Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39780237›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychology2025

Reliability generalization meta-analysis of the internal consistency of the Big Five Inventory (BFI) by comparing BFI (44 items) and BFI-2 (60 items) versions controlling for age, sex, language factors.

Waqar Husain, Areen Jamal Haddad, Muhammad Ahmad Husain, Hadeel Ghazzawi, Khaled Trabelsi, Achraf Ammar, Zahra Saif, Amir Pakpour, Haitham Jahrami

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Expectation shapes hunger and craving: placebo effects of verbal suggestion on food-related experiences.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Waqar HusainDepartment of Humanities, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad Campus, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan. drsukoon@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3047-1834
Areen Jamal HaddadNutrition and Food Technology Department, Agriculture School, The University of Jordan, P. O. Box, Amman, 11942, Jordan.
Muhammad Ahmad HusainDepartment of Humanities, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad Campus, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hadeel GhazzawiNutrition and Food Technology Department, Agriculture School, The University of Jordan, P. O. Box, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3045-4153
Khaled TrabelsiResearch laboratory Education, Motricité, Sport et Santé, EM2S, LR19JS01, High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2623-9557
Achraf AmmarDepartment of Training and Movement Science, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg- University Mainz, Mainz, 55099, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0347-8053
Zahra SaifGovernment Hospitals, Manama, Bahrain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2749-3274
Amir PakpourDepartment of Nursing, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8798-5345
Haitham JahramiGovernment Hospitals, Manama, Bahrain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8990-1320

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a popular measure that evaluates personality on the Big-Five model. Apart from its utilization across cultures, the literature did not reveal any meta-analysis for the reliability of the different versions of the BFI and its translations. The current study carried out a reliability generalization meta-analysis (REGEMA) to establish the reliability of the BFI across cultures and languages.

methodsWe searched 30 databases for the relevant studies from 1991 to mid-November 2024. The studies that we intended to include in our meta-analysis required to have utilized the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items) and have reported Cronbach's alpha or McDonald's omega reliability estimates. Our coded variables included BFI version, sample size, population type, age, gender, clinical state, and reliability. A total of 57 studies (datapoints) published in 34 research articles (involving 43,715 participants; 60.24% women; Mean age = 30.08) from various cultures and languages were finally included. These studies used BFI and BFI-2 in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swahili, and Turkish. Data analysis was conducted using the metafor and meta packages in R. The average correlation was computed using a random-effects model and reliability coefficients indicated effect size. I

resultsWe calculated the individual and combined reliability of the BFI and BFI-2 across languages and cultures. The results revealed the reliability of all five factors used in the BFI/BFI-2. The BFI estimates provide the following results: openness is estimated at 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75; 0.80); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78; 0.82); extraversion is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82); agreeableness is estimated at 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71; 0.76); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82). The BFI-2 estimates are as follows: openness is estimated at 0.83 (95% CI: 0.82; 0.84); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85; 0.87); extraversion is estimated at 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84; 0.86); agreeableness is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 81); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88; 0.89).

conclusionThe current meta-analysis represents the first reliability analysis of the BFI and the first comparison between its two different versions, the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items). The generalized reliability of both the BFI and BFI-2 were established. The findings confirm that the BFI and BFI-2 have good reliability across all five factors.

Indexed as

LanguagePersonalityPersonality InventoryPsychometricsAdultAge FactorsCross-Cultural ComparisonFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSex FactorsBig-Five InventoryCulturesGeneralizabilityMeta-analysisReliability

Identifiers

PMID39780237
PMCPMC11715416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.