Talk:16 Personality Factors

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Psychology This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Text and/or other creative content from 16 Personality Factors was copied or moved into 16PF Questionnaire with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I don't know much about this, but it's been little more than a stub for years. Can anyone provide more information about inventories used, history, how Cattell's five global factors differed from the Big Five, research findings on correlates of the 16 personality factors, and so on? Harkenbane (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the verb "multivariately-derive" in a dictionary, and I don't see it explained lower down. It seems a bad idea to use such an unfamiliar term in the first paragraph. Reading the later text, it looks as though Cattell developed this list out of earlier research materials by others, followed by research of his own. Can we use the word "developed"? Andrew Dalby 13:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, all the information you are looking for appears under the real name: 16PF Personality Factor Questionnaire. This limited entry should be deleted and moved. The whole story is already on this other page, and this fragment is quite misleading because it lacks most of the relevant information. Thus, this is a redundant and inadequate entry. I'm not sure who put it here, but it is misleading.--PsychologistForJustice (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement that the Big Five originated from factor analysis of the original 16PF data and the source is the Costa & McRae Handbook. I don't have access to the Handbook, but I suspect that the factor analysis referred to specifically applies to their NEO model rather than the Big Five generally. According to an authoritative undergraduate textbook, "Introduction to Personality", 4th ed. by Phares and Chaplin: "As early as 1938, Thurstone had factor analysed the descriptions of 1300 raters on 60 common personality adjectives and had found five independent common factors" (p. 449). This suggests that the Big Five factors were developed independenty of Cattell. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just read a paper by Digman, "Personality structure: emergence of the Big Five" that discusses the origins of the Big Five in studies using Cattell's descriptors starting from 1949 onwards, so I'll let the statement stand. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article contains a lot of outdated information. The descriptions of the 16 factors are very old and do not reflect the 16 personality factors in use today. I propose to take content from this stub and incoroporate it into the more accurate alternative page on the 16PF questionnaire. To declare my interest - I work for OPP - who are the current owners of IPAT (who publish the 16PF). Therefore I will be very careful to make updates in an impartial manner. My concern is to remove misleading and outdated content and to merge it to make an accurate single source on the 16PF. Where appropriate, I will move content on Raymond Cattell to the page specifically about the man and his life. 16PF expert (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the relevant information from this article into the 16PF Questionnaire article. As a result, the 16 Personality Factors article could now be removed as it is less complete and redundant. 16PF expert (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should either be a downsized summary of the theory with a reference to the 16PF Questionnaire article, or it should be removed altogether. By the way, there's also a discussion of the merge issue on the talk page for that article, I'll add any further discussion there. --WikiRepairGuy (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]