Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Sep 2022 | 4 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
254x Filetype PDF File size 0.15 MB Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 17(4): 210–219 (2008)
Published online 12 September 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/mpr.264
Personality dimensions measured using the
Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)
and NEO-FFI on a Polish sample
. 1 1 1,2
ELZBIETA MIKOŁAJCZYK, JOANNA ZIET¸ EK, AGNIESZKA SAMOCHOWIEC,
1
JERZY SAMOCHOWIEC
1 Department of Psychiatry, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
2 MSKP, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
Abstract
The results of two self-administered, paper-and-pencil tests based on biosocial theory of personality have been compared
simultanously: the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The
stability of the personality dimensions was assessed across age, sex and education level samples in a group of 406 Polish
adults with major mental diseases excluded by use of PRIME-MD questionnaire. Signifi cant effects of age, sex, and edu-
cation have been found while comparing personality dimensions in both temperamental (novelty seeking, NS; harm
avoidance, HA; reward dependence, RD; persistence, P) and character scales (cooperativeness, C; self-transcendence,
ST) in TCI. Among subscales of temperament only NS1, RD4 were stable according to concerning factors. All converted
to their age and sex norms NEO-FFI dimensions were stable according to sex. Extraversion scale was changeable depend-
ing on age (p = 0.04). Neuroticism dimension was a little higher in lower educated group (p = 0.035).
To sum up, it was concluded that sex- and age-specifi c norms for the dimensions of the Polish version of TCI are neces-
sary considering the established signifi cant differences. Particular personality genetic studies should account for age, sex
and also educational differences in their methods of associative studies.
Conclusions: In the exploration of personality dimensions on healthy volunteers the Polish version of NEO-FFI corre-
sponds better than TCI to theory of stability and genetic determinants of human personality. As the study included persons
with excluded major mental diseases, the sample is appropriate to provide a control group in the reaserch of psychiatric
patients using both TCI and NEO-FFI.
Signifi cant Outcomes: TCI scores for persons with excluded mental disease are highly changeable depending on age,
sex and education. Adjusted to sex and age scores NEO-FFI corresponded better than TCI to stability and genetic deter-
minants of human personality. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: personality assessment, TCI, NEO-FFI, adults, dimension, age, sex, education, health
Introduction Organizing traits in coherent dimensions was the
Although assessing human personality is a complicated task of personality researchers in the last decade of
task, many authors have taken up this challenge and the twentieth century. Multidimensional assessment
approached it from a scientifi c point of view. It is pos- seemed to be especially appealing to scientists involved
sible to fi nd about 5000 words describing personality in neuropsychiatric and genetics surveys. A genetic per-
traits in English dictionaries (Pervin and John, 2002). spective of personality research requires a detailed
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Personality dimensions measured using the TCI and NEO-FFI 211
assessment and stable dimensions of personality as our PI-R is a 240-item inventory and not only does it
genes limit the infl uence of environmental factors in measure the ‘Big Five’ factors, but it also takes into
human development. account the six ‘facets’ (subordinate dimensions) of
There have been several models classifying tempera- each main factor. Costa and McCrae have also created
ment and personality. One of the most widely adopted the NEO-FFI, a 60-item truncated version of the NEO
has been that of Cloninger who proposed that there are PI-R called NEO-FFI (Srivastava, 2006). Persons exam-
three genetically homogeneous and independent ined using this shortened version mark their answers
dimensions of personality: novelty seeking, NS; harm on a fi ve-point scale.
avoidance, HA; reward dependence, RD (Cloninger, The major aim of this study was to evaluate the
1987). NS is a tendency to respond with intense excite- stability of dimensional assessment of personality in
ment to novel stimuli, or cues for potential rewards or different age, sex and education groups using TCI.
potential relief of punishment and thereby activating/ Other aims were to compare the properties of TCI and
initiating behavior. HA is defi ned as a tendency to NEO-FFI dimensions as the two inventories which
respond intensively to signals of aversive stimuli, thereby were built and based on different theories and also
inhibiting/stopping behavior. RD is a tendency to assessing their usefulness in future genetic studies. It is
respond intensely to signals of reward, especially social worth emphasizing that this study is unique in analyz-
rewards, thus maintaining and continuing particular ing both TCI and NEO-FFI. The other studies con-
kinds of behavior. Three temperament dimensions cerning both measures focused either on a small group
have been speculated to be connected to the neu- of psychiatric outpatients or on analyzed gene associa-
rotransmitter system in animal and human brains: NS tion but not on measured personality dimensions (De
primarily would utilize dopamine pathways, HA would Fruyt et al., 2000; Samochowiec et al., 2004). It is also
utilize serotonin pathways and RD would utilize nor- one of the few studies testing subjects with excluded
epinephrine pathways (Cloninger et al., 1993). Clon- mental disorders and considering their education
inger subsequently elaborated his initial Tridimensional level.
Personality Questionnarie (TPQ) into a seven-factor
model of personality developing a new questionnaire Material and methods
called the Temperament and Character Inventory Four hundred and six (173 males and 233 females) white
(TCI) (Cloninger et al., 1993, 1994). The TCI assesses Caucasian unrelated persons of Polish descent above
four temperament dimensions: HA, NS, RD and per- the age of 18 (mean age = 38.51 ± 15.08) comprised the
sistence (P) and three character dimensions: self-direct- group. The subjects were recruited to represent a cross-
edness, SD; cooperativeness, C; self-transcendence, ST. section of Szczecin population (Poland) in terms of sex,
P had been present in the TPQ as part of the RD-factor. age and education from the visitors of an emergency
P includes a tendency to persevere in behavior that has ambulance service and a blood donation unit in Szc-
been associated with either a reward or relief from pun- zecin. Major psychiatric disorders were excluded in
ishment. NS, HA and RD dimensions represent higher face-to-face interview with an educated general practi-
order personality dimensions, composed of similarly tioner and using the PRIME-MD questionnaire (Spitzer
motivated but differently expressed behavior. In accor- et al., 1999). All the participants signed a formal written
dance with earlier they are divided into subscales consent after the nature of the study had been explained
(Cloninger et al., 1994). The possible answers to all of to them. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics
the 240 TCI items include ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The NEO Five Committee of the Pomeranian Medical University.
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) personality questionnaire The original English versions of the TCI were trans-
used in the present study is based on the theory of fi ve lated into Polish by one of the investigators and back-
main and stable dimensions of personality: Neuroti- translated blindly to the original English scale by a
cism, Extraversion, Openness (Intellect/Imagination), professional English translator. The original version
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa and and the back-translation were compared and correc-
McCrae, 1990). The so-called ‘Big Five’ hypothesis tions were made accordingly. The translation was tested
came from a lexical theory of traits. Its authors – Costa in a pilot study of 30 persons specially selected accord-
and McCrae – emphasized fi xed personality traits after ing to their age, sex and education. After that the
the age of 30 (McCrae and Costa, 1994). The NEO second version was subjected to linguistic correction
Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 17(4): 210–219 (2008)
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd DOI: 10.1002/mpr
212 Mikołajczyk et al.
and was tested on 10 persons with secondary education higher ordered dimension decreased with age, espe-
and age between 50 and 65 years (Hornowska, 2004). cially in men (p < 0.001). The subscale of NS Explor-
This third version was used in validation and all other ative Excitability (NS1) just opposite to the main scale
studies on the Polish population (Zakrzewska et al., and other NS subscales increased distinctly with age in
2001). None of these studies has so far managed to both sexes, and NS1 had the highest value in women
describe such a big cohort of subjects that would be above 65 (p < 0.00001). Subscale of Impulsiveness
large enough in different age groups. (NS2) also tended to increase with age but without
The Polish version of NEO-FFI was developed and statistical signifi cance. The Extravagance (NS3) sub-
validated in 1995 and the authors published all the scale was the highest in the group below 30 years old
details concerning the translation, validation and and diminished with age, more distinctly in men (p <
norms in their guide (Zawadzki et al., 1998). 0.0001). Similarly, Disorderliness (NS4) also decreased
with age in men (p = 0.004). HA higher ordered scale
Statistical analysis and also all its subscales, HA1–HA4, were signifi cantly
The data were analyzed with SPSS 9.0 (1999). The sub- higher in women in comparison to men (p < 0.001).
jects were divided into subgroups according to their age, The difference between sexes diminished with age,
sex and education level. On the basis of the partici- because of the increasing values of HA in older men.
pants’ age three groups were formed: subjects 18–29 The scores of all four HA subscales increased with age
years old, 30–59 years old and the group of people above in men, particularly Fear of Uncertainty (HA2) (p <
6
60. Original scores of NEO-FFI were converted accord- 0.001) and Fatigability (HA4) (p < 10 ). Women scored
ing to their age and sex norms before the next calcula- higher than men in RD main scale (p < 0.001) and its
tions (Zawadzki et al., 1998). Differences in original TCI subscale Sentimentality (RD1), which was especially
scores and converted NEO-FFI scores were compared distinctive in the group of participants below 30. Sub-
with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Sex, age scale Attachment (RD3) decreased with age in both
and education were independent variables in the analy- sex groups (p < 0.001). P had the highest value in the
ses. The post hoc Tukey tests were performed to assess middle-aged groups, then it decreased (p = 0.02).
the signifi cance of differences between the analyzed TCI character dimensions
age, sex and education groups. To analyze education Additionally, many signifi cant differences were found
three groups were defi ned: less educated subjects with in character dimension of TCI (see Table 2). C was
fewer than 12 years of education (n = 76) and subjects higher in woman than in men (p < 0.001). Its subscale
with the secondary (n = 238) and university education Empathy (C2) decreased with age, especially in females
(n = 91). The last two groups were next considered (p < 0.001), opposite to Compassion (C4) which values
together as better educated (n = 319) because no signifi - increased with age (p = 0.014). Higher ordered ST and
cant differences in personality dimensions between its subscales, ST2 and ST3, increased distinctly with
them were found and also there were many university age in women and were the highest in women older
students among subjects defi ned in the beginning than 60 years old (p < 0.001).
as secondary educated. Multivariate analysis ANOVA
including sex and age interaction were performed. NEO-FFI dimensions
Results The explored main dimensions of NEO-FFI were stable
The results of analysis mean scores, standard deviations with age and sex subgroups. No statistically signifi cant
for the whole group and samples depending on sex in differences among scores of the investigated subgroups
respective age groups are presented in a tabular form in were found in Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness
Table 1 with TCI temperament scales, in Table 2 and Conscientiousness scales. Only Extraversion
showing TCI character scales and in Table 3 presenting slightly decreased in groups above 60 (p = 0.04). Unlike
NEO-FFI dimensions. HA in TCI, the Neuroticism in NEO-FFI seemed to
increase in female but not in male groups.
TCI temperament dimensions Multivariant analysis
Differences in scores were recorded between women The results of multivariant analysis are presented in
and men and also between respective age groups. NS Table 4. It is remarkable that the middle aged group
Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 17(4): 210–219 (2008)
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd DOI: 10.1002/mpr
Personality dimensions measured using the TCI and NEO-FFI 213
)
) 3 1 1 1 0 4 6 2 1 1 1 8 5 7
x 40 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 26
e 8 0 0 9 8 9 0 07 012 0 0 0 0 07 1
(s= 0. 0. . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. .
0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0
p f < < <
s (d
e
u
l
a
-v )
p
2 1 4 1 1
r ) 1 4 2 5 1 5 9 5 6 5 4
ei e 40 0 1 0 2 5 0 5 0 6 4 0 7
g 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 7 5 0 3
h (a= . . 10 . 10 . 10 .
0. 0 0. 0 < 0 < 0 0. 0. 0. < 0. 0. 0
d t p f < < <
n (d
) a
s
D
S
(
s 25 8 0 7 4 8 2 6 9 0 7 8 9 3 2 2 3
n 30 1 03 7 0 1 7 03 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 70 0 5 1 0
o = 2 4 4 6 7 1 4 8 9 7 8 1 1 8 7 5 8 6 7 .284
i =
t n 1.1. 5. 6. 2.3. 1. 2. 1.2. 1. 1. 1.1. 2. 2. 2.2. 1. 1. 1.2. 1. 2. 2.2. 1. 1. 1 1.
a n
i 60 s ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
v > s le
le a 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 3 5 4 2 5 0 8 5 4 0 6 2 5 8 5 2 0 4
2 2 5 2 9 5 7 0 1 0 2 703 6 8 20 4 3 0 2 3 75 3 7 8 9 5 2 0
. . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 8 6 7 3 4 3 3 7 1 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 6 6 3 4 3 3
rd de Ma Fem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
a
d
n
a
s, st
n
a 76 118 9 7 6 9 5 7 4 2 1 0 4 4 5 1 3 0 3 6 5 5 6 1 9 0 0 3 2 9
e 3 3 1 9 9 6 6 0 3 1 2 22 8 7 2 1 8 8 1 0 1 8 9 9 4 6 3 37
p 0 = =
u 6 1.1. 6.46. 2.2. 1. 1. 2.2. 2.02. 2.2. 1. 1. 2.2. 1. 1. 2.2. 2. 1. 1.1. 1. 1. 1.1.
o n n
s, m r – ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
s s
g 30 le le 7 7 5 7 0 0 7 5 4 6 8 7 1 1 7 7 9 0 4 1 7 9 8 6 2 5 1 1
e a 6 7 4 8 8 8 5 3 6 0 7 7 5 59 9 4 751 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 4 1 3
roup g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ma 8 9 3 5 3 4 4 5 7 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 6.7 4 4 3 3
A Fem 1 1 1 1 1 14.
subg
-
e
g
d a
n 90 6 4 6 4 3 3 2 0 8 2 9 4 6 0
a 67 9 5 3 1 8 1 7 1 3 2 4 4 2 8 9
- = 2 3 6 9 5 8 8 7 2 2 0 0 6 7 1 5 6 1 9 9 9 3 2 0 6 7 2 35
x = 1.1. 5. 6. 3.3.11. 1. 1.2. 2.02. 2.2. 1. 1. 2.2. 1. 2. 1.1. 1. 2. 2.2. 1. 1. 1.1.
e n
s n
30 s ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
y < s le
le a 3 2 9 0 3 2 9 8 9 7 9 4 8 8 9 7 7 8 8 2 7 1 1 7 1 4
6 9 3 7 2 2 7 0 4 5 6 7 8 5 21 7 5 42 9 97 8 4 0 7
d b . . . . . . .2 . .
n Ma 2119 10.9161316 4.14. 4.6. 4 4 5.5. 4. 3. 3.164.2.44.2.4.12. 3. 5.6. 4. 5. 3 3
Fem
oup a
r
e g s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s
l
o x s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le s le
h e a a e a e a a a a e a a e a a a a e a e a
Se l le l l le le le l le l le le le l l
w a a a a a a a
n M FemMa FemM FemM FemMaFemMa FemMaFemM FemMaFemM FemMaFemMa FemMaFemM FemM Fem
i
s
e
l
a
c
s 1 8 6 5 6 0 7 4 7 9 9 1 9 7
SD 1 2 1 1 1 8 2 9 2 6 37
d sub 5. 6.5 3. 1.7 2. 2. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2.0 2. 2.0 1. 1.
± 406
n ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
a n =
s a 8 7 7 5 3 6 3 3 5 0
n 68 7 6 2 88 23 90 0 88 5 3 6 7 3
n . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . .
o Me 9 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 6 4 3
i 1 1 1
s
n
e
m
t di y .
n t
li y3
e e i t dom
m c b n
a a
e t m ee
r i ai r
e g c c is t y
p n n nden s s r t
i a Ex s e s m i of f
m d e e c e i ce y t e
e ek i p e n n n ss n t tal c e
t e o e iv e a li e li n n e
I v g r P U s i e men e gr
S e at iv a e / f s b d e
y A c r s d y e a h n
TC t rd D n l av r r o n g im c
l m u r o r y i t d
e a e p t o ar t ta pe ,
. r t plo s e h n t
a w is x m x i a df
1 e s W F S F De
e r E I E D Se A :
l Nov H R e 1 2 4 1 2 3 4 1 3 e
b t
Ta NS HA RD P P NS NS NS3 NS HA HA HA HA RD RD RD4 No
Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 17(4): 210–219 (2008)
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd DOI: 10.1002/mpr
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
