©
BF5 :Sociodemographic
The
Effects in French Population
Uttara Chari
Central Test International
Central Test International (CTI)
 Established
in 2001 at Paris, France
 Offices at Madagascar, Africa,
London, UK, and Hyderabad, India.
 CTI has developed personality,
intelligence, and specific abilities
tests, catering to corporate/business
clients for human resource purposes.
CTI Tests in English

PERSONALITY, CAREER & JOB ASSESSMENT
Central Test Temperament Evaluator
Career Orientation Test
Management Skills Test
Sales Profile – Business Version

TRAINING AND COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT
Recruitment Profile
Marketing Aptitude Test

INTELLIGENCE & PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
Reasoning Test – Corporate Version
Emotional Intelligence
Online Testing



“Web-based methods promise a great number of
benefits to psychological assessment” (Reips,
2006, p. 73)
“As the role played in our lives by the Internet
continues to expand, more and more
professionals are likely to want to perform
Internet-mediated assessments” (Buchanan,
2002, p. 148)
“Psychologists should look forward to this new
medium [internet] with excitement and
enthusiasm” (APA)
Online Testing



A form of Behavioural Telehealth, which is cost
and time efficient, convenient and relevant
(candor hypothesis & ecological validity).
Online tests have satisfactory psychometric
properties. However, differences in factor
loadings evident in comparison with paperpencil versions (Buchanan,2002; Reips,2006).
Buchanan (2002) cautions against direct
adaptation of paper-pencil tests and suggests restandardization for online versions.
The





©
BF5
A personality test in French, based on the FiveFactor model.
Completely developed and administered online
Subject to regular review and psychometric
validation since March 2001
Suggested for the screening of personality types
of individuals 16 years and above.
Utilized widely by corporate clients for
recruitment and training purposes.
©
BF5
Test Structure
Consists of 60 items categorized under 15
sets of 4 items each.
 Each item is rated on a 4-point scale.
 4=Least description of self; 1=Best
description of self.
 Takes around 10 to 12 minutes to
complete.

©
BF5
Factors
Sociabilité/dynamisme = Extraversion
 Conscience des Autres = Agreeableness
 Méticulosité = Conscientiousness
 Équilibre émotionnel = Emotional
Stability
 Ouverture/imagination = Openness to
Experience

©
BF5
Sample Item:
1) I am a person who is:
1
2
3
4
Pleasant and Gregarious
   
Creative and Imaginative
   
Steady and Contended
   
Reasonable and Tolerant
   
Aim of Present Study:
To investigate the effect of
sociodemographic variables on
the Big Five factors as
assessed on the BF5©.
Sample Demographic
(acc. to age)
Age group in
years
Total
(N=2336)
Female
(N=1261)
Male
(N=1075)
20 & below
189
(7.91%)
135
(10.70%)
54
(5.02%)
21 – 30
1143
(48.93%)
646
(51.22%)
497
(46.23%)
31 – 40
611
(26.16%)
309
(24.50%)
302
(28.09%)
41- 50
312
(13.36%)
141
(11.18%)
171
(15.90%)
50 & above
81
(3.47%)
30
(2.37%)
51
(4.74%)
Sample Demographic
(acc. to education)
Education
Total
(N=2336)
Female
(N=1261)
Male
(N= 1075)
Secondary
School
271
(11.60%)
87
(6.89%)
87
(8.09%)
High School
460
(19.61%)
271
(21.49%)
189
(17.58%)
Bachelor’s
Degree
993
(42.50%)
532
(42.18%)
461
(42.88%)
Master’s Degree
508
(21.74%)
314
(24.90%)
194
(18.04%)
Spl. Fin. Degree
88
(3.76%)
33
(2.61%)
55
(5.11%)
Spl. Engg.
Degree
115
(4.92%)
26
(2.06%)
89
(8.27%)
Procedure
 Advertising:
 Clients and website visitors were invited to sample the test for
free.
 Sampling:
 Convenience random sampling method was utilized with the
sample being drawn from a database of clients and web surfers.
 Data Collection:
 Prior to test administration, sociodemograhic information was
gathered on a voluntary basis. Subjects were blind to the
research project and, were provided a report on completing test.
 Data analysis
 Data was collected in an online database and subject to statistical
analysis using SPSS
Results (Overall Means)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
M ean Scores
b5co
b5cs
b5m
b5eq
b5o
5.2
5.02
5.38
4.96
4.42
Discussion (Overall Sample)
Overall sample mean scores are
representative of a normal sample
 Means on first four factors around 5.0
(Maximum:10, Minimum:0)
 Mean score on factor V (Openness to
Experience) lower than other factors (M=
4.42)

Discussion (Overall Means)

Research on factor V:
 Lexicocultural concerns: Terminology varies across
cultures (De Raad, 1998).
 Psychometric concerns: Poor convergent validity on
this factor across established tests (John & Srivastava,
1999).
 Conceptual ambiguity: Zuckerman, Kuhlman,
Joireman, Teta, Kraft, (1993) report poor association
with factors on Big Three and Alternate Five.

Possible influence of the above three factors on
BF5©.
Results (Effect of Gender)
6
5
4
Sample Mean
3
Female
Male
2
1
0
b5co
b5cs
b5m
b5eq
b5o
Discussion (Effect of Gender)

Extraversion:
 Females scored significantly higher
 Comparative studies report higher female scores, but failed to
establish significant gender difference (Guenole & Chernysenko,
2005; Rammstedt, 2007)
 Possible effect of high percentage of young (below 30 years)
females in sample

Agreeableness:
 Females scored significantly higher
 Replicates findings across other studies (Rammstedt, 2007;
Chapman, Duberstein, Sörensen , & Lyness, 2007; Guenole &
Chernysenko, 2005; Branje, Van Lieshout, & Gerris, 2007
Discussion (Effect of Gender)

Meticulousness
 Insignificant difference in mean scores, with males
reporting higher scores
 Reflection of sample demographic - Employed young
adults

Emotional Stability & Openness to Experience
 Males scored significantly higher, replicating findings
on comparative studies
 Buadev (1999) takes an evolutionary perspective and
asserts that it is imperative for the male species to be
risk taking and stress resistant so as to maintain
positions of superiority
Results (Effect of Age)
6
5
Sample Mean
4
20 years & below
21-30 years
3
31-40 years
41-50 years
51 years & above
2
1
0
b5co
b5cs
b5m
b5eq
b5o
Discussion (Effect of Age)

Extraversion
 Significant effect of age found on ANOVA
 General decline in extraversion scores with age, with
the exception of the last age group.
 Possible increase in mean score in the 51+ years age
group due to culture of sample (Generativity Vs
Stagnation, Integrity Vs Despair)
 Extraversion tendencies found to increase/decrease
with positive/negative life experiences respectively
(Vaidya, Gray, Haig, & Watson, 2002)
Discussion (Effect of Age)

Agreeableness
 Significant effect of age found. However direction of
influence is ambiguous.
 Contrary findings on agreeableness reported (e.g.,
Rammstedt, 2007; Branje, Van Lieshout, & Gerris,
2007).
 In present study, there is an increase in agreeableness
from 41 years onwards.
 Possibility of age specific cultural variables such as
work and personal stresses of younger ages affecting
agreeableness.
Discussion (Effect of Age)

Conscientiousness
 ANOVA did not indicate any significant effect of age
with on this factor.
 A gradual decline in scores observed with age, with
the exception of the last age group (51+ years)

Emotional Stability
 ANOVA did not indicate any significant of age on
this factor.
 Vaidya et al. (2002) found this factor to be relatively
stable across time and age.
Discussion (Effect of Age)


Openness to Experience
 Significant effect of age found. However direction of influence
is ambiguous.
 Means indicate a gradual increase on this factor with age.
 Possible reasons for decrease in mean score for the last age
group (51+ years) may be due to specific concerns associated
with this factor and/or other reasons.
Conclusion
 The 51+ years age group does not conform to the overall pattern
of the effect of age on the factors
 One possible cause may be the wide age range this group
encompasses.
 Further divisions within this age group may produce conclusive
results.
 Exploration of the personalities of French older-adults may be of
assistance in understanding this finding
Results (Effect of Education)
6
5
Sample Mean
4
Sec School
High School
3
Bachelor's
Master's
Spl. Fin.
2
Spl. Engg.
1
0
b5co
b5cs
b5m
b5eq
b5o
Discussion (Effect of Education)





On ANOVA, significant effect of education found for all
five factors
Direction of effect was ambiguous for all five factors.
Factors such as effort, attitude, values, attributional style,
motives, self-esteem, material resources etc. affect
educational outcome (Noftle & Robins, 2007)
“A wide range of predictors are needed to fully account
for individual differences in academic aptitude and
achievement” (Noftle & Robins, 2007, p. 127-128).
Hence, inconclusive findings on the effect of education
Results (Effect of Education)




The French educational system poses another
hindrance to deriving conclusive findings on the
effect of education.
The specialized finance and engineering degrees,
and bachelor degrees are lie at the same
educational level.
Accurate analysis of the effect of education
mandates well defined hierarchy of educational
levels.
Future studies with alternate educational
categories may provide more robust results.
Conclusions




One’s personality is bound to be affected by life
experiences.
This was found to be validated on the BF5©,
where the effects of gender, age, and education
were found across the factors.
The ambiguities in the findings of this study
need to be explored in future studies.
It is hoped that the pioneering venture of this
study in analyzing exclusive to an online test
incites further research and development into
online testing.
References
Buchanan, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous? Professional
Psychology; Research and Practice, 33, 148-154. Retrieved from the
PsycARTICLES on January 20, 2007.
Buchanan, T., Johnson, J.A., and Goldberg, L.R. (2005). Implementing a five-factor
personality inventory for use on the internet. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 21, 115–127. Retrieved from the PsycARTICLES database on January
20, 2008
Budaev, S. V. (1999). Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing an
evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801-813.
Retrieved from the PsycINFO database on January 20, 2008
De Raad, B. (1998). Five big, big five issues : Rationale, content, structure, status, and
crosscultural assessment. European Psychologist, 3, 113-124. Retrieved from the
PsycARTICLES database on January, 16, 2008.
Guenole, N., Chernyshenko, O.S. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg s big five IPIP
personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity
evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 86-96. Retrieved from the
Academic Search Complete database on January 18, 2008.
References
John, O.P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.), pp. 102-138. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Noftle, E.E. and Robins, R.W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big
five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 116–130. Retrieved from the PsycARTICLES database on January 19, 2008.
Rammstedt, B. (2007). The 10-item big five inventory: Norm values and investigation of
sociodemographic effects based on a german population representative sample.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 193-201. Retrieved from the
PsycARTICLES database on January 19, 2008.
Reips, U. (2006). Web based methods. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of
multimethod measurement in psychology, pp 73-85. Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association.
Vaidya, J.G., Gray, E.K., Haig, J., and Watson, D. (2002). On the temporal stability of
personality: Evidence for differential stability and the role of life experiences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1469-1484. Retrieved from the
PsycARTICLES database on January 18, 2008.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D.M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of
three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative
five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757-768. Retrieved from the
PsycARTICLES database on January 19, 2008.