ 285
O’Sullivan, D., Zuckerman, M., & Kraft, M. (1998). Personality characteris- tics of male and female participants in team sports. Personality and Indi- vidual Differences, 25, 119–128. Prieto, L., Lamarca, R., & Casado, A. (1998). La evaluación de la fiabilidad en las observaciones clínicas: El coeficiente de correlación intraclase [The assessment of reliability in clinical observations: The intraclass cor- relation coefficient]. Medicina Clinica, 110, 142–145. Shiomi, K., Kuhlman, D., Zuckerman, M., Joireman, J., Sato, M., & Yata, S. (1996). Examining the validity and reliability of a Japanese version of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Hyago Uni- versity of Teacher Education Journal, 2, 1–13. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1991). Self- versus peer ratings of specific emo- tional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 927–940. Wu, Y., Wang, W., Du, W., Li, J., Jiang, X., & Wang, Y. (2000). Development of a Chinese version of the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Question- naire: Reliabilities and gender/age effects. Social Behaviour and Person- ality, 28, 241–250. Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cam- bridge University Press. Zuckerman, M. (1992). What is a basic factor and which factors are basic? Turtles all the way down. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 675–681. Zuckerman, M. (2002). Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): An alternative five-factorial model. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 377–396). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. (1993). Norms for the Zuckerman– Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Unpublished manu- script. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96–107. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 65, 757–768. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three): Robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 929–941.
Montserrat Gomà-i-Freixanet Department of Health Psychology Autonomous University of Barcelona Edifici B E–08193 Bellaterra Catalonia, Spain Email: [email protected]
Received April 27, 2004 Revised September 23, 2004
286 GOMÀ-I-FREIXANET, WISMEIJER, VALERO
