Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood

Claudio Barbaranelli*, Gian Vittorio Caprara,
Annarita Rabasca, Concetta Pastorelli
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Roma ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy

Received 10 August 2001; received in revised form 17 December 2001; accepted 5 February 2002

Abstract
A study is presented which aims at measuring the Big Five factors in late childhood through self-report
as well as parent and teacher ratings. First, several factor analyses examined self-report and teacher and
parent ratings on a 65-item questionnaire developed for assessing the Big Five. Five clear factors emerged
from these analyses conducted on self-report and other ratings of elementary and junior high school children.
Factors showed a high degree of congruence. Self-reports, parent and teacher ratings resulted moderately
although significantly convergent. Second, as a validation step, the Big Five factors were used as concurrent
predictors of academic achievement and of Externalizing and Internalizing problematic behavior syndromes.
Intellect/Openness and Conscientiousness resulted as important predictors of Academic Achievement.
Externalizing problems were associated to low Conscientiousness and low Emotional Stability, Internalizing
problems to low Emotional Stability. Finally, also the correlations of the Big Five factors with the
dimensions of Sybil Eysenck’s Junior Personality Questionnaire further corroborated the construct validity
of the questionnaire. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Big Five; Childhood; Questionnaire; Self-report; Teacher ratings; Parent ratings

1. Introduction

1.1. The Big Five model

In recent years, an impressive body of research has accumulated supporting a five-factor

structure to describe personality (the so-called ‘‘Big Five’’), confirming the early structure
proposed by Fiske (1949), Tupes and Christal (1961), and Norman (1963). These five robust
factors emerged irrespective of factor analytical techniques (Goldberg, 1990), rating procedures

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-06-49917665; fax: +39-06-4451667.

E-mail address: claudio.barbaranelli@uniroma1.it (C. Barbaranelli).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S0191-8869(02)00051-X
646 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

(Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; McCrae & Costa, 1987), language
(DeRaad, Perugini, Hrebickova, & Szarota, 1998). Although there are some divergences among
various authors regarding the interpretation of each factor (see Block, 1995, Digman, 1990;
Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990; John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988; McCrae, 1990), there is
substantial agreement on using the following labels for these five factors: I. Extraversion, II.
Agreeableness, III. Conscientiousness, IV. Neuroticism, and V. Intellect (or Openness to Experience).
The Big Five are the meeting point of two traditions of research: the lexicographic and the
factorial tradition. While lexical studies, moving from the ‘‘sedimentation hypothesis’’ (e.g. Cattell,
1943), examined the emergence of the five factors through trait terms (adjective, nouns, verbs)
extracted from the vocabulary, factorial studies examined the emergence of the same factors
through the analysis of the descriptive phrases contained in personality questionnaires. A number
of studies suggested the plausibility of reducing to the five factors the dimensions measured by
several questionnaires such as Cattell’s 16PF, Guilford’s GZTS, Eysenck’s EPQ, and Comrey’s
CPS (Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1992).
Notwithstanding the impressive number of research studies that confirmed its validity and
replicability, the Five Factor Model (FFM) has recently come under severe criticism (Block,
1995; Church & Burke, 1994; McAdams, 1994; Parker, Bagby, & Summerfeldt, 1993; Pervin,
1994). For some of the critics, the answers are clearly dependent on further research. With regard
to other issues, some counterarguments have been raised by FFM supporters (e.g. McCrae &
Costa, 1999). We believe the Five Factors represent useful constructs especially for their practical
utility; they provide a common language for self report and other ratings (see McCrae & Costa,
1987), and can help in reducing the distance among different informants and in enhancing interrater
convergency.

1.2. Measuring the Big Five in childhood and adolescence

As recently noted by Shiner (1998), there is a substantial increase of studies exploring personality
structure in middle childhood and early adolescence. A main problem of these studies, however,
is in the absence of a common framework for interpreting the results. There is no agreement on
the nature and the number of dimensions needed to describe personality. While the model
developed by Cattell comprises 16 factors (see Coan & Cattell, 1966), the model developed by
Sybil Eysenck comprises only three dimensions (Eysenck, 1975). Concluding her review, Shiner
(1998) proposed a theoretical taxonomy for the classification of personality dimensions in middle
childhood. This taxonomy comprised four general dimensions which can be traced back to four
of the Big Five: (1) Positive Emotionality (corresponding to Extraversion); (2) Negative
Emotionality (corresponding to Neuroticism); (3) Aggressiveness versus Prosocial Tendencies
(corresponding to Agreeableness); and (4) Constraint (corresponding to Conscientiousness). In
light of these considerations, we may wonder if the Big Five Model can be extended from adult
personality to children’s personality, serving thus as a reference structure for study comparison
and results generalizability (see in this regard Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999, 2000).
Although many studies have investigated the Big Five in adulthood, researchers only recently
began to study the Big Five in late childhood. Digman and Inouye (1986) found five factors very
similar to the ‘‘adult’’ Big Five in factor analyses of teacher ratings of about 500 junior high
school children, using 43 adjectives scales. Mervielde (Mervielde, 1994; Mervielde, Buyst, & De
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 647

Fruyt, 1995) analyzed teacher ratings on four different age groups (from 4 to 12 years old),
identifying most of the time a five factor solution consistent with the Big Five. In this study,
moreover, Conscientiousness and Intellect/Openness showed high correlations with Academic
Achievement.
Extensive work has been conducted by several researchers within the framework of an international
project aimed at investigating parental free descriptions of children’s personality (Kohnstamm,
Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998; Kohnstamm, Mervielde, Besevegis, & Halverson, 1995).
Results of this project evidenced that 76–85% of parental descriptions of children aged 3 to 12,
across countries, could be assigned to the Big Five. These free descriptions provided the basis for
the development of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De
Fruyt, 1999). Mervielde and De Fruyt (1999) showed that children aged 5–13 years can be described
by their teachers and their parents by means of the HiPIC, whose psychometric properties turned out
to be stable across informants and age levels. The HiPIC was also valid when used as a self-report
instrument on young adolescents (from 12 to 17 years), evidencing a high degree of convergent
and discriminant validity with the NEO-PI-R (De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra, & Rolland, 2000).
This last study demonstrated also that an ‘‘adult’’ measure of the Big Five such as the NEO-PI-R
(Costa & McCrae, 1992) can be applied to assess personality traits in adolescence.
Similar results were found by John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, and Stouthamer-Loeber (1994),
who developed scales for the Big Five from Q-sorts of 12–13 year old boys rated by their mothers.
In particular, teacher reports of school performance correlated with Conscientiousness and with
Openness. Verbal, performance and full scale IQ of WISC-R correlated with Openness. High
levels of delinquency were associated with low levels of Agreeableness and of Conscientiousness.
Externalized and Internalized disorders measured by the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist
(Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) were associated respectively with low Agreeableness, low
Conscientiousness and high Extraversion, and with high Neuroticism and low Conscientiousness.
More recently, Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Finch (1997) assessed the Big Five from self-report
of fifth to eighth graders using Goldberg’s (1992) bipolar self-rating markers. The resulting Big
Five correlated with several measures of adjustment. In particular, Intellect was associated with
both self-report and teacher ratings of Academic Adjustment, Agreeableness was associated to
both self-report and teacher ratings of classroom behavior and teacher and peer relations.

1.3. Aim of the research

The studies examined in the previous section clearly evidenced the possibility of using the Big
Five to obtain personality ratings of children, especially from adults (parents and teachers). We
may question, at this point, if the same five big factors can be replicated reliably also in the case
of children’s self-report. The study of Graziano and colleagues (1997) seems to represent a positive
answer to this issue. The question is particularly crucial since children’s self-reports have been
neglected not only within the Big Five tradition, but in general in the field of child personality
assessment, where only teacher and parent ratings have so far been used. The questionnaires
developed by Sybil Eysenck (Junior Personality Questionnaire, JPQ, 1965) and by Coan and
Cattell (1966) are outstanding exceptions of this reductive approach to children’s personality
assessment. The subject who gives a description of her/his own personality represents an accurate
source of much information that can be considered as less accessible for observers (consider, for
648 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

example, ratings of depression), or that can be ‘‘distorted’’ in other ratings through response
biases such as halo, severity, central tendency and the like.
As a matter of fact, research on sociometric assessment by means of peer nomination show
clear evidence of children’s competence in using trait terms for describing their peers (see Coie,
Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). Peer nomination based measures
of sociometric status as well as of prosocial behavior, aggression and impulsivity showed great
predictive validity in studies aimed at individuating children at risk for maladaptive behavior (see
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000; Dodge, Bates, & Petit, 1990). In a
recent study Mervielde and De Fruyt (2000) showed that peer nominations from children from 8
to 12 years on 25 bipolar traits can be interpreted using the Big Five as a framework. The ‘‘space’’
derived from peer nominations, however, is reduced to only three dimensions: In fact, factor
analyses of the 25 scales showed a three-factor solution with Conscientiousness and Intellect
‘‘merging’’ in a single factor, as well as Extraversion and Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness
emerging as a separate smaller third factor.
All these results clearly demonstrate that children have the capacities for giving reliable and
valid descriptions of their peers personalities: as a matter of fact, it is reasonable to think that
they have also the competence for describing their own personality. As recommended by Shiner
(1998), the more the instrument that is used to assess personality is consistent with children’s
cognitive capacities and cultural characteristics, the more the information gathered will be accurate
and reliable. Following these recommendations, and capitalizing on long experience in the
construction of assessment instruments for elementary and junior high school children (e.g. see
Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993) the aim of this research was to develop and validate an instrument useful
for measuring the Big Five through self-report in children from 8 to 9 years old. In particular, we
wanted to examine the emergence of the Big Five factors in self-reports of 9–13 year old children,
to compare this structure with the structure emerging from teacher and parent ratings on the
same personality descriptors, and to validate personality descriptions against different criteria.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were: (1) 432 children who were enrolled in 4th and 5th grades of the Elementary
School (mean age=10.09, SD=0.77), 220 boys and 208 girls (four children did not reported their
gender); all these participants, were rated by their teacher (21 teachers were involved in the
research) and by their mothers; (2) 968 children who were enrolled in 6th, 7th and 8th grades of
Junior High School (mean age=12.42, SD=1.05), 516 boys and 452 girls; of these participants, all
were rated by their teacher (60 teachers were involved in the research), and 520 by their mothers.

2.2. Instruments

We developed a phrase-based questionnaire to measure the Big Five: this questionnaire has
been named the ‘‘Big Five Questionnaire—Children version (BFQ-C)’’.1 The BFQ-C is not a
mere adaptation of the ‘‘adult’’ BFQ (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugini, 1993) to
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 649

make the instrument applicable for children. To tap developmental differences, eventually outside
the adult Big Five, a previous study was conducted, focusing on personality ratings of children
(Barbaranelli, submitted for publication). In this study 104 out of 285 trait adjectives were
identified by teachers and parents as the most useful to describe the personality of children aged
7–13. Behaviorally oriented phrases were developed from the definition of these 104 adjectives
thus yielding an initial pool of items that were progressively refined through pilot studies, until a
final set of 65 items, equally distributed across the five factors, was established. The same phrases
worded in third person form were used to obtain teacher and parent ratings.
One set of items assessed Energy/Extraversion which refers to aspects such as activity, enthusiasm,
assertiveness and self-confidence (e.g. ‘‘I like to joke’’, ‘‘I easily make friends’’). A second set of
items assessed Agreeableness, or concern and sensitivity towards others and their needs (e.g. ‘‘If
someone commits an injustice on me, I forgive her/him’’, ‘‘I trust in others’’). Conscientiousness
items assessed dependability, orderliness, precision, and the fulfilling of commitments (e.g. ‘‘I like
to keep all my school things in a great order’’, ‘‘I play only when I have finished my homework’’).
A fourth set of items assessed Emotional Instability, or feelings of anxiety, depression, discontent,
and anger (e.g. ‘‘I easily get angry’’, ‘‘I am sad’’). Finally, Intellect/Openness items tapped both
self reported intellect, especially in the school domain (e.g. ‘‘I easily learn what I study at school’’,
‘‘I know many things’’) and broadness or narrowness of cultural interests, self reported fantasy/
creativity, and interest in other people (e.g. ‘‘I am able to create new games and entertainments’’,
‘‘I would like very much to travel and to know the habits of other countries’’). Note that this
Intellect/Openness factor is close in conception to the factor of intellect (Digman & Inouye, 1986;
Goldberg, 1990; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). We believe this conceptualization is appropriate for
our age group, in that children and young adolescents do not generally have exposure to the range of
intellectual experiences, cultural opportunities, and social issues that go into the multifaceted mea-
sures of openness among adults (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The complete set of items is presented in
the Appendix.
For each of the 65 items, junior high school children rated on a 5-point scale the occurrence of
the behavior reported in the item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=Almost never) to
5 (=Almost always), while elementary school children used a 3-point Likert scale. Mothers and
teachers were asked to rate how much each item was appropriate to describe the personality of
their daughter/son (in the case of mothers) or of their student (in the case of teachers), using the
same 5-point Likert scale used for self-report.
To examine the concurrent validity of the questionnaire for self-report, teacher and parents’
ratings we considered three important criteria of well- and bad-adjustment, and these criteria were
assessed a few months after the assessment of personality factors: Academic Achievement, and two
aspects of problem behavior, i.e. Externalization and Internalization. Only for self-report we also

1
While trait adjectives seemed at first the more natural personality markers to use, we discovered that these terms
present clear difficulty especially for younger children. In fact, children tend to catch mainly the ‘‘concrete’’ meanings
of trait terms, and tend not to understand their ‘‘abstract’’ meaning in relation to human personality (e.g. the term
‘‘cold’’ is not understood in its metaphoric meaning). When we used 50 trait adjectives to obtain self-reports from 10
year old children, we obtained a solution that mainly reflected this situation, with no more than two latent factors that
explained the covariances among the 50 adjectives. These results prevented us from further developing an adjective
measure for self-report.
650 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

examined the correlations of the Big Five with the three factors comprised in the Junior Personality
Questionnaire (JPQ; Eysenck, 1975).
Problem Behavior was measured by the Child Behavior Checklist developed by Achenbach and
Edelbrock (1978, 1986). Both reliability and predictive validity of this widely used measure of
problem behavior are well established (Achenbach, McConaughly, & Howell, 1987). Two different
syndromes conducive to problem behavior were considered: Internalization, related to depression,
anxiety, somatic complaints, and obsessiveness, and Externalization, related to hyperactivity,
transgressive conduct, inattentiveness, and aggression. Internalization was measured by 51 items,
externalization by 61 items. We obtained measures for these two different syndromes from the
children themselves (self-report), from their teachers and from their mothers. The items ‘‘Feels too
guilty’’, ‘‘Unhappy, sad, or depressed’’, ‘‘Withdrawn, doesn’t get involved with others’’ are
examples of the statements used to assess Internalization. The items ‘‘Argues a lot’’, ‘‘Disobedient
at school’’, ‘‘Threatens people’’ are examples of the statements used to assess Externalization
(Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983, 1986). Each item is measured on a 3 point scale (0=‘‘Not at all
true’’, 1=‘‘Somewhat true’’, 2=‘‘Often true’’).
Academic Achievement was evaluated by accessing school records, which were organized
according to the Italian National Education format. Children’s achievement is assessed at mid
term (January) and at the end of the academic year (June). Different school subjects are evaluated
by their respective teachers. Students are rated on a five-level gradation of academic attainment.
Mid-term and semester-end grades were combined to provide a composite measure of academic
achievement.
The Junior Personality Questionnaire (JPQ) was developed by Sybil Eysenck (1975) to measure
the three factors of the Eysenckian taxonomy. It comprises 18 items for Psychoticism, 24 items
for Extraversion, 20 for Neuroticism, and 23 belonging to the Lie scale. Each item is measured on
a dichotomous ‘‘true’’/ ‘‘false’’ response format.

2.3. Procedure

Data were gathered in two Elementary schools, and in two Junior High schools in a residential
community near Rome, Italy. Although culturally homogeneous, they varied widely in
socioeconomic background because the community represents a microcosm of the larger society,
containing families of skilled workers, farmers, professionals, as well as local merchants and their
service staffs. This community adheres to a stringent consent procedure for the conduct of
research in the schools. The research proposal must be approved by a school council. In addition,
parents must give consent, and children are free to decline to take part if they choose.
Children were administered the sets of scales measuring the variables of theoretical interest in
their classrooms by five female experimenters. The various measures were administered collectively
during school hours. The questionnaires were administered individually to teachers and parents:
Parents and teachers were personally contacted by five female research assistants who administered
the questionnaires and collected them once they were completed. Teachers were asked to rate
students in their class (about 15 for each teacher) and recommended to evaluate each child separately.
Completed ratings were returned to research assistants in an average period of 30 days. Parents
were asked to rate their child, and to return the completed questionnaires within a period of 30
days.
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 651

3. Results

3.1. Factorial study

Collected data were analyzed by means of principal components analysis, followed by Oblimin
oblique rotation. Number of factors was determined by means of the scree test of eigenvalues
(Cattell & Vogelman, 1977). Analyses were performed separately on the following data sets: 1)
self-report of elementary school children; 2) self-report of junior high school children; 3) mother
ratings of elementary school children; 4) mother ratings of junior high school children; 5) teacher
ratings of elementary school children; 6) teacher ratings of junior high school children. Factor
structures resulting from the different analyses were compared by means of Tucker congruence
coefficients (Harman, 1976; Tucker, 1951).
The scree test of eigenvalues2 evidenced the presence of five main factors in both elementary
and junior high school, and for all three forms of evaluation, self-report, teacher and parent ratings.
So five factors were extracted and then rotated obliquely in all solutions. The variance explained
by the five factors was: 30.2 and 39.1% for self report, respectively, in elementary and in junior
high school; 38.4 and 40.5% for parent ratings, respectively, in elementary and in junior high
school; 63.5 and 64% for teacher ratings, respectively, in elementary and in junior high school.3
These differences in explained variance in the factor solutions according to informant source can
be explained referring to a the presence of a ‘‘halo’’ effect in teacher ratings. We will come back to
this issue in the discussion section.

3.2. Latent dimensions of self-report

3.2.1. Elementary school

The first component explained 13.5% of variance (6.43% after rotation) and loaded especially
by items of Agreeableness (such as ‘‘If someone commits an injustice on me, I forgive her/him’’).
The second component explained 5.2% of variance (7% after rotation) and loaded especially by
items of Emotional Instability (such as ‘‘I easily get angry’’). The third component explained 4.9%
of variance (7.5% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Intellect/Openness (such as ‘‘I
easily learn what I study at school’’). This component is also loaded by some items of Con-
scientiousness related to commitment (e.g. items number 7, 20 and 65) and to attention (e.g. items
number 3 and 22). This component seems to capture particularly those features of children’s
behavior referring to academic achievement. The fourth component explained 3.4% of variance
(4.7% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Energy/Extraversion (such as ‘‘I like to
joke’’). The fifth component explained 2.9% of variance (4.5% after rotation) and loaded especially
by items of Conscientiousness related to order, precision, rules (such as ‘‘I like to keep all my
2
Eigenvalues higher than 1 in: Elementary school self-reports: 11.78; 6.94; 3.68; 3.52; 2.20; 1.75; 1.62; 1.49; 1.33; 1.21;
1.16; 1.12; 1.09; 1.07; 1.01. Junior high school self-reports: 11.50; 6.70; 4.04; 3.23; 2.59; 1.63; 1.56; 1.43; 1.34; 1.26; 1.16;
1.12; 1.08; 1.04. Elementary school parent ratings: 11.78; 6.94; 3.68; 3.52; 2.20; 1.75; 1.62; 1.49; 1.33; 1.21; 1.16; 1.12;
1.09; 1.07; 1.01. Junior high school parent ratings: 11.50; 6.70; 4.04; 3.23; 2.59; 1.63; 1.56; 1.43; 1.34; 1.26; 1.16; 1.12;
1.08; 1.04. Elementary school teacher ratings: 23.44; 11.15; 5.13; 3.69; 1.92; 1.41; 1.24; 1.02. Junior high school teacher
ratings: 25.18; 11.11; 4.49; 3.64; 1.70; 1.33: 1.04.
3
Apply to first author for factor loadings.
652 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

school things in a great order’’). This component is also loaded by some Intellect/Openness items
related to interest in reading, science and knowledge. All factor correlations were lower than
0.20 except for those among: Intellect/Openness and Emotional Instability (r= 0.21), and
Intellect/Openness and Energy/Extraversion (r=0.22).

3.2.2. Junior High school

The first component explained 19.8% of variance (9.29% after rotation) and loaded especially
by items of Intellect/Openness (such as ‘‘When the teacher asks questions I am able to answer
correctly’’). This component is loaded also by Conscientiousness items related to commitment,
hard-working, and the like. As in the case of elementary school, this factor seems to reflect
personality aspects related to scholastic behavior. The second component explained 7.4% of variance
(7.75% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Emotional Instability (such as ‘‘I easily
get angry’’). The third component explained 4.8% of variance (6.65% after rotation) and loaded
especially by items of Energy/Extraversion (such as ‘‘I like to joke’’). The fourth component
explained 3.9% of variance (8.9% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Agreeableness
(such as ‘‘I let other people use my things’’). The fifth component explained 3.3% of variance
(5.9% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Conscientiousness related to order, precision,
rules (such as ‘‘My room is in order’’). All factor correlations were lower than 0.20 except for
those among: Intellect/Openness and Conscientiousness (r=0.29), Intellect/Openness and
Energy/Extraversion (r=0.33), Intellect/Openness and Agreeableness (r=0.38), Conscientiousness
and Agreeableness (r=0.25), and Agreeableness and Emotional Instability (r= 0.25).

3.3. Latent dimensions of mother ratings

3.3.1. Elementary school

The first component explained 17.4% of variance (10.16% after rotation) and loaded especially
by items of Intellect/Openness (such as ‘‘Easily learns what studies at school’’). The second
component explained 7.3% of variance (8.1% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of
Emotional Instability (such as ‘‘Easily gets angry’’). The third component explained 5.9% of variance
(6.7% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Energy/Extraversion (such as ‘‘Is happy
and lively’’). The fourth component explained 4.4% of variance (7.5% after rotation) and loaded
especially by items of Conscientiousness (such as ‘‘Likes to keep all her/his school things in a great
order’’). The fifth component explained 3.3% of variance (6% after rotation) and loaded especially
by items of Agreeableness (such as ‘‘Thinks other people are good and honest’’). All factor
correlations were lower than 0.20 except for those among: Energy/Extraversion and Agree-
ableness (r=0.21), Intellect/Openness and Energy/Extraversion (r=0.22), and Conscientiousness
and Intellect/Openness (r=0.30).

3.3.2. Junior High school

The first component explained 19.6% of variance (9.1% after rotation) and loaded especially by
items of Intellect/Openness (such as ‘‘Easily learns what studies at school’’). The second component
explained 7.2% of variance (8.2% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Emotional
Instability (such as ‘‘Easily gets angry’’). The third component explained 6% of variance (7.9%
after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Energy/Extraversion (such as ‘‘Is happy and
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 653

lively’’ and ‘‘Easily makes friends’’). The fourth component explained 4.3% of variance (6.5%
after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Agreeableness (such as ‘‘Trusts in others’’). The
fifth component explained 3.4% of variance (8.9% after rotation) and loaded especially by items
of Conscientiousness (such as ‘‘Likes to keep all her/his school things in a great order’’ and ‘‘Her/
his room is in order’’). All factor correlations were lower than 0.20 except for those among:
Conscientiousness and Intellect/Openness (r=0.37), Intellect/Openness and Energy/Extraversion
(r=0.27), and Intellect/Openness and Agreeableness (r=0.24).

3.4. Latent dimensions of teacher ratings

3.4.1. Elementary school

The first component explained 32.3% of variance (19.1% after rotation) and loaded especially
by items of Intellect/Openness (such as ‘‘Easily learns what studies at school’’), and by items of
Conscientiousness related to hardworking and perseverance (such as ‘‘During class-time is
concentrated on the things she/he does’’). As in the case of self-report, this component seems to
reflect important aspects of personality related to scholastic behavior. The second component
explained 14.8% of variance (11.4% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Emotional
Instability (such as ‘‘Gets nervous for silly things’’). The third component explained 8.7% of
variance (13.8% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Energy/Extraversion (such as
‘‘Likes to talk with others’’). The fourth component explained 4.8% of variance (9.8% after
rotation) and loaded especially by items of Agreeableness (such as ‘‘Treats kindly even persons
she/he dislikes’’). The fifth component explained 3.3% of variance (9.5% after rotation) and
loaded especially by items of Conscientiousness referring to orderliness and precision (such as
‘‘Likes to keep all her/his school things in a great order’’). All factor correlations were lower
than 0.20 except for those among: Intellect/Openness and Energy/Extraversion (r=0.41),
Conscientiousness and Intellect/Openness (r=0.40), Emotional Instability and Agreeableness
(r= 0.25), Emotional Instability and Conscientiousness (r= 0.24), and Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness (r=0.22).

3.4.2. Junior High school

The first component explained 34.6% of variance (16% after rotation) and loaded especially by
items of Conscientiousness (such as ‘‘Likes to keep all her/his school things in a great order’’). The
second component explained 14.2% of variance (9% after rotation) and loaded especially by
items of Emotional Instability (such as ‘‘Worries about silly things’’). The third component
explained 8.2% of variance (12.3% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Energy/
Extraversion (such as ‘‘Likes to meet with other people’’). The fourth component explained 4.6%
of variance (10.1% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Agreeableness (such as ‘‘If
someone commits an injustice on her/him, forgives her/him’’). The fifth component explained
2.4% of variance (15.6% after rotation) and loaded especially by items of Intellect/Openness
(such as ‘‘Likes scientific TV shows’’ and ‘‘Understands immediately’’). All factor correlations
were lower than 0.20 except for those among: Conscientiousness and Intellect/Openness
(r=0.52), Intellect/Openness and Energy/Extraversion (r=0.36), and Emotional Instability and
Agreeableness (r= 0.26).
654 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

3.5. Scale validity coefficients

The internal validity of the factors identified in the previous analyses was further investigated
by means of correlation among scores derived from principal component analyses and theoretical
‘‘a priori’’ scores derived by the sum of the 13 items defining each Big Five factor. This procedure
has been developed by Cattell and Tsujioka (1964), who defined the resulting set of coefficients
‘‘scale validity’’ coefficients. In our case, scale validity coefficients were all high. In particular, for
self-reports, scale validities ranged from 0.80 (Conscientiousness in junior high school) to 0.99
(Emotional Instability in elementary school), with a mean of 0.90 and a standard deviation of
0.06. For mother ratings scale validities ranged from 0.90 (Agreeableness in junior high school) to
0.99 (Conscientiousness in junior high school), with a mean of 0.94 and a standard deviation of
0.02. For teacher ratings scale validities ranged from 0.90 (Conscientiousness in junior high
school) to 0.99 (Emotional Instability in junior high school), with a mean of 0.94 and a standard
deviation of 0.03. These results support the validity of the factorial solutions: factor scores
derived from the different factor solutions are consistent with the theoretically hypothesized Big
Five scores.

3.6. Factor congruencies

Correspondence among components identified in the different solutions was analyzed by means
of Tucker congruence coefficients. In particular we compared solutions obtained from the same
rater but in different age groups (e.g. self-report in elementary school vs. self-report in junior high
school), and solutions obtained from a same age group but with different rater (e.g. self-report vs.
teacher ratings both in elementary school).
Congruencies among elementary and junior high school solutions averaged 0.87 in self-report
(ranging from 0.72 for Conscientiousness, to 0.93 for Emotional Instability), 0.95 in parent ratings
(ranging from 0.93 for Agreeableness, to 0.94 for Emotional Instability), and 0.93 in teacher ratings
(ranging from 0.89 for Conscientiousness, to 0.94 for Emotional Instability). Congruencies
among self-report and parent ratings solutions averaged 0.86 in elementary school (ranging from
0.74 for Conscientiousness, to 0.93 for Emotional Instability), and 0.91 in junior high school
(ranging from 0.84 for Conscientiousness, to 0.96 for Emotional Instability). Congruencies
among self-report and teacher ratings solutions averaged 0.83 in elementary school (ranging from
0.65 for Conscientiousness, to 0.92 for Emotional Instability), and 0.83 in junior high school
(ranging from 0.73 for Conscientiousness, to 0.94 for Emotional Instability). Congruencies
among parent ratings and teacher ratings solutions averaged 0.92 in elementary school (ranging
from 0.88 for Agreeableness, to 0.96 for Emotional Instability), and 0.87 in junior high school
(ranging from 0.86 for Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness, to 0.94 for Emotional
Instability).
Congruence coefficients evidenced relevant differences. Within the same informant the similarity
among factor solutions for mothers and teachers was remarkable but less clear for self report
(particularly in the case of Conscientiousness). Similarity among factor structures gets reduced
when comparing solutions within the same age groups (e.g. elementary school children) but
across informants (e.g. self-report vs. teacher ratings). In particular, while the congruence among
mother and teacher ratings was good, the congruence among self-report and teacher rating was
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 655

less satisfactory. Emotional Instability and Energy/Extraversion were the factors with higher
congruence (with average congruence coefficients equal, respectively, to 0.95 and to 0.91), followed
by Agreeableness and Intellect/Openness (with average congruence coefficients both equal to
0.88), and Conscientiousness (with an average congruence coefficient equal to 0.81). This is
probably due to the different relevance, in factor solutions, of the items related to the ‘‘proactive’’
aspects of Conscientiousness (perseverance, hardworking, and the like) versus the items related to
the ‘‘inhibitive’’ aspects of Conscientiousness (such as orderliness, scrupulousness, and the like).

3.7. Convergence among different raters

This analysis was concerned with how much personality descriptions given by different raters
were convergent. In this exploratory phase of the research we wanted simply to discuss convergent
and discriminant correlations. Table 1 presents the convergent correlations. In elementary
schools there was a high convergence among teachers and parents for Conscientiousness and
Intellect/Openness. The other convergent correlations were lower, with the exception of Intellect/
Openness on which self report also converged substantially with other informants. In junior high
schools the convergent correlations were generally higher than in elementary schools. Again
parents and teachers converged substantially and especially on Conscientiousness and Intellect/
Openness. It is noteworthy that the more children get older, the more their self-report converges
with ratings of other information, especially with those of parents. Again, Intellect/Openness was
the factor on which all three informants converged mostly.
Both in elementary and in junior high school the discriminant correlations (i.e. correlations
among different factors across different informants) were low and statistically non significant, with
the only exception of self-report of Intellect/Openness and teacher ratings of Conscientiousness in
junior high schools, r(926)=0.45, P<0.001.

Table 1
Convergent correlations among informants

Factorsa

E A C EI I/O

Elementary school
Teacher ratings vs. mother ratings (n=149) 0.25** 0.32*** 0.45*** 0.20* 0.68***
Teacher ratings vs. self-report (n=222) 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.37***
Self-report vs. mother ratings (n=405) 0.26*** 0.27*** 0.02 0.27*** 0.52***
Junior High school
Teacher ratings vs. mother ratings (n=490) 0.30*** 0.23*** 0.45*** 0.12*** 0.50***
Teacher ratings vs. self-report (n=928) 0.24*** 0.22*** 0.18*** 0.10** 0.43***
Self-report vs. mother ratings (n=519) 0.35*** 0.25*** 0.35*** 0.38*** 0.55***
a
E=Energy/Extraversion, A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness, EI=Emotional Instability, I/O=Intellect/
Openness.
* P< 0.05.
** P< 0.01.
*** P< 0.001.
656 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

3.8. Confirmatory factor analysis

Factor structure of the BFQ-C was further analyzed by means of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA; Bollen, 1989). Since many of the items in the BFQ-C showed no-negligible secondary
loading, and since there was no theoretical reason why items should not have meaningful loadings
on more than one factor (see in this regard Hofstee, DeRaad, & Goldberg, 1992; McCrae,
Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996), CFA was conducted using the ‘‘unrestricted factor
analysis’’ approach developed by Jöreskog (1979), by means of the EQS program (Bentler, 1995).
In this approach: (1) variances of latent common are fixed to 1; (2) factor covariances are freely
estimated; (3) for each factor a ‘‘marker’’ is chosen picking up a manifest variable that one
expects to have the highest loading on that factor; (4) the loading of the marker variable on the
target factor is freely estimated and all other loading of that variable on the other factors are
fixed to zero; (5) all remaining loadings for all other non-marker manifest variables are freely
estimated.
Table 2 gives the results of the CFA conducted on the 6 different samples considered in this
study. All chi squares were statistically significant, but this was largely discounted since the
covariance matrix among the 65 BFQ-C items has 2,145 elements to be fitted. The CFI index was
adequate for Self-Report/Junior High School, and for Teacher Ratings, somewhat ‘‘borderline’’
for the other three samples. The RMSEA was adequate for all models, but a little bit high in
teacher ratings. The average correlation among principal components estimates and maximum
likelihood estimates derived from CFA was 0.88. As noted by several scientists (e.g. Borkenau &
Ostendorf, 1990; Church & Burke, 1994; McCrae et al., 1996), fit indices derived from CFA can
be affected by minimal differences between the sample covariance matrix and the fitted covariance
matrix, some of which can be attributed to chance. This issue has been recognized as an
over-sensitivity of CFA. In light of this problem, given the complexity of the model to fit, we can
consider the results of our CFAs as particularly positive.

Table 2
Fit indexes from confirmatory factor analysesa

Samples Fit indexes

2 df CFI RMSEA

Self-report/Elementary 2733 1765 0.87 0.030 [0.028, 0.032]

Self-report/Junior High 3900 1765 0.90 0.035 [0.034, 0.037]
Teacher ratings/Elementary 7101 1765 0.90 0.059 [0.057, 0.060]
Teacher ratings/Junior High 9347 1765 0.90 0.058 [0.057, 0.059]
Mother ratings/Elementary 3401 1765 0.83 0.044 [0.042, 0.046]
Mother ratings/Junior High 3690 1765 0.84 0.046 [0.044, 0.048]
a
All models chi squares are statistically significant (P< 0.05). df=degrees of freedom; CFI=Comparative Fit
Index; RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. In the RMSEA column the values within brackets
indicate the limits of the 90% confidence interval for the RMSEA point estimate.
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 657

4. Validation study

4.1. Junior Personality Questionnaire

To further examine the construct validity of the BFQ-C we correlated the five factor scores
derived from the analyses discussed before with the JPQ factors of Extraversion, Neuroticism and
Psychoticism. The JPQ being an instrument designed for self-report, we limit our discussion to
the results emerging from the BFQ-C self-report. The subjects of this study were the junior-high
school children described previously in the method section of this paper. JPQ Extraversion was
positively correlated with Energy/Extraversion, r(931)=0.45, P<0.001, with Intellect/Openness,
r(931)=0.24, P<0.001, and with Agreeableness, r(931)=0.18, P<0.001. JPQ Neuroticism was
positively correlated with Emotional Instability, r(931)=0.54, P<0.001, and negatively correlated
with Openness, r(931)= 0.20, P<0.001, and with Energy/Extraversion, r(931)= 0.18,
P<0.001. Finally, JPQ Psychoticism was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness, r(931)=
0.29, P<0.001, Agreeableness, r(931)= 0.26, P<0.001, and Intellect/Openness, r(931)=
0.23, P<0.001, and positively correlated with Emotional Instability, r(931)=0.29, P< 0.001.

To test for the concurrent validity of the questionnaire, we examined the relations of the BFQ-C
with several relevant criteria such as Academic Achievement, Internalization and Externalization.
Since the Big Five factors correlated in all analyses discussed previously (and this especially in
teacher ratings), their relations with the three criteria considered here (i.e. Academic Achievement,
Internalization and Externalization) were examined using the semi-partial correlation coefficients
(see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). These coefficients are used, particularly in multiple regression, to
obtain an estimate of the unique contribution of each predictor in explaining the variance of a
dependent variable, while the contribution of all other predictors is partialled out (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1989). Again, the participants of the study were those belonging to the sample of junior
high school children described beforehand.

4.2. Academic achievement

Personality dimensions of self report significantly associated with academic achievement were
Energy (sr= 0.13, P< 0.001), Conscientiousness (sr=0.13, P<0.001), and Intellect/Openness
(sr=0.51, P<0.001). Personality dimensions of teacher ratings that were significantly associated with
academic achievement were Conscientiousness (sr=0.37, P<0.001), and Intellect/Openness
(sr=0.29, P <0.001). Finally, personality dimensions of mothers’ ratings that were significantly asso-
ciated with academic achievement were Energy (sr= 0.11, P< 0.01), Conscientiousness (sr=0.11,
P<0.01), and Intellect/Openness (sr=0.51, P<0.001). Multiple correlation coefficients were always
statistically significant and were 0.55 for self-report and mothers’ ratings and 0.71 for teacher ratings.

4.3. Problem behavior

Table 3 gives semipartial and multiple correlations among personality factors and scores on
Internalization and Externalization scales of the Child Behavior Checklist self report, teacher and
parent form. These correlations were highly variable and were much higher when the same rater
658 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

Table 3
Semi-partial and multiple correlation coefficients of Big Five factor scores predicting Achenbach’s Internalization and
Externalization

Big Five Evaluation Factorsa R

E A C EI I/O

Internalization (self-report)
Self-report (n=961) 0.06* 0.03 0.07** 0.42*** 0.14*** 0.50
Teacher ratings (n=922) 0.03 0.04 0.12** 0.03 0.01 0.18
Mother ratings (n=517) 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.18*** 0.06 0.25
Externalization (self-report)
Self-report (n=961) 0.26*** 0.20*** 0.29*** 0.28*** 0.18*** 0.64
Teacher ratings (n=922) 0.19*** 0.15*** 0.26*** 0.04 0.04 0.46
Mother ratings (n=517) 0.20*** 0.12** 0.27*** 0.10* 0.07 0.42
Internalization (teacher ratings)
Self-report (n=931) 0.02 0.08** 0.07* 0.02 0.19*** 0.27
Teacher ratings (n=921) 0.30*** 0.06** 0.18*** 0.42*** 0.07** 0.66
Mother ratings (n=494) 0.10* 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.18*** 0.27
Externalization (teacher ratings)
Self-report (n=931) 0.14*** 0.12*** 0.03 0.02 0.28*** 0.39
Teacher ratings (n=921) 0.06** 0.12*** 0.41*** 0.31*** 0.07** 0.78
Mother ratings (n=494) 0.12** 0.01 0.14*** 0.05 0.26*** 0.38
Internalization (mother ratings)
Self-report (n=502) 0.12** 0.05 0.05 0.10* 0.14** 0.25
Teacher ratings (n=476) 0.07 0.06 0.15** 0.06 0.00 0.20
Mother ratings (n=493) 0.13** 0.09* 0.04 0.32*** 0.15*** 0.44
Externalization (mother ratings)
Self-report (n=502) 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.14** 0.18*** 0.31
Teacher ratings (n=476) 0.07 0.06 0.23*** 0.06 0.02 0.34
Mother ratings (n=493) 0.07 0.01 0.21*** 0.37*** 0.16*** 0.54
a
E=Energy/Extraversion, A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness, EI=Emotional Instability, I/O=Intellect/
Openness; R=Multiple correlation coefficient. All multiple correlation coefficient are statistically significant (P<0.001).
* P< 0.05.
** P< 0.01.
*** P< 0.001.

completed both personality and problem behavior ratings. Problematic behaviors self-rated by
the child were correlated especially with personality self-report. In particular, Internalization was
positively correlated with Emotional Instability; Externalization was negatively correlated with
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Intellect/Openness and positively with Energy/Extraversion
and Emotional Instability. Moreover, self-reported Externalization was positively correlated with
Energy/Extraversion and negatively correlated with Conscientiousness in both teacher and
mother ratings. Problematic behaviors rated by the teacher were correlated especially with teacher
ratings of personality. In particular, Internalization was positively correlated with Emotional
Instability and negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Energy/Extraversion; Externaliza-
tion was correlated negatively with Conscientiousness and with Agreeableness, and positively with
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 659

Emotional Instability. Moreover, Externalization was negatively correlated with parent ratings
and self-report of Intellect/Openness. Problematic behaviors rated by mothers were significantly
correlated especially with mother ratings of personality. In particular, Internalization was positively
correlated with Emotional Instability and negatively correlated with Intellect/Openness and with
teacher ratings of Conscientiousness. Externalization was positively correlated with mothers’
ratings of Emotional Instability, and negatively correlated with both parent and teacher ratings
of Conscientiousness, and with both self-report and parent ratings of Intellect/Openness.
Multiple correlation coefficients were high and statistically significant especially for Externalization
and particularly when the same informant rated personality dimensions and problematic behaviors.
These results confirm the relevance of four of the Big Five (namely, Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Emotional Instability) in relation to Externalization and Internalization
syndromes of behaviors (see John et al., 1994). A new finding emerged regarding the negative
unique contribution of Intellect/Openness to both syndromes: this negative relation is stable
within the same informant (e.g. Achenbach Self-Report and BFQ-C Self-Report) and across
informants (e.g. Achenbach Teacher-Ratings and BFQ-C Self-Report). Those children who have
more internalization problems such as anxiety and depression, and externalization problems such
as aggression and impulsivity, tend also to show a lower level of intellectual competencies in the
school domain, narrow cultural interests, and lower fantasy and creativity.

5. Discussion

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to measure the Big Five in late
childhood/early adolescence in self-report and other ratings. Results from principal components
analyses confirmed the emergence of five clear dimensions in all data sets considered (elementary
vs. junior high school) and in all informants (the children themselves, their mothers and their
teachers). Although these factors were clearly interpretable as the Big Five, several important
differences emerged regarding the composition of the factors in the different solutions. In particular,
the two dimensions that presented the highest differences across the different data sets were those
of Conscientiousness and Intellect/Openness, especially when considering the rater and the age
group. The two basic components of Conscientiousness (i.e. the proactive and the inhibitive, see
McCrae & John, 1992) tended to emerge in separate factors, especially in self-report and teacher
ratings of elementary school children. While the items related to the proactive component
(perseverance and hardworking) tended to load on the Intellect/Openness factor, the items related
to the inhibitive component (orderliness and scrupulousness) tended to define a narrow but distinct
factor. In their turn, Intellect/Openness items tended to define two separate clusters: one cluster
related to academic performance that was associated with proactive Conscientiousness, another
cluster related to Openness to Experience that was associated with Energy/Extraversion. These
results mainly confirm what was found by Mervielde et al. (1995) and by Peabody and Goldberg
(1989), who further differentiated ‘‘controlled’’ and ‘‘expressive’’ features of Intellect/Openness,
and who noticed the tendency of the former to cluster with Conscientiousness markers.
As noted before, an interesting phenomenon emerged in teacher ratings, where the variance
explained by the first extracted component was extremely high. This component probably reflects
an ‘‘evaluative’’ factor, due to the presence of a halo effect in teacher ratings (Cooper, 1981). It is
660 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

important to note that, while mothers had to rate only one child, teachers had to rate all children
in their class. Moreover, it is very likely that mothers knew their child better than teachers did.
All these factors combined could have determined more overlapping of teacher ratings in comparison
to mother ratings, as the higher correlation among factors in teacher ratings can further attest to.
This fact, however, does not imply that teachers’ judgments are narrower, since in the rotated
solution the Five Factors are well separated and distinct in teachers’ ratings as well as in parent
ratings and self-report.
The correlations among the Big Five and the different criteria considered for validating the
BFQ-C were significant and high. Intellect/Openness and Conscientiousness were the more
important personality correlates of Academic Achievement across all different informants. These
two traits were also the more important correlates of Externalization behavioral problems, while
Emotional Instability was the more relevant correlate of Internalization. These results replicate what
has been found in other studies that used different instruments to assess the Big Five in childhood.
Finally, the five factors that emerged from self-report evidenced high and clear-cut correlations
with the three factors of the Eysenck taxonomy, and this pattern of correlations was mostly
consistent with those found in adult subjects (e.g. Caprara et al., 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1985).
Previous studies, before ours, evidenced the emergence and the importance of the Big Five in
relation to the description of personality in late childhood and early adolescents (e.g. Digman &
Inouye, 1986; Graziano & Ward, 1992; Kohnstamm et al., 1998; Mervielde, 1994; Mervielde et
al., 1995). In light of these results, the Big Five model may provide a reference structure to
investigate systematically the development of individual differences in personality, and the relation
of personality traits with adjustment and maladjustment. In this regard, results of this study show
that the Big Five measure that we developed (the ‘‘BFQ-C’’) can be used either as a self-report
instrument, or as an instrument for gathering ratings from teachers and parents. From a practical
standpoint this offers different advantages. In particular, the personality dimensions considered
by the model (and of course measured by the questionnaire), being anchored to the lexicon that
people use in everyday life, are easy to understand also by the layperson. This ultimately will
render communications about personality in educational and in counseling settings less ambiguous
and more direct.

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared while Claudio Barbaranelli was a visiting scholar at Stanford University
on a grant from the Fulbright Scholar Program. The copyright of the Big Five Questionnaire-
Children Form is owned by Organizzazioni Speciali, OS. For research purposes contact the first
author. For commercial use contact OS.

Appendix

Items produced to measure the Big Five (self-report format)

Energy/Extraversion: (1) I like to meet with other people; (9) I like to compete with others; (14)
I like to move and to do a great deal of activity; (19) I like to be with others; (23) I can easily say
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 661

to others what I think; (26) I say what I think; (35) I do something not to get bored; (40) I like to
talk with others; (42) I am able to convince someone of what I think; (50) When I speak, the
others listen to me and do what I say; (55) I like to joke; (57) I easily make friends; (63) I am
happy and lively.
Agreeableness: (2) I share my things with other people; (11) I behave correctly and honestly
with others; (13) I understand when others need my help; (16) I like to give gifts; (21) If someone
commits an injustice to me, I forgive her/him; (27) I treat my peers with affection; (32) I behave
with others with great kindness; (38) I am polite when I talk with others; (45) If a classmate has
some difficulty I help her/him; (47) I trust in others; (51) I treat kindly also persons who I dislike;
(60) I think other people are good and honest; (64) I let other people use my things.
Conscientiousness: (3) I do my job without carelessness and inattention; (7) I work hard and
with pleasure; (20) I engage myself in the things I do; (22) During class-time I am concentrated on
the things I do; (25) When I finish my homework, I check it many times to see if I did it correctly;
(28) I respect the rules and the order; (34) If I take an engagement I keep it; (37) My room is in
order; (44) When I start to do something I have to finish it at all costs; (48) I like to keep all my
school things in a great order; (53) I play only when I finished my homework; (56) It is unlikely
that I divert my attention; (65) I do my own duty.
Emotional Instability: (4) I get nervous for silly things; (6) I am in a bad mood; 8) I argue with
others with excitement; (15) I easily get angry; (17) I quarrel with others; (29) I easily get offended;
(31) I am sad; (39) If I want to do something, I am not capable of waiting and I have to do it
immediately; (41) I am not patient; (49) I easily loose my calm; (54) I do things with agitation;
(58) I weep; (61) I worry about silly things.
Intellect/Openness: (5) I know many things; (10) I have a great deal of fantasy; (12) I easily learn
what I study at school; (18) When the teacher asks questions I am able to answer correctly; (24) I
like to read books; (30) When the teacher explains something I understand immediately; (33) I
like scientific TV shows; (36) I like to watch TV news, and to know what happens in the world;
(43) I am able to create new games and entertainments; (46) I am able to solve mathematics
problems; (52) I like to know and to learn new things; (59) I would like very much to travel and to
know the habits of other countries; (62) I understand immediately;

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: a review and analysis of
empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1275–1301.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for child behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Bur-
lington, VT: University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Manual for the teacher’s report form and teacher version of the child beha-
vior profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Press.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughly, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems:
implications for cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.
Barbaranelli, C. (submitted for publication). Measuring the Big Five in late childhood: evidence from parent and teacher
ratings.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
187–215.
662 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: a study on the 5-factor
model of personality. Personality and Individual differences, 11, 515–524.
Botwin, M. D., & Buss, D. M. (1989). The structure of act report data: is the five factor model of personality recap-
tured? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 988–1001.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The Big Five Questionnaire: a new ques-
tionnaire for the measurement of the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 281–288.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of chil-
dren’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.
Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression: some meth-
odological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7, 19–36.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: I. Foundations of trait measurement. Psychological Review, 50,
559–594.
Cattell, R. B., & Tsujioka, B. (1964). The importance of factor-trueness and validity, versus homogeneity and ortho-
gonality, in test scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 3–30.
Cattell, R. B., & Vogelman, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG criteria for determining the number
of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 289–325.
Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and Tellegen’s three- and four-
dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93–114.
Coan, R. W., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Early School Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.
Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218–244.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J. P. (2000). Assessing adolescents’ personality with the NEO-
PI-R. Assessment, 7, 329–345.
DeRaad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebickova, M., & Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of personality. Taxonomies and
structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 212–232.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five factors model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417–440.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 50, 116–123.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: re-analysis and com-
parison of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 16, 149–170.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678–1683.
Eysenck, S. B. G. (1965). Manual for the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego: Educational and
Industrial Testing Service.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329–344.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘Description of personality’’: the Big Five factor structure. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of the markers of the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
26–42.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Finch, J. A. (1997). The self as a mediator between personality and
adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 392–404.
Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in adolescence: personality and adjustment during a
developmental transition. Journal of Personality, 60, 425–439.
 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664 663

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to
trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.
John, O. P. (1990). The ‘‘big five’’ factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in natural language and in ques-
tionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guil-
ford.
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of trait
taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171–203.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffit, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The ‘‘Little Five’’: exploring the
nomological network of the Five-Factor Model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1979). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. With Addendum. In
K. G. Jöreskog, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models (pp. 21–43). Cam-
bridge, MA: Abt Books.
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F. Jr, Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (Eds.). (1998). Parental descriptions of child
personality: developmental antecedents of the Big Five ? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kohnstamm, G. A., Mervielde, I., Besevegis, E., & Halverson, C. F. (1995). Tracing the Big Five in parents’ free
descriptions of their children. European Journal of Personality, 9, 283–304.
Krug, S. E., & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large sample validation of second-order personality structure defined by the
16PF. Psychological Reports, 59, 683–693.
McAdams, D. P. (1994). A psychology of the stranger. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 145–148.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the Five Factor model: joint analysis of the NEO-PI and other instruments. In
D. M. Buss, & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 237–245). New
York: Springer Verlag.
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: how well is openness represented in natural languages? European Journal
of Personality, 4, 119–129.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and Psychoticism scales with measures of the Five Factor
model of Personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five factor model of personality across instrument and obser-
vers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook
of personality: theory and research, 2nd ed (pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to five factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality,
60, 175–215.
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 and procrustes rotation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–565.
Mervielde, I. (1994). A five-factor model classification of teachers’ constructs on individual differences among children
aged 4 to 12. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament
and personality (pp. 387–397). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the Big-Five as a model for teachers’ ratings of indivi-
dual differences among children aged 4–12 years. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 525–534.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Constructions of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC).
In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. Proceedings of the
Eight European Conference on Personality Psychology (pp. 107–127). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University
Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2000). The Big Five Personality Factors as a model for the structure of children’s peer
nominations. European Journal of Personality, 14, 91–106.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular,
rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer
nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583.
664 C. Barbaranelli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 645–664

Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (1992). On the generality and comprehensiveness of the Five-Factor Model of per-
sonality: evidence of Five Robust Factors in Questionnaire data. In G. V. Caprara, & G. Van Heck (Eds.), Modern
personality psychology (pp. 73–109). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of the revised NEO per-
sonality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 463–466.
Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567.
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103–113.
Shiner, L. R. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle childhood ? A preliminary taxonomy.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308–332.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984).
Washington, DC: Dept. of the Army.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Aeronautical Systems Divi-
sion Technical Report ASD-TR-61–97. Texas, May: Lackland Air Rorce Base.