Sample
Blanch et al. (2009) provided a summary of the normative, clinical, and employment samples in which the
NPM and PPM scales have been used. The samples ranged in size from 22 to over 21,000 respondents. No studies
could be located at the time of writing that used the NPM and PPM scales with the NEO-PI-3. Means on the
PPM scale tended to be lower in clinical samples and higher in employment samples, while scores on the NPM
tended to be higher in the employment groups than in either of the other groups ( Blanch et al., 2009 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Schinka et al. (1997) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients of .60 and .56 for the PPM scale and .52 and .67 for
the NPM scale in two separate studies. Blanch et al. (2009) reported alpha coefficients ranging from .43 to .70 for
the PPM scale and from .52 to .75 for the NPM scale.
Test/C0Retest
To date, no studies have reported test /C0retest reliability (either immediate dependability or longer-term
test/C0retest stability /C0e.g., see Cattell, 1973 , pp. 352 /C0355, Table 54) for either the PPM or NPM scales.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Only one such correlative study was located for the NPM and PPM scales. Detrick, Chibnall, and Call (2010)
showed that the PPM scale performed as expected for a faking good scale in its sensitivity to demand effects.
Divergent/Discriminant
Blanch et al. (2009) reported that the NPM and PPM scale scores discriminate between known groups in
predictable ways. Detrick et al. (2010) also showed that the PPM scale performed as would be expected for a fak-
ing good scale. Using a large sample of job applicants in France, Marshall, De Fruyt, Rolland, and Bagby (2005)
stratified respondents on the PPM scale, finding significant differences across all five NEO-PI-R domains. Their
second study contrasted a group of job applicants with a group of career counseling participants, wherein the
PPM scale score differentiated between the two groups from the Belgian normative sample, somewhat better
than the main Big 5 domain scale scores performed. Four of the five NEO-PI-R scale scores, excepting only
Agreeableness, were able to differentiate some, but not all of the three groups.
Location
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2010). NEO inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO
Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) professional manual . Lutz, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Schinka, J.A., Kinder, B.N., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Development and
initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127/C0138.
Results and Comments
With the NEO scales having been used predominantly as a measure of normal personality (with presumed
honest response patterns), there has been comparatively little research into distorted response patterns involving
the NPM and PPM scales. The limited research into motivated/response distortion (undertaken in clinical and
forensic contexts) suggests that the NPM and PPM scales have value in detecting under- or over-reporting on the
NEO-PI-R (and presumably also on the NEO-PI-3). However, little is known about these scales’ ability to detect
single individuals who have distorted their responses.
The following lists of item numbers are based on the Schinka et al. (1997) NPM and PPM scales, but give the
item numbers for the NEO-PI-3. Note that two items were slightly re-worded from the original NEO-PI-R.
NEO-PI-3 Positive Presentation Management (PPM) Scale
19, 30, 37, 146, 153, 162, 173, 196, 213, 222 *.
*Item rewritten from its original wording in the NEO-PI-R.19 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT