According to the literature, the use of the Berkeley Puppet Interview (BPI) to measure Big Five personality traits in children provides reliable and valid scores. However, the implementation of the BPI could be costly, especially when working with large sample sizes. Big Five self-reports were collected from 1118 Mexican children aged 7–8 years using a modified version of the BPI protocol and a Spanish version of the Big Five questionnaire. The main objective of this study was to inquire whether some modifications in the application protocol of the BPI could still provide reliable personality scores for the population under study. We report item–rest correlation, Cronbach’s alpha and omega as reliability measures, and confirmatory factor analytic models to investigate dimensionality. The results show that the personality trait scores are markedly reliable and that the dimensionality of the instrument holds for the Mexican sample.
AbeJ. A. A. (2005). The predictive validity of the five-factor model of personality with preschool age children: A nine year follow-up study. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(4), 423-442.
2.
AblowJ. C.MeaselleJ. R. (1993). Berkeley puppet interview: Administration and scoring system manuals. University of California.
3.
ArpaciI.Kocadag UnverT. (2020). Moderating role of gender in the relationship between big five personality traits and smartphone addiction. Psychiatric Quarterly, 91(2), 577-585. doi:10.1007/s11126-020-09718-5
4.
AsendorpfJ. B.Van AkenM. A. G. (2003). Validity of big five personality judgments in childhood: A 9 year longitudinal study. European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 1-17. doi:10.1002/per.460
5.
BriggsN. E.MacCallumR. C. (2003). Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(1), 25-56. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3801
6.
CaspiA.HarringtonH.MilneB.AmellJ. W.TheodoreR. F.MoffittT. E. (2003). Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality, 71(4), 495-514.
7.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
8.
DigmanJ. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the 5-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.41.1.417
9.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412.
10.
EderR. A. (1990). Uncovering young children’ s psychological selves: Individual and developmental differences. Child Development, 61(3), 849-863.
11.
EhrlerD. J.EvansJ. G.McGheeR. L. (1999). Extending big‐five theory into childhood: A preliminary investigation into the relationship between big‐five personality traits and behavior problems in children. Psychology in the Schools, 36(6), 451-458.
12.
FanX.SivoS. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 343-367.
13.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
14.
GadermannA. M.GuhnM.ZumboB. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(1), 3. Available at:https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol17/iss1/3/
15.
GoldbergL. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. doi:10.1117/12.642204
16.
HampsonS. E.EdmondsG. W.BarckleyM.GoldbergL. R.JoanP.HillierT. A. (2016). A Big five approach to self-regulation: Personality traits and health trajectories in the Hawaii longitudinal study of personality and health. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 21(2), 152-162. doi:10.1080/13548506.2015.1061676.A
17.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
18.
IrwinE. C. (1985). Puppets in therapy: An assessment procedure. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 39(3), 389-400.
19.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
20.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.GraysonD. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-OlivaresA.McArdleJ. J. (Eds.), Multivariate applications book series. Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
21.
MarshH. W.HauK. T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
22.
McAdamsD. P. (1992). The five‐factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 329-361.
23.
McCraeR. R.JohnO. P. (1992). The five‐factor model: Issues and applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-532. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635040
24.
McNeishD. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433.
25.
MeadeA. W.JohnsonE. C.BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568-592.
26.
MeaselleJ. R.AblowJ. C.CowanP. A.CowanC. P. (1998). Assessing young children’s views of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An evaluation of the self-perception scales of the berkeley puppet interview. Child Development, 69(6), 1556-1576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06177.x
27.
MeaselleJ. R.AblowJ. C.JohnO. P.CowanP. A.CowanC. P. (2005). Can children provide coherent, stable, and valid self-reports on the big five dimensions? A longitudinal study from ages 5 to 7. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 90-106. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.90
28.
MirandaA.González DávilaO.Rodríguez MartínezL. Y.Sainz SantamaríaJ. J. (2019). Marco teórico general del Estudio Longitudinal del Desarrollo de las Niñas y los Niños de Aguascalientes (EDNA). Programme for Longitudinal Studies, Experiments or Surveys (PANEL), Working Paper Series No. 001, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), México.
29.
MirandaA.González DávilaO.AguilarA.AlonsoA.Zizumbo-ColungaD.Rodríguez-MartínezY.Sainz-SantamaríaJ. J. (2020). The aguascalientes longitudinal study of child development: Baseline and first results. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies.11(3), 409-423. doi:10.1332/175795920X15858040679570
30.
ResingW. C. M.BleichrodtN.DekkerP. H. (1999). Measuring personality traits in the classroom. European Journal of Personality, 13(6), 493-509. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199911/12)13:6<493::aid-per355>3.3.co;2-m
31.
RevelleW. (2019). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometrich, and personality research. Northwestern University. R package version 1.9.12, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
32.
RingootA. P.JansenP. W.Steenweg-de GraaffJ.MeaselleJ. R.Van der EndeJ.RaatH.JaddoeV. W.HofmanA.VerhulstF. C.TiemeierH. (2013). Young children’s selfreported emotional, behavioral and peer problems: The Berkeley puppet interview. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1273-1285.
33.
RobertsB. W.DelVecchioW. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3.
34.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
35.
SchaeferC.O’ConnerK. (1983). Handbook of play therapy. Wiley.
36.
SijtsmaK. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.
37.
ThorndikeR. M.Thorndike-ChristT. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
38.
WidamanK. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters?Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(3), 263-311. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_1
39.
WigginsJ. S. (Ed.). (1996). The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. The Guilford Press.
40.
WoltmannA. G. (1952). Puppet shows as a psychotherapeutic method. In BenderL. (Ed.), Child psychiatric techniques. C. C. Thomas.
41.
XiménezC. (2006). A Monte Carlo study of recovery of weak factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(4), 587-614. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1304_5
42.
YangY.GreenS. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377-392.
43.
YuanK.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115-148.
44.
ZinbargR. E.RevelleW.YovelI.LiW. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
