Neuroticism, Tough-Mindedness, Independence, and Control. The 16PF (5th edition) was constructed subsequent
to the many years of successful use of the 4th edition.
The 4th edition of the 16PF was comprised of multiple parallel forms /C0Forms A, B, C and D, a lower read-
ing level form (Form E), plus a separate form (Part A of the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire). With six different
forms of the 16PF (4th edition) available, the investigator could increase the reliability of measurement of
normal personality trait dimensions to almost any level desired; furthermore, its translation into more than
30 different languages ( Cattell, 2004 ) as well as its extensive research base with thousands of publications
(the 16PF is second most highly cited personality questionnaire of all time), made it a popular personality
instrument for cross-cultural studies. However, we did not find any study with direct information for the 4th
edition on the two central aspects of our review: structural equivalence and item bias in cross-cultural
comparisons.
The single form of the 16PF (5th edition) was constructed in an attempt to comply with a number of ‘politically
correct’ tenets, such as avoidance of measuring sex/gender differences. Were items from the 16PF (4th edition)
that were responded to differentially by men and women specifically targeted for removal? If so, the 16PF (5th
edition) may not be well able to measure significant differences in male and female personality characteristics,
which could be viewed as a limitation. Were items from the 16PF (4th edition) that exhibited differences in
responding among different ethnic groups removed from the 16PF (5th edition)? What is the case with items that
exhibited differences in responding among young versus elderly individuals, or individuals with different reli-
gious or non-religious beliefs? These are some points on which there does not appear to be much clarity in the lit-
erature on the development of the 16PF’s 5th edition. While many cross-cultural studies of personality structure
have been carried out using the 4th edition, more recent cross-cultural personality studies using the 5th edition
may have been unduly restricted because of the ‘watered-down, politically correct’ modifications and
restrictions.
In the 5th edition, Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .54 to .84, and from .56 to .84 have been reported
for Spanish and French Swiss samples, respectively ( Aluja, Garcı ´a, Rossier, & Garcı ´a, 2005 ). There are few data
available on cross-cultural equivalence of any version (for an overview of some early studies with restricted cov-
erage of factors and populations, see Ben-Porath, 1990 ).Aluja et al. (2005) , after excluding primary Factor B
(a measure of intelligence), found evidence for structural equivalence (congruence coefficients over the threshold
value of .90; see Haven & Ten Berge, 1977 ;Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997 ) in Spanish and French samples for three
of the five higher order factors, labeled: Extraversion, Anxiety/Neuroticism, and Independence. Less equivalence
was reported for the remaining two higher order factors, labeled: Self-Control and Tough-Mindedness (see
Table 26.1 ).Paunonen and Ashton (1998) reported that they replicated four of the five higher order factors in
French and American samples (with congruence coefficients over .95; the fifth coefficient was .42), and all five
higher order factors (coefficients above .93) in a Spanish /C0USA comparison. Although the 16PF-5 has been admin-
istered in several different countries and languages, there is little direct evidence on its structural equivalence in
cross-cultural settings. Until such information is available, caution is warranted in using the 16PF-5 in cross-
cultural context.
California Psychological Inventory (CPI)
(Gough, 1987 ).
The CPI assesses folk personality concepts ( Gough, 1987 ). The inventory includes 20 scales: Dominance, Self-
Acceptance, Sociability, Social Presence, Independence, Capacity for Status, Empathy, Self-Control, Achievement
via Conformance, Responsibility, Good Impression, Socialization, Well-Being, Tolerance, Intellectual Efficiency,
Communality, Achievement via Independence, Flexibility, Psychological Mindedness, and Femininity/
Masculinity. The CPI has been translated into over 40 languages and is believed to represent content which is
easily accessible to a wide range of people across different cultures ( Groth-Marnat, 2003 ). There are few studies
that directly assess cross-cultural equivalence. Labouvie-Vief, Diehl, Tarnowski, and Shen (2000) found evidence
for structural equivalence of three out of four factors between USA and Chinese samples (congruence coefficients
over .95, see Table 26.1 ). However, the CPI scales share some items, which renders factor-analytic results ambigu-
ous. The argument has been made that the use of common items may artificially increase the estimates of cross-
cultural equivalence in the CPI ( Cohen & Harley, 1977 ). Confidence in cross-cultural equivalence that could be
derived by the good congruence coefficients found in Labouvie-Vief et al. (2000) is undermined by the problem
of item overlap between scales.764 26. MEASURES OF PERSONALITY ACROSS CULTURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT