1

Big Five Assessment

PERSONALITY
MANUAL

Life, with personality

Table of Contents
2

Introduction Validity
Key Benefits 3 Overview 24
Construct Validity 24
Personality And The Big Five Five Key Points 25
Overview 4 Traitify Big Five Inter-correlations 26
Personality And Life 5 Criterion-Related Validity 26
Personality And Work 5
Structure
Building The Traitify Big Five Overview 28
Overview 8
Visual Format 8 Fairness
Me/Not Me 8 Overview 30
Design Process 9 Gender Differences In The Big Five Dimensions 30
Age Differences In The Big Five Dimensions 31
Using The Traitify Big Five Ethnicity Differences In The Big Five Dimensions 31
Overview 11
SaaS 11 References 33
API 11
Appendix-1
Traitify Big Five dimensions List of Traitify Big Five Trait Descriptions. 36
Overview 12
Narrative Descriptions 12 Appendix-2
Solving Problems 12 Example Predictive Validity Coefficients 37
Delivering Results 13
Engaging With People 14 Appendix-3
Influencing People 15 Rotated Component Matrix for the Traits 38
Managing Pressure 17
On-Screen Feedback 18

Standardization
Overview 19
Standardizing The Big Five 19
Scaling The Traitify Big Five 21

Reliability
Overview 22
Internal Consistency 22
Test-Retest Reliability 22
Introduction 3

The Traitify Big Five assessment is a new and dynamic visual personality questionnaire. It
provides an extremely efficient means of measuring the five main dimensions of personality,
while maintaining the accuracy and validity of the results.

It’s a fun and interactive way of gathering key personality data. It has applications in any
situation where personality drives an aspect of decision making or self-exploration, for example
in recruitment, recreation or relationships.

It utilizes Traitify’s unique visual format and robust delivery system - a fully scalable system
which has to date delivered millions of assessments.

Key Benefits

The questionnaire is based on over 50 years of international research. It is driven by the most
widely recognized and respected model of human personality: the Five Factor Model.

The Big Five personality domains have been shown to be directly predictive of many aspects of
work performance, satisfaction, engagement, leadership potential, motivation, counterproductive
work behavior and so on.

The questionnaire is visual. This means that the ‘questions’ take less time for the brain to process,
and the experience is far more engaging. Typical completion time is 4 minutes, and 90% finish the
questionnaire1 .

The response is a simple “Me/Not Me”, a format that makes responding quicker and more decisive.
Compared to other questionnaires this also reduces the effects of questionnaire fatigue.

Unlike traditional questionnaires, Traitify’s innovative design means that multiple data points
are obtained from each response. Apart from making the questionnaire a highly effective way of
gathering information, this also makes it harder to ‘game’.

On-screen results are presented in both a visual and text-based format. Users can drill down into
more detail as required, and clear and actionable information is provided. This provides recruiters
with the know-how to act, and individuals with powerful personal self-insights.

1 Completion time is the median time based on a normed sample.

Personality
4

And The Big person may score highly on Extraversion and on the
social traits (e.g. interactive, friendly) associated
with it, but not on the thrill seeking traits (e.g. thrill-

Five seeking, high-energy) which are also associated with

it, or vice versa.

The following traits are often associated with, and

define, the five dimensions:
Overview
Personality is at the heart of how we deal with the
Openness to Experience:
world. As individuals our unique personalities are
Playful, curious, imaginative, creative, open-
powerful predictors of the way in which we respond
minded, seeks novelty, forward looking/
across a broad range of different situations.
visionary.
In short, personality can be seen as the underlying
Conscientiousness:
pattern of thoughts and feelings that influence what
Orderly, committed, confident (sense of
we are likely to do. For personality to affect our
mastery), achievement oriented, reliable, self-
behaviour in this way, it must also be consistent and
disciplined.
stable, although obviously it will be influenced by
context and culture. That is the situation you find
Extraversion:
yourself in (at work or home), and what is considered
Active, energetic, thrill-seeking, enthusiastic,
appropriate and acceptable.
assertive, interactive, friendly.
At a theoretical level psychologists have studied
Agreeableness:
personality for over 100 years. Comparatively
Accommodating, loyal/trusting,
recently, over the last 50 years, a consensus has
compassionate, altruistic, steady, cooperative,
emerged and there is now agreement that the Five
forgiving/tolerant.
Factor Model (FFM) represents the best structure for
human personality. Psychologists agree that these
Emotional Stability: Calm, even-tempered,
five factors capture the most important and basic
positive, resilient/robust, deliberate, easy-
personality differences between people; or as some
going, regulated.
researchers describe them, they are the ‘primary
colours’ of personality (Trickey & Hogan, 1998).

The model is often referred to as the ‘Big Five’, or Like many concepts in psychology, there are a
OCEAN, and encompasses a set of five broad factors number of people who can claim to be the fathers
or dimensions, namely: Openness to Experience, of the FFM, but it’s worth mentioning that the
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness original breakthrough came as a result of the re-
and Neuroticism (often labelled as its opposite, analysis of work conducted by Raymond Cattell in
Emotional Stability). the late 1940’s (Cattell, 1946; Russell & Karol, 1994).
Beneath the five dimensions are groups of traits. A He constructed a personality model based on the
person who scores highly on a dimension is more analysis of natural language. The idea was that a
likely to score highly on most of the traits in that ‘lexical’ approach would identify an exhaustive list of
dimension, but not necessarily all of them (Crede, words used to describe personality, and thus of all
Harms, Blacksmith & Wood, 2016). For example a the possible personality traits.
 Personality And The Big Five 5

The re-analysis was conducted by Tupes & Christal Conscientiousness

(1961) who found that Cattell’s trait data could be Conscientious people respect orderliness, duty,
summarised as five large and stable factors. Other achievement, and self-discipline, and are concerned
psychologists, such as Norman (1963), McCrae & with increasing their competence. The factor is also
Costa (1987), Goldberg (1993), Digman (1990) and related to conformity and tradition (Roccas, Sagiv,
Hough (1992) went on to confirm, refine and expand Schwartz & Knafo, 2002).
on this finding.
It is highly correlated with learning outcomes (Woods,
In particular the robustness of the model has been Patterson, Koczwara, & Sofat, 2016), job performance
established, and critically it has been replicated (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and career success (Judge,
across many cultures and languages (De Raad & Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).
Perguni, 2002; Costa & McCrae, 2006).
With respect to the rest of the Big Five,
There is also an enormous body of academic and Conscientiousness correlates weakly (and negatively)
applied research that links personality traits, and with Neuroticism, and Agreeableness. It does not
the Big Five, with real-world outcomes. For example, appear to be related to the other factors (Van der
there are strong relationships with job performance Linden, Te Nijenhuis & Bakker, 2010).
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones et al, 2007), well-
being (Weiss, Bates & Luciano, 2008), health and life
expectancy (Friedman & Kern, 2010), and academic
achievement (Chamarro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). Extraversion
Extroverts are often assertive, active and sociable.
They can also be hedonistic, and actively seek
Personality And Life excitement and pleasure. Achievement and
To illustrate the richness of the relationship between stimulation are often more important than
personality and a range of human attributes, here conforming to particular norms of behaviour or
are some example findings for each of the Big Five following rules (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo,
factors: 2002).

Over the course of a life, Extraversion correlates

positively with income, being able to adjust to
Openness to Experience challenges, and having satisfying social relationships.
Openness is related to a person’s in-built values
Indeed Extraversion is fairly constant across the
system. People who are ‘open to experience’ are
years, indicating that Extraversion and introversion
tolerant and accepting and see everyone as equally
are pretty stable, fixed states (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).
deserving of justice and equality (Douglas, Bore &
Overall, Extraversion is a good predictor of general
Munro, 2016). It also correlates highly with creativity,
well-being (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), a positive
originality and introspection, and is found to be very
attitude to life (Verduyn & Brans, 2012), and
stable over time (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).
confidence in task performance (Schaefer, Williams,
Goodie, & Campbell, 2004).
When it comes to the other Big Five factors, openness
is weakly related to Extraversion2 ; and is mostly
unrelated to Neuroticism, Agreeableness and 2 As a ‘rule of thumb’, a correlation of 0.3 is described as a ‘weak’
Conscientiousness (Van der Linden, Te Nijenhuis & relationship, 0.5 as ‘moderate’, and 0.7+ as ‘strong’. From a
predictive perspective, a weak or moderate relationship does not
Bakker, 2010). mean that a particular aspect or measure of personality has no
utility.
 6

When looked at in relation to the other Big Five and with mental health issues (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999.)
factors, Extraversion correlates weakly and negatively With regard to the other factors, Neuroticism
with Neuroticism, and weakly and positively correlates weakly and negatively with Agreeableness
with Openness to Experience (Van der Linden, Te and Conscientiousness. It also has a weak negative
Nijenhuis & Bakker, 2010). relationship with Extraversion and Openness (Van der
Linden, Te Nijenhuis & Bakker, 2010).

Agreeableness
Those with Agreeable personalities place an Personality And Work
emphasis on compassion, generosity and trust. The relationship between personality and workplace
They are less concerned with power, achievement or performance is one of the best established. The Big
ego-related activities. In reality, the highly agreeable Five are predictive of both job competencies and
person is motivated by the need to fulfill social more specific work behaviours.
obligations, which often comes from a genuine
concern with the welfare of others (Roccas, Sagiv, There is a great deal of evidence which supports
Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). the influence of personality on career choice,
training outcomes, job performance, integrity,
Those high in agreeableness are likely to have counterproductive work behaviour, teamwork,
warm, positive and satisfying relationships, live work attitudes and motivation, job satisfaction,
long lives and give back to their community (Ozer attendance, worker turnover, management potential,
& Benet-Martinez, 2006). Generally high levels of leadership and occupational health.
agreeableness are related to good life adjustment Overall the research demonstrates that different
(Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). patterns of the Big Five map onto different
performance criteria, and that as composite
At the Big Five level, Agreeableness correlates
predictors - where all the Big Five factors are included
weakly with Extraversion, is negatively related to
- they have predictive power. Specifically they have
Neuroticism, and is weakly and positively related to
validities in the 0.41 - 0.54 range3 . This is illustrated in
conscientiousness (Van der Linden, Te Nijenhuis &
the Table-14 on page 7.
Bakker, 2010).
Other composite validities include impressive
correlations with teamwork, (0.47) and training
Neuroticism (0.44) - (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001); organizational
Neuroticism, or the lack of Emotional Stability over citizenship (0.43) - (Borman, Penner, Allen &
time, is negatively related to self-esteem, self-efficacy
and internal locus of control (Judge, Erez, Bono,
3
& Thoresen, 2002). It is also correlated with low Correlations run from -1.0 (perfect negative) to +1.0 (perfect
motivation and ineffective goal setting (Judge & Ilies, positive). Not much, especially continuous attributes like human
personality, ever gets close to -1.0 or +1.0. And correlations
2002). are not probabilities: 0.6 doesn’t mean that something works
6/10 times. The useful thing to know is that the square of
the correlation is the proportion of variance in Y that can be
The reactive and impulsive aspects of Neuroticism accounted for by knowing X, or vice versa. As a reference point,
relate positively to hedonism (pleasure without correlations that are greater than 0.3 equate to the top third of all
responsibility) and negatively to benevolence and psychological ‘effect sizes’.
conformity (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). 4 The figures in the table are meta-analytic correlations, except
Long term research has demonstrated that for the Multiple Rs. Adjustments have been made for low criterion
reliability and restriction of range. The * indicates the 95%
Neuroticism is related to the inability to cease using confidence level. The table is based on a presentation by Timothy
alcohol or drugs, being unable to adjust to problems, Judge (2005).
 Personality And The Big Five 7

Motowildo, 2001); goal setting (0.58) - (Judge & Ilies, Viswevaran, 1998).
2002), intention to quit (0.33) - (Zimmerman, 2008), All these large scale, mostly meta-analytic studies,
and so on. provide strong evidence that personality is predictive
across a wide range of jobs of different complexities,
Unpacking other composite validities, various from skilled and semi-skilled, through to the
combinations of the Big Five are found to be professions and management.
predictive of more specialized criteria. For example,
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism As Deniz Ones, one of the most respected voices in
(Emotional Stability) are specifically correlated (0.41) personality research says:
with integrity - (Ones, Viswesvaran & Schmidt, 1993).
“Hundreds of primary studies and dozens of
The same factors, but with different weights, are meta-analyses conducted and published since
also correlated with customer service (0.39) - (Ones the mid 1980s indicate strong support for using
& Viswesvaran, 2001). By way of contrast, sales personality measures in staffing decisions.” (Ones
is mostly a question of Conscientiousness and et al, 2007.)
Extraversion - (Ones, Dilchert, Viswevaran & Judge,
2007); and managerial potential a combination
of Neuroticism (Emotional Stability), Extraversion
and Conscientiousness (0.42) - (Ones, Hough &

Table 1 - Predictive Validities of Big Five Dimensions

Job Job
Motivation Leadership
Satisfaction Performace
Openess 0.09 0.02 0.24* 0.06
Conscientiousness 0.20* 0.26* 0.28* 0.20*
Extraversion 0.16* 0.25* 0.31* 0.09
Agreeableness -0.17* 0.17 0.08 0.11
Neurotocism -0.24 -0.29* -0.24* -0.13
Multiple R 0.54* 0.41* 0.47 0.47*

The * indicates the 95% confidence level.

Building The Traitify
8

Big Five
Overview way the response to a slide can be considered to be
The Traitify Big Five questionnaire is a visual more automatic than that to a traditional, completely
personality questionnaire. It is composed of 73 slides5 . verbal questionnaire. The use of a visual format, and
Each slide contains a colour image, a short text being able to tap into a more authentic reaction to
caption, and a “Me/Not Me” response option. the stimulus, also provides for very quick responding.
This is unsurprising because of the dominance of
Individual slides are keyed to up to 6 personality vision as a human sense.
traits, and subsets of slides relate to the Big Five
personality dimensions. This format is unique and Indeed research at MIT suggests that the brain
allows the questionnaire to be short, while being can process entire visual images in as little as 13
reliable and valid. The ability to obtain multiple milliseconds; a number that is 60,000 times faster
data points from each slide, and the visual format, than that for text (MIT, 2014).
result in average performance times for the entire
questionnaire of 4 minutes. Extensive text, as it is used in text-only
questionnaires, is also likely to create a ‘processing
Such an efficient method of measuring personality barrier’ for some people, especially those who are
has another important benefit. As it only takes a not psychologically savvy or who have limited self-
short time to complete the questionnaire - overall awareness.
completion rates are typically 90% - the vast majority
of people finish the entire questionnaire. This
suggests that the questionnaire is immune from Me/Not Me
the effects of boredom and fatigue, something that The “Me/Not Me” response is also designed to ease
is a key issue with long and repetitive text-based responding. The decision making load is light as
questionnaires. it invites the individual to move toward or away -
identify or not identify - with a particular image. The
Global completion rates are particularly important use of a binary approach also makes the decision
in those situations where the questionnaire is being decisive; with shades of responding being taken care
used as part of a recruitment process, or in any of by the underlying structure of the questionnaire
situation where psychological data is required at - especially the fact that each slide relates to more
scale. than one trait.

The fact that each slide relates to more than one

trait also makes the questionnaire harder to ‘game’.
Visual Format Individuals may have a surface impression of what is
The distinctive visual format provides a rich ‘stimulus’ being measured but will not be able to determine the
for the questionnaire taker. It is linked to the full list of underlying traits. In this way the response
concept of ‘free association’ as it elicits personality format helps to control for a variety of potential
preferences at many levels of consciousness. In this biases including ‘social desirability’.
5 As long as it is psychometrically reliable, a short questionnaire The presence of this design feature means that the
is not necessarily less predictive than a long questionnaire. In
many cases short questionnaires can outperform their longer questionnaire does not need to contain a scale to
counterparts (Thalmayer, Saucier & Eigenhuis, 2011.) detect socially desirable responding - which may, of
 Building The Traitify Big Five 9

course, include not telling the truth. This is further

supported by research that suggests that elaborate
‘validity’ scales do not in fact work! (Piedmont,
McCrae, Riemann & Angleitner, 2000)

Design Process
The design process for the questionnaire mirrored
the way in which any other questionnaire would
be constructed. It was composed, developed and
ultimately refined through a series of iterative data
analyses. The process can be briefly summarized in
five steps:

Step 1 - Background Research

The questionnaire is firmly rooted in the Five Factor
Model (see Personality And The Big Five on page 4)
and so builds on decades of personality research. In
refining the trait structure of each of the dimensions,
the designers - which included psychologists and
psychotherapists - explored a range of current long
and short-form text-based questionnaires.

These included trait-based questionnaires like the

NEO-PIR (Costa & McCrae, 2006), 16PF5 (Russell &
Karol, 1994), HPI (Hogan & Hogan, 1992) and OPQ32
(SHL, 2000), and type-based questionnaires like the
MBTI (Myers & Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) -
all of which are long form questionnaires; and the BFI
(John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991), IPIP-NEO (Johnson, Step 2 - First Main Trial
2014), NEO-FFI-3 (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and TIPI A trial questionnaire was constructed using Traitify’s
(Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003) - short or very proprietary visual format. This involved assigning
short form questionnaires. traits to dimensions in such a way that there could
be an overlap of traits between slides, and within a
The designers also consulted Traitify’s own extensive personality dimension; but not between dimensions.
bank of psychological traits, and brought to bear In addition, the creative team researched images
their extensive knowledge of psychodynamic theory, that would best illustrate the slide concept, in terms
trait-based psychology and applied behavioural of both trait description and text caption. Often
science. this involved balancing image and caption, and if
a suitable image could not be found the slide was
The aim of this step was to identify the traits that redesigned.
best described each of the Big Five dimensions, while
ensuring sufficient depth and breadth of coverage. The prototype questionnaire trialled in December
2016 and early January 2017 on a group of 96
participants and a range of statistics were calculated.
 10

These involved an examination of endorsement The aim of this step was to construct the best
rates, and slides with very high or very low rates possible questionnaire on the basis of the
were flagged for discussion, alteration, and statistical evidence, while adding in some potential
possible negative keying (negative scoring). Score redundancy in the form of a number of additional
distributions and descriptive statistics were also ‘research’ slides.
analyzed to explore the effective range of scores and
whether the score distributions were unduly skewed. Step 4 - Second Main Trial
The data from this trial, on the final selection of
At the same time it was possible to calculate the slides, are described in the technical sections.
internal consistencies for each of the five factors Essentially this trial allowed for the standardization
and to check that these were in excess of 0.7 (the of the questionnaire and for a set of representative
accepted standard). norms to be calculated. In addition, it was used to
generate a final set of internal consistency figures
Likewise the inter-correlations between dimensions and other meaningful psychometric indicators.
were computed, and the data were factor analyzed,
to ensure that the factors were distinct from each
The second trial also yielded test-retest statistics,
other; i.e. it was expected that the correlations
and evidence of construct validity, i.e. that the
between dimensions would be low, and that
questionnaire was effectively measuring the Big Five.
the correlations (and clustering) of traits within
dimensions would be high.
The aim of this step was to finalize questionnaire
The aim of this step was to generate empirical content.
evidence that could be used to refine and focus the
questionnaire. Step 5 - Ongoing Development
As the design process is an iterative process, and as
Step 3 - Intermediate Trial & Revision new sets of data become available, the Traitify team
An intermediate trial was conducted in July 2017 on a will recalculate all the key statistics and compare the
national sample of 117 US participants. performance of the questionnaire across different
groups and populations.
The questionnaire was refined once again and a
number of slides with poor psychometric properties This will also allow ideal job profiles to be
were removed. constructed when data from sufficient numbers
of candidates are available, i.e. to develop cut-off
The major changes included adding a number scores for each of the five dimensions for specific
of additional slides that were projected to have work sectors like sales, customer service, hospitality,
endorsement rates in the mid-range, rather than at accounting, administration and so on.
the extremes. Additionally work was conducted to
re-balance the questionnaire in terms of scoring, by The aim of ongoing development is to ‘tune’ the
ensuring a spread of positive and negatively keyed questionnaire and maximize its utility, reliability and
items. Note that this is also a way of controlling for validity.
‘response sets’, i.e. of limiting the effects of those who
always respond in a particular direction, irrespective
of questionnaire content.
Using The Traitify 11

Big Five
Overview API
Traitify allows organizations of any size to assess the One of Traitify’s advantages over other questionnaires
Traitify Big Five questionnaire immediately via a SaaS is its API. The Traitify API allows for the assessment
model or by a simple API integration. to be administered in any way that the organization
sees fit. There are Javascript widgets that allow an
organization to embed the questionnaire in whatever
SaaS way they wish - a website, an intranet, a mobile app,
The Traitify SaaS product allows for organizations part of their recruiting process and many others. The
to get up and running very quickly. Organizations API also allows organizations to collect results and
are given a unique URL they can distribute to their use them for any purpose they wish, some examples
users. The product can be configured to collect any would be for guiding cultural direction of their
information needed before users are given access company, analyzing their customers, and guiding
to the questionnaire. Users can take the Big Five candidates during the recruitment process.
questionnaire as well as the other questionnaires
that Traitify offers. The product can be configured to The API is simple, intuitive, and packed with
show the user their results or not. intelligent ways to get organizations up and running
quickly, while allowing them to present something
Administrators are given a suite of tools that will help comfortable and familiar to their brand.
them analyze their users in a number of ways. Users
can be searched and grouped from the user list. The
questionnaire results can be analyzed on our Insights
page in groups or per individual. Administrators can
compare users against other users or groups of users.
When viewing a user’s profile, the administrator is
given full insight into the results of the questionnaire
and can even be given a fit score that is created
against industry or company benchmarks.
Traitify Big Five
12

Dimensions
Overview the possibilities. Because they tend to be visionary,
The narrative descriptions for each of the Traitify Big they are likely to imagine how a particular decision
Five dimensions are provided below. Other aspects will play out in the future. Their big-picture capacity
of the on-screen feedback generated for recruiters/ leaves them less concerned with the details. They
individuals are described briefly in On-Screen will probably base their decisions on a ‘wide-angle’
Feedback on page 18. (strategic), future-oriented and intentionally unique
view of what is possible.

Potential benefits:
Narrative Descriptions • Creative thinker
The following are the narrative descriptions of each
• Makes rapid connections
of the Traitify Big Five dimensions. They have been
organized under their related competency title, • Develops new approaches
e.g. in a work sense ‘Openness’ relates to ‘Solving • Sees the big picture
Problems’. The ‘High’ (STEN 8-10), ‘Low’ (STEN 1-3) • Looks to the future
and ‘Medium’ (STEN 4-7) descriptions are provided in • Capacity to be visionary
each case. The method for converting to STEN scores
from raw scores is described in Scaling the Traitify Possible pitfalls:
Big Five Results on page 21. • May have ‘head in the clouds’
• May not work systematically
The descriptions are in the third person; a first person • May reinvent the wheel
version is also available. They also contain a list of • May miss some of the detail
‘potential benefits’ and ‘possible pitfalls’ that relate • May not learn from the past
to each dimension. A list of the underlying traits is • May resist structured approaches
provided in Appendix-1.

{Low score description STEN 1-3}

Solving Problems The candidate appears to take a very pragmatic
Solving Problems (Openness) concerns how approach to solving problems. They are likely to use
someone thinks about work problems, projects familiar, tried-and-tested methods and are more
and challenges, how receptive they are to new or comfortable working with established guidelines or
different information or approaches, and the way this principles. This will often involve looking at problems
influences their decision-making. from a practical and grounded perspective, and
seeing the value in approaches that are immediately
{High score description STEN 8-10} useful. Probably their decisions will be made in the
The candidate appears to be very open-minded here-and-now and they will prefer to continue with
and to prefer approaching problems in original what they know already works, maybe with some
and creative ways. They are likely to think of many fine-tuning. Their emphasis will be on the facts or
different ways of solving a problem and to enjoy details, and decisions will probably be made on a
pushing the boundaries of what is possible. This finely observed and immediate (tactical) view of what
may involve looking at things from a completely
is possible.
original angle, or simply being able to have “fun” with
 Traitify Big Five Dimensions 13

Potential benefits: • May confuse knowledge with foresight

• Practical thinker • Can err on the side of caution
• Works methodically
• Uses tried-and-tested methods
• Keen eye for detail
• Experience-based approach Delivering Results
• Seen as stable and predictable Delivering Results (Conscientiousness) concerns
work style and how someone directs their efforts
Possible pitfalls: and attention toward completing tasks. The level of
• May not think of a ‘better way’ discipline, dedication, perseverance, organization
• May not make intuitive leaps and reliability are hallmark factors of this dimension.
• May not try new approaches
• May not see the bigger picture {High score description STEN 8-10}
• May miss future possibilities The candidate seems to be the sort of person who
• May seem ‘closed-minded’ likes a clear structure organizing what they do. This
helps them to focus on what is important. In many
ways their concern is with ‘how’ they approach
{Medium score description STEN 4-7} tasks, and in their case this is likely to be with a
The candidate appears to take a balanced approach strong sense of self-discipline and the ability to work
to solving problems. They are likely to be able to towards longer term goals. Their results indicate they
think of new and original ways of approaching are able to work steadily towards something and
situations, but not at the expense of ignoring well- appreciate that sometimes it can take a considerable
established solutions, already known to work. This amount of time to achieve a meaningful objective.
will often involve investigating problems by taking They are likely to pay as much attention to the end
an open-ended view of what might work, and not of the project as to the beginning. Their view of how
being afraid to change things if necessary. Most likely, things should be done is likely to be reinforced by
they will have an eye on whether something will be their confidence in their own abilities, and a wish to
effective both now and in the future. The emphasis do their best for themselves and for other people.
will probably be on juggling the facts and making
changes, large or small, in order to make a decision Potential benefits:
that will stand the test of time. • Structured work style
• Identifies key goals
Potential benefits: • Focuses on task at hand
• Pragmatic thinker • Wants to achieve
• Works to maintain the system • Sense of commitment
• Flexible problem solver • Tolerant of tedious details
• Sees detail and bigger picture
• Brings experience to strategy Possible pitfalls:
• Tends to be cautious • May use an overly rigid approach
• May settle on goals too early
Possible pitfalls: • May not re-prioritize tasks
• May over rely on middle way • May set impossibly high standards
• May work too slowly • May commit to the wrong objective
• May be too quick to change style • May not know when to stop
• May find it hard to focus
 14

{Low score description STEN 1-3} person who can measure out the energy they invest
The candidate seems to be the sort of person who in tasks, ramping up more when they have to do
prefers to approach tasks in a flexible and often things they would normally avoid. This view of how
swift manner. This helps them to change things as work should be done is reinforced by the fact that
they go along and to react to events as they occur. they are likely to commit to tasks when they feel
They are not particularly driven by systems and fully invested in the outcome, and it’s this sense of
convention and are likely to have their own view of ownership that gives them the confidence to do their
what constitutes a job well done. Their spontaneous best work.
nature probably means they want to see rapid results
from their work, and are eager to see how things turn Potential benefits:
out. They may prefer short-term projects to longer • Balanced work style
term ones. This also suggests they may postpone • Continually prioritizes goals
tasks they consider unnecessary or unpleasant. This • Focuses on process and task
view of how work should be done is reinforced by the • Wants to achieve
fact that they may well feel restricted if they have no • Committed to shared outcome
scope to change tasks. Additionally, they are likely to • Flexible work style
be more confident when they can just ‘do it their own
way’. Possible pitfalls:
• May be slow to select suitable style
Potential benefits: • May tend to leave things too open
• Flexible work style • May not leave space for change
• Quick to pivot goals • May confound achievement with delivery
• Focuses on process • May not commit without ownership
• Wants to see results • May not prioritize end goal consistently
• Critical of purpose
• Values the end goal
Engaging With People
Possible pitfalls: Engaging with people (Extraversion) concerns
• May not follow a plan someone’s interest, investment and comfort in
• May change course too soon developing relationships with others - customers,
• May not focus on the task clients, work groups or colleagues.
• May sacrifice quality for speed
• May over-complicate purpose {High score description STEN 8-10}
• Intolerant of tedious details The candidate seems to be the sort of person who
seeks out and enjoys being with other people.
Typically, they find it stimulating to have lively
{Medium score description STEN 4-7} discussions with others, and may even enjoy getting
The candidate seems to be the sort of person who a reaction by saying or doing entertaining things.
prefers to weigh the extent to which tasks need to be When it comes to the energy they put into life,
structured, organized and planned. They are likely to they’re probably at the front of the line when there
be aware of the fact that there are things that need to is an exciting challenge up for grabs. As such they
be approached in a highly methodical manner, and are a ‘do-think-do’ kind of person who has plenty of
equally, that there are occasions when action is more enthusiasm and stamina, and a real thirst for getting
important than following a pre-planned approach. out there and making their mark.
Based on their results, they seem to be the sort of
 Traitify Big Five Dimensions 15

Potential benefits: • May find it difficult to act instinctively

• People oriented • May not ramp up energy, when needed
• Approachable • May over-think before acting
• Fun loving • May be too ‘inside’ their own head
• Energetic
• Fast to act
• Intense {Medium score description STEN 4-7}
The candidate comes across as someone who is
Possible pitfalls: comfortable in social situations, but who also knows
• May find it hard to work alone when to withdraw for periods of quiet reflection.
• May get too close too quickly Their results indicate that they are likely to be able
• May misjudge what is appropriate to adapt their interpersonal approach, depending
• May not channel energy efficiently on the situation, with the result that they are able
• May not reflect before acting to connect easily with different types of people.
• May be easily bored However, they are just as likely to be found lost in
thought as they are lost in conversation! When it
comes to the energy they put into life, they’re content
{Low score description STEN 1-3} being where the action is, but are also able to vary
The candidate seems to be someone who would their level of enthusiasm so that they don’t come
prefer to operate alone or with limited interaction across as being too attention-grabbing. Generally,
with others. They like to keep their own counsel and they’re the kind of person who has a good idea of the
do not have a strong need to express their views or amount of excitement they would like - however, they
opinions. When it comes to the energy they put into can find too much ‘down-time’ demotivating.
life, being both self-contained and reflective, they are
generally quite happy in their own world. That is not Potential benefits:
to say they are disinterested in other people - rather • Socially skilled
that they are likely to prefer one-on-one or small • Quick to connect
group interactions that feel more manageable. Larger • Fun oriented
groups can be draining for them and, therefore, they • Energetic
need time alone to recharge. Overall they may show • Thinks and acts
a low level of visible energy because they have a • Enthusiastic
reflective ‘think-do-think’ approach to getting things
done. Possible pitfalls:
• May be a bit of a Chameleon
Potential benefits: • May crowd more reserved people
• Independent worker • May tip too far towards the limelight
• Dispassionate • May get bored with low energy situations
• Thoughtful • May think and forget to act, or vice versa
• Measured • May get bored with ‘down-time’
• Thinks before acting
• Contemplative
Influencing People
Possible pitfalls: Influencing people (Agreeableness) concerns the way
• May find it hard to work in large teams someone balances their emotional understanding
• May appear rather cool of other people, and their respect for differing
 16

viewpoints, with the style in which they try to dealings with other people, they are likely to push
influence or negotiate with them. for what they want and tend to be competitive and
at times impersonal. This means they will probably
{High score description STEN 8-10} come across as being firm-minded and not easily
The candidate’s view is that they are someone swayed by feelings of sympathy for others. They are
who is accommodating and open to the opinions likely to be quite happy to confront things head on,
of other people. This suggests that they tend to and can cope with criticism.
trust other people, and can be depended on to
have a consistent and forgiving viewpoint. Their Potential benefits:
results indicate that they are very loyal, and build • Questioning
relationships with other people based on mutual • Skeptical
respect. Other people’s needs are likely to influence • Wants to win
their dealings with them, and they will often be the • Speaks honestly
person who is striving for a harmonious outcome. • Negotiates impersonally
They are tuned in to those around them and are • Confronts comfortably
motivated by the ultimate welfare of other people.
This will guide the way in which they negotiate, and
Possible pitfalls:
as a rule they are likely to avoid confrontation and
• May over-prioritize logic over feeling
promote good feeling.
• May not give the benefit of the doubt
• May not value cooperation
Potential benefits:
• May damage relationships
• Accommodating
• Trusts other people • May miss what people really want
• Looks for ‘win-win’ result • May hurt or anger others
• Non-confrontational
• Negotiates through harmony
• Attuned to others {Medium score description STEN 4-7}
The candidate’s view is that they are someone who
Possible pitfalls: has a mature and streetwise view of other people
• May be too eager to comply and their views. Their first instinct is likely to be to
• May be naïve about others’ motives trust other people, but they do know that others can
• May not drive a hard enough bargain let them down. Thus, while they are a loyal friend and
• May avoid what needs to be said colleague, they do not take everything on trust. Their
• May accept a below standard outcome results indicate that they tend to have an attitude
• May be over-influenced by others’ feelings towards others that is built on openness, and a view
that people are imperfect and sometimes need
help. Therefore, when they deal with other people,
{Low score description STEN 1-3} they will search for a mutually acceptable outcome,
The candidate’s view is that they are someone who is because they know ultimately that we all need to
questioning of other people and their opinions. This work together. In this way, they are probably able to
suggests they can be quite skeptical, and need to be be direct, but are also able to temper their approach
convinced of a person’s integrity before building a with sensitivity for what will keep relationships
relationship with them. In their book, it would seem healthy and intact.
that loyalty has to be earned. Their results indicate
that they are independent-minded and quite willing Potential benefits:
to pursue their own agenda. When it comes to their • Realistic view of others
 Traitify Big Five Dimensions 17

• Recognizes imperfection Possible pitfalls:

• Looks for win-win outcome • May not respond quickly enough
• Relational style • May lack motivation to act
• Negotiates with sensitivity • May not learn from mistakes
• Forgiving style • May be difficult to read by others
• May not ask for help when it’s needed
Possible pitfalls: • May be viewed as indifferent
• May appear too open-minded (to others)
• May let sympathy get in the way
{Low score description STEN 1-3}
• May not go for the optimal personal win
The candidate appears to respond to pressure by
• May not always be objective enough letting things get to them - both large and small.
• May lose out to very assertive colleagues Perhaps they are best described as a bit of a worrier,
• May be viewed as a ‘pushover’ by others’ and may often feel discouraged and be overly
sensitive to comments from other people. That being
said, a degree of tension is useful in order to get
Managing Pressure things done. However, it’s important to be consistent
Managing pressure (Emotional Stability) concerns and to actively manage feelings. Their results
the manner in which someone deals with pressure indicate that they are sensitive, have a lot of nervous
and the way in which they control their emotions and energy and may act impulsively at times. They may
underlying tension, in order to stay on task and cope also feel indecisive, something that other people may
with everyday challenges. interpret as them having a very changeable mind.
They often feel swamped by the challenges they have
{High score description STEN 8-10} to contend with each day, maybe as a result of having
The candidate appears to respond to pressure by a very highly tuned sense of the world around them.
taking everything in their stride. The little irritating
things in life do not seem to worry them. Perhaps Potential benefits:
they are best described as being relaxed and easy- • Highly tuned to the world
going, and not as someone who feels discouraged • Uses tension to prime action
• Takes onboard criticism
by the comments of others. Their results indicate
• Wears feelings on sleeve
that when it comes to managing their feelings they
• Understands when cannot cope
are likely to be able to contain them, and to react
• Highly aware of others’ emotional states
to situations in a supremely calm manner. They
probably let things flow over them that would make
Possible pitfalls:
many people feel anxious. In fact, their friends and • May not screen out irrelevant information
colleagues might well describe them as extremely • May be frozen by excessive tension
‘unflappable’. By and large, they feel well able to deal • May take criticism far too personally
with most of what life hands them. • May over-share feelings with others
• May be an inconsistent colleague
Potential benefits: • May be swamped by others’ emotions
• Very calm style
• Low level of tension
• Quickly lets go of criticism {Medium score description STEN 4-7}
• Keeps feelings in check The candidate appears to respond to pressure in
• Copes with everything a relaxed way but also knows when to take things
• Understated about emotions seriously. They seem to be able to let minor irritations
 18

go. Their results indicate that they are someone who with other personalities; and preferences with regard
is generally calm, and not the sort to dwell on things, to work environment.
but who is also ‘on guard’ at times. They listen to
other people and take note of what they say, but are If individual results are being used to compare an
not prone to letting criticism interfere with what they individual with a particular job/career, a percentage
do. When it comes to managing their feelings, they match is provided at the top of the page. This is
tend to respond to situations in a measured manner, based on a customized algorithm developed by
as they have a good understanding of their ability Traitify.
to cope. Indeed their friends and colleagues might
well describe them as even-tempered and positive. Experienced users can also access an administration
By and large they probably feel well able to deal with page which provides additional information and
most of what life hands them. functionality.

Potential benefits:
• Even tempered
• Low level of tension
• Takes onboard criticism
• Manages feelings
• Copes with most things
• Aware of others’ emotional states

Possible pitfalls:
• May not show real feelings
• May lack energy to act quickly
• May not take criticism seriously enough
• May appear too unresponsive
• May be slow to ask for help
• May be distracted by others’ emotions

On-Screen Feedback
The individual or hiring manager can access
personality results at a number of different levels of
detail.

The standard screen contains a radar plot (based

on STEN scores) of each of the five dimensions.
The results for each of the five dimensions are then
provided as a short text description. The user can
then drill down to an extended description if desired.
The extended description also contains ‘Potential
benefits’ and ‘Possible pitfalls’ for that individual; the
results for each of the underlying traits presented as
percentages; possible ‘complements’ and ‘conflicts’
Standardization 19

Overview Standardizing The Traitify Big Five

In most contexts users of questionnaires want The questionnaire was standardized in August 2017
to know how people compare to the general on 942 members of the US general population. The
population, or with each other, on a standard scale of sample was identified by the online sampling and data
measurement. To provide this sort of information it collection company, Research Now, and participants
is necessary to standardize the questionnaire against were invited to complete the questionnaire online.
a large and representative sample of the general
As part of the same project participants were also
population.
invited to complete the Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John,
1991) and the IPIP-NEO (Johnson, 2014), as part of the
The process of standardization establishes that validation process for the questionnaire - see Validity
the results obtained from a questionnaire can be on page 24.
interpreted against a relevant and meaningful
distribution of scores. The standardization statistics relating to gender, ethnic
origin, age and education are described in the tables
below. Additionally 168 participants (17.8%) identify as
Hispanic.

Table 2 - Gender

Number Percentage
Male 465 49.4%
Female 473 50.2%
Not Stated 4 0.4%
Total 942 100%

Table 3 - Ethnic Origin

Number Percentage
American Indian or Alaska Native 8 0.8%
Asian 41 4.4%
Black or African American 164 17.4%
Two or More Race 34 3.6%
White 649 68.9%
Other 38 4%
Not Stated 8 0.8%
Total 942 100%
20 Standardization

Table 4 - Age

Number Percentage
18 - 30 years 260 27.6%
31 - 40 years 206 21.9%
41 - 50 years 166 17.6%
51 - 60 years 130 13.6%
60+ years 180 19.1%
Total 942 100%

Table 5 - Education

Number Percentage
Advanced Professional Degree 49 5.2%
Associate’s Degrees 126 13.4%
Bachelor’s Degree 351 37.3
Elementary or High School (only) 9 1.0%
High School Diploma 197 20.9%
Master’s Degree 152 16.1%
Trade School 46 4.9%
Not Stated 12 1.3%
Total 942 100%

The mean and standard deviations of raw scores for the standardization sample are as follows:

Table 6 - Means and Standard Deviations (SD) for sample

Dimension Mean SD
Openness 53.19 18.62
Conscientiousness 61.45 19.33
Extraversion 50.08 26.13
Agreeableness 60.10 18.45
Emotional Stability 54.55 21.21
 Standardization 21

Scaling The Traitify Big Five Results

The standard scale of measurement adopted by
Traitify is the Standard Ten Scale (STEN). This is
used to convert raw scores to scale scores in many
mainstream personality questionnaires. It allows
results to be reported on a 10 point scale - a ten
point scale being in tune with the granularity of the
personality attributes being measured.

Mathematically it involves transforming a raw score

into a z-score, and then converting the z-score to a
STEN score.

The equation for calculating a z-score is: z = (raw

score - population mean) / population standard
deviation

For example, if the population mean is 50 and the

standard deviation is 5, and a person scores 60, the
z-score is: (60-50) / 5 = 2. Thus a raw score of 60 is 2
standard deviations above the mean.

To discover where this number lies on a 10-point

STEN scale, the following equation is used:

STEN score = (z x standard deviation of STEN scale) +

mean of STEN scale.

The mean of a STEN scale is always 5.5 and the

standard deviation is always 2. So to continue the
example, a z-score of 2 would be a STEN score of 9.5
(or 10, rounded up). That’s (2 x 2) + 5.5.

Practically this tells us that a standard score of 10

puts the person in question at the ‘high’ end of the
scale, compared to other people, for this particular
aspect of personality. This is based on the convention
that a STEN score of 1-3 is described as ‘low’, 4-7 as
‘medium’, and 8-10 as ‘high’.

In terms of the normal distribution a ‘medium’

result is +/- one standard deviation from the mean.
A ‘low’ result is below one standard deviation from
the mean, and a ‘high’ result above one standard
deviation from the mean.
Reliability
22

Overview Internal Consistency

The concept of reliability refers to the internal Table 7 on page 23 presents the internal consistency
consistency of the items (questions) that form results for each of the five dimensions. All the
each of the scales in a questionnaire, and also dimensions demonstrate high levels of internal
the stability of the questionnaire over time. This consistency (alpha > 0.7).
can be thought of as ‘accuracy’ but only in this
sense of the likelihood of getting a consistent
result from a questionnaire each time it is Test-Retest Reliability
completed, not whether it actually measures Tables 8 and 9 on page 23 show the test-retest
what it is intended to measure - that’s a question results for each of the dimensions. In both cases all
of validity. the dimensions show acceptable levels of reliability
when the number of items in each dimension is taken
The most common way of measuring the internal into account (EFPA, 2013). In the first case the test-
consistency of the items in a questionnaire is to retest was six to eight weeks, in the second retesting
calculate a statistic called Cronbach’s Alpha. This was within one week.
looks at whether the items that comprise a scale
have high inter-correlations with each other, and The second set of figures are based on a random
with the total score for the scale. In this way a sample of data gathered during 2018. These were
calculated because it was observed that many
high coefficient alpha indicates that the items
people complete the questionnaire more than once,
are likely to be measuring the same attribute,
often within a short time period, in order to confirm
whereas a low scores indicates that they are
their results. As the figures provide relatively modest
measuring different attributes.
increments over the six to eight week figures, and are
not excessively high, it is reasonable to assume there
Stability statistics, on the other hand, provide are no significant memory effects influencing the
evidence that a questionnaire is measuring results.
attributes that are stable over time. In this
case a low number (coefficient) indicates that
the attributes being measured are themselves
changeable or specific to particular situations;
or that people respond - for whatever reason - in
different ways when they are asked to complete
a questionnaire more than once. In this case the
statistic to note is the test-retest coefficient.

The reliability statistics for the Traitify Big Five

questionnaire are based on the standardization
sample (Details are provided in Standardization
on page 19).
 23

Table 7: Alpha coefficients for each dimension (N=942)

Dimension Alpha Coefficient

Openness 0.90
Conscientiousness 0.90
Extraversion 0.94
Agreeableness 0.90
Emotional Stability 0.92

Table 8: Test-retest coefficients for each dimension (N=505)

Dimension Test-retest Correlation

Openness r = .69**
Conscientiousness r = .71**
Extraversion r = .77**
Agreeableness r = .68**
Emotional Stability r = .66**
** p<.01.

Table 9: Test-retest coefficients for each dimension (N=801)

Dimension Test-retest Correlation

Openness r = .73**
Conscientiousness r = .77**
Extraversion r = .78**
Agreeableness r = .71**
Emotional Stability r = .73**
** p<.01.
Validity
24

Overview In total, useable data was received from 942 people

The concept of validity concerns whether or not who completed the Traitify Big Five. Of these, 921
a questionnaire measures what it is intended to completed the Traitify Big Five and the BFI, and 915
measure. From an academic point of view there are the Traitify Big Five and the IPIP-NEO.
a number of different types of validity, but the two
that are of most interest are construct and criterion- The data gathered from the study allowed the
related validity. designers to explore the performance of each of the
questionnaire ‘slides’. In particular:
Construct-related validity is about whether a
questionnaire is measuring aspects of personality • The relationship between each of the individual
that are consistent with the definition of a particular core traits and the slides designed to measure
dimension or scale, for that questionnaire. For that trait, within a dimension.
example, if a questionnaire has a scale designed to
measure Extraversion, its validity addresses whether • The summative relationship across all the slides
or not it is measuring Extraversion rather than relating to each of the Big Five dimensions, for
something else! various combinations of slides.

To establish construct-related validity, which is

also sometimes known as convergent validity, it is Examining this data, and as appropriate, the raw
usual to compare a questionnaire with a number endorsement rates for each slide (percentages for
of other ‘reference’ questionnaires, i.e. reputable those responding “me/not me”), meant that the
questionnaires that are already known to measure content of the questionnaire could be refined. In
one or all of the Big Five personality dimensions. particular, a small number of ‘low performing’ slides
were removed (O -1; C -4; E -1; A -2; ES -1).
In contrast, criterion-related validity looks at whether
the scores on a questionnaire are predictive of This means that the final validity figures are based
some form of external criteria. In a work context this on a rationalization of the questionnaire in terms of
would be whether there is a relationship between content, with regard to its performance against the
the scores on the Big Five personality dimensions US general population.
and work performance. This is usually explored
by asking people, in employment, to complete a
questionnaire, and then to correlate the results from
the questionnaire with performance criteria that are
available at the same time, i.e. concurrently.

Construct Validity
In August 2017 the Traitify Big Five research
questionnaire was completed online by a
representative sample of the US general population.
The sample was balanced in terms of gender, ethnic
origin, age and education.

The same people also completed the Big Five

Inventory or BFI (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991)
and the IPIP-NEO (Johnson, 2014). These two
Big Five measures are often used to validate new
questionnaires.
 25

Table 10 - Correlations of Traitify Big Five with BFI and IPIP-NEO

Number of Number of Slides
Traitify Dimension BFI IPI-NEO
Core Traits Per Dimension
Openness 6 16 0.52** 0.57**
Conscientiousness 6 16 0.56** 0.57**
Extraversion 6 13 0.70** 0.75**
Agreeableness 6 16 0.54** 0.56**
Emotional Stability* 6 12 -0.63** -0.63**
Total Slides/Items - 73 44 120
*The Traitify B5 questionnaire measures Emotional Stability. The BFI and IPIP-NEO measure Neuroticism. This is the opposite of
Emotional Stability, hence the negative relationship.
** p<.01.

Five Key Points

• The correlations between the Traitify Big Five and • Any variations in the strength of relationships
the BFI and IPIP-NEO, which are both traditional between the Traitify Big Five and the BFI and IPIP-
‘verbal’ questionnaires, are remarkably NEO reflect slight differences in the definitions of
consistent. This is encouraging because the BFI the five dimensions. For example, the strength of
is an example of a ‘short’ questionnaire, like the correlations is as expected for questionnaires
the Traitify Big Five; and the IPIP-NEO of a ‘long’ that are measuring similar trait definitions of O, E,
questionnaire, of the sort that is typically used in A and N (ES). That for C is slightly lower.
recruitment and development activities.
• However, the Traitify Big Five is not simply
• The strength of the correlations compare designed to mimic other questionnaires. This
favourably to validity studies for other ‘short’ is reflected in the way in which dimensions are
questionnaires. For example, the 60-item NEO FFI defined. A good example is Conscientiousness (C).
(a potential competitor to the Traitify Big Five), The Traitify definition includes ‘orderliness’, like
produces the following correlations with the other questionnaires, but greater emphasis is given
15FQ+ (a highly reputable 200-item personality to sustained effort and wanting to do something
questionnaire): O (0.55), C (0.69), E (0.66), A (0.59), N well (quality). This means that lower correlations
(0.57) - Psytech International, 2002. would be expected with questionnaires that give
more weight to the self-organization aspect of
• The strength of the correlations is also conscientiousness.
comparable to ultra-short ‘verbal’ questionnaires.
For example, correlations between the Ten Item
Personality Inventory (TIPI) and the 240-item NEO
PI-R are: O (0.56), C (0.68), E (0.65), A (0.59), N (-0.66)
- Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003.
 26 Validity

Traitify Big Five Inter-correlations across these roles. However, in the period 2017-
Table 11 presents the inter-correlations for the five 2018, multiple statistically significant correlations
personality dimensions. The correlations are based have been obtained. These range from 0.164 to
on trait summation scores. 0.581, across different types of performance ratings
such as customer satisfaction, manager ratings of
These results compare favourably with those from overall performance, customer engagement, work
other short-form questionnaires. For example, in the quality and reliability. See Appendix-2 for further
BFI and IPIP-NEO, C is relatively highly correlated information.
with A (0.49; 0.55) and the inverse of ES (N) (-0.48;
-0.61); and N with E (-0.41; -0.54) and A (-0.48; -0.35). In addition, and when it is available, Traitify uses
In all cases the Traitify Big Five intercorrelations are termination data as a criterion. For instance, using
lower for C (with A, 0.22; with ES, 0.43) and ES (with E, a 2018 sample of 4,381 retail workers, we were able
0.32; with A, 0.17.) to use logistic regression to significantly predict
likelihood of being terminated (R2=0.016, p<0.01).
In addition, those Traitify Big Five dimensions with In this case employees who were very high in
sizeable correlations are in the direction that would Extraversion and lower in Openness were more likely
be expected. To take two examples, it is usual for to be terminated.
Emotional Stability (-N) to be significantly correlated
with Conscientiousness and Extraversion. It’s important to note that third party studies have
also produced significant results. A 2018 study using
Finally, given the size of the sample it is unsurprising call center workers, and a range of independent
that all of the correlations show statistical ratings, provided a predictive validity figure of 0.236*,
significance. using overall performance as the criteria. This was
supported with figures for ratings of customer service
of 0.246*, professionalism of 0.368**, and against the
Criterion-Related Validity employer’s own internal employee rating of 0.227*
The Big Five criterion-related validity results, (Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01).
which have been obtained from a broad range of
customers, indicate predictivity across a number of
business sectors. Naturally figures vary as they are a
product of the predictor (the questionnaire) and the
quality and extent of the criterion data.

At a practical level Traitify aims to gather

performance data from all new customers. This
data is obtained directly from customers in the form
of performance ratings or via a survey provided by
Traitify. In the latter case, managers or supervisors
are asked to rate employees against a number of
work performance scales.

Traitify’s customers include food service businesses

as well as those in hospitality, grocery, retail,
warehousing, and customer support, spanning
multiple job categories from line worker to manager.
Clearly there is a range of performance criteria
 27

Table 11 - Intercorrelations Between Traitify Big Five personality dimensions

Conscien- Emotional
Openness Extraversion Agreeableness
tiousness Stability

Openness 0.20* 0.37* 0.17* 0.14*

Conscientiousness 0.36* 0.22* 0.43*

Extraversion 0.22* 0.32*

Agreeableness 0.17*

Emotional Stability

N=942. *Significant at the 0.01 level.

Structure
28

Overview There was only a small overlap between some of the

An additional way of exploring the underlying C traits (Ambitious: 0.35; Confident: 0.42; and Can
structure of a questionnaire is to conduct a factor Delay Gratification: 0.32) and the ES dimension. (See
analysis. In the case of a Big Five questionnaire this Appendix-3: Rotated Component Matrix for the Traits
is a method for understanding whether it is best on page 38) However given the relationship between
described by five distinct factors (dimensions), and C and ES (-N), especially with reference to other
whether the traits that constitute each dimension short-form questionnaires, this makes intuitive sense.
appear logically associated with that dimension.
In addition, the Scree Plot Table-13 on page 29 shows
A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax that the first five factors have variances (Eigenvalues)
rotation was conducted using the data from the greater than 1. Indeed they are all above 2. This
standardization sample. In the first instance, an strongly suggests that five factors explains most of
analysis was conducted in which Eigenvalues of the consistent variability in the data.
greater than 1 were permitted. (The Eigenvalue being
a scalar property - a magnitude - associated with a To summarize, the data relating to the
set or matrix of linear equations.) intercorrelations between the five dimensions,
and the PCA, confirm that the Traitify Big Five
The first iteration produced a six factor solution. questionnaire is composed of five distinct
However on examination the sixth factor did not personality dimensions.
make sense given the allocation of traits.

A second iteration forced a five factor solution. This

solution was far more parsimonious with all the traits
loading on the expected dimension. (See Table-12)

Table 12 - Rotation Sums Of Squared Loadings For Five Factor Solution

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 (E) 4.81 16.0 16.0

2 (ES) 4.62 15.4 31.4
3 (O) 4.31 14.4 45.8
4 (A) 4.17 13.9 59.7
5 (C) 3.99 13.3 73.0
 29

Table 13: Scree Plot

7.5
Eigenvalue

4.5

1.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Component Number
Fairness
30

Overview Gender Differences In The Big Five

Our goal is to use carefully designed ‘ideal’ profiles to Dimensions
aid in the selection of candidates for jobs by setting The table below shows the mean and standard
cut-offs within a profile without adversely affecting deviations for each of the five dimensions broken
members of protected groups. The assessment is down for men and women. Cross cultural research
designed to be used conservatively to select out only on the Big Five finds that women typically score
those with the poorest fit to the ‘ideal’ profile and is higher than men on Conscientiousness, Extraversion
therefore unlikely to be used in a way that could lead and Agreeableness and lower on Emotional Stability
to adverse impact. (Schmitt and colleagues, 2008). In our sample, there
were no significant gender differences for Openness,
The representative US sample of 942 participants Conscientiousness or Extraversion. However, as
taking the Traitify Big Five questionnaire was used expected on average women scored higher than men
to look for significant differences in each of the five on Agreeableness and lower than men on Emotional
dimensions based on gender, ethnic origin, and age. Stability.

Table 14: Means and Standard Deviations for Each Traitify Big
Five Dimension for Males and Females

Females Males

Traitify Dimension Mean SD Mean SD

Openness 53.12 19.43 53.29 17.82

Conscientiousness 61.41 18.45 61.56 20.26
Extraversion 50.99 25.94 49.26 26.34
Agreeableness** 63.34 17.83 56.93 18.56
Emotional Stability** 51.31 21.70 57.88 20.26
**The mean difference is statistically significant; p<.01.
 31

Age Differences In The Big Five

Dimensions
The following table shows the correlations between
each of the Big Five dimensions and age. There was
a small but significant negative correlation between
Openness and age, so Openness to new experiences
decreases slightly with age. Additionally, there were
small but significant positive correlations between both
Conscientiousness and age and Emotional Stability and
age, so both Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability
increase slightly with age. Extraversion, on the other
hand, was uncorrelated with age.

Table 15: Correlations of Traitify Big Five With Age

Traitify Dimension Age

Openness r = .18**
Conscientiousness r = .17**
Extraversion r = -.02
Agreeableness r = .12**
Emotional Stability r = .18**
**p<.01

Ethnicity Differences In The Big

Five Dimensions
Four of the ethnic groups (Asian, Black or African differences between any of the ethnicity groups. For
American, White, Two or More Races) had a Openness the ANOVA was significant (F3,884 = 4.12,
large enough sample sizes (n ≥ 10) to make valid p < .01) and both the Tukey HSD and the Tamhane
comparisons. One-way ANOVAs with post hoc tests (used when variances are unequal between groups)
were used to compare means on each of the Big Five post hoc tests revealed that those who identified
dimensions for these four ethnicity groups. Analyses as Two or More Races scored significantly higher on
revealed no significant differences of Ethnicity Openness than those who identified as White. No
for Conscientiousness (F3.884 = 1.23, p > .05), other groups were significantly different from one
Agreeableness (F3,884 = 1.35, p > .05), or Emotional another. The following table reports the means and
Stability (F3,884 = 0.49, p > .05). For Extraversion, even standard deviations for each ethnicity group for each
though the ANOVA was significant (F3,884 = 2.99, p < Big Five Dimension.
.05), Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed no significant
 32 Fairness

Table 16: Means and Standard Deviations for Openness by Ethnicity

Asian Black or African White Two or More

American Races
Traitify
Dimension Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Openness 55.59 14.62 54.35 17.72 52.12+ 19.18 62.74+ 16.34

Conscientio- 64.72 15.55 61.58 19.64 61.11 19.72 66.54 16.24
usness
Extraversion 54.24 24.15 53.60 25.72 48.74 26.02 58.11 28.88
Agreeableness 59.30 13.18 61.53 18.45 59.77 18.42 65.44 22.15
Emotional 58.48 18.06 55.16 21.30 54.31 21.47 58.15 20.80
Stability
+Means are statistically significantly different from one another.

Finally, we compared those who consider themselves as being from Hispanic origin with those who did not.
There were no significant differences in means for these two groups across any of the Big Five dimensions

Table 17: Means and Standard Deviations for Each Traitify Big Five
Dimension for Those of Hispanic Origin and Those Not of Hispanic Origin

Hispanic Origin Not Hispanic Origin

Traitify Dimension Mean SD Mean SD

Openness 53.43 17.62 53.05 18.94

Conscientiousness 63.70 19.17 61.22 19.47
Extraversion 53.31 26.77 49.78 25.93
Agreeableness 61.69 19.73 60.06 18.16
Emotional Stability 55.53 20.42 54.67 21.33
Note: For all five dimensions p > .05.
 References 33

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., Judge, T.A. (2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New
Millenium: What do we Know and Where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9,
9-30.

Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D., Motowildo, S.J. (2001). Personality Predictors of Citizenship Performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69.

Cattell, R.B. (1946). The Description and Measurement of Personality. NY: World Book.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A. (2003). Personality Predicts Academic Performance: Evidence from Two
Longitudinal University Samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319-338.

Costa, P.T. Jr., McCrae, R.R. (1992/2006). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Crede, M., Harms, P.D., Blacksmith, N., Wood, Dustin. (2016). Assessing the Utility of Compound Trait Estimates
of Narrow Personality Traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 503-513.

De Raad, B., Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five Factor Assessment: Introduction. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big
Five Assessment. Gottingen: Hogrefe & Huber.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology,
41, 417-440.

Douglas, H. E., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2016). Openness and intellect: An analysis of the motivational constructs
underlying two aspects of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 242-253.

EFPA (2013). Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological and Educational Tests. Brussels:
EFPA.

Friedman, H.S., Kern, M.L. (2010). Personality and Health, Subjective Well-being and Longevity. Journal of
Personality, 78(1), 179-216.

Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., Swann, W.B. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the Big Five Personality Domains.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual. Tulsa: USA.

Hough, L.M. (1992). The Big Five Personality Variables - Construct Confusion: Description versus Prediction.
Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
 34 References

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA:
University of California,Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring Thirty Facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-Item Public Domain Inventory:
Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78-89.

Judge, T.A. (2005). Personality and Organizational Psychology: Resurrection and Remaining Entanglements.
SIOP paper, Los Angeles, CA.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five Personality Traits, General Mental
Ability, and Career Success across the Life Span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are Measures of Self-esteem, Neuroticism, Locus of
Control, and Generalized Self-efficacy Indicators of a Common Core Construct? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-analytic Review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.

McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T. Jr (1987). Validation of the Big Five Factor Model of Personality across Instruments and
Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

MIT, (2014). In the Blink of an Eye. http://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116 Downloaded: 07.26.17

Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Palo Alto: CPP Inc.

Myers, I.B., Myers, P.B. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto: CPP Inc.

Norman, W.T. (1963). Toward and Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attributes: Replicated Factor Structure in
Peer Nomination Personality Ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.

Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Integrity Test Validities:
Findings and Implications for Personnel Selection and Theories of Job Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 679-703.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel
selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.

Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran. C. (2001). Personality at Work: Criterion-focused Occupational Personality Scales used
in Personnel Selection. In B.W. Roberts and Hogan, R. (Eds), Personality Psychology in the Workplace, 63-92.
Washington: APA.

Ones, D.S., Hough, L.M. Viswesvaran, C. (1998). Validity and Adverse Impact of Personality-based Managerial
Potential Scales. SIOP Conference. Dallas, Texas.

Ones, D.S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., Judge, T.A. (2007). In Support of Personality Assessment in
Organizational Settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995-1027.
 35

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the Prediction of Consequential Outcomes. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A. (2000). On the Invalidity of Validity Scales: Evidence
from Self-Reports and Observer Ratings of Volunteer Samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
582-593.
Psytech International (2002). The 15FQ+ Technical Manual. Rugby UK: Psytech International.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values.
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 789-801.
Russell, M.T., Karol, D. (1994). 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality &
Ability Testing.

Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and the Big Five. Journal
of Research in Personality, 38, 473-480.

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in
Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.

SHL (2000). OPQ32 Technical Manual. Thames Ditton: SHL Group.

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the Life Course: A 45-year Longitudinal Study.
Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 208-232.

Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative Validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five
and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/
a0024165.

Trickey, G., Hogan, R. (1998). We Don’t Have a Choice - Personality Matters. Selection and Development Review,
14, 12-13.

Tupes, E.C., Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Technical Report ASD-
TR-61-97, Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command.

Van der Linden, D., Te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). The General Factor of Personality: A Meta-analysis and
a Criterion-Related Validity Study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315- 327.

Weiss, A., Bates, T., Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a Personal(ity) Thing: The Genetics of Personality and Well-
being in a Representative Sample. Psychological Science, 19, 205-210.

Woods, S. A., Patterson, F. C., Koczwara, A., & Sofat, J. A. (2016). The Value of being a Conscientious Learner:
Examining the Effects of the Big Five Personality Traits on Self-reported Learning from Training. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 28, 424-434.

Zimmerman, R.D. (2008). Understanding the Impact of Personality Traits on Individual’s Turnover Decisions: A
Meta-analytic Path Model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309-348.
 Appendix-1: Traitify Big Five Trait
36

Descriptions
O
Creative: original, artistic and imaginative.
Open-minded: having a mind receptive to new ideas or ideas contrary to one’s own beliefs.
Playful: free thinking and fun-loving.
Visionary: can imagine how actions and ideas pursued in the present will affect the future.
Whimsical: values the capricious aspects of an activity.
Imaginative: able to think symbolically and play with ideas.

C
Ambitious: having a strong desire to achieve.
Can delay gratification: can manage and delay one’s appetites and desires.
Committed: to pledge oneself to a position on an issue or to another person.
Confident: having a sense of one’s worth (a sense of mastery/competence).
Self-discipline: the ability to make yourself do things that you think should be done.
Orderliness: valuing organization and logic.

E
Friendly: warm and easily approachable and engaging.
Attention-seeking: provoking a response from others.
Interactive: prefers the company of other people.
Enthusiastic: experiencing a lively interest in something.
Thrill-seeking: craving excitement.
High-energy: possessing high stamina and motivation.

A
Altruistic: devoted to the welfare of others or the greater good.
Compassionate: feeling deep sympathy and sorrow for others who are misfortunate.
Forgiving: allowing room for error or weakness in others.
Accommodating: willing to do what someone else wants.
Loyal: devoted to ‘friendships’ with important others.
Steady: dependable, even and consistent.

ES (N-)
Calm: an internal sense of peacefulness.
Positive: thinking that a good result will happen.
Easygoing: can ‘go with the flow’ and adjust preferences when needed.
Robust: strong, resilient and healthy.
Deliberate: careful and measured in deciding and acting.
Regulated: able to modulate and cope with one’s changing emotional state.
 Appendix-2: Example Predictive 37

Validity Coefficients
Significant
Industry Criterion Sample Size Multiple R Dimensions
Customer service Voice and Chat 965 0.396** O*
(Recruiter Call Center) (online) ratings (Position and B5 as
variables) E**

Food service Front of House 653 0.164** C*

(Restaurant) mean performance E**
Food service Front of House 229 0.230** O (p=0.067)
(Restaurant) mean performance E**

Food service Back of House 90 0.321 O*

(Restaurant) mean performance (p=0.099) A (p=0.089)

Food service Overall manager 408 0.173* C**

(Restaurant) rating

Food service Back of House 125 0.303* O (p=0.077)

(Restaurant) C**
performance rating A*
Hospitality Customer online 188 0.247* C (p=0.06)
(Hotel Management) reviews ES*
Storage Sales 35 0.581* O*
(Call Center) E (p=0.103)
Appendix-3: Rotated Component
38

Matrix for the Traits

Extraversion Emotional Openess Agreeableness Conscien-
Stabiliy tiousness
creative .114 .024 .865 .034 -.017
openminded .163 .071 .790 .097 .152
playful .239 -.038 .829 .074 .036
visionary .019 .214 .751 .020 .067
whimsical .044 .074 .855 -.005 -.068
imaginative .290 -.098 .738 .121 .163
ambitious .071 .352 .092 .143 .762
committed .073 .122 .167 .081 .841
confident .173 .423 .163 .126 .651
selfdisiplined .172 .021 .011 .019 .864
orderliness .198 .024 -.151 .049 .679
delaygrtification .083 .319 .140 .087 .847
attentionseeking .881 .153 .168 .132 .137
thrillseeking .644 -.024 .323 -.086 .188
enthusiastic .892 .140 .169 .043 .154
friendly .842 .263 .042 .175 .098
highenergy .906 .053 .208 .038 .154
interactive .832 .260 .062 .153 .078
accommodating .033 .130 .073 .858 .109
altruistic -.110 .128 -.029 .814 -.001
compassionate .179 .013 .063 .643 .057
forgiving .249 .027 .168 .783 .100
loyal -.116 .065 -.056 .821 .070
steady .272 -.047 .123 .744 .087
calm .159 .841 .052 -.027 .095
positive .038 .839 .001 .007 .149
robust .071 .886 -.034 .011 .073
deliberate .160 .709 .102 .064 .247
easygoing .089 .831 .007 .207 .132
regulated .196 .721 .134 .080 .167
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.*
*Rotation converged in 6 iteration.