This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]
On: 21 October 2011, At: 06:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Parent Informants for Child Personality: Agreement,
Discrepancies, and Clinical Utility
Jennifer L. Tackett
a
a
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada
Available online: 14 Oct 2011
To cite this article: Jennifer L. Tackett (2011): Parent Informants for Child Personality: Agreement, Discrepancies, and
Clinical Utility, Journal of Personality Assessment, 93:6, 539-544
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.608763
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(6), 539–544, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.608763
ARTICLES
Parent Informants for Child Personality: Agreement,
Discrepancies, and Clinical Utility
JENNIFER L. TACKETT
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 06:35 21 October 2011
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada
A long-standing issue in child clinical research is the integration of various informants, but this topic has not been comprehensively applied to
the domain of child personality. Mothers and fathers rated their children (N = 346) on personality traits and behavioral problems. Mother–father
agreement was highest for Conscientiousness and lowest for Neuroticism and Agreeableness. Each parent’s ratings added incremental variance in
predicting behavioral problems, and mother–father discrepancy predicted internalizing problems. These results suggest that both parents should be
used as informants in child personality assessment and discrepancies might reflect meaningful variance with clinical utility.
Recent advances in our understanding of child personality
have been propelled by the creation of bottom-up, empirically
based assessment tools to assess personality traits at an early age
(Tackett, 2006). Much remains to be investigated in the assessment of child personality. Personality assessment of children
brings about some unique challenges, such as the inherent difficulties in obtaining self-reports and the challenge to designate
a criterion for judgments of accuracy. However, many of the issues raised with child personality assessment are not new to the
area of child clinical assessment (Achenbach, McConaughy,
& Howell, 1987; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Kraemer
et al., 2003). In this article, I draw on adult personality research
as well as child clinical research to examine agreement, disagreement, and clinical utility of mother and father informants
for child personality.
INFORMANT AGREEMENT FOR CHILD PERSONALITY
Personality psychologists often rely on self-report information (Vazire, 2006), so it is not surprising that many investigations of informant reports for personality highlight self–other
agreement (Vazire, 2010). Some researchers have criticized an
overreliance on self-report information by personality psychologists (Kolar, Funder, & Colvin, 1996; Vazire, 2006, 2010).
In contrast to the ubiquity of self-reports in adult personality
research, collecting self-informant child personality data is resource intensive and typically suffers from limited reliability
and validity. Thus, research with children is much more likely
to utilize reports from informants (Achenbach et al., 1987; Kraemer et al., 2003). Parental informants represent a primary source
of information about a child in many applied settings, such as
clinics and schools. Thus, there is a need to better understand
parental informants for child personality. Parents do possess atReceived July 11, 2010; Revised January 21, 2011.
Address correspondence to Jennifer L. Tackett, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3,
Canada; Email: tackett@psych.utoronto.ca
tributes of “good informants” as they have access to extensive
breadth and depth of information about the target, their child
(Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995).
One limitation to research on child personality assessment
has previously been the absence of a suitable measure (Tackett,
2006). Specifically, temperament measures are frequently used
for measuring individual differences early in life, whereas personality measures have primarily been developed and validated
for adult populations. This leaves the middle portion of the
life span, middle childhood, particularly untapped. Recently,
researchers have developed validated empirical measures for
gathering informant reports (e.g., from parents) of personality
in this age group (Halverson et al., 2003; Mervielde & De
Fruyt, 2002). These measures typically assess five broad traits
(which are roughly analogous, but not identical, to the same
traits in adulthood): neuroticism (the tendency to experience
negative emotions such as sadness and anxiety), extraversion
(tendencies toward sociability, positive emotions, and dominance), conscientiousness (tendencies toward orderliness,
punctuality, and responsibility), agreeableness (the tendency
to experience empathy and desire communal experiences), and
openness to experience (the desire to experience new aesthetic,
sensory, and cultural opportunities). These five broad traits
form the framework for examining personality in this study.
Funder’s (1995) realistic accuracy model (RAM) highlights
four important features for an accurate informant impression:
relevance of the trait for the informant, availability of trait information to the informant, detection of this information, and
utilization by the informant in forming an impression. General
features of the parental role allow us to develop hypotheses
related to the first two features. For example, childhood traits
such as compliance, orderliness, and pleasantness are likely
quite salient to parents, as they directly influence the ease and
reward of parenting. Thus, we might expect conscientiousness
and agreeableness to be the most relevant traits for these informants. In addition, extraversion is likely an extremely available
trait for parents, so we would predict higher accuracy of extraversion ratings as well. Another trait that likely has high
539
TACKETT
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 06:35 21 October 2011
540
availability to parents is intellect, which is a particularly salient
component of openness to experience in childhood and is manifested by behaviors such as the child’s tendency to ask questions to better understand the world around him or her (Tackett
et al., in press). Funder’s (1995) predictions about availability are consistent with examinations of parental agreement for
child psychopathology, such that agreement is typically higher
for externalizing problems, which are more observable, than
for internalizing problems (Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los
Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Duhig, Renk, Epstein, & Phares, 2000)
including mother–father informant pairs specifically (SeiffgeKrenke & Kollmar, 1998). One study found saliency to the
parent, saliency to the child, and observability or willingness
to report to be three primary components explaining levels of
parent–child agreement for psychopathology (Karver, 2006).
Although previous research has included both parents
as informants, no studies to date have explicitly examined
mother–father agreement for child personality within a comprehensive framework of informant accuracy and agreement. One
investigation reported this agreement for a college student sample (Funder et al., 1995). This study found mother–father agreement to be highest for neuroticism, followed by conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, and lowest for openness
to experience. A recent sample examining mother and father
reports of temperament in middle childhood found a different
pattern of agreement, with surgency (akin to extraversion) showing the highest agreement, followed by effortful control (akin to
conscientiousness or constraint), and lowest agreement for negative affect (akin to neuroticism; Mullineaux, Deater-Deckard,
Petrill, Thompson, & DeThorne, 2009). These findings are also
consistent with longitudinal associations of parent-reported
personality in middle childhood, which have found highest predictive validity for parent-reported constraint, followed by positive emotionality, and least predictive for negative emotionality
(Tackett, Krueger, Iacono, & McGue, 2008) a pattern suggestive
of the potential validity of parental ratings for these traits. Thus,
mother–father agreement for child personality might follow a
different pattern of convergence than it does in adulthood.
Another important issue to consider is the quality of the informant (Letzring, Wells, & Funder, 2006). Parental informants
might show limitations of a good judge in that they might be
motivated to cast the child in a positive light, but they also show
features of a good judge by being motivated to respond thoughtfully and carefully (Funder, 1995; Vazire, 2010). Further, to the
extent that parents employ a positivity bias, it is reasonable to
expect that—on average—mothers and fathers would demonstrate the same bias, such that analyses investigating patterns
of covariation and relative differences between parents should
be relatively unaffected by such bias (De Los Reyes & Kazdin,
2005; Vazire, 2010). Similarly, mothers and fathers should generally have overlapping information about their child given that
they see the child in the same settings. All of this should lead
to moderate to high agreement between parents, with disagreement more likely reflecting different perspectives regarding the
child’s personality traits (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005). In
addition, informants showing high agreement suggest that only
one of the informants might be needed to provide the information (Achenbach et al., 1987). It is therefore important to
determine whether an additional father report adds incremental
variance in cases where a mother report is already available,
which I examine in this study.
INFORMANT DISAGREEMENT FOR CHILD PERSONALITY
Informant discrepancies are often considered standard in
child clinical research (Achenbach, 2006; De Los Reyes, Alfano, & Beidel, 2010; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Kraemer
et al., 2003). More recently, researchers have demonstrated that
the informant discrepancy variable is itself potentially important
and predicts criteria such as problematic treatment outcomes
and increased behavioral problems (e.g., De Los Reyes et al.,
2010; Ferdinand, van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2004). Discrepancies among informants might point to sources of conflict for
the target individual (Achenbach, 2006). Informant discrepancies for childhood behavior show stability over time (De Los
Reyes et al.), giving credibility to examining them as a distinct
construct rather than simply disregarding them as measurement
error. A better understanding of how to aggregate information
from different informants remains one of the most important
goals for improving clinical assessment with children and adolescents (Achenbach, 2006; Kraemer et al., 2003).
A number of studies are consistent with the idea that informant discrepancies might be indicative of underlying conflict
(Grills & Ollendick, 2002). Specifically, one reason informants
might not agree with one another could be problematic communication in the family system. In one study, mother–child
discrepancies regarding externalizing behaviors predicted
mother–child conflict and this relationship was mediated by
maternal stress (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2006). Another
study found that children’s depressive symptoms were related
to mother–child discrepancies in constructs related to parent
and child communication (De Los Reyes, Goodman, Kliewer,
& Reid-Quinones, 2008). Further, parent–child discrepancies
on parenting predicted internalizing, but not externalizing
problems (Guion, Mrug, & Windle, 2009). Treutler and Epkins
(2003) found that the amount of time mothers spend with
their child influences mother–father discrepancies on child
internalizing symptoms. These studies suggest that informant
discrepancies appear to be connected to a number of relevant
domains in the family system, including communication,
conflict, and parenting.
Of studies utilizing parent informants, the overwhelming
majority utilize mother reports only (De Los Reyes & Kazdin,
2005; Duhig et al., 2000). As a result, much less is known
about the utility that father reports might offer toward a broader
understanding of child behavior (Phares, Fields, & Kamboukos,
2009; Renk & Phares, 2007). A meta-analysis found that
mother–father discrepancies were slightly higher for total
problems and internalizing behaviors than for externalizing
behaviors (Duhig et al., 2000). Discrepancies on a variety of
child-related constructs appear to predict adjustment (Guion
et al., 2009). In this investigation these issues were addressed
in two ways: first, by determining whether father reports are
a useful complement to the ubiquitous mother reports, and
second, by examining mother–father disagreement as a distinct
construct in predicting child psychopathology.
THIS STUDY
In this study, I investigated the following research questions:
1. Does parental accuracy for child personality converge with
other studies of informant reports for personality? Specifically, I hypothesized that agreement would be highest for
traits that are relevant (conscientiousness and agreeableness)
PARENT INFORMANTS FOR CHILD PERSONALITY
and available (extraversion and, to a lesser extent, intellect)
and lowest for traits that are difficult to observe (neuroticism).
2. Do both mother and father ratings of child personality provide incremental prediction of child psychopathology?
3. Do parental discrepancies on child personality predict child
psychopathology?
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 06:35 21 October 2011
METHOD
Participants
Participants were parents of 346 children primarily ages 9
and 10 years old (M = 9.97 years, SD = 0.83, range = 7–13)
from a large metropolitan area in southern Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited via a database maintained by a university psychology department of interested parents, ads placed in
newspapers, and flyers posted around the community. Inclusion
criteria included English language fluency; exclusion criteria included presence of a psychotic disorder or mental retardation in
the target child. Participation rates were lower for fathers (n =
226) than for mothers (n = 328), primarily because data collection from a second caregiver (which was the father in most cases,
although other secondary caregivers were also allowed to participate) was added several months after the study began. Given
that the study hypotheses focus on the specific role of the informant, data from other types of caregivers (e.g., grandparent, second mother) were excluded from these analyses. Families were
evenly split by gender of the target child (50.9% female). The
sample was moderately diverse, with ethnicity of the target child
reported by the caregiver as follows: 71.7% Caucasian, 13.3%
multiracial, 9.8% Asian Canadian, 2.9% African Canadian,
0.6% Hispanic, 0.6% other, and 1.2% not reporting ethnicity.
Measures and Procedure
Both caregivers completed the Inventory for Child Individual
Differences (ICID; Halverson et al., 2003), a 108-item measure
designed to assess child personality. The ICID items make up
five higher order personality factors and 15 lower order personality facets. Parents rated their child on a 7-point Likert scale
for each item, ranging from 1 (much less than the average child
or not at all) to 7 (much more than the average child). In this
sample, internal consistencies were computed for lower order
facets (M α = .86, range = .78–.92) and higher order domains
(M α = .80, range = .72–.87).
Both caregivers additionally completed the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The CBCL
assesses three higher order problem domains: Externalizing Behaviors, Internalizing Behaviors, and Total Problems. The Total Problems score includes additional concerns such as social
problems and attention problems that are not included in either
Externalizing or Internalizing Behavior scores. In this sample,
internal consistencies were computed for Internalizing Behaviors (α = .83), Externalizing Behaviors (α = .88), and Total
Problems (α = .83).
Participating families were involved in a larger research
project examining the development of personality and behavioral outcomes. One caregiver and the child visited the lab to
complete a series of interviews and behavioral tasks that are not
included in this study. The second caregiver completed measures at home that were returned during the lab visit. Families
were compensated $40 Canadian for participation in the full
541
TABLE 1.—Pearson correlations indexing mother–father agreement for higher
and lower order child personality traits.
Higher Order Traits
Lower Order Traits
Conscientiousness
Openness to experience
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
.77
.70
.60
.54
.54
Average correlation
0.63
Intellect
Organized
Achievement
Sociability
Shyness
Distractibility
Strong-willed
Activity level
Openness
Compliance
Negative emotions
Considerate
Positive emotions
Antagonism
Fearfulness
.75
.72
.71
.70
.68
.68
.67
.66
.57
.57
.51
.50
.49
.48
.38
.60
Note. All correlations are significant at p < .01. All traits assessed using the Inventory
for Child Individual Differences (Halverson et al., 2003).
2-hr lab visit and completing all questionnaires, and participating children received two small gifts. All study protocols and
materials were approved by the University of Toronto Research
Ethics Board.
RESULTS
Missing data were imputed using the maximum-likelihood
based expectation-maximization algorithm in SPSS 17.0, including missing data from one caregiver as long as data from
the other caregiver were present. Parental agreement as indexed
by Pearson correlations for all higher and lower order traits was
significant (p < .01). Agreement was similar for higher order
and lower order traits. At the higher order level, parental convergence was highest for conscientiousness, followed by openness
to experience and extraversion, and lowest for neuroticism and
agreeableness (see Table 1). At the lower order level, the highest
parental agreement was found for intellect, organized, achievement, and sociability. Parental agreement at the lower order level
was lowest for fearfulness, antagonism, positive emotions, and
considerate.
To examine relations between the ICID domains and the
CBCL scale scores by parent, within-informant Pearson
correlations were computed (see Table 2). These correlations
demonstrate robust evidence for similar relationships across
informants, particularly for Externalizing Behaviors and Total
TABLE 2.—Within-informant Pearson correlations between Inventory for Child
Individual Differences domains and Child Behavior Checklist scores.
Conscientiousness Neuroticism Extraversion Agreeableness
Mothers
Internalizing
Externalizing
Total problems
Fathers
Internalizing
Externalizing
Total problems
Openness to
Experience
–.18∗∗
–.43∗∗
–.48∗∗
.48∗∗
.59∗∗
.60∗∗
–.19∗∗
–.07
–.11∗
–.16∗∗
–.61∗∗
–.42∗∗
–.21∗∗
–.24∗∗
–.30∗∗
–.02
–.41∗∗
–.40∗∗
.29∗∗
.54∗∗
.52∗∗
–.10
–.10
–.13∗
–.18∗∗
–.61∗∗
–.46∗∗
.03
–.18∗∗
–.20∗∗
Note. Personality was measured using the Inventory for Child Individual Differences
(Halverson et al., 2003); internalizing behaviors were measured using the Child Behavior
Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). ∗ p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .01.
TACKETT
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 06:35 21 October 2011
542
Problems. Mother reports appeared to capture slightly more covariation among the ICID domains and Internalizing Behaviors
than did father reports. Evidence for incremental validity was
investigated via a series of hierarchical regressions. Gender
was controlled in all of the following analyses. Parental CBCL
scores were averaged to create composites for Externalizing
Behaviors, Internalizing Behaviors, and Total Problem scores.
Each CBCL composite was designated the dependent variable
in two hierarchical regression analyses, with all mother-rated
Five Factor Model (FFM) scores entered in the first step and all
father-rated FFM scores entered in the second step. Alternating
the parental personality traits in each step allowed a direct test
of the variance that each parent’s personality trait ratings added
to the prediction of psychopathology above and beyond the
other parent’s personality trait ratings (all R2 were p < .001).
In the prediction of Externalizing Behaviors, father’s ratings
of child personality predicted 8% additional variance after accounting for mother’s ratings, and mother’s ratings added 12%
additional variance after accounting for father’s ratings. For Internalizing Behaviors, father’s ratings added 3% additional variance after accounting for mother’s ratings, and mother’s ratings
added 15% additional variance after accounting for father’s ratings. Finally, in terms of Total Problem scores, father’s personality ratings accounted for 6% additional variance after accounting
for mother’s ratings, and mother’s personality ratings accounted
for 10% additional variance after accounting for father’s ratings. Overall, mother’s personality ratings accounted for more
incremental variance than did father’s personality ratings in accounting for child psychopathology. Importantly, however, both
parents added significant additional information above and beyond that provided by the other parent.
To investigate the information provided by parent disagreement, standard difference scores (SDS) were computed for each
higher order personality trait according to the procedures used
by De Los Reyes et al. (2010). Specifically, all scale scores for
mothers and fathers were converted to z scores, then father’s
standardized scores were subtracted from mother’s standardized scores. A sample of cases demonstrating different patterns
of mother–father SDS scores for child personality is presented
in Figure 1. Cases of high convergence are represented by SDS
scores close to zero (e.g., Case 2). Positive SDS scores reflect
mother reports placing the child higher than average relative to
the father’s placement of the child, whereas negative SDS scores
reflect father reports placing the child higher than average relative to the mother’s placement of the child.
Ordinary least squares regressions were conducted with each
composite CBCL score (Externalizing, Internalizing, and Total
Problems) entered as the dependent variable; gender and all
five SDS scores for the FFM were entered simultaneously as
independent variables. Personality SDS scores were significant
predictors for Internalizing Behaviors and Total Problems score,
but not for Externalizing Behaviors. For Internalizing Behaviors, mother–father disagreement for Conscientiousness (β =
.17, p < .05), Neuroticism (β = .36, p < .01), and Agreeableness
(β = .29, p < .01) were all unique significant predictors (see
Table 3). Specifically, gender and mother–father disagreement
alone accounted for 8% of the variance in child internalizing
problems. For Total Problems score, only mother–father
disagreement on Neuroticism (β = .21, p < .05) was a
predictor.
FIGURE 1.—Selection of four cases demonstrating different patterns of parental
agreement as reflected by standard difference scores. SDSConsc = Conscientiousness standard difference score; SDSNeur = Neuroticism standard difference score; SDSExt = Extraversion standard difference score; SDSAgr =
Agreeableness standard difference score; SDSOpen = Openness to Experience
standard difference score. Standard difference scores close to zero represent
high mother–father agreement; positive values reflect a higher relative score
from the mother; negative values reflect a higher relative score from the father.
DISCUSSION
These results demonstrated high mother–father agreement
for both lower and higher order child personality traits, with
agreement highest for Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience, and lowest for Neuroticism and Agreeableness. Both
mothers’ and fathers’ child personality ratings added incremental prediction to internalizing, externalizing, and total problems,
suggesting that each informant adds relevant unique variance
in personality ratings. Finally, mother–father discrepancies in
child personality ratings for Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness were important predictors of child internalizing problems. Taken together, these results suggest that both
TABLE 3.—Standard difference scores for mother–father disagreement on child
personality as predictors of child internalizing behaviors.
Gender
C SDS
O SDS
E SDS
N SDS
A SDS
B [95% CI]
Beta
1.15 [0.38, 1.91]
0.92 [0.08, 1.76]
–0.26 [–1.33, 0.82]
–0.63 [–1.49, 0.23]
1.39 [0.69, 2.09]
1.13 [0.37, 1.88]
0.15∗∗
0.17∗
–0.05
–0.15
0.36∗∗
0.29∗∗
R2 = .08
Note. Personality was measured using the Inventory for Child Individual Differences
(Halverson et al., 2003); internalizing behaviors were measured using the Child Behavior
Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Standard difference scores reflect father’s standardized scale score subtracted from mother’s standardized scale score. CI = confidence
interval; C SDS = Conscientiousness standard difference score; O SDS = Openness to
Experience standard difference score; E SDS = Extraversion standard difference score; N
SDS = Neuroticism standard difference score; A SDS = Agreeableness standard difference
score.
∗
p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .01.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 06:35 21 October 2011
PARENT INFORMANTS FOR CHILD PERSONALITY
parental informants are providing relevant and unique information in reporting on their child’s personality. Further, these
findings make an important contribution to the literature on
informant discrepancies by extending the importance of disagreement to child personality constructs for the first time.
Regarding parental agreement, my hypotheses were partially
supported. Conscientiousness, Intellect, and Extraversion all
showed strong agreement, as predicted and consistent with previous research (Mullineaux et al., 2009; Tackett et al., 2008).
More surprising was the finding that parental agreement was
lower for Agreeableness, as this seems to be a personality trait
that would be quite relevant for parents. It is important to note
that child agreeableness is often heavily assessed via traits of
antagonism (Tackett et al., in press). This aspect of Agreeableness is more highly associated with Neuroticism, which was
predicted to show lower agreement. The antagonistic aspects of
Agreeableness might be more dependent on the specific relationship the child has with each parent, potentially resulting in
divergent perceptions of the child’s trait level. It could also be
the case that the emotional aspects of antagonism (e.g., anger,
resentment) might be similar to Neuroticism in reflecting an
internal, less observable trait.
Also as expected, these results suggest that fathers play an
important role in the assessment of child personality, one that
is neither redundant with the mother’s report nor consisting entirely of measurement error. These results suggest that the perspective offered by the father on the child’s personality holds
unique predictive variance for all major domains of child psychopathology, particularly for externalizing problems. Further,
the discrepancy between mother and father report was particularly relevant in the prediction of internalizing problems. Although the father’s report added the least incremental variance
for internalizing problems (3%), the mother–father discrepancy
additionally predicted 8% (including gender) of the variance in
internalizing problems, suggesting that the overall incremental contribution by adding father’s report cannot be determined
without additional examination of mother–father discrepancy.
This finding was especially interesting given that informant
agreement on child psychopathology tends to be lowest for internalizing problems relative to externalizing problems (Achenbach et al., 1987). The higher disagreement found for internalizing problems is often attributed to the decreased visibility
of these symptoms relative to externalizing problems. It might
be, however, that some informants are better at observing these
symptoms than others, calling for a need to retain rather than
eliminate such differences between informants for internalizing
behaviors in particular. Specifically, informant-specific reports
of child personality traits might provide more useful information in prediction of child internalizing problems because the
disagreement of these symptoms is higher to begin with. These
results suggest that these low levels of agreement for child personality do not necessarily reflect poor accuracy in prediction,
as the disagreement itself can be quantified and becomes an
important additional predictor.
Some limitations of this study are of note. First, the informants
examined in this study play the same relational role to the target
child, which likely results in largely overlapping information.
This design allows a more specific investigation of mother and
father perspectives, but future work incorporating informants
from different contexts (e.g., teacher, clinician, self) and using
different methods (e.g., observation) will continue to advance
543
our understanding of the relative validity of sources of information on child personality. Second, the restricted age range offers
careful examination of middle childhood, but it is likely that informant discrepancies change across development (Achenbach
et al., 1987), as traits themselves change but also become more
or less relevant and available to their judges (Tackett et al., in
press). Finally, a common limitation in much similar work is the
lack of a “gold standard” for determining both accuracy (Funder,
1995; Vazire, 2010) and adjustment (De Los Reyes & Kazdin,
2005; Kraemer et al., 2003). In this study, I utilized an aggregate of adjustment problems, but this information was gleaned
from the same parent informants used to rate the personality
traits. Robust replication would be seen by examining the utility of mother reports, father reports, and their disagreement on
child personality to predict behavioral outcomes measured by
different sources.
The presence of informant discrepancies has multiple clinical implications. For example, the presence of discrepancies on
child personality might create confusion in research and clinical settings when utilizing mean-level ratings to predict later
behavior or to guide assessment and treatment. As previously
noted, it is likely that the presence of informant discrepancies
in some cases reflects underlying conflict in the family system
or points to other sources of clinically relevant information that
could prove useful in case conceptualization and treatment planning. It is also possible that mothers and fathers differentially
evoke some relevant attributes of their child, which then hold
important predictive value. The roles of mothers and fathers do
differ in a number of important ways. For example, mothers
spend more time with their children on average than do fathers,
and fathers show higher levels of comfort interacting with their
children in domains such as discipline and play (Phares et al.,
2009). Such differences could affect variables such as information quantity and quality (Letzring et al., 2006), which then
impact personality assessment.
A third possibility for informant discrepancies might be that
some children are more consistent or “easier to read” than others: Consistent children might evoke a more stable and positive
environment, thus leading to better adjustment. These explanations are consistent with the importance of relationship, actor,
and partner effects in explaining expressed positivity and negativity in parent–child interactions (Rasbash, Jenkins, O’Connor,
Tackett, & Reiss, 2011). Future research should aim to better
disentangle potential mechanisms leading to agreement or disagreement in child personality assessment. In an applied setting,
such as the school or clinic, we could imagine that our approach
to working with the four children (and their parents) in Figure 1
might be quite different. In middle childhood, our work with
children often necessarily involves the family system. Knowledge of informant discrepancies such as these should not be
considered noise and dismissed as measurement error (Achenbach et al., 1987; Ferdinand et al., 2004). Individuals in both
research and applied settings should take care to investigate and
consider informant discrepancies just as closely as the averaged
information gathered from the informants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I would
like to thank the parents and children who participated in this
TACKETT
544
research and the many students in the Personality Across Development Lab who helped to carry it out.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 06:35 21 October 2011
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (2006). As others see us: Clinical and research implications
of cross-informant correlations for psychopathololgy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 94–98.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).
Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of crossinformant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101,
213–232.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age
Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children, Youth, & Families.
De Los Reyes, A., Alfano, C. A., & Beidel, D. C. (2010). The relations among
measurements of informant discrepancies within a multisite trial of treatments
for childhood social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38,
395–404.
De Los Reyes, A., Goodman, K. L., Kliewer, W., & Reid-Quinones, K. (2008).
Whose depression relates to discrepancies? Testing relations between informant characteristics and informant discrepancies from both informants’
perspectives. Psychological Assessment, 20, 139–149.
De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131,
483–509.
De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Informant discrepancies in assessing child dysfunction relate to dysfunction within mother–child interactions.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 645–663.
Duhig, A. M., Renk, K., Epstein, M. K., & Phares, V. (2000). Interparental agreement on internalizing, externalizing, and total behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 435–
453.
Ferdinand, R. F., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2004). Parent–adolescent
disagreement regarding psychopathology in adolescents from the general
population as a risk factor for adverse outcome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 198–206.
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic
approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement
among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656–
672.
Grills, A. E., & Ollendick, T. H. (2002). Issues in parent–child agreement: The
case of structured diagnostic interviews. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 57–83.
Guion, K., Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2009). Predictive value of informant discrepancies in reports of parenting: Relations to early adolescents’ adjustment.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 17–30.
Halverson, C. F., Havill, V. L., Deal, J., Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B., Pavlopoulos,
V., . . . Wen, L. (2003). Personality structure as derived from parental ratings of
free descriptions of children: The Inventory of Child Individual Differences.
Journal of Personality, 71, 995–1026.
Karver, M. S. (2006). Determinants of multiple informant agreement on
child and adolescent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34,
251–262.
Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy
of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of
Personality, 64, 311–337.
Kraemer, H. C., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Essex, M. J., Boyce, W. T.,
& Kupfer, D. J. (2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple
informants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching
contexts and perspectives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1566–1577.
Letzring, T. D., Wells, S. M., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Information quantity
and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 111–123.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the hierarchical personality inventory for children. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini
(Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 129–142). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.
Mullineaux, P. Y., Deater-Deckard, K., Petrill, S. A., Thompson, L. A., &
DeThorne, L. S. (2009). Temperament in middle childhood: A behavioral
genetic analysis of fathers’ and mothers’ reports. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43, 737–746.
Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 1–9.
Rasbash, J., Jenkins, J., O’Connor, T. G., Tackett, J. L., & Reiss, D. (2011).
A social relations model of family negativity and positivity using a genetically informative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100,
474–491.
Renk, K., & Phares, V. (2007). Maternal and paternal perceptions of social
competence in children and adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
16, 103–112.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Kollmar, F. (1998). Discrepancies between mothers’ and
fathers’ perceptions of sons’ and daughters’ problem behaviour: A longitudinal analysis of parent–adolescent agreement on internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39,
687–697.
Tackett, J. L. (2006). Evaluating models of the personality–psychopathology
relationship in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 26,
584–599.
Tackett, J. L., Krueger, R. F., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2008). Personality
in middle childhood: A hierarchical structure and longitudinal connections
with personality in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
1456–1462.
Tackett, J. L., Slobodskaya, H., Mar, R. A., Deal, J., Halverson, C. F., Jr.,
Baker, S. R., . . . Besevegis, E. (in press). The hierarchical structure of childhood personality in five countries: Continuity from early childhood to early
adolescence. Journal of Personality.
Treutler, C. M., & Epkins, C. C. (2003). Are discrepancies among child, mother,
and father reports on children’s behavior related to parents’ psychological
symptoms and aspects of parent–child relationships? Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 31, 13–27.
Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 472–481.
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge
asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 281–300.