Cogent Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaps20

Structural validity and measurement invariance of

the short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10)
in selected countries

Renier Steyn & Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi

To cite this article: Renier Steyn & Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi (2022) Structural validity
and measurement invariance of the short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) in selected
countries, Cogent Psychology, 9:1, 2095035, DOI: 10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 01 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4319

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaps20
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Structural validity and measurement invariance
of the short version of the Big Five Inventory
(BFI-10) in selected countries
Received: 14 March 2022 Renier Steyn1 and Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi1*
Accepted: 22 June 2022
Abstract: We sought to determine the applicability and structural equivalence of
*Corresponding author: Takawira
Munyaradzi Ndofirepi, School of a personality instrument developed in western, educated, industrialised, rich and
Business Leadership, University of democratic (WEIRD) contexts in non-WEIRD environments. The data for this study
South Africa, Midrand, South Africa
E-mail: [email protected] came from interviews conducted during the sixth wave of the World Values Survey in
Reviewing editor: the Netherlands (N = 1902), Germany (N = 2046), Rwanda (N = 1527), and South Africa
Michael Daly, Maynooth University: (N = 3531). We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to assess
National University of Ireland
Maynooth, IRELAND structural validity and measurement invariance. The findings from the Big Five
Additional information is available at Inventory 10 (BFI-10) instrument did not support a perfect five-factor model as
the end of the article theorised by the Big Five Personality model across all countries, even though Germany
and the Netherlands obtained better As a result, the findings do not support structural
validity and do not demonstrate measurement invariance between WEIRD and non-
WEIRD countries. The findings indicate that while the concise BFI-10 instrument par­
tially replicates the structure of the B5P model in WEIRD countries, it falls short in non-
WEIRD countries. Users of the instrument should therefore proceed with caution in both
WEIRD and non-WEIRD contexts, bearing in mind the instrument’s structural flaws.

Subjects: Testing, Measurement and Assessment; Cross-Cultural/ Multicultural Testing and

Assessment; Psychometrics/ Testing & Measurement Theory

ABOUT THE AUTHORS PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Renier Steyn is a full professor of leadership and Personality tests are important for determining a
organisational behaviour at the Graduate School person’s strengths and shortcomings. The out­
of Business Leadership at the University of South comes of such examinations can be utilised to
Africa. He holds four doctorates from different make potentially life-changing career decisions.
South African universities. He conducts research However, failing to account for the fact that
on human resource management, workplace various cultural groups may attribute different
diversity, research design, psychometrics, super­ meanings to items in a rating instrument can
vision, and publication ethic lead to erroneous judgments about people’s
Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi is a postdoc­ personalities. As a result, it is critical to guarantee
toral researcher at the Graduate School of that the tests being utilised have been scientifi­
Business Leadership at the University of South cally proven to be valid and reliable. The study
Africa. He earned a Doctor of Business described in this article looks at the psychometric
Administration degree from South Africa's features of the BFI-10 test in diverse cultural
Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi Central University of Technology. His research settings. The findings show that structural valid­
interests include entrepreneurship, consumer ity exists in WEIRD countries but not in non-
and organisational behaviour. WEIRD countries. The findings show that practi­
tioners and researchers should proceed with
caution when employing purportedly globally
accepted assessment tools in contexts for which
they were not designed.

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

Keywords: Structural validity; measurement invariance; Big Five Inventory; cross-cultural

research

1. Background and introduction

Since Tupes & Christal’s, 1992/Tupes & Christal, 1992) naming, and Norman’s (1963) replication of
the five-factor Big Five Personality (B5P) traits model, it has become one of the central theoretical
lenses in personality-related research. The model is derived from the psycholexical methodological
approach to personality research, which emphasises the use of language to describe human
personality traits. The significance of the five-factor structure stems from its robust ability to
explain and predict individual differences regarding diverse topics such as mental health (Anglim
& Horwood, 2021; Sun et al., 2018), job satisfaction (Bui, 2017), academic performance (Trapmann
et al., 2007; Vedel, 2016), and work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Pletzer et al., 2019).

The five major dimensions of the B5P model are extraversion, agreeableness, openness, con­
scientiousness, and neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Costa and McCrae (1985) start by defining
extraversion, stating it to be a personality trait comprising energy, talkativeness, and assertive­
ness. Second, agreeableness is explained as the degree of friendliness, cooperation, and compas­
sion. Third, openness entails being perceptive and imaginative, in addition to possessing a diverse
range of interests. Fourth, conscientiousness refers to the human characteristics of orderliness and
thoroughness. Finally, neuroticism refers to an individual’s emotional stability and susceptibility to
negative emotions.

Research interest in the B5P has coincided with the proliferation of a variety of measurement
instruments claiming to assess the big five traits. Subjectively, the measures can be classified as
either long or short versions. Best known are Costa and McCrae’s (1992) 240-item Revised NEO
Personality Inventory, their 60-item NEO-Five Factor Inventory and their 44-item Big-Five
Inventory. Taylor and De Bruin (2006) developed a South African version of the test, the Basic
Traits Inventory (BTI), with 193 items. Short versions include Donnellan et al.’s (2006) 20-item
International Personality Item Pool–Five Factor Model (IPIP–FFM) and Gerlitz and Schupp’s (2005)
15-item Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-S). Used in the World Values Survey (sixth wave) was
Rammstedt and John’s (2007) 10-item Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-10).

While scholars of personality have agreed that personality traits generally fall within the five
categories proposed by the B5P (John, 2021), a methodological concern is whether respondents
react similarly to B5P items (Hahn et al., 2012). Within the South African context, Abrahams and
Mauer (1999) and McDonald (2011) demonstrated that individuals from different cultural back­
grounds may differ in their interpretations of the terminology used to categorise the big five
personality traits. Consistent with this, Grobler and De Beer (2015, p. 50) observe that when partici­
pants from diverse cultural backgrounds are included in studies, the likelihood of “measurement bias
from item interpretation differences is high, and empirical investigation of the items is important.”

This study examined the psychometric properties of the BFI-10 instrument, a brief instrument for
measuring the B5P factors, using data from the World Values Survey (WVS) of four culturally
diverse countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands, Rwanda, and South Africa. The first two
countries can be classified as western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD),
and the second two as non-WEIRD. The goal was to determine whether a five-structure model
similar to that proposed in the B5P is suited to application in both WEIRD and non-WEIRD
countries. Based on data from the sixth wave of the WVS, Ludeke and Larsen (2017) as well as
Simha and Parboteeah (2020) have raised concerns about the structural equivalence of the BFI-10
questionnaire. Ludeke and Larsen (2017) reported that when the questionnaire was used, indica­
tors from the same scale tended to correlate negatively. Additional testing is necessary, as
structural equivalence, which exists when a factor model is applicable across groups, is

Page 2 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

a necessary condition for accurate statistical analyses across cultural groups, and this requirement
must be objectively established (Fontaine et al., 2008).

Although Ludeke and Larsen (2017) found significant item-correlation issues with the Big Five
measures in the WVS data, their analysis ignores the pattern of loadings and factor structures that
emerge from the data in order to determine the aspects of the theorised model that are applicable to
different countries. To analyse the factor structures and patterns of factor loadings in four countries
with differing degrees of WEIRD-ness, we revisited the data for four countries with varying degrees of
WEIRD-ness. This study is expected to contribute to a better understanding of the Big Five model’s
applicability in various countries. Considering this, the objectives of the study are as follows.

1.1. Main objective

To examine the psychometric properties of the BFI-10 instrument, a brief instrument for measuring
the B5P factors, using data from the World Values Survey (WVS) of four culturally diverse countries,
namely Germany, the Netherlands, Rwanda, and South Africa.

1.2. Sub-objectives
-to determine whether a five-structure model similar to that proposed in the B5P is suited for
application in both WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries.

-to assess if the short version of the Big Five Inventory is measurement invariant in both WEIRD
and non-WEIRD countries.

2. Literature review
Personality tests, as well as career aptitude and competence assessments, are useful for ascertaining
people’s strengths and weaknesses. The results of such tests can be used as a basis for potentially
life-altering career decisions (Cascio & Aguinis, 2011). However, concerns have been raised about the
direct transfer of assessment tools developed in developed economies to disadvantaged and cultu­
rally distinct contexts without considering the instrument validity implications in the contrasting
contexts (Allik et al., 2017; Laajaj et al., 2019; Meiring et al., 2005). Inadequate consideration of the
fact that different cultural groups may ascribe different meanings to items in a rating instrument can
result in inaccurate judgements about individuals’ personalities (Fontaine et al., 2008). In South
Africa, the Employment Equity Act (No. 55 of 1988) offers a measure of protection in stipulating
that “psychometric testing and other similar assessments of an employee are prohibited unless the
test or test being used has been scientifically shown to be valid and reliable”.

3. Measurement bias and personality assessment

From the foregoing, it is evident that measurement bias (incomparability or inequivalence) is an
ever-present threat to the reliability and validity of personality scales in cross-cultural studies. In
the literature, three categories of measurement bias are identified, namely construct, method and
item bias (Berry et al., 2011). Construct bias occurs when a construct applies uniquely to
a particular cultural group, or when construct indicators cannot be used across different groups
(Fontaine et al., 2008). Method bias arises when supposed construct measures in an instrument do
not measure the construct they are supposed to measure (Meiring et al., 2005). This may be due to
translation errors, acquiescent responding, or group-influenced response patterns. Lastly, item bias
occurs when a construct indicator systematically demonstrates a higher or lower score than
expected with a particular group (F. Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). While measurement bias and
its consequence can emanate from issues such as different norms across different cultures,
problems with translation issues, and language issues (Nye et al., 2008; Sass, 2011; Saucier
et al., 2014; Thalmayer & Saucier, 2014; Thalmayer et al., 2020), a useful way to identify the
possibility of such a problem with an instrument is by evaluating its measurement invariance (Jak
et al., 2014). This concept is explained in the next subsection.

Page 3 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

3.1. The measurement invariance concept

Wang et al. (2018) define measurement invariance as a statistical property of a research instrument
that indicates whether it consistently measures a latent variable (construct) across groups of respon­
dents. Wu et al. (2007) provide a similar characterisation, stating that “measurement invariance
holds if and only if the probability of an observed score, given the true score and the group member­
ship, is equal to the probability of that given only the true score” (p. 2). Measurement invariance is
seen as a reliable indicator of the structural equivalence of a research instrument (F. J. Van de Vijver &
Poortinga, 2002). Selig et al. (2008) offer a comparable and perhaps the most complete definition,
stating that measurement invariance entails testing an evaluating tool to ascertain whether a latent
variable it seeks to test across population groups provides comparable equivalence information. In
other words, measurement invariance examines whether questionnaire items measuring a particular
construct, such as personality, are understood in the same way by different groups. Groups typically
used in invariance studies are age (Dong & Dumas, 2020), ethnic origin (Selig et al., 2008), socio­
economic status (Hughes et al., 2021), level of education (Patel et al., 2019), nation (F. J. Van de Vijver
& Poortinga, 2002) and occupation (Spurk et al., 2015).

The B5P assessment tools are examples of where measurement invariance testing is applicable,
with a number of studies having been done to test the measurement invariance of the B5P scales
(Chiorri et al., 2016; Laverdière et al., 2013; Schmitt et al., 2011). Measurement invariance is
applicable in the case of the B5P scales, as it employs multiple and conceptually related clusters
of items to assess the five personality characteristics. When measurement invariance holds,
respondents from diverse groups assign the same meaning to each of the five personality clusters,
allowing for the comparability of research results.

3.2. Assessing measurement invariance

The literature on measurement invariance has grown over the years. This is particularly evident
from a study of the articles in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology [0022–0221 (print); 1552–
5422 (web)]. Essentially, assessing measurement invariance is affirmed through a stepwise pro­
cess, using mainly confirmatory factor analysis, and follows a series of increasingly restrictive
equality constraints hypotheses (Berry et al., 2011). In this sub-section, we discuss the categories
of measurement invariance according to the different levels of model restriction. A literature
search identified anything from three to five distinct levels/types of measurement invariance.
Here the focus will be on the most comprehensive typology, which comprises conceptual, config­
ural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance.

● Conceptual invariance implies that the domain or trait should make sense in all the groups to
be compared (Berry et al., 2011). When a measured construct is specific to a particular
context, it would thus be impossible to find a comparable operational pattern of relationships
with other constructs across the groups (Fontaine et al., 2008). Although conceptual invar­
iance is based mainly on theoretical arguments, and although no statistical tests directly test
conceptual equivalence, Berry et al. (2011) state that evidence of configural invariance sup­
ports claims regarding conceptual equivalence.
● Configural (configurational) invariance is the fundamental type of invariance and is examined
first, before any other types of invariance are considered. Configural invariance (pattern
invariance) is confirmed when the number of factors and their loading patterns is consistent
across groups (Bialosiewicz et al., 2013). However, with configural invariance the strength of
the factor loadings may vary across population groups, and this does not guarantee structural
equivalence across respondents’ groups in a multigroup study, with additional tests being
required to confirm group comparability.
● Metric invariance (also known as weak invariance) is a type of measurement invariance that is
at a higher level than configural invariance. Unlike configural invariance, which requires only
a similar number of factors and an identical pattern of factor loadings to confirm measure­
ment invariance, metric invariance requires that the strength/size of the factor loadings be

Page 4 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

equal across population groups (Davidov et al., 2014). Where there is no metric invariance, any
comparison of constructs across groups should be performed with caution, as the constructs
themselves are not identical (Marsh et al., 2012).
● Scalar invariance is the most robust and desired level of measurement invariance, according
to many authors. Apart from the conditions of configural and metric invariance, the intercepts
of the scale items must be equivalent across respondent groups (Melipillán & Hu, 2020), and
only then will scalar invariance be indicated. When this level of invariance is achieved, mean­
ingful comparisons of constructs across groups of respondents are possible (Li et al., 2018;
Wang et al., 2018).
● The final level of measurement invariance, known as strict invariance, is concerned with the
equivalence of residual error between groups (Bialosiewicz et al., 2013). Unlike the previously
discussed levels of measurement invariance, strict invariance has two sublevels. The invar­
iance of factor variances is the first level of strict invariance, where the error variances of the
factors are equal across groups. The second level of strict invariance refers to the invariance of
the error terms of an indicator variable, indicating that the unique errors of the indicator
variable are equal across groups. Therefore, when you test for strict invariance, you are in
essence determining whether your residual error is comparable across administrations
(Bialosiewicz et al., 2013).

In measurement invariance studies, typically multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) is

performed in phases. The first phase tests for configural invariance, the second for metric invar­
iance, the third for scalar invariance, and the last for strict invariance. These phases are inextric­
ably linked, and researchers frequently abandon testing when any of these steps exhibits non-
invariance. While strict invariance is often tested for in standard syntaxes, most scholars agree
that scalar invariance is sufficient for drawing meaningful conclusions about group comparability
(Wang et al., 2016).

Confirmatory factor analysis indicators are used to determine an acceptable level of model fit
and, ultimately, measurement invariance. Among the most commonly used goodness-of-fit
indices are the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), as well as
the chi-square statistic (Bibi et al., 2020; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Kim, 2017; Kong, 2017; Sun,
2005). For each of the indicators, Hu and Bentler (1999) propose the following cut-off criteria: CFI
and TLI values of 0.9 or greater; RMSEA and SRMSR values of less than 0.08; and a chi-square
statistic that is not statistically significant. Last-mentioned is seldom met. Lavaan (R; R Core Team,
2020) can be used to test measurement invariance up to the level of strict invariance, and both
Svetina et al. (2020) and Steyn and De Bruin (2019) used Lavaan (R) to analyse their data, and
applied the abovementioned guidelines to interpret the findings of their respective studies. Once
measurement invariance is proven, group comparisons can be made to ascertain whether different
categories of respondents interpret the multiple scale items measuring a particular construct
similarly (Rhudy et al., 2020).

3.3. Analyses of abridged versions of B5P personality models

Although using detailed and often longer multi-item rating scales for B5P-related investigations is
ideal due to the increased content validity and reliability, time limitations sometimes make this
difficult (Rammstedt & John, 2007). Long questionnaires may tire participants, frustrate them, and
elicit inattentive responding. In the end, the veracity the instruments’ results may be jeopardised
(Soto & John, 2017). As a result, abridged instrument versions have evolved with time.

Although short questionnaires are convenient in psychological studies, reservations over them,
particularly the brief B5P scales, have been highlighted. For instance, it is claimed that lengthier
B5P tests seem to be more reflective of broad personality constructs and have better measuring
capacity than shorter ones (Langford, 2003). According to Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann Jr. (2003),

Page 5 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

abridged versions of the B5P show poorer psychometric qualities than the regular multi-item
measure. Similar instrument validity concerns were observed by Laajaj et al. (2019) whose
research based on a 15-item instrument could not accurately assess the target personality traits
and found that the instrument had low validity.

Several studies have found the Rammstedt and John’s (2007) 10-item BFI-10 scale to be
a reliable measure of extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism
in individuals (Balgiu, 2018; Guido et al., 2015. Other studies based on the WVS sixth wave (from
2010 to 2014), however, reveal the shortcomings of the BFI-10 scale’s psychometric qualities when
measuring the Big Five personality traits in cross-national scenarios (Ludeke & Larsen, 2017; Simha
& Parboteeah, 2017). The conclusions regarding the challenges of the BFI-10 instrument were
substantiated by findings from Chapman and Elliot’s (2019) study based on General Social Survey
data, which revealed odd results that did not replicate those of original big five instruments. Given
the foregoing, the B5P model’s universal application becomes problematic. Furthermore, the 10-
item measure’s persistent use in cross-cultural research without a consensus on its generalisability
seems contentious. As a result, the literature supports the necessity for additional research into
the structural validity of the WVS’s 10-item measure.

4. Method
In this section the design, sampling, research instrument used, procedure, statistical analyses and
ethical concerns are discussed.

4.1. Design
This study is based on the analysis of cross-sectional data on the B5P model collected during the
World Values Survey (sixth wave) in Germany, the Netherlands, Rwanda, and South Africa. The
data was quantitative in nature and collected by means of Rammstedt and John’s (2007) 10-item
Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-10). The purpose of the analysis was either to confirm or refute
the structural validity of the BFI-10 instrument using data from selected WEIRD and non-WEIRD
nations. We acknowledge that the study’s concentration on a small number of nations and a single
dataset limits the universal applicability of its findings.

4.2. Sampling
The WVS website provides a detailed description of how individuals were sampled across countries
(Inglehart et al., 2014), with every effort being made to sample individuals randomly per country.

The data from four countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands, Rwanda, and South Africa, was
used in the study. The selection of countries for analysis was by no means arbitrary. As the focus of
the study was on the B5P construct, and as this measure was only used in the sixth wave, the
countries were selected from those which completed the questionnaires during that period. We
chose only two Western European countries to represent WEIRD since their WVS data was found
by Ludeke and Larsen (2017) to reflect the Big Five Model’s five-factor structure. The inclusion of
Rwanda and South Africa in the non-WEIRD category was motivated by the desire to include
contrasting comparisons. The demographics of Rwandan respondents were substantially skewed
toward non-WEIRD, but those of South African respondents were mixed, allowing for a good
comparison of countries with diverse characteristics.

4.3. Measurement instrument

The BFI-10 designed by Rammstedt and John (2007) was used in the WVS to collect data on the
theorised B5P constructs, namely extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and
neuroticism. The BFI-10 items are presented as five affirming statements (e.g., “I see myself as
someone who is outgoing, sociable”) and five disaffirm statements (e.g., “I see myself as someone
who is reserved”), two statements per personality dimension. Respondents were required to rate
the statements on a Likert scale with five response categories ranging from 1 = strongly disagree

Page 6 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

Table 1. B5P-traits and their quantification

Items: I see myself as B5P traits Reverse coding
someone who . . .
. . . is reserved Extraversion Yes
. . . is generally trusting Agreeableness No
. . . tends to be lazy Conscientiousness Yes
. . . is relaxed, handles stress well Neuroticism No
. . . has few artistic interests Openness Yes
. . . is outgoing, sociable Extraversion No
. . . tends to find fault with others Agreeableness Yes
. . . does a thorough job Conscientiousness No
. . . gets nervous easily Neuroticism Yes
. . . has an active imagination Openness No

Table 2. Model fit cut-off criteria

Measure Terrible Acceptable Excellent
CMIN/DF >5 >3 >1
P-value 0.05< >0.05
CFI <0.90 <0.95 >0.95
RMSEA >0.08 >0.06 <0.06
PClose <0.01 <0.05 >0.05
Source: Hu and Bentler (1999).

to 5 = strongly agree. The table below summarises the questionnaire items and how they were
classified in the survey.

It can be observed from Table 1 that two items each, one positively worded and the other
negatively worded, represent each of the five traits of the B5P-model.

Literature on the reliability and validity of the BFI-10 paints a mixed picture. Studies by
Rammstedt and John (2007), Carciofo et al. (2016), Rammstedt and Krebs (2007), and Erdle and
Rushton (2011) yielded respectable reliability coefficients for each of the five constructs in the five-
factor model. Also, studies by Rammstedt and John (2007), Balgiu (2018), and Guido et al. (2015)
yielded data which supported a five-factor model as was theorised in the B5F-model.
Notwithstanding the preceding findings, later research by Ludeke and Larsen (2017) disconfirmed
positive reliability findings and the validity of the five-factor hypothesis.

4.4. Procedure
The primary aim of the study was to test the structural validity of the B5P-model across countries,
some of which were WEIRD, and others non-WEIRD. As stated, data from the WVS was used,
specifically the SPSS file available on the WVS website (https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp).

As the aim of the study was to assess the fit of the B5P-model with data from four countries,
exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were first performed, to visually assess whether the data
fitted the B5P-model in each country. First, following Kaiser’s rule regarding eigenvalues, the
natural fit of the data was established. Then, using the SPSS software (IBM Corp, 2020), the
data was “forced” into a five-factor solution, again one country at a time. As a final prepara­
tion before entering into multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA), confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) were performed per country. Given the aforementioned results, multi-group

Page 7 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) were envisaged as a means to test for the levels of
measurement invariance.

4.5. Statistical analyses

It was planned that exploratory factor analyses (EFA), confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and multi-
group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) were to be used successively to assess the levels of
measurement invariance. With CFA, the number of factors and their loading patterns (Bialosiewicz
et al., 2013) were considered, while for CFA and MGCFA the guidelines below were used. Table 2
presents the criteria for evaluating the CFA results.

4.6. Ethical considerations

The use of the WVS data was open to all interested parties, subject to referencing the
database in the reference list (see, Inglehart et al., 2014). No data specific to this research
was collected.

5. Results
Data for the sixth wave of the WVS was collected in Germany (2013), the Netherlands (2012),
Rwanda (2012), and South Africa (2013). In all, 8724 responses were collected: 2010 from
Germany, 1739 from the Netherlands, 1527 from Rwanda, and 3448 from South Africa.

Table 3. Demographic variables and WEIRD classification

Germany Nether-lands Rwanda South Africa
Sex Men 48.9 46.5 49.6 48.3
Women 51.1 53.5 50.4 51.7
Age Mean 49.63 53.34 33.77 37.72
Std. Dev. 17.94 16.44 11.23 15.67
b d
W— White 87.1 75.7 Low 12.1
a
Westernised
c d
Black .7 1.3 High 76.5
e
E—Educated Graduated 11.7 11.5 7.7 4.2
f
I— PC use 58.7 80.5 12.7 13.7
Industrialised
g
R—Rich Savings 57.0 50.5 30.6 19.6
h
D—Democratic Perceived 50.2 47.5 42.9 36.6
a
Germany and the Netherlands are countries in Europe, and can therefore be classified as Western, whilst Rwanda
and South Africa are African countries. However, ethnicity is also used as an indicator of being defined as either
Western or non-Western. This aspect is reported here as well, with “white” interpreted as Western, and “black” as
non-Western.
b
Listed as Caucasian white in Germany and the Netherlands, and as white in South Africa.
c
Listed as African in Germany, black Negro in the Netherlands, and black in South Africa.
d
No questions on ethnic groups were posed to the Rwandan sample. However, when considering V247, namely “What
language do you speak at home”, 97.6% of respondents indicated Kinyarwanda and 0.8% Swahili, with 0.1%
indicating English and 1.5% French. It would be a reasonable assumption that most respondents in the Rwandan
sample would have been classified as African, and therefore as non-Western.
e
V248 was used to create the variable “Educated”. Presented here is the percentage of respondents who indicated
that they had completed a university degree.
f
V225 was used to create the ”Industrialised” variable. The percentage of respondents who indicated that they use
their personal computer frequently, rather than occasionally or seldom, is presented here.
g
V141 was used to create the “Rich” variable. The percentage of respondents who provided answers to 8, 9 and 10 is
relevant in this case.
h
V237 was used to create the “Democratic” variable. Presented here is the percentage of respondents who stated
that they had sufficient savings.

Page 8 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

5.1. Demographic variables and WEIRD classification

In the table below, demographic data are presented per country. Apart from the customary
reported data on age and sex, the report also includes WEIRD data per country. This was done
because frequent criticism is levelled against psychometric instruments developed from the
perspective of WEIRD societies (Doğruyol et al., 2019; Laajaj et al., 2019).

From Table 3 it can be observed that men are marginally underrepresented, but this applies
across all the groups. Noteworthy are the differences in average age between the European and
the African sample, namely 15 years, which is about the same as the standard deviation in the
groups. This equates to a large effect size and a practically significant difference on age.

The data captured in Table 3 affirms that the European countries can be classified as WEIRD and
the African countries as non-WEIRD. Stated differently, the European countries scored higher on all
the WVS’s proxies of WEIRD than the African countries did.

5.2. Statistics testing for measurement invariance

First the data from Germany was analysed using EFA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of
sampling adequacy was .617 for the German sample, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS)
approximated chi-square was 1939.332 (df = 45), which was statistically significant (p < .001)
(N = 2046). Kaiser’s criterion of retaining factors with eigenvalues greater than one was used first,
and resulted in the retention of four factors, accounting for 59.414 per cent of the variance. When
the data was “forced” into a five-factor solution, the declared variance was 68.875 per cent. These
findings are summarised in Table 4.

What can be observed in Table 4 is that the a priori model yielded the same number of factors
and patterns of loadings as the theorised model. The loadings also fitted the positive–negative
alternation, as was expected given the reverse wording of every other item. However, for compo­
nent five (A(R)), the loading weight for that scale item was lower than what was theoretically
expected. The model based on eigenvalues exposed four factors, where the first factor was more
complex, but with the remaining three following the B5P conceptualisation.

The data for the Netherlands was analysed next. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was
.526 for the Netherlands sample, and the BTS approximated chi-square was 1510.445 (df = 45),

Table 4. Germany: EFA with components (a priori) and component (by eigenvalues greater
than 1)
G Five components (a priori) Component with eigenvalues >1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 -
E(R) −.769 .091 −.042 .041 .157 −.789 −.035 .039 −.017 -
A −.003 −.085 .008 −.09 .878 −.123 .342 .416 .215 -
C(R) −.09 −.014 −.004 .872 .025 −.167 .131 −.794 .100 -
N −.073 −.713 .12 .233 .33 −.100 .801 −.088 .164 -
O(R) .026 .165 −.815 .177 .126 −.032 −.081 −.126 −.709 -
E .752 −.128 .185 −.083 .187 .728 .17 .132 .233 -
A(R) .731 .176 −.011 .097 −.047 .707 −.164 −.125 .031 -
C −.15 −.042 .138 −.603 .444 −.158 .098 .731 .166 -
N(R) −.08 .853 .028 .164 .086 −.153 −.757 −.116 .137 -
O .221 .107 .748 .093 .199 .186 −.038 −.007 .794 -
Note: G = Germany, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N = Neuroticism, O = Openness,
R = Reverse coding. Also, in bold in the table are the two highest loadings per component, and “shadowed” are the
a priori loadings, as per the B5P model, where the highest loading was used as a marker item.

Page 9 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

Table 5. Netherlands: EFA with components (a priori) and component (by eigenvalues greater
than 1)
N Five components (a priori) Component with eigenvalues >1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
E(R) .109 .117 −.042 −.774 .296 .109 .117 −.042 −.774 .296
A −.120 −.090 −.022 .008 .785 −.120 −.090 −.022 .008 .785
C(R) .138 −.059 .825 −.134 .138 .138 −.059 .825 −.134 .138
N −.781 .065 .045 .136 .297 −.781 .065 .045 .136 .297
O(R) .050 .846 .028 .017 .074 .050 .846 .028 .017 .074
E −.018 −.049 −.152 .736 .327 −.018 −.049 −.152 .736 .327
A(R) .461 .241 .345 .297 .152 .461 .241 .345 .297 .152
C .090 .080 −.673 −.043 .407 .090 .080 −.673 −.043 .407
N(R) .853 −.050 .062 −.055 .047 .853 −.050 .062 −.055 .047
O .113 −.701 .140 .172 .200 .113 −.701 .14 .172 .200
Note: N = Netherlands, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N = Neuroticism, O = Openness,
R = Reverse coding. Also, in bold in the table are the two highest loadings per component, and “shadowed” are the
a priori loadings, as per the B5P model, where the highest loading was used as a marker item.

Table 6. Rwanda: EFA with components (a priori) and component (by eigenvalues greater
than 1)
R Five components (a priori) Component with eigenvalues >1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 -
E(R) .261 .819 .132 .054 −.100 .323 .251 .753 .001 -
A −.058 .869 .039 .009 .218 −.036 .038 .883 .129 -
C(R) −.097 .119 .834 .015 .135 −.237 .718 .174 .097
N .187 .211 .034 .272 .808 .047 −.169 .352 .683 -
O(R) .010 −.008 .100 .927 .098 .071 .259 −.132 .825 -
E .462 .202 −.376 .482 .207 .523 −.273 .148 .526 -
A(R) .421 .322 .320 .326 −.534 .528 .593 .136 −.008 -
C .824 .107 .008 .072 −.062 .816 .083 .073 .054 -
N(R) .315 .067 .665 .075 −.277 .272 .732 .008 −.071 -
O .843 .032 .093 .006 .119 .770 .075 .058 .102 -
Note: R = Rwanda, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N = Neuroticism, O = Openness,
R = Reverse coding. Also, in bold in the table are the two highest loadings per component, and “shadowed” are the
a priori loadings, as per the B5P model, where the highest loading was used as a marker item.

which was statistically significant (p < .001) (N = 1902). When Kaiser’s criterion of retaining factors
with eigenvalues greater than one was applied, five factors were retained, accounting for
66.859 per cent of variance. These findings are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 shows that, as was the case with the German sample, the a priori model had five factors
with patterns of loadings reflecting those theorised in the B5P model. However, for component five
(A(R)), the loading weight of the scale items was lower than expected. This is the same item for
which loading was not satisfactory in the German sample. Worse in the case of the Netherlands
was that the loading of the items was not signed contrary to that of the other marker variable.
When the model was based on eigenvalues, five factors were found, which implies that the
“forced” and the eigenvalue models were identical, both providing support to the B5P
conceptualisation.

Page 10 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

Table 7. South Africa: EFA with components (a priori) and component (by eigenvalues greater
than 1)
p Five components (a priori) Component with eigenvalues >1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 - - -
E(R) .183 .142 .127 .892 .033 .632 .128 - - -
A −.081 .306 .28 .683 .237 .778 −.024 - - -
C(R) .846 −.111 .145 .018 .052 −.062 .824 - - -
N .104 .28 .846 .159 .048 .683 .188 - - -
O(R) .196 .13 .723 .221 .326 .639 .34 - - -
E .096 .261 .25 .133 .825 .581 .364 - - -
A(R) .627 .135 .044 .114 .564 .256 .764 - - -
C −.004 .836 .189 .189 .171 .733 .073 - - -
N(R) .699 .479 .123 .123 .063 .345 .693 - - -
O .164 .626 .295 .271 .245 .715 .253 - - -
Note: S = South Africa, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N = Neuroticism, O = Openness,
R = Reverse coding. Also, in bold in the table are the two highest loadings per component, and “shadowed” are the
a priori loadings, as per the B5P model, where the highest loading was used as a marker item.

The data for Rwanda was analysed next. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .611 for
the Rwanda sample, and the BTS estimated chi-square was 1693.435 (df = 45), which was
statistically significant (p < .001) (N = 1527). When Kaiser’s criterion for maintaining variables
with eigenvalues greater than one was applied, four factors were maintained, accounting for
61.395 per cent of the variance. The total variance explained was 82.646 per cent when “forcing”
the data into the five-factor solution. Table 6 summarises these findings.

What can be observed is that the number of factors and patterns of loadings on the factor
components based on the eigenvalues greater than one do not match those theorised in the B5P
model. The indicator items loaded haphazardly across the factors such that no definite personality
construct in line with the B5P model could be identified. Also, when the data was “forced” into the
five-factor solution, the patterns so pronounced in the WEIRD-countries were absent.

Lastly, data for South Africa was analysed. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy for the
South African sample was .872, and the BTS approximate chi-square was 1057.903 (df = 45), which
was statistically significant (p < .001) (N = 3531). When Kaiser’s criterion of retaining factors with
eigenvalues greater than one was applied, two factors were retained, accounting for
55.644 per cent of the variance. When the data was “forced” into the five-factor solution, the
declared variance was 76.606 per cent. These findings are shown in Table 7.

Only two components were derived based on the strategy of selecting eigenvalues greater than
one. As shown in Table 7, the patterns of the item loadings do not reflect any particular personality
construct as proposed in the five-factor model. Also, when considering the forced five-factor
solution, none of the patterns typical of B5P, as observed in the samples from Germany and the
Netherlands, were observed.

The results presented in Tables 4 to 8 show compelling evidence that the BFI-10 functions at
different levels of effectiveness: in the WEIRD countries it follows the B5P conceptualisation, while
this does not occur in the non-WEIRD countries.

The aforementioned conclusion is based on exploratory factor analyses (EFA), and the inter­
pretation involved some subjectivity. To quantify these tentative conclusions, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate for structural validity in a thorough and comprehensive

Page 11 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

Table 8. CFA model fit measures for four countries

Measure Threshold South Africa Rwanda Nether-lands Germany
Chi-square, <0.05 Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square
degrees of = 974.554, = 947.158, = 284.189, = 474.078,
freedom, df = 34, df = 25, df = 25, df = 26,
p-value p-value = 0.000 p-value = 0.000 p-value = 0.000 p-value = 0.000
CMIN/DF 1< and >3 ∞ ∞ NaN NaN
CFI >.95 .817 .684 .831 .789
RMSEA <.06 .122 .155 .074 .092
PClose >.05 0 0 0 0
Note: ∞ = infinity; NaN = Not a Number

manner, again per country. Five factors were postulated, with two items loading on each factor, as
explained in Table 1. Hu and Bentler’s (1999) cut-off criteria for fit indices, as presented in Table 3,
were applied. The test results for each of the four countries are presented in Table 8.

According to the cut-off criteria, the findings revealed a poor fit across all counties, including
those which had comparatively better patterns of loadings in EFA. These results were surprising, to
say the least, and will be discussed in the discussion below.

6. Discussion
The overall aim of the study was to establish the structural validity and measurement of variance
of the BFI-10 instrument in WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries. The novelty of the study lies in its
attempt to compare and contrast the psychometric properties of the BFI-10 instrument in the
culturally different environments.

The literature review focused on the B5P conceptualisation, as well as the concept of measure­
ment invariance and the need to test for it. It was revealed that although the B5P conceptualisa­
tion is well accepted, it is not without critique, particularly in terms of its use as a universal theory
of personality. With regard to measurement invariance, the concept, as well as how it should be
assessed, was considered.

The data revealed that the countries included in the study were clearly differentiable based on the
WEIRD concept, with the two Western-European counties being classified as WEIRD, and the two from
sub-Saharan Africa as non-WEIRD. Another characteristic which differentiated the countries was mean
age, which was substantially higher in the WEIRD countries. It may well be asked whether the acronym
WEIRDO, in which O stands for old, might perhaps be applicable. The implications of including older
respondents from the WEIRD group in the analyses of personality can only be speculated on. Lang et al.
(2011) hypothesised that the mental strain associated with personality studies could preclude elderly
respondents from providing valid self-report responses, thereby decreasing the likelihood of deriving
a compact five-factor model. They did note, however, that more educated elderly people are likely to
cope better with mental strain than less educated elderly people, and thus provide more consistent
item responses during surveys. Given that B5P conceptualisation is based largely on trait theory, the
fact that data was extracted from a more mature sample may be irrelevant.

The result of the EFA suggests a partially valid model in the WEIRD contexts and an invalid one
in the non-WEIRD contexts (see, Tables 4 to 7). The results reveal that, at a configural level of
measurement invariance, WEIRD countries met the criteria (to a large degree), but that the non-
WEIRD data did not support the proposed theoretical structure at all.

Page 12 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

These results underscore the psychometric difficulties relating to comparison of personality

score levels prevalent in cross-cultural studies. This corroborates Hofstede and McCrae’s (2004)
affirmation that perception of personality dimensions is not divorced from cultural context. Hence,
researchers should not assume that personality instruments are equally valid in settings other
than those in which they were developed.

Even though the outcome of the EFA for the WEIRD countries suggested a factor structure
almost equivalent to the theorised model, it still fell short of the ideal. When a more compre­
hensive statistic is used to test for configural fit, the model fit indicators (CFI and RMSEA)
reflected a poor model fit for all four countries. These results were surprising, as the EFA results
were quite satisfactory for Germany and the Netherlands. Given the CFA results, it should be
stated that at the most basic form of measurement invariance, that is, configural invariance,
the BFI-10 failed.

All further tests of measurement invariance were abandoned, as testing for measurement
invariance is a sequential process, where testing for higher levels of invariance is done only once
certain milestones have been achieved (Berry et al., 2011). Thus, no tests were performed on
configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance.

Other studies, notably those of Ludeke and Larsen (2017)have since shown the measurement
limitations of using the BFI-10 instrument. However, Ludeke and Larsen (2017) found it to be
a reliable and valid tool in Germany and the Netherlands (the WEIRD countries). Previous studies
within the WVS domain (Balgiu, 2018; Rammstedt & John, 2007) found satisfactory levels of struc­
tural validity and measurement invariance. Several studies outside the WVS domain have found the
BFI-10 to be a reliable, valid, convenient and useful tool for gauging self-reported personality traits
(Erdle & Rushton, 2011; Guido et al., 2015; Rammstedt & Krebs, 2007).

These results affirm the problematic nature of the BFI-10 tool, and this may be the reason why
its use in the WVS has since been discontinued, and it does not appear in the WVS seventh wave
questionnaire. Notwithstanding its limitations identified in the WVS sixth wave data, the BFI-10
remains a useful instrument for researchers, perhaps particularly so in WEIRD environments. Thus,
it is recommended that the psychometric properties of even well-established personality rating
tools need to be examined, particularly if they are used in environments foreign to where they
were developed. There is also evidence that disparities in schooling affect structural validity even
within a country (Lang et al., 2001; Rammstedt et al., 2010). As a result, the findings may be
attributed less to WEIRD vs. non-Weird and more to educational differences. Future studies should
probe further the possible influence of the variations in respondents’ levels of education and other
demographic variables on the structural validity of the BFI-10 instrument.

7. Conclusion
The article discusses the importance of assessing the psychometric properties of well-established
personality rating instruments when they are used across diverse cultural groups. Preliminary
results (using EFA) indicate that the BFI-10 instrument has configural structural validity and
measurement invariance in WEIRD countries, but not in non-WEIRD countries. Further investiga­
tions (using CFA) revealed that not even in WEIRD countries was the BF-10 structurally valid. If
nothing else, this indicates the importance of using multiple statistical techniques to gain informa­
tion on a specific question. The results suggest that practitioners and researchers should adopt
a cautious approach when applying ostensibly globally accepted tools in contexts for which they
were not designed, and that, particularly as research findings concerning the BFI-10 are so
contradictory, further research on this instrument be conducted.

Lastly, it seems that the WVS data supported the WEIRD categorisation of countries, even
though the results did not fit the theorised factor structure perfectly. It was noted that

Page 13 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

respondents in these countries were also older than those in non-WEIRD countries, opening up the
opportunity for further studies on whether an O (for old) can be added to the acronym.

Funding Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
the work featured in this article. Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
Bui, H. T. (2017). Big Five personality traits and job satis­
Author details faction: Evidence from a national sample. Journal of
Renier Steyn1 General Management, 42(3), 21–23. https://doi.org/
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2446-3662 10.1177/0306307016687990
Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi1 Carciofo, R., Yang, J., Song, N., Du, F., Zhang, K., & Qiu, J.
E-mail: [email protected] (2016). Psychometric evaluation of Chinese-language
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7409-2241 44-item and 10-item Big Five personality inventories,
1
School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa, including correlations with chronotype, mindfulness
Midrand, South Africa. and mind wandering. PloS One, 11(2), e0149963.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149963
Disclosure statement Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Applied psychology in
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). human resource management talent management.
Pearson.
Data availability statement Chapman, B. P., & Elliot, A. J. (2019). Brief report: How
The data that support the findings of this study are openly short is too short?. Journal of Health Psychology, 24
available on the following website: http://www.worldva (11), 1568–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/
luessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp 1359105317720819
Chiorri, C., Marsh, H. W., Ubbiali, A., & Donati, D. (2016).
Citation information Testing the factor structure and measurement
Cite this article as: Structural validity and measurement invariance across gender of the Big Five Inventory
invariance of the short version of the Big Five Inventory through exploratory structural equation modelling.
(BFI-10) in selected countries, Renier Steyn & Takawira Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 88–99.
Munyaradzi Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1035381
2095035. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality
inventory manual. Psychological Assessment
References Resources.
Abrahams, F., & Mauer, K. F. (1999). The comparability of Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO
the constructs of the 16PF in the South African Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
context. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25, 53–59. Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v25i1.679 Psychological Assessment Resources.
Allik, J., Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Rossier, J., Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., &
Hřebíčková, M., De Fruyt, F., Realo, A., & McCrae, R. R. Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in
(2017). Mean profiles of the NEO personality cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology,
inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 40(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc
402–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/ -071913-043137
0022022117692100 Doğruyol, B., Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2019). The five-factor
Anglim, J., & Horwood, S. (2021). Effect of the COVID-19 model of the moral foundations theory is stable
pandemic and Big Five personality on subjective and across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures. Personality
psychological well-being. Social Psychological and and Individual Differences, 1511, 109547. https://doi.
Personality Science, 12(8), 1527–1537. https://doi.org/ org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109547
10.1177/1948550620983047 Dong, Y., & Dumas, D. (2020). Are personality measures
Balgiu, B. A. (2018). The psychometric properties of the valid for different populations? A systematic review
Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10) including correlations of measurement invariance across cultures, gender,
with subjective and psychological well-being. Global and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 160
Journal of Psychology Research: New Trends and (1), 109956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.
Issues, 8(2), 61–69. 109956
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E.
personality dimensions and job performance: (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective mea­
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), sures of the Big Five factors of personality.
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://
tb00688.x doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Elliot A J and Chapman B P. (2016). Socioeconomic status,
Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psy­ psychological resources, and inflammatory markers:
chology: Research and applications (3rd ed.). Results from the MIDUS study. Health Psychology, 35
Cambridge University Press. (11), 1205–1213. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Bialosiewicz, S., Murphy, K., & Berry, T. (2013). An intro­ hea0000392
duction to measurement invariance testing: Resource Employment Equity Act [No. 55 of 1998]. https://www.
packet for participants. American Evaluation labour.gov.za/DocumentCenter/Acts/Employment%
Association. 20Equity/Act%20-%20Employment%20Equity%
Bibi, A., Lin, M., Zhang, X. C., & Margraf, J. (2020). 201998.pdf Retrieved 22 November 2021, from
Psychometric properties and measurement invar­ Erdle, S., & Rushton, J. P. (2011). Does self-esteem or
iance of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS- social desirability account for a general factor of
21) across cultures. International Journal of personality (GFP) in the Big Five? Personality and
Psychology, 55(6), 916–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Individual Differences, 50(7), 1152–1154. https://doi.
ijop.12671 org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.038

Page 14 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

Fontaine, J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Individual Differences, 116(1), 29–31. https://doi.org/
Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the 10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.025
values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sam­ Laajaj, R., Macours, K., Hernandez, D. A. P., Arias, O.,
pling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal Gosling, S. D., Potter, J., Rubio-Codina, M., & Vakis, R.
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(4), 345–365. https:// (2019). Challenges to capture the Big Five personality
doi.org/10.1177/0022022108318112 traits in non-WEIRD populations. Science Advances, 5
Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five (7), eaaw5226. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
-basierten persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. DIW. aaw5226
Gosling S D, Rentfrow P J and Swann W B. (2003). A very Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte
brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mit­
10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 telalten und alten Erwachsenen. Diagnostica, 47(3),
Grobler, S., & De Beer, M. (2015). Psychometric evaluation 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.47.3.
of the basic traits inventory in the multilingual South 111
African environment. Journal of Psychology in Africa, Lang, F. R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G.
25(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237. (2011). Short assessment of the Big Five: Robust
2014.997033 across survey methods except telephone
Guido, G., Peluso, A. M., Capestro, M., & Miglietta, M. interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(2),
(2015). An Italian version of the 10-item Big Five 548–567. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z
Inventory: An application to hedonic and utilitarian Laverdière, O., Morin, A. J., & St-Hilaire, F. (2013). Factor
shopping values. Personality and Individual structure and measurement invariance of a short
Differences, 76 1 , 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. measure of the Big Five personality traits. Personality
paid.2014.11.053 and Individual Differences, 55(7), 739–743. https://
Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.008
measurements of personality – Validity and reliability Li, M., Wang, M., Shou, Y., Zhong, C., Ren, F., Zhang, X., &
of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Yang, W. (2018). Psychometric Properties and
Research in Personality, 46(3), 355–359. https://doi.org/ Measurement Invariance of the Brief Symptom
10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008 Inventory-18 Among Chinese Insurance Employees.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and cul­ Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/
ture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of fpsyg.2018.00519
culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88. https:// Ludeke, S. G., & Larsen, E. G. (2017). Problems with the Big
doi.org/10.1177/1069397103259443 Five assessment in the world values survey.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit Personality and Individual Differences, 112(1),
indexes in covariance structure analysis: 103–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.042
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2012).
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Measurement invariance of Big-Five factors over the
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity,
10705519909540118 maturity, and La Dolce Vita effects. Developmental
Hughes, B. T., Costello, C. K., Pearman, J., Razavi, P., Psychology, 49(6), 1194–1218. Advance online pub­
Bedford-Petersen, C., Ludwig, R. M., & Srivastava, S. lication. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026913
(2021). The Big Five across socioeconomic status: McDonald, E. (2011). Comparing a native English-speaking
Measurement invariance, relationships, and age group’s and non-native English-speaking group’s
trends. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1). University of understanding of the vocabulary used in the 16PF5.
Chicago Press. https://psyarxiv.com/wkhfx/down [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. University of South
load?format=pdf Africa.
IBM Corp. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version Meiring, D., Van de Vijver, A. J. R., Rothmann, S., &
27.0. Barrick, M. R. (2005). Construct, item and method
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., bias of cognitive and personality tests in South
Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(1), 1–8.
Ponarin, E., Puranen, B. (eds.). (2014). World values https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v31i1.182
survey: Round six – country-pooled datafile version. JD Melipillán, E. R., & Hu, M. (2020). Measurement invariance
Systems Institute. www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ across groups. SAGE.
WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of
Jak, S., Oort, F. J., & Dolan, C. V. (2014). Measurement bias personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in
in multilevel data. Structural Equation Modeling: peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 31–39. https://doi. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574–686.
org/10.1080/10705511.2014.856694 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291
John, O. P. (2021). History, measurement, and conceptual Nye, C. D., Roberts, B. W., Saucier, G., & Zhou, X. (2008).
elaboration of the Big Five trait taxonomy: The Testing the measurement equivalence of personality
paradigm matures. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins adjective items across cultures. Journal of Research
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research in Personality, 42(6), 1524–1536. https://doi.org/10.
(pp. 35–82). Guilford Press. 1016/j.jrp.2008.07.004
Kim, S. (2017). Developing an item pool and testing Patel, J. S., Oh, Y., Rand, K. L., Wu, W., Cyders, M. A.,
measurement invariance for measuring public ser­ Kroenke, K., & Stewart, J. C. (2019). Measurement
vice motivation in Korea. International Review of invariance of the patient health questionnaire-9
Public Administration, 22(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/ (PHQ-9) depression screener in US adults across sex,
10.1080/12294659.2017.1327113 race/ethnicity, and education level: Nhanes 2005–
Kong, F. (2017). The validity of the Wong and Law 2016. Depression and Anxiety, 36(9), 813–823.
Emotional Intelligence Scale in a Chinese sample: https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22940
Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & De
differences across gender and age. Personality and Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations

Page 15 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

between personality and workplace deviance: Big of Career Assessment, 23(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/
Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10.1177/1069072714535019
112(1), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019. Steyn, R., & De Bruin, G. (2019). The structural validity of
04.004 the innovative work behaviour questionnaire:
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for Comparing competing factorial models. The Southern
statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Business Management, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/
Rammstedt, B., & Krebs, D. (2007). Does response scale 10.4102/sajesbm.v11i1.291
format affect the answering of personality scales? Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory
Assessing the Big Five dimensions of personality with factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in
different response scales in a dependent sample. Counseling and Development, 37(4), 240–256. https://
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909764
32–38. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.32 Sun, J., Kaufman, S. B., & Smillie, L. D. (2018). Unique
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring person­ associations between Big Five personality aspects
ality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of and multiple dimensions of well-being. Journal of
the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal Personality, 86(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/
of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi. jopy.12301
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001 Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2020). Multiple-
Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L. R., & Borg, I. (2010). The group invariance with categorical outcomes using
measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers updated guidelines: An illustration using M plus and
for persons with different levels of education. Journal the Lavaan/SEM tools packages. Structural Equation
of Research in Personality, 44(1), 53–61. https://doi. Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 111–130.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
Rhudy, J. L., Arnau, R. C., Huber, F. A., Lannon, E. W., Taylor, N., & De Bruin, G. P. (2006). Basic traits inventory.
Kuhn, B. L., Palit, S., Payne, M. F., Sturycz, C. A., Jopie van Rooyen.
Hellman, N., Guereca, Y. M., Toledo, T. A., & Thalmayer, A. G., & Saucier, G. (2014). The questionnaire
Shadlow, J. O. (2020). Examining configural, metric, big six in 26 nations: Developing cross-culturally
and scalar invariance of the pain catastrophizing applicable big six, big five and big two inventories.
scale in native American and non-Hispanic White European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 482–496.
adults in the Oklahoma study of Native American https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1969
pain risk (OK-SNAP). Journal of Pain Research, 13(1), Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., Ole-Kotikash, L., & Payne, D.
961. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S242126 (2020). Personality structure in east and West Africa:
Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and Lexical studies of personality in Maa and Supyire-Senufo.
comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5),
factor analysis framework. Journal of 1132. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000264
Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 347–363. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J. O. W., & Schuler, H. (2007).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661 Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five
Saucier, G., Thalmayer, A. G., Payne, D. L., Carlson, R., and academic success at university. Zeitschrift Für
Sanogo, L., Ole-Kotikash, L., Church, A. T., Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–151.
Katigbak, M. S., Somer, O., Szarota, P., Szirmák, Z., & https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132
Zhou, X. (2014). A basic bivariate structure of per­ Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. Recurrent personality factors
sonality attributes evident across nine languages. based on trait ratings. (1992). Journal of Personality,
Journal of Personality, 82(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10. 60(2), 225–251. Original work published 1961.
1111/jopy.12028 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x
Schmitt, N., Golubovich, J., & Leong, F. T. (2011). Impact of Van de Vijver, F. J., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural
measurement invariance on construct correlations, equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-
mean differences, and relations with external corre­ Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/
lates: An illustrative example using Big Five and 10.1177/0022022102033002002
RIASEC measures. Assessment, 18(4), 412–427. Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110373223 equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An
Selig, J. P., Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2008). Latent variable overview. European Review of Applied Psychology,
structural equation modelling in cross-cultural 54(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.
research: multi-group and multi-level approaches . In 12.004
F. J. R Van de Vijver, D. A Van Hemert, Y. H Poortinga. Vedel, A. (2016). Big Five personality group differences
(Eds.), Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures across academic majors: A systematic review.
(pp. 93–119). Lawrence Erlbaum. Personality and Individual Differences, 92(1), 1–10.
Simha, A., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2020). The big 5 personal­ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011
ity traits and willingness to justify unethical behavior: Wang, S., Chen, C. C., Dai, C. L., & Richardson, G. B. (2018).
A cross-national examination. Journal of Business A call for, and beginner’s guide to, measurement
Ethics, 167(3), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/ invariance testing in evolutionary psychology.
s10551-019-04142-7 Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(2), 166–178.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0125-5
forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the
BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68 69– meaning of factorial invariance and updating the
81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004 practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis:
Spurk, D., Abele, A. E., & Volmer, J. (2015). The career A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical
satisfaction scale in context: A test for measurement Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26.
invariance across four occupational groups. Journal https://doi.org/10.7275/mhqa-cd89

Page 16 of 17
Steyn & Ndofirepi, Cogent Psychology (2022), 9: 2095035
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2095035

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Psychology (ISSN: 2331-1908) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 17 of 17