Psychological constructs are becoming increasingly important in social surveys. Scales for the assessment of these constructs are usually developed primarily for individual assessment and decision-making. Hence, in order to guarantee high levels of reliability, measurement precision, and validity, these scales are in most cases much too long to be applied in surveys. Such settings call for extremely short measures validated for the population as a whole. However, despite the unquestionable demand, appropriate measures are still lacking. There are several reasons for this. In particular, short scales have often been criticized for their potential psychometric shortcomings with regard to reliability and validity. In this article, the authors discuss the advantages of short scales as alternative measures in large-scale surveys. Possible reasons for the assumed limited psychometric qualities of short scales will be highlighted. The authors show that commonly used reliability estimators are not always appropriate for judging the quality of scales with a minimal number of items, and they offer recommendations for alternative estimation methods and suggestions for the construction of a thorough short scale.

The present study investigates the validity and utility of the German adaptations of the two short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), the 30-item BFI-2-S, and the 15-item BFI-2-XS, developed by Soto and John (2017b) . Both scales assess the Big Five domains. The BFI-2-S allows, in addition, the brief assessment of three facets per domain. Based on a large and heterogeneous sample, we show that the psychometric properties of these adapted short scales are consistent with those of the Anglo-American source versions, and we demonstrate substantial convergence between the adaptations and the source versions. Extending the original scale development study, we demonstrate high retest stability of the scales and their facets. Our results clearly indicate the construct and criterion validity of the two scales: Both show substantial convergence with the NEO-PI-R domain scales. Moreover, the distinctive correlation pattern found between the facets of the BFI-2 and the NEO-PI-R could be replicated for the facets of the BFI-2-S. Furthermore, we show that the domain scales of both instruments are associated in the hypothesized directions with important life outcomes, such as life satisfaction and intelligence, and that the facets of the BFI-2-S have incremental validity for predicting these outcomes.

Zusammenfassung. Die für die angloamerikanische Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) entwickelte und validierte Facettenstruktur ( Soto & John, 2009 ) wurde für die deutsche Adaptation des BFI übertragen und auf ihre Angemessenheit geprüft. Basierend auf drei umfangreichen Stichproben – einer studentischen, einer bildungsheterogenen Stichprobe und einer bevölkerungsrepräsentativen Zufallsstichprobe – konnte gezeigt werden, dass die 10 Facetten des deutschen BFI substantielle und mit der angloamerikanischen Version vergleichbare Reliabilitäten und Konvergenzen zwischen Selbst- und Bekanntenurteil und mit den entsprechenden Facetten und Globalskalen des NEO-PI-R (NEO-Personality Inventory) und NEO-FFI (NEO-Five Factor Inventory) aufweisen. Ferner konnte eine diskriminante Validität zu den jeweils anderen Facetten der gleichen sowie zu den Facetten der anderen Big Five Dimensionen gezeigt werden. Die Nützlichkeit der Verwendung dieser Facetten, zusätzlich zu den Globalskalen, wurde durch deren spezifische Zusammenhänge mit verschiedenen soziodemografischen und Einstellungsmerkmalen nachgewiesen. Insofern existiert auch für den deutschen Sprachraum ein ökonomisches Maß, um spezifischere Persönlichkeitsaspekte abzubilden.

A growing body of research supports the notion that cognitive abilities and personality are systematically related. However, this research has focused largely on global personality dimensions and single—often equally global—markers of cognitive ability. The present study offers a more fine-grained perspective. Specifically, it is one of the first studies to comprehensively investigate the associations between both fluid and crystallized intelligence with Big Five personality domains as well as their facets. Based on a heterogeneous sample of the adult population in Germany (N = 365), our study yielded three key findings. First, personality was more strongly related to crystallized intelligence than to fluid intelligence. This applied both to the total variance explained and to the effect sizes of most of the Big Five domains and facets. Second, facets explained a larger share of variance in both crystallized and fluid intelligence than did domains. Third, the associations of different facets of the same domain with cognitive ability differed, often quite markedly. These differential associations may substantially reduce—or even suppress—the domain-level associations. Our findings clearly attest to the added value of a facet-level perspective on the personality–cognitive ability interface. We discuss how such a fine-grained perspective can further theoretical understanding and enhance prediction.

A growth mindset is a belief that personal characteristics, specifically intellectual ability, are malleable and can be developed by investing time and effort. Numerous studies have investigated the associations between a growth mindset and academic achievement, and large intervention programs have been established to train adolescents to develop a stronger growth mindset. However, methodological research on the adequacy of the measures used to assess a growth mindset is scarce. In our study, we conducted one of the first comprehensive assessments of the psychometric properties of Dweck’s widely used three-item Growth Mindset Scale in two samples (adolescents aged 14–19 years and adults aged 20–64 years). We test the comparability (i.e., measurement invariance) of the scale across these age groups. Furthermore, using the same two samples, we identified and validated a single-item measure to assess growth mindset in settings with severe time constraints. Results reveal that both the three-item and the single-item scales have acceptable psychometric properties regarding reliability, comparability, and validity. However, the results did not support some of the central tenets of mindset theory, such as that a growth mindset is positively linked to goal regulation and achievement, calling for future research on the criterion validity of a growth mindset.