The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education

Abstract

Previous findings suggest that the Big-Five factor structure is not guaranteed in samples with lower educational levels. The present study investigates the Big-Five factor structure in two large samples representative of the German adult population. In both samples, the Big-Five factor structure emerged only in a blurry way at lower educational levels, whereas for highly educated persons it emerged with textbook-like clarity. Because well-educated persons are most comparable to the usual subjects of psychological research, it might be asked if the Big Five are limited to such persons. Our data contradict this conclusion. There are strong individual differences in acquiescence response tendencies among less highly educated persons. After controlling for this bias the Big-Five model holds at all educational levels. KeywordsBig Five; measurement equivalence; acquiescence response bias; factor structure In personality psychology, most research is based on samples of college students, especially undergraduates taking a course in psychology. This narrow subject population leads to the question of the extent to which the findings from such studies can be generalized to a broader population. Expressed in a more formal way: Are multi-item personality inventories transportable in the sense of measurement equivalence over subsamples of the population? If measurement equivalence (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000;Drasgow & Probst, 2004) does not hold for specific subsamples, it becomes dubious to compare the scale scores of persons from these different subsamples, because their scores are indicators of constructs that differ in terms of their structure and, thus, ultimately also in their meaning.Over the last two decades, the Big Five factors have become the most prominent model for describing the structure of personality traits. The Big Five have been found to replicate across different methods of data collection such as self-ratings, peer ratings, and behavioral descriptions, as well as across at least some different languages and cultures. However, personality research is still largely based on the typical "psych 100" student samples, which suggests that test norms may be inappropriate for other samples of individuals. Moreover, even the assumed five-factor structure may not hold in general. Indeed, several researchersEditorial correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Beatrice Rammstedt, GESIS -Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, PO-Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim, Germany. beatrice.rammstedt@gesis.org. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. i...

Acquiescence and Person Differential Functioning: Solving Person DIF with Balanced Scales

“…This can potentially bias correlations with external criteria (see a detailed discussion in Mirowsky & Ross 1991, Ferrando, et al 2003Rammstedt, at al. 2010).…”

“…Soto, John, Gosling, and Potter (2008) have convincingly shown that acquiescence variance is highest for ages 10 to17, and then declining to age 18 equaling adult levels. Acquiescence demonstrated to influence the internal structure of assessment instruments and their criterion validity (Rammstedt, Goldberg & Borg, 2010;Primi, De Fruyt, John, & Santos, 2018). It is very stable influence over a period of eight years as was shown by Wetzel, Lüdtke, Zettler, and Böhnke (2016).…”

Heritability of Acquiescence Bias and Item Keying Response Style Associated With the HEXACO Personality Scale

“…Later researchers often regarded acquiescence bias as an error caused by cognitive impairment, low verbal ability, poor education, low social status, and cognitive aging (e.g., Ayidiya & McClendon, 1990;Krosnick et al, 1996;Lenski & Leggett, 1960;Meisenberg & Williams, 2008;Messick & Frederiksen, 1958Rammstedt et al, 2010;Sigelman et al, 1981). These findings subsequently suggest that acquiescence bias was an error to be controlled for.…”

“…To mitigate the effect of acquiescence bias, researchers often include reverse-keyed items within questionnaires (e.g., Rammstedt, et al, 2010). Regular-keyed items measure the presence of a construct whereas reverse-keyed items measure the absence of a construct.…”

How response biases affect the factor structure of Big Five personality questionnaires

“…Another consequence of response bias in the factor structure of questionnaires is that it may be difficult to replicate the expected factor structure of the FFM if some groups show high levels of response bias because of their educational level or age (i.e. acquiescence) (Rammstedt, Goldberg & Borg, 2010;Rammstedt & Farmer, 2013).…”