Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book answers the fundamental performance questions that people have asked for generations. Why is that some individuals are consistently high performers, how do they keep performing in varying situations, organisations and contexts, why can some people just not seem to be able to crack that code, and why do some individuals perform exceptionally well in certain organisations but not in others? This fresh new book challenges current thinking about the war for talent and the role intelligence plays in high performance sport and business. Over 3,000 profiles of elite corporate managers and professional elites have been studied to find the answers as to why certain individuals consistently get exceptional results and why great talent doesn't transfer across teams and businesses. This book considers real live cases and well-known examples of spectacular successes and failures through the lens of the Hogan Personality Tools. This shows how elite performance is dependent on three things; understanding what role your behaviours are best suited to, what culture you perform your best in and how you're likely to derail your career. Armed with this knowledge, this innovative text allows you to connect the dots on your past performances and prepares you to find roles, organisations and teams which best fit you, opening the door for elite performance. Instead of talent management and changing behaviour, look to Fit as a key to your performance improvement. You'll find that performance does not have a one-size-fits-all formula - it is bespoke, personal and different for each individual.

Despite the widespread use of the HEXACO model as a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits, there remains limited information on the test-retest reliability of its commonly-used inventories. Studies typically report internal consistency estimates, such as alpha or omega, but there are good reasons to believe that these do not accurately assess reliability. We report 13-day test-retest correlations of the 100- and 60-item English HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-100 and HEXACO-60) domains, facets, and items. In order to test the validity of test-retest reliability, we then compare these estimates to correlations between self- and informant-reports (i.e., cross-rater agreement), a widely-used validity criterion. Median estimates of test-retest reliability were .88, .81, and .65 ( N = 416) for domains, facets, and items, respectively. Facets’ and items’ test-retest reliabilities were highly correlated with their cross-rater agreement estimates, whereas internal consistencies were not. Overall, the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised demonstrates test-retest reliability similar to other contemporary measures. We recommend that short-term retest reliability should be routinely calculated to assess reliability.

The five-factor model of personality, as quantified using instruments such as the Big Five Inventory, consists of broad personality domains including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (emotional instability), and Openness. Such instruments typically include >40 items. However, instruments with many items can be unwieldly and a cause of measurement error in clinical and cohort studies where multiple scales are sequenced. Conversely, established 5- and 10-item versions of the Big Five Inventory have poor reliability. Here, we developed and validated an abbreviated 18-item Big Five Inventory that balances efficiency, reliability and sensitivity. We analysed three datasets (N = 59,797, N = 21,177, and N = 87,983) from individuals who participated in the online Great British Intelligence Test (GBIT) study, a collaborative citizen science project with BBC2 Horizon. We applied factor analyses (FA), predictive normative modelling, and one-sample t-tests to validate the 18-item version of the Big Five and to investigate its associations with psychiatric and neurological conditions. The 18-item version of the Big Five Inventory had higher validity and retest reliability compared to the other previously shortened versions in the literature, with comparable demographic associations to the full Big Five Inventory. It exhibited strong (i.e. large effect size) associations with psychiatric conditions, and moderate (small-medium) associations with neurological conditions. Neuroticism (emotional instability) was substantially higher in all psychiatric conditions, whereas Conscientiousness, Openness and Extraversion showed differential associations across conditions. The newly validated 18-item version of the Big Five provides a convenient means of measuring personality traits that is suitable for deployment in a range of studies. It retains psychometric structure, retest reliability and clinical-group sensitivity, as compared to the full original scale. •An 18-item version of the Big Five Inventory was developed, which showed higher validity and test-rest reliability than previous shortened versions.•Factors from the 18-item version were associated with demographic characteristics of N > 59,000 participants.•The 18-item Big Five inventory showed strong associations with psychiatric conditions and modest associations with neurological conditions.•Neuroticism was substantially higher in participants endorsing diverse psychiatric conditions; whereas small-medium associations were found for Openness and Conscientiousness for specific conditions.

Because of its richness and availability, micro-blogging has become an ideal platform for conducting psychological research. In this paper, we proposed to predict active users' personality traits through micro-blogging behaviors. 547 Chinese active users of micro-blogging participated in this study. Their personality traits were measured by the Big Five Inventory, and digital records of micro-blogging behaviors were collected via web crawlers. After extracting 839 micro-blogging behavioral features, we first trained classification models utilizing Support Vector Machine (SVM), differentiating participants with high and low scores on each dimension of the Big Five Inventory [corrected]. The classification accuracy ranged from 84% to 92%. We also built regression models utilizing PaceRegression methods, predicting participants' scores on each dimension of the Big Five Inventory. The Pearson correlation coefficients between predicted scores and actual scores ranged from 0.48 to 0.54. Results indicated that active users' personality traits could be predicted by micro-blogging behaviors.

The current manuscript presents the convergence of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ), using its short form the DAPP-90, and the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the FFiCD, in the context of the five-factor personality model and the categorical approach of personality disorders (PDs). The current manuscript compares the predictive validity of both the FFiCD and the DAPP-90 regarding personality disorder scales and clusters. Results demonstrate a very high and meaningful convergence between the DAPP-90 and the FFiCD personality pathology models and a strong alignment with the FFM. The DAPP-90 and the FFiCD also present an almost identical predictive power of PDs. The DAPP-90 accounts for between 18% and 47%, and the FFiCD between 21% and 47% of PDs adjusted variance. It is concluded that both DAPP-90 and FFiCD questionnaires measure strongly similar pathological personality traits that could be described within the frame of the FFM. Additionally, both questionnaires predict a very similar percentage of the variance of personality disorders.

Objective: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms operationalized with 9 categorical criteria. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to delineate continuity between the 9 DSM-IV/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorical criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions in DSM-5 Section III. To date, no study has attempted such validation. Methods: We examined the associations between the 9 categorical DSM-IV/DSM-5 criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions of the alternative DSM-5 model for PDs in consecutively recruited psychiatric outpatients (N = 142; 68% female; age: mean 29.02, SD 8.38). This was investigated by means of bivariate correlations, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: The categorical BPD criteria were associated with conceptually related DSM-5 Section III traits (P > 0.001), except for the criterion of chronic feelings of emptiness. Consistent with the proposed traits criteria for BPD in DSM-5 Section III, we found Emotional lability, Anxiousness, Separation insecurity, Depressivity, Impulsivity, Risk taking, and Hostility to capture conceptually coherent BPD categorical criteria, while Suspiciousness was also strongly associated with BPD criteria. At the domain level, this applied to Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Notably, Emotional lability, Impulsivity, and Suspiciousness emerged as unique predictors of BPD (P > 0.05). Conclusions: In addition to the proposed BPD traits criteria, Suspiciousness and features of Psychoticism also augment BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated in forthcoming research, a modified traits operationalization of BPD is warranted.

In the context of the publication of DSM-5, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has been proposed as a new dimensional assessment tool for personality disorders. This instrument includes a pool of 220 items organized around 25 facets included in a five-factor second-order domain structure. The examination of the replicability of the trait structure across methods and populations is of primary importance. In view of this need, the main objective of the current study was to validate the French version of the PID-5 among French-speaking adults from a European community sample (N=2,532). In particular, the assumption of unidimensionality of the 25 facet and the five domain scales was tested, as well as the extent to which the five-factor structure of the PID-5 and the DSM-5 personality trait hierarchical structure are replicated in the current sample. The results support the assumption of unidimensionality of both the facets and the domains. Exploratory factor and hierarchical analyses replicated the five-factor structure as initially proposed in the PID-5.

Background The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for the diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties have been verified in some countries, however, there have been no studies about the utility of the PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to explore the maladaptive personality factor model which was culturally adapted to China and to examine psychometric properties of the PID-5-BF among Chinese undergraduate students and clinical patients. Methods Seven thousand one hundred fifty-five undergraduate students and 451 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of the PID-5-BF. Two hundered twenty-eight students were chosen randomly for test-retest reliability at a 4-week interval. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to discover the most suitable factor structure in China, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency, and external validity were also calculated. Results The theoretical five-factor model was acceptable, but the exploratory six-factor model was more applicable in both samples (Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.039; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.060). In the Chinese six-factor model, the Negative Affect domain was divided into two factors and the new factor was named “Interpersonal Relationships”, which was in line with the Big-Six Personality model in Chinese. Measurement invariance across non-clinical and clinical sample was established (configural, weak, strong MI, and partial strict MI). Aside from acceptable internal consistency (Undergraduate sample: alpha = 0.84, MIC = 0.21; Clinical sample: alpha = 0.86, MIC = 0.19) and test-retest reliability(0.73), the correlation between the 25-item PID-5-BF and the 220-item PID-5 was significant( p  < 0.01). The six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) were associated with and predicted by expected domains of PID-5-BF. Conclusions Both the theoretical five-factor model and the exploratory six-factor model of the PID-5-BF were acceptable to the Chinese population. The five-factor model could allow for comparison and integration with other work on the original theoretical model. However, the Chinese six-factor structure may be more culturally informed in East Asian settings. In sum, the PID-5-BF is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders.