Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Comrey, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of Two Methods to Identify Major Personality Factors

Andrew L. Comrey

Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles CA 90024, U.S.A.

Both Howarth and Comrey have developed taxon omies of personality traits and inventories to measure them. The Howarth Personality Questionnaire and Ad ditional Personality Factor inventories include 20 fac tors, whereas the Comrey Personality Scales (CPS) taxonomy includes eight factors. Howarth identified his factors through factor analysis of items, whereas Comrey identified his primary level factors through factor analysis of conceptually distinct clusters of ho mogeneous items, called Factored Homogeneous Item Dimensions (FHIDs), while avoiding the inclusion of highly redundant variables in the same analysis. Data for all three inventories were collected from the same subjects and factor analyzed. The Howarth factor scales were narrower in content and more highly over lapping than the CPS factor scales. Most of the Ho warth factor scales were good marker variables for the CPS primary factors. Five CPS factors had major loadings for more than one of the Howarth factor scales. The CPS Emotional Stability vs. Neuroticism (S) primary level factor was split into several lower level factors in the Howarth system. Factor analysis of items is recommended to identify FHIDs. Factor anal ysis of FHIDs, in which no two FHIDs are merely al ternate forms of the same conceptual variable, is rec ommended to identify the major primary factors of personality.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 8, No. 4, 397-408 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168400800404
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?