Search

Abstract. In pursuit of a more systematic and comprehensive framework for personality assessment, we introduce procedures for assessing personality traits at the lowest level: nuances. We argue that constructing a personality taxonomy from the bottom up addresses some of the limitations of extant top-down assessment frameworks (e.g., the Big Five), including the opportunity to resolve confusion about the breadth and scope of traits at different levels of the organization, evaluate unique and reliable trait variance at the item level, and clarify jingle/jangle issues in personality assessment. With a focus on applications in survey methodology and transparent documentation, our procedures contain six steps: (1) identification of a highly inclusive pool of candidate items, (2) programmatic evaluation and documentation of item characteristics, (3) test-retest analyses of items with adequate qualitative and quantitative properties, (4) analysis of cross-ratings from multiple raters for items with adequate retest reliability, (5) aggregation of ratings across diverse samples to evaluate generalizability across populations, (6) evaluations of predictive utility in various contexts. We hope these recommendations are the first step in a collaborative effort to identify a comprehensive pool of personality nuances at the lowest level, enabling subsequent construction of a robust hierarchy – from the bottom up.

Researchers have shown an interest in the aggregated Big Five personality of U.S. states, but typically they have relied on scores from a single sample (Rentfrow, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). We examine the replicability of U.S. state personality scores from two studies (Rentfrow et al., 2008; Rentfrow, Gosling, Jokela, & Stillwell, 2013) across a total of seven samples, two of them new. Same-trait correlations across samples are, on average, positive for all five traits, indicating score agreement. Additionally, three traits (Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness) show strongly consistent patterns of correlations with sociodemographic variables across samples. We find rank order stability in state personality scores for a 16-year period (1999-2015).

Background Identifying the factors that predict non-adherence to recommended preventive pediatric care is necessary for the development of successful interventions to improve compliance. Purpose Given the substantial decline in well-child visits and influenza vaccinations, we sought to examine sociodemographic (i.e., parent age, education, employment status, child age, insurance coverage, household size, race and ethnicity, income, COVID-19 incidence in state) and psychosocial (i.e., child temperament, parent mental health, parent personality traits) factors associated with preventative pediatric care (well-child visits, influenza vaccines) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods As part of a larger, ongoing study, 1875 parents (96% mothers, 65% age 35 or younger, 58% with a college degree) reported whether they had missed any recommended or scheduled well-child visits since the pandemic and whether they had vaccinated their child against the flu. Using data collected during fall 2020, we examine differences in these health outcomes across social/demographic factors and psychological profiles. In addition, we use lasso logistic regression models to (1) estimate the accuracy with which we can predict adherence from these characteristics and (2) identify factors most strongly, independently associated with adherence. Results Parent psychological factors were associated with outcomes above and beyond known demographic and social factors. For example, parent industriousness and orderliness were associated with greater likelihoods of attending well-child visits and vaccinating children, while parent conservatism and creativity were associated with lower rates. We also replicate prior work documenting that health insurance, income, and household size are major factors in receiving adequate pediatric care. Conclusions Adherence to preventive pediatric care varies as a function of psychological factors, suggesting that the current system of pediatric care favors some psychological profiles over others. However, the specific traits associated with non-adherence point to potentially fruitful interventions, specifically around increasing functional proximity.

Background There is a need for valid self-report measures of core health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains. Objective To derive brief, reliable and valid health profile measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) item banks. Methods Literature review, investigator consensus process, item response theory (IRT) analysis, and expert review of scaling results from multiple PROMIS data sets. We developed 3 profile measures ranging in length from 29 to 57 questions. These profiles assess important HRQoL domains with highly informative subsets of items from respective item banks and yield reliable information across mild-to-severe levels of HRQoL experiences. Each instrument assesses the domains of pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, physical function, and social function using 4-, 6-, and 8-item short forms for each domain, and an average pain intensity domain score, using a 0-10 numeric rating scale. Results With few exceptions, all domain short forms within the profile measures were highly reliable across at least 3 standard deviation (30 T-score) units and were strongly correlated with the full bank scores. Construct validity with ratings of general health and quality of life was demonstrated. Information to inform statistical power for clinical and general population samples is also provided. Conclusions Although these profile measures have been used widely, with summary scoring routines published, description of their development, reliability, and initial validity has not been published until this article. Further evaluation of these measures and clinical applications are encouraged.

BACKGROUND: While there has been increasing interest in patient engagement, few measures are publicly available and suitable for patients with limited health literacy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a Consumer Health Activation Index (CHAI) for use among diverse patients. METHODS: Expert opinion, a systematic literature review, focus groups and cognitive interviews with patients were utilized to create and revise a potential set of items. Psychometric testing guided by item response theory was then conducted among 301 English-speaking, community-dwelling adults. This included differential item functioning analyses to evaluate item performance across participant health literacy levels. To determine construct validity, CHAI scores were compared to scales measuring similar personality constructs. Associations between the CHAI, physical and mental health established predictive validity. A second study among 9,478 adults was used to confirm CHAI associations with health outcomes. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses revealed a single factor solution with a 10-item scale. The CHAI showed good internal consistency (alpha=0.81) and moderate test-retest reliability (ICC=0.53). Its reading grade level was found to be at the 6(th) grade. Moderate to strong correlations were found with similar constructs (Multidimensional Health Locus of Control; r=0.38, p

These data were collected during the initial evaluation of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR) project. ICAR is an international collaborative effort to develop open-source public-domain tools for cognitive ability assessment, including tools that can be administered in non-proctored environments (e.g., online administration) and those which are based on automatic item generation algorithms. These data provide initial validation of the first four ICAR item types as reported in Condon & Revelle [1]. The 4 item types contain a total of 60 items: 9 Letter and Number Series items, 11 Matrix Reasoning items, 16 Verbal Reasoning items and 24 Three-dimensional Rotation items. Approximately 97,000 individuals were administered random subsets of these 60 items using the Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment method between August 18, 2010 and May 20, 2013. The data are available in rdata and csv formats and are accompanied by documentation stored as a text file. Re-use potential includes a wide range of structural and item-level analyses.

Previous research provides disparate accounts of the putative association between creativity and psychopathology, including schizotypy, psychoticism, hypomania, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorders. To examine these association, healthy, non-clinical participants completed several psychopathology-spectrum measures, often postulated to associate with creativity: the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire, the Psychoticism scale, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, the Hypomanic Personality Scale, the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Autism-Spectrum Quotient. The goal of Study 1 was to evaluate the factor structure of these dimensional psychopathology measures and, in particular, to evaluate the case for a strong general factor(s). None of the factor solutions between 1 and 10 factors provided a strong fit with the data based on the most commonly used metrics. The goal of Study 2 was to determine whether these psychopathology scales predict, independently, two measures of creativity: 1. a measure of participants’ real-world creative achievements, and 2. divergent thinking, a laboratory measure of creative cognition. After controlling for academic achievement, psychoticism and hypomania reliably predicted real-world creative achievement and divergent thinking scored with the consensual assessment technique. None of the psychopathology-spectrum scales reliably predicted divergent thinking scored with the manual scoring method. Implications for the potential links between several putative creative processes and risk factors for psychopathology are discussed.

People differ. How and why they differ are the fundamental questions for personality psychologists. In this article we address three levels at which people differ: within individuals, between individuals, and between groups of individuals. A dynamic model of personality is considered where traits are seen as rates of change in states in response to environmental cues. Within individuals, motivational and behavioral states show inertial properties and lead to an analysis of rates of change and latencies of behavior. Between individuals, the analysis is one of frequency and duration of choices. When individuals self select into groups reflecting shared interests and abilities, the structure of these group differences reflects the consequences of the self selection. Examples of the dynamic model are given for each level of analysis.