16 PF

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
Development of the test 16-PF
•

•
•
• -> ->
• ->
• ->
•

•
•
•
BASIC FEATURES OF THE 16PF QUESTIONNAIRE
● First published in 1949, the 16PF has had four major revisions, in 1956, 1962,
1968, and the 5th edition in 1993(Cattell, R.B. et al.).
● 16 Personality Factors based on Source traits put forth by Raymond B Cattell
in 1940s.
● The latest edition contains 185 multiple-choice items, with a three point answer
format. Item content is non-threatening, asking about daily behaviour, interests,
and opinions.
● It is available in 35 languages worldwide and they are culturally adapted, with
local norms and reliability.
● collect a large new norm sample, shorter, reviewed for language, gender bias
● The 16PF is an objectively scorable test.
● The test was designed for use with individuals aged 16 and above.
● Forms A, B, C and D of this Manual, are most appropriate for literate
individuals. Two other forms E and F(in preparation) are designed for
individuals with reading and educational deficits.
● Form A to E effectively measure levels of (i) warmth, (ii) intelligence, (iii)
emotional maturity, (iv) dominance, (v) impulsivity, (vi) super ego strength,
(vii) boldness, (viii) sensitivity, (ix) trust, (x) imagination, (xi) shrewdness,
(xii) confidence, (xiii) radicalism, (xiv) self sufficiency, (xv) self sentiment,
and (xvi) tension.
● Additional derived scales include five second order factors—extraversion,
anxiety, tough poise, independent and social control plus composite scores
for creativity, adjustment, leadership and numerous other criteria related
scales.
● Forms A and B are equivalent forms of 187 items, untimed, requires 45-60
minutes, Forms C and D are equivalent forms of 105 items, meant for 15+
and adult, untimed, requires 25-30 minutes and Form E of 128 items is for low
literates.)
● The instrument provides scores on the 16 primary scales,5 global scales, and
3 response bias scales.
● All personality scales are bipolar and are given in “stens” ranging from 1 to
10.
● Administration time is about 35-50 minutes for paper-and-pencil format and
about 25-40 minutes for computer administration.
23 PRIMARY SOURCE TRAITS
Factor A: Reserved vs Outgoing

Factor B: Less intelligent vs More intelligent

Factor C: affected by feelings vs Emotionally stable

Factor E: Humble vs Assertive

Factor F: Sober vs Happy-go-lucky

Factor G: Expedient vs Conscientious

Factor H: Shy vs Venturesome

Factor I: Tough minded vs Tender minded

Factor L: Trusting vs Suspicious

Factor M: Practical vs Imaginative

Factor N: Forthright vs Shrewd

Factor O: Placid vs Apprehensive

Factor Q1: Conservative vs Experimenting

Factor Q2: Group dependent vs. Self sufficient

Factor Q3: Undisciplined self conflict vs controlled

Factor Q4: Relaxed vs Tense

Newer additions
Factor D: Insecure excitability

Factor J: Coasthenia vs zeppia

Factor K: Mature socialisation vs Boorishness

Factor P: Sanguine Casualness

Factor Q5: group dedication with sensed inadequacy

Factor Q6: Social panache

Factor Q7: Explicit self expression

 RELIABILITY
● It is subdivided into a) dependability and b) stability.
● For 16PF primary scales, test-retest reliabilities average 0.80 over a
two-week interval (ranging from 0.69 to 0.87) and 0.70 over a two-month
interval(ranging from 0.56 to 0.79)
● The five global scales also show even higher test-retest reliabilities. They
average 0.87 for a two-week interval (ranging from 0.84 to 0.91) and 0.78 for a
two month interval (ranging from 0.70 to 0.82).
● Internal consistency estimates for the 16PF primary scales on a diverse
sample of 4,660, range from 0.66 to 0.86, with a mean of 0.75 (Conn and
Rieke, 1994).
● Recent estimates for internal consistency in heterogenous composites were
applied and was found to be average 0.87 over 5 global scales.
 VALIDITY
● Major source of validity has been Factor- Analytic studies of the primary
and global traits (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970). These studies have used
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the number, identity and
independence of the primary factors; and to confirm the primary factor
make-up of the global factors.
● Construct Validity:The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual (Conn and
Ricke,1994) present correlations between the 16PF Primary and Global scales
and a range of other measures of normal,adult personality.
● Predictive Validity: The 16PF predicts a wide range of important behaviors,
diverse areas of creativity, social skills, marital compatibility and leadership
potential as well as occupational profiles.(Cattell, R.B. et al., 1970;Conn and
Ricke, 1994; Schuerger and Watterson, 1998; Walter, 2000)
Design of the Norm Tables
● The standardization tables are used to convert raw scores to what are known
as sten scores.
● Sten scores are distributed over 10 equal interval standard score points from
1 through 10, with the population average fixed at sten 5.5.
● Stens of 5 or 6 as average, 4or 7 as slightly deviant in a low and high
direction respectively, 2,3,8, and 9 are strongly deviant, and 1 or 10 as
extreme.
● Norm tables for sten scores are available separately for female and male.
USE OF MOTIVATIONAL DISTORTION SCALE
❖ The purpose was to identify and correct “fake good” answers so that they are
not significantly different from the honest scores. (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka,
1970)
❖ To control Impression management.
Cross cultural comparisons
● McQuaid (1967) administered the test on 1700 Scottish subjects divided into 8 groups. The data
were calculated through mean and standard deviation. It was found that Scottish subjects had
higher scores on anxiety measures and low scores on introversion when compared with
American norm group. However, no demographic details (SES, age, education level) were
present and descriptive data was not deemed fit to make conclusions.
● A Japanese version of the test was administered on 300 Japanese university students. Results
indicated high universality as source traits when compared to 117 American students.
(Tsuijioka & Cattell, 1965)
● Meredith (1966) administered the test to 154 Japanese Americans (82 males; 72 females) in
comparison with 60 Caucasian Americans (30 males; 30 females) at University of Hawaii. There
was significant difference on cultural and gender dimensions.
● Studies on New Zealand population have not been able to warrant a favourable outcome for
cross-cultural evidence of 16 PF.

Research on cross cultural comparisons of 16PF shows that scores are not comparable cross-culturally.
Why is it so?
● Differently understood meaning of the factors
● Non-representative population
Comparison with other tests
WITH FIVE FACTOR MODELS

16 PF’s broad, second order dimensions have influenced the development of what is currently
understood by ‘Big Five’ personality factors. (Krug and Johns, 1986)

All five traits have been clearly identified and scorable from the questionnaire since the release of the
fourth edition around 1970.

However, this origin, or even acknowledgement of the existence of the five 16PF global factors, does
not appear in any current accounts of the development of the Big Five (Costa and McCrae,1992).

Studies show strong correlational and factor-analytic alignment between factors, anxiety and
neuroticism, between self-control and conscientiousness, between tough-mindedness/receptivity and
openness to- experience, and between independence and dis-agreeableness.

Moreover, the average correlation between the 16PF global factors and their respective NEO five
factors are just as high as those between the NEO five factors and the Big Five markers which the NEO
was developed to measure (Goldberg, 1992).
16PF (Cattell) NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae) Big Five (Goldberg)

Extraversion/Introversion Extraversion Surgency

Low Anxiety/High Anxiety Neuroticism Emotional stability

Tough-Mindedness/Receptivity Openness Intellect or culture

Independence/Accommodation Agreeableness Agreeableness

Self-Control/Lack of Restraint Conscientiousness Conscientiousness/Dependability

Fig: Alignment among three five factor models (Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment)
Some examples
The 16PF global Independence factor : dominance or ‘agency’, while in the NEO model, the basic trait of dominance is
split in several factors including extraversion and dis-agreeableness (where dominance is centered in a negative, hostile
context).

In the 16PF, warmth plays a central role in Extraversion, the factor that focuses on the basic dimensions of
interpersonal relating whereas in NEO-PI-R warmth focuses on communion.

Further, factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R indicate that the openness trait (called ‘intellect’ in Goldberg’s model) tends to
focus more on cognitive or intellectual curiosity, rather than equally measuring the whole domain, which includes
openness to feelings, emotions, and aesthetics.

Therefore, question of top down approach in comparison to support by rigorous research arises- impacting factor
definitions

Lastly, differences in self ratings vs. observer ratings

 WITH MYERS BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

Research has been carried out data analysis with almost 700 UK managers and professionals who completed both
questionnaires as part of counselling and development interviews (McPherson & Hindmarch, 2003).

This research showed not only that the 16PF factors related to each individual MBTI type dichotomy (E or I, S or N, T or F,
J or P) in ways which were predicted, but also that there was an extremely neat fit between MBTI’s whole type and the
16PF factors.

Analysis of the data further showed that-

● Extraverted (E) types tend to be more Socially Bold, Lively, Warm and Dominant
● Introverted (I) types tend to be more Private and Self-Reliant
● Sensing (S) types tend to be more Perfectionist
● Intuitives (N) tend to be more Open to Change and Abstract
● Feeling (F) types tend to be more Sensitive, Warm and Apprehensive and Thinking (T) types less so.
● Judging (J) types tend to be more Perfectionist and Rule-conscious
● Perceiving (P) types tend to be more Abstract
Applications
Developing a comprehensive picture (Clinical setting) including-

● strengths and weaknesses

● facilitating rapport and empathy,
● helping clients develop greater self-awareness,
● identifying relevant adjustment issues,
● choosing appropriate therapeutic strategies, and
● planning developmental goals.

Employee selection, promotion, and development: employee hiring, promotion, development, coaching, outplacement,
and retirement counseling, predicting occupational profiles and other job-related dimensions, for example, creativity,
leadership styles, team roles and team climate (Fisher et al., 1998).
Applications
Managers, executives, and leaders: studies consistently indicate that three clusters of traits are important for managerial
success. First, effective managers tend to be higher on Global Independence and its primary traits of Dominance Social
Boldness and Openness-to-Change.

Second, leaders tend to be below average on Anxiety and its traits of Apprehension and Emotional Stability

Third, leaders tend to be above average on Extraversion and its traits of warmth, social boldness, liveliness and
group-orientation. Leaders also tend to be above average on reasoning ability, and somewhat above average on
self-control traits.

https://www.16pf.com/en_GB/resources/case-studies/german-automotive-manufacturer/

https://www.16pf.com/wp-content/uploads/Case_Study_British_Library.pdf
Applications
Entrepreneurship: Aldridge (1997) studied the personalities of entrepreneurs and found them to be significantly below
average on anxiety traits – low on Apprehensiveness (self-Assured) and above average on Emotional Stability.
They were also above average on Independence and its traits of Dominance, Social Boldness, and Openness
to-Change. They were also high on Self-Reliance, Rule-Consciousness, and Reasoning Ability, and low on
Sensitivity.

Sales: Salespeople tend to be high on Extraversion and its traits of Warmth (A+ ),Social Boldness (H+ ), Liveliness (F+
), and Group-Orientation (Q2− ). They also tend to be low on Anxiety and its subtraits of Apprehensiveness
(Self-Assured), Vigilance (Trusting), and high on Emotional Stability.

Police, security, and protective service personnel: studies indicate that protective service officers tend to be calm and
resilient under stress (low Anxiety, Emotionally Stable (C+ ); Self-Assured (O− ); and Trusting (L− ).

Creativity

Scientific, technology, and research personnel

Career development counseling and coaching

Applications
Counseling and clinical uses

16 PF was developed as a measure of normal adult personality, and cannot be used to diagnose psychiatric disorders
(e.g. Lally, 2003). However, helps in quickly developing a picture of the individual’s overall personality functioning.

● Planning developmental goals,

● Anticipating the course of therapy,
● Selecting optimal therapeutic interventions
● Identifying relevant adjustment issues
 Current Indian Researches
Purpose of the study was to measure personality correlates of auto-rickshaw drivers of Indian state of Ranchi. (Das. A, 2013)

Tool administered: 16 PF by Kapoor (1972)

Sample: 50 male drivers aged 18-50 years of age

Study found that personality characteristics with lower scores of factors such as reasoning, rule consciousness, apprehension
and emotional stability were common in commercial autorickshaw drivers with high accident-proneness.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10803548.2013.11076975#aHR0cDovL3d3dy50YW5kZm9ubGluZS5jb20vZG9pL3BkZi8xMC4xMDgwLzEwO
DAzNTQ4LjIwMTMuMTEwNzY5NzU/bmVlZEFjY2Vzcz10cnVlQEBAMA==
Research 2
Purpose of the study is to understand change in nature of dissociation with increase in age. (Rana S.K., Garg S, Mishra P
Kumar M & Pandey J, 2015).

Sample: 60 subjects with diagnosis of dissociative disorders were included in this study with 30 subjects with 8-12 years of
age and 30 adolescents with 13-16 years of age.

Tools used: Children in the age group of 8-12 years were given CPQ
and adolescents were given 16 PF (form B).

It was found that dissociation in childhood and adolescents is a

malleable developmental phenomenon determined by core
personality attributes.
Children diagnosed with dissociative disorder are
● less intelligent with concrete thinking
● prudent in nature with a tendency to be doubtful, obstructive, reflective and internally restrained.
● Socially awkward, sentimental
● Worried, depressed and troubled while facing a situation,

Whereas in adolescent’s aggression, stubbornness

assertiveness was more prominent.
Socially aware with a tendency to be shrewd.
Emotionally less stable
Research 3
Purpose of the study was to outline sex differences in male and female college students.

Tool used: 16 PF by Kapoor (1972)

Sample: 480 college/university male and female students, 17 to 22 years

Results showed that females scored higher on Factor I and N with subtraits of intelligence, tough mindedness and
shrewdness while male college students scored higher on Factor E with subtrait of assertiveness as well as on Factor A
where males were more outgoing than females.

http://oaji.net/articles/2014/488-1404472157.pdf
References
Abrahams, F. (1996). The cross-cultural compatability of the 16 personality factor inventory (16PF) (Doctoral dissertation).

Allison, C.W. (1996) CSI Analysis in organisation with personality. Journal of Management Studies. 33 (1), 11-19

Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 171.

Cattell, H. E. P. & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske
(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Vol. 2, Personality Measurement and Testing., Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Cattell, R. B. (1978). Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. New York Plenum.

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and Motivation Structure and Measurement. New York: World Book

Cattell, R. B.; Drevdahl, J. E. (1955) Comparison of 16 PF profile in researchers, administrators, teachers and general population. British Journal of
Psychology. 11 (1), 123- 130

Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personality.

Kumar, V., Goyal, R., Singh, A., Sharma, V., Srivastava, R. N., Kumar, S., & Kumar, A. (2016). Analysis of personality traits as a risk factor in crash
related trauma. African Health Sciences, 16(3), 845–852. http://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v16i3.27

https://www.16pf.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources-Relationship-Between-MBTI-and-16pf-Paper.pdf