See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232591551

Brief versions of the NEO PI-3

Article  in  Journal of Individual Differences · July 2007

DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116

CITATIONS READS

118 21,615

2 authors, including:

Paul Costa
Duke University Medical Center
433 PUBLICATIONS   65,781 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SNPs and Personality View project

Cross-Cultural Studies of traits View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Costa on 24 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JournalR.R. McCrae
of Individual & P.T.
Published 2007,Co
Differences sta,
Hogrefe
2007;Jr.:Vol.
&Brief
HuberNEO-PI-3s
28(3):116–128
Publishers

Brief Versions of the NEO-PI-3

Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.
National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health,
Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, MD, USA

Abstract. Self-report (Form S) and observer rating (Form R) versions of two short forms of the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-
PI-3) were evaluated. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 is a 60-item instrument that assesses the five factors. The NEO-PI-3 First Half
consists of the first 120 items of the NEO-PI-3, selected to optimally assess its 30 facet scales. Internal consistencies were systematically
lower for the brief scales than for the parent scales, but both brief instruments replicated the factor structure and showed cross-observer
validity. They appeared to work well in both adolescent and adult samples, and adequately in a middle school-age sample. Norms for
the NEO-FFI-3 are provided and it was shown that NEO-PI-3 norms can be used for NEO-PI-3 First Half scores if they are simply
doubled. Uses of the NEO-PI-3 First Half are discussed.

Keywords: personality assessment, short forms, NEO-PI-3, NEO-FFI

It is a statistical truism that, other things being equal, tests
with more items are more reliable. There is evidence that
more reliable tests are more valid (although the correlation
between reliability and validity is only about .33; see
Meyer et al., 2001, p. 131). It is also true that instruments
that measure an array of specific constructs are generally
superior in the prediction of a variety of criteria to those
that assess only broad, global constructs (Paunonen & Ash-
ton, 2001). Thus, personality assessment is likely to be op-
timized when a comprehensive set of specific traits is as-
sessed with multi-item scales.
However, there are also pragmatic reasons to use brief
measures, the most important of which is the limited time
and cooperation of potential respondents. Survey re-
searchers, in particular, often wish to include brief mea-
sures of personality among a host of other variables of
interest. Investigators who target groups with low litera-
cy (e.g., Trobst et al., 2000) may be more successful us-
ing shorter and less taxing questionnaires. Fortunately,
there is evidence that brief scales can provide useful as-
sessments of personality constructs (Gosling, Rentfrow,
& Swann, 2003; Herzberg & Brahler, 2006; Rammsted
& John, 2005).
The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI[-R]; Costa
& McCrae, 1985, 1992) is a measure of the dimensions
of the five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990), with six
facet scales to assess specific aspects of each of the fac-
tors, and with parallel forms for self-reports and observer
ratings. With 240 items, it assesses 30 traits, yet can be
completed by most respondents in about 30 minutes.
Soon after its publication, however, it became clear that
many researchers required a briefer instrument, and in
1989, Costa and McCrae published a short version, the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), that assesses the
global factors with five 12-item scales. By December
2006, a PsycINFO search showed over 680 citations of
the NEO-FFI, confirming the research utility of brief
measures of the FFM.
The NEO-FFI was based on items from the earliest
version of the NEO-PI, and did not offer the optimal short
form of the instrument. Some researchers have criticized
its psychometric properties, in particular its item factor
structure (Becker, 2006; Egan, Deary, & Austin, 2000).
In 2004, McCrae and Costa, therefore, proposed a revi-
sion of the NEO-FFI in which 14 items were replaced by
alternatives from the NEO-PI-R item pool. The Revised
NEO-FFI (NEO-FFI-R) showed slightly improved psy-
chometric properties and better readability compared to
the NEO-FFI.
To improve the psychometrics and readability of the
full NEO-PI-R, McCrae, Costa, and Martin (2005) devel-
oped the NEO-PI-3, in which 37 of the NEO-PI-R items
were replaced. The NEO-PI-3 scales were essentially
equivalent to those of the NEO-PI-R, but could be used
by adolescents as young as 12 (Costa, McCrae, & Martin,
in press) as well as by adults (McCrae, Martin, & Costa,
2005). One of the NEO-FFI-R items (“I’m hard-headed
and tough-minded in my attitudes”) was dropped in the
development of the NEO-PI-3, so the short version of the
NEO-PI-3–the NEO-FFI-3–consists of 59 NEO-FFI-R
items plus the replacement (“I have no sympathy for beg-
gars”) for the dropped item. In this article we report anal-
yses of the reliability and item factor structure of the
NEO-FFI-3 and provide new norms for adolescents and
adults.
The NEO-FFI-3 does not provide specific facet infor-
mation. Saucier (1998) proposed a scoring system for
subcomponents of the NEO-FFI scales, but only 13 con-
structs could be assessed, which generally did not corre-
spond to the facets of the NEO-PI-R and, thus, cannot be
compared directly to the large literature on NEO-PI-R
facet scales. More desirable for research would be brief

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128 Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
DOI 10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116
 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s
versions of each of the 30 NEO-PI-3 facet scales. A com-
puterized adaptive test (CAT) analysis of NEO-PI-R data
(Reise & Henson, 2000) suggested that such a project
might be feasible. Reise and Henson concluded that, us-
ing CAT methods, most of the information from the
eight-item facet scales could be obtained from adminis-
tration of the four best items. In this article we will iden-
tify four-item NEO-PI-3 facet scales through convention-
al regression analyses and evaluate their psychometric
properties in samples of adults and adolescents. By pre-
senting the 120 selected items at the beginning of the
NEO-PI-3 questionnaire, the same test booklet can con-
veniently be used for either the full or the brief version
of the NEO-PI-3. Because of this item placement, we will
refer to the brief version as the NEO-PI-3 First Half
(NEO-PI-3FH). This strategy was used by Morey (1991)
for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), and a re-
cent evaluation of the PAI short form scales suggested
that they could be appropriately used in some circum-
stances (Frazier, Naugle, & Haggerty, 2006).
It might be argued that even briefer versions could be
created: Facets could be roughly estimated by two items or
even one (Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, &
Widiger, 2006). However, even when such short measures
show reasonable convergent validity, they contain specific
variance in addition to the common, valid variance and er-
ror; in very large samples (e.g., from the Internet) such spe-
cific variance can show significant correlations with other
variables. In single-item scales, content is always con-
founded with acquiescence. When single-item scales are
used it is impossible to determine whether observed asso-
ciations result from the intended construct or idiosyncratic
properties of the item. Averaging across four items not only
reduces random error; it also tends to neutralize the system-
atic bias of each individual item. If keying is balanced, the
effects of acquiescence are largely controlled.
Normally the introduction of new scales requires pub-
lication of norms. It would be easy to generate means and
standard deviations for NEO-PI-3FH scales in the same
samples on which the NEO-PI-3 is normed but use of
those norms would be cumbersome. The NEO-PI-3 al-
ready has norms for different ages, genders, and forms;
duplication of all these norms–and profile sheets–for a
First Half version would be costly and might lead to er-
rors in using the correct norms. It might be argued that a
research instrument like the NEO-PI-3FH does not re-
quire norms, because group analyses can be conducted
on raw scores, using age or gender as covariates if appro-
priate. However, even in research contexts it is useful to
have a rough idea of how new samples compare to the
general population. One possible solution is provided by
the simple expedient of doubling the First Half scores and
interpreting them using existing NEO-PI-3 norms. That
would be reasonable if, and only if, the means and stand-
ard deviations of the doubled First Half scores are com-
parable to those of the full scores. We will examine that
possibility.
Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
117
Method
Participants
The present study reanalyzes data from three samples that
completed the NEO-PI-3. All participants were recruited
from the community by psychology students, and all com-
pleted questionnaires at home and mailed them back to the
investigators. In the first study, the NEO-PI-R and 96 can-
didate replacement items were administered to 536 individ-
uals aged 14 to 20, who described themselves and a sibling
or an anonymous target of the same age group (McCrae,
Costa, et al., 2005). In the subset of 500 individuals with
valid protocols (the Adolescent sample), 51.6% were fe-
male; 84.6% were White, 7.6% were Asian/Pacific Island-
er, and 7.8% were other ethnicity; and most described
themselves as A or B students. Of these, 180 described a
sibling who also described them. Cross-observer validity
coefficients can be obtained from these pairs.
The second study administered the same items to 652
adults aged 21 to 91 who also described themselves and an
adult partner or anonymous target (McCrae, Martin, et al.,
2005). In the subset of 635 respondents with valid data (the
Adult sample), 56.1% were women; 92.6% were White,
1.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5.8% other ethnicity; and
75.6% had more than a high school education. Mutual rat-
ings of spouses, friends, and other targets were obtained
from a subset of 532 individuals.
In the third study, the 240 items selected for the NEO-
PI-3 in the first study were administered to 449 boys and
girls aged 12 or 13 (Costa et al., in press). Valid self-reports
were obtained from a subset of 202 respondents; valid rat-
ings of anonymous targets of the same age and gender were
obtained from a different subset of 222 respondents. Most
of the respondents (the Middle School sample; 52.4% fe-
male) were White (94.5%); in the 6th, 7th, or 8th grade;
and described themselves as A or B students.
Instrument
The NEO-PI-3 is a 240-item questionnaire measuring the
FFM and 30 specific traits that define the five factors or
domains: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to
Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness
(C). Items use a 5-point Likert-scale format, with responses
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Keying is roughly
balanced to minimize the effects of acquiescent respond-
ing. Form S contains items in the first person; Form R con-
sists of the same items phrased in the third person with
separate versions for male and female targets.
Scales of the NEO-PI-3 are essentially equivalent to
those of the NEO-PI-R (McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005), and
evidence of the reliability and validity of the latter is pre-
sented in the Manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
The NEO-FFI-3 is a 60-item questionnaire assessing the
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
118 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s

Table 1. Coefficient alphas, equivalence coefficients, and factor/scale correlations for NEO-FFI-3 scales
Form S Domain Form R Domain
Sample N E O A C N E O A C
Adolescent (N = 500)
Coefficient α .82 .80 .78 .72 .83 .81 .79 .78 .82 .88
Equivalence coefficient .91 .92 .93 .89 .92 .91 .92 .91 .92 .94
Factor/Scale correlation .96 .96 .95 .94 .97 .96 .96 .96 .94 .97
Cross-observer correlation .39 .57 .52 .45 .47 .34 .56 .49 .41 .50
Adult (N = 635)
Coefficient α .86 .79 .78 .79 .82 .86 .80 .77 .84 .88
Equivalence coefficient .93 .90 .91 .91 .90 .93 .91 .90 .93 .93
Factor/Scale correlation .96 .95 .97 .95 .94 .95 .96 .94 .95 .96
Cross-observer correlation .52 .60 .50 .55 .49 .54 .60 .55 .52 .49
Middle School (Ns = 202, 222)
Coefficient α .79 .76 .71 .76 .87 .75 .76 .66 .78 .87
Equivalence coefficient .92 .90 .88 .92 .94 .88 .90 .87 .91 .95
Factor/Scale correlation .94 .91 .95 .83 .94 .81 .94 .89 .91 .90
Note. Cross-observer correlations are between NEO-FFI-3 scales and corresponding NEO-PI-3 domains of the other Form, N values = 180
adolescents, 532 adults. All correlations are significant at p < .001.

five domains only. It is a modification of the NEO-FFI-R
(McCrae & Costa, 2004) by the substitution of one new
NEO-PI-3 item. The NEO-FFI-R itself was developed to
improve the readability and item factor structure of the
NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Items for the NEO-
FFI-3 are taken from 28 of the 30 facet scales (all except
N5: Impulsiveness and C6: Deliberation). There are both
self-report and observer rating versions of the NEO-FFI-3.
Results
Validity and Normative Information for the
NEO-FFI-3
Table 1 summarizes analyses of the reliability and factor
structure of the NEO-FFI-3. Internal consistency across the
two forms ranged from .72 to .88 in the Adolescent and
Adult samples, with a median of .82. This value is compa-
rable to the median value (.80) reported in the manual for
the NEO-FFI in an adult sample. In the Middle School sam-
ple somewhat lower values are seen, with a median of .76.
Equivalence coefficients are calculated as the correlation
between the full 48-item NEO-PI-3 domain scale and the
corresponding 12-item NEO-FFI-3 scale. Most of these
values are above .90 in the Adolescent and Adult samples,
and near .90 in the Middle School sample. These values are
inflated to some extent by shared method variance, because
both scales were computed from the same data. A more
conservative procedure would be to correlate NEO-FFI-3
scales with the sum of the 36 remaining items from each
domain. Across the two forms, these corrected part/total
correlations ranged from .72 to .89, with median values of
.83, .81, and .81 for Adolescent, Adult, and Middle School
samples, respectively.
We conducted item factor analyses separately for each
sample and form. In each, we extracted five factors, per-
formed a varimax rotation, and generated factor scores. The
factor structure was well replicated in both Adolescent and
Adult samples. For example, in the Adult Form S analysis,
all items loaded above .30 on their intended factor, and 50
of them (83.3%) loaded above .40. Only two items had
loadings of .40 or higher on an unintended factor. The rep-
licability of the factor structure can be summarized by cor-
relating the obtained factor scores with the a priori domain
scales. These data are reported in Table 1, and show excel-
lent correspondence (all r values ≥ .94) in both Adolescent
and Adult samples. Somewhat lower correlations were
found in the Middle School sample. In part, this may be a
result of the relatively small sample sizes (n values = 202,
222), which can lead to arbitrary variations in the factor
rotation. An alternative is orthogonal validimax rotation
(McCrae & Costa, 1989), in which the item factors are
maximally aligned with the scale scores. Using this proce-
dure in the Middle School sample, factor/scale correlations
for N, E, O, A, and C were .94, .94, .95, .92, and .93, re-
spectively, for self-report data, and .85, .94, .88, .91, and
.90, respectively, for observer rating data.
We also examined the item factor structure of the NEO-
FFI-3 separately for males and females in both Adolescent
and Adult samples, using standard varimax rotation. For
Form S, factor/scale correlations ranged from .91 to .97
(Mdn = .95). For Form R, they ranged from .85 to .97 (Mdn
= .95). Thus, the NEO-FFI-3 structure is clearly generaliz-
able across genders.
In the adolescent and adult samples we had self-re-
ports and observer ratings of the same targets, allowing

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128 Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s
an assessment of cross-observer validity. Heteromethod
correlations of NEO-FFI-3 scales with corresponding
NEO-PI-3 domain scores from the other Form are given
in Table 1, and show that the 12-item scales are strongly
related to independent assessments of personality. A
comparison with cross-observer correlations for the full
domain scales (McCrae, Costa, et al., 2005; McCrae,
Martin, et al., 2005) shows that the NEO-FFI-3 scales
explain about 90% as much variance as do the NEO-PI-3
domain scales.
Norms for the NEO-FFI-3 are given in the Appendix,
using the same age groupings that are employed for the
NEO-PI-3 (McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005). To assess the rep-
resentativeness of these norms, we compared them to mean
values in the independent samples used to develop the
NEO-FFI-R (McCrae & Costa, 2004). Scored with adoles-
cent norms, the high school students in the development
sample had T scores ranging from 47 to 52. A wider range
of variation was seen in the adult development sample,
where T scores (using older adult norms) ranged from 44
to 56. Those adults were well-educated members of the
Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (Shock et al.,
1984), and it is not surprising that they scored lower in N
and higher in O than the present sample. Although none of
these samples can be considered truly representative of the
general population, experience with the NEO-PI-R and
NEO-FFI, which have similar normative groups, suggests
that they should be adequate.
Analyses of the NEO-PI-3 First Half
Item Selection
Item selection was performed on Form S data from the
Adolescent sample (N = 500). Form S data were given
priority because self-reports are more commonly used
than observer ratings. Selection was made in the adoles-
cent sample on the assumption that items that were more
difficult to read or understand would be more easily iden-
tified in this sample and selected out. To reduce the ef-
fects of acquiescence, two positively keyed and two neg-
atively keyed items were chosen for each facet. Each
eight-item facet scale was predicted in a stepwise regres-
sion by the positively-keyed items. The two best items
were then entered as the first block of a second regres-
sion; for the second block, the remaining reverse-keyed
items were included in a stepwise fashion, and the first
two selected were chosen. For five scales with only two
reverse-keyed items, those were used in the first block of
the regression, and the two best positively-keyed items
were selected from the second block. For three of the
scales, E4: Activity, O4: Actions, and O6: Values, adjust-
ed R2s were less than .80 (.76, .72, and .75, respectively).
Adjusted R2s for the remaining scales ranged from .80 to
.91 (Mdn = .84).
Individual items are relatively unreliable, and multiple
Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
119
regression can capitalize on chance differences among
items. We, therefore, conducted two cross-validation stud-
ies, using Form R data from the Adolescent sample (N =
500) and Form S data from the Adult sample (N = 635).
The same procedure was used in both new samples as in
the original sample. Ten reverse-keyed items were neces-
sarily included in all three item selections; of the 110 addi-
tional items to be selected from 230 candidates, choices
from the Adolescent Form R data matched those in the der-
ivation sample in 72 cases (χ² = 26.3, p < .001), and choices
from the Adult Form S data matched those in the derivation
sample in 76 cases (χ² = 38.2, p < .001). These data suggest
that the initial selection succeeded in identifying short
scales that should be generalizable across methods of mea-
surement and age groups.
In an initial assessment of these First Half scales in the
Middle School sample, we computed equivalence coeffi-
cients between the full and half scales. In one case, O6:
Values, the correlation was lower than .80. When selection
procedures were applied to the items of O6: Values in the
Middle School Form S data (N = 202), three of the initially
selected items were again chosen, but the fourth item dif-
fered. That item, “I believe that we should look to our re-
ligious authorities for decisions on moral issues,” had also
been selected in the two cross-validation analyses previ-
ously described, and it was substituted for the initial selec-
tion in the final version of the NEO-PI-3FH. To make
scores comparable to those of the NEO-PI-3, the sum of
the four items in each brief facet scale is doubled. NEO-PI-
3FH domain scores are computed as the sum of the relevant
six doubled facet scales.
Reliability, Equivalence, and Factor Structure
Table 2 reports the internal consistency of the First Half
domain and facet scores in the three samples for both
forms. These values are, of course, lower than those nor-
mally seen for full-length NEO-PI-3 scales, but they are
acceptably high for the domains and most of the facet
scales. Reliabilities for the Middle School sample are con-
sistently lower than those found in older samples, which is
also true for the full-length scales. Among 12- and 13-year-
olds, O4: Actions and O6: Values have αs that most re-
searchers would consider unacceptably low; certainly
scores on those facets should be interpreted with caution.
However, in evaluating these data it must be recalled that
multiple regression tends to select maximally independent
predictors of the criterion, so internal consistency is often
minimized, whereas validity is maximized.
Table 3 reports equivalence correlations between the
brief and full versions of the domain and facet scales. These
values are uniformly high for the domain scales, and all
exceed .80 for the facet scales. These values are an upper
bound to equivalence because they are calculated on the
same data and share any systematic error. For the domains,
corrected part-total correlations (in which the brief versions
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
120 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s

Table 2. Coefficient α for NEO-PI-3FH Scales

Form S Form R
NEO-PI-3FH Scale Adolescent Adult MS Adolescent Adult MS
N: Neuroticism .85 .88 .82 .86 .88 .83
E: Extraversion .82 .80 .79 .82 .82 .79
O: Openness .82 .81 .72 .79 .79 .71
A: Agreeableness .78 .82 .74 .84 .87 .81
C: Conscientiousness .86 .86 .87 .89 .88 .89
Mdn .82 .82 .79 .84 .87 .81
N1: Anxiety .67 .73 .61 .69 .72 .57
N2: Angry Hostility .67 .70 .70 .73 .81 .71
N3: Depression .70 .78 .56 .70 .73 .57
N4: Self-Consciousness .58 .62 .40 .66 .62 .42
N5: Impulsiveness .48 .55 .24 .54 .57 .38
N6: Vulnerability .61 .67 .51 .55 .67 .60
E1: Warmth .59 .60 .59 .57 .67 .57
E2: Gregariousness .68 .69 .70 .66 .75 .64
E3: Assertiveness .66 .66 .68 .63 .69 .63
E4: Activity .43 .49 .34 .43 .57 .42
E5: Excitement Seeking .48 .46 .30 .56 .52 .36
E6: Positive Emotions .60 .67 .59 .60 .63 .54
O1: Fantasy .63 .62 .60 .59 .62 .61
O2: Aesthetics .72 .75 .64 .68 .75 .66
O3: Feelings .63 .61 .41 .61 .64 .54
O4: Actions .26 .33 .11 .38 .40 .11
O5: Ideas .64 .65 .54 .70 .72 .53
O6: Values .39 .49 .20 .33 .42 –.07
A1: Trust .65 .69 .29 .69 .75 .48
A2: Straightforwardness .59 .67 .56 .67 .74 .54
A3: Altruism .57 .65 .61 .64 .67 .64
A4: Compliance .58 .58 .55 .63 .70 .57
A5: Modesty .59 .57 .48 .63 .66 .58
A6: Tender-Mindedness .52 .55 .38 .64 .68 .51
C1: Competence .50 .58 .57 .63 .65 .66
C2: Order .76 .76 .80 .81 .82 .76
C3: Dutifulness .47 .51 .43 .60 .55 .50
C4: Achievement Striving .65 .65 .57 .68 .65 .62
C5: Self-Discipline .64 .69 .67 .71 .75 .70
C6: Deliberation .65 .63 .54 .69 .66 .54
Mdn .61 .64 .56 .64 .67 .57
Note. MS = Middle School sample.

were correlated with the sum of the second-half items)
ranged from .76 to .95, with median values of .85, .86, and
.84 for Adolescent, Adult, and Middle-School samples, re-
spectively.
A first test of the construct validity of the First Half
scales examines the internal convergent and discriminant
validity of the facet scales via factor analysis. In each
sample and form, we extracted five factors and rotated
them to maximum similarity to the normative adult NEO-
PI-R structure (McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, &
Paunonen, 1996); we then evaluated variable, factor, and
total congruence coefficients. As summarized in Table 4,
the brief scales retained the structure of the parent instru-
ment. All but one of the factor congruences exceeded .90,
and all were higher than the .85 criterion of factor repli-
cability (Haven & ten Berge, 1977). Of 180 variable con-
gruence coefficients, all but seven were higher than 95%
of rotations from random data (McCrae et al., 1996). Of

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128 Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s 121

Table 3. Equivalence coefficients for NEO-PI-3FH vs. NEO-PI-3 scales

Form S Form R
NEO-PI-3 Scale Adolescent Adult MS Adolescent Adult MS
N: Neuroticism .97 .97 .96 .97 .97 .95
E: Extraversion .97 .97 .96 .97 .97 .94
O: Openness .97 .97 .96 .96 .97 .94
A: Agreeableness .96 .97 .94 .97 .97 .96
C: Conscientiousness .97 .97 .96 .98 .97 .97
Mdn .97 .97 .96 .97 .97 .95
N1: Anxiety .92 .94 .91 .92 .94 .90
N2: Angry Hostility .91 .90 .90 .92 .94 .92
N3: Depression .91 .93 .90 .91 .93 .89
N4: Self-Consciousness .91 .91 .88 .92 .89 .87
N5: Impulsiveness .91 .89 .85 .89 .91 .85
N6: Vulnerability .92 .92 .90 .91 .94 .91
E1: Warmth .93 .94 .92 .92 .95 .90
E2: Gregariousness .92 .92 .90 .92 .93 .89
E3: Assertiveness .92 .93 .93 .92 .93 .91
E4: Activity .87 .90 .85 .85 .91 .89
E5: Excitement Seeking .89 .89 .87 .89 .89 .84
E6: Positive Emotions .91 .92 .90 .91 .92 .92
O1: Fantasy .92 .91 .91 .91 .92 .89
O2: Aesthetics .95 .95 .93 .95 .96 .92
O3: Feelings .92 .91 .91 .89 .92 .89
O4: Actions .85 .86 .83 .87 .87 .80
O5: Ideas .94 .94 .90 .94 .94 .90
O6: Values .86 .90 .84 .86 .88 .82
A1: Trust .92 .94 .84 .93 .94 .85
A2: Straightforwardness .89 .92 .91 .93 .94 .91
A3: Altruism .92 .92 .90 .92 .93 .90
A4: Compliance .91 .91 .92 .92 .92 .89
A5: Modesty .92 .91 .88 .92 .92 .91
A6: Tender-Mindedness .89 .89 .89 .91 .91 .91
C1: Competence .91 .91 .89 .91 .91 .92
C2: Order .94 .93 .92 .95 .95 .93
C3: Dutifulness .89 .91 .87 .91 .91 .92
C4: Achievement Striving .91 .90 .87 .92 .91 .91
C5: Self-Discipline .94 .92 .93 .94 .94 .93
C6: Deliberation .91 .91 .87 .91 .92 .88
Mdn .91 .91 .90 .92 .92 .90
Note. MS = Middle School sample.

Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
122 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s

Table 4. Congruence coefficients from NEO-PI-3 First Half factor analyses

Factor Variable
Sample N E O A C Total Congruences ≥ .86
Form S (Self-Reports)
Adolescent .98 .96 .93 .96 .97 .96 30
Adult .97 .98 .97 .98 .96 .97 29
Middle school .97 .94 .90 .94 .96 .95 28
Form R (Observer Ratings)
Adolescent .97 .96 .92 .94 .96 .95 30
Adult .97 .98 .93 .97 .97 .96 29
Middle school .94 .95 .87 .90 .94 .92 27
Note. Variable congruence coefficients ≥ .86 are higher than 95% of rotations from random data. Variable congruences below .86 were N1 (.85)
and O6 (.75) in Middle School Form S; O4 (.75), O6 (.72) and A6 (.79) in Middle School Form R; O6 (.83) in Adult Form S; and O6 (.79) in
Adult Form R.

Figure 1. NEO-PI-3 First Half Form S domain and facet scores plotted against combined-sex adult or adolescent NEO-PI-3
norms (McCrae, Martin, & Costa, 2005). The five domain scores are given on the left; toward the right the facet scales
are grouped by factor.

particular interest are the factor loadings of the two vari- on the O factor ranging from .27 to .59, with a median of
ables with the most problematic internal consistency, O4: .41. In general, the lowest factor loadings for these two
Actions and O6: Values. Across the six factor analyses facets (.27 to .34) were found in the Middle School sam-
summarized in Table 3, these variables showed loadings ple.

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128 Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s 123

Table 5. Cross-observer validity and comparative validity of NEO-PI-3 First Half scales
Correlation Relative Variancea
Adolescent Adult Adolescent Adult
b c b c
NEO-PI-3FH Scale S R S R S R S R
N: Neuroticism .42 .36 .56 .55 1.19 .89 1.04 .99
E: Extraversion .58 .59 .61 .63 .95 .97 .89 .94
O: Openness .57 .54 .57 .56 1.09 .99 1.00 .97
A: Agreeableness .43 .45 .56 .55 .86 .91 .93 .92
C: Conscientiousness .51 .52 .51 .52 .92 .96 .95 .98
Mdn .51 .52 .56 .55 .95 .96 .95 .97
N1: Anxiety .44 .38 .48 .49 1.24 .90 .91 .95
N2: Angry Hostility .33 .32 .55 .49 .91 .85 1.06 .84
N3: Depression .38 .31 .51 .50 1.10 .72 1.01 .96
N4: Self-Consciousness .41 .40 .39 .39 1.10 1.01 .82 .84
N5: Impulsiveness .21 .19 .38 .40 1.02 .79 .82 .91
N6: Vulnerability .27 .32 .45 .45 .85 1.12 .88 .88
E1: Warmth .41 .45 .53 .55 .89 1.06 .84 .88
E2: Gregariousness .44 .45 .55 .57 .75 .78 .81 .86
E3: Assertiveness .43 .44 .53 .55 .98 1.01 .90 .97
E4: Activity .45 .44 .44 .49 .78 .73 .69 .86
E5: Excitement Seeking .43 .54 .63 .65 .63 .97 .85 .90
E6: Positive Emotions .48 .46 .39 .42 .96 .88 .75 .89
O1: Fantasy .36 .37 .37 .39 1.07 1.14 .86 .93
O2: Aesthetics .57 .56 .54 .55 .96 .90 .92 .95
O3: Feelings .46 .36 .39 .40 1.00 .59 .80 .85
O4: Actions .33 .24 .43 .39 1.30 .68 1.07 .86
O5: Ideas .45 .45 .55 .54 .90 .89 .88 .83
O6: Values .36 .40 .46 .47 .69 .86 .82 .87
A1: Trust .22 .21 .40 .43 .71 .68 .81 .95
A2: Straightforwardness .22 .20 .34 .35 1.00 .79 .79 .84
A3: Altruism .31 .33 .47 .44 .83 .95 .81 .71
A4: Compliance .47 .46 .55 .50 .84 .79 .97 .81
A5: Modesty .32 .39 .43 .45 .68 1.04 .81 .88
A6: Tender-Mindedness .24 .26 .42 .46 1.09 1.27 .76 .94
C1: Competence .32 .31 .39 .38 .87 .82 .84 .80
C2: Order .48 .47 .62 .61 1.08 1.06 .92 .89
C3: Dutifulness .44 .41 .42 .41 .93 .80 .89 .87
C4: Achievement Striving .38 .40 .41 .44 .76 .86 .73 .85
C5: Self-Discipline .39 .42 .42 .43 .85 .98 .83 .87
C6: Deliberation .43 .48 .42 .41 .70 .87 .92 .87
Mdn .40 .40 .44 .45 .91 .88 .84 .87
Note. N = 180 for Adolescent sample, 532 for Adult sample. aRelative variance = (variance in criterion accounted for by First Half scale)/(variance
in criterion accounted for by full scale; see McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005, McCrae, Martin, & Costa, 2005). Calculations based on correlations
to three decimal places. bCorrelation of First Half Form S scale with Form R scale. cCorrelation of First Half Form R scale with Form S scale.

Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
124 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s
Cross-Observer Correlations
Table 5 reports cross-observer validity coefficients for the
NEO-PI-3FH scales. The first four data columns report the
correlation of each First Half scale with the full scale of the
alternative form. For example, the first value tabled, .42, is
the correlation of the 24-item self-reported First Half N
scale with the 48-item observer-rated N scale in the Ado-
lescent sample. All correlations are statistically significant,
and they are comparable in magnitude to most cross-ob-
server correlations (e.g., McCrae et al., 2004).
A more telling comparison, however, is with cross-ob-
server correlations in the same samples using the full NEO-
PI-3 scales. Those values have been reported previously
(McCrae, Costa, et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin, et al, 2005);
in the fifth through eighth data columns we report the
squared ratio of the First Half validities divided by the full
NEO-PI-3 validities. These values reflect the proportion of
the variance in the criterion that the brief scale predicts
relative to the full scale. The median values show that about
95% of the cross-observer validity is retained by the brief
domain scales, and 85%-90% of the cross-observer validity
is retained by the brief facet scales. (Values above 1.0 sug-
gest that, in this sample, the First Half scale is a better pre-
dictor than the corresponding full scale.)
Means and Standard Deviations
Figure 1 shows NEO-PI-3FH Form S domain and facet scales
plotted using norms from the full NEO-PI-3. Scores for the
complete Adult sample were standardized as T-scores (M =
50, SD = 10) using combined-sex means and standard devi-
ations for the Adult (21+) NEO-PI-3; scores for the Adoles-
cent and Middle School samples were standardized using
combined-sex Adolescent (14–20) NEO-PI-3 norms. (Recall
that the NEO-PI-3 norms are derived from the Adult and
Adolescent samples examined here; for these groups, this
analysis is a comparison of scales, not of samples.) As the
figure makes clear, means for the full version (where all T
values = 50) and doubled brief version are very similar, espe-
cially for adults and older adolescents, suggesting that NEO-
PI-3 norms can meaningfully be used to interpret NEO-PI-
3FH scores both for groups and for individuals. Middle
School-aged children tend to score lower than older adoles-
cents on O, and that age difference is preserved in the NEO-
PI-3FH. A similar plot was examined for Form R NEO-PI-
3FH scales; again, very similar values were found for adults
and older adolescents. Middle School-aged targets scored
substantially lower on N and higher on A and C than later
adolescent targets, which may reflect a rating bias in younger
raters (Costa et al., in press). These differences would need to
be borne in mind when using Adolescent Form R NEO-PI-3
1 NEO-PI-3 First Half norms for the standard age and gender groups are available from the first author.
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
norms to interpret observer-rated personality scores of or by
Middle School-aged boys and girls.
Standard deviations of NEO-PI-3FH scales are consistent-
ly larger than those of the full scales. For example, in the
Adult Form S data, standard deviations are from 5% to 26%
larger than the corresponding NEO-PI-3 scale. This is a pure-
ly statistical phenomenon, the result of the fact that the two
“halves” of the doubled brief scale are perfectly correlated
and, thus, provide a slightly inflated estimate of the variance
of a true eight-item scale. The effect of this artifact is that
when First Half scales are interpreted with full scale norms,
deviation from the mean will be somewhat exaggerated, es-
pecially for very high and very low scores. For example, an
individual with the maximum possible score, 32, on E1:
Warmth will have an estimated T-score of 72 using NEO-PI-3
norms; the true T-score, based on NEO-PI-3FH norms, is 70.
For the purposes for which the NEO-PI-3FH is intended, such
minor distortions do not appear to be a problem.1
Discussion
This article has examined two brief forms of a new version
of the NEO-PI-R, the NEO-PI-3. How adequate was their
development? Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson (2000)
identified a number of “sins” commonly committed in de-
veloping short forms of tests, and the eight relevant sins
have been avoided or addressed here:
1. The original instruments are well-validated;
2. content coverage has been systematically retained in the
NEO-PI-3FH, where each facet scale is represented by
four items;
3. internal consistency of domains scores is generally
above the .70 criterion Smith et al. recommend, although
facet scales have lower αs, and users are cautioned about
scales with notably lower reliability;
4. equivalence with the full scales has been reported, al-
though it is based on the same data, so users are cau-
tioned that this is an upper-bound estimate;
5. factor structure has been retained;
6. in the development of the NEO-FFI-3, items were select-
ed in part (although not systematically) to represent the
full range of facets on each factor (as Smith et al. noted);
7. cross-observer validity was demonstrated in independ-
ent samples; and
8. information is provided from which users can evaluate
the loss of validity in comparison to the savings in time.
Test users share responsibility with test developers for
evaluating alternative versions of a test; this article pro-
vides the data needed to do that.
The NEO-FFI-3 is a relatively minor revision of the widely
used NEO-FFI. It has slightly better psychometric proper-
Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s
ties than the original scale and eliminates a few items that
presented difficulties in comprehension to younger respon-
dents (McCrae & Costa, 2004). Data in the present article
continue to support its use when only global information
about the five broad factors is needed. The instrument
works very well in adults and in older adolescents, and al-
most as well in Middle School-aged respondents.
The second instrument is completely new. In the NEO-
PI-3FH, the four best items from each of the 30 facets of
the NEO-PI-3 are used to estimate full scale facet scores.
This instrument would allow researchers to cut in half the
time and the number of items they need to assess the more
specific traits of the FFM, allowing them to conduct re-
search on more difficult populations, or to collect data on
other variables.2 There are costs associated with this
choice: Internal consistency is lower, predictive validity is
reduced by about 10%, and normative information is less
accurate than for the full scales. Researchers need to bal-
ance these considerations carefully in choosing an instru-
ment and designing a study. For example, relative validity
of different scales ought to be part of a power analysis: Use
of a brief scale might lead to a 10% reduction in a margin-
ally-significant correlation, making it nonsignificant – and
the research unpublishable. Instead of viewing it as a
“quick-and-dirty” alternative to the NEO-PI-3, our hope is
that the NEO-PI-3FH will be seen as an upgrade to the
NEO-FFI-3, giving detailed facet information as well as
more reliable estimates of the five factors by adding a mere
60 items.
Survey researchers are unlikely to include a 120-item
questionnaire in their interviews, but they, and other re-
searchers, might have an interest in a subset of traits. Given,
say, just 12 items to assess personality, it might make sense
to pick three facets and administer the First Half items,
which could be licensed by the publisher.
One impetus to the development of a brief NEO-PI-3
was concern that younger adolescents would be unwilling
or unable to complete a 240-item questionnaire, although
they might respond to one half that long. It is not yet clear
whether the NEO-PI-3FH ought to be recommended for
this age group. Our experience showed that many 12- and
13-year-olds can and will complete the full inventory (Cos-
ta, McCrae, et al., 2005), and also showed that it is precisely
this age group that most needs the longer version, to com-
pensate for the generally lower psychometric quality of the
data they produce. However, the Middle School sample ex-
amined here consisted chiefly of academically superior stu-
dents, and the briefer First Half might be required in a more
representative population. We suggest that researchers in-
terested in assessing personality in 12- and 13-year-olds
begin by administering the full NEO-PI-3, and turn to the
brief version only if there are substantial problems with
participant cooperation. Note that any student who quits
2 The NEO-PI-3FH is not designed as a cheaper alternative to the full NEO-PI-3; there are no plans to publish it at a discounted rate. To do
so would be to offer a financial incentive to use a less-than-optimal instrument, and that does not seem to be in the interest of advancing
personality psychology.
Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
125
during the second half of the test can still be scored on
responses to the first half.
The NEO-PI-3FH is not intended for clinical assessment
in any age group. Clinicians make decisions that can have
a profound impact on their patients’ lives and well-being,
and they should base those decisions on the best possible
and most reliable information. That said, it is sometimes
the case that the best possible information is whatever the
patient is willing to give, and a depressed or demoralized
patient may leave questionnaires unfinished. The NEO-PI-
3FH scoring provides a way of salvaging some useful in-
formation from an incomplete clinical assessment.
Authors’ Note
Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr., both receive
royalties from the NEO-PI-R. This research was support-
ed in part by the Intramural Research Program of the
NIH, National Institute on Aging. The NEO-PI-R profile
form from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory by
Paul T. Costa, Jr. and Robert R. McCrae is reproduced by
special permission of the publisher, Psychological As-
sessment Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue,
Lutz, FL 33549, USA. Copyright © 1978, 1985, 1989,
1991, 1992 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
(PAR). Further reproduction is prohibited without per-
mission of PAR.
References
Becker, G. (2006). NEO-FFI scores in college men and women:
A view from McDonald’s unified treatment of test theory.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 911–941.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI
manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-
ment Resources.
Costa, P.T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., & Martin, T.A. (in press). Incipient
adult personality: The NEO-PI-3 in middle school-aged chil-
dren. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the
five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: Emerging
British norms and an item-level analysis suggest N, A, and C
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
126 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s
are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 907–920.
Frazier, T.W., Naugle, R.I., & Haggerty, K.A. (2006). Psychomet-
ric adequacy and comparability of the short and full forms of
the Personality Assessment Inventory. Psychological Assess-
ment, 18, 324–333.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (2003). A very
brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
Haven, S., & ten Berge, J.M.F. (1977). Tucker’s coefficient of con-
gruence as a measure of factorial invariance: An empirical study
(Heymans Bulletin No. 290 EX). University of Groningen.
Herzberg, P.Y., & Brahler, E. (2006). Assessing the Big-Five per-
sonality domains via short forms: A cautionary note and a pro-
posal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22,
139–148.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1989). Rotation to maximize the
construct validity of factors in the NEO Personality Inventory.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 107–124.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revision
of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 587–596.
McCrae, R.R., Costa P.T., Jr., & Martin, T.A. (2005). The NEO-
PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Jr., Martin, T.A., Oryol, V.E., Ruka-
vishnikov, A.A., Senin, I.G., et al. (2004). Consensual valida-
tion of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research
in Personality, 38, 179–201.
McCrae, R.R., Martin, T.A., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2005). Age trends
and age norms for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 in adoles-
cents and adults. Assessment, 12, 363–373.
McCrae, R.R., Zonderman, A.B., Costa, P.T., Jr., Bond, M.H., &
Paunonen, S.V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor
analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.
Meyer, G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D., Kay, G.G., Moreland, K.L.,
Dies, R.R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psycholog-
ical assessment. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.
Morey, L. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Profession-
al manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
Mullins-Sweatt, S.N., Jamerson, J.E., Samuel, D.B., Olson, D.R.,
& Widiger, T.A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbre-
viated instrument of the five-factor model. Assessment, 13,
119–137.
Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big-Five factors and fac-
ets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five
Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines öko-
nomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Per-
sönlichkeit [Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K):
Development and validation of an economic inventory for as-
sessment of the five factors of personality]. Diagnostica, 51,
195–206.
Reise, S.P., & Henson, J.M. (2000). Computerization and adaptive
administration of the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 7, 347–364.
Saucier, G. (1998). Replicable item-cluster subcomponents in the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 70, 263–276.
Shock, N.W., Greulich, R.C., Andres, R., Arenberg, D., Costa,
P.T., Jr., Lakatta, E.G., et al. (1984). Normal human aging: The
Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (NIH Publication
No. 84–2450). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Smith, G.T., McCarthy, D.M., & Anderson, K.G. (2000). On the
sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment,
12, 102–111.
Trobst, K.K., Wiggins, J.S., Costa, P.T., Jr., Herbst, J.H., McCrae,
R.R., & Masters, H.L., III. (2000). Personality psychology and
problem behaviors: HIV risk and the five-factor model. Jour-
nal of Personality, 68, 1233–1252.
Robert R. McCrae
Box #03
Gerontology Research Center
5600 Nathan Shock Drive
Baltimore, MD 21224-6825
USA
E-mail mccraej@grc.nia.nih.gov
Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s 127

Appendix
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-FFI-3 Scales in Different Age Groups
Men Women Combined
NEO-FFI-3 Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Adolescents Aged 14–20
Form S (242, 258, 500)
N: Neuroticism 23.3 7.3 24.9 7.0 24.1 7.2
E: Extraversion 29.7 6.3 32.4 6.2 31.1 6.4
O: Openness to Experience 29.1 6.8 31.9 6.1 30.6 6.6
A: Agreeableness 28.2 5.8 30.3 5.6 29.3 5.8
C: Conscientiousness 27.9 6.8 29.5 7.1 28.7 7.0
Form R (211, 254, 465)
N: Neuroticism 22.8 6.3 25.5 7.2 24.3 6.9
E: Extraversion 28.3 5.6 30.6 6.9 29.6 6.4
O: Openness to Experience 25.5 6.2 27.3 6.3 26.5 6.3
A: Agreeableness 26.6 6.8 27.4 7.2 27.0 7.1
C: Conscientiousness 25.6 8.0 27.5 8.3 26.6 8.2
Younger Adults, 21–30
Form S (97, 121, 218)
N: Neuroticism 19.7 7.3 23.5 8.0 21.8 7.9
E: Extraversion 28.9 5.2 30.3 6.1 29.6 5.7
O: Openness to Experience 28.0 7.4 30.9 5.9 29.6 6.7
A: Agreeableness 27.9 5.7 31.8 6.5 30.1 6.4
C: Conscientiousness 30.9 6.4 32.0 7.1 31.6 6.8
Form R (112, 122, 234)
N: Neuroticism 19.8 7.1 23.6 7.1 21.8 7.3
E: Extraversion 29.3 6.2 29.7 5.5 29.5 5.8
O: Openness to Experience 25.8 5.9 27.4 5.8 26.7 5.9
A: Agreeableness 29.0 6.5 30.2 6.9 29.7 6.8
C: Conscientiousness 30.3 7.8 31.8 7.4 31.1 7.6
Older Adults, 31+
Form S (182, 235, 417)
N: Neuroticism 18.8 6.9 21.5 7.8 20.3 7.6
E: Extraversion 26.3 6.3 28.4 6.2 27.5 6.3
O: Openness to Experience 26.9 5.6 28.5 6.1 27.8 6.0
A: Agreeableness 31.1 5.4 34.7 5.1 33.1 5.5
C: Conscientiousness 32.9 5.7 33.2 6.2 33.0 6.0
Form R (189, 226, 415)
N: Neuroticism 18.2 7.7 21.9 7.2 20.2 7.7
E: Extraversion 25.4 7.4 28.3 5.9 26.9 6.8
O: Openness to Experience 24.1 7.0 25.9 5.6 25.1 6.3
A: Agreeableness 30.6 7.6 32.0 6.3 31.4 7.0
C: Conscientiousness 33.6 7.3 33.5 6.9 33.5 7.1

Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128
 128 R.R. McCrae & P.T. Costa, Jr.: Brief NEO-PI-3s

Men Women Combined

NEO-FFI-3 Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Adults, 21+
Form S (279, 356, 635)
N: Neuroticism 19.1 7.1 22.2 7.9 20.8 7.7
E: Extraversion 27.2 6.1 29.0 6.2 28.2 6.2
O: Openness to Experience 27.3 6.3 29.3 6.2 28.4 6.3
A: Agreeableness 30.0 5.7 33.7 5.7 32.1 6.0
C: Conscientiousness 32.2 6.0 32.8 6.5 32.5 6.3
Form R (301, 348, 649)
N: Neuroticism 18.8 7.5 22.5 7.2 20.8 7.6
E: Extraversion 26.8 7.2 28.7 5.8 27.9 6.6
O: Openness to Experience 24.7 6.6 26.4 5.7 25.6 6.2
A: Agreeableness 30.0 7.3 31.4 6.6 30.8 6.9
C: Conscientiousness 32.4 7.6 32.9 7.1 32.6 7.3
All Ages, 14+
Form S (521, 614, 1,135)
N: Neuroticism 21.0 7.5 23.3 7.7 22.3 7.7
E: Extraversion 28.4 6.3 30.4 6.4 29.5 6.5
O: Openness to Experience 28.1 6.6 30.4 6.3 29.4 6.5
A: Agreeableness 29.2 5.8 32.3 5.9 30.8 6.1
C: Conscientiousness 30.2 6.7 31.4 7.0 30.8 6.9
Form R (512, 602, 1,114)
N: Neuroticism 20.4 7.3 23.8 7.3 22.2 7.5
E: Extraversion 27.5 6.6 29.5 6.4 28.6 6.6
O: Openness to Experience 25.0 6.5 26.8 6.0 26.0 6.3
A: Agreeableness 28.6 7.3 29.7 7.1 29.2 7.2
C: Conscientiousness 29.6 8.5 30.6 8.1 30.1 8.3
Childred, Aged 12–13
Form S (101, 101, 202)
N: Neuroticism 23.4 6.7 24.8 7.4 24.1 7.1
E: Extraversion 31.6 5.7 35.3 6.0 33.5 6.1
O: Openness to Experience 25.8 5.8 28.5 5.9 27.1 6.0
A: Agreeableness 28.4 6.4 32.0 5.6 30.2 6.3
C: Conscientiousness 27.3 7.9 29.0 7.4 28.1 7.7
Form R (102, 120, 222)
N: Neuroticism 18.7 6.3 20.4 6.6 19.6 6.5
E: Extraversion 32.0 5.6 33.5 6.6 32.8 6.2
O: Openness to Experience 23.1 5.1 25.5 5.8 24.4 5.6
A: Agreeableness 29.0 6.1 31.0 7.4 30.0 6.9
C: Conscientiousness 28.7 7.3 28.9 8.4 28.8 7.9
Note. N values for men, women, and combined sex are given in parentheses.

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):116–128 Published 2007, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

View publication stats