This article provides a reply to Cattell's 1995 comments on some methodological issues related to Byravan and Ramanaiah's 1995 study and shows that their study was methodologically sound. It was concluded that the results of Byravan and Ramanaiah's study were different from those of Cattell's 1995 factor analyses mainly due to the fact that the former involved the factor analysis of 16PF primary scales from the perspective of the five-factor model using Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales and Goldberg's 1992 scales as markers for the five major factors whereas the latter investigated the structure of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facet scales from the perspective of the 16PF global scales.
References
1.
ByravanA., & RamanaiahN. V. (1995) Structure of the 16PF Fifth Edition from the perspective of the five-factor model. Psychological Reports, 76, 555–560.
2.
CattellH. E. P. (1995) Some comments on a factor analysis of the 16PF and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised. Psychological Reports, 77, 1307–1311.
3.
CostaP. T.Jr., & McCraeR. R. (1992) The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
4.
GoldbergL. R. (1992) The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
5.
JacksonD. A. (1975) Multimethod factor analysis: a reformulation. Multivariate Behavior Research, 10, 259–275.
