Cross–cultural Generalizability of the Alternative Five–factor Model Using the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire

Abstract

Several personality models are known for being replicable across cultures, such as the Five-Factor Model\ud (FFM) or Eysenck’s Psychoticism–Extraversion–Neuroticism (PEN) model, and are for this reason considered universal.\ud The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cross-cultural replicability of the recently revised Alternative FFM\ud (AFFM). A total of 15 048 participants from 23 cultures completed the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire\ud (ZKA-PQ) aimed at assessing personality according to this revised AFFM. Internal consistencies, gender differences\ud and correlations with age were similar across cultures for all five factors and facet scales. The AFFM structure was very\ud similar across samples and can be considered as highly replicable with total congruence coefficients ranging from .94 to\ud .99. Measurement invariance across cultures was assessed using multi-group confirmatory factor analyses, and each\ud higher-order personality factor did reach configural and metric invariance. Scalar invariance was never reached, which\ud implies that culture-specific norms should be considered. The underlying structure of the ZKA-PQ replicates well across\ud cultures, suggesting that this questionnaire can be used in a large diversity of cultures and that the AFFM might be as\ud universal as the FFM or the PEN model. This suggests that more research is needed to identify and define an integrative\ud framework underlying these personality models

Vocational interests and career indecision in Switzerland and Burkina Faso: Cross-cultural similarities and differences

“…Finally, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .08 or less indicates an adequate fit and a value of .05 or less indicates a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In order to further assess the configural, the metric, and the scalar invariance across both countries and their respective gender groups, multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFAs) were conducted for each instrument (for an example of the use of this approach, see Rossier et al, 2016). To assess the fit of each model, the changes in model fit statistics were inspected (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) as well as the changes in CFI, that should be less than .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), or less than .002 according to Meade, Johnson, and Braddy (2008), and changes in RMSEA that should be lower than .05 (e.g., Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).…”

“…In order to assess the measurement invariance of the PGI and the CDDQ across the two countries, an overall model was first assessed for both instruments. These models were then used to conduct MGCFAs (see Rossier et al, 2016 for an example of this procedure).…”

On Enhancing the Cross–Cultural Comparability of Likert–Scale Personality and Value Measures: A Comparison of Common Procedures

“…Both in the Big Five Inventory (Schmitt et al, ) and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, ), configural invariance has been established across a large number of countries from around the world, albeit, with some individual deviations. Measures of other broad personality models, such as Eysenck's Psychoticism–Extroversion–Neuroticism (Barrett, Petrides, Eysenck, & Eysenck, ) and Zuckerman's Alternative Five Factor Model (Rossier et al, ), have also shown structural equivalence across many countries. Stricter levels of invariance have been examined less often and have proven much more difficult to meet.…”

“…Thalmayer and Saucier () found some support, although weak by conventional standards, for configural invariance of a version the Questionnaire Big Six in 26 countries, but not for Big Five or Big Two versions of the questionnaire, nor for any stricter levels of equivalence. Rossier et al () found evidence for metric equivalence of the individual scales of the Alternative Five Factor Model in 23 cultures, but much less evidence when the model was tested as a whole. Finally, Church et al () found evidence for item bias in 40% to 50% of the items of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory across the USA, Mexico, and the Philippines.…”

How Accurate Are National Stereotypes? A Test of Different Methodological Approaches

“…The same was found in three culturally different countries, the USA, Mexico, and the Philippines (Church et al, 2011). Rossier et al (2016) tested cross-cultural generalizability of the alternative five-factor model using the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire in 23 cultures and came to the same conclusion. Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire has metric but not scalar equivalence across cultures.…”