Reliability generalization meta-analysis of the internal consistency of the Big Five Inventory (BFI) by comparing BFI (44 items) and BFI-2 (60 items) versions controlling for age, sex, language factors.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY BMC Psychology Pub Date : 2025-01-08 DOI:10.1186/s40359-024-02271-x
Waqar Husain, Areen Jamal Haddad, Muhammad Ahmad Husain, Hadeel Ghazzawi, Khaled Trabelsi, Achraf Ammar, Zahra Saif, Amir Pakpour, Haitham Jahrami
{"title":"Reliability generalization meta-analysis of the internal consistency of the Big Five Inventory (BFI) by comparing BFI (44 items) and BFI-2 (60 items) versions controlling for age, sex, language factors.","authors":"Waqar Husain, Areen Jamal Haddad, Muhammad Ahmad Husain, Hadeel Ghazzawi, Khaled Trabelsi, Achraf Ammar, Zahra Saif, Amir Pakpour, Haitham Jahrami","doi":"10.1186/s40359-024-02271-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a popular measure that evaluates personality on the Big-Five model. Apart from its utilization across cultures, the literature did not reveal any meta-analysis for the reliability of the different versions of the BFI and its translations. The current study carried out a reliability generalization meta-analysis (REGEMA) to establish the reliability of the BFI across cultures and languages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 30 databases for the relevant studies from 1991 to mid-November 2024. The studies that we intended to include in our meta-analysis required to have utilized the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items) and have reported Cronbach's alpha or McDonald's omega reliability estimates. Our coded variables included BFI version, sample size, population type, age, gender, clinical state, and reliability. A total of 57 studies (datapoints) published in 34 research articles (involving 43,715 participants; 60.24% women; Mean age = 30.08) from various cultures and languages were finally included. These studies used BFI and BFI-2 in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swahili, and Turkish. Data analysis was conducted using the metafor and meta packages in R. The average correlation was computed using a random-effects model and reliability coefficients indicated effect size. I<sup>2</sup> and Cochran's Q tests were used to examine heterogeneity, with prediction intervals suggesting genuine influences around the pooled estimate. Using funnel plots, regression-based tests (e.g., Egger's regression, rank correlation), and trim-and-fill imputation, publication bias was adjusted to estimate unbiased effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We calculated the individual and combined reliability of the BFI and BFI-2 across languages and cultures. The results revealed the reliability of all five factors used in the BFI/BFI-2. The BFI estimates provide the following results: openness is estimated at 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75; 0.80); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78; 0.82); extraversion is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82); agreeableness is estimated at 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71; 0.76); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82). The BFI-2 estimates are as follows: openness is estimated at 0.83 (95% CI: 0.82; 0.84); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85; 0.87); extraversion is estimated at 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84; 0.86); agreeableness is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 81); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88; 0.89).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current meta-analysis represents the first reliability analysis of the BFI and the first comparison between its two different versions, the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items). The generalized reliability of both the BFI and BFI-2 were established. The findings confirm that the BFI and BFI-2 have good reliability across all five factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":"13 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11715416/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02271-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a popular measure that evaluates personality on the Big-Five model. Apart from its utilization across cultures, the literature did not reveal any meta-analysis for the reliability of the different versions of the BFI and its translations. The current study carried out a reliability generalization meta-analysis (REGEMA) to establish the reliability of the BFI across cultures and languages.

Methods: We searched 30 databases for the relevant studies from 1991 to mid-November 2024. The studies that we intended to include in our meta-analysis required to have utilized the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items) and have reported Cronbach's alpha or McDonald's omega reliability estimates. Our coded variables included BFI version, sample size, population type, age, gender, clinical state, and reliability. A total of 57 studies (datapoints) published in 34 research articles (involving 43,715 participants; 60.24% women; Mean age = 30.08) from various cultures and languages were finally included. These studies used BFI and BFI-2 in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swahili, and Turkish. Data analysis was conducted using the metafor and meta packages in R. The average correlation was computed using a random-effects model and reliability coefficients indicated effect size. I2 and Cochran's Q tests were used to examine heterogeneity, with prediction intervals suggesting genuine influences around the pooled estimate. Using funnel plots, regression-based tests (e.g., Egger's regression, rank correlation), and trim-and-fill imputation, publication bias was adjusted to estimate unbiased effects.

Results: We calculated the individual and combined reliability of the BFI and BFI-2 across languages and cultures. The results revealed the reliability of all five factors used in the BFI/BFI-2. The BFI estimates provide the following results: openness is estimated at 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75; 0.80); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78; 0.82); extraversion is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82); agreeableness is estimated at 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71; 0.76); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82). The BFI-2 estimates are as follows: openness is estimated at 0.83 (95% CI: 0.82; 0.84); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85; 0.87); extraversion is estimated at 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84; 0.86); agreeableness is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 81); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88; 0.89).

Conclusion: The current meta-analysis represents the first reliability analysis of the BFI and the first comparison between its two different versions, the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items). The generalized reliability of both the BFI and BFI-2 were established. The findings confirm that the BFI and BFI-2 have good reliability across all five factors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在控制年龄、性别、语言因素的情况下,通过比较大五量表(BFI)(44项)和BFI-2(60项)版本,对大五量表(BFI)内部一致性进行信度概化元分析。
简介:大五人格量表(BFI)是一种流行的基于大五人格模型的人格评估方法。除了跨文化使用外,文献中没有对不同版本的BFI及其翻译的可靠性进行任何元分析。本研究采用信度泛化元分析(REGEMA)来建立跨文化和语言的BFI信度。方法:检索1991年至2024年11月中旬30个数据库的相关研究。我们打算纳入meta分析的研究要求使用了BFI(44项)和BFI-2(60项),并报告了Cronbach's alpha或McDonald's omega可靠性估计。我们的编码变量包括BFI版本、样本量、人群类型、年龄、性别、临床状态和可靠性。34篇研究文章共发表了57项研究(数据点)(涉及43,715名受试者;60.24%的女性;来自不同文化和语言的平均年龄= 30.08岁。这些研究使用了阿拉伯语、汉语、克罗地亚语、捷克语、丹麦语、荷兰语、英语、法语、德语、印度尼西亚语、意大利语、日语、马来语、挪威语、波兰语、葡萄牙语、俄语、塞尔维亚语、西班牙语、斯瓦希里语和土耳其语的BFI和BFI-2。使用r中的元集和元包进行数据分析。使用随机效应模型计算平均相关性,信度系数表示效应大小。I2和科克伦Q检验用于检验异质性,预测间隔表明在汇总估计周围的真正影响。使用漏斗图、基于回归的检验(例如,Egger’s回归、等级相关)和trim- fill imputation,调整发表偏倚以估计无偏倚效应。结果:我们计算了跨语言和文化的BFI和BFI-2的个体和组合可靠性。结果显示了BFI/BFI-2中使用的所有五个因素的可靠性。BFI估计提供了以下结果:开放性估计为0.77 (95% CI: 0.75;0.80);责任心估计为0.80 (95% CI: 0.78;0.82);外向性也估计为0.80 (95% CI: 0.79;0.82);宜人性估计为0.73 (95% CI: 0.71;0.76);神经质的估计为0.80 (95% CI: 0.79;0.82)。BFI-2估计如下:开放性估计为0.83 (95% CI: 0.82;0.84);责任心估计为0.86 (95% CI: 0.85;0.87);外向性估计为0.85 (95% CI: 0.84;0.86);宜居性也估计为0.80 (95% CI: 0.79;81);神经质的估计为0.89 (95% CI: 0.88;0.89)。结论:本次荟萃分析首次对BFI进行了信度分析,并首次对其两种不同版本的BFI(44项)和BFI-2(60项)进行了比较。建立了BFI和BFI-2的广义信度。研究结果证实,BFI和BFI-2在所有五个因素上都具有良好的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Psychological distress among cancer patients in African countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Depressive symptoms among resettled Bhutanese older adults in Ohio: a cross-sectional study. Formation mechanisms of primary school teachers' verbal immediacy behaviors in smart classroom environments. Influence of the pandemic on the mental health of professional workers. More empathy for others, more hurt for oneself? Empathy for pain is related to poor mental health and negative emotion regulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1