Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 41 no. 7 (2025)

Towards an Indigenous Approach to Personality Testing: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Filipino-Contextualized Big Five Inventory

Harlynd Phoebe Pascasio

Discipline: others in psychology

 

Abstract:

Many commonly utilize personality tests in different societal fields – clinical, educational, industrial, and othersaiming to determine individuals' behavioral, emotional, and intellectual qualities. The Big Five Model has been considered to provide a consensus approach in explaining individuals' personality traits. However, issues persist due to its cross-cultural and linguistic validity. This study focused on developing a localized personality test by acquiring the accuracy and consistency of the newly constructed test. Specifically to determine the validity of the instrument and its reliability. Using Filipino terminologies, the researcher built a pool of 310 items, which was evaluated by the six Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from the field of Psychology for the content validation of the test instrument. The Big Five Traits categorized the items – Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, each having three (3) Filipino Subscales. The evaluated instrument was administered among the first-year, secondary, and senior high school students of ISU-E through the test-retest procedure to determine its reliability. There were 113 accepted items among the 310 constructed items based on the 0.7 Scale-Content Validity Index value and I-CVI value ranging from 0.83-1.00, indicating a good content validity index. The Pre-test and Post-test have been found to have excellent interpretations based on the Cronbach alpha (α) value of 0.95. Overall, this study acquires a wide range of information regarding the quantitative values based on evaluating the newly constructed personality test targeting the students from Isabela State University-Echague.



References:

  1. Ali, I. (2019). Personality traits, individual innovativeness and satisfaction with life. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, IV(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.11.002
  2. Carlota, A. J. (1985). The development of the Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP). Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 55-68
  3. Choi et al. (2017). Correlates associated with participation in physical activity among adults: a systematic review of reviews and update. BMC Public Health(17(1)), 356. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017- 4255-2
  4. Church, A. T. (2016). Personality traits across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology. (8), 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.014
  5. Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2017). Trait consistency and validity across cultures: Examining trait and cultural psychology perspectives. In A. T. Church (Ed.), 279-308. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017- 10616-010
  6. Cronje JH, Watson MB, Stroud LA. Guidelines for the Revision and Use of Revised Psychological Tests: A Systematic Review Study. Eur J Psychol. 2022 Aug 31;18(3):293-301. doi: 10.5964/ejop.2901.
  7. Del Pilar, G. (2017). The Development of the Masaklaw na Panukat ng Loob (Mapa ng Loob). Philippine Journal of Psychology. Psychological Association of the Philippines. 50(1), 103-141
  8. Dimova et al. (2022). Local Test, Local Contexts. Language Testing. 39(3), 341-345 2457-2462. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221092392
  9. Ding, X., & Vancleef, K. (2022). Test-retest reliability and practice effect of the Leuven Perceptual Organisation Screening Test. Behav Res Methods, 54, 2457-2462. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021- 01741-z
  10. Enriquez, V. G., & Guanzon, M. C. (1985). Towards the assessment of personality and culture: The Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 4(1), 15-54
  11. Fenn J, Tan C-S, George S. Development, validation and translation of psychological tests. BJPsych Advances. 2020;26(5):306-315. doi:10.1192/bja.2020.33
  12. Gurven et al. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. J Pers Soc Psychol(104(2)), 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841
  13. Kajonius, P., & Giolla, E. M. (2017). Personality traits across countries: Support for similarities rather than differences. PLOS ONE(12(6)). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179646
  14. Linden et al. (2018). How Universal is the General Factor of Personality? An Analysis of the Big Five in Forager Farmers of the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(7), 1081-1097. doi:10.1177/0022022118774925
  15. Matheson, G. J. (2019, May). We need to talk about reliability: making better use of test-retest studies for study design and interpretation. PeerJ. DOI: 107717/peerj.6918
  16. Matthews, G. (2019). Extraversion-Introversion. Reference Module in Neurioscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21765-3
  17. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4(4), 362-371. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1990.4.4.362
  18. McCrae, R., & Sutin, A. R. (2018). Five-Factor Theory Perspective on Causal Analysis. European Journal of Personality(32(3)), 151-166. doi:10.1002/per.2134
  19. Meisenberg, G. (2015). Do We Have Valid Country-Level Measures of Personality. The Mankind Quarterly, 360-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.46469/mq.2015.55.4.7
  20. Moreno et al. (2021). Can personality traits be measured analyzing written language? A meta-analytic study on computational methods. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110818
  21. Olson, K. (2010). An Examination of Questionnaire Evaluation by Expert Reviewers. Field Methods, XXII(4), 295-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10379795
  22. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007 Aug;30(4):459-67. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199. PMID: 17654487.
  23. Ranganathan, P., Caduff, C., & Frampton, C. M. (2024). Designing and validating a research questionnaire - Part 2. Perspective in Clinical Research, 42-45. doi: 10.4103/picr.picr_318_23
  24. Reman, P., & Nordin, A. (2021). Personality Tests in Recruitment. Retrieved 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349466573_Personality_tests_in_recruitment
  25. Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding Descriptive Research Designs and Methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS). 34(1). 8-12. DOI:10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493
  26. Sudaryono et al. (2019). Validity of Test Instruments. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. doi:10.1088/1742- 6596/1364/1/012050
  27. Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res Sci Educ, 48, 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
  28. Wennerhold, L., & Friese, M. (2020). Why Self-Report Measures of Self-Control and Inhibition Tasks Do Not Substantially Correlate. Collabra: Psychology, 6 (1)(9). doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.276. 

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic