Zeidner, Engvik, Oosterveld, & Maliphant, 2000 ).Paunonen et al. (1996, 2000) reported Cronbach alpha coeffi-
cients ranging from .38 to .91 (see Table 26.1 ). The NPQ was validated by means of the correlation of its scales
with corresponding PRF scales. Across several samples, Panonen and colleagues (1992, 1996 , 2002) found mean
convergent correlations between the NPQ and PRF ranging from .27 to .51. The only two cultures with correla-
tions below .37 were the only two non-European cultures: Hong Kong (.28) and Israel (.27). Paunonen, Jackson,
Trzebinski, and Forsterling (1992) examined the discriminant correlations in three European samples by comput-
ing correlations between the NPQ scales and the PRF scales measuring other traits (heterotrait correlations).
These authors reported small correlation coefficients ranging from .14 to .16, suggesting good discriminant valid-
ity of the NPQ. The instructions of the NPQ have been translated into several languages. The NPQ has been stud-
ied in a number of European countries, Canada, Hong Kong, and Israel (the same as with the PRF: Paunonen
et al., 1992, 1996, 2000 ). Only Paunonen et al. (1992) reported congruence coefficients for the individual factors;
these tended to be acceptable, except for some lower values for Autonomy and Aggression (see Table 26.1 ). Out
of the coefficients reported summarily, there appeared to be a number of coefficients below .90, with average
coefficients in the low .90s. In summary, there is moderate support for the structural equivalence of the NPQ
across different cultures. Scale reliabilities and convergent validity indicators of the NPQ have been found to be
lowest in non-Western samples ( Paunonen et al., 2000 ). As Paunonen and colleagues (2000) noted, even a nonver-
bal measure such as the NPQ cannot be considered entirely culture-free.
Personality Research Form (PRF)
(Jackson, 1984 ).
The PRF has been developed to measure Murray’s (1938) traits. However, factor analysis has revealed a
structure akin to the Big Five ( Costa & McCrae, 1988; Paunonen et al., 1992 ). The PRF contains 22 scales:
Abasement, Achievement, Affiliation, Aggression, Autonomy, Change, Cognitive Structure, Defendence,
Dominance, Endurance, Exhibition, Harm Avoidance, Impulsivity, Nurturance, Order, Play, Sentience, Social
Recognition, Succorance, and Understanding. Paunonen et al. (1996, 2000) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients
ranging from .06 to .91. The PRF has been translated and/or adapted into several languages. It has been studied
in a number of European countries, Canada, Hong Kong, and Israel (the same as with the NPQ: Paunonen et al.,
1992, 1996, 2000 ). Only Paunonen et al. (1992) reported congruence coefficients for the individual factors; these
tended to be acceptable, except for some lower values for Aesthetic /C0Intellectual, Aggression, and Social Control
(see Table 26.1 ). Out of the coefficients reported summarily, there appeared to be a number of coefficients below
.90, with average coefficients in the low .80s. Stumpf (1993) examined the PRF in samples from North America,
Europe, and the Philippines and tested the factorial equivalence using target rotation to a normative Big Five
structure ( Costa & McCrae, 1988 ) and an alternative, earlier structure ( Skinner, Jackson, & Rampton, 1976 ). Mean
congruence coefficients ranged from N (.81) to C (.95) (see Table 26.1 ). Neuroticism was also flagged as problem-
atic in the Paunonen et al. (2000) PRF data. In summary, there is moderate support for the structural equivalence
of the PRF across cultures.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
While many cross-cultural personality studies have been conducted, relatively few studies have taken the issue
of equivalence seriously and have addressed comparability in an adequate manner. The equivalence of many
well established and validated Western personality instruments has never been examined in other cultural con-
texts. It is common practice to report psychometric characteristics of instruments but it is less common to test
whether instruments measure the same construct (structural equivalence) and whether scores are comparable
across cultures (scalar equivalence). To some extent, this relative scarcity of equivalence studies may be due to
historical reasons. It is only in the last 15 years that computer programs for testing equivalence using structural
equation modeling have become widely available. However, statistical procedures for exploratory factor analysis
have been around for quite some time. Similarly, computer programs for computing differential item functioning
have been around for a long time, although (again) such tests using structural equation modeling have become
available more recently. There is good reason to be reluctant to interpret results of cross-cultural studies in which
equivalence has not been tested. Van Leest (1997) , for example, found that personality instruments that contained
many idiomatic Dutch expressions did not show equivalence between mainstream Dutch and immigrant Dutch770 26. MEASURES OF PERSONALITY ACROSS CULTURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT