Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cattell, R. B.
Right arrow Articles by Krug, S. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Number of Factors in the 16PF: A Review of the Evidence with Special Emphasis on Methodological Problems

Raymond B. Cattell

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, Illinois

Samuel E. Krug

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, Illinois

Critics have occasionally asserted that the number of factors in the 16PF family of tests is too large and that a more parsimonious number of factors adequately explains human personality. This paper discusses areas of misunderstanding with regard to factor-analytic methodology that account for much of this disagreement. It then reviews more than 50 published studies concerned with the dimensionality of the 16PF series of personality instruments. The conclusion is reached that the number of important primaries encapsulated in the 16PF series is no fewer than the stated number. That conclusion is bolstered by new evidence presented that is based on the independent, statistical logic of the maximum likelihood test.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 46, No. 3, 509-522 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164486463002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 TraumatologyHome page
S. L. Wagner, C. A. Martin, and J. A. McFee
Investigating the "Rescue Personality"
Traumatology, September 1, 2009; 15(3): 5 - 12.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
R. B. Cattell and H. E. P. Cattell
Personality Structure and the New Fifth Edition of the 16PF
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1995; 55(6): 926 - 937.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Journal of Career AssessmentHome page
S. E. Krug
Career Assessment and the Adult Personality Inventory
Journal of Career Assessment, March 1, 1995; 3(2): 176 - 187.
[Abstract]