Big Five Personality Trait Short Questionnaire: Preliminary Validation with Spanish Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two major advantages of the Big Five Personality Trait Short Questionnaire (BFPTSQ) over other non-commercial short Five-Factor Model personality measures: widen conceptual breadth, and its use in both adolescents and adults. The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of this questionnaire in an adult Spanish sample. Factor, convergent (using the NEO-PI-R), and criterion (using scales that assess happiness and alcohol consumption) validities, internal consistency as well as test-retest reliabilities of the BFPTSQ were evaluated. The sample was composed of 262 participants; a subsample of 71 individuals also answered the NEO-PI-R, and another subsample of 42 respondents filled the BFPTSQ out again a month later. The results indicated that the expected factor structure was recovered using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). The ESEM showed satisfactory fit indices, with CFI and TLI around .90, as well as RMSEA and SRMR below .06. Moreover, coefficient alphas ranged from .75 to .85 and test-retest correlations ranged from .72 to .93 (p < .001). Regarding the associations of BFPTSQ with NEO-PI-R scales, the correlations with the broad-trait scales ranged from .57 to .80 (p < .001), and 27 out of 30 correlations with the facet scales were significant (p < .05 or lower). We also found that extraversion and emotional stability were associated with subjective well-being (p < .001), and extraversion and conscientiousness were related to alcohol consumption (p < .01). This study supports the construct validity of the Spanish version of the BFPTSQ in adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".