An assessment of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule from the perspective of the five-factor model.

We examined the validity of need scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) by correlating them with a measure of the five basic factors of personality; we also considered test format as a possible source of invalidity. Three hundred thirty (223 women, 107 men) undergraduate students completed both the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)--a measure of the five factors--and one of two versions of the EPPS. Results show that both ipsative and normative versions of the EPPS could be meaningfully interpreted within the five-factor model, although the ipsative, forced-choice format of the standard EPPS apparently lowered validity coefficients and decreased convergent and discriminant validity. We argue that the five-factor model can provide a useful interpretive context for evaluating many clinical measures.