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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |