RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. NEO Personality Inventory, NEO Personality Inventory-Revised

NEO Personality Inventory, NEO Personality Inventory-Revised

Last Updated

Purpose

The NEO Personality Inventory is a 240-item measurement that is designed to assess personality in the domains of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (also referred to as the ※Big Five Personality Factors").

Acronym NEO-PI, NEO-PI-R

Area of Assessment

Personality

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Computer

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$68.00

Cost Description

Ranges from $48 to $68 for test booklets, owner manuals, and answer sheets.

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery

Populations

Non-Specific Patient Population

Key Descriptions

  • 240-item measure
  • 5-point Likert Scale ranging from ※strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree.§
  • Measures the 5 Factor Domains of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.
  • Measures 30 underlying facets of the 5 Factor Model of personality.
  • Provides minimum and maximum scoring for normative behavior.
  • Subscale measured through the conversion of scores into a t-test, with a mean of 50, and a standard deviation of 10.
  • Note that results may not be interpretable if more than 40 items are missing (Costa & McCrae, 1976).

Number of Items

240

Time to Administer

30-40 minutes

Required Training

Training Course

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Timothy P Janikowski, PhD and his University at Buffalo Rehabilitation Counseling Master＊s students, Stephen Vassell, Matthew Winship, and Rebekah Whited in 10/2014

ICF Domain

Participation

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Considerations

While this assessment has been used across multiple cultures and dimensions, more research is needed for rehabilitation populations.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Comparison of the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the NEO-PI-R: (Costa, Jr., McCrae, Trull, & Useda, 1995)

  • Neuroticism
    • T1 (entry) SEM = 1.74
    • T2 (3-month follow-up) SEM = 1.84
    • T3 (6-month follow-up) SEM = 1.62
  • Extraversion
    • T1 (entry) SEM = 1.61
    • T2 (3-month follow-up) SEM = 1.91
    • T3 (6-month follow-up) SEM = 1.71
  • Openness
    • T1 (entry) SEM = 1.44
    • T2 (3-month follow-up) SEM = 1.45
    • T3 (6-month follow-up) SEM = 1.97
  • Agreeableness
    • T1 (entry) SEM = 2.10
    • T2 (3-month follow-up) SEM = 1.73
    • T3 (6-month follow-up) SEM = 1.80
  • Conscientiousness
    • T1 (entry) SEM = 1.68
    • T2 (3-month follow-up) SEM = 1.57 
    • T3 (6-month follow-up) SEM = 1.56

Cut-Off Scores

Vocational Rehabilitation Population: (Holland, Holland, Dollinger, & MacDonald, 1995; n = 85)

  • Neuroticism 每 Min 33, Max 83, mean 56.48, SD 11.49 
  • Extraversion 每 Min 19, Max 80, mean 50.54, SD 10.48 
  • Openness 每 Min 29, Max 68, mean 46.63, SD 8.22 o
  • Agreeableness 每 Min 15, Max 72, mean 44.86, SD 10.96 
  • Conscientiousness 每 Min 27, Max 67, mean 45.50, SD 8.9
  • Scores below the minimum and/or above the maximum were considered abnormal

 

Outpatient, Drug Rehabilitation: (Ciarrocchi & Piedmont, 1999; n = 99)

  • On all scales (as recommended by Costa and McCrae in assessment manual)
    • Minimum scores lower than 45
    • Maximum scores higher than 55
    • Scores below the minimum and/or above the maximum were considered abnormal

Normative Data

Normative Report of United States Population: (as reported in Allen, Murray, Rawlings, & Trinder, 2003; n = 1539)

  • Neuroticism 每 mean 19.1, standard deviation 7.7 
  • Extraversion 每 mean 27.7, standard deviation 5.9 
  • Openness 每 mean 27.0, standard deviation 5.8 
  • Agreeableness 每 mean 32.8, standard deviation 5.0 
  • Conscientiousness 每 mean 34.6, standard deviation 5.9

Test/Retest Reliability

Study Among Longitudinal Study of Aging: (Costa, McCrae, Trull, Useda, 1995; predictive reliability consistent across scoring at 3-month and 6-month follow-up; p < .01, p < .001)

  • Neuroticism Excellent (ICC = .88, .89, .79) 
  • Extraversion Excellent (ICC = .80, .80, .79) 
  • Openness Excellent (ICC = .86, .85, .84) 
  • Agreeableness Excellent (ICC = .83, .78, .76) 
  • Conscientiousness Excellent (ICC = .89, .86, .84)

 

Outpatient, Drug Rehabilitation: (Ciarrocchi and Piedmont, 1999; p < .001)

  • Neuroticism Adequate (ICC = .52)
  • Extraversion Adequate (ICC = .73) 
  • Openness Excellent (ICC = .79) 
  • Agreeableness Excellent (ICC = .77) 
  • Conscientiousness Adequate (ICC = .66)

 

Reported in Test Manual: (Costa and McCrae, 1992) 

  • Notable long-term stability, suggesting high retest reliability

Internal Consistency

Reported in Test Manual: (Costa and McCrae, 1992) 

  • Neuroticism Excellent (ICC = 0.92 Self-Report; ICC=0.93 Observer Rating)
  • Extraversion Excellent (ICC = 0.89 Self-Report; ICC=0.90 Observer Rating)
  • Openness Excellent (ICC = 0.87 Self-Report; ICC=0.89 Observer Rating)
  • Agreeableness Excellent (ICC = 0.86 Self-Report; ICC= 0.95 Observer Rating)
  • Conscientiousness Excellent (ICC = 0.90 Self-Report; ICC=0.92 Observer Rating)

 

Study Among Longitudinal Study of Aging: (Terracciano, et al., 2005)

  • Neuroticism Excellent (ICC = 0.91)
  • Extraversion Excellent (ICC = 0.87)
  • Openness Excellent (ICC = 0.87) 
  • Agreeableness Excellent (ICC = 0.88) 
  • Conscientiousness Excellent (ICC = 0.92)

 

Personality in Younger and Older Adults: (Van den Broeck, et al., 2012)

  • Neuroticism Excellent (ICC = 0.92 (younger adults); ICC = 0.91 (older adults))
  • Extraversion Excellent (ICC = 0.87 (younger adults); ICC = 0.84 (older adults))
  • Openness Excellent (ICC = 0.87 (younger adults); ICC = 0.85 (older adults))
  • Agreeableness Excellent (ICC = 0.87 (younger adults); ICC = 0.88 (older adults)) 
  • Conscientiousness Excellent (ICC = 0.90 (younger adults); ICC = 0.89 (older adults))

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive validity: 

 

NEO-PI-R for police officers: (Chibnall, Detrick, and Leubbert, 2004)

  • Higher openness and lower extraversion were predictive of better academic performance within the police academy o 
  • Neuroticism was predictive of Firearms performance o 
  • Higher scores of neuroticism was predictive of lower rates of absenteeism
  • Combined lower scores of conscientiousness and openness and higher Extraversion was predictive of better physical activity performance

 

NEO-PI and Emotional Exhaustion and Burnout among college students: (Burns and Periard, 2013)

  • Agreeableness accounted for 6.2% of the variance for emotional exhaustion
  • Conscientiousness accounted for 12.1% of the variance for emotional exhaustion

Construct Validity

Reported in Test Manual: (Costa and McCrae, 1992) 

  • Convergent: Correlation between alternate measures of similar tests and NEO-PI-R facet scales 
  • Discriminant: contrasts the correlates of different facets of the NEO-PI-R, looking primarily at facets that fall under the same domain

Content Validity

Addressed through selecting six distinct facets from personality literature that fall within each main domain (e.g. neuroticism), then measuring each facet with non- redundant items (Costa and McCrae, 1992)

Face Validity

The use of self-report (True-False) items is typical of vocational interest and personality test

Bibliography

Costa Jr, PT, & McCrae, Robert R. (1992). Neo personality inventory每revised (neo-pi-r) and neo five-factor inventory (neo-ffi) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 

Costa, Paul T. (1996). Work and Personality: Use of the NEO坼PI坼R in Industrial/Organisational Psychology. Applied Psychology, 45(3), 225-241. 

Detrick, Paul, Chibnall, John T, & Luebbert, Michael C. (2004). The revised NEO personality inventory as predictor of police academy performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(6), 676-694. 

Holland, Daniel C, Dollinger, Stephen J, Holland, Cornelius J, & MacDonald, Douglas A. (1995). The relationship between psychometric intelligence and the five坼factor model of personality in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of clinical psychology, 51(1), 79-88. 

Murray, Greg, Rawlings, David, Allen, Nicholas B, & Trinder, John. (2003). NEO Five-Factor Inventory Scores: Psychometric Properties in a Community Sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 

Periard, David A, & Burns, Gary N. (2014). The relative importance of Big Five Facets in the prediction of emotional exhaustion. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 1-5. 

Piedmont, Ralph L, & Ciarrocchi, Joseph W. (1999). The utility of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory in an outpatient, drug rehabilitation context. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13(3), 213. 

Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psychol Aging, 20(3), 493-506. 

Trull, Timothy J, Useda, J David, Costa Jr, Paul T, & McCrae, Robert R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the NEO-PI〞R. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 508. 

Van den Broeck, J., Rossi, G., De Clercq, B., Dierckx, E., & Bastiaansen, L. (2013). Validation of the FFM PD count technique for screening personality pathology in later middle-aged and older adults. Aging Ment Health, 17(2), 180-188.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS 每 Ability to Partic...

read more