What Personality Assessment Beyond the Big Five Measures
Personality assessment beyond the Big Five examines individual differences through instruments developed for constructs that the five broad domains do not fully specify, or that alternative theories organize differently. These include the six-domain HEXACO model, temperament and character inventories, reinforcement sensitivity measures, interpersonal circumplex instruments, sensation-seeking questionnaires, sensory-processing sensitivity measures, and scales for socially aversive traits. The research question is not simply which test has the most dimensions. It is whether a particular instrument captures a well-defined psychological construct, supplies trustworthy scores for the intended population, and contributes information that matters for an explicitly stated purpose. Lee and Ashton (2004); Goldberg et al. (2006).
A questionnaire does not measure an entire personality directly. It samples selected behaviors, experiences, judgments, motives, or habitual responses and converts the answers into estimated positions on specified dimensions. A HEXACO Honesty-Humility score and a behavioral inhibition score are consequently different measurements, even when they correlate with parts of a Big Five profile. Their definitions, item content, validation studies, reference populations, and appropriate interpretations must be examined separately. An assessment battery gains scientific value through complementary, justified constructs rather than through accumulating attractive labels. Ashton, Lee, and Goldberg (2007); Corr and Cooper (2016).
The Big Five remains an important reference framework for dimensional trait research. A measure beyond it can represent another structural account of normal variation, a narrower trait, a motivational process, or an age-specific aspect of temperament. Those possibilities should be distinguished before scores are compared. For detailed Big Five test interpretation, the encyclopedia maintains a separate Big Five personality assessment chapter. The present article concentrates on the instruments and interpretive problems that arise when researchers move outside that specific five-domain battery. Soto and John (2017).
Models, Constructs, and Instruments: Three Different Levels
A theoretical model and a score are distinct objects
A theoretical model proposes a structure for explaining individual differences. A construct identifies the attribute within that model. An instrument specifies the observations used to estimate it. In HEXACO research, for example, a six-factor model organizes trait language; the Honesty-Humility construct describes tendencies involving fairness, sincerity, avoidance of greed, and modesty; particular items in HEXACO inventories operationalize these tendencies. Agreement with the theoretical interpretation cannot be inferred solely from a respondent's score. The model must have structural and external evidence, and each version of the instrument must independently support its intended uses. Lee and Ashton (2004).
The distinction also applies to temperament. Rothbart's developmental theory treats reactivity and self-regulation as components of temperament, while a caregiver-report questionnaire samples observations that parents can recall and judge. A child's elevated activity rating is therefore a reporter-dependent summary of behavior in certain contexts, rather than a direct measurement of a neural mechanism. The same score may incorporate both dispositional variation and features of the child's environment. Rothbart et al. (2001).
Broad, narrow, and process-oriented constructs
Broad dimensions aggregate many correlated tendencies. Narrow measures attend to more specific phenomena, such as excitement seeking or avoidance of anticipated punishment. Process-oriented questionnaires attempt to index sensitivities underlying approach, fear, conflict, or regulation. Greater specificity can help when the research question concerns a precise outcome; it can also narrow the behaviors represented by a score and leave important context unmeasured. An instrument's length and theoretical ambition alone are poor substitutes for evidence about its content and performance. Carver and White (1994); Corr (2016).
HEXACO Inventories and the Sixth Major Dimension
HEXACO-PI-R and the HEXACO-60
The HEXACO framework organizes personality around Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Its original inventory was developed from lexical research and validated against measures and outcomes associated with these dimensions. Later instruments, including the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised and the shorter HEXACO-60, offered different compromises between breadth, administration burden, and precision. The HEXACO-60 assigns ten items to each broad dimension; shorter scores can be suitable for group research while providing less fine-grained information than longer facet assessments. Lee and Ashton (2004); Ashton and Lee (2009).
The sixth dimension is a substantive difference from a conventional Big Five domain profile. Honesty-Humility contains tendencies relating to sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty. It is relevant to studying exploitative or self-serving attitudes, but an individual's lower score is neither evidence of dishonesty in a particular incident nor a diagnosis of antisocial pathology. The theoretical value of a sixth factor and the practical usefulness of a specific scale are separate empirical questions. Ashton and Lee (2008). An extended analysis of the theory is available in HEXACO Personality Model: Six Traits and the Honesty-Humility Factor.
IPIP-HEXACO and open measurement
The International Personality Item Pool supports publicly available item-based approaches, including the IPIP-HEXACO scales. Ashton, Lee, and Goldberg evaluated an alternative set of items intended to approximate the HEXACO constructs, studying its consistency and associations with the original inventory. Two scales with the same factor name should not automatically be treated as interchangeable. Item wording, facet coverage, norms, response format, and empirical calibration can differ. A publicly accessible measure still requires transparent scoring and evidence suitable for its users. Ashton, Lee, and Goldberg (2007); Goldberg et al. (2006).
The choice between a long proprietary inventory, its abbreviated version, and an open alternative requires attention to the intended level of inference. A large correlational study may emphasize efficient estimates of broad factors; an investigation of specific interpersonal patterns may require facet coverage; an individual report may demand stronger precision and norms than group comparisons. Researchers should identify the complete instrument and version, rather than claiming merely to have administered a “HEXACO test.” Ashton and Lee (2009).
Temperament and Character Inventories
Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory
Cloninger's psychobiological model separates four temperament dimensions—Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, Reward Dependence, and Persistence—from three character dimensions—Self-Directedness, Cooperativeness, and Self-Transcendence. The Temperament and Character Inventory family attempts to operationalize these proposed differences. Its central contribution is a theoretically explicit separation of habitual response styles and forms of self-concept. These labels describe a research model, and the proposed biological pathways remain hypotheses to be evaluated rather than confirmed one-to-one mappings from scores to brain chemistry. Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck (1993).
An important interpretive choice is whether the researcher wants a broad correlational trait description or an explanation framed in terms of this particular character–temperament theory. A TCI profile must be interpreted through its own scales and validation literature. Similarities with Big Five dimensions or HEXACO factors do not erase differences in conceptual foundations. Likewise, high Harm Avoidance may relate statistically to negative affect or anxiety symptoms in some samples, but it is neither a psychiatric diagnosis nor proof that avoidance causes a particular disorder. The encyclopedia examines the model in Cloninger's Temperament and Character Model: Dimensions and Evidence. Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck (1993).
Eysenck, Zuckerman, and alternative structural inventories
Eysenck's PEN account organized personality in terms of Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. Zuckerman and colleagues compared broader alternatives and developed measures for an Alternative Five including Impulsive Sensation Seeking, Neuroticism–Anxiety, Aggression–Hostility, Activity, and Sociability. Comparative studies found overlap between some factors across models and important differences in the content represented. The term Psychoticism in Eysenck's questionnaire is the name of a trait dimension within that theory; it should never be interpreted as an assessment of psychosis or a diagnostic finding. Zuckerman et al. (1993).
For researchers choosing among these questionnaires, a structural comparison is informative but incomplete. Factor similarity says something about covariation among item scores; it does not establish that different questionnaires measure precisely the same processes or perform equally in another population. Specific predictions about novelty seeking, activity, antagonistic tendencies, or reward pursuit should be tested directly. Modern comparisons benefit from reporting both shared variance and the potentially distinctive outcomes associated with each scale. Zuckerman et al. (1993).
Reinforcement Sensitivity: BIS, BAS, and Revised RST Measures
Carver and White's BIS/BAS Scales were designed to assess dispositional sensitivities to anticipated punishment and reward. Their work included questionnaire development and studies linking scale responses with affective reactions in relevant situations. The instrument provides a way to examine motivational differences; its scores are estimates from self-reports, not direct observations of discrete neural circuits. Researchers using these scales must distinguish the operational meaning established by the original questionnaire from later revisions to reinforcement sensitivity theory. Carver and White (1994).
Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory makes more explicit distinctions among approach processes, fear-related defensive responses, and conflict-related anxiety. Corr and Cooper's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ) was developed to represent this more differentiated account, including multiple facets of behavioral approach. Comparative work has shown that alternative RST instruments cannot be assumed equivalent because similar system labels can hide substantial differences in item content and measured factor structures. Corr and Cooper (2016); Corr (2016).
A study of reward pursuit might reasonably prioritize a BAS-oriented measure, whereas a study of interpersonal fairness might prefer HEXACO Honesty-Humility. Combining both may be useful if the hypotheses concern distinct mechanisms. It becomes problematic when the investigator combines scales with overlapping names without specifying which hypotheses each score tests. Even when the results predict behavior, the observational or correlational association does not in itself prove the proposed neurobehavioral mechanism. Corr and Cooper (2016).
Interpersonal Circumplex Assessment
Interpersonal circumplex measures organize social tendencies in a circular structure defined broadly by agency or dominance and communion or warmth. The Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales illustrate how adjectives can be selected and evaluated to reflect locations around this space. A circumplex structure is not simply another unordered list of traits: the angular relations among positions carry theoretical meaning. The model is particularly useful when the research question concerns interpersonal style rather than a generalized personality score. Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips (1988).
Interpersonal scores can clarify differences between, for example, assertive warmth, hostile dominance, or reserved affiliation. Their value depends on the reliability of the specific instrument and evidence that the circumplex geometry is adequately represented in the intended sample. An interview or observer report may reveal patterns that self-description misses. Because interpersonal behavior is relational, situation and interaction partner also matter. The concept is examined more fully in The Interpersonal Circumplex: Dominance, Warmth and Personality. Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips (1988).
Sensation Seeking and Sensory Processing Sensitivity
Sensation seeking instruments index an appetite for novelty, intensity, or stimulation under specified conceptual definitions. This construct overlaps with some broader personality factors but is especially relevant when a question concerns stimulation preferences or risk-associated behavior. Zuckerman's structural comparisons demonstrate that the placement of sensation seeking depends partly on the chosen model and measurement approach. A high score says nothing definite about whether a person will take a particular risk in a specific setting. Zuckerman et al. (1993). Related scientific discussion appears in Sensation Seeking: Personality, Biology and Risk Taking.
Sensory processing sensitivity was investigated by Aron and Aron using a self-report approach to perceived depth of processing and sensitivity to stimulation. Their early research proposed partial separability from introversion and emotionality. Later use of the High Sensitivity label does not by itself settle debates over dimensionality, causal mechanisms, or cross-population equivalence. Individual scale scores warrant interpretation as responses to a particular questionnaire. They are not diagnostic certificates, and being described as “highly sensitive” does not define a psychiatric condition. Aron and Aron (1997). See Sensory Processing Sensitivity: Highly Sensitive Person Research and Limitations.
Although these constructs both concern responsiveness to stimulation, they ask different psychological questions. Enjoying intense experiences, noticing subtle environmental changes, and finding overstimulation unpleasant need not form a single trait. Their empirical associations require direct measurement, and a person's response can change with fatigue, anxiety, developmental stage, and environmental demands. Scientific assessments maintain the distinction between habitual tendencies and transient states. Aron and Aron (1997); Fleeson (2001).
Dark Triad Instruments and Responsible Interpretation
The Dark Triad research tradition addresses Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy as partially overlapping individual-difference constructs. Jones and Paulhus introduced the 27-item Short Dark Triad (SD3) to assess them efficiently; Jonason and Webster developed the shorter Dirty Dozen questionnaire. Distinct operationalizations differ in item sampling and conceptual detail, so scores from the two instruments should not be presumed identical. Terms such as psychopathy or narcissism in a nonclinical research scale do not establish a clinical disorder. Paulhus and Williams (2002); Jones and Paulhus (2014); Jonason and Webster (2010).
These scales can be useful for research on social attitudes and behaviors, but they present heightened interpretive and ethical risks. Respondents may reasonably object to being labeled with severe-sounding traits when the assessment is brief and context-limited. Researchers should use neutral language, describe probabilistic group associations carefully, avoid moral rankings, and address potential response distortion. A self-report profile cannot verify misconduct or justify consequential judgments about an individual without much stronger, purpose-specific evidence. Jones and Paulhus (2014); Meade and Craig (2012).
Assessing Temperament Across Childhood and Adulthood
Why developmental age changes the measure
Temperament is commonly operationalized through individual differences in emotional, attentional, motor, and self-regulatory processes. For children, abilities and behavioral opportunities change rapidly, so the questionnaire must be matched to a developmental window. A caregiver can report on repeated everyday behavior, while an observer may record reactions within structured episodes. Both sources have strengths, and neither escapes context. Adult measures often use self-reports and include more differentiated experiences of regulation, motivation, and sensitivity. Rothbart et al. (2001); Evans and Rothbart (2007).
The Children's Behavior Questionnaire, developed for ages three through seven, offers a particularly clear example of age-specific construction. Its original research assessed caregiver-report scales and dimensions of temperament. The Adult Temperament Questionnaire was examined in later studies with student and community samples; those studies found both convergence with familiar personality factors and differentiation within affective and control domains. Shared vocabulary across childhood and adulthood does not establish that a childhood score and an adult score lie on an identical metric. Rothbart et al. (2001); Evans and Rothbart (2007).
Informants, contexts, and behavioral observation
Parents, teachers, partners, and individuals themselves observe different samples of behavior. When their reports disagree, investigators should examine what each informant was positioned to observe and how items were understood. Agreement is influenced by the setting and construct being measured. Combining observers can expand coverage, but simple averaging may erase meaningful context-specific patterns. Observational tasks offer a complementary source of evidence, yet the behavior elicited by one task cannot represent an entire developmental history. Rothbart et al. (2001).
The most defensible developmental interpretation asks how repeatedly observed tendencies function in a child's family, educational, and social environments. It considers whether questions are appropriate for the age and whether changes reflect developmental capacity, environmental transitions, or changes in the construct itself. The encyclopedia's Temperament Measurement: Questionnaires, Observations and Limitations covers these developmental methods in detail. Evans and Rothbart (2007).
Self-Report, Informant Ratings, and Behavioral Evidence
The most common route to non-Big-Five personality measurement remains self-description. It is efficient and can reach private motives, feelings, and experiences inaccessible to observers. At the same time, questionnaire responses depend on insight, language, memory, social desirability, and the respondent's interpretation of the comparison group. An informant may identify public patterns more accurately in one domain while having limited access to internal experiences in another. Evidence from multiple methods is especially useful where the interpretation carries substantial consequences. Jones and Paulhus (2014); Meade and Craig (2012).
Observed behavior supplies another type of evidence, although observations require sampling decisions and may be influenced by the setting. A behavioral measure of avoidance during a threat task, for example, describes action under the task's conditions. It should not be treated as interchangeable with a broad self-reported inhibition disposition. Likewise, associations between a questionnaire and a behavioral outcome establish a criterion relationship at the level of the observed sample, with uncertainty around generalization. Carver and White (1994).
A thoughtful multimethod design starts from what would count as converging and diverging evidence. Agreement between theoretically distinct indicators strengthens some interpretations; disagreement can reveal context sensitivity, different construct coverage, or errors in one source. Automatic assumptions that one reporter is truthful and another is biased oversimplify the problem. A score is most informative when the measurement process itself is visible. Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips (1988).
Trait Scores Versus Personality States
Trait questionnaires generally ask respondents to summarize what they are typically like. State reports examine what people experience or do at a particular time. Experience-sampling research demonstrates that individuals exhibit meaningful variation across days and situations even when average tendencies remain distinguishable. The two levels answer different questions: a between-person correlation concerns variation among people, whereas a within-person association concerns changes across occasions for the same person. They cannot be substituted without additional evidence. Fleeson (2001).
A single high state score during a stressful afternoon should not automatically update a stable personality profile. Conversely, an average trait score cannot predict an exact reaction to a unique event. Some instruments deliberately ask about relatively stable dispositions; other procedures repeatedly sample states to estimate distributions and person–situation contingencies. Researchers should state their time frame, respondent instructions, and unit of analysis. Fleeson (2001).
Reliability, Validity, and the Meaning of a Score
Consistency is necessary but not sufficient
A scale can show internally consistent items because they repeat similar content, yet still omit important parts of a construct. A short inventory may capture broad differentiation while inadequately covering narrow facets. Repeatability, structural evidence, relations to other measures, and the consequences of interpretation together determine whether an instrument supports a particular use. These are properties of a measure in contexts of administration and inference, rather than universal certifications attached to a brand name. Lee and Ashton (2004); Ashton and Lee (2009).
Predictive associations also require attention to the base rate and the task being predicted. A questionnaire may help explain group differences while remaining weak at discriminating individual cases. Statistical associations with social outcomes should not be turned into causal claims about genes, reward circuits, parenting, or character. Whether a measure adds information beyond the Big Five requires a direct incremental-validity test against appropriate comparison instruments, with samples and outcomes chosen in advance. Zuckerman et al. (1993); Ashton and Lee (2008).
Scores, norms, and reference populations
Raw totals are instrument-specific. Norms transform a raw score into a comparison with a defined reference population; they do not express an absolute amount of personality. A percentile from one sample cannot be assumed equivalent to a percentile derived from another country's, age group's, or clinical population's scores. The responsible report names the norming population, acknowledges sampling limitations, and avoids treating uncertain estimates as precise ranks. International Test Commission (2017).
When scales include several facets, a broad score can conceal divergent patterns. Two people may have similar overall values while differing on important components. Interpreting facets also increases the number of comparisons and can magnify measurement error. The decision to report domain scores or facets should be dictated by purpose and adequate evidence, not merely by the number of graphics the software can generate. Soto and John (2017); Ashton and Lee (2009).
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Measurement Equivalence
A translated personality questionnaire is not automatically equivalent to the original. Language changes may alter connotations, examples, social desirability, and the reference behaviors a respondent imagines. Even fluent translation cannot guarantee that the same latent dimensions are represented in the same way or that norms transfer. The International Test Commission guidelines distinguish translation from the broader process of adapting and validating a test for another population and purpose. International Test Commission (2017).
Cross-language work should document the adaptation process, sample characteristics, response formats, structural tests, and evidence for comparing scores. A factor model that broadly reproduces across communities is encouraging, but differences in item interpretation can still matter at the level of a specific report. Cultural and socioeconomic settings also influence how socially desirable behavior is described. The claim that a test works “internationally” requires stronger evidence than a list of available translations. International Test Commission (2017); Schmitt et al. (2007).
These issues become particularly important when comparing children across developmental systems, combining multinational online convenience samples, or conducting employee evaluations. The use of a single English-language scoring key is not a substitute for population-appropriate validation. The design should explicitly identify whether it seeks within-population relations, population mean comparisons, or individual decisions because each requires different evidence. International Test Commission (2017).
Online Administration, Response Quality, and Automation
Online inventories offer scale and convenience, but they also introduce concerns about inattentive responding, duplicate or automated submissions, variable testing conditions, and unclear participant motivation. Meade and Craig showed that careless responses can take different forms and that no single flag captures them all. Quality-control procedures should be proportionate and documented, with safeguards against excluding legitimate participants whose response patterns happen to look unusual. Meade and Craig (2012).
The fact that a test is delivered through a polished website or scored using an automated system gives no evidence of construct validity. Algorithms can transform inputs consistently while still propagating invalid items, inappropriate norms, or unjustified claims. For questionnaire-based machine-learning predictions, researchers must document training populations, external validation, fairness, data privacy, and the performance of the exact target inference. The technological delivery mechanism should never be confused with the scientific status of the measurement. International Test Commission (2017); Goldberg et al. (2006).
Choosing a Measure for a Specific Research Question
The strongest selection procedure begins with a construct definition. A researcher studying prosocial sincerity might evaluate Honesty-Humility instruments; a developmental study of attentional regulation might use age-appropriate temperament measures; a motivational experiment might assess reinforcement sensitivity; and a study of relational patterns might select an interpersonal circumplex instrument. A study of socially aversive self-descriptions would need a different rationale and stronger safeguards for interpretation. These choices reflect theoretical objectives rather than competition for a single universally best personality test. Lee and Ashton (2004); Rothbart et al. (2001); Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips (1988).
The next decision concerns the target level of inference. For large studies, efficient broad-scale estimates can be defensible. For detailed individual feedback, greater breadth of items, suitable reference data, and more careful uncertainty communication may be needed. For repeated observations, asking identical global trait questions every hour may be less informative than administering validated state measures. If the respondents are children or speakers of another language, the instrument must match their developmental and linguistic circumstances. Ashton and Lee (2009); International Test Commission (2017); Fleeson (2001).
Finally, investigators should assess what the tool adds beyond simpler alternatives. Incremental validity is not established by reporting a significant correlation in isolation. It calls for an appropriately controlled comparison and meaningful effect interpretation, ideally with independent replication. A shorter instrument is preferable when additional detail has no evidential payoff; a longer or multimethod design is appropriate when those observations meaningfully improve the answer to a specified question. The conclusion remains purpose-specific. Ashton and Lee (2008); Zuckerman et al. (1993).
What Research Can and Cannot Establish
Established findings include the existence of validated alternative questionnaires for several well-defined personality and temperament constructs; observable correlations among some alternative and Big Five dimensions; and evidence that measure versions differ in what they cover. Research also establishes that everyday behavior varies within people and that reports depend on instruments and circumstances. These statements are supported by foundational development studies and comparative work. Lee and Ashton (2004); Evans and Rothbart (2007); Fleeson (2001).
Interpretations about direct biological causation, universal superiority of one inventory, precise forecasting of an individual's behavior, or the transferability of norms across cultures require additional evidence. A theoretical association between motivational systems and trait scores does not prove that a self-report scale directly reads brain-system activity. A short measure's validation in one sample does not guarantee the same performance in an unrelated high-stakes context. Claims of causal pathways and broad generalizability should therefore be treated as limited or contested where the data do not support stronger conclusions. Corr (2016); International Test Commission (2017).
Ethical and Clinical Boundaries
Nonclinical personality scales describe variation among people. They do not independently diagnose anxiety disorders, personality disorders, psychosis, attention disorders, or developmental conditions. A questionnaire label that resembles a clinical term must be read within the measure's construct and study population. Results should be reported without stigmatizing descriptors, with appropriate care for privacy, and with transparent explanation of uncertainty and intended use. Paulhus and Williams (2002); Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck (1993).
High-stakes applications, including personnel decisions, educational placement, and clinical referral, require evidence beyond ordinary research correlations. Consent, fairness across groups, secure handling of responses, and limits on secondary use of data are substantive components of responsible assessment. When the purpose is clinical diagnosis, a relevant clinical assessment framework and qualified evaluation are needed. Trait variation should not be converted into a medical judgment through an attractive dashboard. International Test Commission (2017).
Frequently Asked Questions
Is HEXACO simply the Big Five with an extra score?
HEXACO includes six factors and makes substantive changes to the organization of trait content, including Honesty-Humility and differences in the placement of emotional and interpersonal tendencies. Its measurement cannot be reduced to attaching an extra questionnaire item to a Big Five profile. The original instrument validation and later short-form studies examine its own structure. Lee and Ashton (2004); Ashton and Lee (2009).
Which personality assessment is best beyond the Big Five?
The defensible choice depends on the question, population, available evidence, burden, and consequences of the result. HEXACO, TCI, ATQ, BIS/BAS, RST-PQ, interpersonal scales, and narrow trait instruments sample different phenomena. A scientifically stronger study selects a tool for a defined construct and explicitly documents what its scores can support. Goldberg et al. (2006); International Test Commission (2017).
Can different inventories produce different personality profiles for the same person?
Yes. Inventories differ in what they ask, how they combine answers, and which population supplies reference scores. Disagreement can reflect differences in construct coverage, situational context, response format, or measurement error. It does not automatically mean that one instrument is fraudulent or that personality changed between tests. Zuckerman et al. (1993).
Are online scores enough to describe a child or diagnose a condition?
A child's temperament requires age-appropriate measures and contextual interpretation, often with information from caregivers or observers. Online scores from nonclinical instruments provide limited descriptions of reported tendencies and cannot independently make a psychiatric diagnosis. Rothbart et al. (2001); International Test Commission (2017).
Do personality inventories reveal a genetic or neurological cause?
Trait scales quantify observations and reports; they do not identify a causal gene, neurotransmitter, or specific brain mechanism. Biologically informed theories can generate testable predictions, and family, genetic, experimental, and longitudinal designs can evaluate them, but the individual questionnaire score is not biological proof. Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck (1993); Corr and Cooper (2016).
Related Articles
Cluster Personality Traits, Temperament and Individual Differences — The foundational scientific chapter explaining trait theories, temperament, development, and individual variation.
HEXACO Personality Model: Six Traits and the Honesty-Humility Factor — The six-domain framework behind one prominent alternative assessment family.
Cloninger's Temperament and Character Model: Dimensions and Evidence — The theoretical basis for temperament and character inventories.
How Is Temperament Measured? Questionnaires, Observations and Limitations — Age-specific measurement, informants, observation, and developmental interpretation.
The Interpersonal Circumplex: Dominance, Warmth and Personality — Interpersonal constructs organized by agency and communion.
Sensory Processing Sensitivity: Highly Sensitive Person Research and Limitations — A narrowly defined construct and its evidential limitations.
References
Aron, E. N., and Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345
Ashton, M. C., and Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of personality structure and the importance of the H factor. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1952–1962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Ashton, M. C., and Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., and Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The IPIP–HEXACO scales: An alternative, public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8), 1515–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.027
Carver, C. S., and White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., and Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008
Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.045
Corr, P. J., and Cooper, A. J. (2016). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1427–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000273
Evans, D. E., and Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 868–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11414368/
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., and Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (second edition). https://www.intestcom.org/page/14
Jonason, P. K., and Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
Jones, D. N., and Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
Lee, K., and Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Meade, A. W., and Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Paulhus, D. L., and Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., and Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72(5), 1394–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00355
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., and Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299
Soto, C. J., and John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., and Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(4), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2304_8
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., and Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.757