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
Seva, Urbano Lorenzo
Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela
Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2019
Institución:
Universidad Católica de Colombia
Repositorio:
RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/23347
Acceso en línea:
https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23347
Palabra clave:
Psicopedagogía - investigaciones - Colombia
Inventario
Ipip
Aquiescencia
Sesgo de respuesta
Big five personality factors
Inventory
Ipip
Acquiescence
Response bias
Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
Inventário
Ipip
Aquiescência
Viés de resposta
Rights
openAccess
License
Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019
id UCATOLICA2_94829dd87c91e8dd7168e0a32fd6de24
oai_identifier_str oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/23347
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
Elaboração da versão breve do Inventário de Personalidade IPIP-Revisado: controle do viés de aquiescência
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
Psicopedagogía - investigaciones - Colombia
Inventario
Ipip
Aquiescencia
Sesgo de respuesta
Big five personality factors
Inventory
Ipip
Acquiescence
Response bias
Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
Inventário
Ipip
Aquiescência
Viés de resposta
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
Seva, Urbano Lorenzo
Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela
Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv Cupani, Marcos
Seva, Urbano Lorenzo
Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela
Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía
dc.subject.proposal.spa.fl_str_mv Psicopedagogía - investigaciones - Colombia
Inventario
Ipip
Aquiescencia
Sesgo de respuesta
Big five personality factors
Inventory
Ipip
Acquiescence
Response bias
Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
Inventário
Ipip
Aquiescência
Viés de resposta
topic Psicopedagogía - investigaciones - Colombia
Inventario
Ipip
Aquiescencia
Sesgo de respuesta
Big five personality factors
Inventory
Ipip
Acquiescence
Response bias
Cinco grandes fatores da personalidade
Inventário
Ipip
Aquiescência
Viés de resposta
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.spa.fl_str_mv 2019-07-16T15:22:27Z
dc.date.available.spa.fl_str_mv 2019-07-16T15:22:27Z
dc.date.issued.spa.fl_str_mv 2019-06
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/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_6501
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.spa.fl_str_mv Cupani, M., Seva, U., Korzeniowski, C., & Azpilicueta, A. (2019). Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-revisado: control del sesgo de aquiescencia. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(1), 248-272. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12
dc.identifier.issn.spa.fl_str_mv 0123-9155
dc.identifier.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23347
identifier_str_mv Cupani, M., Seva, U., Korzeniowski, C., & Azpilicueta, A. (2019). Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-revisado: control del sesgo de aquiescencia. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(1), 248-272. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.12
0123-9155
url https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23347
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.ispartof.spa.fl_str_mv Acta Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 22 no. 1 (ene.-jun. 2019); p. 248-272
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeng tecman.2006.06.003.
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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.004.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Recuperado de http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/Cohen1992.pdf.
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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054677.
Cupani, M. (2009). El Cuestionario de Personalidad IPIP-FFM: Resultados preliminares de una adaptación en una muestra de preadolescentes Argentinos. Perspectivas en Psicologia, 6, 51-58. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcos_Cupani/publication/274716961_The_IPIP-FFM_Questionnaire_of_Personality_Preliminary_results_for_the_adaptation_in_a_sample_of_young_Argentinean_adolescents/links/5527c3ec0cf2e089a3a1c57d/The-IPIP-FFM-Questionnaire-of-Personality-Preliminaryresults-for-the-adaptation-in-a-sample-of-young-Argentinean-adolescents.pdf.
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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.051.
Cupani, M., Pilatti, A., Urrizaga, A., Chincolla, A., & de Minzi, M. C. (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. Recuperado de http://www.revistamexicanadeinvestigacionenpsicologia.com/article/view/185/98.
De Vries, R. E. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 871-880. doi: 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
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. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/html/169/16921206/.
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/.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751374.
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. Recuperado de http://admin.umt.edu.pk/Media/Site/STD/FileManager/OsamaArticle/26august2015/A%20 broad-bandwidth%20inventory.pdf.
Goldberg, L. R. (2001). International Personality Item Pool. Recuperado de https://ipip.ori.org/.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., … Cloninger, C. R. (2005). The international personality item pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011.
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. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nigel_Guenole/publication/290196736_The_suitability_of_Goldberg's_Big_Five_IPIP_personality_markers_in_New_Zealand_A_dimensionality_bias_and_criterion_validity_evaluation/links/58e77bd7a6fdcc1fda2b967d/The-suitability-of-Goldbergs-Big-Five-IPIP-personalitymarkers-in-New-Zealand-A-dimensionality-bias-and-criterion-validity-evaluation.pdf.
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), 167-187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701468568.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00086-5.
Javeline, D. (1999). Response effects in polite cultures: a test of acquiescence in Kazakhstan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1), 1-28. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/2991267.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905.
Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (2.a ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13, 223-248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.703734.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.513708.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007X265164.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). Factor 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 497-498. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794.
McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr., P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, 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. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.7S.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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010.
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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.004.
Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models. Scientific Software International.
Mlačić, 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701267993.
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. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/html/337/33720308/.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1894.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113819.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the big five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. En B. De Raad, M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 29-58). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
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. Recuperado de http://www.psychology.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Editor-proof.pdf#page=20.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-57
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. doi: 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718.
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. doi: 10.1037/00223514.84.5.1041.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: 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. doi: 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. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.32.
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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.creativecommons.spa.fl_str_mv Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Universidad Católica de Colombia. Facultad de Psicología
institution Universidad Católica de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/a990f741-ed8e-4544-b438-28da6d0eebef/download
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/b2f8ef35-a2a6-4c17-a96f-9c614d5f292b/download
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/3cea61bb-52fd-43ae-8edd-b87f59b40e1a/download
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/b70425aa-52e7-4681-8abe-afa2018019b7/download
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/ec35efea-edec-4034-b084-c978d58b2901/download
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/69b2fa1f-8d19-4903-8469-7b462b81144f/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 6ac81181864a3f7418215cd31e86c645
891678f0e5b9c36d4839212ef9eba565
830579ff4411891de45582409597d718
01d08bed81c71facca3d080cc8efbea8
f090ed8d6280df1099a5b4e23d2642c4
22acbbbd792503ccdb415582e4b3aad9
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaC
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_ 1814256409027543040
spelling Cupani, Marcosba68cb99-ac44-4eda-9a0e-c33a243fafc4-1Seva, Urbano Lorenzo4bf9a8cb-a4bf-45f0-8902-10e71361ab4f-1Korzeniowski, Celina Graciela80d113e9-f658-4983-8502-6371298d6bed-1Azpilicueta, Ana Estefanía3575c4cf-6b14-4180-964d-8c689e650bb2-12019-07-16T15:22:27Z2019-07-16T15:22:27Z2019-06En 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.Nos últimos anos, têm sido desenvolvidas medidas breves dos cinco fatores de personalidade; contudo, o ganho prático de tempo previsto pelas formas breves pode implicar propriedades psicométricas mais fracas dos instrumentos. Na construção de escalas breves, para manter propriedades psicométricas adequadas, devem ser empregados critérios teóricos e empíricos na seleção dos itens, e devem ser minimizados os vieses de resposta, como o da aquiescência (AC). Esse conceito faz referência à tendência das pessoas que estão de acordo com afirmações positivas, independentemente do conteúdo da afirmação. Nesse sentido, o objetivo principal deste estudo foi desenvolver um instrumento breve (30 itens), de domínio público, para medir os cinco fatores de personalidade em população latina, controlando o viés de resposta AC. A amostra esteve composta por 910 participantes, 543 de sexo feminino (59.6 %) e 367 de sexo masculino (40.3 %), entre 15 e 80 anos de idade (M = 29.52; DP = 12.25), pertencentes à cidade de Córdoba, Argentina. Para o processo de validação, foi proposto realizar um estudo de convergência com as cinco escalas do NEO-FFI, uma análise de diferença de grupos segundo o sexo e idade dos participantes, e um estudo de validade preditiva a respeito de atividades recreativas (uso de drogas, irresponsabilidade, amizade, erudição/ criatividade e comunicação). Os resultados indicam que o IPIP-R-30 apresenta uma estrutura fatorial de cinco fatores, índices de confiabilidade adequados tanto de consistência interna quanto de estabilidade temporal, evidência de validade convergente com as escalas do NEO-FFI, evidência de diferença de grupos segundo sexo e idade, e validade preditiva da frequência de diferentes categorias de atividades específicas. Dessa maneira, pode-se concluir que o IPIP-R-30 constitui uma ferramenta válida de avaliação dos traços de personalidade em nosso meio, com pontuações livros do viés de AC.application/pdfCupani, M., Seva, U., Korzeniowski, C., & Azpilicueta, A. (2019). Elaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-revisado: control del sesgo de aquiescencia. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(1), 248-272. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.120123-9155https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23347spaUniversidad Católica de Colombia. Facultad de PsicologíaActa Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 22 no. 1 (ene.-jun. 2019); p. 248-272Aronson, 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeng tecman.2006.06.003.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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.004.Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Recuperado de http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/Cohen1992.pdf.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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054677.Cupani, M. (2009). El Cuestionario de Personalidad IPIP-FFM: Resultados preliminares de una adaptación en una muestra de preadolescentes Argentinos. Perspectivas en Psicologia, 6, 51-58. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcos_Cupani/publication/274716961_The_IPIP-FFM_Questionnaire_of_Personality_Preliminary_results_for_the_adaptation_in_a_sample_of_young_Argentinean_adolescents/links/5527c3ec0cf2e089a3a1c57d/The-IPIP-FFM-Questionnaire-of-Personality-Preliminaryresults-for-the-adaptation-in-a-sample-of-young-Argentinean-adolescents.pdf.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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.051.Cupani, M., Pilatti, A., Urrizaga, A., Chincolla, A., & de Minzi, M. C. (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. Recuperado de http://www.revistamexicanadeinvestigacionenpsicologia.com/article/view/185/98.De Vries, R. E. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 871-880. doi: 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.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. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/html/169/16921206/.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/.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751374.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. Recuperado de http://admin.umt.edu.pk/Media/Site/STD/FileManager/OsamaArticle/26august2015/A%20 broad-bandwidth%20inventory.pdf.Goldberg, L. R. (2001). International Personality Item Pool. Recuperado de https://ipip.ori.org/.Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., … Cloninger, C. R. (2005). The international personality item pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011.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. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nigel_Guenole/publication/290196736_The_suitability_of_Goldberg's_Big_Five_IPIP_personality_markers_in_New_Zealand_A_dimensionality_bias_and_criterion_validity_evaluation/links/58e77bd7a6fdcc1fda2b967d/The-suitability-of-Goldbergs-Big-Five-IPIP-personalitymarkers-in-New-Zealand-A-dimensionality-bias-and-criterion-validity-evaluation.pdf.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), 167-187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701468568.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00086-5.Javeline, D. (1999). Response effects in polite cultures: a test of acquiescence in Kazakhstan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1), 1-28. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/2991267.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905.Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (2.a ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13, 223-248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.703734.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.513708.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007X265164.Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). Factor 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 497-498. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794.McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr., P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, 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. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.7S.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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010.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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.004.Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models. Scientific Software International.Mlačić, 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701267993.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. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/html/337/33720308/.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1894.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113819.Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the big five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. En B. De Raad, M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 29-58). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.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. Recuperado de http://www.psychology.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Editor-proof.pdf#page=20.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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-57Soto, 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. doi: 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718.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. doi: 10.1037/00223514.84.5.1041.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: 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. doi: 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. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.32.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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009.Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Psicopedagogía - investigaciones - ColombiaInventarioIpipAquiescenciaSesgo de respuestaBig five personality factorsInventoryIpipAcquiescenceResponse biasCinco grandes fatores da personalidadeInventárioIpipAquiescênciaViés de respostaElaboración de la versión breve del cuestionario de personalidad IPIP-Revisado: control del sesgo de aquiescenciaDevelopment of a Brief Version of the Personality Inventory IPIP-Revised: Control of the Acquiescence Response BiasElaboração da versão breve do Inventário de Personalidade IPIP-Revisado: controle do viés de aquiescênciaArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85PublicationORIGINAL2009-14657-2-PB.pdf2009-14657-2-PB.pdfArticulo principalapplication/pdf304851https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/a990f741-ed8e-4544-b438-28da6d0eebef/download6ac81181864a3f7418215cd31e86c645MD512009-14658-2-PB.pdf2009-14658-2-PB.pdfArticulo principalapplication/pdf320622https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/b2f8ef35-a2a6-4c17-a96f-9c614d5f292b/download891678f0e5b9c36d4839212ef9eba565MD52TEXT2009-14657-2-PB.pdf.txt2009-14657-2-PB.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain66458https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/3cea61bb-52fd-43ae-8edd-b87f59b40e1a/download830579ff4411891de45582409597d718MD532009-14658-2-PB.pdf.txt2009-14658-2-PB.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain59845https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/b70425aa-52e7-4681-8abe-afa2018019b7/download01d08bed81c71facca3d080cc8efbea8MD55THUMBNAIL2009-14657-2-PB.pdf.jpg2009-14657-2-PB.pdf.jpgRIUCACimage/jpeg24397https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/ec35efea-edec-4034-b084-c978d58b2901/downloadf090ed8d6280df1099a5b4e23d2642c4MD542009-14658-2-PB.pdf.jpg2009-14658-2-PB.pdf.jpgRIUCACimage/jpeg24637https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/69b2fa1f-8d19-4903-8469-7b462b81144f/download22acbbbd792503ccdb415582e4b3aad9MD5610983/23347oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/233472024-10-02 11:54:19.424https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019https://repository.ucatolica.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaCbdigital@metabiblioteca.com

Publicaciones similares