Paidia

jan-apr. 2014, Vol. 24, No. 57, 29-37. doi:10.1590/1982-43272457201405

Article
Cattells Personality Factor Questionnaire (CPFQ): Development and
Preliminary Study1
Ricardo Primi2
Carla Fernanda Ferreira-Rodrigues
Lucas de Francisco Carvalho
Universidade So Francisco, Itatiba-SP, Brazil
Abstract: This study was aimed at: (a) developing an instrument for personality assessment according to Cattells model,
in which the 16PF is based on; and (b) carrying out an empirical analysis of the internal structure of the instrument. Three
hundred and forty seven people, mostly female (67.4%), attending higher education (62.5%) and aged between 16 and 66
(M = 25.69; SD = 8.90) participated in the study. One hundred and twenty items were created and an exploratory factor
analysis of the main factors was carried out. Then, a parallel analysis, an exploratory full information factor analysis with
categorical variables and an internal consistency analysis were performed. The results suggest that the instrument is composed
of 12 factors of reasonable internal consistency rates. The model developed by Cattell helped to understand the structural
organization found for the instrument, since there is coherency, especially in relation to more general terms (global factors).
Keywords: personality traits, personality measures, factor analysis

Questionrio Fatorial Cattell de Personalidade (QFCP): Construo e Estudo

Preliminar
Resumo: Este estudo teve como objetivos: (a) construir um instrumento para avaliao da personalidade de acordo com
o modelo de Cattell que d base para o 16PF e (b) realizar uma anlise emprica da estrutura interna desse instrumento.
Participaram 347 pessoas, sendo a maioria do sexo feminino (67,4%), cursando o ensino superior (62,5%) e com idade
variando de 16 a 66 anos (M = 25,69; DP = 8,90). Foram criados 120 itens e realizada uma anlise exploratria de fatores
principais. Posteriormente, uma anlise paralela, uma anlise fatorial exploratria por informao completa de variveis
categricas e anlise de consistncia interna. Os resultados sugerem que o instrumento formado por 12 fatores com ndices
de consistncia interna razoveis. O modelo construdo por Cattell ajudou a entender a organizao estrutural encontrada para
o instrumento, uma vez que h coerncia, principalmente em termos mais gerais (fatores globais).
Palavras-chave: traos de personalidade, medidas da personalidade, anlise fatorial

Cuestionario Factorial Cattell de Personalidad (CFCP): Construccin y Estudio

Preliminar
Resumen: Las finalidades de este estudio fueron: (a) crear un instrumento de evaluacin de la personalidad segn el
modelo de Cattell que fundamenta el 16PF, y (b) realizar un anlisis emprico de la estructura interna del instrumento.
347 personas participaron, en su mayora mujeres (67,4%), cursando la educacin superior (62,5%) y entre 16 y 66 aos
(M = 25,69; DE = 8,90). 120 puntos fueron creados y se realiz un anlisis exploratorio de los factores principales, seguido
de un anlisis paralelo, un anlisis factorial exploratorio para las variables categricas con la informacin completa y
anlisis de la consistencia interna. Los resultados sugieren que el instrumento est formado por 12 factores de consistencia
interna razonable. El modelo construido por Cattell ayud a comprender la organizacin estructural que se encuentra en el
instrumento, ya que hay coherencia, especialmente en trminos ms generales (factores globales).
Palabras clave: rasgos de personalidad, medidas de la personalidad, anlisis factorial

Raymond Bernard Cattell (1905-1998) was one of universal (McAdams, 2009; Nunes, Hutz, & Nunes, 2010).
the most important theorists in the area of personality. He Horn (2000) stated that Cattells personality theory can only
is listed among the top greatest 20 psychologists of the be compared to Freuds theory, in terms of magnitude and
twentieth century (Haggbloom et al., 2002) and is considered scope, and to no other theory of empirical demonstration.
one of the precursors of the current model of the Big Five In Cattells view, personality is the manner in which
Factor Model (FFM), which is proposed by some authors as human beings behave in a certain situation. From this
perspective, it is possible to infer personality traits based on
1
Support: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development a set of behaviors and, reciprocally, it is possible to predict
(CNPq), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education
Personnel (CAPES), and So Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). how a person would behave in a certain situation by having
2
Correspondence address: information about their personality traits. In the 1940s, Cattell
Ricardo Primi. Graduate Program in Psychology at the Universidade
So Francisco. Rua Alexandre Rodrigues Barbosa, 45. CEP 13251-900.
started a significant research that sought to identity the basic
Itatiba-SP, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] global factors of personality in a multivariate approach of traits

Available in www.scielo.br/paideia 29
Paidia, 24(57), 29-37

or factors (Walter, 1995). Based on the famous list of adjectives vigilant); M Abstractedness (practical, grounded x abstract,
of Allports, Cattell reorganized it into 171 personality absorbed in ideas); N Privateness (forthright, genuine
descriptors, which were used to describe the personality in x polished, private); O Apprehension (complacent, self-
empirical studies involving factor analysis (Cattell, 1943). assured x apprehensive, indecisive); Q1 Openness to Change
In empirical studies, he considered three kinds of basic (conservative, traditional x experimental, open to change);
data to capture personality dimensions: (a) responses to Q2 Self Reliance (group-oriented, affiliative x self-reliant,
questionnaires, that is, the introspection of the individuals solitary); Q3 Perfectionism (undisciplined, tolerates disorder
about their own behavior (Q-data); (b) third party reports x controlling, perfectionist); Q4 Tension (calm, relaxed x
based on observations about the individual everyday life tense, impulsive).
behaviors (L-data); and (c) relatively straightforward From the hierarchical analysis of the 16 factors, groups
measures of behavior controlled in a lab (Cattell, 1965; that gave rise to the first version of the five global factors
Cattell & Mead, 2008; Primi, 2010). Primary traits would be were found, currently known as the Five Factor Model of
shown in the three situations. Therefore, in order to identify Personality Traits (FFM) that is: extraversion, anxiety, tough
them, it would be necessary to observe the consistency of mindedness, independence and self-control (Table 1), which
these three kinds of basic data. This perspective corresponds would later be updated as extraversion, neuroticism, openness
to the multi-method modern view of the psychological to experience (inverse correlation), agreeableness (inverse
assessment, which consists of using several methods to correlation) and consciousness, through reanalysis of Cattells
better understand a behavior or psychological event. data by other researchers (Costa Jr. & McCrae, 2007).
Based on this view, Cattell (1957) identified 46 surface
traits (a complete list is available in Cattell, 1957, p. 813), Table 1
understood as the set of observed behaviors opposed to the Description of the Five Global Personality Factors of
source traits that would be the latent variables causing the Raymond B. Cattell
surface traits. Later, with the students help, the results were Secondary Global Factors
inter correlated and submitted to factor analysis, reaching 16 I Extraversion (x Introversion)
personality traits considered by Cattell as basic, found in the A+ F+ H+ N- Q2- Introvert Extrovert
L and Q data (Cattell, 1965). These, in turn, gave rise to the Socially Inhibited Socially Bold
instrument called Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire II Anxiety (x Stability)
16PF (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993). The personality traits C- L+ O+ Q4+ Low Anxiety High Anxiety
Emotionally stable Emotionally reactive
assessed in the 16PF are fairly constant, and mood swings
III Though Mindedness (x Openness)
or situational changes in which individuals go through at
some point in their lives are not assessed (Cattell, 1965). It is A- I- M- Q1- Receptive Inflexible
Open Minded Firm
noteworthy that, in the first version, the 16PF was composed Intuitive Low Empathy
of five parallel versions (Cattell & Eber, 1954). IV Independence (x Accommodation)
Each scale of the 16PF is bipolar and is called by the E+ H+ L+ Q1+ Accommodated Independent
name of the positive pole. The factors are identified by Submissive Persuasive
Self-sacrificing Focused on the future
a letter of the alphabet that indicates the order in which it
V Self-control (x Lack of inhibition)
was distinguished in the factor analysis, with the first letters
indicating more important differences in the personality F- G+ M- Q3+ Vigilant Controlled
Impulsive Inhibited
traits (Cattell, 1997). The letter Q indicates factors resulting
only from Q data. According to Walter (1995), each one of
the 16 factors corresponds to a stable personality trait, that Table 1 shows the descriptors of the secondary five
is, a source trait. global factors. Taking into account the information presented
The 16 global factors and their respective traits for low in the table, there is a clear relationship with the FFM model.
and high scores are described as follows: A Warmth (reserved, Currently, the most widely used instrument in the world
cool x outgoing, participating); B Reasoning (lower g x higher based on this model is the Personality Inventory NEO-PI-R
g); C Emotional Stability (Emotionally instable, affected by (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Some differences can be observed
feelings, easily upset x Emotionally stable, adaptable, calm), between this instrument and the 16PF. Cattell and Mead
E Dominance (deferential, docile, cooperative x assertive, (2008) argue that the 16PF was developed through the bottom
dominant, independent); F Liveliness (taciturn, serious, up methodology, that is, its primary factors empirically
introspective x carefree, cheerful, enthusiastic); G Rule- resulted from decades of research, which was not exactly
Consciousness (expedient, inconvenient x conscientious, the case of the six facets, in which each dimension of the
conforming with cultural and conventional values); H NEO-PI-R is divided. Thus, the ingredients (primary factors)
Social Boldness (shy, timid x socially bold, venturesome); that constitute the five factors are different in the two tests.
I Sensitivity (utilitarian, objective x sensitive, tender The authors point out three main differences: in the 16PF, the
minded); L Vigilance (trusting, unsuspecting x skeptical, factor independence is similar to the dominance dimension

30
 Primi, R., Ferreira-Rodrigues, C. F., & Carvalho, L. F. (2014). CPFQ: Preliminary Study of the Internal Structure.

(or agency) in the interpersonal circumplex model (Alden, (CCEB) of the Brazilian Association of Research Companies
Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990). The second basic dimension of (www.abep.org), which was then divided by classes (and
the interpersonal model, warmth (or affiliation, communion) average monthly income in brackets), as follows: 2.6% A1
is a primary scale of extraversion. The last difference is that (R$ 12,926), 10.6% A2 (R$ 8,418), 18.5% B1 (R$ 4,418),
the self-control factor in the 16PF is more comprehensive 34% B2 (R$ 2,565), 22.6% C1 (R$ 1,541), 8.7% C2
than consciousness (NEO-PI-R) in relation to the possible (R$ 1,024), and 3% D (R$ 714). In general, the sample is
self-control strategies. composed of university students and professionals who have
In addition, it is noteworthy that the personality test 16PF completed higher education, that is, young adults. There
is a widely used instrument, with adaptation to more than is a relative diversity of graduation areas and also a small
35 languages and broad research and information about its portion of teenagers. It can be highlighted that this sample
applicability in the workplace context (selection, promotion was composed of the combination of five studies (three
and career development, management training, groups work undergraduate course completion assignments, one masters
and leadership), clinical context (psycho diagnosis, couple and the other, Ph.D.) and, therefore, there is a relative
therapy) and educational context (professional guidance) diversity in relation to the origin of the people involved.
(Cattell & Mead, 2008). However, its fifth edition in Brazil
has not been approved yet for professional use, according Instrument
to the Psychological Tests Assessment System (SATEPSI)
(http://www2.pol.org.br/satepsi) due to problems in its manual Initially, for the development of the items, the definitions
in the presentation of Brazilian studies. So, and coupled with of the primary factors of the 16PF questionnaire were reviewed
the growing interest of Psychology in the development of (Cattell & Eber, 1954; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970; Cattell
new psychological assessment instruments, the present study et al., 1993). An exploratory factor analysis of the 16PF items,
was aimed at: (a) developing an instrument for personality fifth edition, was carried out based on databases of previous
assessment according to Cattells model, in which the 16PF researches undertaken by the Psychological and Educational
is based on; and (b) carrying out an empirical analysis of Assessment Laboratory (LabAPE) (http://www.labape.com.br;
the internal structure of the instrument. Therefore, a new Primi, Bueno, & Muniz, 2006; Primi et al., 2002). These
instrument was developed in order to assess the constructs results were used to qualitatively examine the content of the
defined by Cattell. Concomitantly, it was sought to show items with higher internal validity, that is, those that had high
information about this theoretical method and its relationship scores in their originating factor. Based on the definition and
with the more modern theories, such as the FFM. Therefore, operationalization of the construct, the first and the last authors
this study shows the steps for the development and an initial of this research developed 377 new items for 15 factors (the
study of the internal structure of the items created. factor B, reasoning, was removed, due to the fact that it is factor
with contents less related to the personality). These items were
Method distributed as follows: Warmth (A = 16 items), Emotional
Stability (C = 16 items), Dominance (E = 24 items), Liveliness
(F = 21 items), Rule-Consciousness (G = 30 items), Social
Participants Boldness (H = 20 items), Sensitivity (I = 37 items), Vigilance
Three hundred and forty seven people participated (L = 26 items), Abstractedness (M = 28 items), Privateness
in this study, most of them being female (67.4%), single (N = 29 items), Apprehension (O = 26 items), Openness to
(72.1%), and they were undertaking a higher education Change (Q1 = 28 items), Self-Reliance (Q2 = 24 items),
course (62.5%). The age of the participants ranged from Perfectionism (Q3 = 26 items) and Tension (Q4 = 18 items).
14 to 66, with an average of 25.69 years (SD = 8.90), 5.6% Then, the two researchers analyzed the items
being between 14 and 16, 7.6% between 16 and 18, 43.3% independently and indicated the best items that should
between 19 and 24, 23.7% between 25 and 30 and 19.9% compose the 15 scales of the test, taking into account the
over 31. Concerning educational level, 12.2% are high school representation of the construct and readability criteria.
students, 61.2% are undertaking higher education and 26.6% After that, they compared the choices in order to select eight
have completed higher education. Most of the university items for the scale that had received positive indications
students were from Psychology (31.3%), Education (16.1%), by the two researchers, independently. Then, in the end,
Architecture (6.1%), and Civil Engineering (5.8%) courses. an initial booklet, which was the object of this study, was
Among the higher education courses completed by the prepared with 120 items (8 X 15). For each item, a scale of
graduated professionals were Computer Engineering (7%) four point answers was added (1 = nothing to do with me,
and Administration (4.3%). 2 = a little to do with me, 3 = a lot to do with me and 4 = very
From the total sample, 265 subjects (76.4%) provided similar to me), based on previous studies about scale
complete answers to the identification questionnaire, making optimization (Nunes et al., 2008) and a sheet with personal
it possible to establish the socioeconomic classification data. The instrument was called Cattells Personality Factor
according to the Brazilian Economic Classification Criteria Questionnaire (Primi & Carvalho, 2008).

31
Paidia, 24(57), 29-37

Procedure analyses usually do not reach the acceptable recommended

levels for traditional analyses in relation to a confirmatory
Data collection. The participants individually answered factor analysis with continuous variables (Hopwood &
the instrument, but mainly in collective situation (classrooms Donnellan, 2010). It should be noted that, in this study, only
and companies). The researchers explained in detail how exploratory factor analysis method was carried out, but the
to answer and fill out the answer sheet of the instruments, program Mplus estimates fit indexes of the confirmatory
making it clear that the participants should choose the answer analysis. Therefore, the fit indexes were considered in a
that better represented their behavior. relative manner, in conjunction with the parallel analysis, in
Data analysis. The objective of this study was to order to inform the decision about the number of factors.
verify the internal structure of the items based on the Another advantage of the program Mplus is the
covariance/inter-items correlation matrix. The most estimation of standard errors for the factor loadings in the
demanding initial hypothesis was that the items would be GEOMIM rotation. Thus, having these, three criteria to
organized into 15 groups according to Cattells model. A select items for the factors were used: (a) the item should
second hypothesis, which was relatively less demanding, be theoretically coherent with the factor; (b) it should have
was that the items would be organized according to the five initially a factor loading over .30; however, due to some of
global secondary factors. Thus, the coherence between the
the factors having had few items following this criterion
empirical structure and the hypothesized by the theoretical
and since this is an initial study, the loadings up to .20 were
model would be a positive evidence of validity of the
considered; and (c) the factor loading should be significant.
instruments internal structure.
After the extraction of factors and selection of the items, their
The analyses were carried out using two methods. Firstly,
contents were examined in order to develop interpretations
through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
of the extracted factors. The internal consistency analysis of
version 19, an exploratory analysis of the main factors was
the scales obtained was also carried out.
performed based on the correlation matrix, followed by an
oblique rotation procedure (oblimin). To decide on the number Ethical Considerations
of factors, the parallel analysis was used by simulating 1000
correlation matrices among 120 random variables using the The database of this study combines three undergraduate
program RanEigen for SPSS (Enzmann, 1997). The average course completion research assignments, one masters
of the eigenvalues extracted from the 1000 replications was degree and one Ph.D. involving the relationship between
considered the minimum values that the empirical eigenvalue personality and external variables. These projects were
should reach in order to be extracted as potentially relevant. examined and approved by the Research Ethics Committee
The procedure of the Psych package in R was also used, which of the Universidade So Francisco. Throughout the research
performs parallel analyses based on polychoric correlation process, the ethical principles related to research involving
matrices (Revelle, 2012). human beings were followed, according to Resolution
The literature has suggested that the most appropriate 196/96 of the Ministry of Health.
method for the factor analysis of dichotomous and
polytomous items is the factor analysis by complete Results
information using TRI models for categorical variables
(Primi, Silva, Santana, Muniz, & Almeida, 2013). According To achieve the objectives of this study, which involved
to this recommendation, a full information exploratory factor the development of a personality assessment instrument
analysis of categorical variables was also carried out in the according to the 16PF model and analyze its internal structure,
program Mplus (Muthn & Muthn, 2010). The estimator a good sample adequacy for the analysis of the Kaiser-Meyer-
Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance-Adjusted Olkin coefficient (KMO = .71) was initially verified, as well
(WLSMV) was used which, according to Lon (2011), is one as Bartletts sphericity test [c (7140) = 15.821.30; p .01],
of the best ways of working with categorical data modeling. which indicated that the correlation between the items are
The analysis was followed by oblique rotation GEOMIN. sufficiently good to carry out the factor analysis. The results
One advantage of using Mplus is that it provides classical of the extraction of the main factors of the exploratory factor
fit index of the confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, analysis of the instruments 120 items are shown in Figure 1.
several models were extracted (5 to 13 factors) and, in It can be noted through the scree plot that the first six factors
each analysis, the fit indexes of adjustment were recovered, are well differentiated and from the twelfth onwards there
allowing verification of the several models fit. The c (chi- is no differentiation between them. It can also be noted that
square), the ratio c/g.l., the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the the two extraction methods, the principal axis factoring
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the Root-Mean-Square Error (PAF) and the WLSMV, were very similar. The criterion
of Approximation (RMSEA) were analyzed. However, it must resulting from the parallel analysis through Psych indicated
be taken into consideration that personality is a complex and the extraction of 12 factors. Therefore, in the RanEigen, the
hierarchically organized construct (Wright et al., 2012). As extraction with 12 factors explains 36.3% of the variance
a result of this and the use of items as indicators, the factor with minimum eigenvalue of 1.34.

32
 Primi, R., Ferreira-Rodrigues, C. F., & Carvalho, L. F. (2014). CPFQ: Preliminary Study of the Internal Structure.

10
Variable
9 RanEigen
PAF
8
WLSE
7 Psych
pa.Psych
Value 6

0
0 5 10 15 20
Order

Figure 1. View of the eigenvalues of the factors extracted from the factor analysis.

Based on the data presented, through the program items being in factor 1 (items 39, 69, 114), three items
Mplus, the extraction of five to 13 factors was required. in factor 5 (105, 63, 75), one item in factor 6 (28), one
The fit indexes of the models are shown in Table 2. Taking item in factor 7 (100), two items in factor 8 (4, 92), one
into account the traditional criteria, the fit indexes c/gl and item in factor 9 (50), three items in factor 11 (113, 7, 2)
RMSEA were shown to be adequate for all the models (< 2 and, at last, one item in factor 12 (32). Thus, to avoid a
e < .05 respectively) (Schweizer, 2010). The CFI and TLI large reduction in the number of items in some factors, it
indexes were below the requirement of .95. However, it is was decided to keep them. The internal consistency (alpha
possible to note that, the indexes increase from five to 12 coefficient) of each CPFQ factors was also evaluated and,
factors, indicating progressively higher fits. From 12 to 13 in general, the scores were reasonable. The factors 4 and
factors, however, the CFI hardly increases. Based on this 11, however, need attention, given that they had low alpha
pattern, the parallel analysis and also the initial stage in coefficient, that is, below .60.
which the study with the CPFQ currently is, the solution of Table 4 is a way of clarifying and showing the
12 factors was chosen. corresponding features among the CPFQ, the 16PF and the
It can be seen in Table 3 that the number of items per BFF factors. In the first column are the 12 factors extracted
factor ranged from 5 to 15 and the factor loadings average from the CPFQ; in the second and third columns, the
ranged from .32 to .48, and each factor was composed of description of the features of each factor for low and high
the items that better represented the construct related to scores in the CPFQ. The fourth column has the primary
them. From the 114 items that remained after the factor factors of the 16PF (positive or negative pole) and the last
analysis, 15 items had factor loadings below .30, three column corresponds to the Big Five factors.

Table 2
Comparison Among the Fit Quality Indexes of the Several Models Tested
Models (gl) /gl CFI TLI RMSEA
5 factors 7601.093 (6550) 1.61 .783 .763 .022
6 factors 7292.028 (6435) 1.14 .823 .804 .020
7 factors 7095.988 (6321) 1.13 .840 .819 .019
8 factors 6906.302 (6208) 1.12 .856 .834 .018
9 factors 6737.903 (6096) 1.11 .867 .845 .018
10 factors 6572.227 (5985) 1.10 .879 .855 .017
11 factors 6423.690 (5875) 1.10 .887 .862 .017
12 factors 6279.889 (5766) 1.09 .894 .869 .016
13 factors 6150.717 (5658) 1.09 .898 .872 .016

33
Paidia, 24(57), 29-37

Table 3
Solution Factors, Factor Loadings and Cronbachs Alpha Scores
Factor Alpha M SD Number of Items Minimum Maximum
1 .85 .48 .12 13 .32 .66
2 .69 .36 .13 8 .20 .51
3 .73 .45 .10 7 .33 .61
4 .47 .32 .07 8 .23 .44
5 .70 .43 .17 8 .27 .69
6 .74 .43 .12 9 .24 .59
7 .74 .36 .07 15 .23 .50
8 .74 .42 .12 11 .22 .58
9 .77 .41 .07 12 .28 .52
10 .63 .41 .07 5 .33 .50
11 .44 .33 .08 6 .22 .46
12 .73 .42 .10 12 .20 .56

Discussion more than one primary trait. However, a priori, they do

not match the definition of the global factors proposed by
This study showed that creating items and trying to Cattell (Cattell & Mead, 2008). Finally, the factors 2, 3
replicate the structure found by Cattell is not an easy task, and 5 are characterized by primary factors, that is, they
given that the culture is different from that in which the are formed only by a primary source traits. Therefore, of
model was developed, as well as the procedures (item- the 12 factors found, nine are coherent to Cattells model,
factor analysis) and statistical software currently available either in relation to the primary level of the 16 factors or
for analysis significantly differ from the methods used the wider level of the five factors.
by Cattell, which supported him to develop the structure Specifically, it was noted that the Extraversion, Openness
proposed for the 16PF. The issue about the development and Agreeableness of the FFM model (Costa Jr. & McCrae,
of personality instrument in different cultures and the 2007) are represented in the developed instrument in the
analytical procedures used is a broad topic in the literature positive and negative poles (Table 4). But the Neuroticism
(Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010; McAdams, 2009). and Consciousness factors are expressively more represented
Generally (Table 4), based on Cattell (1965) and Cattell in the negative and positive poles respectively. In this sense,
et al. (1993), the results show that, from the 12 factors the development of items for the poles not represented
of the CPFQ, six (1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12) are composed by these factors is suggested. Still, the representation of
of more than one corresponding primary scale in the the typical factors of the FFM model is evident in the test
16PF, which were grouped and formed global factors. presently developed and have direct relationships with the
The factors 4, 9 and 11 were also formed by grouping dimensions proposed by Cattell (Cattell & Mead, 2008).

Table 4
Description and Consistency Between the Factors of the CPFQ, the 16 PF and the FFM
CPFQ CPFQ Factors Names Low Scores High Scores 16 PF FFM
F1 Social Boldness Socially bold, venturesome Shy, timid H-, A- E-
F2 Abstractedness Practical, careful Abstract, intuitive M+ O+
F3 Dominance Submissive, genuine Dominant, assertive E+ A-
F4 Apprehension Self-assured, carefree Conscientious, follows G+, O+, L-, H- C+
cultural values
F5 Low Emotional Tension Tense, impatient Patient, calm Q4- N-
F6 Adherence to groups Individualist, self-reliant Adherent to groups, group Q2-, F+ E+
oriented
F7 Practicality Emotionally instable, sensitive Practical, objective I-, M-, N+ O-
F8 Order/Organization Tolerates disorder, relaxed Perfectionist, organized Q3+, O+, F- C+
F9 Consciousness/Morality Likes trying new things, Tends to follow rules and Q1-, G+ C+
liberal conventional cultural values
F10 Dominance Submissive, cooperative Dominant, assertive E+, L+ A-
F11 Vigilance Distrustful, vigilant Trustful, nave L-, N- A+
F12 Emotional Stability Apprehensive, tense Confident, carefree O-, Q4, C+ N-

34
 Primi, R., Ferreira-Rodrigues, C. F., & Carvalho, L. F. (2014). CPFQ: Preliminary Study of the Internal Structure.

In general, all the extracted factors can be covered by the Thus, people with a high score in this factor tend not to allow
big five global factors, which provide a meta organizational themselves to break rules, express difficulty in taking initiative
framework for the primary factors of the 16PF. It is important and have a more passive attitude. In contrast, people with a low
to emphasize that the factors 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12, although score in this factor tend to believe they need to break the rules
having combined items designed to measure different primary in order to get things and deal well with this because they have
factors, these primary factors are those grouped to form the little concern and actively seek to achieve their objectives.
global factors. Therefore, in this broader level, the extracted Factor 9, Consciousness/moralism, relates to peoples
factors are consistent with the model (Cattell & Mead, 2008). inclination to be more liberal and try new things or to follow
There are two factors connected to the construct extraversion rules and social values, an example of the item being: I am
(factors 1 and 6). Factor 1, Social Boldness, relates to how more liberal and like experiencing new things, thus showing
subjects presents themselves socially, which can be either in a openness to new experiences. Also, factor 11, Vigilance, is
uninhibited and outgoing manner or reserved and shy and has related to peoples ability to trust other people, ranging from
the following item as example I often start talking to people I distrust to naivety, as shown in the following item example
dont know and factor 6, Adherence to Groups, corresponds In general, I tend to trust people. Thus, it can be noted
to the way people relate to others, in a more individualistic through the theoretical analysis of the items of factors 4,
way or more dependent on social/group contact (example of 9 and 11 that there is an emphasis on one of the primary
the item: I always try to do my work in group). Factor 7, factors, which are coherent with the 16PF proposal at the
named Practicability, relates to the way people deal with their global level (Cattell & Mead, 2008).
actions, that is, in a more sentimental, genuine and authentic Concerning the three factors of the CPFQ, which grouped
way or more objective, realistic, practical and discreet manner. items from only one primary factor of the 16PF, factor 2
An example of a characteristic item in this factor is: People called Abstractedness, presented items related to how people
say I am more rational in personal relationships. This factor deal with their thoughts (for example: I often daydream).
combines components of the broad factor Openness. Factor 3, Dominance, shows the way in which people tend
Factor 8, Order/Organization (self), is represented by to relate to others (for example: In relation to team work,
the global factor consciousness, organization, self-discipline, I tend to be more questioning, critical). And, factor 5, Low
concern and care when performing tasks. On the opposite pole, Emotional Tension, relates to the way in which people deal
it indicates how much subjects are able to tolerate disorder and with tension and anxiety, having as example the following
item I am patient with people, even when they are rude.
make unplanned decisions. An example of item in factor 8 is:
My personal objects are always in perfect order. Factor 10,
Final Considerations
Dominance, relates to the way in which subjects are presented
in relationships, either in a submissive way, willing to avoid This study was aimed at developing an instrument based
conflicts or dominant, assertive, alert. An example of item in this on Cattells model and verifying its internal structure. Thus, this
factor is: I can be rude and direct when necessary. This factor research had an exploratory nature and, based on the findings,
is associated to the global factor Agreeableness (negative pole). it can be concluded that, although the 15 primary factors of
Finally, factor 12, as the name implies, relates to the subjects Cattells model have not been individually found, the 12 factors
Emotional Stability, and a low score in this factor represents extracted from the CPFQ are coherent with the researchers
people with greater guilt, tension, impatience, indecision, proposal. The primary scales appeared but most of them were
emotionally unstable and those subjects with a high score are grouped, forming more general factors in line with the theory.
more confident, carefree, complacent and emotionally stable. Thus, the CPFQ is an instrument that covers more general
An example of this item is: Sometimes I feel guilty even when aspects of the personality. It can also be highlighted that there
I know I am right. This factor is associated with Neuroticism. are no studies that have managed to create an instrument with
Although not all factors proposed by Cattell have been found, the the same 16 factors proposed by Cattell.
authors model supported the understanding about the structural The main limitation of this study relates to the sample
organization found in the CPFQ, especially considering that the size and the age of the participants, mostly consisting of
grouping of the evidenced items is coherent, mainly in more young adults, which can limit the appearance of sufficient
general terms (global factors). variability in personality traits. New researches with the
Some factors (4, 9, 11) of the CPFQ are also composed instrument are required to expand and diversify the samples.
of the grouping of more than one trait. However, they do not Therefore, the development of studies aimed at verifying
relate directly to the factors found by Cattell (1965) and Cattell the reapplication of the factor structure found in this study
et al. (1993), at least based on the original denomination of is suggested, these being validity studies with external
the items when they were created. Factor 4, Apprehension, variables, using both the CPFQ and the 16PF simultaneously.
is represented by characteristics related to subjects level of As a contribution, there is the importance of developing
concern, also involving to follow or not cultural values and has an instrument of personality assessment supported by one
as an item example If a person can break the rules for personal of the most well-known theories in the area of personality
gain without being discovered, they should break them. assessment and appropriate to the Brazilian context.

35
Paidia, 24(57), 29-37

References Len, D. A. D. (2011). Anlise fatorial confirmatria atravs dos

softwares R e Mplus (Unpublished manuscript). Universidade
Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS.
Construction of circumplex scales for the McAdams, D. P. (2009). The person: An introduction to the
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal science of personality psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken,
of Personality Assessment, 55(3-4), 521-536. NJ: Wiley.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_10 Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (2010). Mplus users guide:
Cattell, H. B. (1997). The 16 PF Cattell comprehensive
Version 6. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
personality interpretation manual. Savoy, IL: The
Nunes, C. H. S. S., Hutz, C. S., & Nunes, M. F. O. (2010).
Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.
BFP: Bateria Fatorial de Personalidade: Manual
Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen
personality factor questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, tcnico. So Paulo, SP: Casa do Psiclogo.
G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE Nunes, C. H. S. S., Primi, R., Nunes, M. F. O., Muniz, M.,
handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. Cunha, T. F., & Couto, G. (2008). Teoria de Resposta ao
2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135-159). Item para Otimizao de escalas tipo Likert: Um exemplo
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. de aplicao. Revista Iberoamerica de Diagnstico y
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic Evaluacin Psicolgica, 25(1), 51-79.
traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Primi, R. (2010). Avaliao psicolgica no Brasil:
Social Psychology, 38(4), 476-506. doi:10.1037/h0054116 Fundamentos, situao atual e direes para o futuro.
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation: Structure Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 26(n. Esp.), 25-35.
and measurement. New York, NY: World Book. doi:10.1590/S0102-37722010000500003
Cattell, R. B. (1965). Anlise cientfica da personalidade (E. Primi, R., Bighetti, C. A., Munhoz, A. H. M., Noronha, A. P.
M. Andrade, Trad.). So Paulo, SP: IBRASA. P., Polydoro, S. A. J., Di Nucci, E. P., & Pelegrini, M. C.
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K. S., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993). K. (2002). Personalidade, interesses e habilidades: Um
Questionrio 16PF Quinta Edio. Rio de Janeiro, estudo correlacional da BPR-5, LIP e do 16PF. Avaliao
RJ: CEPA.
Psicolgica, 1(1), 61-72.
Cattell, R. B., & Eber, H. W. (1954). Questionrio de 16
Primi, R., Bueno, J. M. H., & Muniz, M. (2006).
fatores de personalidade 16 PF formas A e B. Rio de
Inteligncia emocional: Validade convergente e
Janeiro, RJ: Cepa.
discriminante do MSCEIT com a BPR-5 e o 16PF.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook
for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Psicologia: Cincia e Profisso, 26(1), 26-45.
Savoy, IL: The Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. doi:10.1590/S1414-98932006000100004
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Primi, R., & Carvalho, L. F. O. (2008). Questionrio
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Fatorial Cattell de Personalidade (QFCP). Itatiba, SP:
Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Laboratrio de Avaliao Psicolgica e Educacional.
Psychological Assessment Resources. Primi, R., Silva, M. C. R., Santana, P. R., Muniz, M.,
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2007). NEO PI-R: Inventrio & Almeida, L. S. (2013). The use of the bi-factor
de personalidade NEO revisado e inventrio de cinco model to test the uni-dimensionality of a battery
fatores NEO revisado NEO-FFI-R. So Paulo: Vetor. of reasoning tests. Psicothema, 25(1), 115-122.
Enzmann, D. (1997). RanEigen: A program to determine doi:10.7334/psicothema2011.393
the parallel analysis criterion for the number of principal Revelle, W. (2012). Package psych: Procedures for
components. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(3), psychological, psychometric, and personality research.
232. doi:10.1177/01466216970213003 Version 1.2.12. Retrieved from http://personality-project.
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. org/r/psych.manual.pdf
K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., Monte, E.
Schweizer, K. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the
(2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th
modeling of traits and abilities in test construction.
century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139-152.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(1),
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139
1-2. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000001
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should
the internal structure of personality inventories be Walter, V. (1995). 16PF Personal career development profile:
evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, Technical & interpretive manual. Savoy, IL: IPAT.
14(3), 332-346. doi:10.1177/1088868310361240 Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon,
Horn, J. (2000). Raymond Bernard Cattell (1905-1998): Su K. E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The
vida y sus aportaciones a la ciencia. Lnea Abierta, (10), hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality
6-7. Retrieved from http://www.web.teaediciones.com/ traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 951-957.
LineaAbierta/LiAb2000.pdf doi:10.1037/a0027669

36
 Primi, R., Ferreira-Rodrigues, C. F., & Carvalho, L. F. (2014). CPFQ: Preliminary Study of the Internal Structure.

Ricardo Primi is an Associate Professor of the Universidade

So Francisco.
Carla Fernanda Ferreira-Rodrigues is a Ph.D. candidate in
the Graduate Program in Psychology of the Universidade
So Francisco.
Lucas de Francisco Carvalho is a Professor of the
Universidade So Francisco.

Received: Dec. 13th, 2012

1 Revision: Aug. 30th, 2013
st

2nd Revision: Set. 10th, 2013

3rd Revision: Oct. 14th, 2013
Approved: Oct. 21st, 2013

How to cite this article:

Primi, R., Ferreira-Rodrigues, C. F., & Carvalho, L. F.
(2014). Cattell Personality Factors Questionnaire
(CPFQ): Construction and preliminary study.
Paidia (Ribeiro Preto), 24(57), 29-37.
doi:10.1590/1982-43272457201405

37