Comrey Personality Scales (CPS)
(Comrey, 1970, 2008 ).
The CPS contains 40 content scales that define eight personality trait factors identified factor-analytically in an
attempt to overcome apparent discrepancies between earlier personality trait measures such as those of Guilford,
Eysenck, and Cattell (see Comrey, 2008 ). The CPS factor scales are: Trust vs. Defensiveness, Orderliness vs. Lack
of Compulsion, Social Conformity vs. Rebelliousness, Activity vs. Lack of Energy, Emotional Stability vs.
Neuroticism, Extraversion vs. Introversion, Masculinity vs. Femininity, and Empathy vs. Egocentrism. The CPS
has been translated into many different languages and there are a number of studies examining its cross-cultural
equivalence. In comparisons involving eight countries, mostly satisfactory congruence coefficients have been
obtained, except for the factor Orderliness vs. Lack of Compulsion and the tendency for one and two additional
factors to emerge in South African (Afrikaans) and Russian samples, respectively (see Table 26.1 ). A note of cau-
tion, however, concerns the fact that none of these studies has reported any form of reliability coefficients. In
summary, the congruence coefficients in the reviewed studies suggest that the CPS exhibits adequate structural
equivalence in cross-cultural comparisons, especially of Western samples.
Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI)
(Jackson, 1976, 1994 ).
The JPI contains 15 scales based on diverse research lines in personality and social psychology: Breadth of
Interest, Complexity, Innovation, Tolerance, Anxiety, Conformity, Interpersonal Affect, Self-Esteem, Social
Participation, Responsibility, Social Adroitness, Organization, Energy Level, Risk Taking, and Value Orthodoxy
(Paunonen & Jackson, 1996 ). The JPI has attracted relatively little attention for use in cross-cultural personality
research, although it fits within a broad framework of measures that have been found to support the Big Five
model. Bornstein et al. (2007) reported evidence for structural equivalence in a CFA analysis between individual-
ist (Belgium, Italy, Israel, and USA) and collectivist (Argentina, Japan, and Korea) countries (see Table 26.1 ), with
the possible exception of the Responsibility scale’s loading on Agreeableness, which was higher in collectivist cul-
tures.* The reviewed study ( Bornstein et al., 2007 ) suggests adequate structural equivalence of the JPI across clus-
ters of individualist and collectivist countries. More data are needed to ascertain the instrument’s equivalence in
comparisons of individual countries or in larger culture-level applications.
*Note:
Although the terms ‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ are somewhat artificial, this is the grouping that was used
in the reviewed study.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd Edition (MMPI-2)
(Butcher, 2004; Butcher et al., 1989 ).
Historically, the MMPI is the most highly cited personality assessment tool of all time. The MMPI-2 is the
revised version of the MMPI, and is greatly reduced in length, but still measures the subscales included in the
original MMPI instrument. The MMPI-2 carries over the psychiatric nosology of the 1950s. In order to link into
all the previously published work on the MMPI, the authors of the MMPI-2 instrument carried over the subscale
structure of the full inventory, despite some serious flaws in the classification of the original subscale dimensions.
References to publications dealing with the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2 can be found in Butcher
(2004) . The MMPI-2 is used in more than 40 countries, with more than 32 versions available ( Butcher, 2004 ).
However, there are hardly any studies directly examining issues of structural and measurement invariance across
cultures. Some studies employed subjective comparisons and correlations between factors, rather than (more rig-
orous) factor congruence coefficients (see Ben-Porath, 1990 ). The conventional methods of EFA, CFA, and DIF
analysis are not well applicable to the MMPI-2 which has a complex structure and substantial overlap of items
across scales. Hence, the efforts to ensure cross-cultural equivalence have focused on careful translation proce-
dures, bilingual test /C0retest studies, comparisons of mean profiles and item endorsement rates, and links to exter-
nal criteria ( Butcher, 2004 ; see, e.g., Dong & Church, 2003 ). The MMPI-2 is a firmly established inventory,
especially for use in clinical and other applied settings. However, the challenges in the assessment of its struc-
tural and metric equivalence pose a limitation on its usability for cross-cultural comparisons.765 INVENTORIES DERIVED EMPIRICALLY
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT