Talk:Revised NEO Personality Inventory
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Vsauder.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What are the differences?
Some of these items seem awfully similar to each other or the exact opposites of each other. Warmth and gregariousness sound like the same thing from a website I found on Google about the NEO PI-R. Impulsiveness and deliberation seem to be measuring opposite poles of the same trait. Altruism and tender-mindedness also seem very much alike from the descriptions. Would anyone mind sating my curiosity?--NeantHumain 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. I would like to see some more information on the factor structure (with evidence from confirmatory factor analyses, which I am sure there is, since this is a factor analytic model), but particularly for the empirical basis of the six facets for each of the five factors. I would find it miraculous if each of those six facets were empirically derived. Six for each of five? That would be like winning the lottery, even with a huge N. It would also be nice to see some critiques of this measure. For example, it has been called "the psychology of the stranger" and has also been likened to studying astronomy by asking the average citizen to state what they think of stars. I personally do not feel properly qualified to actually offer critiques on the page itself, but I would welcome a critical perspective from someone more expert.68.173.54.109 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreement with the above 2 statements. I'd say the (potential) problems are with the research itself, not necessarily our coverage of the topic. If the underlying science is a little thin, then us Wikipedia writers can only do so much .... Armadillo1985 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Cleanup
I cleaned up much of the writing in March and April 2016. The job isn't complete, but the article reads better now. I hope other Wikipedeans will also contribute to the entry. Iss246 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Retitle the article to "NEO Personality Inventory"?
Hi everyone,
In my opinion, the title of this article should definitely be changed from "Revised NEO Personality Inventory" to just "NEO Personality Inventory." Why? Because including the "Revised" word denotes the 1990 version of this personality test, whereas there is also the original 1978 publication, the 1985 version (NEO PI), and the 2005 version (NEO PI-3). Yes, simply writing "NEO Personality Inventory" would kinda denote the 1985 version, but it could also be construed as an umbrella term for all 4 versions/publications.
Alternatively, retitle the article to "NEO Personality Inventory-3" since that is the formal name of the most recent (2005), and therefore most relevant, version of the test. [1]
And yes Iss246, this article does still need cleanup. But your efforts helped.
Armadillo1985 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)