Measuring Personality Systems in Older Adults: Age-Neutrality of the Dutch BIS/BAS Questionnaire

References

• European Commissio. Population structure & ageing; 2009. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing#The_share_of_elderly_people_continues_to_increase. Accessed March 10, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Statbel (algemene directie statistiek - statistics Belgium). 2020; Available from: https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/bevolking/structuur-van-de-bevolking. Accessed March 10, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. The 2018 ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU member states (2016–2070); 2018. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/economy-finance/2018-ageing-report-economic-and-budgetary-projections-eu-member-states-2016-2070_en. Accessed March 10, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th ed. American Psychological Association; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi G, Van den Broeck J, Dierckx E, Segal DL, van Alphen SP. Personality assessment among older adults: the value of personality questionnaires unraveled. Aging Ment Health. 2014;18(8):936–940. doi:10.1080/13607863.2014.924089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. Guidelines for psychological practice with older adults. Am Psychol. 2014;69(1):34. doi:10.1037/a0035063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(2):319. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franken IH, Muris P, Rassin E. Psychometric properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2005;27(1):25–30. doi:10.1007/s10862-005-3262-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray JA. Framework for a taxonomy of psychiatric disorder. In: van Gozen S, van de Poll N, Sergeant JA, editors. Emotions: Essays on Emotion Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:29–59.
   Google Scholar
• Arnett PA, Newman JP. Gray’s three-arousal model: an empirical investigation. Pers Individ Dif. 2000;28(6):1171–1189. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00169-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagliaccio D, Luking KR, Anokhin AP, et al. Revising the BIS/BAS Scale to study development: measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(4):429. doi:10.1037/pas0000186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50:975–990. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker BR, Jackson CJ, Frost R. A comparison of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory with other contemporary personality models. Pers Individ Dif. 2017;109:232–236. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardaga S, Hansenne M. Relationships between Cloninger’s biosocial model of personality and the behavioral inhibition/approach systems (BIS/BAS). Pers Individ Dif. 2007;42(4):715–722. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorm AF, Christensen H, Henderson AS, Jacomb PA, Korten AE, Rodgers B. Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: factor structure, validity and norms in a large community sample. Pers Individ Dif. 1999;26(1):49–58. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00143-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits DJ, Boeck PD. From BIS/BAS to the big five. Eur J Pers. 2006;20(4):255–270. doi:10.1002/per.583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson EA, Dannefer D. Aged heterogeneity: fact or fiction? The fate of diversity in gerontological research. Gerontologist. 1992;32(1):17–23. doi:10.1093/geront/32.1.17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dierickx S, Dierckx E, Claes L, Rossi G. Measuring behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in older adults: construct validity of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. Assessment. 2021;29(5):1061–1074. doi:10.1177/10731911211000123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debast I, Rossi G, Van Alphen SPJ. Age-neutrality of a brief assessment of the section III alternative model for personality disorders in older adults. Assessment. 2018;25(3):310–323. doi:10.1177/1073191118754706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield RD, Algina J. A generalized DIF effect variance estimator for measuring unsigned differential test functioning in mixed format tests. J Educ Meas. 2006;43(4):295–312. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2006.00018.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong Y, Dumas D. Are personality measures valid for different populations? A systematic review of measurement invariance across cultures, gender, and age. Pers Individ Dif. 2020;160:109956. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper A, Gomez R, Aucote H. The behavioural inhibition system and behavioural approach system (BIS/BAS) scales: measurement and structural invariance across adults and adolescents. Pers Individ Dif. 2007;43(2):295–305. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cogswell A, Alloy LB, van Dulmen MH, Fresco DM. A psychometric evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self-report measures. Pers Individ Dif. 2006;40(8):1649–1658. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck J, Rossi G, Dierckx E, De Clercq B. Age-neutrality of the NEO-PI-R: potential differential item functioning in older versus younger adults. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2012;34(3):361–369. doi:10.1007/s10862-012-9287-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen LL. The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science. 2006;312(5782):1913–1915. doi:10.1126/science.1127488
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rademacher L, Salama A, Gründer G, Spreckelmeyer KN. Differential patterns of nucleus accumbens activation during anticipation of monetary and social reward in young and older adults. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014;9(6):825–831. doi:10.1093/scan/nst047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield RD. DIFAS: differential item functioning analysis system. Appl Psychol Meas. 2005;29(2):150–151. doi:10.1177/0146621603260686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basokcu TO, Ogretmen T. Comparison of parametric and nonparametric item response techniques in determining Differential Item Functioning in polytomous scale. Am J Theor Appl. 2014;3(2):31–38. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20140302.11
   Google Scholar
• Kazak AE. Editorial: journal article reporting standards. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):1–2. doi:10.1037/amp0000263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, Mchugh PR. Mini-mental state examination. PsycTESTS Dataset; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Kok R, Verhey F. Dutch translation of the mini mental state examination. GGZ; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan D, Janavs J, Baker R, Harnett-Sheehan K, Knapp E, Sheehan M. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. University of South Florida; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Weigold A, Weigold IK, Russell EJ. Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(1):53. doi:10.1037/a0031607
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeley JW, Webb C, Peterson D, Roussin L, Flanagan EH. Development of a response inconsistency scale for the personality inventory for DSM–5. J Pers Assess. 2016;98(4):351–359. doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.1158719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med. 2012;42:1879–1890. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess. 2019;31(12):1412. doi:10.1037/pas0000626
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Penfield RD. DIFAS 5.0. User’s manual; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Penfield RD. An approach for categorizing DIF in polytomous items. Appl Meas Educ. 2007;20(3):335–355. doi:10.1080/08957340701431435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camilli G, Congdon P. Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. J Educ Behav Stat. 1999;24:323–341. doi:10.3102/10769986024004323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balsis S, Segal DL, Donahue C. Revising the personality disorder diagnostic criteria for the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders‐fifth edition (DSM‐V): consider the later life context. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2009;79(4):452–460. doi:10.1037/a0016508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar