Adults’ ratings of children’s personality have been found to be more closely associated with academic performance than children’s self-reports. However, less is known about the relevance of the unique perspectives held by specific adult observers such as teachers and parents for explaining variance in academic performance. In this study, we applied bifactor (S–1) models for 1411 elementary school children to investigate the relative merits of teacher and parent ratings of children’s personalities for academic performance above and beyond the children’s self-reports. We examined these associations using standardized achievement test scores in addition to grades. We found that teachers’ unique views on children’s openness and conscientiousness had the strongest associations with academic performance. Parents’ unique views on children’s neuroticism showed incremental associations above teacher ratings or self-reports. For extraversion and agreeableness, however, children’s self-reports were more strongly associated with academic performance than teacher or parent ratings. These results highlight the differential value of using multiple informants when explaining academic performance with personality traits.
AbrahamsL.PancorboG.PrimiR.SantosD.KyllonenP.JohnO. P.De FruytF. (2019).
Social-emotional skill assessment in children and adolescents: Advances and challenges in personality, clinical, and educational contexts. Psychological Assessment,
31(4), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000591
2.
AlexanderL. A.McKnightP. E.DisabatoD. J.KashdanT. B. (2017).
When and how to use multiple informants to improve clinical assessments. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
39(4), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-017-9607-9
3.
AndersenS. C.GensowskiM.LudekeS.JohnO. P. (2020).
A stable relationship between personality and academic performance from childhood through adolescence. An original study and replication in hundred‐thousand‐person samples. Journal of Personality, online first. jopy.12538. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12538.
4.
BalsisS.CooperL. D.OltmannsT. F. (2015).
Are informant reports of personality more internally consistent than self reports of personality?Assessment,
22(4), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114556100
5.
BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. V.RabascaA.PastorelliC. (2003).
A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences,
34(4), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00051-X
6.
BarbaranelliC.FidaR.PacielloM.Di GiuntaL.CapraraG. V. (2008).
Assessing personality in early adolescence through self-report and other-ratings a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the BFQ-C. Personality and Individual Differences,
44(4), 876–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.014
7.
BarnardJ. W.ZimbardoP. G.SarasonS. B. (1968).
Teachers’ ratings of student personality traits as they relate to IQ and social desirability. Journal of Educational Psychology,
50(2), 128–132. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/h0025641
8.
BeerA.WatsonD. (2008).
Asymmetry in judgments of personality: Others are less differentiated than the self. Journal of Personality,
76(3), 535–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00495.x
9.
Bollich, K. L., Rogers, K. H., & Vazire, S. (2015). Knowing More Than We Can Tell: People Are Aware of Their Biased Self-Perceptions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(7), 918--929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215583993
10.
BorkenauP.MauerN.RiemannR.SpinathF. M.AngleitnerA. (2004).
Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599
11.
BorkenauP.MoschA.TandlerN.WolfA. (2016).
Accuracy of judgments of personality based on textual information on major life domains. Journal of Personality,
84(2), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12153
12.
BrandtN. D.BeckerM.TetznerJ.BrunnerM.KuhlP.MaazK. (2020).
Personality across the lifespan. Exploring measurement invariance of a short Big Five inventory from ages 11 to 84. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
36, 162--173.https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000490
13.
BrandtN. D.LechnerC. M.TetznerJ.RammstedtB. (2020).
Personality, cognitive ability, and academic performance: Differential associations across school subjects and school tracks. Journal of Personality,
88(2), 249--265. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12482
14.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA. (2003).
Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality,
17(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.473
15.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA. (2008).
Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences,
44(7), 1596–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.003
16.
ChanW.MendelsohnG. A. (2010).
Disentangling stereotype and person effects: Do social stereotypes bias observer judgment of personality?Journal of Research in Personality,
44(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.02.001
17.
ChenF. F. (2007).
Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
18.
ChmielewskiA. K.DumontH.TrautweinU. (2013).
Tracking effects depend on tracking type: An international comparison of students’ mathematics self-concept. American Educational Research Journal,
50(5), 925–957. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213489843
19.
ChurchA. T.BurkeP. J. (1994).
Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.93
20.
ConnellyB. S.HülshegerU. R. (2012).
A narrower scope or a clearer lens for personality? Examining sources of observers’ advantages over self-reports for predicting performance. Journal of Personality,
80(3), 603–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00744.x
21.
ConnellyB. S.OnesD. S. (2010).
An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin,
136(6), 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212
22.
ConwayJ. M.LanceC. E. (2010).
What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
23.
EidM. (2000).
A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika,
65(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294377
24.
EidM.GeiserC.KochT.HeeneM. (2017).
Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods,
22(3), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083
25.
EidM.LischetzkeT.NussbeckF. W.TrierweilerL. I. (2003).
Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M-1) model. Psychological Methods,
8(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.1.38
26.
EidM.NussbeckF. W.GeiserC.ColeD. A.GollwitzerM.LischetzkeT. (2008).
Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: Different models for different types of methods. Psychological Methods,
13(3), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013219
27.
FogartyG. J.DaviesJ. E.MacCannC.RobertsR. D. (2014).
Self- versus parent-ratings of industriousness, affect, and life satisfaction in relation to academic outcomes. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12024
FuchsG.BrunnerM. (2017).
Wie gut können bildungsstandardbasierte Tests den schulischen Erfolg von Grundschulkindern vorhersagen?Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie,
31(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000195
GeiserC.EidM.NussbeckF. W. (2008).
On the meaning of the latent variables in the CT-C(M-1) model: A comment on Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006). Psychological Methods,
13(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.49
32.
GerlitzY.SchuppJ. (2005). Assessment of Big Five personality characteristics in the SOEP [Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP].
German Institute of Economic Research, Berlin:
DIW Research Notes 4. Retrieved from https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43490.de/rn4.pdf
33.
GillM. J.SchwanW. B. (2004).
On what it means to know someone: A matter of pragmatics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86(3), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.405
34.
GöllnerR.RobertsB. W.DamianR. I.LüdtkeO.JonkmannK.TrautweinU. (2017).
Whose “storm and stress” is it? Parent and child reports of personality development in the transition to early adolescence. Journal of Personality,
85(3), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12246
35.
GranzerD.KöllerO.Bremerich-VosA.van den Heuvel-PanhuizenM.ReissK.WaltherG. (2009). Bildungsstandards Deutsch und Mathematik. Leistungsmessung in der Grundschule [Educational standards in reading and mathematics. Achievement assessment in primary school.]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
36.
GrayE. K.WatsonD. (2002).
General and specific traits of personality and their relation to sleep and academic performance. Journal of Personality,
70(2), 177--206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05002.
37.
GraysonD.MarshH. W. (1994).
Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait-multimethod models. Psychometrika,
59(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294271
38.
HaagL.GötzT. (2012).
Mathe ist schwierig und Deutsch aktuell: Vergleichende Studie zur Charakterisierung von Schulfächern aus Schülersicht. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht,
59(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2012.art03d
HorstmannK. T.ZieglerJ.ZieglerM. (2018). Assessment of situational perceptions: Measurement issues and a joint taxonomization of persons and situations – Oxford Handbooks (Vol.
1).
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
41.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C.FinsethS. M.PierceB.LeM. (2014).
To thine own self be true: Psychological adjustment promotes judgeability via personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
106(2), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034860
42.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54.
Berkeley:
Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.
43.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1993).
Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality,
61(4), 521–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x
44.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1994).
Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66(1), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206
45.
KraemerH. C.MeaselleJ. R.AblowJ. C.EssexM. J.BoyceW. T.KupferD. J. (2003).
A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
160(9), 1566–1577. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.9.1566
46.
KuhlP.HannoverB. (2012).
Differenzielle Benotungen von Mädchen und Jungen. Zeitschrift Für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie,
44(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000066
47.
LaidraK.AllikJ.HarroM.MerenäkkL.HarroJ. (2006).
Agreement among adolescents, parents, and teachers on adolescent personality. Assessment,
13(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287125
48.
LangF. R. (2005). Erfassung des kognitiven Leistungspotenzials und der “Big Five” mit Computer-Assisted-Personal-Interviewing (CAPI): zur Reliabilität und Validität zweier ultrakurzer Tests und des BFI-S. [Assessment of cognitive capabilities and the Big Five with Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI): Reliability and validity]. German Institute of Economic Research, Berlin: DIW Research Notes 9.
49.
LechnerC.DannerD.RammstedtB. (2017).
How is personality related to intelligence and achievement? A replication and extension of Borghans et al. and Salkever. Personality and Individual Differences,
111(1), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.040
50.
LeisingD.ErbsJ.FritzU. (2010).
The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98(4), 668–682.
51.
LeisingD.GallreinA.-M. B.DufnerM. (2014).
Judging the behavior of people we know: Objective assessment, confirmation of preexisting views, or both?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
40(2), 153–163.
52.
LeisingD.OstrovskiO.ZimmermannJ. (2013). “
Are we talking about the same person here?”: Interrater agreement in judgments of personality varies dramatically with how much the perceivers like the targets. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
4(4), 468–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612462414
53.
LetzringT. D.WellsS. M.FunderD. C. (2006).
Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.111
54.
LievensF.De CorteW.SchollaertE. (2008).
A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.The Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.268
55.
LönnqvistJ.-E.VainikainenM.-P.VerkasaloM. (2012).
Teacher and parent ratings of seven-year-old children’s personality and psychometrically assessed cognitive ability. European Journal of Personality,
26(5), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.849
56.
LönnqvistJ.-E.VerkasaloM.VainikainenM.-P. (2011).
Parent-teacher agreement on 7-year-old children’s personality. European Journal of Personality,
25(5), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.791
57.
LuanZ.HuttemanR.DenissenJ. J. A.AsendorpfJ. B.van AkenM. A. G. (2017).
Do you see my growth?: Two longitudinal studies on personality development from childhood to young adulthood from multiple perspectives. Journal of Research in Personality,
67, 44--60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.004
58.
MacCannC.LipnevichA. A.PoropatA. E.WiemersM. J.RobertsR. D. (2015).
Self- and parent-rated facets of conscientiousness predict academic outcomes: Parent-reports are more predictive, particularly for approach-oriented facets. Learning and Individual Differences,
42, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.012
59.
MajorS. O.Seabra-SantosM. J.MartinR. P. (2015).
Are we talking about the same child? Parent-teacher ratings of preschoolers’ social-emotional behaviors. Psychology in the Schools,
52(8), 789–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21855
60.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.GraysonD. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-OlivaresA.McArdleJ. J. (Eds.), Multivariate applications book series. Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340).
Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
61.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment.
Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
MischelW. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In MagnussonD.EndlerN. S. (Eds.), Personality at the cross-rods: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352).
Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
NyeC. D.BradburnJ.OlenickJ.BialkoC.DrasgowF. (2018).
How big are my effects? Examining the magnitude of effect sizes in studies of measurement equivalence. Organizational Research Methods, 109442811876112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118761122
64.
PaunonenS. V.O’NeillT. A. (2010).
Self-reports, peer ratings and construct validity. European Journal of Personality,
24(3), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.751
65.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.The Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
66.
PoropatA. E. (2009).
A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin,
135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
67.
PoropatA. E. (2014).
A meta-analysis of adult-rated child personality and academic performance in primary education. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12019
68.
RamseyC. M.SpiraA. P.ParisiJ. M.RebokG. W. (2016).
School climate: Perceptual differences between students, parents, and school staff. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
27(4), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1199436
69.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
70.
RosseelY. (2012).
lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,
48(2), 1–36.
71.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008).
The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94(4), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718
72.
SpenglerM.BrunnerM.DamianR. I.LüdtkeO.MartinR.RobertsB. W. (2015).
Student characteristics and behaviors at age 12 predict occupational success 40 years later over and above childhood IQ and parental socioeconomic status. Developmental Psychology,
51(9), 1329–1340. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000025
73.
SpenglerM.BrunnerM.MartinR.LüdtkeO. (2016).
The role of personality in predicting (change in) students’ academic success across four years of secondary school. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
32(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000330
74.
SpenglerM.LüdtkeO.MartinR.BrunnerM. (2013).
Personality is related to educational outcomes in late adolescence: Evidence from two large-scale achievement studies. Journal of Research in Personality,
47(5), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.008
75.
SpinathB.FreudenthalerH.NeubauerA. C. (2010).
Domain-specific school achievement in boys and girls as predicted by intelligence, personality and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences,
48(4), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.028
76.
SrivastavaS.GuglielmoS.BeerJ. S. (2010).
Perceiving others’ personalities: Examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017057
77.
SteenkampJ.‐B. E. M.BaumgartnerH. (1998).
Assessing measurement invariance in cross‐national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
25(1), 78–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
78.
SüdkampA.KaiserJ.MöllerJ. (2012).
Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
104(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627.supp
79.
TackettJ. L. (2011).
Parent informants for child personality: Agreement, discrepancies, and clinical utility. Journal of Personality Assessment,
93(6), 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.608763
80.
TettR. P.BurnettD. D. (2003).
A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(3), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
81.
TettR. P.GutermanH. A. (2000).
Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality,
34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
82.
TovW.NaiZ. L.LeeH. W. (2016).
Extraversion and agreeableness: Divergent routes to daily satisfaction with social relationships. Journal of Personality,
84(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12146
83.
UsherE. L.LiC. R.ButzA. R.RojasJ. P. (2019).
Perseverant grit and self-efficacy: Are both essential for children’s academic success?Journal of Educational Psychology,
111(5), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000324
84.
VazireS. (2010).
Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98(2), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908
85.
VazireS.SolomonB. C. (2015). Self- and other-knowledge of personality. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences, American Psychological Association, pp. 261--281. https://doi.org/10.1037/14343-012.
86.
Von StummS.AckermanP. L. (2013).
Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
139(4), 841–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030746
87.
Von StummS.HellB.Chamorro-PremuzicT. (2011).
The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science,
6(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204
88.
WarmT. (1989).
Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika,
54(3), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294627
89.
WatsonD.HubbardB.WieseD. (2000).
Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78(3), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.546
90.
WestphalA.BeckerM.VockM.MaazK.NeumannM.McElvanyN. (2016).
The link between teacher-assigned grades and classroom socioeconomic composition: The role of classroom behavior, motivation, and teacher characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
46, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.06.004
91.
ZhangB.SunT.CaoM.DrasgowF. (2020).
Using bifactor models to examine the predictive validity of hierarchical constructs: Pros, cons, and solutions. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120915522.
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.
