Mapping personality markers in a Portuguese sample: The factor structure, reliability and incremental validity of the Big Five Mini-Markers


  • Nuno Rodrigues UMa
  • Teresa Rebelo



Five-factor model, Academic performance, Self-handicapping


This study reports the psychometric characteristics of a Portuguese form of the 40-item Big Five Mini-Markers, relying upon a cross-sectional design with a sample of 673 Portuguese undergraduates from a Portuguese public university. Results supported the five-factor structure of the translated version and the internal consistency levels of the sub-scales were equivalent to the original version. However, nine items were identified as problematic and dropped from the analysis, due to low component loadings or relatively high cross-loadings. Further evidence from the remaining 31 items supported this instrument’s incremental validity for predicting students’ self-handicapping behaviours over previous academic achievement. Key implications for further research with the Portuguese version of this instrument are briefly presented and discussed.


Não há dados estatísticos.


Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323.

Bainbridge, T. F., Ludeke, S. G., & Smillie, L. D. (2022). Evaluating the Big Five as an organizing framework for commonly used psychological trait scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(4), 749–777.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross‐cultural research (pp. 137–164).Sage.

Bücker, S., Nuraydin, S., Simonsmeier, B. A., Schneider, M., & Luhmann, M. (2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 83–94.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dickinson, E. R., & Adelson, J. L. (2014). Exploring the limitations of measures of students’ socioeconomic status (SES). Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 19, 1–14.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.

Dwight, S. A., Cummings, K. M., & Glenar, J. L. (1998). Comparison of criterion-related validity coefficients for the Mini-Markers and Goldberg's Markers of the Big Five Personality Factors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(3), 541–550.

Ellen, B. P., Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., & Mercer, I. S. (2022). Are small measures big problems? A meta-analytic investigation of brief measures of the Big Five. Journal of Business Research, 151, 579-592.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Hofstede-insights. (2023). Country comparison tool. Retrieved September 28, 2023, from

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Islam, S., Permzadian, V., Choudhury, R. J., Johnston, M., & Anderson, M. (2018). Proactive personality and the expanded criterion domain of performance: Predicting academic citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 41–49.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.

Magalhães, E., Salgueira, A., Gonzalez, A.-J., Costa, J. J., Costa, M. J., Costa, P., & de Lima, M. P. (2014). Psychometric Properties of a Short Personality Inventory in Portuguese Context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(4), 642–657.

Mammadov, S. (2022). Big five personality traits and academic performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 222–255.

Marques, C., do Céu Taveira, M., El Nayal, M., Silva, A. D., & Gouveia, V. (2020). Life Values Among Lebanese and Portuguese College Students: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of International Students, 10(1), 159–180.

Martin, A. J. (2005). Exploring the effects of a youth enrichment program on academic motivation and engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 8(2), 179–206.

McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532–544.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402.

Oliveira, J. P. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 38(2), 432–439.

Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 187–207.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.

Richardson, M., Abraham, C. & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516.

Schwinger, M., Trautner, M., Pütz, N., Fabianek, S., Lemmer, G., Lauermann, F., & Wirthwein, L. (2022). Why do students use strategies that hurt their chances of academic success? A meta-analysis of antecedents of academic self-handicapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(3), 576–596.

Schwinger, M., Wirthwein, L., Lemmer, G., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Academic self-handicapping and achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 744–761.

Soto, C., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143.

Stanek, K. C., & Ones, D. S. (2018). Taxonomies and compendia of cognitive ability and personality constructs and measures relevant to industrial, work and organizational psychology. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 366–407). Sage Reference.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542–548.

Török, L., Szabó, Z. P., & Tóth, L. (2018). A critical review of the literature on academic self-handicapping: Theory, manifestations, prevention and measurement. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 21(5), 1175–1202.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 101–122.

Vedel, A. (2014). The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 66–76.

Vedel, A., & Poropat, A. E. (2017). Personality and Academic Performance. In Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer.

Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F.-F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 411–442.



Como Citar

Rodrigues, N., & Rebelo, T. . (2024). Mapping personality markers in a Portuguese sample: The factor structure, reliability and incremental validity of the Big Five Mini-Markers. PSICOLOGIA.



Artigos Breves