2010 497406 PDF

This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA]
On: 09 December 2014, At: 08:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Development of the ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja

Personality Questionnaire (ZKAPQ): A Factor/Facet
Version of the ZuckermanKuhlman Personality
Questionnaire (ZKPQ)
Anton Aluja
a b
, Michael Kuhlman & Marvin Zuckerman
Department of Psychology , University of Lleida , Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
Institute of Biomedical Research of Lleida , Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
Department of Psychology , University of Delaware , Newark

Published online: 10 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Anton Aluja , Michael Kuhlman & Marvin Zuckerman (2010) Development of the ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja
Personality Questionnaire (ZKAPQ): A Factor/Facet Version of the ZuckermanKuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ),
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92:5, 416-431, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2010.497406
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497406
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 416431, 2010

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2010.497406
Development of the ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality

Questionnaire (ZKAPQ): A Factor/Facet Version of the
ZuckermanKuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ)
ANTON ALUJA,1,2 MICHAEL KUHLMAN,3 AND MARVIN ZUCKERMAN3
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014
Department of Psychology, University of Lleida, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

2
Institute of Biomedical Research of Lleida, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
3
Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark
The development of a new 200-item questionnaire based on the theoretical constructs of the alternative Five-factor model of personality
is described. We developed the ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKAPQ) from an initial pool of 537 items. Its final
version includes 5 factors with 4 facets per factor and 10 items per facet. Internal consistencies were adequate particularly for the factors. The
1 factor confirmatory factor analyses showed satisfactory goodness-of-fit indexes, but not for the 5 factor simple structure. When incorporating
the secondary loadings and the correlated error terms, the model fit improved. A multigroup analysis showed gender differences for the factors
Sensation Seeking, Neuroticism, Aggressiveness, and Activity for the Spanish-speaking sample but only for Aggressiveness in the English-speaking
sample. We assessed the convergent and discriminant validity of the ZKAPQ by inspecting correlations with shortened versions of the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and Temperament and Character InventoryRevised (Cloninger, 1999) in 2 independent and
additional samples. This new instrument may be useful for basic and applied research, including normal personality, psychobiology of personality,
personality and clinical disorders, and industrial-organizational psychology.
The ZuckermanKuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ;

Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988; Zuckerman, Kuhlman,
Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornquist, & Kiers, 1991) is a psychometric instrument based on
the five factors derived from a biological and temperamental
approach to human personality. The psychobiological bases of
the alternative five as well as related factors in other systems
like the Big Five have been discussed in two books (Zuckerman, 1991, 2005). The ZKPQ five factors are labeled as
Neuroticism-Anxiety (N-Anx), Sociability (Sy), AggressionHostility (Agg-Host), Impulsive Sensation Seeking (ImpSS),
and Activity (Act). A full description of this questionnaire and
its psychometric properties may be found in Zuckerman (2002,
2008) and Joireman and Kuhlman (2004).
The ZKPQ was developed in a two-stage process. First, existing scales were selected on the basis of their use or relevance
in studies of biological and temperamental characteristics. At
least several scale markers for each of the postulated traits were
used to ensure adequate sampling of factor contents, and the
scales were given to large samples of young subjects. Factor
analyses yielded a robust five-factor structure that was the same
for males and females (Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1991). This
five-factor structure was also replicated in a second American
sample (Zuckerman et al., 1991).
In the next step, individual items were selected to represent
each of the five factors based on their correlations with the provisional factor scores (Zuckerman et al., 1993). Items for each
factor were selected on the basis of high correlations with the
Received July 31, 2009; Revised March 22, 2010.
Address correspondence to Anton Aluja, Department of Psychology, University of Lleida, Avd. Estudi General, 4, 25001 Lleida, Catalonia, Spain; Email:
aluja@pip.udl.cat
factor to which they had been provisionally assigned and lower

or zero correlations with other factors and a social desirability scale. The 100 items selected this way (20 for each factor)
were subjected to a factor analysis in another large sample of
subjects. A total of 89 of the 100 items loaded primarily on
the factor they correlated with in the previous group and were
assigned to that factor. A total of 10 extra items were added
to detect invalid test responses. The five factors of the ZKPQ
have been replicated in Chinese (Wu et al., 2000), German
(Schmitz, 2004), Swiss-French (Rossier, Verardi, Massoudi, &
Aluja, 2008), Italian (De Pascalis & Russo, 2003), and Spanish samples (Aluja, Garca, & Garca, 2004; Goma-i-Freixanet,
Valero, Punti, & Zuckerman, 2004). Short versions (69 and 50
items) improved the fit of the models, although they were only
adequate when analyzing independent models for each factor
(Aluja, Garca & Garca, 2003; Aluja et al., 2006). A shortened
50-item form of the ZKPQ showed a very similar five-factor
structure in English, French, German, and Spanish language
forms (Aluja et al., 2006). Nevertheless, confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs) indicate unsatisfactory model fit mainly due
to an excessive number of parameters to be estimated and to
highly correlated items identified by high values in modification indexes (MIs; Byrne, 2001). Equivalent CFA unsatisfactory
results were found in CFAs performed with the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PIR; Costa & McCrae, 1992; see
Aluja, Garca, Garca, et al., 2005; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa,
Bond, & Paunonen, 1996).
The ZKPQ has shown good construct validity in a number
of different areas including risky behaviors such as smoking,
drinking, drug abuse, sex, gambling, and sports (Zuckerman,
2002, 2007, 2008; Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 2000). Moderate to
high correlations were found between the five ZKPQ scales and
ratings by friends and relatives (Angleitner, Rieman, & Spinath,
416
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZKAPQ

2004) and spouses (Goma-Freixanet, Wisemeijer, & Valero,
2005). Good construct and discriminant validity was found for
four of the five ZKPQ scales in comparisons with the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck, 1947; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985), NEO PIR, and the Temperament and Character InventoryRevised (TCI-R; Gutierrez-Zotes et al., 2004;
see Aluja, Garca, & Garca, 2002; Zuckerman & Cloninger,
1996; Zuckerman et al., 1993). The fifth scale, Activity, tended
to load on Extraversion rather than forming its own factor, probably due to the lack of content representation in the EPQ and
NEO PIR. However the ZKPQ Activity scale correlated with
persistence and self-directedness of the TCI. The ZKPQ has
also been correlated with measures of personality disorders in
a general population (Aluja, Cuevas, Garca, & Garca, 2007;
Aluja; Garca, Cuevas, & Garca, 2007).
Eysenck (1947) proposed a hierarchal structure for personality traits with narrower traits (facets) subsumed under the broad
dimensions, but he did not incorporate this structure into his
three factor personality test until much later (Eysenck Personality Profiler; Eysenck & Wilson, 1991). Some of the major test
constructors have developed forms in which the major factors
are the sum of component factors (facets). These include the
NEO PIR (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the TCIR (Cloninger,
Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993). Facets allow specific trait measurement that can be useful in prediction when the construct
hypothesis involves narrower traits (e.g., anxiety or depression
as opposed to general neuroticism). A number of recent findings
in personality research have suggested that considering facets is
important. For example, in the prediction of behavior, some
studies have demonstrated that facets provide better predictive validity (i.e., explain more variance) than considering only
higher order traits (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Paunonen, Haddock, Forsterling, & Keinonen, 2003). Moreover, when studying
personality continuity and change, significantly different developmental trajectories can be observed when considering facet
level traits within each of the higher order factors (Costa, Herbst,
McCrae, & Siegler, 2000; Morizot & Le Blanc, 2003; Roberts,
Caspi, & Moffitt, 2001). Finally, it can be argued that personality profiles based on several facets are more informative for
clinical assessment (Westen, 1995).
The ZKPQ was originally developed without facets. However, factor analyses of the items within each of the five major
scales revealed two factors within three of them. ImpSS contained Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking factors; Sy consisted
mainly of sociability but also included a factor of Intolerance of
Isolation; and Act included Need for General Activity, including impatience and restlessness, and Need for Work Activity,
including energy for work and lifes other activities. No additional factors were found within N-Anx and Agg-Host. The
limited sampling of item content within the five trait scales of
the ZKPQ was clearly not adequate to distinguish among facets
within the traits (Zuckerman et al., 1993). In this article, we
describe a new instrument based in the ZKPQ with a hierarchal
factor-facet structure. The psychometric properties of the different ZKPQ forms, including online versions (Aluja, Rossier,
& Zuckerman, 2007) are good, but a change in response format from truefalse to a Likert scale might improve them (see
Muniz, Garca-Cueto, & Lozano, 2005), and increase effect
sizes (Johnson, Krueger, Bouchard, & McGue, 2002). Therefore, the response format was changed from a truefalse to a
four-category, Likert-type response scale.
417
The factorial structure of personality questionnaires such as
the NEO PIR or the TCIR is based on facets or internally consistent groupings of items that assess subfactors (or facets) from
the higher order general factors. For these instruments, scores
on the general factors are formed as the sum of its facets in a hierarchical model. The advantages of personality questionnaires
based on facets are (a) better replicability, (b) more precise descriptive content for research, and (c) enhanced predictive power
in areas such as diagnosis.
The major goal of this work was to develop a new questionnaire with facets based on its five original factors (Zuckerman
et al., 1993) and to follow a rational approach for item and facet
selection complemented with empirical verification with factor
analyses. Nevertheless, the development of the new instrument
was somewhat different to that for the ZKPQ. We built the fivefactor structure of the ZKPQ from several factor analyses on
items included in other personality questionnaires (Zuckerman
et al., 1993). This instrument took a different approach. From
the five factors obtained in the ZKPQ, we looked for new items
tapping theoretical facets that might be descriptive of the five
original factors. Therefore, the first stage in the development of
the new instrument was the definition of likely candidate facets
that could be theoretically related to the five ZKPQ factors. We
addressed the second stage to assess the factorial consistence
of the items with its facets and of the facets consistence with
its factors. This process required the use of many items, given
that it was expected to discard several items in subsequent analyses. A similar procedure has been used in the construction of
Big Five based personality questionnaires. This work has been
challenging because we aimed at obtaining a new questionnaire
derived from the alternative Zuckerman personality model from
different items and facets, although in accordance with its five
theoretical constructs.
We expected that the new instrument would show a robust
five-factor structure in accordance with the theoretical facets in
each factor and with an acceptable internal consistency of its
facets and factors. In addition, we expected good convergent
and discriminant validity with other personality questionnaires,
equivalent to that found for the former ZKPQ. In this regard, we
studied the associations between the new questionnaire and the
NEO PIR and TCIR. In line with previous findings, we expected positive correlations between subscales measuring analogue constructs and negative correlations with subscales measuring diverging constructs (Zuckerman, & Cloninger, 2006;
Zuckerman et al., 1993). We named the new test the Zuckerman
KuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKAPQ) to distinguish it from the previous version, the ZKPQ, and to acknowledge the major role of A. Aluja in constructing this version.
METHOD
Participants
We analyzed five samples. The first two samples consisted
of Spanish subjects who took the test anonymously. The first
sample consisted of 1,042 subjects (559 women and 483 men)
with a mean age of 38.6 years (SD = 16.02). The second sample
had 529 subjects (271 women and 258 men) with M age =
44.2 (SD = 18.12). The third sample consisted of 480 American
undergraduate students (360 women, 119 men) from an introductory psychology course with M age = 18.48 (SD = .87). The
fourth and fifth samples were used to check the convergent and
418
discriminant validity of the ZKAPQ with the Revised NEO
Five-factor Inventory (NEO FFIR; Aluja, Garca, Rossier, &
Garca, 2005; McCrae & Costa, 2004) and the TCIR140
(Cloninger, 1999), respectively. The fourth sample contained
293 subjects (153 women and 140 men) with M age = 45.23
(SD = 17.02). The fifth sample had 248 subjects (135 women
and 113 men) with M age = 33.06 (SD = 13.98).
Study participants for the first, fourth, and fifth sample were
recruited by undergraduate students of the second year of the
Psychology program of the University of Lleida (Spain). We
requested the students to collect data from five men and five
women in-between the age of 20 and 80 years. The age ranges
were 18 through 25 (30%), 26 through 40 (20%), 41 through 50
(20%), and 51 through 83 (30%). We only requested age and
sex as identification data to provide anonymity. The sampling
was intended to provide a wider age range than is possible from
exclusive student samples.
Data from the third sample (American) was obtained through
an online questionnaire. We recorded the time taken to complete the questionnaire; we did not used responses of students
who took less than 15 min to complete the questionnaire. This
cutoff regarding the response run time to the online questionnaire is arbitrary and we adopted it after determining that at
least more than 15 min are necessary to read and answer the 200
items properly. We used only the questionnaires in which all of
the items were answered in the final sample.
Development of the Questionnaire

Selection of facets for the new questionnaire. The selection of facets for broader factors involves content validity that
is a selection of samples of content that represent the domain of
the broader trait. This can be done by purely rational/theoretical
or factor analytic methods (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). The
latter is empirical, but unless the test is closely tied to theory, it
is preferable to what is often an arbitrary rational approach.
There are obviously a large number of possible facets for a
given factor. As Eysenck (1947) pointed out, one can subdivide
traits until one gets down to specific habits or, in a questionnaire,
a small narrow subset of items. We decided to use the information from previous factor analyses of our five major factors as
guides to the initial facets that would be further tested in our
facet-factor analyses. Costa and McCrae (2008) used a similar
review of the literature to guide them in their selection of facets
for the initial form of the NEO PIR. We used some of their
facet domains as well as those of Eysenck and Wilson (1991).
We selected most facets on the basis of previous work within
each of the major trait dimensions in the ZKPQ and other major
tests. The Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), for instance, originally consisted of a single general factor (Zuckerman, Kolin,
Price, & Zoob, 1964). Subsequently new items were written
and subjected to factor analysis revealing four factors: Thrill
and Adventure Seeking (TAS), Experience Seeking (ES), Disinhibition (Dis), and Boredom Susceptibility (BS; Zuckerman,
1971). Although the factors that were discovered were not as
originally expected, they proved to be remarkably replicable in
many subsequent studies in different countries and languages
(Zuckerman, 1994, Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978).
The theory of sensation seeking and validity studies was developed around the construct of a general factor and related
subfactors represented in the four subscales.
ALUJA, KUHLMAN, ZUCKERMAN

The four subscales of the SSS included items describing specific attitudes, activities, and interests such as sex and drugs.
This resulted in some confounding in studies of actual sexual
and drug experience, requiring eliminations of such items or the
subscales containing them. In the development of the ZKAPQ,
we eliminated items with content involving specific activities
or interests. In the original factoring of scales, we found that
scales for socialization loaded negatively on a factor defined by
impulsivity and sensation seeking scales at the positive pole; the
factor was therefore labeled Impulsive-Unsocialized Sensation
Seeking (ImpUSS; Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1991). In this study,
we made an attempt to construct a facet representing this kind
of antisocial sensation seeking.
In the construction of the ZKPQ, some impulsivity items also
loaded on the same factor as the sensation seeking items leading
to the development of the ImpSS factor. These items were mostly
from a factor called Non-planning. Several impulsivity scales
(Lynam, Smith, Whiteside, & Cyders, 2006) were included to
see if this trait, or some form of it, might make a fifth sensation
seeking factor.
For aggression, we began with the items in the scales developed by Buss and Perry (1992) from their factor analysis that
resulted in the development of an aggression questionnaire with
four facets: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and
hostility. We wrote many more items to add to Buss and Perrys
items representing these four factors. We also texted suspicion
as a possible facet in this study, although it did not emerge as a
factor in the last analysis.
The definition of the N-Anx factor in the original ZKPQ was
centered on anxiety with other cognitive items such as lack of
self-confidence. Besides anxiety and self-esteem, we included
facets suggested by Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) such as depression and self-esteem and a scale for negative affect, the latter
being a major factor identified with Neuroticism by Tellegen and
Waller (2008). We also added dependency, a prominent component of the Neuroticism factor in Zuckerman et al. (1988), as a
possible facet.
Sociability is a major facet of Extraversion in all analyses
and one of the main components in the ZKPQ. Despite the
broader construct of Extraversion in the NEO PIR and EPQ,
Sociability of the ZKPQ correlated .70 with the Extraversion
domain from both inventories (Zuckerman, 2008). Eysenck and
Eysenck (1985) and Costa and McCrae (1992) had included
assertiveness and Costa and McCrae (1992) included warmth
and positive emotions. We added Exhibitionism as a possible
fifth factor in our selection of facets.
Activity is regarded as a facet of Extraversion in Eysencks
Big Three (Eysenck & Wilson, 1991) and Costa and McCraes
Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992), but in the alternative Five,
it is included as a major factor, consistent with its status as
a major factor of temperament in children. Factor analyses of
the items within the activity factor of the ZKPQ indicted two
facets: a general need for activity and a more focused need
for challenging work activity. To these factors, we added scales
based on Buss and Plomins (1984) Temperament activity scales,
energy and work effort. We wrote many new items that were
added to these subscales. A fifth facet candidate was impatience
based on the compulsive (Type A) need for activity.
Our initial test form contained five major factors defined by
five facets per factor. The five candidate facets for each dimension were (a) Neuroticism (negative affect, anxiety, depression,
dependency, and low self-esteem), (b) Sensation Seeking (antisocial attitudes, thrill and adventure seeking, experience seeking, disinhibition, and boredom susceptibility), (c) Aggressiveness (suspicion, physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger,
and hostility), (d) Extraversion (assertiveness, positive emotions, social warmth, exhibitionism, and sociability), and (e)
Activity (energy activity, work compulsion, general activity,
restlessness, and work energy). We did not expect that all facets
would have convergent and discriminant validity for the factor
to which they had been provisionally assigned.
Building the pool of items. Each facet included 20 items

representing behaviors, intentions, and attitudes. We wrote most
of the items for the candidate facets relying on current literature
using the classic rational-empirical approach. The item content
was related to the respective theoretical constructs. There were
20 items designed for each facet and 100 for each factor, which
included several items of the original ZKPQ. Additionally, permission was obtained to include (a) 29 items from the Buss
and Perry (1992) Questionnaire of Aggressiveness (AG) in the
Aggressiveness-hostility dimension; and (b) 37 items from the
Urgency, Premeditation (lack of), Perseverance (lack of), and
Sensation Seeking Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS; Positive
Urgency [14 items], Negative Urgency [12 items], and Lack of
Premeditation [11 items]; Lynam et al., 2006). It was uncertain where impulsivity scales would fall within the five-factor
space because different types of impulsivity are differentially
distributed among the factors (Zuckerman, 2005). The AG and
UPPS items were translated several times from English to Spanish and vice versa during the back-translation process; thus,
wording differed from the original.
A. Aluja (Spanish) and M. Zuckerman (American) first developed the items in English. The items were then translated to
standard Spanish by a bilingual professional translator. Another
bilingual professional translator translated them to American
English. We carefully supervised these back translations, and
we made some changes; then they were translated, back translated, and reviewed again. This process continued until we fully
agreed with the wording in the final versions of the instrument
in their own languages (Geisinger, 1994).
Response format, item selection, and grouping categories.
The response format was a 4-point Likert-type scale in which
1 = Disagree Strongly, 2 = Disagree Somewhat, 3 = Agree
Somewhat, and 4 = Agree Strongly. We reversed key scored
nearly half of the items. After eliminating the facets that did
not meet the psychometric convergent and discriminant criteria
and the weaker loading facets, we ended with four facets for
each of the five factors. The first version of the test included 537
items, but the version we used for the second and third samples
contained only 200 items, selected on the basis of 10 items for
each of the 20 facets.
419
eliminated 10 of the 20 items from each facet scale that had the
lowest loadings on the relevant facet and/or higher loadings on
other facets.
Next, we performed PA factor analyses with orthogonal rotation on the set of 25 facet scores (five facets for each of the
five general factors). We computed alpha measures of internal
consistency for each 10-item facet. Results of these analyses
indicate that some facets were not sufficiently represented in
their intended factor, showing very high secondary loadings
(>.40), and/or had low internal consistency ( < .65), and we
eliminated them from subsequent analyses.
On this basis, we removed suspicion (from Agg-Host), antisocial tendencies (from Sensation Seeking [SS]), assertiveness
(from E), energy activity (from Act), and negative affect (from
N) from the questionnaire, leaving four facet scales for each of
the five factors. The BS items presented a rather low alpha reliability and also modest loadings on the SS factor. However, we
added items from the Lack of Premeditation/Impulsivity scale
in an attempt to strengthen its factor structure. The new facet
was named boredom susceptibility/impulsivity. The same type
of nonplanning items had been combined with sensation seeking
items in the ZKPQ ImpSS factor scale. Finally, we combined
the items from competitiveness and effort need into a new facet
for the Activity factor labeled restlessness.
We also eliminated any items of a factor that were highly correlated with another factor and replaced them with other items
from the initial 20-item pool for that facet. Finally, we obtained a
very robust factor solution, with four facets for each of the ZKPQ
factors, each facet having low secondary loadings and good internal consistency. We labeled the four resulting facets for each
ZKPQ factor in line with the content of their assigned items.
In some cases, facet names differed from those that were initially given. The final facet names are as follows: SS: SS1 (thrill
and adventure seeking), SS2 (experience seeking), SS3 (disinhibition), and SS4 (boredom susceptibility/impulsivity); Neuroticism (NE): NE1 (anxiety), NE2 (depression), NE3 (dependency), and NE4 (low self-esteem); Aggressiveness (AG): AG1
(physical aggression), AG2 (verbal aggression), AG3 (anger),
and AG4 (hostility); Extraversion (EX): EX1 (positive emotions), EX2 (social warmth), EX3 (exhibitionism), and EX4
(sociability); and Activity (AC): AC1 (work compulsion), AC2
(general activity), AC3 (restlessness) and AC4 (work energy).
We used this modified 20-facet inventory with Sample 2 (Spanish), Sample 3 (American), and with Samples 4 and 5 (Spanish)
to examine the convergent and discriminant validity.
RESULTS
Procedure and Data Analysis

We analyzed data with multivariate statistics including PA
factor analysis, coefficients of factorial congruency, structural
equation modeling (SEM), multigroup analyses, descriptive
statistics, mean comparisons by country, and Cronbachs alpha
internal consistency. We examined the convergent and discriminant validity through comparison with the shortened versions
of the NEO PIR (NEO FFIR) and the TCIR (TCIR140).
Analyses of data from the first (calibration) sample proceeded

as follows. We conducted separate principal axis (PA) factor
analyses on the 100 items within each of the five major traits
(five facets with 20 items per facet) for the general factor. We
selected 10 items for each facet based on two criteria: (a) high
loadings on the presumed facet and (b) relatively lower loadings
on the other facets within that factor. Based on these results, we
Additional Instruments.
NEO FFIR. The NEO FFIR is a revised version of the
NEOFFI, which is a shortened 60-item version (12 items per
scale) of the NEO PIR (Costa & McCrae, 1992), assessing
Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O),
Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). McCrae and
420
TABLE 1.Factorial structure (principal axis) of the ZKAPQ, factorial congruency coefficients, for Spanish calibration, validation, and English samples.
S-1. Calibration Samplea
Facet
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG4
AC1
AC2
AC3
AC4
EX1
EX2
EX3
EX4
NE1
NE2
NE3
NE4
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
C.C
Initial Eigen
%
Post Rot. Eigen
%
S-2. Validation Sampleb
S-3. American Samplec
Congruency C.
II
III
IV
II
III
IV
II
III
IV
12
13
23
.60
.74
.87
.68
.01
.06
.24
.09
.14
.11
.11
.10
.35
.23
.01
.02
.06
.14
.19
.24
.06
.01
.11
.04
.60
.69
.52
.62
.20
.09
.09
.03
.15
.00
.00
.08
.12
.02
.04
.02
.20
.17
.09
.21
.00
.05
.11
.27
.69
.75
.50
.78
.20
.22
.05
.33
.04
.21
.17
.07
.01
.00
.23
.35
.02
.00
.09
.18
.36
.18
.18
.14
.62
.75
.71
.80
.16
.02
.03
.07
.27
.23
.11
.11
.04
.19
.23
.27
.04
.05
.34
.24
.14
.05
.15
.03
.72
.74
.76
.62
.60
.71
.82
.59
.07
.05
.28
.12
.18
.17
.15
.05
.22
.18
.07
.01
.12
.08
.25
.25
.03
.04
.02
.01
.70
.68
.54
.58
.13
.06
.20
.09
.19
.01
.03
.14
.13
.04
.03
.11
.20
.14
.11
.33
.04
.13
.08
.23
.62
.73
.46
.81
.13
.22
.02
.29
.04
.23
.17
.11
.08
.02
.29
.39
.08
.07
.08
.25
.46
.21
.04
.20
.69
.77
.72
.80
.12
.05
.02
.04
.26
.30
.11
.17
.14
.14
.14
.39
.02
.03
.42
.22
.06
.00
.06
.01
.76
.71
.77
.60
.59
.76
.86
.70
.08
.08
.26
.15
.13
.20
.25
.03
.14
.14
.00
.02
.15
.04
.17
.20
.04
.12
.01
.00
.68
.76
.60
.61
.11
.02
.20
.04
.20
.03
.12
.13
.16
.05
.05
.08
.20
.19
.07
.32
.08
.05
.14
.31
.74
.77
.53
.75
.10
.32
.06
.43
.04
.11
.31
.06
.15
.01
.18
.39
.01
.09
.16
.22
.37
.17
.10
.16
.74
.76
.72
.77
.22
.05
.02
.02
.32
.17
.04
.08
.07
.18
.15
.24
.02
.10
.27
.24
.14
.03
.12
.01
.64
.64
.69
.61
.98
.99
.99
.98
.99
.99
.99
.99
.98
.99
.95
1.00
.98
1.00
.99
1.00
.99
.98
.99
.98
.99
.96
.98
.99
.99
.98
.99
.99
.99
1
.99
.96
1.00
.89
.99
.99
.99
.98
.95
.97
.98
.98
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.98
.99
.99
.99
1.00
.96
1.00
.99
1.00
.98
.94
.98
.99
.98
2.10
10.48
2.56
12.79
1.36
6.81
2.55
12.73
1.44
7.21
2.54
12.72
3.99
19.96
2.39
11.88
4.79
23.94
1.61
8.07
1.63
8.17
2.88
14.34
1.18
5.91
2.66
13.31
2.24
11.21
2.30
11.52
4.92
24.62
2.30
11.52
3.90
19.50
1.73
8.68
2.31
11.53
2.78
13.9
1.52
7.58
2.71
13.54
3.58
17.90
2.52
12.6
4.93
24.64
2.10
10.49
1.69
8.45
1.94
9.71
Note. ZKAPQ = ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire; AG1 = physical aggression; AG2 = verbal aggression; AG3 = anger; AG4 = hostility; AC1 = work
compulsion; AC2 = general activity; AC3 = restlessness; AC4 = work energy; EX1 = positive emotions; EX2 = social warmth; EX3 = exhibitionism; EX4 = sociability; NE1
= anxiety; NE2 = depression; NE3 = dependency; NE4 = low self-esteem; SS1 = thrill and adventure seeking; SS2 = experience seeking; SS3 = disinhibition; SS4 = boredom
susceptibility/impulsivity); Eigen = eigenvalue; Post Rot. = post rotation. Bold values indicate that factorials loading were equal to or higher than 0.40.
a
n = 1,042. b n = 529. c n = 480.
Costa (2004) constructed this revised short version using the

best items from a factor analysis. McCrae and Costa replaced
14 items from the NEO FFI with items taken from the NEO
PIR. Internal reliability coefficients of the NEO FFIR scales
range from .75 to .82. The NEO FFIR psychometric properties
were replicated in Spanish samples by Aluja, Garca, Rossier,
et al. (2005), with a good item structure and alpha reliabilities
ranging between .71 and .82.
TCIR140. A shortened TCIR inventory, the TCIR

140, was developed by Cloninger (1999) and consists of 136 TCI
items related to Cloningers seven temperament and character
domains plus four response accuracy/carelessness items. The
first 140 items of the TCIR constitute the TCI140.
The TCIR is a 240-item self-administered questionnaire
designed to measure four temperaments: Novelty Seeking
(NS), Harm Avoidance (HA), Reward Dependence (RD),
and Persistence (Ps); and three dimensions of character: Self-directedness (SD), Cooperativeness (Co), and Selftranscendence (ST). Items of each dimension are grouped into
facets, but in this study, we analyzed only the seven major factor
scores. We used a Spanish translation of the TCIR (GutierrezZotes et al., 2004).
RESULTS
Factorial Structure Analysis, Congruency Coefficients,
and Interfactor Correlation
Table 1 shows the factorial structure of the 20-facets in the
calibration and validation Spanish samples and the American
sample. In each sample, we used a PA analysis factor analysis with orthogonal rotation. In the structural analysis, we used
PA factor analysis instead of principal components (PC) analysis. PC analysis examines total variance and is commonly used
for data reduction, whereas PA analysis only examines common variance and is preferably used when the aim is to identify
underlying dimensions (Fabrigar, Wegener, Maccallum, & Strahan, 1999). For this reason, the latter is more appropriate for
analyzing the structure of the ZKAPQ.
The KaiserMeyerOlkin (Kaiser, 1970) measures of sample adequacy were above .80. We used several methods for
determining the number of factors to be retained and rotated:
(a) eigenvalue greater or equal to one, (b) Velicers Minimum
Average Partial (MAP) Test (OConnor, 2000), and (c) scree
test. Velicers MAP test compares the relative amounts of systematic and unsystematic variance remaining in a correlation
matrix after extraction of increasing numbers of components
(OConnor, 2000, p. 396). The smallest average squared correlation indicates the appropriate number of components. For
the first Spanish calibration sample (S-1), the smallest average squared partial correlation was .0244; .0258 for the second
Spanish calibration sample (S-2); and .0278 for the American
sample (S-3), supporting the extraction of five factors (see Table
2). In fact, a robust solution of five factors was indicated in the
three samples according to the three methods (see Figure 1). The
total variance explained by the five factors in each sample was
68.40% (S-1), 69.41% (S-2), and 70.11% (S-3; Figure 1). Table
1 provides eigenvalues and the percent of variance accounted
for by each factor both before and after rotation.
421
TABLE 2.Velicers Minimum Average Partial (MAP) Test.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
S-1
S-2
S-3
.0797
.0637
.0372
.0351
.0294
.0244
.0291
.0348
.0421
.0503
.0624
.0787
.0938
.1140
.1450
.1820
.2387
.3400
.4956
1.0000
.0828
.0649
.0395
.0364
.0290
.0258
.0298
.0347
.0429
.0522
.0621
.0746
.0935
.1123
.1392
.1791
.2191
.3034
.4842
1.0000
.0802
.0583
.0457
.0444
.0390
.0278
.0297
.0357
.0445
.0524
.0638
.0812
.0981
.1232
.1514
.1887
.2380
.3282
.4932
1.0000
Note. S-1 = Spanish calibration sample; S-2 = Spanish validation sample; S-3 =
American sample. The smallest average squared partial correlation is .0244 (S-1), .0258
(S-2), and .0278 (S-3). The number of components is 5 for all samples. (See OConnor,
2000, p. 402). Bold indicates the smallest average squared partial correlation.
Only 16 of the 200 items of the ZKAPQ came from the

original ZKPQ (one from ImpSS, one from Sy, two from NAnx, three from Agg-Host, and seven from Act). Most of the
items on the ZKAPQ are new, with the exception of five
items taken (with permission) from the Buss and Perry (1992)
Aggressiveness-Hostility questionnaire and six items from the
Lack of Premeditation UPPS scale (Lynam et al., 2006). Notice
that due to the several translations (English-Spanish-English),
these items might not be exactly worded as in the original English version.
We analyzed the Tuckers coefficient of congruence between
structures and the global coefficients were equal or above .98, indicating that the three factorial solutions were very similar. Additionally, the congruency coefficients were calculated among
sexes for each sample. For the S-1, the coefficients ranged between .98 and .99, with a global congruency of .98. For S-2,
the coefficients were between .97 and .99; but for S-3, the co-
FIGURE 1.ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire scree plot

eigenvalues of the first Spanish calibration sample (S-1), the second Spanish
calibration sample (S-2), and the American sample (S-3).
efficients varied between .74 (SS factor) and .98, with a global
coefficient of .94 (Haven & ten Berge, 1977). The low congruence coefficient of the SS factor between sexes for the American
sample could be due to the lower male sample size (119 males
vs. 361 females). In the factorials matrix for males, SS2 and
SS3 obtained higher secondary loadings in the AG factor than
females. In addition, the SS factor for males yielded lower factor
loadings than females. This outcome could be further analyzed
in future studies. As can be seen, there were no differences between sexes for the rest of the samples analyzed in this study,
given that their age range and mean were substantially higher.
It should also be taken into account that Sensation Seeking is
highly influenced by age and sex (Zuckerman, 1994).
To check the correlation between the five factors in the three
samples, we analyzed the factor scores obtained from the PA
with direct oblique rotation and the five dimensional scale scores
obtained by summing the scale items, as listed in the Appendix.
Table 3 provides the results, with correlations between the factors and the dimensional scales shown on the diagonal. These
coefficients are above .90. The five factors obtained low correlations in the three samples, with the highest correlations between
the factors of Neuroticism and Extraversion (.39, .33, and
.32 for Samples 1, 2, and 3, respectively), and Aggressiveness
and Sensation Seeking (.37, .42, and .32, respectively). Some of
the five dimensional scale correlations are slightly higher than
the factor score correlations, particularly for the coefficients
between Neuroticism and Extraversion (.41, .38 and .37).
The factor scores are related to the common variance of the
items and free of item error variance. The raw sum of the items
related to each dimension incorporates not only common variance of each item but also the error variance of the items. In
this sense, the factor scores are a more accurate estimate of the
true latent score for each individual, and it is preferable to study
their interfactor correlations.
CFA
We performed the analyses with the AMOS statistical package (Arbuckle, 1999). We conducted maximum likelihood CFAs
over the variancecovariance matrices of the 20 ZKAPQ facets
in the three samples. We used several criteria of model fit (see
Bollen & Long, 1993): the standardized root mean square residual (SRMS; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989); the TuckerLewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973; Bentler & Bonett, 1980);
The Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI; Browne & Cudeck, 1993); the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990); and
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger,
1990).
A well-fitting model should ideally have a nonsignificant 2
statistic, a SRMS value of .05 or lower, and CFI and TLI values
close to .95 or greater. Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggested
that a value of .05 of the RMSEA indicates a close fit, and
values of up to .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation
in the population. We note, however, that the choice of indexes
and what cutoff values should be used is a topic surrounded by
considerable controversy (see, e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Mulaik,
2007).
Table 4 shows the results for the four oblique models that
were analyzed simultaneously in the three samples, increasing
its complexity and equivalent to those reported by Aluja et al.
(2006) and McCrae et al. (1996) with the NEO PIR:
422

TABLE 3.Correlation between the ZKAPQ factor scores and the sum of the raw score dimensional scales.
S-1. Calibration Samplea
S-2. Validation Sampleb
S-3. American Samplec
Factor
AG
AC
EX
NE
SS
AG
AC
EX
NE
SS
AG
AC
EX
NE
SS
AG
AC
EX
NE
SS
.94
.05
.12
.25
.37
.02
.98
.22
.04
.37
.16
.25
.94
.39
.12
.32
.05
.41
.96
.04
.34
.11
.25
.04
.97
.93
.05
.16
.19
.42
.05
.98
.18
.05
.01
.18
.23
.92
.33
.13
.26
.09
.38
.98
.01
.40
.07
.22
.01
.97
.95
.01
.08
.16
.32
.08
.98
.13
.08
.05
.16
.22
.95
.32
.09
.19
.12
.37
.96
.14
.30
.06
.22
.17
.96
Note. ZKAPQ = ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire; AG = Aggressiveness; AC = Activity; EX = Extraversion; NE = Neuroticism; SS = Sensation Seeking.
SS: The correlations among the factor scores are shown below the diagonal. The correlations among raw score scales are shown above the diagonal. Correlations between factor scores
and raw scales are in the diagonal (italics).
a
n = 1,042. b n = 529. c n = 480.
Simple structure: All facets were only linked to its own single latent
factor. The remaining loadings were fixed to zero.
Salient loadings: All secondary loadings greater than .40 were included in this model.
Modest loadings: All secondary loadings greater than .20 were included in this model.
Correlated error terms: In this model, the four pairs of facets with the
largest modification indexes (MIs) were included.
The parameters were freely estimated in all CFA analyses.

Additionally, to indentify the models, we fixed the variances of
the latent exogenous variables (the factors) and the regression
coefficients of the error terms over the observed endogenous
variables (the facets) to be 1.
The simple structure model showed an unacceptable fit. Thus,
it is not surprising that the salient loadings model also presented a bad fit because there was little difference between
both models, with only four and two secondary loadings being greater than .40 in the second Spanish (validation) and
American sample. On the other hand, the correlated error terms

models presented an acceptable fit in the three samples in accordance with the ECVI 1, CFI > .90, SRMR .05 and
RMSEA .08. Nevertheless, it should be considered that other
fit indexes, such as the TLI < .90, yielded an unacceptable
fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). When including correlated error
terms, the goodness-of-fit indexes improved in the three samples
(Table 4).
Table 5 shows goodness-of-fit indexes for the five ZKAPQ
domains assessed separately for each of the five dimensions.
Whereas the 2 values were all highly significant (p < .001),
the other fit indexes indicated acceptable fit for the SS and
AG (S-1) dimensions. Nevertheless, the fit indexes were good
for SS, NE, AG, and EX dimensions, although bad for AC.
In this dimension, the TLI was exceptionally low (overall in
Sample 1), although the other goodness-of-fit indexes were acceptable. An important type of information in the CFA results
includes MIs reflecting potentially substantive indicator error
covariances such as method effects. In measurement models,
TABLE 4.Goodness of fit indices for ZKAPQ models.

Oblique Five-Factor Models
S-1a
Simple structure
Salient loadings (>.40)
Modest loadings (>.20)
Correlated error terms
df
ECVI
CFI
TLI
SRMR
RMSEA (90% CI)
2506.50
2506.50
1265.18
1000.37
160
160
142
136
2.50
2.50
1.35
1.06
.76
.76
.89
.91
.72
.72
.85
.88
.11
.11
.06
.05
.12 (.11.12)
.12 (.11.12)
.09 (.08.09)
.08 (.07.08)
1604.08
1413.27
885.17
693.45
160
158
144
139
3.22
2.87
1.92
1.68
.72
.76
.89
.93
.67
.71
.85
.90
.14
.12
.08
.07
.13 (.12.13)
.12 (.11.13)
.09 (.08.09)
.08 (.08.09)
1601.33
1601.33
996.50
771.23
160
160
147
143
3.55
3.55
2.34
1.89
.71
.71
.83
.87
.65
.65
.75
.83
.13
.13
.08
.09
.14 (.13.14)
14 (.12.14)
.11 (.10.11)
.09 (.08.10)
AG1SS1;EX4SS3;EX1SS4;EX1SS2;NE3SS1
S-2b
Simple structure
AC4SS4;NE1AC3;NE3NE4;EX1SS4;NE4EX3
S-3c
Simple structure
AG1SS1;AG1AG3;QC1AC4;NE1AC3
Note. ZKAPQ = ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire; ECVI = expected cross-validation index; TLI = TuckerLewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR
= standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; S-1 = Spanish calibration sample; S-2 = Spanish validation
sample; S-3 = English sample; AG1 = physical aggression; AG2 = verbal aggression; AG3 = anger; AG4 = hostility; AC1 = work compulsion; AC2 = general activity; AC3 =
restlessness; AC4 = work energy; EX1 = positive emotions; EX2 = social warmth; EX3 = exhibitionism; EX4 = sociability; NE1 = anxiety; NE2 = depression; NE3 = dependency;
NE4 = low self-esteem; SS1 = thrill and adventure seeking; SS2 = experience seeking; SS3 = disinhibition; SS4 = boredom susceptibility/impulsivity.
a
n = 1,042. b n = 529. c n = 480.
The associated p values were always lower than .001.
423
TABLE 5.Goodness of fit indexes for the factorial structure for each of the five
ZKAPQ domains (each domain consists of 4 facets; 1-factor model).
Factor
AG
S-1
S-2
S-3
AC
S-1
S-2
S-3
EX
S-1
S-2
S-3
NE
S-1
S-2
S-3
SS
S-1
S-2
S-3
df
ECVI
TLI
CFI
SRMR
RMSEA
(90% CI)
6.79
24.67
6.64
2
2
2
.02
.08
.05
.99
.91
.98
1
.97
.99
.01
.04
.02
.05 (.01.09)
.14 (.09.20)
.07 (.01.13)
166
45.99
45.11
2
2
2
.05
.07
.10
.39
.67
.71
.80
.89
.90
.09
.06
.06
.28 (.24.32)
.20 (.15.26)
.21 (.16.27)
32.25
14.92
30.82
2
2
2
.05
.07
.10
.94
.92
.88
.98
.97
.96
.03
.03
.04
.12 (.08.15)
.13 (.08.18)
.17 (.12.23)
39.24
41.50
42.35
2
2
2
.05
.11
.12
.93
.87
.87
.98
.96
.96
.03
.04
.03
.13 (.10.17)
.19 (.14.24)
.20 (.15.26)
38.49
7.35
38.49
2
2
2
.05
.04
.04
.93
.98
.93
.98
.99
.98
.03
.02
.03
.13 (.09.17)
.07 (.02.12)
.13 (.10.17)
Note. ZKAPQ = ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire; ECVI =

expected cross-validation index; TLI = TuckerLewis Index; CFI = comparative fit index;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; CI = confidence interval; AG = aggressiveness; S-1 = Spanish calibration
sample; S-2 = Spanish validation sample; S-3 = American sample; AC = Activity; EX =
Extraversion; NE = Neuroticism; SS = Sensation Seeking.
The associated p values were always lower than .001 except for SS (S-1 = ns; S-2 = .05)
and AG (S-1 and S-3 = .05).
the specification of correlated errors may be justified on the

basis of various types of evidence, showing that part of the covariation between indicators is due to sources other than the
common factor. In these analyses, we took into account high
MIs that pointed to appreciable error covariances among some
of the facets within each of the five factors. The cause of the
low fit of this dimension was the exaggerated high correlation
among the pairs of facets indicated by the MIs (AC1AC4:
120.73; AC2AC3: 32.86; AC1AC4: 30.52) for S-1, S-2, and
S-3, respectively. If we correlate the error terms of these pairs
of facets, the obtained TLI would be .97, 1, and 1, respectively.
The independent multigroup analyses performed for the
facets of each dimension showed significant gender differences
across factor loadings only for some dimensions and samples (Table 6). In S-1, there were significant differences for
SS ( 2 = 11.56, p < .02), NE ( 2 = 20.50, p < .001),
AG ( 2 = 27.97, p < .001), and AC ( 2 = 22.12, p <
.001). For the S-2, there were no differences for any of the
five dimensions. Finally, and for S-3, only the Aggressiveness dimension structure differed across gender ( 2 = 10.56,
p < .03).
Descriptives, Internal Consistency, and Sex Differences

for the Five ZKAPQ Factors and Their Facets
The means, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness, and reliability alphas for the five ZKPQ factors, and d differences
for each of the 20 facets, are shown in Table 7. In the Spanish
samples, we used only subjects younger than 23 to avoid mean
differences solely due to age. In the American sample, with the
exception of age, kurtosis and skewness were consistently close
to zero, indicating that values tend to be normally distributed.
KolmogorovSmirnov nonparametric bilateral significance tests

showed that z was higher than .05 for all variables except for
age, confirming the normality of their distributions. Alpha reliability coefficients were close to .90 for the five ZKPQ factors
in both samples. Reliability was adequate in both samples for
most of the facets. Alpha mean scores for the five factors were
.88 (Spanish sample) and .91 (American sample). Alphas for
AG, EX, AC, NE, and SS were .78 to .81, .76 to .73, .75 to
.75, .74 to .79, and .70 to .72 for the Spanish and American
samples, respectively. Three facets had reliabilities lower than
.70 for the Spanish sample, and two were less than .70 for S-3.
Although both the Spanish and American samples differed in
age, there were no significant differences in the ZKPQ facets
with ds lower than .50, indicating a low effect size. However,
the American subjects scored higher in EX (d = .45). At the
facet level, Spanish subjects scored higher in AC2 (d = .44) and
AC3 (d = .42).
To examine the possible role played by age differences between the Spanish and American samples, we conducted five
analyses of variance (ANOVAS; one for each ZKPQ dimension) with age as the covariate and country as the categorical
variable. The Spanish versus American differences were significant in the AG, AC, and EX dimensions. Spanish respondents
were significantly lower than Americans on EX and higher than
Americans on AC and AG. The p values for these differences
were around .05, except for EX, which was .001.
The effect for the age covariate was not significant for SS,
F (1, 913) = .711; AG, F (1, 913) = .040; or for EX, F (1, 913)
= .921. We found an effect for age for the remaining two ZKPQ
dimensions; and in each case, scores on the dimension decreased
with age. For AC and NE, F (1, 913) = 4.818, p < .028, 2 =
.005; and F (1, 913) = 7.074, p < .008, = .008, respectively.
To examine sex differences, we performed another set of five
ANOVAS in which sex was treated as a covariate and country as
the categorical variable. Spanish versus American differences
were significant for all the ZKAPQ dimensions, and all five
p values were less than .001. In both countries, males were
significantly higher on SS and AG, whereas females were higher
on AC, NE, and EX. There were significant effects for sex in each
dimension as well, with all p values below .001. Furthermore,
we observed slight significant effects for sex for NE and AC
with the p values < .05,F (1, 913) = 6.099, p < .01, 2 =
.007; and F (1, 913) = 3.31, p < .05, 2 = .004, respectively.
Three-way country, sex, and age interactions were significant
for SS, F (1, 913) = 3.263, p < .021, 2 = .011; and for AG,
F (1, 913) = 4.865, p < .002, 2 = .016; but were associated
with a negligible effect size (2 < .01). In accordance with
Cohen (1988, pp. 274288), effect sizes might be interpreted as
follows: 2 < 0.0099, negligible; 2 > 0.01, small; 2 0.0588,
medium; and 2 0.1379, large.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Table 8 shows a correlation matrix between the facets and
dimensions of the ZKAPQ and the dimensions of the short
versions of the NEO PIR and the TCIR in two independent samples. The correlations of the ZKAPQ with the TCIR
and NEO PIR were consistent with those reported in earlier
works that have examined extratest correlations of the original
ZKPQ with these same two scales (Aluja et al., 2002; Zuckerman & Cloninger, 2006; Zuckerman et al., 1993). According
424

TABLE 6.Multigroup tests for samples (Spanish and English) and gender.
Sample/Factor
S-1a
AG ( 2 = 27.97; df = 4, p < .001)
AC ( 2 = 22.12; df = 4, < .001)
EX ( 2 = 8.03; df = 4, ns)
NE ( 2 = 20.50; df = 4, p < .001)
SS ( 2 = 11.56; df = 4, p < .02)
S-2b
AG ( 2 = 6; df = 4, ns)
AC ( 2 = 0.93; df = 4, ns)
EX ( 2 = 8.10; df = 4, ns)
NE ( 2 = 9.95; df = 4, ns)
SS ( 2 = 4.21; df = 4, ns)
S-3c
AG ( 2 = 10.56; df = 4, p < .03)
AC ( 2 = 2.25; df = 4, ns)
EX ( 2 = 4.73; df = 4, ns)
NE ( 2 = 2.4; df = 4, ns)
SS ( 2 = 5.38; df = 4, ns)
Parameter
df
ECVI
CFI
TLI
RMSEA(90% CI)
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
6.23
34.20
152.86
174.98
34.34
42.37
49.84
70.34
55.66
67.23
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
.04
.05
.19
.19
.06
.06
.08
.09
.08
.09
1
.99
.81
.79
.98
.98
.97
.96
.97
.96
1
.98
.44
.69
.94
.96
.91
.94
.90
.94
.02 (.06.09)
.05 (.04.08)
.19 (.16.21)
.14 (.12.16)
.08 (.06.11)
.06 (.05.08)
.10 (.08.13)
.09 (.07.10)
.11 (.09.14)
.08 (.07.11)
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
22.48
33.73
53.39
54.32
27.73
35.83
40.06
50.01
3.24
7.45
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
.10
.11
.16
.15
.11
.11
.14
.14
.07
.06
.97
.97
.89
.88
.97
.96
.96
.95
1
1
.93
.95
.63
.82
.90
.94
.87
.92
1
1
.09 (.05.13)
.08 (.05.10)
.15 (.11.19)
.10 (.08.13)
.10 (.07.14)
.08 (.05.10)
.14 (.10.17)
.10 (.07.13)
0 (0.06)
0 (0.05)
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
DP
EP
11.43
21.99
48.23
50.48
28.74
33.44
43.40
46.31
8.32
13.70
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
.04
.10
.17
.16
.13
.12
.16
.15
.08
.08
.99
.98
.90
.91
.96
.96
.96
.96
.99
.98
.97
.97
.70
.86
.90
.95
.87
.94
.97
.98
.06 (.02.10)
.06 (.03.09)
.15 (.11.19)
.10 (.08.13)
.11 (.08.15)
.08 (.05.11)
.14 (.11.18)
.10 (.07.12)
.05 (0.09)
.04 (0.07)
Note. ECVI = expected cross-validation index; TLI = TuckerLewis Index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; S-1 = Spanish calibration sample; AG = Aggressiveness; AC = Activity; EX = Extraversion; NE = Neuroticism; SS =
Sensation Seeking; S-2 = Spanish validation sample; S-3 = American sample; DP = different parameters; EP = equal parameters.
a
n = 1,042. b n = 529. c n = 480.
to these previous findings, we have predicted positive and negative correlations between the ZKAPQ and the NEO FFIR
and TCIR140 (see Table 8). The acronym P indicates a
predicted positive correlation, and N indicates a predicted
negative correlation. We expected higher positive or negative
correlations of AG with N, A, C, Co, and SD; AC with
E, C, Ps, and SD; EX with N, E, O, HA, and RD; NE with
N, E, C, HA, and SD; and SS with E, O, A, C, NS,
and ST.
For each group of four facets from the ZKAPQ, we expected
a general pattern of similar correlations with the dimensions of
the short versions from the NEO PIR and the TCIR. Nevertheless, although the facets were highly correlated in accordance
to their content, variations within the range of correlations with
the scales of the NEO FFIR and the TCIR140 are likely,
although in the same direction.
Moreover, we expected that the facets of Anger and Hostility
(AG3 and AG4) would show a theoretical relationship with
Neuroticism. For this reason, we hoped that these facets would
be more related to N and HA than AG1 and AG2. The four
facets of Activity were developed to measure the level of relative
activity in working contexts and the level of implication. In fact,
the facets were very interrelated, and we hoped that all the
facets would present similar correlations. The most significant

correlations should be with C and Ps, and in a lesser extent with E
and SD. The Extraversion dimension of the ZKAPQ includes
facets of positive emotions (EX1), social warmth (EX2), and
exhibitionism (EX3), whereas the ZKPQ was only focused on
socialization (EX4). Even though we expected that the four
facets would be mainly correlated with E and RD, and in a
lesser extent with O, N, HA, and RD, positive emotions (EX1)
and social warmth (EX2) could yield negative correlations with
N and HA, and positive correlations with Co and SD, in a greater
extent than with the other facets.
Furthermore, it was expected that Exhibitionism (EX3) would
yield higher correlations with NS and E. Neuroticism has consistent facets in regard to its construct; thus, we did not expect
variations in the correlations with the NEO FFIR and the TCI
R140 dimensions. The expected correlations were the same as
those advanced for the NE scales. The SS facets were based
in the four SSS (form V) subscales, although SS4 includes six
Impulsiveness items (Lack of Premeditation). For this reason,
we expected that this facet would show higher negative correlations with A, C, and Co than with the rest of the SS facets. In
addition, we expected less intense correlations with E and ST
(Zuckerman & Cloninger, 1996).
425
TABLE 7.Descriptive, alpha internal consistency, and country differences.

All Spanish
Samples < 23 Years Olda
Variable
Age
AG
AC
EX
NE
SS
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG4
AC1
AC2
AC3
AC4
EX1
EX2
EX3
EX4
NE1
NE2
NE3
NE4
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
S-3: American Sampleb
SD
SD
19.77
97.16
106.53
116.25
95.78
102.00
21.09
28.11
24.59
23.37
23.37
26.85
27.65
28.66
31.26
29.55
25.71
29.73
24.56
23.90
24.44
22.88
26.19
27.92
25.89
21.99
1.50
15.55
14.15
13.44
15.07
13.30
6.47
4.19
5.12
4.03
4.77
4.91
4.28
5.36
3.96
5.16
4.13
4.40
4.29
4.64
4.23
5.25
5.40
4.43
4.38
3.77
.85
.34
.38
.00
.47
.62
.31
.37
.15
.50
.02
.05
.19
.19
.02
.14
.58
.12
.82
.28
.78
.08
.19
.01
.46
.74
.35
.07
.06
.03
.08
.13
.40
.18
.15
.16
.06
.02
.04
.37
.12
.18
.24
.27
.11
.09
.12
.16
.04
.03
.11
.02
.90
.87
.88
.92
.85
.90
.75
.81
.68
.73
.76
.68
.83
.73
.81
.76
.75
.72
.73
.70
.81
.73
.70
.72
.65
18.48
94.79
104.33
122.82
97.15
101.40
22.44
26.36
23.96
22.03
24.10
24.60
26.00
29.64
32.81
32.05
27.29
30.66
25.06
24.43
25.56
22.10
25.74
26.92
27.19
21.55
0.87
17.67
14.18
15.32
17.46
14.01
7.02
4.64
5.59
4.51
4.89
5.25
3.65
4.96
4.67
5.35
4.48
4.59
4.88
5.16
4.47
6.17
5.86
4.58
4.60
3.38
16.11
.19
.22
.07
.01
.17
.62
.02
.14
.04
.10
.03
.24
.05
.90
.56
.05
.43
.11
.30
.06
.25
.42
.20
.37
.42
3.16
.07
.08
.54
.23
.17
.34
.11
.21
.09
.07
.24
.25
.30
.86
.48
.10
.61
.00
.14
.13
.23
.08
.13
.27
.07
.93
.89
.92
.93
.88
.90
.76
.86
.74
.77
.83
.56
.85
.84
.86
.76
78
.78
.77
.72
.89
.81
.73
.73
.61
1.06
.14
.15
.45
.08
.04
.20
.39
.12
.31
.15
.44
.42
.19
.36
.47
.37
.21
.11
.11
.26
.14
.08
.18
.29
.12
Note. K = kurtosis; S = skewness; AG = Aggressiveness; AC = Activity; EX = Extraversion; NE = Neuroticism; SS = impulsive-sensation seeking; AG1 = physical aggression;
AG2 = verbal aggression; AG3 = anger; AG4 = hostility; AC1 = work compulsion; AC2 = general activity; AC3 = restlessness; AC4 = work energy; EX1 = positive emotions; EX2
= social warmth; EX3 = exhibitionism; EX4 = sociability; NE1 = anxiety; NE2 = depression; NE3 = dependency; NE4 = low self-esteem; SS1 = thrill and adventure seeking; SS2 =
experience seeking; SS3 = disinhibition; SS4 = boredom susceptibility/impulsivity.
a
n = 434. b n = 480.
DISCUSSION
In this article, we described the development of a 200item instrument based on Zuckerman et al.s (1993) alternative Five-factor personality model that includes four facets for
each factor. This new questionnaire retains the five-factor structure of the original ZKPQ, although with changes in the names
of three of its factors: Sociability is now called Extraversion,
and Neuroticism-Anxiety is now entitled Neuroticism. These
changes simply reflect the broader range of the ZKAPQs facets
within the factors.
For instance, ImpSS is now called SS because impulsivity items play only a role in the boredom susceptibility facet,
whereas the factor is primarily defined by the other three facets.
The former Socialization factor has been extended with new
contents including the facets positive emotions, social warmth,
and exhibitionism, and thus Sociability is now a facet of a more
general factor labeled Extraversion. Similarly, the former N-Anx
factor has been extended toward a more general Neuroticism factor with anxiety, depression, dependency, and low self-esteem
facets. The Agg-Host factor is also a new general Aggressiveness factor including physical aggression, verbal aggression,
anger, and hostility.
The SS factor is virtually identical to that in Zuckermans
(1971) early sensation seeking scale, but the scales are improved because the items in the new scales do not contain any
content related to specific activities such as sex or substance
abuse. The new scales of the ZKAPQ SS should be more use-
ful in studies of sexual or substance abuse because there is

no confound between questionnaire content and the dependent
variables. In the original ZKPQ, the factor was called ImpSS,
implying a rather general association between Impulsiveness
and Sensation Seeking. Of 10 items from the boredom susceptibility/impulsivity facet of the ZKAPQ, 6 were taken from the
UPPS Lack of Premeditation scale (Lynam et al., 2006), and
we therefore labeled it as boredom susceptibility/impulsivity.
However, the impulsivity in this facet is of a specific kind (nonplanning), not a general impulsivity factor. Because impulsivity
constitutes only six of the 40 SS items, we call the factor in
this form of the test Sensation Seeking rather than Impulsive
Sensation Seeking. This SS factor of the ZKAPQ is much
closer to the original four-facet construct of Sensation Seeking
(Zuckerman, 1971; Zuckerman et al., 1978).
We demonstrated the construct and factorial validity of the
ZKAPQ using the eigenvalue 1 criterion, Velicers MAP, and
the scree-test criteria. The five factors of the original ZKPQ were
well replicated, and the factor structure was shown to be highly
congruent in the three samples despite cultural and age differences between the samples. Factor intercorrelations indicate a
relative orthogonality among the five factors, with two exceptions. Specifically, significant correlations were found between
Aggressiveness and Sensation Seeking, and between Neuroticism and Extraversion. Significant Neuroticism and Extraversion correlations in the EPQ have been previously found (Lynn
& Martin, 1995). The Neuroticism-Extraversion correlation in
426

TABLE 8.Predictions, Pearson correlations between ZKAPQ, NEO FFIR, and TCIR140.
S-4a
ZKAPQ Facet
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG4
AC1
AC2
AC3
AC4
EX1
EX2
EX3
EX4
NE1
NE2
NE3
NE4
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
AG
AC
EX
NE
SS
r
N
.03
.20
.45
.43
.12
.02
.09
.14
.37
.17
.07
.30
.56
.65
.49
.59
.10
.09
.01
.20
.32
.02
.29
.71
.02
N
pr
P
P
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
r
E
.11
.03
.12
.22
.13
.33
.29
.27
.53
.37
.37
.60
.07
.31
.15
.32
.20
.17
.31
.01
.13
.34
.62
.27
.22
E
pr
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
r
O
.06
.10
.04
.15
.04
.01
.00
.04
.29
.15
.31
.16
.00
.06
.12
.05
.18
.39
.23
.01
.05
.03
.30
.07
.27
O
S-5b
pr
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
r
A
pr
r
C
pr
r
NS
.48
.36
.41
.46
.09
.06
.10
.24
.21
.32
.30
.23
.15
.10
.06
.01
.24
.16
.21
.30
.53
.04
.15
.06
.28
A
N
N
N
N
.32
.21
.21
.30
.26
.35
.14
.61
.32
.16
.18
.11
.11
.21
.09
.25
.22
.22
.32
.45
.32
.48
.13
.21
.36
C
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
.24
.26
.27
.30
.12
.14
.21
.13
.00
.01
.40
.14
.22
.17
.25
.17
.26
.40
.45
.29
.32
.10
.18
.23
.51
NS
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
N
N
pr
P
P
P
P
r
HA
.00
.04
.22
.21
.05
.18
.09
.14
.29
.17
.38
.21
.41
.51
.49
.54
.32
.27
.25
.16
.13
.15
.35
.58
.34
PA
pr
P
P
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
P
N
r
RD
.23
.07
.03
.05
.05
.07
.15
.13
.21
.57
.15
.46
.20
.19
.29
.09
.22
.02
.02
.12
.09
.13
.47
.22
.12
RD
pr
P
P
P
P
r
Ps
.05
.04
.02
.03
.56
.56
.37
.60
.28
.04
.07
.03
.03
.09
.13
.24
.21
.14
.01
.10
.04
.69
.13
.14
.10
Ps
pr
P
P
P
P
r
SD
pr
.37
.22
.45
.51
.02
.07
.01
.39
.47
.39
.09
.22
.52
.51
.48
.62
.09
.06
.27
.29
.46
.16
.32
.64
.22
SD
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
P
N
r
Co
pr
.50 P
.22 P
.39 P
.49 P
.03
.09
.05
.29
.41 P
.46 P
.07
.37
.13
.12
.02
.14
.19
.03
.28
.29
.49 N
.15
.39
.11
.23
Co
r
ST
.12
.09
.24
.27
.17
.03
.02
.12
.19
.20
.13
.10
.26
.19
.13
.15
.05
.22
.26
.25
.21
.03
.12
.24
.23
ST
pr
P
P
P
P
Note. ZKAPQ = ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire; NEO FFIR = Revised NEO Five-factor Inventory; TCIR140 = shortened Temperament and Character
InventoryRevised; pr = P indicates a predicted positive correlation, and N indicates a predicted negative correlation; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A =
Agreaebleness; C = Constientiouness; NS = Novelty Seeking; HA = Harm Avoidance; RD = Reward Dependence; Ps = Persistence; SD = Self-directiveness; Co = Cooperativeness;
ST = self-transcendence; AG = Aggressiveness; AC = Activity; EX = Extraversion; NE = Neuroticism; SS = impulsive-sensation seeking; AG1 = physical aggression; AG2 = verbal
aggression; AG3 = anger; AG4 = hostility; AC1 = work compulsion; AC2 = general activity; AC3 = restlessness; AC4 = work energy; EX1 = positive emotions; EX2 = social warmth;
EX3 = exhibitionism; EX4 = sociability; NE1 = anxiety; NE2 = depression; NE3 = dependency; NE4 = low self-esteem; SS1 = thrill and adventure seeking; SS2 = experience
seeking; SS3 = disinhibition; SS4 = boredom susceptibility/impulsivity. Calculating the significance of correlations required the application of the Bonferroni adjustment due to the
large number of comparisons.
a
n = 293. b n = 248.
The adjusted significance level was .0004 (.05/125) and .0003 (.05/175), meaning that correlations had to be greater than .21 (S-4) and .22 (S-5), respectively, to be significant.
our data appears to result from the secondary (negative) loading

of the positive emotion facet of extraversion on the Neuroticism
factor.
In the calibration sample (S1), there were no secondary loadings higher than .40. However, in S2 (Spanish validation) and
S3 (American), we observed some secondary loadings of .46,
.42, and .43. The exhibitionism (EX3) and work energy (AC4)
facets showed secondary loadings on the SS factor. The hostility
(AG4) and positive emotions (EX1) facets loaded on the Neuroticism factor. Alphas for the factor scores were around .87 in
two samples. The 10-item facets had an alpha average of .75 and
.76 (Spanish and American samples). Only three facets in the
Spanish sample and two facets in the American sample yielded
alphas below .70.
The simple structure of the questionnaire analyzed by CFAs
indicated unsatisfactory fit adjustments. Because incorporating
salient and modest loadings improved model fit, this was likely
due to the covariance between facets and other factors. To increase the model fit, it was necessary to take into account the
error terms of the facets with high correlations. This is also
the case for the NEO PIR (Aluja, Garca, Garca, et al., 2005;
Gignac, Bates, & Jang, 2007).
Our results for MIs indicate that some facets of the Activity
factor were highly correlated in all three samples. This was most
clearly seen in the one-factor CFA in which the facets of each

factor were treated as observed variables and the factor as a
latent variable. Gignac et al. (2007) proposed that each facet or
dimension should be assessed and refined individually, in keeping with both past evidence and personality theory. Although
the adjustments for four of the ZKPQ factors were satisfactory,
for Activity, the adjustments were lower than the .90 criterion,
especially for the TLI. This was basically due to the high correlation between work compulsion (AC1) and work energy (AC4);
however, when the correlated error term was incorporated, the
adjustment was satisfactory.
In this study, we showed discordance between the outcomes
from EFA and CFA in that relatively robust structures obtained
with EFA obtained poor fit indexes in the subsequent CFA. It
was necessary to include all the error terms of the observed variables (facets) to obtain the complete structure and a satisfactory
fit (Aluja, Garca, Garca, et al., 2005; McCrae et al., 1996).
The lack of perfect orthogonality in personality questionnaires
appears to be the rule rather than the exception. That is, factors
tend to be related to a greater or lesser extent. The nonorthogonality that emerged from our statistical analyses can be partially
understood from a nonstatistical (rational) perspective achieved
by facet content analyses. In the case of the ZKAPQ and other
questionnaires such as the NEO PIR and TCIR, some facets

of different factors share a common meaning that is empirically
reflected in the secondary loadings.
The ZKAPQ is a new questionnaire based on Zuckerman
et al.s (1993) five factor model. The five ZKAPQ factors are
similar to those from the ZKPQ but are not totally equivalent
because the new factors have been built from the facets. Nevertheless, future research must assess the similarities between
both instruments. In this study, we assessed the convergent and
discriminant validity of the ZKAPQ with other personality instruments related to the ZKPQ in past research, such as the
NEO PIR and the TCIR (Aluja et al., 2002; Zuckerman &
Cloninger, 1996; Zuckerman et al., 1993). The results showed
correlations between the ZKAPQ and the NEO PIR/TCIR
(shortened versions), which were similar and in the predicted
direction to those obtained using the original ZKPQ. However,
there was a low correlation between AC and SD (.16). Additionally, we obtained correlations between AG and NS (.32),
EX and N (.29), SD (.32) and Co (.39), and finally NE and
E (.27). These correlations were also in the same direction of
the previous findings, even though they were significant in this
study.
The facets followed a similar pattern of correlations with
slight differences in accordance with their content. For instance,
Anger (AG3) and Hostility (AG4) were more correlated with
Neuroticism (NEO FFIR) than physical aggression (AG1) and
verbal aggression (AG2). All AG facets were correlated with
NS. In the Zuckerman and Cloninger (1996) study, the correlation between the Aggressiveness scale with NS was rather low
(.13). The correlations of AC were in the expected direction, although work compulsion (AC1) was slightly correlated with E
(.13) and also restlessness (AC3) with C (.14). Only work energy
(AC4) was correlated with SD. Social warmth (EX2) and sociability (EX4) obtained low correlations with O, whereas positive
emotions (EX1) and exhibitionism (EX3) yielded higher correlations. Social warmth (EX2) showed a positive correlation
with A (.32), whereas exhibitionism (EX3) showed a negative correlation (.30). On the other hand, the high correlation of Exhibitionism (EX3) with NS (.40) was in line with
our prediction. All EX facets were positively correlated with
Co, except for exhibitionism (EX3). Nevertheless, the Sociability scale of the ZKPQ did not obtain correlations with Co
(Zuckerman & Cloninger, 1996), even though the ZKAPQ
Extraversion scale was highly correlated with Co, whereas Extraversion from the NEO PIR was correlated with Co (.20)
in another study (De Fruyt, De Wiele, & Van Heeringen,
2000).
The NE correlations were also in the expected direction, although the anxiety (NE1) and dependency (NE3) facets obtained nonsignificant correlations with E, whereas depression
(NE2) and low self-esteem (NE4) obtained high negative correlations. The correlations of the SS facets were in the expected
direction, although boredom susceptibility/impulsiveness (SS4)
yielded close to zero correlations with E and O. The other SS
facets yielded positive correlations. Overall, the outcomes were
in line with our predictions, with a few exceptions, supporting
the convergent and discriminant validity of the ZKAPQ scales
and facets. These results should be replicated with other samples using a wider age range and with the longer versions of the
NEO PIR and TCIR.
The 20 facets involve different and diverse areas of study of
the human personality. It is our hope that the ZKAPQ will be
427
used for basic and applied research, including personality and
behavioral variations, psychobiology of personality, personality
and clinical disorders, and industrial-organizational psychology.
The facets within a factor may reveal more specific information
about the trait sources of a correlation or difference. For instance, in a study that used a laboratory paradigm for persistent
gambling in the face of increasing losses, it was found that the
impulsivity, but not the sensation seeking, facet of ImpSS predicted the chasing behavior (Breen & Zuckerman, 1999). The
facets of the ZKAPQ might provide more comprehensive and
differentiated personality profiles, which may be of help for applied psychologists in consulting and vocational guidance tasks.
For instance, in Aggressiveness, it is important for the clinician
to know not just if the client is high on aggression but how the
aggression is typically expressed.
The facets in the major factors that are present in the ZKA
PQ, but are absent or only present in the form of a single facet
in the NEO PIRsuch as Aggressiveness, Sensation Seeking,
and Activitymay provide predictions in clinical and vocational psychology that may be missed by the NEO. For instance,
is antisocial behavior more a result of aggression, sensation
seeking, or both?
Although the ZKAPQ1 displays adequate psychometric
properties in these initial studies, we think that it should be
further investigated in different samples and cultures. The replicability of the factor structure of the facets should be further
investigated. Interested researchers can extend work in this area,
which might provide results indicating the suitability of the instrument for both basic and applied research and also issues
about its external validity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation (PSI2008-00924/PSIC). This research
was performed within the framework of DURSI Consolidated
Group 2009 SGR 809. We thank A. H. Buss and D. R. Lynam
for their permission to use the Aggression Questionnaire and
UPPS items in the initial item pool and the items selected for
inclusion in the ZKAPQ.
REFERENCES
Aluja, A., Cuevas, L., Garca, L. F., & Garca, O. (2007). Zuckermans personality model predicts MCMIIII personality disorders. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42, 13111321.
Aluja, A., Garca, L. F., Cuevas, L., & Garca, O. (2007). The MCMIIII
personality disorders scores predicted by the NEOFFIR and the ZKPQ
50CC: A comparative study. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 5871.
Aluja, A., Garca, O., & Garca, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckermans three structural models for personality throught the NEOPIR,
ZKPQIII, EPQRS and Goldbergs 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and
Aluja, A., Garca, O., & Garca, L. F. (2003). Psychometric properties of the
Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQIIIR): A study of
a shortened form. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 10831097.
Aluja, A., Garcia, O., & Garcia, L. F. (2004). Replicability of the three, four,
and five Zuckermans personality super-factor analyses of the EPQR, ZKPQ,
and NEOPIR. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 10931108.
1 A copy of the ZKAPQ with the scoring key is provided in the Appendix.
Its use is free for any interested researchers, except for commercial use. The
scale authors would appreciate advance notification of any use and information
of the results when the research is completed.
428
Aluja, A., Garca, O., Garca, L. F., & Seisdedos, N. (2005). Invariance of
the NEOPIR factor structure across exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 18791889.
Aluja, A., Garca, O; Rossier, J., & Garca, L. F. (2005). Comparison of the
NEOFFI, the NEOFFIR and an alternative short version of the NEO
PIR (NEO60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual
Differences, 38, 591604.
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., Garca, L. F., Angleitner, A., Kuhlman, M., & Zuckerman,
M. (2006). A cross-cultural shortened form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ50CC)
adapted to English, French, German, and Spanish languages. Personality and
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2007). Equivalence of paper and pencil
vs internet forms of the ZKPQ50CC in the Spanish and Swiss samples.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 20222032.
Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Investigating the ZKPQ
IIIR: Psychometric properties, relations to the Five-factor model, and genetic
and environmental influences on its scales and facets. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.),
On the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman
(pp. 89105). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). AMOS 4.01. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corp.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in
the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. New
York, NY: Sage.
Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999) Chasing in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individual Differences,
27, 10971111.
Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
136162). London, England: Sage.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452459.
Buss, A., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality
traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cloninger, C. R. (1999). The Temperament and Character InventoryRevised.
St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Psychobiology of Personality. (Available from C. R. Cloninger, Washington University School of
Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, P.O. Box 8134, St. Louis, MO 63110.)
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological
model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50,
975990.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Siegler, I. C. (2000). Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic maturation, and response to life events.
Assessment, 7, 365378.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory (NEO
PIR). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008) The revised NEO Personality inventory
(NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. J. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.),
Personality theory and measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 179198). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
De Fruyt, F., De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). Cloningers psychobiological model of temperament and character and the Five-factor model of
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 441452.
De Pascalis, V., & Russo, M. M. (2003). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire: Preliminary results of the Italian version. Psychological Reports,
92, 965974.
Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. New York, NY: Praeger.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. D. (1991). The Eysenck Personality Profiler.
London, England: Corporate Assessment Network.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., Maccallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999).
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.
Psychological Methods, 3, 272299.
Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation on
adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304312.
Gignac, G. E., Bates, T. C., & Jang, K. L. (2007). Implications relevant
to a CFA model misfit, reliability and the five-factor model as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587
596.
Goma-i-Freixanet, M., Valero, S., Punti, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire
in a Spanish sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20,
134146.
Goma-i-Freixanet, M., Wismeijer, A. J., & Valero, S. (2005). Consensual validity parameters of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire:
Evidence from self-reports and spouse reports. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 279286.
Gutierrez-Zotes, J. A., Bayon, C., Montserrat, C., Valero, J., Labad, A.,
Cloninger, C. R., & Fernandez-Aranda, F. (2004). Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R). Standardization and normative data in a
general population sample. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatra, 32, 815.
Haven, S., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (1977). Tuckers coefficient of congruence as a
measure of factorial invariance: An empirical study. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Johnson, W., Krueger, R. F., Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2002). The personality of twins: Just ordinary folks. Twin Research, 5, 125131.
Joireman, J., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2004). The Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire: Origin, development, and validity of a measure to assess an
alternative Five-Factor Model of personality. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.), On
the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman (pp.
4964). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and
applications (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: SPSS publications.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401
416.
Lanyon, R. I., & Goodstein, L. D. (1997). Personality assessment (3rd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lynam, D. R., Smith, G. T., Whiteside, S. P., & Cyders, M. A. (2006). The
UPPS-P: Assessing five personality pathways to impulsive behavior (Technical Report). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1995). National differences for thirty-seven nations
in extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and economic, demographic and
other correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 403406.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO
Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587596.
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S.
V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552566.
Morizot, J., & Le Blanc, M. (2003). Continuity and change in personality
traits from adolescence to midlife: A 25-year longitudinal study comparing
representative and adjudicated men. Journal of Personality, 71, 705755.
Mulaik, S. A. (2007). There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation
modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 883891.
Muniz, J., Garca-Cueto, E., & Lozano, L. M. (2005). Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38, 6169.
OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number
of components using parallel analysis and Velicers MAP test. Behavior
Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396402.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the
prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
524539.

Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad
versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behavior across
cultures. European Journal of Personality, 17, 413433.
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth
and stability in personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 670683.
Rossier, J., Verardi, S., Massoudi, K., & Aluja, A. (2008). Psychometric properties of the French-version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8, 203217.
Schmitz, P. G. (2004). On the alternative Five-factor model: Structure and
correlates. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.), On the psychobiology of personality:
Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman (pp. 6587). New York, NY: Elsevier
Science.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval
estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.
In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Personality theory
and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 261292). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 110.
Westen, D. (1995). A clinical-empirical model of personality: Life after the
Mischelian ice age and the NEO-lithic era. Journal of Personality, 63, 495
524.
Wu, Y.-X., Wang, W., Du, W.-Y., Li, J., Jiang, X.-F., & Wang, Y.-H. (2000).
Development of a Chinesse version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire: Reliabilities and gender/age effects. Social Behavior and
Personality, 28, 241250.
Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 36, 4552.
Zuckerman, M. (1991) Psychobiology of personality (1st ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation
seeking. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
429
Zuckerman, M. (2002). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire
(ZKPQ): An alternative five-factorial model. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 377396). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe
& Huber.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of Personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Zuckerman, M. (2008). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire
(ZKPQ): An operational definition of the alternative Five factorial model
of personality. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 2. Personality
measurement and testing (pp. 219238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zuckerman, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (1996). Relationships between Cloningers,
Zuckermans, and Eysencks dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 283285.
Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cultural, age and sex comparisons Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46, 139149.
Zuckerman, M., Kolin, I, Price, L., & Zoob, I. (1964). Development of a sensation seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 477482.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk taking: Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 9991029.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond
E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96
107.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A
comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big
Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 757768.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five
(or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 929941.
430
APPENDIX
ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire
(ZKAPQ)
A number of statements are shown below that describe some
ways in which people act and think. Please, indicate for each
statement how much you agree or disagree. In case that you
have not experienced that circumstance, please, try to describe

how you would act or what you think about that situation.
If you Disagree Strongly write 1, if you Disagree Somewhat write 2, if you Agree somewhat write 3, and if you Agree
Strongly write 4. Be sure to indicate your agreement or disagreement for every statement.
1.- Disagree Strongly. 2.- Disagree Somewhat. 3.- Agree somewhat. 4.- Agree Strongly.
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.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
If I have to resort to violence to defend my rights, I can do it.

I enjoy the sensations of speeding in a car.
Other people know me by the long hours I keep.
I am usually happy.
I often feel restless for no apparent reason.
When I disagree with my friends, I argue openly with them.
I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned or definite routes or
timetables.
I like to be constantly busy doing things.
Others think that I am an affectionate person.
I often feel like crying.
Some of my friends think I am quick-tempered.
Ill try anything once.
I eat more slowly than most people.
I like to entertain others in social gatherings.
I tend to be oversensitive and easily hurt by thoughtless remarks and
actions of others.
I am not at all a bitter person.
I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.
When theres a job to be done, I devote all my energy to getting it done.
I am a very sociable person.
I sometimes fear I am not up to lifes challenges.
If I am pushed far enough, I might hit another person.
I like some physical activities that are somewhat risky.
My peers know Im in the office early and always leave late.
I am usually in a good mood.
Often I feel uneasy.
I would rather concede an argument than argue about it .
I enjoy getting into new situations where you cant predict how things will
turn out.
I do not like to waste time just sitting down relaxing.
Others say that I am a warm person.
I sometimes feel depressed.
I am a gentle person and not at all a hot-tempered one.
I like wild uninhibited parties.
I often do several things at the same time (eat, read, write, listen to music,
watch TV).
I enjoy speaking in public.
After buying something I often worry about having made the wrong
choice.
I wonder why I sometimes feel so hostile towards the people around me.
I get restless if I have to stay around home for any length of time.
I work at my full capacity when it comes to my work.
I have a rich social life.
I am not very confident about myself or my abilities.
If somebody hits me, I hit them back.
I prefer fast-moving physical activities or sports.
My work is important to me.
I am pleasantly excited by many events in my life.
I am a very nervous person.
When people annoy me, I tell them what I think of them.
I would like the kind of life where one is on the move and travelling a lot,
with lots of change and excitement.
I can enjoy myself just lying around and doing nothing.
I am an open and pleasant person.
Negative thoughts sometimes obsess me.
I keep my temper under good control.
I like to let myself go and do impulsive things just for fun.
When I have to queue at a restaurant, shop or bank, I am calm about it.
Others think that I am fun.
55. Without help from others I sometimes find it difficult to carry out my
plans.
56. When I feel put out, I can be rather cynical.
57. I enjoy spending time in the familiar surroundings of my home or
apartment.
58. I strive as hard as I can to be successful in my work.
59. I tend to start conversations at parties.
60. I often think people I meet are better than I am.
61. If necessary, I use force to defend my rights.
62. I would like to learn to fly an airplane.
63. I often take work home with me in order to finish it on my own time.
64. I enjoy my daily activities.
65. I often worry about things that other people think are unimportant.
66. I keep good control over my tone of voice, even if someone is shouting at
me.
67. I would like to travel to foreign lands where the people are quite different
from the people in my own country.
68. I do not feel the need to be constantly doing something.
69. I dont come across as being very warm in my relationships with others.
70. I sometimes seem to be lacking any energy.
71. When I feel frustrated, I usually show my annoyance.
72. I go to parties to meet exciting and stimulating people.
73. I tend to go about things slowly and calmly.
74. I like to be the center of attention in a gathering.
75. I always ask my close friends for advice before making an important
decision.
76. I am one of those people who look back on life and consider themselves
fortunate.
77. I am polite and attentive to someone even if I do not find their
conversation interesting.
78. I give all I have got to achieve my work objectives.
79. I like to join in activities organized by my friends.
80. I often feel unsure of myself.
81. Even when provoked, I tend to be docile and not at all aggressive.
82. I think I would enjoy being a fire-fighter.
83. I do not mind staying on later at work to finish something important.
84. I am usually a lively person.
85. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.
86. I find it natural to swear when I am angry.
87. I like people who are unusual or different from most other people.
88. When I have the day off, I would rather play at sports than just take it easy
doing nothing.
89. I am rather a cold person with others.
90. I sometimes find it difficult to concentrate.
91. I have a strong temperament.
92. I do not try to restrain my urges to have exciting experiences.
93. I am told that I am always rushing around.
94. I like to have a joke and tell funny stories.
95. I feel helpless if there is no one to advise me.
96. I cannot help being rude to people I do not like.
97. I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward life.
98. I do not make a great effort at work.
99. I like to be with friends most of the time.
100. I am somewhat disappointed when I look back on my efforts.
101. I must confess to having occasionally used physical violence.
102. If I were in the Army I might volunteer for exciting but dangerous duties.
103. I probably will never retire from my work.
104. I consider myself an unfortunate person.
105. I do not worry about unimportant things.
106. I am careful about what I say and I never return an insult.

107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
I enjoy many types of loud, intense rock music.

I like to be active from the moment I get up in the morning.
I tend to be reserved and distant with others.
I do not feel guilty about anything in particular.
I never lose my calmness, even though I feel very angry.
I prefer quiet parties where one can have good conversations.
When I get an idea in my head I do not give up until I have accomplished
it.
People enjoy my witty conversation.
I consider myself the master of my destiny.
I am always patient with others, even if they are annoying
My thinking is usually cautious and sensible.
If there is nobody watching me when I am working, I tend to relax.
I like working as part of a team.
I am generally rather proud of myself.
I am best not provoked, as I might respond physically.
I do not like to engage in sports or activities in which there is a significant
risk of getting hurt.
If I could not work I would be depressed.
I am not interested in a lot of things.
I dont let trivial things irritate me.
When people shout at me, I shout back at them.
I would not like a job involving a lot of travel.
I am not interested in keeping busy.
I tend to be an inaccessible person, even with the people closest to me.
I do not worry too much about temporary failures.
I am not very patient when someone makes me angry.
I am not interested in having new experiences just for the sake of
experiencing new sensations.
People say I am a very slow walker.
I am an inhibited person and I dont like to stand out in a group.
Even if there is no one to advise me I have no trouble in making major
choices.
My behaviour is seldom hostile towards others
I dont like to start a project until I know exactly how to proceed.
At work, I do just enough to avoid being criticized.
I tend to be uncomfortable at big parties.
I have a positive attitude towards myself.
If someone insults me, I tend to be aggressive, and even use force.
I dont think I would like flying in a small airplane.
Work is like a drug to me.
I do not feel any particular pleasure in being with others.
I am generally relaxed.
I generally keep my poor opinions of others to myself.
I do not like people who behave in uncontrolled and unconventional ways.
I like to keep busy all the time.
I consider myself a serious person and have difficulties in expressing
feelings.
I have never wanted to die.
If I feel I am being attacked, I tend to get upset and lose my temper.
I enjoy quiet, melodic popular or classical music.
I tend to be restless and always on the go.
When I have to talk about myself in a meeting, I feel awkward.
431
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
I need to be loved in order to feel worthwhile.

I am happy to see certain people having trouble with their lives.
I tend to value and follow a rational and moderate approach to things.
When I work, I really exert myself to the fullest.
Others consider me a loner.
I am content with what I am.
I do not think I would ever come to blows with someone who provoked
me.
Given a choice I would never volunteer for any activity that is physically
risky
My work is my primary pleasure in life.
I cannot get excited about most things.
I am not a worrier.
When I think someone is wrong, I cannot help telling them.
I am comfortable with the familiarity of a fixed daily routine.
Being constantly active is a way of staying young.
I have difficulty in showing my affection.
I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be.
In frustrating situations I tend to remain calm.
One should not go too far in physical intimacy until one gets to know the
other person.
I cannot sit down or remain in the same position for long.
Sometimes I talk too much about myself.
My confidence in myself is lost when someone I love is critical of me.
I tend to criticize others, though sometimes I do not realize it.
I usually make up my mind through careful reasoning.
I feel totally fulfilled in my job and I am really dedicated.
I do not mind going out alone and often prefer it to being out in a large
group.
I have little confidence in myself.
If someone severely provokes me, we are likely to end up fighting.
I would never travel to countries where there is unrest and the threat of
violence
I think I will miss my work after I retire.
I am bored much of the time.
I am often bothered by unimportant thoughts that come into my mind.
I never say swear words, even if I am annoyed.
I would prefer to travel to places where people speak my language and
have the same customs.
I am on the go from the time I wake up until I go to sleep.
I find it difficult to show affection, even to my friends and relatives.
On occasion I feel irritated and it bothers me to be with others.
I have a quick temper.
One of my main goals in life is to experience intense and pleasurable
sensations.
My friends think I am a restless, overactive person.
I dont like to talk about myself.
What others think of me does not bother me.
I easily get angered when things go wrong.
Before I get into a new situation I like to find out what to expect from it.
I am not very motivated in my job and I do it out of necessity.
I usually prefer to do things alone.
I would like to have more self-respect.
Note. AG1 = physical aggression; AG2 = verbal aggression; AG3 = anger; AG4 = hostility; AC1 = work compulsion; AC2 = general activity; AC3 = restlessness;
AC4 = work energy; EX1 = positive emotions; EX2 = social warmth; EX3 = exhibitionism; EX4 = sociability; NE1 = anxiety; NE2 = depression; NE3 = dependency;
NE4 = low self-esteem; SS1 = thrill and adventure seeking; SS2 = experience seeking; SS3 = disinhibition; SS4 = boredom susceptibility/impulsivity. Reverse-scored items:
AG1: 81, 161. SS1: 122, 142, 162, 182. AC1: EX1: 104, 124, 144, 164, 184. NE1: 105, 125, 145, 165. AG2: 26, 66, 106, 146, 186. SS2: 127, 147, 167, 187. AC2: 48,
68, 128. EX2: 69, 89, 109, 129, 149, 169, 189. NE2: 110, 130, 150. AG3: 31, 51, 111, 171. SS3: 112, 132, 152, 172. AC3: 13, 53, 73, 133. EX3: 134, 154, 194. NE3:
115, 135, 195. AG4: 16, 76, 116, 136. SS4: 57, 77, 97, 117, 137, 157, 177, 197. AC4: 98, 118, 138, 198. EX4: 139, 159, 179, 199. NE4:120, 140, 160 (4 = 1)(3 = 2)(2
= 3)(1 = 4). AG1 = 1+21+41+61+81+101+121+141+161+181. SS1=2+22+42+62+82+102+122+142+162+182. AC1 = 3+23+43+63+83+103+123+143+163+183.
EX1 = 4+24+44+64+84+104+124+144+164+184. NE1 = 5+25+45+65+85+105+125+145+165+185. AG2 = 6+26+46+66+86+106+126+146+166+186.
SS2=7+27+47+67+87+107+127+147+167+187. AC2 = 8+28+48+68+88+108+128+148+168+188. EX2 = 9+29+49+69+89+109+129+149+169+189. NE2 =
10+30+50+70+90+110+130+150+170+190. AG3 = 11+31+51+71+91+111+131+151+171+191. SS3 = 12+32+52+72+92+112+132+152+172+192. AC3 =
13+33+53+73+93+113+133+153+173+193. EX3 = 14+34+54+74+94+114+134+154+174+194. NE3 = 15+35+55+75+95+115+135+155+175+195. AG4 =
16+36+56+76+96+116+136+156+176+196. SS4 = 17+37+57+77+97+117+137+157+177+197. AC4 = 18+38+58+78+98+118+138+158+178+198. EX4 =
19+39+59+79+99+119+139+159+179+199. NE4 = 20+40+60+80+100+120+140+160+180+200. AG = AG1+AG2+AG3+AG4. SS = SS1+SS2+SS3+SS4. AC = AC1
AC2 AC3 AC4. EX = EX1+EX2+EX3+EX4. NE = NE1+NE2+NE3+NE4.

2010 497406 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2010 497406 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA]

On: 09 December 2014, At: 08:12

Journal of Personality Assessment

Development of the ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja

, Michael Kuhlman & Marvin Zuckerman

Department of Psychology , University of Lleida , Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

Institute of Biomedical Research of Lleida , Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

Department of Psychology , University of Delaware , Newark

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 416431, 2010

Development of the ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

Department of Psychology, University of Lleida, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

The ZuckermanKuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ;

factor to which they had been provisionally assigned and lower

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZKAPQ

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

Development of the Questionnaire

ALUJA, KUHLMAN, ZUCKERMAN

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZKAPQ

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

Building the pool of items. Each facet included 20 items

Procedure and Data Analysis

Analyses of data from the first (calibration) sample proceeded

ALUJA, KUHLMAN, ZUCKERMAN

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

S-2. Validation Sampleb

S-3. American Samplec

Costa (2004) constructed this revised short version using the

TCIR140. A shortened TCIR inventory, the TCIR

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZKAPQ

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

TABLE 2.Velicers Minimum Average Partial (MAP) Test.

Only 16 of the 200 items of the ZKAPQ came from the

FIGURE 1.ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire scree plot

ALUJA, KUHLMAN, ZUCKERMAN

S-2. Validation Sampleb

S-3. American Samplec

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

The parameters were freely estimated in all CFA analyses.

American sample. On the other hand, the correlated error terms

TABLE 4.Goodness of fit indices for ZKAPQ models.

RMSEA (90% CI)

The associated p values were always lower than .001.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZKAPQ

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

Note. ZKAPQ = ZuckermanKuhlmanAluja Personality Questionnaire; ECVI =

the specification of correlated errors may be justified on the

Descriptives, Internal Consistency, and Sex Differences

KolmogorovSmirnov nonparametric bilateral significance tests

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

ALUJA, KUHLMAN, ZUCKERMAN

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

facets would present similar correlations. The most significant

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZKAPQ

TABLE 7.Descriptive, alpha internal consistency, and country differences.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014

S-3: American Sampleb

ful in studies of sexual or substance abuse because there is

ALUJA, KUHLMAN, ZUCKERMAN

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 08:12 09 December 2014