ArticlePloS one2026
Understanding and assessing personality across cultures: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous reviews of personality trait instruments have questioned whether meaningful cross-cultural comparisons of personality can be made. Personality, however, extends beyond personality traits. The current scoping review utilized McAdams's Three-Layer framework of personality to assess the cross-cultural validity of measures of traits, characteristic adaptations, and life narratives to deepen the understanding of whether personality can be effectively assessed across different cultures. 233 publications were identified from searching scientific databases, leading international journals in personality and assessment, and databases for specific personality instruments between the 23rd of January and the 5th of June 2024. The review identified models of personality that have been empirically or theoretically supported across different cultures, focusing on measures that are structurally equivalent across cultures and have strong validity estimates within non-Western cultures. This review principally focused on cross-cultural research published in English within the last 20 years (2004-2024), and concentrated on broad integrative models of personality, which investigate a myriad of personality constructs, such as personality traits, values, and beliefs. The majority of publications (59%) utilized personality trait models when assessing personality across-cultures. Although no instruments demonstrated evidence of full cross-cultural scalar invariance, the NEO-Personality Inventory Revised, and the International Personality Item Pool 120-item representation of the NEO-PI-R demonstrated the strongest evidence for validity and reliability in their cross-cultural personality trait assessment. The Schwartz values measure, the 21-item Portrait Values Questionnaire, also demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and partial scalar measurement invariance across cultures. Some measures were found to perform well within specific cultures. Nonetheless, this review cautions against making inferences about differences in average levels of personality between cultures due to the lack of scalar invariance across nearly all personality measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.