Cattell and Eysenck Factor Scores Related to Comrey Personality Factors

Abstract

The Eysenck Personality Inventory, the Cattell 16 PF Inventory, and the Comrey Personality Inventory were administered to 272 volunteers. Eysenck and Cattell factor scores were correlated with scores over homogeneous item groups (FHIDs) which define the Comrey test factors. This matrix was factor analyzed to relate the Eysenck and Cattell factor scores to the factor structure underlying the Comrey test. The Eysenck Neuroticism, Comrey Neuroticism, and Cattell second-order Anxiety factors appeared to match. The Eysenck Introversion and the Comrey Shyness factors also matched. The 16 Cattell primary factors overlapped but did not match with the Comrey factors.

Shyness

“…For example, Cattell's Threctia scale has significant loadings on both exvia (-.50) and anxiety (.38), the second-order factors that result from factor analysis of the correlations among source traits (Cattell, 1973). Comrey and Duffy (1968) carried out a factor analysis of the Cattell, Eysenck, and Comrey personality inventories, and extracted a Shyness factor that had its highest loadings on Cattell's Threctia, Eysenck's Extraversion, and Comrey's Shyness and Submission factors. Derogatis, Rickels, and Rock (1976) reported correlations of .52 and .49 between their Interpersonal Sensitivity measure and the introversion and anxiety scales of the MMPI.…”

An Item Factoring of 16PF-E: Further Evidence concerning Cattell's Normal Personality Sphere

“…The relative efficiency of the various rotations in terms of. 10 In order to test for the goodness of fit of the obtained 16PF structure, a contingency table for each factor (utilizing the factor pattern) was prepared. Each table had four cells: (a) a count of the number of items which were supposed to load a given scale (eight in each case was the maximum) and actually did (had a loading greater than .10 with the proper sign), (b) a count of the number of items which should have loaded the scale but did not, (c) a count of the number of items which should not have loaded the scale and did not, and (d) a count of the number of items that should not have loaded the scale but did.…”

“…On the other hand, Cattell (6), Nunnally (13), and Comrey and Duffy (10) maintain the point of view that item data are too unstable for a consistent factor structure to be found.…”

Radial parcel factoring-vs-item factoring in defining personality structure in questionnaires: Theory and experimental checks

“…There also appear to be widespread misunderstandings as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of each method. On the other hand, experienced psychometrists like Comrey and Duffy (1968) and Nunnally (1970), while not demanding parcelled factorings exclusively, have expressed grave doubts about the effect of the instability of items as single variables, and Comrey has based his structural analyses wholly on factoring homogeneous parcels as variables. Extreme positions have been taken by such psychologists as Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) and Howarth and Browne (1971 ), who without evidence have Manuscript received I5 October 1973. forcefully asserted that no factor analysis is "evidence" udess based on items.…”

“…Extreme positions have been taken by such psychologists as Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) and Howarth and Browne (1971 ), who without evidence have Manuscript received I5 October 1973. forcefully asserted that no factor analysis is "evidence" udess based on items. On the other hand, experienced psychometrists like Comrey and Duffy (1968) and Nunnally (1970), while not demanding parcelled factorings exclusively, have expressed grave doubts about the effect of the instability of items as single variables, and Comrey has based his structural analyses wholly on factoring homogeneous parcels as variables. Cattell (1973b) has argued that the best research strategy requires a judicious combination of these approaches-item factoring to give the first rough indications of the dimensions and parcel factoring (using progressive rectification, p. 292) to bring factors by the more exact rotation then possible to greater conceptual precision.…”