HiPeople’s Big 5 Check (OCEAN) implements the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS; DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007), using the original open-source BFAS item set.

The BFAS model was derived through common factor analysis of 75 facet scales drawn from two major Big Five instruments. The model used data-driven latent structure discovery. Within each Big Five domain, Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test consistently supported a two-factor solution, which demonstrated that each domain contains two separable but correlated latent constructs (“aspects”). These aspects were then validated at the item level using correlations with the full International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) to ensure strong content coverage.

Correlations with the Big Five Inventory (BFI) domains range from r = .67 - .80.

Across multiple samples, BFAS-based scales demonstrate mean internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) ranging from .80-.83 and test-retest reliability around r = .80 over a 1 month interval.

Predictive validity is supported at the level of the two-aspect latent structure (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). This structure has been tested using NEO-derived facet proxies in large-scale meta-analyses. Judge et al. (2013) analyzed 1,176 correlations from 410 independent samples (total N ≈ 406,000). Corrected correlations with job performance were approximately ρ = .26 for Conscientiousness, .20 for Extraversion, .17 for Agreeableness, .11 for Openness/Intellect, and −.10 for Neuroticism. Although the BFAS instrument was not administered, these results validate the same latent architecture BFAS was designed to operationalize.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5). 880-896. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical Representations of the Five-Factor Model of Personality in Predicting Job Performance: Integrating Three Organizing Frameworks With Two Theoretical Perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6). 875-925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033901