Brief Neuroticism Questionnaire

[DynamicDidactic]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

anyone have a short/brief measure of neuroticism they like/recommend? There are a few I came across (EPQR, EPQ-BV) but anyone have direct experience with choosing one?

Thanks in advance.

 

[stigmata]

Being as neuroticism is not really a valid trait to measure for a variety of reasons I really doubt there is anything good.

 

[erg923]

Huh? I thought neuroticism was part of "the Big Five" that is so well validatedl? Doesn't the NEO-PI-R directly measure it? I think thats a pretty well researched measure,to say the least...

 

[psychgirl77]

This is a free measure (if used for research purposes) that assesses the Big Five personality traits including neuroticism. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bfi.htm

 

[Ollie123]

I'd also be interested in some more explanation on that comment (i.e. why neuroticism is invalid). It can certainly be measured reliably from a psychometric standpoint, and there is a wealth of evidence supporting its association with a number of relevant outcomes. While I think research is still in a probably endless chase to refine personality dimensions and definitions, I don't know that I've ever heard anyone say it was not valid to measure. I think the biggest issue it runs into is stability in different contexts (is that what you were getting at?), but I'm not sure I've seen any definitive evidence rendering it invalid. Validity cannot really be established, only supported, but overall neuroticism actually seems to have some of the better support. If you have citations to the contrary I'd be very interested in reading them.

 

[stigmata]

I could do alot of work to create an instrument that has all the proper psychometric properties and measures "goofiness".

 

[Ollie123]

So....is the point that "personality" as an overarching construct does not exist? Or that it cannot be measured? Or are you just referring to how these constructs are named?

I'm still not sure what you are getting at. The same can be said for virtually any self-report measure.

 

[erg923]

I think hes getting at the name, but of course as Ollie said, it seem like this argument could be used for any construct in psychology. But I really don't understand the relevance of the name, as long as there is underlying construct validity. The five factor model is well supported, this is really not in dispute, even amongst it critics. Unless you can point to some substantial evidence to the contrary, then I dont understand the basis for the objection?

 

[stigmata]

I agree with all that, but that was not my point. I should have made it more clear the 1st time...sorry. My point is that even though it is statistically valid etc.., and may have some research usefullness as a clinician it does nothing to help me diagnose or treat a patient. So, a valid measure of goofiness has the same utility.

 

[erg923]

There are tons and tons of trait measures and self-reports who's purpose and development was for normal populations or simply for personality research by experimental psychologists. The NEO-PI has never been marketed as a clinical tool, to my knowledge. I doubt the OP was wanting to use these measure to help diagnose anyone..

 

[postitnote]

I am a longtime lurker and rarely feel strongly enough to post. Neuroticism is a clinically useful construct that can be measured in as reliable and valid manner as many other psychological constructs. Check out any of these references that provide evidence for the role of negative emotionality/neuroticism/negative affect in life outcomes ranging from physical health, subjective well-being, psychopathology, etc (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005; Smith & MacKenzie, 2006;Suls & Bunde, 2005; Steel, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2008; Hoyle, Fejfar, & Miller, 2000; Bornstein & Cecero, 2000; Saroglou, 2002; Huo-Liang, 2006; Smith & MacKenzie, 2006;Suls & Bunde, 2005; Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Kendler, Gardner, & Prescott, 2006). This is not including the literature showing the importance of neuroticism in predicting personality pathology like BPD.

Anyhow, for the OP--you can check out measures like the TIPI, BFI, FFM-RF, or utilize the IPIP NEO neuroticism facet scales.

 

[Ollie123]

I didn't see anything indicating that the OP wanted to use it for diagnostic purposes....I would never make that assumption.

That said, be careful in your use of the word validity. There are plenty of things that are perfectly valid but of absolutely no clinical utility - that's not a bad thing unless they are being used for clinical purposes. I don't find Ohm's Law a particularly helpful concept for diagnosing psychopathology either, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid😉 We can discuss the clinical utility of measuring neuroticism - while it is associated with outcomes I do think it is debatable what incremental validity it would add in most circumstances - but I haven't seen anything presented that suggests neuroticism isn't valid.

 

[postitnote]

I didn't see anything indicating that the OP wanted to use it for diagnostic purposes....I would never make that assumption.

That said, be careful in your use of the word validity. There are plenty of things that are perfectly valid but of absolutely no clinical utility - that's not a bad thing unless they are being used for clinical purposes. I don't find Ohm's Law a particularly helpful concept for diagnosing psychopathology either, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid😉 We can discuss the clinical utility of measuring neuroticism - while it is associated with outcomes I do think it is debatable what incremental validity it would add in most circumstances - but I haven't seen anything presented that suggests neuroticism isn't valid.

Was this in reference to my comment? It's hard to tell in a message board sometimes. My intention was to point out that neuroticism is both a valid and clinically useful construct. Validity is at the crux of clinical utility (and the initial comment I reacted to was that neuroticism was not valid, though this was later revised to 'not useful to diagnose or treat a patient'). I think this is a common error people make, confusing clinical utility and construct validity (including authors of the DSM 🙄).

Anyhow, given the original post was likely not related to diagnosis, this may be a moot point. There are however, some interesting studies out there suggesting that neuroticism does provide useful clinical information. I would happily send you the references if you wanted them.

 

[Ollie123]

Well, yes and no - it was mostly a reply to stigmata. The only point that was really in reference to your post was that I do think it would be quite reasonable to debate the circumstances where assessing neuroticism adds anything to the overall clinical picture beyond other clinical measures. My point was certainly not that it isn't related to clinical outcomes...I stated earlier that it is in a wide variety of circumstances. However, when a client presents to a clinic with already obvious emotional difficulties - I haven't seen convincing evidence that assessing their neuroticism helps in treatment planning or contributes more to a diagnostic picture than a SCID or a PAI would. I've already read most of those articles on your list and they seem to fit with this view, though thank you for the offer to send them along. I'm also by no means ruling it out that it will never be useful in the clinic - just that right now I haven't seen convincing evidence that it does.

As for the rest...I largely agree. That was really my point as well, that clinical utility and validity are not one in the same.

 

[stigmata]

Well, yes and no - it was mostly a reply to stigmata. The only point that was really in reference to your post was that I do think it would be quite reasonable to debate the circumstances where assessing neuroticism adds anything to the overall clinical picture beyond other clinical measures. My point was certainly not that it isn't related to clinical outcomes...I stated earlier that it is in a wide variety of circumstances. However, when a client presents to a clinic with already obvious emotional difficulties - I haven't seen convincing evidence that assessing their neuroticism helps in treatment planning or contributes more to a diagnostic picture than a SCID or a PAI would. I've already read most of those articles on your list and they seem to fit with this view, though thank you for the offer to send them along. I'm also by no means ruling it out that it will never be useful in the clinic - just that right now I haven't seen convincing evidence that it does.


I wish I was still a student and had the time and energy to express myself as well as this. I agree, and these comments get to the point I was trying to make. In practice I do not see how a measure of neuroticism would offer more than a GAF number.

 

[postitnote]

Well, yes and no - it was mostly a reply to stigmata. The only point that was really in reference to your post was that I do think it would be quite reasonable to debate the circumstances where assessing neuroticism adds anything to the overall clinical picture beyond other clinical measures. My point was certainly not that it isn't related to clinical outcomes...I stated earlier that it is in a wide variety of circumstances. However, when a client presents to a clinic with already obvious emotional difficulties - I haven't seen convincing evidence that assessing their neuroticism helps in treatment planning or contributes more to a diagnostic picture than a SCID or a PAI would. I've already read most of those articles on your list and they seem to fit with this view, though thank you for the offer to send them along. I'm also by no means ruling it out that it will never be useful in the clinic - just that right now I haven't seen convincing evidence that it does.

As for the rest...I largely agree. That was really my point as well, that clinical utility and validity are not one in the same.

I think I agree with everything you've said here. The references I was going to provide, though (which you also likely have read, then), were Van Os & Jones (201) and Parslow, Jorm, & Christensen (2006).

I also think this illustrates nicely why I rarely post on message boards. My own neuroticism leads me to believe I have little information to offer that someone else couldn't step in and provide (...or I'll misinterpret someone's comments...or I'll be completely mistaken...). Ah, neuroticism, you tricky devil.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Anyhow, for the OP--you can check out measures like the TIPI, BFI, FFM-RF, or utilize the IPIP NEO neuroticism facet scales.

Thank you, the TIPI is the other one I have looked over. As someone who seems to be very familiar with these measures, is the TIPI looked down upon? My study is not concerned with personality and I want to control for neuroticism as a potential confound. Would you recommend anything similarly short but would be a more valid/reliable measure? I have looked over Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003) right now (will read about the other measures tomorrow) and while I love the brevity of the measure I may prefer a more accurate measure of neuroticism.

 

[postitnote]

Thank you, the TIPI is the other one I have looked over. As someone who seems to be very familiar with these measures, is the TIPI looked down upon? My study is not concerned with personality and I want to control for neuroticism as a potential confound. Would you recommend anything similarly short but would be a more valid/reliable measure? I have looked over Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003) right now (will read about the other measures tomorrow) and while I love the brevity of the measure I may prefer a more accurate measure of neuroticism.

The TIPI is a pretty good, quick measure of the Big Five and there have been a number of studies using it. I guess the only concern would be that it's only two items. The FFMRF is only six items but each item is purportedly measuring at the facet level (and it has six items, rather than two). I think if you go with any of the measures that have been discussed on here, though, you'd be in pretty good shape.