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

net/publication/7834763

The NEO–PI–3: a more readable revised NEO personality inventory

Article in Journal of Personality Assessment · June 2005

DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
502 15,298

3 authors, including:

Paul Costa Thomas A. Martin

Duke University Medical Center Susquehanna University
454 PUBLICATIONS 94,100 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 2,445 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

GWAS of Personality View project

Lifespan and Intergenerational Effects of Childhood Malnutrition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Costa on 13 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 84(3), 261–270
MCCRAE,
NEO–PI–3
COSTA, MARTIN

The NEO–PI–3: A More Readable Revised NEO

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

Thomas A. Martin
Department of Psychology
Susquehanna University

Use of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) in adoles-
cent samples has shown that a few respondents have difficulty with a subset of items. We identi-
fied 30 items that were not understood by at least 2% of adolescent respondents and 18 addi-
tional items with low item-total correlations, and we wrote 2 trial replacement items for each.
We used self-report and observer rating data from 500 respondents aged 14 to 20 to select re-
placement items. The modified instrument retained the intended factor structure and showed
slightly better internal consistency, cross-observer agreement, and readability (Flesch–Kincaid
grade level = 5.3). The NEO–PI–3 appears to be useful in high school and college samples and
may have wider applicability to adults as well.

The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI; Costa & McCrae,
1985) was designed for use by adults. Shortly after its publi-
cation, it became clear that college students could also use
the instrument but required separate norms (Costa & Mc-
Crae, 1989). Recent studies (Baker & Victor, 2003; McCrae
et al., 2002) have shown that the Revised NEO–PI
(NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) can be used in samples
as young as 10 but that some younger respondents have diffi-
culty understanding certain items. McCrae et al. adminis-
tered the NEO–PI–R to high school students with instruc-
tions to leave blank any item they did not understand. For 210
of the 240 items, at least 98% of respondents answered; the
remaining 30 items included terms such as fastidious, ad-
here, and lackadaisical, which even some adults might find
difficult. There is evidence that these 30 items are reliably
problematic: Baker and Victor (2003), in a very diverse, pre-
dominantly Black U.S. sample with a mean age of 13.0 years,
NEO–PI–R items in the Appendix are reproduced by special per-
mission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the
NEO Personality Inventory–Revised by Paul T. Costa, Jr., and Rob-
ert R. McCrae, Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989, 1992 by PAR, Inc. Fur-
ther reproduction is prohibited without permission from PAR, Inc.
found that many of the same words were not understood by
their respondents, and 15 of these 30 difficult items caused
problems for Belgian children taking a Flemish version of
the NEO–PI–R (De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra, & Rolland,
2000).
Even with these problematic items, Baker and Victor
(2003) reported a clear replication of the adult five-factor
structure, although some empirical weaknesses were noted.
Similarly, Allik, Laidra, Realo, & Pullmann (2004) reported
that the adult factor structure of the Estonian NEO
Five-Factor Inventory was less clearly replicated in a
subsample of 12-year-olds than in older adolescents. These
limitations on factor replicability might be due to true devel-
opmental changes in factor structure or to cognitive limita-
tions in self-understanding that distort the accuracy of
self-reports in younger adolescents. However, it is also pos-
sible that younger children simply did not understand the vo-
cabulary in some of the items and that a simplified version of
the NEO–PI–R might produce a closer approximation to the
adult structure. Testing that hypothesis requires a modified
version of the NEO–PI–R, and that more readable version
could make the instrument appropriate for a wider range of
respondents. In this article, we describe the development and
preliminary validation of the NEO–PI–3.
262 MCCRAE, COSTA, MARTIN
Any change in an established test requires a balance be-
tween improving psychometrics and retaining known valid-
ity. Because the NEO–PI–R has worked well in a variety of
contexts, we chose a conservative approach in which the
great majority of items were retained verbatim. However, the
revision process also offered an opportunity to improve a
small number of items that performed poorly for reasons
other than readability. In the self-report form of the
NEO–PI–R, 14 of the 30 facet scales had coefficient alphas
of .70 or less (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For these facets, we
examined corrected item-total correlations in two samples:
1,959 high school students (McCrae et al., 2002) and 1,492
adults (see McCrae & Costa, 2004). A total of 24 items had
item-total correlations less than .30 in both samples; 6 of
these were among the 30 items already identified as problem-
atic. Thus, 48 items, from 20 of the 30 facets, were selected
for possible replacement in the NEO–PI–3.
One of the unusual features of the NEO–PI–R is the avail-
ability of two versions, Form S for self-reports and Form R
for observer ratings. Because these are parallel instruments,
it was necessary to change both, so data on both Form S and
Form R were gathered. That design offers two advantages
over a simple self-report study. First, simultaneous item se-
lection across the two forms is a kind of cross-validation, re-
ducing the possibility of capitalizing on chance. Second,
because a subset of participants were sibling pairs who rated
themselves and each other, the design makes it possible to
examine cross-observer validity evidence on the NEO–PI–R
and NEO–PI–3 in an adolescent sample.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 536 individuals ranging in age from 14 to
20 who constituted the first phase of a larger study spanning
the adolescent and adult life span. Age and sex were strati-
fied, with overrepresentation of the late adolescent groups
because evidence suggests that age changes are most marked
then (Costa & McCrae, 2002). After tabulating the frequency
of missing items for preliminary analyses, protocols were
screened for validity using the criteria specified in the Re-
vised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual
(Costa & McCrae, 1992) for validity checks, random re-
sponding, and missing items,1 and all further analyses were
conducted on the 500 respondents who had valid protocols
for both Form S and Form R.2 Participants resided in 26
1
The Manual specifies that a protocol is invalid if more than 40
items are missing. Because we included an additional 96 items in the
test booklet, we increased that value proportionately to 56.
2
In our experience, “invalid” protocols typically retain some va-
lidity (cf. Carter et al., 2001). After recoding missing values as neu-
tral, coefficient alphas for the NEO–PI–3 Form S scales ranged from
states, although most were from Pennsylvania.
Characteristics of the sample are given in Table 1. The sam-
ple was predominantly White. High academic achievers
were overrepresented in this sample in which the majority
expected to obtain a postbaccalaureate degree. Most (474)
listed English as their best language, although 82 respon-
dents also spoke other languages with their families.
Potential participants were contacted by one of 53 under-
graduate research assistants from two liberal arts colleges lo-
cated in the eastern and southern United States. Most
participants were acquaintances of the research assistants.
Research assistants described the study to potential partici-
pants and if they were under 18 years of age, to a parent as
well. If an individual expressed interest in participating (and,
when necessary, the parent agreed), the research assistant
submitted a referral with the identity, age, and contact infor-
mation for the participant. Questionnaires were then mailed
to participants.
To implement the cross-observer design, an attempt was
made to recruit sibling pairs in which both individuals were
aged 14 to 20 and both agreed to rate and be rated by the
other. Complete data were obtained from 90 pairs. Individ-
uals not paired with a sibling chose an anonymous target to
rate and were asked to specify their relationship to the target.
Most (226) rated friends, 79 rated siblings, and 12 rated a
spouse or domestic partner.
Approximately once per week, research assistants were
forwarded a list of all individuals they had referred within the
past 10 weeks who had not yet returned their questionnaires.
Research assistants were encouraged to contact such partici-
pants to ask whether they had questions about any aspect of
the task, tell them that they could break their work into ses-
sions of whatever number and length were convenient to
them, and encourage them to return the questionnaire. This
approach worked well: 62.8% of all questionnaires mailed to
females were returned as were 48.5% of the questionnaires
sent to males. Participants and research assistants were each
paid $20 for completed questionnaires.
Instruments
The NEO–PI–R is a 240-item questionnaire that assesses 30
specific traits (or facets), 6 for each of the five basic personal-
ity dimensions: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Open-
ness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscien-
.80 to .88 in the subsample of 36 invalid protocols; for Form R, they
ranged from .75 to .90. Correlations between the Form S domains
and the Subjective Well-Being scale remained significant for
Neuroticism (r = –.34, N = 35, p < .05) and Extraversion (r = .35, N =
35, p < .05) as did the correlation between Conscientiousness and
self-reported grades (r = .42, N = 35, p < .05). These results suggest
that whereas researchers may wish to discard questionable proto-
cols, clinicians may still obtain some useful information from nomi-
nally invalid protocols, cautiously interpreted.
 NEO–PI–3 263
TABLE 1 correlated (rs = .42 to .73, all ps < .001), so they were
Characteristics of the Sample summed to form a single Subjective Well-Being (SWB)
Characteristic n %
scale (α = .88). In adult samples, NEO–PI–R N has been
shown to be negatively related to subjective well-being,
Gender whereas E, A, and C are positively related (e.g., McCrae &
Male 242 48.4
Female 258 51.6 Costa, 1991). Well-being was included in this study as a cri-
Age terion variable to provide partial evidence of construct valid-
14 46 9.2 ity of the NEO–PI–3 in an adolescent sample.
15 48 9.6
16 46 9.2
17 64 12.8 Item Selection
18 100 20.0
19 98 19.6
20 98 19.6
The choice of replacement items was based on a number of
Ethnicity considerations. For each of the 20 facet scales that were to be
Hispanic 9 1.8 revised, we first created a subscale criterion score composed
White 423 84.6 of all the items that were to be retained and correlated this
Black 14 2.8
Asian/Pacific Islander 38 7.6 score with the problematic item and its two alternatives in
Other 15 3.0 both Form S and Form R versions. In general, results from
Self-reported grades the two forms were similar. If one of the alternatives was cor-
All As 35 7.0
Mostly As 143 28.6 related at least as strongly with the criterion score as the orig-
Mostly As and Bs 204 40.8 inal item, it was selected. This strategy was questionable for
Mostly Bs 47 9.4 those facets in which several items were to be replaced be-
Mostly Bs and Cs 46 9.2
Mostly Cs 14 2.8 cause the few remaining items formed a less-than-optimal
Mostly Cs and Ds 6 1.2 criterion. We therefore also extracted a single general factor
Highest degree expected from all original and replacement items for each such facet;
High school 2 0.4
College 158 31.6
item selection was then based on factor loadings.
Master’s degree 229 45.8 Three of the replacement items that would have been cho-
Doctoral degree 102 20.4 sen by these methods of item selection were answered by less
Family income
than 98% of the sample and were thus deemed inappropriate
< $40,000 92 18.4
$40,000 to 80,000 175 35.0 for the NEO–PI–3. Some of the replacement items that would
> $80,000 158 31.6 have been selected for N5: Impulsiveness were more strongly
Note. ns do not sum to 500 because of missing data. related to C than to N, and were therefore discarded. In a few
instances, neither of the intended alternatives improved on the
original, but other alternative items written for the same facet
tiousness (C). Items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale did, and these were selected.
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scales are
roughly balanced to control for the effects of acquiescence. RESULTS
Data on the reliability and validity of the instrument is sum-
marized in the Manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Parallel Preliminary Analyses
self-report (Form S) and observer rating (Form R) versions
have been validated. Respondents had been asked to circle any word or phrase
For each of the 48 items identified as potentially problem- they did not understand. A tally showed that the most diffi-
atic, two alternatives were written. The first was generally a cult words for this sample were fastidious (times circled in
restatement of the item in simpler words; the second, a new Form S = 57), panhandlers (39), permissiveness (33),
item theoretically relevant to the facet. The keying of the two shrewdness (28), lackadaisical (26), methodical (20), aes-
alternatives matched the original item so that scoring keys thetic (14), overindulge (12), and cynical (11). This list
for the NEO–PI–3 would match those of the NEO–PI–R. For shows substantial overlap with the problem words in Baker
this study, the 96 alternative items were interspersed among and Victor (2003).
the 240 original items. After discarding three Form S and seven Form R protocols
In addition to the NEO–PI–R, respondents completed sev- with more than 56 missing items, we counted the number of
eral brief measures of well-being: The Affect Balance Scale missing responses for each item and identified 18 items with
(Bradburn, 1969), a Satisfaction Index that asks about vari- less than 98% response rate; 13 of these overlapped with the 30
ous aspects of life (Costa & McCrae, 1984), the one-item De- identified by McCrae et al. (2002), and 3 were from the pool of
lighted–Terrible Scale (Andrews & Withey, 1976), and the alternative items. The similarity of results in Baker and Victor
5-item Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, (2003), McCrae et al. (2002), and this study suggests that the
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). These scales were all inter- most problematic items were accurately identified.
264 MCCRAE, COSTA, MARTIN
To gauge the representativeness of the sample of 500 valid
protocols, we scored the NEO–PI–R and compared mean
values with the published college student age norms. Both
males and females had means of 50 ± 3 T-score points for all
domains and facets.
Item Analyses
Acceptable replacements were found for 37 of the 48 items3
slated for revision; these are shown in the Appendix. Five of
the 30 items with low readability in McCrae et al. (2002) were
answered by more than 98% of this sample and had
psychometric properties that could not be improved on with
the available alternatives. However, 25 of the 30 difficult items
were replaced, which eliminated all of the frequently circled
words identified in the preliminary analysis with the exception
of methodical. When Item 70, “I am not a very methodical per-
son,” was replaced by “I’m not a very orderly or methodical
person,” the item became intelligible to more respondents, and
the validity of the item improved considerably. Of the 18 addi-
tional items identified as having low item–facet correlations in
previous studies, 12 were replaced, and 4 of the remaining
items worked well in this sample (corrected item–facet rs = .30
to .38). Thus, only 2 consistently problematic items (48 and
52) remain in the NEO–PI–3, and Item 52 is acceptable in
Form R (corrected item–facet r = .32).
Table 2 reports data on the original and replacement items.
Columns 3 and 4 give Flesch–Kincaid grade level for the
original and replacement item. For 21 of the 25 items with
low readability, reading grade level was reduced with the
new item, and overall, the median grade for the 37 items de-
creased from 8.3 to 4.4. Columns 5 and 6 present corrected
item–facet correlations for the NEO–PI–R and NEO–PI–3
for Form S; similar data for Form R are given in columns 7
and 8. For Form S, correlations increased with 32 of the 37
replacements, and the median corrected item–facet correla-
tion increased substantially from .28 to .37. For Form R, cor-
relations increased with 32 of the replacements, and the
median rose from .30 to .42.
Scale Analyses
Table 3 reports analyses of the scales for both versions; they
show that both work well in this adolescent sample and that
the NEO–PI–3 scales appear to offer a slight improvement.
Columns 2 and 3 of Table 3 report coefficient alphas for the
two versions of Form S. At the domain level, the two versions
have equivalent reliability (median α = .89); at the facet level,
revisions lead to alphas that are the same or higher in 18 of
the 19 cases, with notable improvements for A6, Ten-
der-Mindedness and C2, Dutifulness. Only O6, Values,
3
Items 19, 48, 52, 53, 87, 112, 201, 231, 233, 234, and 239 were
not replaced.
shows a small drop in internal consistency, and both E4,
Activity, and O4, Actions continue to show marginal internal
consistency despite the revision. Columns 5 and 6 show simi-
lar results for Form R.
Columns 4 and 7 show equivalence correlations between
the old and new versions of the scales that were revised for
Form S and Form R, respectively. The domain scores are vir-
tually unchanged, with all correlations .98 or higher as would
be expected given the extensive item overlap and data from a
single administration. In self-reports, the facet scale correla-
tions range from .83 for A6, Tender-Mindedness (in which ½
the items were changed) to .98 for O2, Aesthetics, and A5,
Modesty. Comparable results are seen for observer ratings.
All these correlations support the view that the new scales
measure equivalent constructs.
Columns 8 and 9 of Table 3 report cross-observer correla-
tions, which compare favorably to most studies using adults
(cf. McCrae et al., 2004). Revisions made little difference at
the domain level. At the facet level, notable improvements
were found for N5, Impulsiveness, O6, Tender-Mindedness,
and C3, Dutifulness. Curiously, validity declined a bit for
A5, Modesty.
We examined the readability of NEO–PI–R and
NEO–PI–3 facets using the Flesch–Kincaid reading grade
level. For 17 of the 19 facets with item changes, readability
increased. Only E4, Activity, showed a small increase in
reading difficulty from 3.2 years to 4.0 years. Across all 30
facets, the median grade level decreased slightly from 5.2 to
5.0.
Factor Structure
Principal component analysis was conducted on Form S and
Form R facets for both the NEO–PI–R and the NEO–PI–3. In
each case, parallel analysis (Cota, Longman, Stewart,
Holden, & Fekken, 1993) clearly indicated the presence of
five factors. After varimax rotation, the intended structure
was found in each analysis, with congruence coefficients
ranging from .91 to .98. McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond,
and Paunonen (1996) recommended that factor replication be
evaluated after rotation toward the normative adult Form S
structure (Costa & McCrae, 1992); results for Form S are re-
ported in Table 4. The structures of the original and revision
are very similar, and both closely approximate the adult
structure, with congruence coefficients ranging from .94 to
.98. Across the revision, the most noteworthy changes are for
N5, Impulsiveness and E4, Activity, which show increased
loading on their intended factor, and E5, Excitement Seeking
and A6, Tender-Mindedness, which show decreased load-
ings. For the latter two facets, the diminished factor loadings
in conjunction with higher internal consistency (see Table 3)
suggest that the scales contain more specific variance and
thus may be improved markers of their intended construct.
Note that despite low internal consistency, E4, Activity and
O4, Actions were clear definers of their intended factor.
 NEO–PI–3 265
TABLE 2
Item Selection Statistics

Flesch–Kincaid Grade Item–Total, Form S Item–Total, Form R

Facet Item NEO–PI–R NEO–PI–3 NEO–PI–R NEO–PI–3 NEO–PI–R NEO–PI–3

N1 121a,b 10.3 3.6 .22 .46 .24 .55

N4 16a 5.6 4.9 .51 .60 .49 .67
N4 136a 8.3 2.6 .49 .51 .42 .55
N4 226 4.8 5.2 .27 .59 .20 .51
N5 21a,b 9.3 2.1 .33 .26 .34 .27
N5 81 12.0 4.4 .30 .39 .18 .37
E3 42a 3.2 2.6 .19 .33 .33 .40
E4 17 2.3 1.0 .07 .15 .00 .06
E4 47a,b 3.7 12.0 .32 .38 .28 .40
E5 202 5.2 0.7 .15 .26 .15 .42
E6 57a 9.6 7.6 .40 .48 .44 .52
E6 147a 12.0 6.3 .31 .52 .36 .55
O2 8a,b 11.5 5.6 .52 .67 .42 .58
O4 78 3.0 5.2 .17 .21 .15 .30
O4 168 8.7 3.7 .18 .25 .12 .29
O6 118a 9.4 4.4 .32 .31 .24 .23
O6 148a 12.0 7.5 .49 .35 .34 .33
O6 238a,b 11.2 9.6 .24 .31 .15 .20
A1 4a,b 5.4 3.6 .36 .41 .44 .49
A2 219a,b 4.9 3.6 .30 .32 .30 .32
A4 229 9.5 9.9 .31 .37 .39 .43
A5 114a 0.5 0.7 .21 .42 .40 .59
A6 29a 8.4 5.9 .19 .39 .35 .42
A6 59 9.0 5.6 –.03 .43 .07 .52
A6 119a,b 6.4 4.4 .37 .39 .34 .47
A6 149a 12.0 8.0 .24 .32 .31 .30
C1 5a,b 2.2 0.7 .27 .30 .48 .51
C1 35 8.8 9.5 .29 .28 .25 .40
C1 125a 2.3 0.5 .42 .47 .36 .61
C1 185a,b 7.6 0.7 .38 .37 .41 .40
C2 10 7.7 2.3 .13 .52 .22 .63
C2 70a,b 7.3 11.1 .21 .54 .30 .58
C2 160a,b 9.6 2.2 .19 .27 .11 .36
C3 105 5.6 3.7 .12 .29 .25 .34
C3 165a 8.4 10.3 .21 .32 .27 .36
C3 225 3.0 3.3 .31 .36 .47 .44
C4 20a,b 12.0 6.6 .28 .41 .07 .46
Mdn 8.3 4.4 .28 .37 .30 .42

Note. For item–total analyses, N = 500. See Table 4 for facet labels. NEO–PI–R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O =
Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness.
aItem left missing by more than 2% of the sample in McCrae et al. (2002). bItem left missing by more than 2% of the present sample.

Results for Form R are very similar, with congruence co-
efficients ranging from .92 to .98 after targeted rotation. Sim-
ilar changes in loadings are found for N5, Impulsiveness, E4,
Activity, E5, Excitement Seeking, and A6, Tender-Minded-
ness in the Form R revision.
Correlates
To provide preliminary evidence of validity, we correlated
NEO–PI–3 scales with SWB, gender, age, and self-reported
grades. As hypothesized, SWB was significantly related to
N, E, A, and C (rs = –.53, .30, .17, and .39, respectively; all ps
< .001) but not to O (r = –.07, ns). Consistent with research
on gender differences (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae,
2001), women scored higher than men on all five domains,
although the effects were small in magnitude (rs = .10 to .24,
ps < .05). Consistent with earlier studies of adolescents (Mc-
Crae et al., 2002; Robins, Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski,
2001), there were small cross-sectional increases in O and C
(rs = .11 and .12, respectively; ps < .05) but no age associa-
tions for the other factors. Self-reported grades were related
only to C (r = .33, p < .001), which has been noted as the main
predictor of grades in other populations (e.g.,
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Lievens, Coetsier,
De Fruyt, & De Maeseneer, 2002). All these correlates sug-
gest that NEO–PI–3 scales have convergent and discriminant
validity when used in an adolescent population.
Analyses in Subsamples
The NEO–PI–R has been used extensively in college-age
samples, and the NEO–PI–3 is a relatively minor modifica-
266 MCCRAE, COSTA, MARTIN
TABLE 3
Internal Consistency, Cross-Version Correlations, and Cross-Observer Correlations for NEO–PI–R
and NEO–PI–3 Scales

Form S Form R

Coefficient α Coefficient α Cross-Observer r

Scale NEO–PI–R NEO–PI–3 rRa3 NEO–PI–R NEO–PI–3 rR3 NEO–PI–R NEO–PI–3

Domains
N 90 91 99 90 91 99 37*** 38***
E 89 89 99 89 90 99 60*** 60***
O 89 89 99 87 88 99 56*** 55***
A 87 87 98 91 91 99 48*** 47***
C 91 92 98 94 95 99 52*** 53***
Mdn 89 89 99 90 91 99 52 53
Facets
N1 73 77 97 75 79 98 41*** 40***
N2b 71 78 35***
N3b 77 76 36***
N4 69 75 92 68 76 92 35*** 39***
N5 66 66 92 66 68 91 16* 21**
N6b 72 71 30***
E1b 76 77 44***
E2b 75 76 51***
E3 73 75 97 73 74 97 44*** 44***
E4 52 57 93 51 57 93 47*** 51***
E5 62 64 94 68 73 95 50*** 54***
E6 73 77 96 75 78 96 48*** 49***
O1b 77 76 34***
O2 79 81 98 79 81 98 57*** 59***
O3b 76 72 46***
O4 44 48 89 46 56 89 27*** 29***
O5b 79 84 47***
O6 65 63 90 56 57 88 39*** 44***
A1 77 77 97 80 81 98 26*** 26***
A2 66 67 97 74 74 97 23** 22**
A3b 72 80 34***
A4 66 67 97 73 73 97 52*** 51***
A5 73 75 98 79 81 98 42*** 38***
A6 50 66 83 59 71 85 17* 23**
C1 68 70 88 73 78 91 34*** 35***
C2 67 79 92 73 83 93 45*** 46***
C3 62 69 89 76 78 93 39*** 46***
C4 76 78 97 76 81 96 45*** 43***
C5b 77 83 43***
C6b 76 79 52***
Mdn 73 75 97 75 78 98 42 43

Note. N = 500, except for cross-observer correlations (n = 180). See Table 4 for facet labels. Decimal points are omitted. Median for facets is across all 30 scales.
NEO–PI–R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness.
aEquivalence coefficient, NEO–PI–R with NEO–PI–3 scale. bFacet unchanged.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

tion, so results so far are not surprising. There are, however,
only a handful of studies using the NEO–PI–R in high school
age samples. We therefore repeated the major analyses, re-
stricting the sample to the 204 respondents aged 14 to 17. Re-
sults are reported in Table 5; values for NEO–PI–R and
NEO–PI–3 domains are similar, with a slight overall advan-
tage for the revised version. Compared to the total group, the
internal consistency is slightly higher, whereas cross-ob-
server agreement, factor structure,4 and correlates are virtu-
4
The factor structure among these younger adolescents was virtu-
ally identical to the structure of the full adolescent sample, with fac-
tor congruencies for Forms S and R all .98 or .99.
ally the same. Allik et al. (2004), in an Estonian sample,
found that 14-year-olds had personality structures very simi-
lar to adults and that the structure was “practically indistin-
guishable from adult personality by age 16” (p. 445). This
appears to be the case for American adolescents as well, from
both self and observer perspectives.
Finally, academically successful adolescents were
overrepresented in this sample, although the NEO–PI–3 was
designed chiefly for individuals with limited vocabularies.
To examine the performance of the instrument in a group
more closely resembling those on whom it may be used, we
analyzed NEO–PI–3 responses of 113 individuals who re-
ported getting grades in the B to D range (see Table 1). Inter-
 NEO–PI–3 267
TABLE 4
Factor Structure for Form S NEO–PI–R and NEO–PI–3 Facet Scales After Targeted Rotation

Procrustes-Rotated Principal Component

N E O A C VCa

Scale and Facet R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3

N1: Anxiety .80 .81 .05 .03 .02 –.01 .09 .11 .07 .05 .97b .97b
N2: Angry Hostilityc .63 .64 –.04 –.02 –.06 –.07 –.51 –.51 –.04 –.03 .99b .99b
N3: Depressionc .80 .79 –.14 –.14 .01 .02 .02 .01 –.16 –.15 .99b .99b
N4: Self-Consciousness .75 .74 –.25 –.31 –.11 –.10 .17 .18 –.07 –.12 .98b .97b
N5: Impulsiveness .44 .52 .32 .33 .14 .10 –.25 –.22 –.37 –.38 .98b .99b
N6: Vulnerabilityc .77 .77 –.04 –.04 –.10 –.10 .05 .07 –.32 –.30 .99b .98b
E1: Warmthc –.11 –.13 .76 .75 .23 .25 .29 .28 .17 .18 .99b .98b
E2: Gregariousnessc –.10 –.12 .80 .79 –.05 –.03 –.07 –.07 –.03 –.04 .96b .97b
E3: Assertiveness –.37 –.38 .47 .46 .17 .19 –.34 –.39 .31 .30 .99b .99b
E4: Activity –.02 .02 .58 .64 .05 .05 –.21 –.23 .38 .37 .98b .98b
E5: Excitement Seeking .01 –.01 .67 .60 .13 .19 –.23 –.25 –.06 –.12 .97b .97b
E6: Positive Emotions –.09 –.10 .62 .65 .37 .30 .21 .24 .06 .10 .95b .96b
O1: Fantasyc .18 .18 .35 .34 .53 .53 .00 .01 –.26 –.25 .95b .95b
O2: Aesthetics .20 .17 .09 .10 .74 .73 .16 .18 .03 .03 .99b .99b
O3: Feelingsc .34 .34 .43 .42 .57 .57 .12 .11 .15 .17 .98b .98b
O4: Actions –.18 –.20 .19 .25 .50 .51 .08 .05 –.15 –.11 .98b .99b
O5: Ideasc –.06 –.07 .03 .01 .79 .80 .02 .01 .16 .16 .98b .99b
O6: Values –.01 –.02 .10 .07 .64 .67 .19 .23 .03 –.00 .84 .83
A1: Trust –.25 –.25 .32 .29 .05 .07 .61 .61 .06 .05 .97b .98b
A2: Straightforwardness –.06 –.03 .06 .04 –.08 –.08 .70 .70 .19 .19 .96b .96b
A3: Altruismc –.10 –.11 .43 .42 .21 .23 .57 .56 .21 .23 .94b .93d
A4: Compliance –.17 –.16 –.08 –.14 –.04 –.08 .79 .75 .02 –.03 .99b .99b
A5: Modesty .25 .24 –.16 –.18 .12 .12 .48 .50 –.02 –.02 .86d .87d
A6: Tender-Mindedness .13 .19 .23 .32 .26 .30 .58 .51 –.06 .00 .97b .93d
C1: Competence –.34 –.35 .18 .16 .13 .10 –.02 .04 .71 .74 .99b .99b
C2: Order .06 .07 –.08 –.08 –.10 –.10 –.04 –.03 .69 .65 .96b .96b
C3: Dutifulness –.12 –.10 .02 .02 .06 .05 .23 .27 .74 .78 .99b .98b
C4: Achievement Striving –.05 –.08 .20 .24 .06 .12 –.07 –.04 .81 .79 .99b .99b
C5: Self-Disciplineb –.28 –.28 .09 .07 –.09 –.08 .06 .06 .77 .79 .99b .99b
C6: Deliberationd –.07 –.09 –.23 –.25 –.12 –.12 .35 .35 .68 .66 .95b .96b
Congruencee .98b .98b .97b .97b .94b .94b .96b .96b .98b .98b .97b .97b

Note. N = 500. Components are rotated toward the adult normative structure (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Loadings greater than .40 in absolute magnitude are
underlined. NEO–PI–R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness. R
= NEO–PI–R; 3 = NEO–PI–3.
aVariable congruence coefficient; total congruence coefficient in the last row. bCongruence higher than that of 99% of rotations from random data. cScale

unchanged in revision. dCongruence higher than that of 95% of rotations from random data. eCongruence with adult normative NEO–PI–R structure.

nal consistencies for the five domains in this subsample were
only slightly lower than those seen in the full sample, ranging
from .85 to .89 for Form S and from .84 to .93 for Form R. Al-
though factor analyses normally require a minimum of 200
participants, analyses in this subsample nevertheless closely
approximated the adult structure, with congruence coeffi-
cients of .88 to .96 for Form S and .87 to .93 for Form R.5 All
of these can be considered replications using Haven and ten
Berge’s (1977) rule of thumb. Only 44 of these respondents
had sibling raters, but the cross-observer correlations were
significant for N (r = .38, p < .05), E (r = .55, p < .001), O (r =
.49, p < .001), and C (r = .46, p < .01) and showed a trend for
A (r = .29, p < .10). Finally, we correlated domain scores
with SWB, gender, age, and grades. Even in this much
smaller subsample, significant correlations with SWB were
5
Congruences with the factor structure in the full adolescent sam-
ple ranged from .95 to .99 for Form S and from .94 to .98 for Form R.
found for N, E, and C (rs = –.42, .22, and .33, respectively; all
ps < .05). Females scored higher than males on E, O, and A.
Neither age nor self-reported grades were related to person-
ality; the former because the expected effects are too small to
be seen in this smaller sample and the latter perhaps because
of restriction of grade range from B to D. In general, how-
ever, it appears that the NEO–PI–3 functions well in academ-
ically average adolescents.
DISCUSSION
Schinka and Borum (1994) reported that the NEO–PI–R had
an overall Flesch–Kincaid grade level of 5.7 but noted that
some items and scales had higher reading levels and con-
cluded that “a reasonable degree of confidence that the sub-
ject has the capability of comprehending all inventory items
is probably only warranted if the subject has completed at
least 10 years of formal education with average grades or
better” (p. 98). That conclusion might seem to sharply limit
268 MCCRAE, COSTA, MARTIN
TABLE 5
Internal Consistency, Cross-Observer Agreement, Factor Congruences, and Correlations With SWB
for NEO–PI–R and NEO–PI–3 Domain Scales in Respondents Aged 14 to 17

NEO–PI–R/NEO–PI–3 Domain

Variable N E O A C

Coefficient alpha
Form S .90/.91 .89/.90 .89/.89 .88/.88 .90/.92
Form R .91/.92 .89/.90 .86/.87 .91/.90 .93/.94
Cross-observer correlation
Form S/Form R .35***/.38*** .58***/.57*** .62***/.61*** .53***/.52*** .53***/.54***
Factor congruence coefficienta
Form S .97/.98 .96/.96 .95/.96 .96/.95 .97/.97
Form R .97/.97 .96/.97 .93/.90 .94/.94 .95/.95
Form S correlation
SWB –.47***/–.50*** .24***/.26*** –.09/–.08 .29***/.28*** .47***/.52***
Genderb .11/.12 .26***/.25*** .20**/.20** .19**/.20** .03/.05
Grades –.09/–.09 .07/.06 .08/.08 .15*/.13 .31***/.33***

Note. n = 204 for coefficient alpha and congruence coefficients; n = 111 for cross-observer correlations; ns = 201 to 204 for Form S correlations. SWB =
Subjective Well-Being Scale; NEO–PI–R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C =
Conscientionsness; Form S = self-reports; Form R = observer ratings.
aCongruence coefficients with adult normative NEO–PI–R structure after Procrustes rotation; all coefficients higher than those of 99% of rotations from random

data. bMale = 0, female = 1.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the portion of the adolescent population for whom the
NEO–PI–R would be appropriate. In fact, however, there is
no requirement that test respondents understand each and ev-
ery item in an inventory. One of the reasons to have
multi-item scales is to allow an occasional missing or misun-
derstood item without seriously compromising the validity
of the assessment. That is presumably why the NEO–PI–R
has already proven useful in adolescent populations (Baker
& Victor, 2003; De Fruyt et al., 2000; McCrae et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, it is surely the case that one would want to
minimize the number of misunderstood items, and the
NEO–PI–3 is a step in that direction. It has an overall reading
grade level of 5.3 and has eliminated most of the items that
adolescents aged 14 to 20 find difficult. For those with lim-
ited reading skills, these changes should increase the accu-
racy of assessments as well as making the test-taking
experience less frustrating. Psychometrically, the NEO–PI–3
shows modest improvements over the generally good perfor-
mance of the NEO–PI–R.
An examination of the items in the Appendix shows that
the new items are shorter and more up to date but also more
colloquial. Translators of the NEO–PI–R have frequently re-
marked on the informal and idiomatic language of the instru-
ment and have been encouraged to maintain the sense rather
than the literal wording of the items. The NEO–PI–R has
generally worked well in translation (e.g., Costa, McCrae, &
Jónsson, 2002), and the NEO–PI–3 presumably would, too.
Although a more readable NEO–PI–R was initially con-
ceived as an adaptation for adolescent respondents, the
NEO–PI–3 may have wider applicability. It would be reason-
able to examine its use in younger respondents (cf. Markey,
Markey, Tinsley, & Ericksen, 2002) and in adults. If subse-
quent research shows that these results generalize to other age
groups, it might be reasonable to consider the NEO–PI–3 as a
replacement for the NEO–PI–R for respondents of all ages. In
the meantime, either the NEO–PI–R or the NEO–PI–3 can ap-
propriately be used for adolescents age 14 and up.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the undergraduates who worked on this project. We
especially thank Erin Weller for helping to develop the mate-
rials, procedures, and files on which data collection relied.
We thank Erin Weller, Kathy Wulderk, Amanda Jones,
Rebecca Fritschie, Danielle Quigg, and Rachael Gebely for
managing the considerable work of preparing and mailing
questionnaires, communicating with research assistants,
scanning data, and resolving problems as they arose. We
greatly appreciated their warmth, straightforwardness, com-
petence, and orderliness. Thanks, too, to each of the 53 un-
dergraduates who recruited participants and reminded them
of our interest in receiving their packets.
REFERENCES
Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullmann, H. (2004). Personality develop-
ment from 12 to 18 years of age: Changes in mean levels and structures of
traits. European Journal of Personality, 18, 445–462.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being:
Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum.
Baker, S. R., & Victor, J. B. (2003, August). Adolescent self-reports of per-
sonality and temperament: NEO–PI–R and TPQ. Paper presented at the
11th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Milan, Italy.
 NEO–PI–3 269
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chi- Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
cago: Aldine. 552–566.
Carter, J. A., Herbst, J. H., Stoller, K. B., King, V. L., Kidorf, M. S., Costa, P. Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001).
T., Jr., et al. (2001). Short-term stability of NEO–PI–R personality trait A longitudinal study of personality change in young adulthood. Journal of
scores in opioid-dependent outpatients. Psychology of Addictive Behav- Personality, 69, 617–640.
iors, 15, 255–260. Schinka, J. A., & Borum, R. (1994). Readability of normal personality in-
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts aca- ventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 95–101.
demic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319–338.
APPENDIX
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1984). Personality as a lifelong determi-
nant of well-being. In C. Malatesta & C. Izard (Eds.), Affective processes Deleted Items and Their Replacements
in adult development and aging (pp. 141–157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (in Boldface) for the NEO–PI–3
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. N1:
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO–PI/NEO–FFI manual
supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 121. I’m seldom apprehensive about the future.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory 121. I seldom feel nervous.
(NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional N4:
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 16. In dealing with other people, I always dread making a social blunder.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). Looking backward: Changes in the 16. When I’m around people, I worry that I’ll make a fool of my-
mean levels of personality traits from 80 to 12. In D. Cervone & W. self.
Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 219–237). New 136. I often feel inferior to others.
York: Guilford. 136. I often feel that I am not as good as others.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Jónsson, F. H. (2002). Validity and utility 226. When people I know do foolish things, I get embarrassed for them.
of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Examples from Europe. In B. 226. I feel awkward around people.
De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 61–77).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. N5:
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differ- 21. I rarely overindulge in anything.
ences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. 21. It doesn’t bother me too much if I can’t get what I want.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331. 81. I have little difficulty resisting temptation.
Cota, A. A., Longman, R., Stewart, R., Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. 81. I’m always in control of myself.
(1993). Comparing different methods for implementing parallel analysis:
E3:
A practical index of accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measure-
42. I sometimes fail to assert myself as much as I should.
ment, 53, 865–876.
42. Sometimes I don’t stand up for my rights like I should.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000). As-
sessing adolescents’ personality with the NEO–PI–R. Assessment, 7, E4:
329–345. 17. I have a leisurely style in work and play.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfac- 17. I have a laid-back style in work and play.
tion With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. 47. When I do things, I do them vigorously.
Haven, S., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (1977). Tucker’s coefficient of congruence 47. I act forcefully and energetically.
as a measure of factorial invariance: An empirical study (Heymans Bulle-
tin 290 EX). University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. E5:
Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., De Fruyt, F., & De Maeseneer, J. (2002). Medical 202. I’m attracted to bright colors and flashy styles.
students’ personality characteristics and academic performance: A 202. I like loud music.
Five-Factor Model perspective. Medical Education, 36, 1050–1056. E6:
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., Tinsley, B. J., & Ericksen, A. J. (2002). A pre- 57. I have sometimes experienced intense joy or ecstasy.
liminary validation of preadolescents’ self-reports using the Five-Factor 57. I have felt overpowering joy.
Model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 173–181. 147. I don’t consider myself especially “light-hearted.”
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full 147. I’m not happy-go-lucky.
Five-Factor Model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17, 227–232. O2:
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revision of the 8. Aesthetic and artistic concerns aren’t very important to me.
NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 8. I’m not really interested in the arts.
587–596.
O4:
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E.,
78. Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it.
Rukavishnikov, A. A., Senin, I. G., et al. (2004). Consensual validation
78. I like the old-fashioned methods I’m used to.
of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personal-
168. Sometimes I make changes around the house just to try something
ity, 38, 179–201.
different.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J.,
168. I believe variety is the spice of life.
De Fruyt, F., et al. (2002). Personality trait development from 12 to 18:
Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Per- O6:
sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 1456–1468. 118. I believe that the different ideas of right and wrong that people in
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond, M. H., & other societies have may be valid for them.
Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Re- 118. Our ideas of right and wrong may not be right for everyone in
vised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus the world.
270 MCCRAE, COSTA, MARTIN
148. I believe that loyalty to one’s ideals and principles is more impor- 35. I don’t take civic duties like voting very seriously.
tant than “open-mindedness.” 35. I sometimes act thoughtlessly.
148. I believe that it’s better to stick to your own principles than to 125. I pride myself on my sound judgment.
be open-minded. 125. I have good judgment.
238. I believe that the “new morality” of permissiveness is no morality 185. I’m a very competent person.
at all. 185. I have many skills.
238. People should honor traditional values, not question them.
C2:
A1: 10. I would rather keep my options open than plan everything in advance.
4. I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others’ intentions. 10. I don’t mind a little clutter in my room.
4. Often, people aren’t as nice as they seem to be. 70. I am not a very methodical person.
70. I’m not a very orderly or methodical person.
A2: 160. I tend to be somewhat fastidious or exacting.
219. I pride myself on my shrewdness in handling people. 160. I’m picky about how jobs should be done.
219. I’m pretty slick when it comes to dealing with people.
C3:
A4: 105. Sometimes I cheat when I play solitaire.
229. I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers. 105. I ignore a lot of silly little rules.
229. I sometimes get into arguments. 165. I adhere strictly to my ethical principles.
A5: 165. I follow my ethical principles strictly.
114. I try to be humble. 225. I’d really have to be sick before I’d miss a day of work.
114. I’m not a show-off. 225. I try to go to work or school even when I’m not feeling well.

A6: C4:
29. Political leaders need to be more aware of the human side of their 20. I am easy-going and lackadaisical.
policies. 20. I’m not very ambitious.
29. When making laws and social policies, we need to think about
who might be hurt.
59. I’m hard-headed and tough-minded in my attitudes. Robert R. McCrae
59. I don’t worry much about the homeless. Box 03
119. I have no sympathy for panhandlers. Gerontology Research Center
119. I have no sympathy for beggars. 5600 Nathan Shock Drive
149. Human need should always take priority over economic consid-
Baltimore, MD 21224–6825
erations.
149. Human need is more important than economics. Email: mccraej@grc.nia.nih.gov
C1:
5. I’m known for my prudence and common sense. Received June 18, 2004
5. I’m known for my common sense. Revised August 25, 2004

View publication stats