2013. Vol.4, No.12, 924-929
Published Online December 2013 in SciRes (
Open Access
Big Five Content Representation of the Japanese Version of
the Ten-Item Personality Inventory*
Atsushi Oshio1#, Shingo Abe2, Pino Cutrone3, Samuel D. Gosling4
1Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
2Baika Women’s University, Osaka, Japan
3Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan
4Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, USA
Received September 7th, 2013; revised October 13th, 2013; accepted November 12th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Atsushi Oshio et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights ©
2013 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Atsushi Oshio et al. All Copyright ©
2013 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is a widely used, very brief measure of the Big Five personal-
ity dimensions (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Recently, Oshio, Abe and Cutrone (2012) developed
and validated a Japanese version of the TIPI. The present study focuses on evaluating the content validity
of the TIPI-J with respect to the thirty facets of the Japanese version of the Revised NEO Personality In-
ventory (NEO-PI-R-J). 163 Japanese undergraduates (67 males and 96 females) completed the TIPI-J and
the NEO-PI-R-J. The convergent correlations between the TIPI-J and the Big Five dimensions of the
NEO-PI-R-J were as follows: r = 0.65 (Extraversion), r = 0.49 (Agreeableness), r = 0.63 (Conscientious-
ness), r = 0.70 (Neuroticism), and r = 0.46 (Openness). Twenty-eight of thirty facets of the NEO-PI-R-J
correlated positively with equivalent scales of the TIPI-J. A joint factor analysis of the five scales of the
TIPI-J with the thirty facets of the NEO-PI-R-J showed clear indicators for the five known superordinate
dimensions of personality in both scales. Results indicated that the TIPI-J provides an adequate represen-
tation of the Big Five dimensions of personality and correlates sufficiently well with the larger scale
Keywords: Big Five Personality; Validity; NEO-PI-R; TIPI-J
Prompted by the growth of Internet surveys, epidemiol-
ogical studies, and repetitive investigations in daily settings,
a number of very brief measurement scales have been re-
cently developed and validated for various complex psycho-
logical constructs, such as those assessed by the Big Five
personality scale. These very brief scales typically measure
constructs using 1 - 4 items per construct as opposed to the
traditional scales, which typically use a larger number of
items. For example, while the traditional measures of the Big
Five personality dimensions, such as the Revised NEO Per-
sonality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and
the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae,
1992) use 60 and 10 items per scale, respectively, the very
brief measures, such as the Ten-Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) include only two.
The main motivations driving the development of these
very brief measures of personality are both practical and
psychometric (Credé, Harms, Niehorster, & Gaye-Valentine,
2012). Very brief scales are practical because participants
require less time to complete them, and they are less likely to
cause boredom and fatigue. Moreover, considerable evidence
has accumulated regarding the psychometric reliability and
validity of these very brief measures (e.g., Gosling et al.,
2003; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Robins, Hendin, & Trzes-
niewski, 2001; Thalmeyer, Saucier, & Eigenhuis, 2011).
Aoki (1971) conducted a psycho-lexical study in Japan by
compiling a list of approximately 6000 Japanese words that
reflect personality traits and selected 455 of them using the
same procedures as Allport and Odbert (1936). Subsequently,
Aoki (1976) selected 98 Japanese personality words again
and obtained seven factors from them. After that, various
studies have identified the Big Five personality structures in
Japan (Kashiwagi, Wada, & Aoki, 1993; Kashiwagi, Tsuji,
Fujishima, & Yamada, 2005; Murakami, 2003; Wada, 1996).
A cross-national twin study (Yamagata et al., 2006) also
revealed five factors of the NEO-PI-R that were highly con-
gruent across samples from three countries: Canada, Ger-
many, and Japan. These studies indicate that the five-factor
structure of personality is common also in Japan.
*This research contains reanalyzed data originally presented by the authors
in a poster session entitled “Coverage area of OCEAN personality dimen-
sions: Does the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J) adequately repre-
sent the Big-Five dimensions of personality?” at the 3rd Biennial Confer-
ence of the Association for Research in Personality, Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, USA, in 2013.
#Corresponding author. Several very brief measures have been developed to assess
the Big Five personality dimensions (Aronson, Reilly, &
Lynn, 2006; Bernard, Walsh, & Mills, 2005; Gosling et al.,
2003; Rammstedt & John, 2007; Woods & Hampson, 2005).
In Japan, Namikawa et al. (2012) tried to reduce the number
of items of the Big Five scale, which consists of adjectives,
based on the earlier work of Wada (1996). They selected 29
items by using an item response theory (IRT) model and
explored the relations between the item-reduced version of
the Big Five Scale and the Japanese version of the NEO-FFI
(Shimonaka, Nakazato, Gondo, & Takayama, 1999). How-
ever, with 29 items, this item-reduced version is still consid-
erably longer than the typical length of the very brief instru-
Oshio, Abe, and Cutrone (2012) used a multi-step proce-
dure to develop a very brief Japanese measure of the Big
Five personality dimensions, called the Japanese version of
the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). First, they trans-
lated all ten items of the original TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003)
into Japanese. Five preliminary studies were conducted, and
the mode of expression of each item was further refined in
order to avoid deviations from a normal distribution and to
ensure appropriate correlations between corresponding items.
Second, the revised items of the TIPI-J were translated back
into English and the final version was checked and, subse-
quently, deemed sufficient by the TIPI’s original creator.
Third, two types of reliability measures of the TIPI-J were
examined: internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
Correlation coefficients between within-scale (oppositely
keyed) items ranged from 0.28 (neuroticism) to 0.59 (ex-
traversion), and the test-retest reliability for 2-week intervals
ranged from 0.62 (openness) to 0.77 (extraversion). Overall,
the reliability of the TIPI-J almost equaled that of the original
English language version (Gosling et al., 2003). Fourth,
convergent and discriminant validities of the TIPI-J were
explored by examining the correlations between the TIPI-J
and five other Big Five scales in Japan, namely the FFPQ-50
(Fujishima, Yamada, & Tsuji, 2005), Big Five (Murakami &
Murakami, 1999), NEO-FFI (Shimonaka et al., 1999), BFS
short version (Uchida, 2002), and BFS (Wada, 1996). Fifth,
correlation analyses between self-rated and friend-rated TI-
PI-J scores for extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness
showed significant positive correlations between the two
The present study further explores the validity of the TI-
PI-J. The TIPI-J has only ten items; therefore, there is a risk
that it could assess only a tiny fraction of the broad content
of the Big Five personality domains. Here, this study focuses
on content validity, which is the degree to which elements of
an assessment instrument are relevant to and representative
of the targeted construct for a particular assessment purpose
(Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995). In the present study, the
content validity of the Big Five personality dimensions as-
sessed by the TIPI-J is evaluated through the content cover-
age of the TIPI-J with respect to the 30 facets of the Japanese
version of the NEO-PI-R.
A total of 163 Japanese undergraduates (67 males and 96
females) participated in this study. Their average age was 19.0
years (SD = 1.2). All participants were recruited via psychology
lectures at three universities that are located in Tokyo, Aichi,
and Osaka prefecture.
TIPI-J. The TIPI-J developed by Oshio et al. (2012) was used.
The TIPI-J consists of 10 items, with two items assessing each
dimension. For each dimension, one item is positively keyed and
the other is negatively keyed. Items are rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). With-
in-scale correlations between the positively and negatively keyed
items on each scale were 0.27, 0.53, 0.35, 0.21, and 0.45
for neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and con-
scientiousness, respectively.
Japanese version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-PI-R-J). The Japa-
nese translated version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(Costa & McCrae, 1992) developed by Shimonaka et al. (1999)
was used. Each of the items was rated on a 5-point scale ranging
from 0 (disagree strongly) to 4 (a gree st rongly). In the sample of
this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.87, 0.91, 0.79,
0.86, and 0.90 for neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agree-
ableness, and conscientiousness, respectively. The coefficient
alpha values for the facet scales of the Japanese version of NEO-
PI-R ranged from 0.62 to 0.81 for neuroticism, from 0.48 to 0.78
for extraversion, from 0.14 to 0.76 for openness, from 0.48 to
0.78 for agreeableness, and from 0.55 to 0.77 for conscientious-
ness. The coefficient alphas of some of the facets (“Excitement-
seeking”, “Actions”, and “Modesty”) were low (0.48, 0.42, and
0.48, respectively), and the coefficient alpha of the Values facet
of openness was even lower (0.14), as were some other coeffi-
cients. Nevertheless, since the meaning and content of each facet
factor were thought to be important, we followed Shimonaka et al.
(1999) in using all scores.
Statistical Analyses
We used IBM SPSS 20.0 to compute Pearson product-mo-
ment correlation coefficients and conduct factor analyses. In the
joint factor analysis, the five subscales of the TIPI-J were fac-
tored jointly with the 30 facet factors of the NEO-PI-R in order
to explore whether the structure of the TIPI-J corresponds to the
Big Five components.
Correlation between TIPI-J and the Five Factors of
the NEO-PI-R-J
To explore the convergent and discriminant validity of the
TIPI-J with respect to the Big Five personality components,
correlation analysis between the five subscales of the TIPI-J
and the NEO-PI-R-J was performed (Table 1). Correlation
coefficients between corresponding scales of the two instru-
ments were significantly positive, ranging from 0.46 to 0.70,
with a mean of 0.59. The Openness dimension of the TIPI-J had
a moderately significant positive correlation with extraversion
of the NEO-PI-R-J (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), but the five correlation
coefficients of the corresponding scales (on the diagonal in Table
1) were all higher than any of the off-diagonal coefficients.
Correlation between TIPI-J and Facet Scales of the
To examine the content coverage of the Big Five personality
Open Access 925
Open Access
dimensions assessed by the TIPI-J, correlation analysis between
the TIPI-J scale scores and the scores of the facet scales of the
NEO-PI-R-J was performed (Table 2). The mean correlation
between the corresponding five TIPI-J scales and the 30 facets
of the NEO-PI-R-J was 0.41. The Neuroticism dimension of the
TIPI-J showed significant positive correlations with the six
neuroticism facets of the NEO-PI-R-J, with a mean of 0.52. The
Extraversion dimension of the TIPI-J showed significant posi-
tive correlations with the six extraversion facets of the NEO-
PI-R-J, ranging from 0.37 to 0.59, with a mean of 0.46. Five
Table 1.
Correlations between the five factors of the TIPI-J and the Japanese version of the NEO-PI-R-J.
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Neuroticism 0.70
*** 0.27 *** 0.17 * 0.34 *** 0.17 *
Extraversion 0.19 * 0.65 *** 0.40 *** 0.21 ** 0.18 *
Openness 0.08 0.17 * 0.46 *** 0.02 0.13
Agreeableness 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.49
*** 0.11
Conscientiousness 0.32 *** 0.09 0.05 0.20
* 0.63 ***
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Table 2.
Correlations between the TIPI-J and facet scores of the Japanese version of the NEO-PI-R-J.
TIPI-J Coefficient
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness alpha
N1: Anxiety 0.63 *** 0.30 *** 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.79
N2: Angry Hostility 0.45 *** 0.13 0.08 0.55 *** 0.08 0.81
N3: Depression 0.58 *** 0.20 ** 0.25 ** 0.24 ** 0.14 0.79
N4: Self-Consciousness 0.52 *** 0.41 *** 0.27 *** 0.13 0.09 0.62
N5: Impulsiveness 0.36 *** 0.03 0.21 ** 0.21 ** 0.28 *** 0.62
N6: Vulnerability 0.58 *** 0.23 ** 0.20 * 0.21 ** 0.17 * 0.72
E1: Warmth 0.22 ** 0.52 *** 0.22 ** 0.38 *** 0.10 0.73
E2: Gregariousness 0.14 0.39 *** 0.16 * 0.19 * 0.12 0.78
E3: Assertiveness 0.20 * 0.59 *** 0.35 *** 0.00 0.24 ** 0.63
E4: Activity 0.00 0.46 *** 0.26 *** 0.01 0.26 *** 0.50
E5: Excitement-Seeking 0.14 0.37
*** 0.31 *** 0.02 0.01 0.48
E6: Positive Emotions 0.10 0.44
*** 0.42 *** 0.26 *** 0.03 0.64
O1: Fantasy 0.12 0.07 0.41 *** 0.04 0.14 0.59
O2: Aesthetics 0.11 0.03 0.28 *** 0.02 0.09 0.76
O3: Feelings 0.07 0.22 ** 0.32 *** 0.13 0.07 0.55
O4: Actions 0.24 ** 0.26 *** 0.29 *** 0.02 0.16 * 0.42
O5: Ideas 0.15 * 0.07 0.30 *** 0.15 0.18 * 0.73
O6: Values 0.26 *** 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.14
A1: Trust 0.18 * 0.25 ** 0.17 * 0.36 *** 0.14 0.78
A2: Straightforwardness 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.32 *** 0.15 0.75
A3: Altruism 0.23 ** 0.16 * 0.08 0.58 *** 0.17 * 0.70
A4: Compliance 0.14 0.08 0.19 * 0.41 *** 0.00 0.54
A5: Modesty 0.00 0.22 ** 0.30 *** 0.07 0.09 0.61
A6: Tender-Mindedness 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.33 *** 0.02 0.48
C1: Competent 0.37 *** 0.19 * 0.21 ** 0.16 * 0.51 *** 0.61
C2: Order 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.05 0.41 *** 0.77
C3: Dutifulness 0.22 ** 0.05 0.12 0.17 * 0.43 *** 0.55
C4: Achievement-Striving 0.26 *** 0.27 *** 0.35 *** 0.24 ** 0.46 *** 0.77
C5: Self-Discipline 0.34 *** 0.18 * 0.11 0.22 ** 0.55 *** 0.76
C6: Deliberation 0.20 * 0.12 0.18 * 0.07 0.44
*** 0.64
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
significant positive correlations were observed between the
openness dimension of the TIPI-J and the six openness facets of
the NEO-PI-R-J, with a mean of 0.26. Five out of six agree-
ableness facets of the NEO-PI-R-J showed significant positive
correlations with the agreeableness scale of the TIPI-J, with a
mean of 0.32. All correspondent correlations between the con-
scientiousness scale of the TIPI-J and the six conscientiousness
facets of the NEO-PI-R-J were significantly positive, with a
mean of 0.47.
Joint Factor Analysis
To examine the Five-Factor structure of the TIPI-J corre-
sponding to the NEO-PI-R-J, five scales of the TIPI-J and the
30 facet scales of the NEO-PI-R-J were used for a factor analy-
sis with maximum likelihood estimation. The eigenvalues of
the first eight components were as follows: 7.28, 4.39, 3.60,
2.91, 1.88, 1.54, 1.04, and .97. The first five factors accounted
for 57.33% of the variance and the Promax rotated factor pat-
tern is shown in Table 3. The five factors represent Agreeable-
ness, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Open-
ness, respectively. The five scales of the TIPI-J loaded strongly
on each corresponding factor.
The results of the present study showed that the correlation
coefficients between the five corresponding factors of the TI-
PI-J and the NEO-PI-R-J ranged from r = 0.46 to 0.70. In a
previous study, Gosling et al. (2003) reported correlation coef-
ficients ranging from 0.56 to 0.68 between the correspondent
subscales of TIPI and the NEO-PI-R in the English version.
Muck, Hell, and Gosling (2007) showed that the range of the
correlation coefficients was from 0.41 to 0.76 in Germany. The
results show that the subscales of the TIPI-J are equivalent to
the Big Five personality domains described in other language
With only two items per dimension, there is a concern that
the TIPI-J scales might not assess the full breadth of the Big
Five dimensions. However, results in this study show sub-
stantial correlations between the five scales of the TIPI-J and
the corresponding facet scales of the NEO-PI-R-J, supporting
the content validity of the TIPI-J. In addition, this study also
provides support for the construct validity of the TIPI-J, be-
cause content validation provides evidence for an instru-
ment’s construct validity (Anastasi, 1988).
Generally, the correlations between the TIPI-J and the
facet scores of the NEO-PI-R-J demonstrate that the TIPI-J
covers the broad content domain of the Big Five personality
dimensions. Gosling et al. (2003) reported that the range of
correlation coefficients between the five subscales of TIPI
and the corresponding facet factors of the NEO-PI-R are as
follows: 0.35 to 0.66 (Neuroticism, absolute value for Emo-
tional Stability values of 0.66 to 0.35 instead of Neuroti-
cism), 0.26 to 0.66 (Extraversion), 0.28 to 0.51 (Openness),
0.20 to 0.59 (Agreeableness), and 0.40 to 65 (Conscien-
tiousness). Muck et al. (2007) reported only 18 significant
convergent correlations between the German version of the
TIPI and the facet factors of the NEO-PI-R. Although one
reason of the insufficiency of the convergent correlations
may be smaller sample size (n = 88; Muck et al., 2007), the
TIPI-J seems to assess a broader content of the Big Five
Table 3.
Joint factor analysis of the TIPI-J and facet scores of the Japanese ver-
sion of the NEO-PI-R-J.
A3: Altruism 0.78 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.02
A4: Compliance 0.69 0.06 0.06 0.34 0.05
A1: Trust 0.66 0.08 0.02 0.140.00
A2: Straightforwardness 0.63 0.19 0.24 0.13 0.09
Agreeableness(TIPI-J) 0.63 0.17 0.00 0.15 0.05
A6: Tender-Mindedness 0.62 0.33 0.04 0.040.12
A5: Modesty 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.400.09
N1: Anxiety 0.13 0.83 0.18 0.16 0.15
N6: Vulnerability 0.03 0.80 0.08 0.01 0.02
N3: Depression 0.06 0.74 0.04 0.05 0.06
Neroticism(TIPI-J) 0.07 0.70 0.05 0.010.05
N4: Self-Consciousness 0.04 0.70 0.03 0.20 0.10
N2: Angry Hostility 0.55 0.62 0.10 0.240.04
N5: Impulsiveness 0.23 0.28 0.42 0.28 0.15
C5: Self-Discipline 0.09 0.18 0.73 0.12 0.01
C3: Dutifulness 0.09 0.08 0.72 0.03 0.14
C6: Deliberation 0.02 0.04 0.72 0.18 0.00
Conscientiousness(TIPI-J) 0.04 0.09 0.68 0.15 0.04
C2: Order 0.00 0.18 0.68 0.11 0.03
C1: Competent 0.13 0.20 0.64 0.20 0.17
C4: Achievement-Striving 0.20 0.07 0.52 0.20 0.25
Extraversion(TIPI-J) 0.01 0.12 0.08 0.81 0.21
E3: Assertiveness 0.17 0.05 0.11 0.780.04
E4: Activity 0.20 0.09 0.18 0.72 0.07
E2: Gregariousness 0.41 0.16 0.04 0.53 0.09
E1: Warmth 0.54 0.03 0.10 0.520.08
E6: Positive Emotions 0.38 0.04 0.17 0.48 0.27
E5: Excitement-Seeking 0.07 0.01 0.14 0.40 0.11
O2: Aesthetics 0.06 0.19 0.09 0.15 0.71
O1: Fantasy 0.01 0.06 0.30 0.08 0.65
O5: Ideas 0.22 0.11 0.28 0.10 0.54
Openness(TIPI-J) 0.08 0.21 0.10 0.230.51
O3: Feelings 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.18 0.51
O6: Values 0.05 0.33 0.06 0.20 0.13
O4: Actions 0.02 0.25 0.01 0.190.19
Inter-factor correlation I II III IV V
I — 0.20 0.22 0.250.13
II — 0.33 0.36 0.03
III — 0.100.02
IV — 0.48
V —
Note: I. Agreeableness; II. Neuroticism; III. Conscientiousness; IV. Extraversion;
V. Openness.
Open Access 927
personality dimensions than the German version, and was
equivalent to the original English version. However, non-
significant correlations between the TIPI-J scales and the
facet scores of the NEO-PI-R-J were found for the Values
and Modesty facets, suggesting that these facets may not be
adequately covered by the TIPI-J. However, the problem may
not lie with the content validity of the TIPI-J because the
Value facet had particularly low reliabilities in this study.
Additionally, a previous study in Japan (Shimonaka, Naka-
zato, Gondo, & Takayama, 1998) reported that the Modesty
facet was not successfully comprised in the Agreeableness
factor, and it yielded high negative factor loading on the
Extraversion and Openness factors. The correlation analyses
in this study show that the Modesty facet correlated nega-
tively with both the Extraversion and Openness factors of the
TIPI-J, whereas the joint factor analysis indicated that it is
comprised in Extraversion rather than in Agreeableness. An-
other reason for the lack of correlation between the Modesty
facet and Agreeableness of the TIPI-J involves the character-
istics of the TIPI itself. The correlation coefficient between
these scores was reported to be 0.23 for the English version
(Gosling et al., 2003) and non-significant for the German
version (Muck et al., 2007). Gosling et al. (2003) also re-
ported that the correlation coefficient between the Modesty
facet and Agreeableness of the BFI (John & Srivastava, 1999)
was 0.23. This pattern suggests that the weak correlation
between the scores may reflect something about the Modesty
facet of the NEO-PI-R itself, rather than an inadequacy of the
very brief measures of agreeableness.
This study also shows that the correlations between the
TIPI-J and the facet scores of the NEO-PI-R-J are not in
complete agreement with the predicted relations. For exam-
ple, the Angry Hostility facet had higher correlation with the
Agreeableness scale than with the Neuroticism scale, with
which it is theoretically more strongly related. However, as
before, it is not clear whether the failure of all scales to con-
verge as predicted can be attributed entirely to problems with
the TIPI-J.
The joint factor analysis in this study showed that the five
subscales of the TIPI-J have a Big Five personality structure
that corresponds to the NEO-PI-R-J. The results indicate that
the five subscales of the TIPI-J seem to be good indicator of
the Big Five personality dimensions.
Theoretically, the TIPI-J, being a very brief measure, might
be expected to correlate less strongly with scores of other scales
than longer measures because of the increased measurement
error associated with brief scales. However, as always, there are
trade-offs between ease-of-use and validity to consider in
choosing the most suitable measure. Where only short measures
are needed, the TIPI-J is clearly beneficial in economizing time
and space. The TIPI-J is currently the only brief measure of the
Big Five dimensions available in Japan. Furthermore, it facili-
tates comparisons across cultures because the TIPI is used in
many studies all around the world. As a result, the TIPI-J is
expected to be used in a wide variety of research settings in
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Mac-
Aoki, T. (1971). A psycho-lexical study of personality trait words:
Selection, classification and desirability ratings of 455 words. The
Japanese Journal of Psychology, 42, 1-13.
Aoki, T. (1976). Personality structures constructed from a questionnaire
containing many personality spheres. The Japanese Journal of Per-
sonality, 47, 239-249.
Aronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of
leader personality on new product development teamwork and per-
formance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineer-
ing and Technology Management, 23, 221-247.
Bernard, L. C., Walsh, R. P., & Mills, M. (2005). Ask once, may tell:
Comparative validity of single and multiple item measurement of the
Big-Five personality factors. Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Journal, 2, 40-57.
Bruce, V., Young, A., Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-
names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, i-
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An
evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big
Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 874-888.
Fujishima, Y., Yamada, N., & Tsuji, H. (2005). Construction of short
form of Five Factor Personality Questionnaire. The Japanese Journal
of Personality, 13, 231-241.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very
brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 37, 504-528.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content
validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to con-
cepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise
measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420-432.
Kashiwagi, S., Wada, S., & Aoki, T. (1993). The BIG FIVE and the
oblique primary pattern for the items of the ACL, Japanese version.
The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 64, 153-159.
Kashiwagi, S., Tsuji, H., Fujishima, Y., & Yamada, N. (2005). Re-
evaluation of Tsuji’s psycholexical study in terms of the Big Five
personality factors. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76, 368-
Muck, P. M., Hell, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2007). Construct validation of
a short five-factor model instrument: A self-peer study on the Ger-
man adaptation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-G).
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 166-175.
Murakami, Y., & Murakami, T. (1999). Manual of big five. Tokyo:
Murakami, Y. (2003). Big five and psychometric conditions for their
extraction in Japanese. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 11,
Namikawa, T., Tani, I., Wakita, T., Kumagai, R., Nakane, A., & No-
guchi, H. (2012). Development of a short form of the Japanese Big-
Five Scale, and a test of its reliability and validity. The Japanese
Journal of Psychology, 83, 91-99.
Oshio, A., Abe, S., & Cutrone, P. (2012). Development, reliability, and
validity of the Japanese version of Ten Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI-J). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21, 40-52.
Open Access
Open Access 929
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one
minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in
English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measur-
ing global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure
and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.
Shimonaka, Y., Nakazato, K., Gondo, Y., & Takayama, M. (1998).
Construction and factorial validity of the Japanese NEO-PI-R. The
Japanese Journal of Personality, 6, 138-147.
Shimonaka, Y., Nakazato, K., Gondo, Y., & Takayama, M. (1999).
Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual for the Japanese version. To-
kyo: Tokyo Shinri.
Thalmeyer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative
validity of brief to medium-length Big Five and Big Six personality
questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23, 995-1009.
Uchida, T. (2002). Effects of the speech rate on speakers’ personal-
ity-trait impressions. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 73, 131-
Wada, S. (1996). Construction of the Big Five Scales of personality
trait terms and concurrent validity with NPI. The Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 67, 61-67.
Woods, S. A., & Hampson, S. E. (2005). Measuring the Big Five with
single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Per-
sonality, 19, 373-390.
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K.,
& Jang, K. L. (2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality
universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe,
and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 987-998.