Ten-Item Personality Inventory: What a 10-Item Big Five Measure Can and Cannot Tell You

7 days ago

18 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is an ultra-brief self-report questionnaire for describing the Big Five personality domains. It uses 10 responses—two for each domain—to produce five scores. Its value lies in situations where collecting some broad personality information is feasible but administering a longer inventory is impractical. Its central limitation is equally important: 10 items cannot support the same detail, precision, or interpretive confidence as a well-validated, longer measure.

The TIPI was introduced by Samuel D. Gosling, Peter J. Rentfrow, and William B. Swann Jr. in 2003. In their original validation study, the researchers examined an extremely brief approach to the Big Five and recommended the 10-item version especially when personality was not the main research question or severe time constraints made longer assessment impractical. A 2023 scoping review confirms the enduring trade-off: reasonable evidence for temporal stability in studied versions, mixed evidence for some forms of validity, and consistently weak internal consistency.

This guide explains what TIPI actually measures, where its 10 items come from, how its scores are calculated, how to interpret them responsibly, what reliability and validity studies show, how it compares with other Big Five inventories, and when a researcher or individual should choose a more comprehensive assessment.

What Is the Ten-Item Personality Inventory?

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory is a specific measuring instrument built around the Big Five, a model that organizes broad personality differences along five continuous dimensions. The Big Five personality traits overview explains the model itself; TIPI is one economical way to ask people questions intended to approximate their positions on its five domains.

TIPI is a questionnaire, not a personality theory, personality type system, diagnostic interview, or comprehensive description of a person's psychological functioning. Every respondent receives a separate score for each of five domains. The scores describe answers to a particular set of adjective-pair statements at a particular time. Their interpretation depends on item meaning, response patterns, population, and the purpose for which the assessment is being used.

The instrument was developed for time-constrained research, including large surveys, studies where personality is one of many variables, and projects in which respondent burden is a serious concern. The developer's official TIPI resource provides the original questionnaire, scoring instructions, technical explanation, and information about translations. The developer explicitly permits use of the original measure without requesting permission.

What Are the Five TIPI Personality Scales?

TIPI produces five broad domain scores rather than one total personality score. Each domain is a continuum. The score reflects a rough location on that dimension, not membership in a named psychological category.

Extraversion

TIPI's Extraversion score summarizes responses reflecting a more socially outgoing and enthusiastic style versus a quieter, more reserved style. It does not directly assess every possible aspect of social confidence, dominance, energy, emotional expressiveness, or preferred social stimulation. A high score does not guarantee that somebody enjoys every social setting, and a lower score does not imply poor social skills.

Agreeableness

The Agreeableness scale uses descriptors associated with interpersonal warmth and sympathy on one side and a more critical or quarrelsome style on the other. Because interpersonal tendencies cover numerous distinct behaviors and motives, two items offer only a particularly coarse approximation. Validation findings should be examined by scale, rather than assuming that evidence for the whole questionnaire supports Agreeableness equally well. For example, research on a Spanish TIPI version identified Agreeableness as especially problematic in several psychometric analyses.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness concerns characteristic organization, dependability, self-discipline, and follow-through. TIPI cannot separately estimate the narrower components of conscientiousness and does not establish whether a person performs reliably in every circumstance. Work routines, opportunity, health, stress, resources, and role expectations can all influence what behavior looks like.

Emotional Stability

The original TIPI labels the fourth dimension Emotional Stability. This is broadly the opposite direction of the traditional Big Five domain commonly called Neuroticism. The instrument scores greater stability higher; therefore, a high TIPI Emotional Stability score should not be mislabeled as a high Neuroticism score. The official scoring key makes this direction explicit.

Two items touching emotional sensitivity and calmness cannot assess clinical symptoms, diagnose an anxiety or mood disorder, or resolve the richer structure of Neuroticism. The English Hub's separate Neuroticism material owns those domain-specific questions.

Openness to Experience

TIPI's Openness scale addresses openness to new experiences and complexity in contrast to more conventional preferences. It is not a creativity test, intelligence test, or direct behavioral measure of novelty seeking. Like the other TIPI scores, its meaning is limited by the particular descriptors chosen and the person's interpretation of them.

Across all five domains, the Big Five domains, aspects, and facets guide explains why a broad personality domain contains more distinct psychological content than two short questionnaire items can reveal. TIPI reports only the five domain approximations: it does not produce validated domain-specific facet or aspect profiles.

How Does the TIPI Questionnaire Work?

The questionnaire presents 10 brief statements, each containing a pair of personality descriptors. Respondents indicate how well each descriptor pair applies to them on a seven-point agreement scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) through 4 (neither agree nor disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The developer instructs respondents to rate the pair as a whole even when one descriptor feels more accurate than the other.

Each personality domain is covered by one positively keyed and one reverse-keyed item. For example, the extraversion domain draws on a positive item about outgoing enthusiasm and a reverse-keyed item about reserve or quietness. Both responses are needed for that domain score. This deliberately compressed format is part of the instrument's design.

Most respondents can complete TIPI in roughly a minute or two, although reading speed, language, accessibility needs, and reflection can alter completion time. Rapid completion is a practical feature, not evidence that the questionnaire measures the construct without error.

The original 10 items are available directly from the University of Texas developer's site. Researchers should use the exact authorized version and its corresponding scoring key rather than freely rewriting adjectives, response anchors, or instructions and assuming the published validation evidence still applies.

TIPI Scoring: How to Calculate the Five Results

TIPI uses the average of two items for each scale. One item in each pair must first be reverse-scored. On the seven-point response format, reverse-scoring is calculated as 8 minus the original response: an answer of 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, and so forth. You then average the directly keyed item and its reverse-scored partner.

The five item pairs in the original TIPI scoring key are:

Extraversion: item 1 and reverse-scored item 6.

Agreeableness: reverse-scored item 2 and item 7.

Conscientiousness: item 3 and reverse-scored item 8.

Emotional Stability: reverse-scored item 4 and item 9.

Openness to Experience: item 5 and reverse-scored item 10.

For example, suppose someone selects 5 for item 1 and 2 for item 6. Reverse-scoring item 6 changes 2 to 6, and their Extraversion score is (5 + 6) / 2 = 5.5. Both the scoring direction and example follow the developer's published instructions.

With complete valid responses, each score ranges from 1 to 7, in increments of 0.5. There is no meaningful overall TIPI total obtained by summing all 10 items: the five dimensions describe different characteristics, and averaging them together would blur their meanings. The raw 1–7 score is also not automatically a percentile or standardized score.

What If One Answer Is Missing?

Because each score depends on only two answers, a single missing response removes half of that domain's item information. Substituting a person's other score, a sample average, or an invented default changes the scoring procedure. Researchers should specify a missing-data rule in advance and disclose it when reporting data; individual readers should regard an incomplete domain score as unavailable unless a validated administration protocol specifies otherwise.

What If the Two Items Seem to Disagree?

A respondent might endorse both an outgoing descriptor and a reserved descriptor, perhaps because behavior varies by context. Reverse-keying means those responses pull the Extraversion average in different directions. A middle score may therefore reflect genuinely moderate tendencies, contextual variation, ambiguity in paired adjectives, response style, or contradictory answers. With only two items, TIPI offers limited information for separating those possibilities.

How Should You Interpret a TIPI Score?

A TIPI score is best interpreted as a rough, instrument-specific summary of self-description. A score of 6.0 on Extraversion means that the person's two scored responses average to 6.0 after the required reversal. It does not, by itself, establish a population percentile, a stable identity label, or the probability of any particular behavior.

Likewise, a score of 4.0 lies at the numerical midpoint of the response range. It is not proof that the respondent is average compared with other people. The empirical population mean can be above or below 4 and can vary with the scale, sample, language, selection process, and administration setting.

There are no universal TIPI cutoff values that reliably divide all populations into “low,” “average,” and “high” personality groups. Normative interpretation requires an appropriate reference sample and a clear explanation of how its distribution was obtained. The developer provides historical TIPI norm documents from a specific online music-preferences sample and identifies them as unpublished norms; those norms should not be treated as a universal reference for all current adults, languages, or demographic groups.

For a closer discussion of raw scores, norm groups, and percentiles, see Big Five Test Scores and Percentiles. The same general logic applies to TIPI, but the available norms and precision belong to this particular instrument and population.

A Five-Score Profile Is Not a Personality Type

TIPI can produce a sequence such as Extraversion 5.5, Agreeableness 4.0, Conscientiousness 6.0, Emotional Stability 3.5, and Openness 5.0. Those five values form a rough dimensional profile. They do not reveal a fixed named personality type, identify an underlying subtype, or explain a person's behavior in all settings. Broad profiles should be considered alongside the person's own context and, where appropriate, additional assessment.

How Reliable Is TIPI?

Reliability asks how consistently an instrument measures the intended construct under specified conditions. For TIPI, it is essential to distinguish three separate questions: whether its two items within each domain correlate strongly; whether a person's score is relatively similar when the questionnaire is repeated; and whether TIPI agrees with other ways of assessing the same broad trait.

Why TIPI Often Has Low Internal Consistency

Traditional internal-consistency coefficients such as Cronbach's alpha are strongly affected by both the number of items and their average intercorrelation. With only two items per domain, TIPI has little opportunity to average away item-specific error. Moreover, each paired item attempts to sample relatively broad content rather than repeat the same narrow behavior in different words.

The developer's technical note on alpha and factor structure explains that choosing highly redundant wording could make alpha look better while reducing domain coverage. This provides a reason to interpret a low alpha carefully; it does not make a low alpha irrelevant, and it does not establish that TIPI is as precise as a longer test.

The 2023 scoping review concluded that, under its evaluation criteria, studied TIPI versions generally showed inadequate internal consistency. Readers should resist both easy conclusions—that a single low coefficient proves the instrument useless and that brevity automatically excuses every measurement problem.

Test–Retest Reliability Tells a Different Story

Test–retest reliability concerns the consistency of scores across repeated administration over a stated interval. The original study reported useful retest evidence for the instrument's limited purpose. A later comparison paper noted an average retest correlation of approximately .72 over six weeks for TIPI, which must be understood as a sample-specific result rather than a guarantee for all people or versions Rammstedt and John, 2007.

Across the 29 studies reviewed in 2023, the authors found generally acceptable test–retest stability among the versions for which this property was tested, though populations, intervals, and analyses varied Thørrisen and Sadeghi, 2023. A usable group-level retest correlation still permits potentially substantial uncertainty in an individual's observed result.

Why a Stable Score Can Still Be Too Coarse

A questionnaire can reproduce a rough result reasonably well and still omit important aspects of the construct. A person might obtain similar TIPI Conscientiousness scores on two occasions, but that says little about their separate patterns of orderliness, responsibility, persistence, and planning. Stability, detail, and validity are different requirements. They need evidence of their own.

Is TIPI Valid? What the Research Actually Shows

Validity concerns the support for interpreting scores for particular purposes. It is more precise to ask whether TIPI is useful for a specified research question and population than to ask whether the questionnaire is simply “valid” in every situation.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity examines whether TIPI domain scores correspond, to a reasonable extent, with scores on more extensive instruments intended to measure similar Big Five domains. The original 2003 study reported useful convergence with established measures alongside other supporting evidence. The 2023 review found variation across versions and criterion measures: agreement with longer Big Five instruments was sometimes acceptable and sometimes weaker than desired.

A positive correlation between TIPI and a longer scale supports partial overlap in measurement. It does not establish interchangeability between their raw scores, equivalence of all domain facets, or identical predictive performance.

Structural Validity and the Five-Factor Pattern

A typical long Big Five questionnaire can use numerous items to represent the proposed domains and examine their internal hierarchy. TIPI has only 10 items and deliberately samples relatively broad, heterogeneous content. Traditional exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis of its 10 item responses can therefore produce weak or inconsistent model fit. The developer's methodological discussion anticipated that issue; the scoping review documented mixed structural-validity findings in studies of different versions.

The correct interpretation is limited and specific: TIPI was designed to approximate the five known domains economically, not to serve as the strongest independent test of the existence or exact structure of those domains. The broader scientific case for a five-domain model rests on research well beyond TIPI.

External Correlates and Prediction

The original developers examined whether TIPI scores reproduced some of the expected relationships with outside criteria. That is relevant evidence for using the questionnaire to estimate broad trait associations in appropriate studies. It is not a license to infer causal effects or to forecast what a particular person will do.

Measurement error can attenuate associations and distort conclusions. In a study comparing very brief Big Five measures, Credé and colleagues showed how short measures can affect estimated relationships and research conclusions. Their results concerned very short trait measures and associated research designs; they should inform TIPI decisions without being converted into an unsupported universal error rate for TIPI.

What Did the 2023 Review Find?

The peer-reviewed scoping review by Thørrisen and Sadeghi identified 29 qualifying studies that examined 27 TIPI versions covering 18 languages. It considered convergent validity, structural validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability. No reviewed version met its chosen acceptability standards on all four dimensions. Internal consistency was the most persistent difficulty; convergent and structural findings were mixed, while temporal stability tended to be more favorable.

This was a scoping review, not a universal recalibration of every questionnaire version, a pooled participant-level meta-analysis, or proof that all language versions perform equally. Its value is a broad evidence map showing where the efficiency–quality trade-off consistently appears.

Can TIPI Be Used to Assess an Individual Person?

A person can complete TIPI and inspect their scores as a limited descriptive exercise. Researchers can also collect responses from individual participants and study patterns across groups. Those uses should be separated from consequential judgments about a single individual's suitability, health, personal capacities, or future conduct.

Two items per domain provide little opportunity to identify inconsistent responding, contextual effects, misunderstandings, unusual response styles, or narrow facets that matter to a particular decision. Precision requirements rise when stakes rise. For formal individual assessment, high-stakes selection, or decisions with meaningful consequences, a better-supported and more comprehensive process is typically warranted.

A TIPI profile does not diagnose depression, an anxiety disorder, ADHD, autism, or a personality disorder. No domain score is a clinical cutoff. Emotional Stability is a broad personality score, and descriptions of personal distress or impairment require appropriately qualified clinical assessment rather than conversion of a TIPI number into a diagnosis.

The practical distinction is between using a short questionnaire to learn something about group-level patterns and treating a person's five observed values as an exhaustive, clinically meaningful personal evaluation.

When Is TIPI a Good Choice?

The strongest case for TIPI arises when the cost of administering a longer questionnaire would substantially reduce study participation, omit personality measurement altogether, or burden respondents beyond what the research design can accommodate.

One example is a large survey covering employment, daily life, attitudes, and many other subjects. If personality is a secondary covariate and the survey has room for only a handful of questions, researchers may rationally accept TIPI's weaker measurement properties while explicitly discussing the consequences for estimated associations.

Another example is a repeated survey where the cumulative burden of lengthy assessments could affect completion rates. TIPI's time advantage can matter, although repeated administration does not automatically eliminate measurement error or prove that an apparent score change reflects real personality development.

TIPI is a particularly weak choice when the central question involves subtle differences within a single Big Five domain, facet-level relationships, high-precision individual comparisons, longitudinal change of small magnitude, or consequential interpretation of a person's score. The Big Five Personality Test guide explains how to match instrument choice to interpretive purpose.

A Decision Rule for Researchers

Start with the intended inference. If the study seeks a rough, low-burden control for broad personality and has strong practical constraints, TIPI may be adequate if its limitations are evaluated and reported. If the study's main hypothesis concerns personality or the analysis depends on small effects, fine-grained differences, or robust population comparisons, the benefits of a longer, validated measure become much more important.

The choice should account for target population, language, reading accessibility, mode of administration, sample size, available normative evidence, and expected statistical effects. The shortest instrument is not necessarily the most efficient if its measurement error undermines the central research question.

TIPI vs BFI-10: Are They the Same Test?

No. TIPI and the BFI-10 both use 10 items and target broad Big Five domains, but they were constructed separately. TIPI was developed with paired trait descriptors to cover broad domains extremely quickly. The BFI-10, by Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P. John, selected items from the original longer Big Five Inventory and was developed for time-limited cross-language research in English and German Rammstedt and John, 2007.

The GESIS scientific documentation for BFI-10 gives its distinct development history, psychometric summary, and usage guidance. Its item wording and key are different from TIPI. Scoring guidance for one should never be silently applied to the other, and raw results should not be treated as numerically equivalent.

TIPI vs BFI-2, NEO, and Other Longer Inventories

The BFI-2 is a 60-item Big Five instrument with five broad domains and 15 instrument-specific facets. Its 30-item short form and 15-item extra-short form were studied as explicit compromises between information and respondent burden. The BFI-2 short-form validation paper found that the short forms retained useful domain-level information while facet-level interpretation required greater caution.

The English Hub also has instrument-specific guides to the BFI and BFI-2 and the NEO Personality Inventory family. The NEO-PI-3 and shorter NEO-FFI have different designs and available information; neither is a TIPI with additional items.

The number of facets is a property of a specific operationalization. TIPI provides five two-item domains without separate validated facets. BFI-2 has its own facet scheme; the NEO family uses a different hierarchical specification. Comparing them means comparing intended constructs, item content, score properties, evidence, and decision contexts, not simply ranking questionnaires by length.

Cross-Cultural Versions, Translation, and Measurement Equivalence

TIPI has been translated into numerous languages, but the presence of a translated form is not evidence that its scores have identical meanings across cultures. Paired adjectives are particularly sensitive to nuance: two words that work together in one language may evoke somewhat different implications, social desirability, or intensity in another.

The developer lists translations while cautioning that their validation procedures differ and that their inclusion on the official TIPI website is not a blanket endorsement. The 2023 review similarly documented variation in psychometric findings across versions.

Before comparing mean scores across national or language groups, researchers should examine the available local validation, cultural appropriateness, response-style differences, and measurement-equivalence evidence. A scale that correlates acceptably with another measure within two groups does not automatically support direct comparisons of their raw group means. TIPI's extremely small number of items also restricts what can be learned about item-specific bias and equivalence.

A specific research use may be reasonable in one language and unsupported for a different population, age group, administration mode, or translated item set. State which version was used, its source, the validation population, and why it suits the proposed inference.

Common Mistakes When Using TIPI

Treating a Raw Score as a Percentile

A score of 6 on a 1–7 scale is a high agreement-based result in the questionnaire's response format. It is not the 60th percentile, 86th percentile, or any other percentile without appropriate normative data and transformation.

Confusing Emotional Stability and Neuroticism Directions

The original TIPI scores Emotional Stability with higher numbers indicating more calmness and stability. Reversing the conceptual meaning without changing the scoring key creates interpretive errors. Any conversion to a neuroticism-oriented direction must be explicit and justified.

Assuming Low Alpha Means Every Result Is Meaningless

Low internal consistency is a real limitation and should be reported. Yet this instrument was designed to span broad content with minimal item repetition; evidence from retest studies and convergence should also be examined. The balance depends on the intended inference and the consequences of error.

Assuming Acceptable Retest Reliability Makes TIPI Precise for Everyone

A correlation from a sample cannot specify the exact reliability of any one person's profile. Individual score uncertainty and content underrepresentation remain important even when a retest study gives an encouraging average estimate.

Reporting TIPI Scores as Psychological Diagnoses

TIPI measures five broad trait tendencies. Scores are not diagnostic criteria, symptom-severity ratings, or individualized predictions of mental illness, job performance, compatibility, intelligence, or creativity.

Editing the Item Wording but Citing the Original Validation

Changing descriptor pairs, removing an item, translating informally, altering response options, or reversing scoring without documentation creates a modified instrument. The original article does not automatically validate that modified form.

Ignoring the Costs of Measurement Error

Using fewer items can make a survey faster while increasing score noise or weakening observed associations. When the central research objective depends on detecting modest relationships, the evidence on short-measure consequences makes the cost of that trade-off relevant.

How to Report TIPI in a Research Paper

A transparent methods description names the full instrument and its reference, specifies language/version, identifies the participant population, explains the original seven-point item format and five two-item domains, and notes that appropriately keyed items were reverse-scored before averaging. Researchers should describe missing-data handling, administration mode, key measurement evidence relevant to their sample, and limitations introduced by the scales' brevity.

When presenting results, report the five domains separately with their proper directions, appropriate descriptive statistics, uncertainty where available, and statistical models suited to the study. Avoid portraying TIPI as an interchangeable substitute for a longer test. When comparisons across groups or waves are central, explain the evidence—or gaps in evidence—for score comparability.

A reasonable limitations discussion might state that TIPI allowed the collection of broad Big Five information under time constraints, but that the two-item domain scales restricted content coverage and precision, potentially affecting effect estimates and subgroup or individual interpretation. That limitation follows directly from the instrument's design and the scientific literature.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Ten-Item Personality Inventory scientifically validated?

The original English TIPI has empirical validation evidence, including comparisons with other personality measures and retest results. Later studies and a comprehensive scoping review show a mixed psychometric picture: favorable evidence on some dimensions of reliability and validity alongside serious restrictions, especially internal consistency. Validation is always use-specific rather than universal.

How many questions are in TIPI?

Ten statements, each rating a pair of personality descriptors. There are two scored items per broad Big Five domain.

How long does it take to complete?

Often around one to two minutes. The time advantage is one of its primary design goals; actual completion depends on the person and administration conditions.

Is TIPI free to use?

The original instrument's developer states that permission is not required to use TIPI. Translation-specific permissions and adaptation details should still be checked with the relevant authors and distributors when applicable.

Can TIPI measure personality facets?

No separate validated facet scores are supplied by the original TIPI. Its five scales aim to summarize broad domains, each with only two items. Researchers who need facet information should select an instrument developed and validated for that level.

What is a good TIPI score?

There is no intrinsically good score or universal cutoff. Values describe the direction and average strength of responses in each domain. A score becomes a relative standing only when appropriately benchmarked against relevant normative data.

Can a TIPI result change over time?

Yes. An observed score may change because of response variation, context, measurement error, or genuine changes in traits. With only two items per domain, small differences between administrations need especially careful interpretation.

Is TIPI the same as the Big Five test?

It is one specific Big Five questionnaire. There is no single universal “Big Five test”: multiple instrument families operationalize the five-domain model differently.

Is TIPI suitable for hiring or diagnosing mental-health conditions?

Its original justification centers on extremely brief personality measurement under research constraints. A five-score TIPI profile is insufficient by itself for diagnosis, high-stakes employment screening, or other consequential individual judgments.

Does TIPI work equally well in every language?

The available translations and validation findings differ. Language-specific evidence must be checked before assuming comparable interpretation or score equivalence.

The Bottom Line

TIPI answers a narrow but useful research need: it allows five broad Big Five dimensions to be represented in 10 responses. This economy carries identifiable scientific costs in content coverage, internal consistency, and precision. The proper question is whether those costs are acceptable for a specified sample and research purpose.

Use TIPI for appropriately limited broad-domain description when time and respondent burden make comprehensive measurement impractical. Choose a more detailed validated measure when the central research claim, the required score precision, or the consequences for a person demand stronger measurement.

References

Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027403

GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. (n.d.). BFI-10: The Big Five Inventory 10 Item Scale. https://www.gesis.org/en/services/planning-studies-and-collecting-data/items-scales/bfi-10

Gosling, S. D. (n.d.). A note on alpha reliability and factor structure in the TIPI. University of Texas at Austin, Gosling Lab. https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-weve-developed/ten-item-personality-measure-tipi/a-note-on-alpha-reliability-and-factor-structure-in-the-tipi/

Gosling, S. D. (n.d.). Ten Item Personality Measure (TIPI): Official questionnaire, scoring and resources. University of Texas at Austin, Gosling Lab. https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-weve-developed/ten-item-personality-measure-tipi/

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004

Thørrisen, M. M., & Sadeghi, T. (2023). The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI): A scoping review of versions, translations and psychometric properties. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1202953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202953

Psychological Encyclopedia