Six-factor model of personality and psychometric properties of The HEXACO Personality inventory – Revised
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
According to the HEXACO six-factor personality model, the personality is best described by six dimensions. These are: Honesty-humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to experience. The authors of the model – Michael C. Ashton and Kibeom Lee, refer to the possibility of a more differentiated depiction of personality structure and provide an alternative to other respected factorial models. While the sixfactor model is commonly used in Canada and in the USA, in the Czech Republic it is not. In the research, we strived to determine the basic parameters of the Czech version of the six-dimension method. Furthermore, we aimed to validate the HEXACO model structure using exploratory factor analysis. The participants consisted of 760 college students (221 males and 539 females) from more than 20 universities of the Czech Republic (e.g. Charles University in Prague, Masaryk University, Palacký University in Olomouc). The 100-item Personality Inventory HEXACOPI- R was used for measurement. It is self-report instrument that assesses the six major dimensions of personality. The internal-consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for the HEXACO-PI-R scales were high. The reliabilities ranged from .76 (Openness to Experience) to .88 (Extraversion) at the factor level. The 24 facet scales in the HEXACO-PI-R were submitted to a principal axis factor analysis. When these factors were rotated to a Varimax solution, a simple factor structure emerged (the sizes of the corresponding factor loading were big, ranging from .46 to .73). The mutual correlations among the six factor-level scales were low. The highest correlation (r = .28) was found between Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. Discriminant validity was established. While the six dimensions of the HEXACO model showed high levels of the Cronbach’s alpha, some of the facet-level scales were low. Particularly the facet-levels of Openness to Experience seem a little problematic; alpha ranges from .40 (Unconventionality) to .62 (Aesthetic appreciation). But in general, Openness to Experience is the most controversial dimension in terms of the content interpretation. Ongoing work with the Czech translation of the items covered by this dimension is needed. To compare the two structures, the Czech and the original Canadian, we used the congruence calculation. It ranges from .93 (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality) to .96 (Conscientiousness). The Canadian and Czech factor structure show a high level of correspondence. Further work with the model should consider the critical comments concerning for example the inhomogeneous identification of the Honesty-Humility factor in different languages (De Raad et al., 2010). The Czech version of 100-item HEXACO-PI-R seems to be usable in our socio-culture conditions regarding its high Cronbach’s alpha, the validated six-factor model structure and the established discriminant validity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».