Bifactor Models of Personality and College Student Performance: A Broad versus Narrow View

Abstract

Research in the area of personality traits and academic performance has been supported by consistent meta–analytic evidence demonstrating positive relationships between Conscientiousness and grade point average (GPA). However, academic performance is not solely a function of GPA but also a number of other important intellectual, interpersonal and intrapersonal behaviours. This wider criterion space opens up the possibility for many personality factors and their underlying facets to relate to academic performance. Using bifactor latent variable modelling, the current study investigates the six–factor HEXACO model of personality, along with their 24 underlying facets, for predicting students’ academic performance. Model results reveal interpretable and meaningful relationships between both broad factors and narrow personality facets in predicting college student outcomes. Implications for measurement, modelling and prediction are discussed. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

personality assessment HEXACO model bifactor model academic performance post-secondary education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackerman

P. L.

, Kanfer

, & Beier

M. E.

(2013) Trait complex, cognitive ability, and domain knowledge predictors of baccalaureate success, STEM persistence, and gender differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 911–927. DOI: 10.1037/a0032338

Anderson

J. C.

, & Gerbing

D. W.

(1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two–step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2001) A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353. DOI: 10.1002/per.417

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2007) Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. DOI: 10.1177/1088868306294907

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2010) Trait and source factors in HEXACO–PI–R self– and observer reports. European Journal of Personality, 24, 278–289. DOI: 10.1002/per.759

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, Goldberg

L. R.

, & de Vries

R. E.

(2009) Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79–91. DOI: 10.1177/1088868309338467

Ashton

, Lee

, Perugini

, Szarota

, de Vries

R. E.

, Di Blas

, … De Raad

(2004) A six–factor structure of personality–descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356

Astin

A. W.

(1977) Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Barrick

M. R.

, & Mount

M. K.

(1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta–analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

10.

Browne

M. W.

, & Cudeck

(1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

, & Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

11.

Brunner

, Nagy

, & Wilhelm

(2012) A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x

12.

Brunswik

(1952) The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Chamorro–Premuzic

, & Furnham

(2003) Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237–250. DOI: 10.1002/per.473

14.

Chamorro–Premuzic

, Furnham

, & Ackerman

P. L.

(2006) Incremental validity of the Typical Intellectual Engagement Scale as predictor of different academic performance measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 261–268. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_07

15.

Chen

F. F.

, Hayes

, Carver

C. S.

, Laurenceau

J.–P.

, & Zhang

(2012) Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 219–251. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x

16.

Chen

F. F.

, West

S. G.

, & Sousa

K. H.

(2006) A comparison of bifactor and second–order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5

17.

Connelly

B. S.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2010) An other perspective on personality: Meta–analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. DOI: 10.1037/a0021212

18.

Corker

K. S.

, Oswald

F. L.

, & Donnellan

M. B.

(2012) Conscientiousness in the classroom: A process explanation. Journal of Personality, 80, 995–1028. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00750.x

19.

Credé

, & Kuncel

N. R.

(2008) Study habits, study skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425–453. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x

20.

Credé

, & Niehorster

(2009) Individual difference influences of self–focused and other–focused counterproductive student behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 769–776. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.018

21.

De Fruyt

, & Mervielde

(1996) Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405–425. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099–0984(199612)10:5<405::AID–PER255>3.0.CO;2–M

22.

De Raad

, & Schouwenburg

H. C.

(1996) Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303–336. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099–0984(199612)10:5<303::AID–PER262>3.0.CO;2–2

23.

DeYoung

C. G.

, & Gray

J. R.

(2009) Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual differences in affect, behavior, and cognition. In Corr

P. J.

, & Matthews

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 323–346). New York: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Dollinger

S. J.

, Matyja

A. M.

, & Huber

J. L.

(2008) Which factors best account for academic success: Those which college students can control or those they cannot? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 872–885. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.11.007

25.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992) The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

26.

Hofstee

W. K.

, de Raad

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(1992) Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146

27.

Hogan

, & Roberts

B. W.

(1996) Issues and non–issues in the fidelity–bandwidth trade–off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627–637. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6

28.

Hough

L. M.

(1992) The ‘Big Five’ personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155. DOI: 10.1080/08959285.1992.9667929

29.

Hough

L. M.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2001) The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Anderson

N. R.

, Ones

D. S.

, Sinangil

H. K.

, & Viswesvaran

(Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 233–377). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

L. T.

, & Bentler

P. M.

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118

31.

Kammeyer–Mueller

, Steel

P. D. G.

, & Rubenstein

(2010) The other side of method bias: The perils of distinct source research designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 294–321. DOI: 10.1080/00273171003680278

32.

Kline

R. B.

(2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

33.

Kuncel

N. R.

, Credé

, & Thomas

L. L.

(2005) The validity of self–reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta–analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. DOI: 10.3102/00346543075001063

34.

Lance

C. L.

, Dawson

, Birkelbach

, & Hoffman

B. J.

(2010) Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 435–455. DOI: 10.1177/1094428109352528

35.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2004) Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

36.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2006) Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18, 182–191. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182

37.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2013) Prediction of self– and observer report scores on HEXACO–60 and NEO–FFI scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 668–675. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.002

38.

Lee

, Ashton

M. C.

, & de Vries

R. E.

(2005) Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and Five–Factor Models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179–197. DOI: 10.1207/s15327043hup1802_4

39.

Little

T. D.

, Cunningham

W. A.

, Shahar

, & Widaman

K. F.

(2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

40.

Little

T. D.

, Rhemtulla

, Gibson

, & Schoemann

A. M.

(2013) Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. DOI: 10.1037/a0033266

41.

Markon

K. E.

(2009) Hierarchies in the structure of personality traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 812–826. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00213.x

42.

Marsh

H. W.

, Lüdtke

, Muthén

, Asparouhov

, Morin

A. J. S.

, Trautwein

, & Nagengast

(2010) A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. DOI: 10.1037/a0019227

43.

Marsh

H. W.

, Lüdtke

, Nagengast

, Morin

A. J. S.

, & Von Davier

(2013) Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257–284. DOI: 10.1037/a0032773

44.

McAbee

S. T.

, & Oswald

F. L.

(2013) The criterion–related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta–analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25, 532–544. DOI: 10.1037/a0031748

45.

McDonald

R. P.

, & Ho

M.–H. R.

(2002) Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64

46.

Muthén

L. K.

, & Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2012) Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

47.

Noftle

E. E.

, & Robins

R. W.

(2007) Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 116–130. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116

48.

O'Boyle

E. H.

Jr. , & Williams

L. J.

(2011) Decomposing model fit: Measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1–12. DOI: 10.1037/a0020539

49.

O'Connor

M. C.

, & Paunonen

S. V.

(2007) Big Five personality predictors of post–secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017

50.

Ones

D. S.

, & Viswesvaran

(1996) Bandwidth–fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609–626. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099–1379(199611)17:6<609::AID–JOB1828>3.0.CO;2–K

51.

Oswald

F. L.

, & Hough

L. M.

(2010) Personality and its assessment in organizations: Theoretical and empirical developments. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 153–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

52.

Oswald

F. L.

, Hough

L. M.

, & Ock

(2013) Theoretical and empirical structures of personality: Implications for measurement, modeling, and prediction. In Christiansen

N. D.

, & Tett

R. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 11–29). New York: Taylor & Francis.

53.

Oswald

F. L.

, Schmitt

, Kim

B. H.

, Ramsay

L. J.

, & Gillespie

M. A.

(2004) Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 187–207. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187

54.

Paunonen

S. V.

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2001) Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

55.

Paunonen

S. V.

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2013) On the prediction of academic performance with personality traits: A replication study. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 778–781. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.003

56.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

57.

Poropat

A. E.

(2009) A meta–analysis of the five–factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. DOI: 10.1037/a0014996

58.

Pozzebon

J. A.

, Ashton

M. C.

, & Visser

B. A.

(2014) Major changes: Personality, ability, and congruence in the prediction of academic outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 75–88. DOI: 10.1177/1069072713487858

59.

Reise

S. P.

(2012) The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

60.

Richardson

, Abraham

, & Bond

(2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. DOI: 10.1037/a0026838

61.

Roberts

B. W.

, Kuncel

N. R.

, Shiner

, Caspi

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(2007) The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

62.

Rogers

W. M.

, & Schmitt

(2004) Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379–412. DOI: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_1

63.

Schmid

, & Leiman

J. M.

(1957) The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 5, 141–152.

64.

Schmitt

, Keeney

, Oswald

F. L.

, Pleskac

T. J.

, Billington

A. Q.

, Sinha

, & Zorzie

(2009) Prediction of 4–year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1479–1497. DOI: 10.1037/a0016810

65.

Schmitt

, Oswald

F. L.

, Kim

B. H.

, Imus

, Merritt

, Fried

, & Shivpuri

(2007) The use of background and ability profiles to predict college student outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 165–179. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.165

66.

Thalmayer

A. G.

, Saucier

, & Eigenhuis

(2011) Comparative validity of brief to medium–length Big Five and Big Six personality questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23, 995–1009. DOI: 10.1037/a0024165

67.

Vazire

(2010) Who knows what about a person? The Self–Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300. DOI: 10.1037/a0017908

68.

Viswesvaran

, Schmidt

F. L.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2005) Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta–analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108–131. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108

69.

de Vries

, de Vries

R. E.

, & Born

M. Ph.

(2011) Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and Honesty–Humility as predictors of academic criteria. European Journal of Personality, 25, 336–348. DOI: 10.1002/per.795

70.

de Vries

R. E.

, Zettler

, & Hilbig

B. E.

(2014) Rethinking trait conceptions of social desirability scales: Impression management as an expression of Honesty–Humility. Assessment, 21, 286–299. DOI: 10.1177/1073191113504619

71.

Wanous

J. P.

, & Reichers

A. E.

(1996) Estimating the reliability of a single–item measure. Psychological Reports, 78, 631–634. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631

72.

Yung

Y.–F.

, Thissen

, & McLeod

L. D.

(1999) On the relationship between the higher–order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64, 113–128. DOI: 10.1007/BF02294531

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB