Introduction / Test Development

The Big 5/45 (“Big five forty-five”) test is a clinical version of the AB5C inventory.  The AB5C inventory was developed by Dr. Lewis R. Goldberg of Oregon Research Institute in Eugene, Oregon and placed by him in the public domain via the Internet (1).

The AB5C was developed to demonstrate the feasibility of creating a range of facet scores for the Big Five personality dimensions (references listed at the above web site).  The result was a 485-item questionnaire in Likert scale format with brief personality descriptive phrases to which a person indicates his degree of agreement or disagreement as to how well the phrase describes himself.  The instrument yields 50 scores:  9 facet scores for each of the Big Five dimensions (totaling 45) and five total scores (one for each of the Big Five dimensions).  See Appendix 1 for a list of the dimension and facet names, number of items in each, coefficient alpha reliabilities and sample items.

The AB5C was normed on a sample of adults in the Eugene/Springfield, Orgegon community.  The sample had the following characteristics: N= 501.  58% women.  Mean age 52.  Primarily Caucasian.  Education range from 9^th grade through graduate school.  208 employed full time, 75 part time, 120 retired, 43 home-makers, 406 married, 51 separated or divorced, 25 widowed.

Relationship between the AB5C and other scales

A.  Relationship to Other Widely Used Personality Scales

The AB5C are 45 scales chosen from the 280 scales developed from the Internationality Personality Item Pool.  Smaller clusters of IPIP scales been found to have good statistical properties in terms of reliability and validity compared to other personality instruments.  Details are provided at the web site referenced above, under “Multiple Scales”. For example, 16 IPIP scales corresponding to the 16 scales in the 16PF test have an average alpha coefficient reliability of .80 compared to .74 for the 16PF scales.  The mean correlation between the two sets of scales is .86 when corrected for attenuation.  Similarly, 30 IPIP scales compared with the 30 corresponding scales in the NEO-PI-R have a mean reliability of  .80 versus .75.  The mean correlation between the scales of the two instruments is .94, corrected for attenuation.  In another study by Goldberg, the IPIP scales are found to be slightly more valid predictors of behaviors (Drug Use, Friendship, Undependability, Reading, Writing and Creative Achievements) than corresponding scales from widely used commercial personality scales (16PF, HPI, NEO-PI-R, and TCI). (2).

B.  Relationship to Vocational Interests

Of the 501 persons who took the AB5C scales in ORI research, 389 also completed the Campbell Interest and Skills Survey.  The CISS generates two scores for each content area.  One measures how skillful a person thinks he/she is in that job content area.  The other measures how much he/she would enjoy doing a job of that content.  Correlations between these self-rated skills and interests range from .46 (for the “Sales” category) to .76 (for “Public Speaking”).  The median correlation is .69.(3)  Thus, we tend to like doing what we think we’re skillful at doing.

Correlations were computed by Goldberg between the 36 scores of the CISS and the 50 scores of the AB5C instrument.  Many statistically significant correlations were found, some as high as .60.  In general, the correlation between a given personality trait and a person’s estimated job skill was slightly higher than between that personality trait and the job interest level.

Some of these relationships are as one might expect.  For example, the “Public Speaking” CISS job category correlated significantly with the following Extroversion facets (expressed as estimated skill): Gregariousness .40, Friendliness .25, Assertiveness .35, Poise .37, Leadership .54.  The “Writing” category correlated significantly with several Intellect facets, including Introspection .29, Intellect .60, Ingenuity .42, Reflection .25, Competence .34 and Quickness .50

Other relationships were not self-evident but nevertheless interesting.  The CISS category “Woodworking” correlated significantly with several Agreeableness facets, for example: Warmth .18, Cooperation .21, Sympathy .23, and Tenderness .27. As a hobby, the author (McConochie) builds furniture.  He recalls that while building a dining table he had thoughts of wanting to please other people with the resulting product.  One of the Tenderness items is “Want to please others.”

The percent of AB5C scales that correlate significantly with each of the CISS career categories are presented in Appendix II.  The average percent was 55 (27.5 personality scales per career area).

Multiple regressions of the five most predictive personality facets to CISS skill scores consistently yield moderate to strong correlations, with both career area scores and individual CISS items.

Examples:

CISS Skill Career Area Score  Highest AB5C                          MultR based

                                                            Facet that Correlates:                            on top 5 Facets                                   

Influencing                                            Leadership (.58)                                               .66

Organizing                                            Assertiveness (.39)                                           .50

Helping                                     Intellect (.38)                                                    .54

Creating...........................................    Imagination (.49)........................................      .63

Analyzing                                              Creativity (.47)                                     .58

Producing                                             Creativity (.22)                                     .38

Adventuring                                          Cooperation (.36)........................................     .52

Selected CISS Items:

158 Make sales calls                            Sociability (.25)                                                .39

160 Manage...others.                            Assertiveness (.32)                                           .42

166 Persuade others to adopt               Leadership (.38)                                               .48

174 Repair automobiles.                       Tenderness (.23)                                              .39

179 Private secretary work                   Tenderness (.22)..........................................    .34

184 Supervising clerical..                      Perfectionism (.19)                                           .31

11 Carpenter, building              Imperturbability (.18)                                        .31

13 Chemist, research                            Cautiousness (.16)                                            .31

16 Clothing designer                             Tenderness (.42)                                              .52

208 Inspiring teammates                       Leadership (.37)...........................................    .43

209 Being patient with children  Sympathy (.32)                                     .43

214 Secretarial duties.              Assertiveness (.22)                                           .39

230 Delegating authority                       Leadership (.36)                                               .43

243 Educating young persons    Ingenuity (.35)                                      .46

262 Leading others                               Leadership (.52)...........................................    .60

267 Monitoring machines                      Sympathy (.29)                                     .42

278 Persuading others to use                Leadership (.54)                                               .62

Thus, we can see that many personality facets correlate significantly with career areas and that combining the information from several facets improves these correlations.  Personality provides a rich basis for helping match specific persons with specific job duties and jobs.

The Big 5/45 Instrument.  Introduction

The AB5C was developed by Goldberg as a research instrument.  The present author (McConochie) is a clinician and I/O practicioner.  He saw potential value in the AB5C as a tool valuable in applied psychology.  He developed a personal computer scoring and report preparation system for it.  This instrument he named the “Big 5/45" to reflect its content. He also developed a system for predicting one’s corresponding Career Area Predicted Preferences (CAPPs) scores based on the obtained personality scores. 

The author then administered this instrument to several dozen clinical patients, personal friends and relatives.

The author does many evaluations of persons applying for State and Federal welfare benefits by virtue of alleged disabilities.  Those with the worst job histories tended to get the lowest scores on the Big 5/45 and had the lowest scores on the 36 career areas of the CAPPs report.  Personal friends and relatives of the author usually obtained average to high scores and  which seemed to correspond reasonably well with their respective personalities and career and recreational activities.

For example, among a secretary’s two highest scores were Office Practices and Religious Activities.  Two successful business executives had high scores on Management and related career areas such as Law/Politics, Sales and Supervising. 

A skilled house painter had low scores on business-related categories but among his highest scores were Mechanical Crafts/Trades, Woodworking and Building/Making Things.  He also had a high score on Risk-Taking/Adventuresome Activities.  His main hobby is riding a motor cycle around the country for several weeks at a time between periods of employment. 

A woman whose two highest scores included Religious Activities said she had always secretly wanted to be a nun.

The scores did not always directly correlate with a given person’s current career and avocational activities, but  often they did.  The scores thus provided the author with what appeared to be richly meaningful information with which to understand and guide clients in terms of employability and career choice.

Validation Study of CAPPs scores

To further validate the CAPPs scores as a measure of a person’s potential career areas, the author conducted studies.

He created career area scores based on the Big 5/45 scores and the known correlations between them and career areas.  They are expressed as a ratio of a person’s obtained score over the highest possible score for that career area. Personality traits of the Big 5/45 which correlate significantly with a career areas are used to generate the denominator of this ratio score.   A given person’s obtained personality scores are used to generate his numerator scores. The higher or lower his personality scores on facets that correlate significantly (positively or negatively) with a career area, the higher his numerator.  Thus, CAPPs scores on each career area can range from 0 to 1.00.

The author tried several different initial scoring formulas, checking each by running correlations between the obtained scores and self-ratings by a sample of 8 persons. 

Reports for 8 adults were prepared with the chosen scoring system.  These subjects were asked to rate their estimated skill  on the 36 career areas on a 5-point Likert scale.  Correlations were then computed across all 8 persons and all 36 areas.  The correlations were between the CAPPs score and self ratings. Thus, the correlation computed was based on 288 pairs of scores (self-ratings versus CAPPs scores, 8 x 36).  The results of this study are as follow:

                        Mean     Range       Standard Deviation KR-21 Reliability 

Self-ratings       2.719   1 to 5         1.47                                              .73

CAPPs scores  56.75   0 to 100     24.672                                          .97

Correlation between Self-rating and CAAPs score = .294 (significance level = .000).  Corrected for attenuation = .35.   This result provides evidence that these initial CAPPs scores were valid indicators of a person’s corresponding self-ratings.

Expansion of the CAPPs Career Areas from 36 to 341

Introduction

One reason the correlation between these inital CAPPs scores and self ratings is modest (.35) may be the rather gross nature of the career areas as presented, e.g. “Law/ or Political Careers”, “Sales Careers”, “Medical Service Careers”.  The CISS report presents scores on only 36 career areas.  All medical careers are subsumed under one heading: “Medical Service Careers”.  In this score there is no differentiation between orderlies and surgeons, pediatricians and LPNs, or between family practicioners and specialists.  Thus, a person might be very interested in being a surgeon but have no interest at all in being a nurse.  His “Medical Service Careers” score will necessarily be “muddied” by this ambivalence.

Thus, the author undertook an expansion of the CAPPs system to include many specific careers.  Descriptions for several hundred careers appearing prominently in the U.S. economy, as presented at a Department of Labor web site (4), were used to select 305 of the most representative careers, including 27 separate medical service careers.  Descriptions of these were prepared in a document totaling 31 pages in a format permitting 4-point Likert scale endorsement (very unskillful, unskillful, skillful, very skillful) (the “Job Skills Rating Form”). 

A sample of 201 adults was administered this document and the Big 5/45 personality instrument over an Internet web site (Funeducation.com), with whom the author collaborates.  This sample of persons was told they would get free reports of all their scores for participating.  They ranged in age from 16 to 64.  Their mean age was 34.3 with a standard deviation of 10.3.  63% were women.  As a group, they were somewhat below average on Conscientiousness, compared to the Goldberg normative sample.  They were above average on Extroversion and a full standard deviation above average on Intellect.  They were average on Agreeableness and Emotional Stability.

SPSS computer software was used to process the data. Correlations were computed between the 50 personality scores and 305 career areas (15,250 correlations) and CAPPs scores (50 x 36 = 1800 correlations). 

The scores on the personality traits tended to mirror those on the Goldberg sample, in that the standard deviations were similar.  Thus, the reliabilities of the 50 personality measures are assumed to be similar to those reported above for the Goldberg sample.  Of equal importance, the job item scores were nicely distributed across the four points allowed in the Likert scale, with means typically between 2 and 3 and standard deviations of about 1.  Thus, the Job Skill Self Rating items were assumed to have adequate reliabilities.

The resulting correlations between the 305 jobs and 50 personality traits were as richly informative as they had been for the Goldberg study of the 36 CISS career areas.  The number of personality traits correlating significantly with a given job ranged from quite high to low.  For example, for the Job 1, President or CEO of an organization, 31 of the 50 personality traits (62%) correlated significantly with the skill self-ratings for this trait.  The traits and their correlations, almost all of which are significant at the .01 level, are:

1. .30 Gregariousness

2. .30 Friendliness

3. .53 Assertiveness

4. .40 Poise

5. .55 Leadership

6. .45 Provocativeness

8. .55 Talkativeness

10. .44 EXTROVERSION TOTAL

13. -.18 Morality

16. -.28 Cooperation

19. -.28 Nurturance

22.  .30 Efficiency

24.  .39 Purposefulness

25. .29 Organization

27. .22 Rationality

30. .20 CONSCIENTIOUSNESS TOTAL

31. .30 Stability

32. .34 Happiness

33. .17 Calmness

34. .22 Moderation

35. .28 Toughness

37. .31 Imperturbability

39. .17 Tranquility

40. .28 STABILITY TOTAL

41. .38 Intellect

42. .48 Ingenuity

44. .49 Competence

45. .44 Quickness

47. .48 Creativity

50. .41 INTELLECT TOTAL

The multiple correlation (R) for these traits was .79, significant at the .000 level.

For some jobs the number of significantly correlating traits was much fewer.  For job 105, Surgeon, only six traits correlate significantly (Friendliness, Dutifulness, Organization, Orderliness, Conscientiousness Total, and Tranquility).  All correlations are positive except for Tranquility.  The multiple R was .28, significant at the .02 level.  For job number 115, Veterinarian, 9 traits correlate significantly, 6 of them negatively.  The multiple R is .38, significant at the .01 level.  Thus, it will be important to consider the Confidence Weights (percentage of personality traits correlating with a job) when interpreting a given person’s CAPPs scores in the expanded version of the report.

Additional Validity Data

The data of this study provided a basis for a further validation of the author’s initial system for predicting preferred career areas from personality scores.  Correlations were run between the 36 CAPPs predicted career area preferences scores (based on the Big 5/45 scores) and self-ratings on a variety of related specific careers from among the 305 in the jobs form.  The resulting correlations were robustly rewarding, for the most part.  For example, for the first CAPPs score, “Managing/ Planning/ Influencing job activities”, the correlations with self-rated skill in related specific management careers were as follow:

Job Number, Correlation, Title

(All correlations significant at .01 level except for jobs 2 and 12, which are not significant.)

1.                  .51       Organization President or CEO

2.         .12       Chief Financial Officer

3.                  .27       H.R. Manager

4.                  .22       Production Manager

5.                  .39       Public Relations Manager

6.         .36       Marketing and Sales Manager

7.         .36       Owner/Operator of Small Family-owned Business.

8.         .30       Politician

10.       .30       School Administrator

11.              .25       Hotel Executive

12.              .01       Funeral Director.

For CAPPs area 2, “Law/Politics”, correlations with self-rated skills in related jobs were:

(All significant at .01 level except Paralegal, not significant.)

8.         .46       Politician

62.       .43       Lawyer

63.       .44       Judge/Magistrate

64.       .14       Paralegal

65.              .26       Title Examiner

For CAPPs area 4, “Public Speaking”, note the following:

(** = Significant at .01, * at .05.)

1.                  .55**   President/CEO

2.                  .34**   Politician

3.                  .08       Clergy

4.                  .37**   Judge/Magistrate

5.                  .29**   High school teacher

6.                  .38**   College teacher

7.                  .30**   Actor/Dancer

8.                  .34**   Sales Representative

23.              .21*   Computer programmer

24.              .14     Surveyor

25.              .17*   Chemist

Notice that the correlations for careers in which public speaking is expected to be important are usually significant at the .01 level and are higher than for careers in which public speaking is not expected to be important (programmer, surveyor and chemist).  The low correlation for Clergy is puzzling.

For the CAPPs area “Sales”, the following correlations are found:

155.          .16       Retail sales

156.          .44**   Advertizing sales

157.          .26**   Insurance sales

158.          .26**   Security sales

159.          .32**   Travel agent

160.          .35**   Sales representative

161.     .26**   Product demonstrator/promoter

162.          .27**   Real estate sales

163.          .13       Telemarketer

164.          .27**   Door-to-door sales

Thus, most sales-related job skills are clearly related to the “Sales” score generated by the scoring system.  The fact that some specific careers are not related to the “Sales” category points up the importance of expanding the CAPPs system to predict not just general career skills, such as “Sales” or “Public Speaking” but to predict each specific career itself.  This provides a sounder basis for identifying the personality profiles unique to each specific career, such as Clergy, Retail Sales Clerk and Telemarketer, which are not well predicted by the general CAPPs areas of “Public Speaking” and “Sales”.

The importance of this was evident in similar analyses for other job groups.  The “Advertizing/Marketing” CAPPs score did correlate significantly at the .01 level with specific jobs of Marketing/Sales Manager, Radio/T.V. Announcer, Ad Sales Agent, Commercial Artist and Creative Writer.  However, the CAPP’s score “Financial Services correlated significantly with Accountant , Tax Preparer and Tax Examiner but not with C.F.O., Loan Officer, Cashier, Security Sales, Bill Collector, Bookkeeper or Teller.

The “Office Practices” CAPPs score predicted Office Machine Operator (.18*) but not Bookkeeing, Loan Clerk, Computer Operator, Word Processor/Typist, Data Entry Keyer, Clerk, Insurance Claims Clerk or Proofreader.

Thus, there is need to predict these other specific jobs directly from personality profile scores.

This mixed performance was also evident in the medical careers area.  The CAPPs score for “Medical Services” correlated significantly at the .01 level with Dietician/Nutritionist, G.P./Family Doctor, Psychiatrist, Physical Therapist, Respiratory Therapist, Speech Therapist and Emergency Medical Technician, and at the .05 level with Pharmacist, Optometrist, Anaesthesiologist, Pediatrician, Obstetrician/Gynecologist, Surgeon, Surgical Technician and Occupational Therapist, but not with Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, Medical Lab Technician or 9 other medical careers, including Dentist and Dental Hygienist. 

Thus, again, we see the need for predicting specific medical careers separately rather than as a group.

This mixed performance was also evident in the trades area.  The CAPPs score for “Mechanical Crafts and Trades” correlated with most specific trades jobs but not with a few:

218.          .24**   Rebar, Reinforcing Iron Worker

219.          .23**   Sheet Metal Worker

228      .36**   Office Machine Repair

229      .23**   Telephone Equipment Installation and Repair

231      .33**   Electrical Motor Repair

233.          .34**   Aircraft Mechanic

234.          .32**   Auto Mechanic

235.          .29**   Bus and Truck Mechanic

236.          .29**   Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanic

237.          .24*     Millwright

238.          .15       Engine and Machine Assembler

239.          .28**   Machinist

240.          .27**   Tool and Die Maker

241.          .13       Job Printer

242.          .12       Printing Machine Operator

The original CAPPs score for “Animal Care”, is one of the weakest for predicting skills in specific jobs, having a Confidence Weight of only .18.  Only 18 percent of the 50 personality trait measures correlate significantly with this career area score.  As might be expected, this score does not correlate significantly with many of the specific job skill scores:

115.          .04       Veterinarian

116.          .13       Veterinarian Technologist

117.          .14       Animal Control Worker

118.          .12       Animal Caretaker

119.          .23**   Farm and Ranch Animal Worker                      

 

Case Studies...Validity Information

A sense of the validity of CAPPs reports is also gleaned from examining reports for known individuals.  For example, an experienced secretary, with over 10 years of successful employment as a secretary and paralegal and with invitations to be an office manager, had highest scores on the following career areas and jobs, all above .60:

Office Practices            .68

Helping Job Duties        .60

Adult Development/

            Teaching           .63

Religious Activities        .63

Culinary Arts/Cooking .61

Animal Care                 .65

Production Manager     .67

Owner/Operator small

  family business            .64

Purchasing agent           .71

Insurance underwriter .66

Computer support

 specialist                      .61

Biological or chemical

 technician                    .64

Environmental

 technician                    .60

Paralegal                      .72

Title examiner               .63

Vocational school        

 teacher                        .60

Special education         

 Assistant                      .60

Adult remedial ed.

 teacher                        .60

Technical writer            .64

Dentist              .69

Respiratory therapist   .60

Medical and clinical lab.

 technician                    .64

Radiologic tech.            .66

Medical records tech. .71

Medical transcriptionist

                                    .74

Landscaping, groundskeeper

                                    .62

Retail sales or parts       .65

Billing and posting clerk

                                    .72

Library assistant            .69

Loan clerk                    .67

Order or stock clerk     .90

Receptionist                  .62

Executive secretary       .68

Secretary                      .78

Computer operator       .68

Word processor or typist

                                    .75

Data entry keyer           .73

Mail clerk                     .66

Clerk                            .70

Insurance claims clerk .79

Office machine operator

                                    .75

Proofreader                  .75

Agricultural equip.

 operator                      .61

Cooking machine operator

                                    .60

Sewing machine operator

                                    .66

Upholsterer                  .70

Furniture and cabinet finisher    

                                    .65

 

Of interest in this list are the many occupations directly and indirectly related to the job of secretary or office worker.

Upgrading and Expanding the CAPPs Report

The correlations between the 50 personality traits and 305 job self-ratings were entered into the CAPPs portion of the report preparation computer program, extending the CAPPs report to a total of 341 predicted career areas of greatest skill/satisfaction based on personality scores (the original 36 CISS areas and the additional 305).

An improved scoring system for computing ratio scores was devised by trying formulas and testing them against self-ratings by the 201 adults’ job skill ratings for a few careers.  Two formulas were found to be superior to the third.  The simplest of these to compute is now used to calculate predicted skill level for each of the 36 CISS job areas and the 305 specific jobs in the CAPPs report.  For one of the jobs tested the correlation between the computed score and self-ratings for 201 persons was .32, significant at the .01 level.

Intended Use

The Big 5/45 with CAPPs report is intended for use to aid self-understanding and career planning.  Knowing one’s personality profile in detail can help one understand oneself.  Knowing the profiles of one’s spouse or partner or child can also improve understanding and awareness.  We can be more tolerant of each other if we know that our behaviors are shaped largely by our unique personality profiles. 

Some of us are innately more conscientious than others.  Laziness is not simply “disobedience”.  Some of us are destined for highly responsible roles as leaders, by virtue of our very high scores on many personality facets.  Indeed, combined with intellectual aptitudes and training, our personalities largely determine who we are and who we have the potential to become.  Knowing ourselves well can help guide us into our most fulfilling lives, both in terms of careers and hobbies.

References

1.    Go to Researchers, Goldberg, IPIP scales.

2.  Goldbert, Lewis R., The Comparative Validity of Modern Personality Inventories: Applications of a Consumer-Testing Framework, Oregon Research Institute, 2003, E-mail lweg@ori.org

3.  Campbell, David P., Hyne, Susan A. and Nilsen, Dianne L., “Manual, CISS, Campbell Interest and Skills Survey.”, NCS, Minneapolis, MN, 1992.

4.  Http://www.bls.gov/oes/1999/oes_nat.htm

Appendix I .   AB5C Facets.

Facet Name:                 Number of items:          Reliability:                     Sample descriptive phrase item:

Extroversion:

1.  Gregariousness        10                                .83                   Am the life of the party.

2.  Friendliness 10                                .85                   Make friends easily.

3.  Assertiveness           12                                .75                   Turn plans into actions.

4.  Poise                       10                                .82                   Feel comfortable around people.

5.  Leadership              10                                .82                   Am the first to act.

6.  Provocativeness       11                                .72                   Dare to say anything.

7.  Self-disclosure         10                                .78                   Am open about myself to others.

8.  Talkativeness           10                                .84                   Do most of the talking.

9.  Sociability                10                                .66                   Enjoy being part of a loud crowd.

10.  Extro. total            93                                .96

 

Agreeableness:

11.  Understanding       10                                .81                   Like to be of service to others.

12.  Warmth                 11                                .84                   Know how to comfort others.