Abstract
The aim of this study was to realize a French adaptation of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), and to further examine the BFI-2’s convergent and discriminant validity via a comparison with the NEO-PI-3 and with the syndromes assessed by the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R). Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling almost fully supported the BFI-2’s factor structure and measurement model with five major factors, 15 facets, and an acquiescence method factor. All the scales measuring the major factors showed excellent reliability and almost all the scales measuring facets showed acceptable to excellent reliability and satisfactory metric and scalar invariance across gender. The BFI-2 domains and facets were found to be strongly correlated with the scales of the NEO-PI-3 measuring similar constructs. The BFI-2 Negative Emotionality domain and its facets were positively related to most of the SCL-90-R scales, and Extraversion and its facets related negatively with Interpersonal Sensitivity and Depression. In conclusion, data from the French adaptation confirmed the relevance of the BFI-2 hierarchical factor structure, as well as its scales’ reliability and convergent and discriminant validity, which supports and extends the body of knowledge from the original American BFI-2 and its Danish, Dutch, German, Russian, and Slovakian adaptations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hendriks, A. A. (2008). Age differences in five personality domains across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 758. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.758
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Chiorri, C., Marsh, H. W., Ubbiali, A., & Donati, D. (2016). Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance across gender of the big five inventory through exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1035381
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.p. 579). Routledge.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R). Psychological Assessment Resources. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO-PI-3. Sigma Assessment Systems.
Danner, D., Rammstedt, B., Bluemke, M., Lechner, C., Berres, S., Knopf, T., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2019). Das Big Five Inventar 2: Validierung eines Persönlichkeitsinventars zur Erfassung von 5 Persönlichkeitsdomänen und 15 Facetten [The German Big Five Inventory 2: Measuring five personality domains and 15 facets]. Diagnostica, 65(3), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000218
Danner, D., Lechner, C. M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2021). Modelling the incremental value of personality facets: The domains-incremental facets-acquiescence Bifactor Showmodel. European Journal of Personality, 35(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2268
Denissen, J. J., Geenen, R., Soto, C. J., John, O. P., & Van Aken, M. A. (2019). The big five inventory–2: Replication of psychometric properties in a Dutch adaptation and first evidence for the discriminant predictive validity of the facet scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1539004
Derogatis, L. R. (1975). SCL-90-R: Symptom Checklist-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. NCS Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_2012
Derogatis, L. R. (2015 [1975]). SCL-90-R: Inventaire de symptômes psychologiques Manuel. Pearson France, ECPA.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168.
Gana, K., & Broc, G. (2018). Introduction à la modélisation par équations structurales : manuel pratique avec lavaan. ISTE Group.
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
Halama, P., Kohút, M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). Slovak adaptation of the big five inventory (BFI-2): Psychometric properties and initial validation. Studia Psychologica, 62(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.202.01.792
Hofstee, W. K., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020302
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory: Versions 4a and 54 [technical report]. University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research (3rd ed.). Guilford.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Cai, L. (2007). Factor analysis models as approximations. Factor analysis at, 100, 153–175.
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–11. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080404
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.12.3.323
McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr., P. T., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO–PI–3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Negengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 395–438). Iap.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1988-2012). Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Muthén & Muthén.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (1994). Reflections on different labels for factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080410
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524
Perreira, T. A., Morin, A. J., Hebert, M., Gillet, N., Houle, S. A., & Berta, W. (2018). The short form of the workplace affective commitment multidimensional questionnaire (WACMQ-S): A bifactor-ESEM approach among healthcare professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.12.004
Plaisant, O., Courtois, R., Réveillère, C., Mendelsohn, G. A., & John, O. P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Annales Médico-Psychologiques, 168(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003
Rammstedt, B., & Farmer, R. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1137.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
Rolland, J. P. (2016). Manuel de l’inventaire NEO PI-3. Adaptation française. Hogrefe.
Saucier, G. (1992). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing? European Journal of Personality, 6(5), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410060506
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Shchebetenko, S., Kalugin, A. Y., Mishkevich, A. M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). Measurement invariance and sex and age differences of the big five inventory–2: Evidence from the Russian version. Assessment, 27(3), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860901
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 718–737.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717
Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., & Orlando Edelen, M. (2013). Using logistic approximations of marginal trace lines to develop short assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612462759
Ten Berge, J. M., & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Tech. Rep.). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: USAF. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x.
Vedel, A., Wellnitz, K. B., Ludeke, S., Soto, C. J., John, O. P., & Andersen, S. C. (2020). Development and validation of the Danish big five Inventory-2: Domain-and facet-level structure, construct validity, and reliability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000570
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the participants and students involved in the collection and transcription of the data, and Sergei Shchebetenko, who was generous enough to provide them with the scripts he developed for the exploratory structural equation modeling of the BFI-2. They also wish to express their heartfelt thanks to an anonymous rewiever of this journal, who advised them to test the factor structure of the BFI-2 using bifactor modeling.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Lignier, B., Petot, J.-M.; Methodology: Lignier, B., Petot, J.-M.; Formal analysis and investigation: Lignier, B., Petot, J.-M., Canada, B., De Oliveira, P., Nicolas, M., Courtois, R.; Writing - original draft preparation: Petot, J.-M., Lignier, B.; Writing - review and editing: Petot, J.-M., Lignier, B., John, O. P., Plaisant, O., Soto, C.; Funding acquisition: Not Applicable; Resources: Not Applicable; Supervision: Plaisant, O., Soto, C.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(PDF 73 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lignier, B., Petot, JM., Canada, B. et al. Factor structure, psychometric properties, and validity of the Big Five Inventory-2 facets: evidence from the French adaptation (BFI-2-Fr). Curr Psychol 42, 26099–26114 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03648-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03648-0