NO1_*205

NEO-FFI
November 2017

Background
The NEO- Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is a short form of the NEO-Personality Inventory-revised
(NEO-PI-R) by Costa & McCrae (1992). The NEO-PI-R contains 240 items and measures the five most
important domains of personality with adults (the “Big Five” personality domains). The NEO-FFI
contains 60 items. The instrument uses a five-point Likert response format.

Scales of the NEO-FFI

The questionnaire measures the following five domains:
 Neuroticism (anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness,
vulnerability),
 Extraversion (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive
emotions),
 Openness (fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values),
 Agreeableness (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness)
and
 Conscientiousness (competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline,
deliberation).
Each domain is measured using 12 items. N: (1,6,11,16,21,26,31,36,41,46,51,56), E:
(2,7,12,17,21,27,31,37,41,47,51,57), O: (3,8,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,53,58), A:
(4,9,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49,54,59), C: (5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60). Saucier (1998) suggests
subdomains for each of the five domains, resulting in 13 or 14 domains: Negative Affect
(1,11,16,31,46) and Self-reproach (6,21,26,36,41,51,56) as sub-domains of N. Positive Affect
(7,12,37,42), Sociability (2,17,27,57) and Activity (22,32,47,52) as sub-domains of E. Aesthetic
interests (13,23,43), Intellectual interests (48,53,58) and Unconventionality (3,8,18,38) as sub-
domains of O. Non-antagonistic orientation (9,14,19,24,29,44,54,59) and Pro-social orientation
(4,34,39,49) as sub-domains of A. Orderliness (5,10,15,30,55), Goal-Striving (25,35,60) and
Dependability (20,30,45,50) as sub-domains of C. Alternative sub-domains of N could be: Anxiety
(1,21,31), Depression (16,41,46) and Self-Reproach2 (6,11,26,51,56).

Validity and reliability

Several studies have drawn dissimilar conclusions about the internal reliability of factor scores from
the NEO-FFI. Three non-clinical studies (Holden (1994), Tokar (1999) and Murray (2003)) find the
factor structure of the NEO-FFI adequate. Egan (2000) identified 14 problematic items when
executing exploratory factor analysis and concluded the NEO-FFI requires modification. Parker and
Stumpf (1998) found problems with some O and A items and concluded that consideration should be
given to replacing these problematic items. Costa (2003) states that, considering the studies of Egan,
Parker, Holden and item analyses of translations of the instrument into German (Borkenau, 1993),
Czech, Polish and Slovak (Hřebíčková, 2002), for each case the five intended factors were clearly
recovered although some items had less than optimal loadings. In general the same items tended to
be weak across different studies; the most problematic items were from the O and A scales. Costa
(2004) analyzed a revision of the NEO-FFI (NEO-FFI-R) in which 14 items were replaced with other
items from the NEO-PI-R. Improvements over the original model are modest and for most purposes
the original model will continue to suffice. In a non-clinical study of the Dutch translation of the
questionnaire (Hoekstra et al.,1996) internal consistency is considered adequate accept for O and A,
stability is good. The Five Factor structure was clearly present. N, E and C were not independent. For
construct-validity several positive clues were found. Test-retest reliabilities were significant and had
large effect in an Australian non-clinical sample across administrations up to 30 months (Murray,
2003). Saucier (1998) developed a model with 13 subscales of the original 5 and concluded that the
model of 13 scales was, to some degree, reliable. Murray (2003) found scores in a non-clinical British
sample that showed adequate internal reliability for the 13 item clusters.
The NEO-FFI has been used for older adults in a primary care setting (Lyness et al., 1998; Duberstein
et al., 2003; Chapman et al. 2007), and in an elderly Medicare sample (Weiss et al., 2005).

References
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Funf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae:
handanweisung. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Chapman BP, Duberstein PR, Sörensen S, Lyness JM. (2007). Gender Differences in Five Factor Model
Personality Traits in an Elderly Cohort: Extension of Robust and Surprising Findings to an
Older Generation. Pers Individ Dif. 43(06): 1594–1603.
Costa, P.T. jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory professional manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Duberstein PR, Sorensen S, Lyness JM, King DA, Conwell Y, Seidlitz L, et al. (2003). Personality is
associated with perceived health and functional status in older primary care patients.
Psychology and Aging. 18:25–37.
Egan, V., Deary, I., Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: emerging British norms and an item-level analysis
suggest N, A and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual Differences, 29,
907-920.
Hoekstra, H.A., Ormel, J. & de Fruyt, F. (1996). Handleiding NEO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten NEO-
PI-R en NEO-FFI. Lisse, Swets Test Services.
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1994). The NEO Five-Factor Inventory in a Canadian context:
psychometric properties for a sample of university women. Personality and Individual
Differences, 17, 441-444.
Hřebíčková, M., Urbánek, T., Čermák, I., Szarota, P., Ficková, E., Orlická, L. (2002). The NEO Fivefactor
Inventory in Czech, Polish, and Slovak contexts. In A. J. Marsella (Series Ed.), R. R. McCrae, J.
Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model across cultures (pp. 53–78). New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers/Plenum.
Lyness JM, Niculescu A, Tu X, Reynolds CF, Caine ED. The relationship of medical comorbidity to
depression in older primary care patients. Psychosomatics. 2006;47:435–439.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P.T. jr. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences,36(2004), 587-596.
Murray G., Rawlings D., Allen N.B., Trinder J. NEO Five-Factor Inventory Scores: Psychometric
Properties in a Community Sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and
Development, 36, 2003.
Parker, W., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A validation of the Five-Factor Model of personality in academically
talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differences,25,
1005-1025.
Saucier, G. (1998). Replicable item-cluster subcomponents in the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 70, 263-276.
Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., Snell, A. F., & Harik-Williams, N. (1999). Efficient assessment of the five-
factor model of personality: Structural validity analyses of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(Form S). Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 32, 14-30.
Weiss A, Costa PT, Karuza J, Duberstein PR, Friedman B, McCrae RR. (2005). Cross-sectional age
differences in personality among medicare patients aged 65 to 100. Psychology and Aging.
20:182–185.

NEO-Five Factor Inventory

Instructions: Using the scale below as a guide, write a number from beside each statement to indicate
how much you agree with it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not True Somewhat Very True

______ 1. I am not a worrier.

______ 2. I like to have a lot of people around me.
______ 3. I don't like to waste my time daydreaming.
______ 4. I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.
______ 5. I keep my belongings clean and neat.
______ 6. I often feel inferior to others.
______ 7. I laugh easily.
______ 8. Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it.
______ 9. I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers.
______ 10. I'm pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time.
______ 11. When I'm under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I'm going to pieces.
______ 12. I don't consider myself especially "lighthearted."
______ 13. I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature.
______ 14. Some people think I'm selfish and egotistical.
______ 15. I am not a very methodical person.
______ 16. I rarely feel lonely or blue.
______ 17. I really enjoy talking to people.
______ 18. I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them.
______ 19. I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them.
______ 20.I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously.
______ 21. I often feel tense and jittery.
______ 22. I like to be where the action is.
______ 23. Poetry has little or no effect on me.
______ 24. I tend to be cynical and skeptical of other's intentions.
______ 25. I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion.
______ 26. Sometimes I feel completely worthless.
______ 27. I usually prefer to do things alone.
______ 28. I often try new and foreign foods.
______ 29. I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them.
______ 30. I waste a lot of time before settling down to work.
______ 31. I rarely feel fearful or anxious.
______ 32. I often feel as if I am bursting with energy.
______ 33. I seldom notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce.
______ 34. Most people I know like me.
______ 35. I work hard to accomplish my goals.
______ 36. I often get angry at the way people treat me.
______ 37. I am a cheerful, high-spirited person.
______ 38. I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues.
______ 39. Some people think of me as cold and calculating.
______ 40. When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through.
______ 41. Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up.
______ 42. I am not a cheerful optimist.
______ 43. Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or wave of
excitement.
______ 44. I'm hard-headed and tough-minded in my attitudes.
______ 45. Sometimes I'm not as dependable or reliable as I should be.
______ 46. I am seldom sad or depressed.
______ 47. My life is fast-paced.
______ 48. I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human condition.
______ 49. I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate.
______ 50. I am a productive person who always gets the job done.
______ 51. I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems.
______ 52. I am a very active person.
______ 53. I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.
______ 54. If I don't like people, I let them know it.
______ 55. I never seem to be able to get organized.
______ 56. At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide.
______ 57. I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others.
______ 58. I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas.
______ 59. I necessary, I am willing to manipulate people.
______ 60. I strive for excellence in everything I do.

Scoring key:
Note: averages for an typical undergraduate class are in square brackets [] after each.
Openness = (13+28+43+53+58) – (3+8+18+23+33+38+48) [44]
Conscientiousness = 5+10+20+25+35+40+50+60) – (15+30+45+55) [40]
Extroversion = (3+7+17+22+32+37+47+52) – (12+27+42+57) [42]
Agreeableness = (4+19+34+49) – (9+1424+29+39+44+54+59) [42]
Neuroticism = (6+11+21+26+36+41+51+56) – (1+16+31+46) [36]

Baseline descriptives Big Five personality domains

Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation

Neuroticism: total score 476 12 58 35,32 9,333

Extraversion: total score 475 16 55 35,85 7,225
Openness: total score 472 14 46 29,55 5,332
Agreeableness: total score 473 26 60 44,50 5,378
Conscientiousness: total score 475 20 53 38,01 5,930
Valid N (listwise) 467