Cargando…

Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability

Despite the widespread use of the HEXACO model as a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits, there remains limited information on the test-retest reliability of its commonly-used inventories. Studies typically report internal consistency estimates, such as alpha or omega, but there are good reaso...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Henry, Sam, Thielmann, Isabel, Booth, Tom, Mõttus, René
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8757920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35025932
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262465
_version_ 1784632787408519168
author Henry, Sam
Thielmann, Isabel
Booth, Tom
Mõttus, René
author_facet Henry, Sam
Thielmann, Isabel
Booth, Tom
Mõttus, René
author_sort Henry, Sam
collection PubMed
description Despite the widespread use of the HEXACO model as a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits, there remains limited information on the test-retest reliability of its commonly-used inventories. Studies typically report internal consistency estimates, such as alpha or omega, but there are good reasons to believe that these do not accurately assess reliability. We report 13-day test-retest correlations of the 100- and 60-item English HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-100 and HEXACO-60) domains, facets, and items. In order to test the validity of test-retest reliability, we then compare these estimates to correlations between self- and informant-reports (i.e., cross-rater agreement), a widely-used validity criterion. Median estimates of test-retest reliability were .88, .81, and .65 (N = 416) for domains, facets, and items, respectively. Facets’ and items’ test-retest reliabilities were highly correlated with their cross-rater agreement estimates, whereas internal consistencies were not. Overall, the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised demonstrates test-retest reliability similar to other contemporary measures. We recommend that short-term retest reliability should be routinely calculated to assess reliability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8757920
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87579202022-01-14 Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability Henry, Sam Thielmann, Isabel Booth, Tom Mõttus, René PLoS One Research Article Despite the widespread use of the HEXACO model as a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits, there remains limited information on the test-retest reliability of its commonly-used inventories. Studies typically report internal consistency estimates, such as alpha or omega, but there are good reasons to believe that these do not accurately assess reliability. We report 13-day test-retest correlations of the 100- and 60-item English HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-100 and HEXACO-60) domains, facets, and items. In order to test the validity of test-retest reliability, we then compare these estimates to correlations between self- and informant-reports (i.e., cross-rater agreement), a widely-used validity criterion. Median estimates of test-retest reliability were .88, .81, and .65 (N = 416) for domains, facets, and items, respectively. Facets’ and items’ test-retest reliabilities were highly correlated with their cross-rater agreement estimates, whereas internal consistencies were not. Overall, the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised demonstrates test-retest reliability similar to other contemporary measures. We recommend that short-term retest reliability should be routinely calculated to assess reliability. Public Library of Science 2022-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8757920/ /pubmed/35025932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262465 Text en © 2022 Henry et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Henry, Sam
Thielmann, Isabel
Booth, Tom
Mõttus, René
Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
title Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
title_full Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
title_fullStr Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
title_full_unstemmed Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
title_short Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
title_sort test-retest reliability of the hexaco-100—and the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8757920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35025932
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262465
work_keys_str_mv AT henrysam testretestreliabilityofthehexaco100andthevalueofmultiplemeasurementsforassessingreliability
AT thielmannisabel testretestreliabilityofthehexaco100andthevalueofmultiplemeasurementsforassessingreliability
AT boothtom testretestreliabilityofthehexaco100andthevalueofmultiplemeasurementsforassessingreliability
AT mottusrene testretestreliabilityofthehexaco100andthevalueofmultiplemeasurementsforassessingreliability