↓ Skip to main content

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Neuroticism Subscale of the NEO-PI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Neuroticism Subscale of the NEO-PI
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01454
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chang Xi, Mingtian Zhong, Xiaoxia Lei, Ying Liu, Yu Ling, Xiongzhao Zhu, Shuqiao Yao, Jinyao Yi

Abstract

Neuroticism is an important concept in psychology, self-report measures of neuroticism are important for both research and clinical practice. The neuroticism subscale of the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) is a brief measure of neuroticism, and it was widely used in the world. This study was aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI. A total of 5,494 undergraduates from three universities and 551 clinical patients with mental disorders from a psychological clinic had completed the Chinese version of the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine how well the three hypothetical models fit the data and the measurement equivalence of neuroticism subscale across gender. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were also evaluated. Both the six-facet model and the bi-factor model (six-facet model with one general factor) achieved satisfactory fit, while the six-facet model had best fit (Undergraduate sample: TLI = 0.919, CFI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.033; Clinical sample: TLI = 0.921, CFI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.041), and it had measurement equivalence across gender. The neuroticism subscale also showed acceptable internal consistency and good stability. Within the undergraduate sample, there were statistically significant gender differences in neuroticism total scores and scores of six facets, while there were no significant gender differences in the neuroticism scores in the clinical sample. Both in the undergraduate sample and the clinical sample, anxiety facet, depression facet and vulnerability facet of the neuroticism subscale significantly predicted the depression level, while anxiety facet, angry-hostility facet and vulnerability facet significantly predicted the anxiety level. In conclusion, the Chinese version of the neuroticism subscale is a reliable and valid measurement of neuroticism in both undergraduate and clinical population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,421,028
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,359
of 30,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,363
of 333,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#478
of 731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 731 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.