Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.

En los últimos años se han desarrollado medidas breves de los cinco factores de personalidad, sin embargo, la ganancia práctica de tiempo provista por las formas breves puede implicar propiedades psicométricas más débiles de los instrumentos. En la construcción de escalas breves, para mantener propi...

Full description

Autores:: Cupani, Marcos
Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano
Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela
Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía

Tipo de recurso:: Article of investigation

Fecha de publicación:: 2019

Institución:: Universidad Católica de Colombia

Repositorio:: RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica

Idioma:: spa

id	UCATOLICA2_8c56f03f80166a274cfb71490826bc41
oai_identifier_str	oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/28445
network_acronym_str	UCATOLICA2
network_name_str	RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv	Development of a brief version of the personality inventory IPIP-Revised : control of the acquiescence response bias.
title	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
spellingShingle	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia. Inventory Ipip Acquiescence Response bias. Big five personality factors Inventario Ipip Aquiescencia Sesgo de respuesta. Cinco grandes factores de la personalidad Inventário Ipip Aquiescência Viés de resposta. Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
title_short	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
title_full	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
title_fullStr	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
title_full_unstemmed	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
title_sort	Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	Cupani, Marcos Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv	Cupani, Marcos Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv	Inventory Ipip Acquiescence Response bias. Big five personality factors
topic	Inventory Ipip Acquiescence Response bias. Big five personality factors Inventario Ipip Aquiescencia Sesgo de respuesta. Cinco grandes factores de la personalidad Inventário Ipip Aquiescência Viés de resposta. Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv	Inventario Ipip Aquiescencia Sesgo de respuesta. Cinco grandes factores de la personalidad Inventário Ipip Aquiescência Viés de resposta. Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
description	En los últimos años se han desarrollado medidas breves de los cinco factores de personalidad, sin embargo, la ganancia práctica de tiempo provista por las formas breves puede implicar propiedades psicométricas más débiles de los instrumentos. En la construcción de escalas breves, para mantener propiedades psicométricas adecuadas se debe emplear criterios teóricos y empíricos en la selección de los ítems y minimizar los sesgos de respuesta, como el de la aquiescencia (AC), que hace referencia a la tendencia de las personas a estar de acuerdo con afirmaciones positivas independientemente del contenido de la afirmación. Teniendo esto en cuenta, el objetivo principal del presente estudio fue desarrollar un instrumento breve (30 ítems), de dominio público, para medir los cinco factores de personalidad en población latina, controlando el sesgo de respuesta AC. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 910 participantes, 543 de sexo femenino (59.6 %) y 367 de sexo masculino (40.3 %), con edades comprendidas entre los 15 y los 80 años (M = 29.52; DT = 12.25), pertenecientes a la ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina. Para el proceso de validación se propuso realizar un estudio de convergencia con las cinco escalas del NEO-FFI, un análisis de diferencia de grupos según el sexo y la edad de los participantes, y un estudio de validez predictiva respecto a algunas actividades recreacionales (uso de drogas,irresponsabilidad, amistad, erudición/creatividad y comunicación). Los resultados indican que el IPIP-R-30 presenta una estructura factorial de cinco factores, índices de confiabilidad adecuados tanto de consistencia interna como de estabilidad temporal, evidencia de validez convergente con las escalas del NEO-FFI, evidencia de diferencia de grupos según sexo y edad, y validez predictiva de la frecuencia de diferentes categorías de actividades específicas. De esta manera, se puede concluir que el IPIP-R-30 constituye una herramienta válida de evaluación de los rasgos de personalidad en nuestro medio, con puntuaciones libres del sesgo de AC.
publishDate	2019
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2019-01-30 10:21:14 2023-01-23T15:43:01Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2019-01-30 10:21:14 2023-01-23T15:43:01Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2019-01-30
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	1909-9711
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	0123-9155
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://hdl.handle.net/10983/28445
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12
identifier_str_mv	10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12 1909-9711 0123-9155
url	https://hdl.handle.net/10983/28445 https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv	https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/pdf1.11 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/2516 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/pdf1..11IN https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/2517 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/2472
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv	Núm. 1 , Año 2019 : ACTA COLOMBIANA DE PSICOLOGÏA
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv	260
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv	1
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv	248
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv	22
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv	Acta Colombiana de Psicología
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv	Aronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(3), 221-247. Baldasaro, R. E., Shanahan, M. J., Bauer, D. J. (2013). Psychometric Properties of the Mini-IPIP in a Large, Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 74-84. Doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.700466 Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39(3), 214. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Mainly Openness: The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 524-529. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159 Costa, P., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R manual profesional. Odessa, FL: Evaluación Psicológica Resources, Inc Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874-888. Cronbach, L.J. (1942). Studies of acquiescence as a factor in the true/false test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 401-415. Cupani, M. (2009). El Cuestionario de Personalidad IPIP-FFM: Resultados preliminares de una adaptación en una muestra de preadolescentes argentinos. Perspectivas en Psicología, 6, 51-58. Cupani, M. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2016). The development of an alternative IPIP inventory measuring the Big-Five factor markers in an Argentine sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 40-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.051 Cupani, M., Pilatti, A., Urrizaga, A., Chincolla, A., & de Minzi, M. C. R. (2014). Inventario de Personalidad IPIP-NEO: estudios preliminares de adaptación al español en estudiantes argentinos. Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología, 6(1), 55-73. De Vries, R.E. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 871-880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.003 Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo Seva, U. (2000). Unrestricted versus restricted factor analysis of multidimensional test items: Some aspects of the problem and some suggestions. Psicológica, 21(2), 301-323. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Unrestricted item factor analysis and some relations with item response theory. Recuperado de http://psico.fcep.urv.es/utilitats/factor/ [ Links]. Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Chico, E. (2009). A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 364-381. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7-28. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2005). The international personality item pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. 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. Gow, A.J., Whiteman, M.C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I.J.(2005). Goldberg's “IPIP” Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317-329. Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg's Big-Five IPIP personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 86-96. Gross, M.N., Zalazar Jaime, M.F., Piccolo, N.V., & Cupani, M. (2012). Nuevos estudios de validación del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-FFM. X Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociedades de Estadística, Córdoba, Argentina. Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L R. (2007). The Comparative Validity of 11 Modern Personality Inventories: Predictions of Behavioral Acts, Informant Reports, and Clinical Indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2), 167-18 Hofstee, W. K. B., ten Berge, J. M. F., & Hendriks, A.A.J. (1998). How to score questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897-909. Javeline, D. (1999). Response effects in polite cultures: a test of acquiescence in Kazakhstan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1), 1-28. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relationship between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264-277. Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13, 223-2484. Langford, P. H. (2003). A one-minute measure of the Big Five? Evaluating and abridging Shafer’s (1999a) Big Five markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1127-1140. Ledesma, R. D., Sánchez, R., & Díaz-Lázaro, C. M. (2011). Adjective checklist to assess the big five personality factors in the Argentine population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 46-55. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2009). Acquiescent responding in partially balanced multidimensional scales. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62(2), 319-326. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). Factor 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semi-confirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 497-498. McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., HRebícková, M., Avia, M. D., ... & Saunders, P. R. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(1), 173. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 547. Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539-1550. Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L.M., Barlow, F.K. & Sibley, C.G. (2013). The Mini-IPIP6: Tiny yet highly stable markers of Big Six personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 936-944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.004 Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3: Ítem analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models. Scientific Software International. Mlacic´, B., & Goldberg, L.R. (2007). An analysis of a crosscultural personality inventory: The IPIP Big-Five factor markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 168-177. Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2002). Clasificación y descripción de las metodologías de investigación en Psicología. International journal of clinical and health psychology, 2(3), 503-508 Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212. Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L.R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53-61. Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013).Correcting Big Five personality measurements for acquiescence: An 18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27(1), 71-81. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Components of depressed mood in married men and women the center for epidemiologic studies' depression scale. American Journal of Epidemiology, 119(6), 997-1004. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the big five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. B. De Raad, M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, WA (2002), pp. 29-58. Sibley, C. G. (2012). The Mini-IPIP6: Item Response Theory analysis of a short measure of the big-six factors of personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 21-31. Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2006). Dealing with missing data in a multi-question depression scale: a comparison of imputation methods. BMC medical research methodology, 6(1), 57. Soto, C. J. & John. O.P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory’2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004 Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,718-737. Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(5), 1041. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. Mikuška, J. & Jiskrova, G. (2015). The Big Five and adolescent adjustment: An empirical test across six cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 234-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.049 Vigil-Colet, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Morales-Vives, F. (2015). The effects of ageing on self-reported aggression measures are partly explained by response bias. Psicothema, 27(3), 209-215. Zheng, L., Goldberg, L.R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 649-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv	Marcos Cupani - 2019
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv	Marcos Cupani - 2019 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv	application/pdf text/html application/pdf text/html application/xml
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	Universidad Católica de Colombia
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv	https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/2009
institution	Universidad Católica de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/58ef2101-90e0-492b-b66c-cc132d01fd07/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	a8149bd15fdd038714bb64fea60d725b
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Repositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaC
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_	1812183379794198528
spelling	Cupani, Marcosba68cb99-ac44-4eda-9a0e-c33a243fafc4300Lorenzo-Seva, Urbanoa8e64167-4f55-4e52-8932-651e0b3a1a18300Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela80d113e9-f658-4983-8502-6371298d6bed300Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía3575c4cf-6b14-4180-964d-8c689e650bb23002019-01-30 10:21:142023-01-23T15:43:01Z2019-01-30 10:21:142023-01-23T15:43:01Z2019-01-30En los últimos años se han desarrollado medidas breves de los cinco factores de personalidad, sin embargo, la ganancia práctica de tiempo provista por las formas breves puede implicar propiedades psicométricas más débiles de los instrumentos. En la construcción de escalas breves, para mantener propiedades psicométricas adecuadas se debe emplear criterios teóricos y empíricos en la selección de los ítems y minimizar los sesgos de respuesta, como el de la aquiescencia (AC), que hace referencia a la tendencia de las personas a estar de acuerdo con afirmaciones positivas independientemente del contenido de la afirmación. Teniendo esto en cuenta, el objetivo principal del presente estudio fue desarrollar un instrumento breve (30 ítems), de dominio público, para medir los cinco factores de personalidad en población latina, controlando el sesgo de respuesta AC. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 910 participantes, 543 de sexo femenino (59.6 %) y 367 de sexo masculino (40.3 %), con edades comprendidas entre los 15 y los 80 años (M = 29.52; DT = 12.25), pertenecientes a la ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina. Para el proceso de validación se propuso realizar un estudio de convergencia con las cinco escalas del NEO-FFI, un análisis de diferencia de grupos según el sexo y la edad de los participantes, y un estudio de validez predictiva respecto a algunas actividades recreacionales (uso de drogas,irresponsabilidad, amistad, erudición/creatividad y comunicación). Los resultados indican que el IPIP-R-30 presenta una estructura factorial de cinco factores, índices de confiabilidad adecuados tanto de consistencia interna como de estabilidad temporal, evidencia de validez convergente con las escalas del NEO-FFI, evidencia de diferencia de grupos según sexo y edad, y validez predictiva de la frecuencia de diferentes categorías de actividades específicas. De esta manera, se puede concluir que el IPIP-R-30 constituye una herramienta válida de evaluación de los rasgos de personalidad en nuestro medio, con puntuaciones libres del sesgo de AC. In recent years, brief measures of the five personality factors have been developed; however, the practical gain of time provided by the brief versions may imply weaker psychometric properties of the instruments. To maintain adequate psychometric properties in the construction of brief scales, theoretical and empirical criteria should be used in the selection of items, and response biases such as acquiescence (AC) should be minimized. The term AC refers to people's tendency to agree with positive statements, regardless of their content. The main purpose of the present study is to develop a brief public domain instrument (30 items) to measure the five personality factors in the Latin American population, controlling the AC response bias. The sample consisted of 910 participants, 543 women (59.6 %) and 367 men (40.3 %), age range 15-80 years (M = 29.52; DT = 12.25) from the city of Córdoba, Argentina. For the validation process, a convergence study with the five NEO-FFI scales, an analysis of group differences according to the participants sex and age, and a predictive validity study regarding recreational activities (drug use, irresponsibility, friendship, erudition/creativity, and communication) were performed. The results indicate that the IPIP-R-30 presents a five-factor factorial structure, adequate reliability indices of both internal consistency and temporal stability, evidence of convergent validity with the NEO-FFI scales, evidence of group differences as regards sex and age, and frequency predictive validity of different categories of specific activities. Thus, it can be concluded that the IPP-R-30 is a valid tool for assessing personality factors in our environment, with scores free of AC bias.application/pdftext/htmlapplication/pdftext/htmlapplication/xml10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.121909-97110123-9155https://hdl.handle.net/10983/28445https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12spaUniversidad Católica de Colombiahttps://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/pdf1.11https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/2516https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/pdf1..11INhttps://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/2517https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/2009/2472Núm. 1 , Año 2019 : ACTA COLOMBIANA DE PSICOLOGÏA260124822Acta Colombiana de PsicologíaAronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(3), 221-247.Baldasaro, R. E., Shanahan, M. J., Bauer, D. J. (2013). Psychometric Properties of the Mini-IPIP in a Large, Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 74-84. Doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.700466Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39(3), 214.Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Mainly Openness: The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 524-529.Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159Costa, P., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R manual profesional. Odessa, FL: Evaluación Psicológica Resources, IncCredé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874-888.Cronbach, L.J. (1942). Studies of acquiescence as a factor in the true/false test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 401-415. Cupani, M. (2009). El Cuestionario de Personalidad IPIP-FFM: Resultados preliminares de una adaptación en una muestra de preadolescentes argentinos. Perspectivas en Psicología, 6, 51-58.Cupani, M. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2016). The development of an alternative IPIP inventory measuring the Big-Five factor markers in an Argentine sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 40-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.051Cupani, M., Pilatti, A., Urrizaga, A., Chincolla, A., & de Minzi, M. C. R. (2014). Inventario de Personalidad IPIP-NEO: estudios preliminares de adaptación al español en estudiantes argentinos. Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología, 6(1), 55-73.De Vries, R.E. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 871-880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.003Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203.Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo Seva, U. (2000). Unrestricted versus restricted factor analysis of multidimensional test items: Some aspects of the problem and some suggestions. Psicológica, 21(2), 301-323.Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Unrestricted item factor analysis and some relations with item response theory. Recuperado de http://psico.fcep.urv.es/utilitats/factor/ [ Links].Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Chico, E. (2009). A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 364-381.Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7-28.Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2005). The international personality item pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.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.Gow, A.J., Whiteman, M.C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I.J.(2005). Goldberg's “IPIP” Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317-329.Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg's Big-Five IPIP personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 86-96.Gross, M.N., Zalazar Jaime, M.F., Piccolo, N.V., & Cupani, M. (2012). Nuevos estudios de validación del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-FFM. X Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociedades de Estadística, Córdoba, Argentina.Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L R. (2007). The Comparative Validity of 11 Modern Personality Inventories: Predictions of Behavioral Acts, Informant Reports, and Clinical Indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2), 167-18Hofstee, W. K. B., ten Berge, J. M. F., & Hendriks, A.A.J. (1998). How to score questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897-909.Javeline, D. (1999). Response effects in polite cultures: a test of acquiescence in Kazakhstan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1), 1-28.Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relationship between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264-277.Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13, 223-2484.Langford, P. H. (2003). A one-minute measure of the Big Five? Evaluating and abridging Shafer’s (1999a) Big Five markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1127-1140.Ledesma, R. D., Sánchez, R., & Díaz-Lázaro, C. M. (2011). Adjective checklist to assess the big five personality factors in the Argentine population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 46-55.Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2009). Acquiescent responding in partially balanced multidimensional scales. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62(2), 319-326.Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). Factor 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semi-confirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 497-498.McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., HRebícková, M., Avia, M. D., ... & Saunders, P. R. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(1), 173.McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 547.Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539-1550.Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L.M., Barlow, F.K. & Sibley, C.G. (2013). The Mini-IPIP6: Tiny yet highly stable markers of Big Six personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 936-944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.004Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3: Ítem analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models. Scientific Software International.Mlacic´, B., & Goldberg, L.R. (2007). An analysis of a crosscultural personality inventory: The IPIP Big-Five factor markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 168-177.Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2002). Clasificación y descripción de las metodologías de investigación en Psicología. International journal of clinical and health psychology, 2(3), 503-508Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212.Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L.R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53-61.Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013).Correcting Big Five personality measurements for acquiescence: An 18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27(1), 71-81.Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Components of depressed mood in married men and women the center for epidemiologic studies' depression scale. American Journal of Epidemiology, 119(6), 997-1004.Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the big five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. B. De Raad, M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, WA (2002), pp. 29-58.Sibley, C. G. (2012). The Mini-IPIP6: Item Response Theory analysis of a short measure of the big-six factors of personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 21-31.Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2006). Dealing with missing data in a multi-question depression scale: a comparison of imputation methods. BMC medical research methodology, 6(1), 57.Soto, C. J. & John. O.P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory’2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,718-737.Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(5), 1041.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. Mikuška, J. & Jiskrova, G. (2015).The Big Five and adolescent adjustment: An empirical test across six cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 234-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.049Vigil-Colet, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Morales-Vives, F. (2015). The effects of ageing on self-reported aggression measures are partly explained by response bias. Psicothema, 27(3), 209-215.Zheng, L., Goldberg, L.R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 649-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009.Marcos Cupani - 2019info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/2009InventoryIpipAcquiescenceResponse bias.Big five personality factorsInventarioIpipAquiescenciaSesgo de respuesta.Cinco grandes factores de la personalidadInventárioIpipAquiescênciaViés de resposta.Cinco grandes fatores da personalidadeElaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.Development of a brief version of the personality inventory IPIP-Revised : control of the acquiescence response bias.Artículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml3405https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/58ef2101-90e0-492b-b66c-cc132d01fd07/downloada8149bd15fdd038714bb64fea60d725bMD5110983/28445oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/284452023-03-24 16:43:19.213https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Marcos Cupani - 2019https://repository.ucatolica.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaCbdigital@metabiblioteca.com

Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado : control del sesgo de aquiescencia.

Publicaciones similares