This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I deleted a chunk of the third paragraph detailing the applicability of the test due to lack of citations. I also deleted the sentence starting with research shows, and ending with three citations which were the manuals for the test. Considering that this is a trademark and a product i think making strong claims about the applicability of the test require citations from sources other than the producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.6.173 (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line

May be useful to mention what kind of people would be interested in this material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.42.137 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense, having a separate article on the 16PF questionnaire as distinguished from Cattell's theory of 16 personality factors, especially given that "16PF" is a product and a trademark. I'll make a few minor improvements to the article. There are also two bigger improvements that I don't have time for right now, but I'll take a crack if PsychologistForJustice or someone else doesn't get to them:

• Some material in the first section of the article seem to fit better in the theory article, or perhaps some sentences could be added there.
• The Raymond B. Cattell article has a long footnote in the References section, listing research papers validating the 16 personality factor theory. I think this list of articles belongs in the 16 personality factor theory article, as a separate section on Validation of the Theory, or some such.

WikiRepairGuy (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past 18 months, this 16PF Questionnaire article has been greatly enhanced, and completely subsumes the 16 Personality Factor theory article (great work, everyone!) so I agree with the discussion below, that the 16 Personality Factors article should now be downsized or removed.--WikiRepairGuy (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

71.15.92.103 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)This article reads like a marketing document for the test. It would be nice if someone could rework it and make it sound less so.[reply]

Excellent point, I agree. Today I entered a lot of the history and research on the 16PF, and relationships to other personality work... hopefully that's a big improvement. And I notice that PsychologistForJustice has made some improvements in this direction as well. --WikiRepairGuy (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this useful article was launched separately from 16 Personality Factors, about the same underlying theory and test. How about merging the two articles so that both are better sourced and more complete as one article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is a way to find more sources. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on psychological testing and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a few confusing parts to this article. In one place it says no indepdendent research has been able to duplicate Cattell's findings but lower down it references the summary of over 80 such studies validating the model. That validity and reproduction is not the same thing I know, but how do you validate a psychological model except by duplicating the findings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.220.26 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 16PF expert has now fixed this problem.--WikiRepairGuy (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm just browsing... hope it's OK to post here.

The first "sentence" of this article is currently:

16 primary traits, Big Five,[1][2] which have become popularized by other authors in recent years.

It seems to me that the first half of that sentence is missing. I guess that there may be quite a bit of other information which has been lost too. It certainly doesn't read like a standard Wikipedia article.

Nick

As suggested on this talk page and on the 16 Personality Factors Talk page, I have started to merge the content from the 16 Personality Factors page to here. At present the 16 Personality Factors page is somewhat redundant, so this is an attempt to have all information together in a comprehensive source on the 16PF.

To declare my interest - I work for OPP, the owners of IPAT, who publish the 16PF. Therefore I am aiming to make impartial changes (e.g. to compile content in one place and to remove outdated or irrelevant material). I will stay clear of editing controversial material unless I have a citation to show that the material is inaccurate. My changes will be clearly signed (which is why I have made some changes twice, when I realised that I had not signed in during my first round of changes). 16PF expert (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged all relevant information from the 16 Personality Factors page. This means that the 16PF Questionnaire article is now a comprehensive account of the questionnaire, background, theory, references etc. I suggest that the 16 Personality Factors could now be removed without loss of any useful information. 16PF expert (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16PF expert (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I meant to do it myself when I discovered there was this secondary site on the 16PF factors, but haven't had time. It's a good idea to have all the 16PF info in one place rather than stretched across several sites which people may not know about. I'll look through it and see if I can add anything. PsychologistForJustice (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that for clarity, the 16PF Questionnaire page be renamed '16PF (16 Personality Factors) Questionnaire' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.85.130 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the trait of 'Dominance' abbreviated to 'E?' That just seems odd to me; shouldn't that personality trait be abbreviated as a 'D?' — RandomDSdevel (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cattell did not give simple names to the factors he discovered. "Factor E" means something like that it was the fifth factor Cattell "discovered." IIRC, there was another Factor D that only replicated in questionnaires for younger respondents (e.g., the APQ or CPQ). This is also the reason that "Warmth" is Factor A, "Reasoning" is Factor B, etc. Many 16PF users, especially those who learned Cattell's model before the fifth edition in 1993, know Cattell's model in terms of his unique terminology (Factors A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, O, Q1, Q2, Q3, & Q4) Amead (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 16PF Questionnaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201194702/http://www.opp.com/tools/16pf to http://www.opp.com/tools/16pf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add other conflicting perspectives, with the evidence to support them. This article, although I skimmed it quickly, seems to be written from the point of view of promoting this model rather than taking a broader, more objective, stance. There was a reference to 60 studies that have supported it. There are plenty of data points for other models, too. Social sciences research is full of strong disagreements, especially about things as complex and amorphous as human personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.168 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally do agree. I was surprised about that when reading it. It almost look like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.126.211.193 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is improving thanks to everyone's efforts, but still reads like a marketing description. The references are still very poor, mostly written by the test's creator and generally self-referential. Few are peer-reviewed journal-based. Most can't be easily checked, or relate to entire books without any indication as to the location of the reference, let alone studies that support the over-the-top statements about its validity.

What really got my goat was the statement 'validated across different cultures at different times'. The reference is a hardcopy book (which can't be checked unless you own it or can find it), and provides no more detailed references for such a strong statement e.g. a study reference. Very few psychometric tests have been 'validated across cultures', the statement is somewhat bombastic in the field of psychometric testing these days (let alone for IQ tests!), and I have reservations that the book's author (Prof. Boyle) would make such a statement anyway. This strong statement without any clear reference was, for me, the best hint in the article that the whole page is a marketing blurb - the zeitgeist is that all non-trivial tests should be assumed to have cultural specificity. A statement that your test has 'been validated across different cultures' would require a very specific reference to a carefully designed test, published in a peer-reviewed journal for it to have any credence with professional psychologists.