The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-Effective Measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48823, USA.
Psychological Assessment (Impact Factor: 2.99). 07/2006; 18(2):192-203. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
Source: PubMed


The Mini-IPIP, a 20-item short form of the 50-item International Personality Item Pool-Five-Factor Model measure (Goldberg, 1999), was developed and validated across five studies. The Mini-IPIP scales, with four items per Big Five trait, had consistent and acceptable internal consistencies across five studies (= at or well above .60), similar coverage of facets as other broad Big Five measures (Study 2), and test-retest correlations that were quite similar to the parent measure across intervals of a few weeks (Study 4) and several months (Study 5). Moreover, the Mini-IPIP scales showed a comparable pattern of convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity (Studies 2-5) with other Big Five measures. Collectively, these results indicate that the Mini-IPIP is a psychometrically acceptable and practically useful short measure of the Big Five factors of personality.

Download full-text


Available from: Frederick L Oswald, Oct 07, 2015
4,703 Reads
  • Source
    • "The Mini-IPIP (Donnellan et al., 2006) is a 20-item short version of the 50-item IPIP–Five-Factor Model measure of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Alpha reliabilities for the Mini-IPIP in the present sample were for the most part acceptable, between .60 and .80, "
  • Source
    • "The dependent variable is operationalized in line with earlier research (Harteveld et al., 2013; Lubbers, 2008) which makes it unlikely to underlie the null finding. Personality traits were measured using the 20-item mini-IPIP which is a reliable and valid instrument of the Big Five traits (Donnellan et al., 2006). Future research could turn to more elaborate personality inventories in order to explore associations between trust in EU institutions and the sub-dimensions of Agreeableness (Osborne et al., 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We still do not fully understand why attitudes toward the European Union differ among citizens. In this study, we turn to the Big Five personality traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism as antecedents of European Union attitudes. In a national survey, we focus on attitudes toward widening and deepening of the European Union, trust in European Union institutions, identification with the European Union and negative affect experienced toward the European Union. We theorize that the Big Five traits are heterogeneously associated with the different European Union attitudes. We confirm that the Big Five traits are indeed associated with some but not all European Union attitudes. Accordingly, personality is expected to shape how citizens' respond to changes in the institutional setup of the European Union.
    European Union Politics 08/2015; DOI:10.1177/1465116515595885 · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "After delivery of the warnings participants completed the 50- item IPIP measures of the Big Five, which also contained the 20 Donnellan et al. (2006) items. Each Big Five factor was measured with 10 items. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigates the impact of different types of electronic warnings during a simulated job application assessment. Results indicated that negatively worded warnings and accusations worked better than positively worded warnings at blunting faking. Although there was some evidence that test-takers engaging in higher levels of faking heeded warnings more, warnings tended to decrease scores for all test-takers. While positive warnings motivated test-takers to perform well, negative warnings and accusations increased test-taking anxiety. Whereas past research has failed to find a relationship between warnings and perceived fairness, current results suggest that this relationship depends on the level of test-taker distortion.
    Computers in Human Behavior 07/2015; 48:163-172. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.051 · 2.69 Impact Factor
Show more