Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)

The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), developed in the USA by Gosling, Rentfrow and Swan (2003) was designed to measure the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Gosling et al. (2003) recognised that time is often a luxury in research and therefore designed a short instrument that would allow for quick administration and interpretation. Thus, the TIPI takes approximately one minute to complete.

Aiming to cover the breadth of the FFM, the items comprising the TIPI were culled from descriptors from existing Big-Five instruments such as the Big Five Inventory (BFI, John & Srivastava, 1999). The TIPI consists of 2 items for each of the 5 domains represented in the FFM. One item contains two desirable descriptors and the other, two undesirable descriptors (E.g. for Extraversion: extraverted, enthusiastic and reserved, quiet). Each of the ten items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly).

 Gosling et al. (2003) recruited 1813 university students to complete the TIPI and the BFI. Six weeks later a sub-sample of 180 participants completed the tests again.

The TIPI reported low internal consistency (Extraversion, a = .68; Agreeableness, a = .40; Conscientiousness, a = .50; Emotional Stability, a = .73; Openness, a = .45). Gosling et al. (2003) recognised that with only two items per scale internal consistency would be compromised (where multi-item scales bolster internal consistency as several items may overlap in content). Thus researchers did not expect high levels of reliability and instead emphasised validity. The TIPI was tested against the BFI to determine convergent validity. Results revealed substantial significant convergent correlations (E, r = .87; A, r = .70; C, r = .75; ES, r = .81; O, r = .65). When using measures with few items. Wood and Hampson (2005) recommend test-retest procedure be utilised to verify reliability. The TIPI demonstrated adequate six-week test retest reliability (r = .72). Normative data for the TIPI were also reported (E, M  = 4.44; SD = 1.45; A, M = 5.23; SD = 1.11; C, M = 5.40, SD = 1.32; ES, M = 4.83, SD  = 1.42; O, M = 5.38, SD = 1.07).

The TIPI has been translated into a number of languages including Spanish (TIPI-SPA), Catalan (TIPI-CAT; Renau, Oberst, Gosling, Rusinol, & Chmarro, 2013) and German (TIPI – G; Muck, Hell & Gosling, 2007). Cross cultural validation revealed similar results on all three measures to those obtained in the study of the English-language TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003).

The TIPI is freely accessible online (via http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tipi.pdf) and can be utilised without permission.

A note from the researchers –

“We hope that this instrument will not be used in place of established multi-item instruments. Instead, we urge that this instrument be used when time and space are in short supply and when only an extremely brief measure of the Big Five will do.” (Gosling et al, 2003, p. 525).

References

Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (2003). Ten Item Personality Inventory, accessed at http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tipi.pdf on 06/03/17.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp.102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Muck, P.M., Hell, B., & Gosling, S.D. (2007). Construct validation of a short Five Factor Model instrument: A self-peer study on the German adaptation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-G). European Journal of Personality Assessment, 23, 166-175. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.166

Renau, V., Oberst, U., Gosling, S.D., Rusinol, J., & Chamarro, A. (2013). Translation and validation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory into Spanish and Catalan. Aloma.Revista de Psicologia, Ciencies de l’Educacio I de l’Esport, 31, 85-97.

 

Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits (ICU)

The ICU (Frick, 2004) is a 24-item questionnaire that assesses callous and unemotional (CU) traits, a central feature of psychopathy, also known as abnormal affective empathy (Jones et al, 2010). CU traits are defined by lack of empathy, guilt, remorse and emotion (Moran et al, 2009). CU traits have highlighted a distinct subgroup of antisocial youth at risk for severe, aggressive, and stable conduct problems. (Ciucci et al, 2014). Past studies have consistently shown CU traits as positively associated with school behaviour problems, low academic achievement, bullying, and reactive aggression. The ICU has three subscales: callousness, uncaring and unemotional. There are five versions of the scale, relating to age (youth or preschool) and who completes the ICU (self, parent or teacher). The ICU is made up of statements with a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (Not at all true) to 3 (Definitely True), with higher scores indicating greater CU traits. Example items include statements such as: “I express my feelings openly”, “ I feel bad or guilt when I do something wrong” and “I do not care if I get in trouble”. The ICU was developed in the USA, by Paul J. Frick in 2004 (Department of Psychology, University of New Orleans).

Psychometric properties

Evidence supports the reliability and validity of ICU scores among youth (Kimonis et al, 2014). The reliability and construct validity (i.e. factor structure, correlations with aggression and delinquency) of the ICU have been supported in several different samples using different translations (Essau et al. 2006; Fanti et al. 2009; Kimonis et al. 2008; Roose et al. 2010). Across samples and languages, the best fitting factor structure shows a general callous-unemotional factor and three sub factors: callousness (e.g., “the feelings of others are unimportant to me”), unemotional (e.g., “I hide my feelings from others”), and uncaring (e.g., “I try not to hurt others’ feelings”) (reversed scored item). Cuicci and colleagues (2008) examined the factor structure of a comprehensive measure of CU traits (the ICU; Kimonis et al. 2008). Consistent with past research, the confirmatory factor analyses largely supported the factor structure found in other samples with other translations (Essau et al. 2006; Fanti et al. 2009; Kimonis et al. 2008; Roose et al. 2010). These results, combined with the results from past factor analyses, provide strong support for the structure of the ICU across languages, types of samples, gender, and age. In fact, a recent publication supported this factor structure for parent report on the ICU in a sample as young as ages 3 and 4 (Ezpeleta et al. 2012). Given this consistent support for this factor structure of the ICU and its implications for understanding the structure of CU traits, it is important that research continues to explore the differential associations of the total score and subscales with theoretically and practically important variables.

Use

The ICU is an unpublished rating scale (Frick 2004, Department of Psychology, University of New Orleans ([email protected]). It is available free online: http://labs.uno.edu/developmental-psychopathology/ICU.html

References

Ciucci, E., Baroncelli, A., Franchi, M., Golmaryami, F. N., & Frick, P. J. (2014). The association between callous-unemotional traits and behavioral and academic adjustment in children: Further validation of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36(2), 189-200.

Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits in community sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13, 454 – 469

Fanti, K. A., Frick, P. J., & Georgiou, S. (2009). Linking callous unemotional traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 285–298

Frick, P. J. (2004). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. New Orleans, LA: UNO.

Jones, A. P., Happé, F. G., Gilbert, F., Burnett, S., & Viding, E. (2010). Feeling, caring, knowing: different types of empathy deficit in boys with psychopathic tendencies and autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(11), 1188-1197.

Kimonis, E. R., Fanti, K., Goldweber, A., Marsee, M. A., Frick, P. J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Callous-unemotional traits in incarcerated adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 227.

Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J., Marsee, M. A., Cruise, K., Muñoz, L. C., & Morris, A. S. (2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: validation of the inventory of callous-unemotional traits. Journal of the International Association of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 241–252.

Moran, P., Rowe, R., Flach, C., Briskman, J., Ford, T., Maughan, B., Scott, S. & Goodman, R. (2009). Predictive value of callous-unemotional traits in a large community sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(11), 1079-1084.

Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Decoene, S., Claes, L., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Assessing the affective features of psychopathy in adolescence: A further validation of the inventory of callous and unemotional traits. Assessment, 17, 44 –57

 

Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT)

The AUDIT is a screening instrument to detect excessive and harmful patterns of alcohol use. It was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in an initiative to develop a reliable and valid measure in identifying alcohol abuse. The AUDIT was developed to be used by General Practitioners and other professionals in the primary health care industry and is easy to use and interpret. It comprises of a 10-item questionnaire appropriate for adolescents and adults of all ages. It can be completed by clients as a self-report, or used in an interview by the practitioner. It takes approximately 2 to 3 minutes to be completed and clients are invited to ask for clarification on any items. The 10 items address three areas of drinking behaviour; Hazardous Alcohol use (items 1,2,3), Dependence symptoms (items 4,5,6) and harmful alcohol use (7,8,9,10).

Two examples of items on the AUDIT questionnaire are;

  1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?

(0) Never [Skip to Qs 9-10] (1) Monthly or less (2) 2 to 4 times a month (3) 2 to 3 times a week (4) 4 or more times a week

  1. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?

(0) No (2) Yes, but not in the last year (4) Yes, during the last year

To interpret the AUDIT sum each item score to get an overall score which can be interpreted as per the guideline cut off points; 8-15 hazardous, 16-19 harmful and >20 is dependent. The guidelines should be considered tentative and subject to clinical judgement. Important information can be obtained by interpreting which items received the high scores (harmful, hazardous or dependence items).

The AUDIT has been found to have good reliability and consistency with ICD-10 definitions of alcohol dependence and harmful alcohol use (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders &  Monterio, 2001). Meneses-Gaya et al (2009) systematic review of psychometric properties found a mean Cronbach’s alpha of .80 across 10 studies investigating internal consistency. The AUDIT presented excellent sensitivity and specificity values (Menese-Gaya et al 2009). In the initial comparative study across 6 countries a cut off point of 8 yielded sensitivities in mid .90’s and specificities averaged in the .80’s.

The AUDIT is free to use and does not require specific training to administer, the manual is available on Turning point website http://www.turningpoint.org.au/Treatment/Online-Self-Assessment.aspx. Turning point have developed ‘The Adult AOD Screening and Assessment Instrument” Clinical Guide that list instructions and advice for the AUDIT along with other AOD screening tools. The AUDIT is a screening tool to assist to interpret levels of hazards drinking. A clinical interview and other assessments are required for a formal diagnosis.

 

References

Menese- Gaya, C., Zuardi, A., Loureiro, S., & Crippa, J. (2009). Alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): An updated systematic review of psychometric properties. Psychology & Neuroscience, 2(2), 83-97 DOI: 10.3922/j.psns.2009.1.12

Heather, N. (2006). WHO collaborative project on identification and management of Alcohol-related problems in primary health care. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/identification_management_alcoholproblems_phaseiv.pdf?ua=1

Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., Monterio, M. G. (2001). AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Guidelines for Use in Primary Care (second edition) Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/audit/en/