BFI-S: Big Five Inventory-Short Form (15 items)

Reviewed by: Constantin Rezlescu | Associate Professor | UCL Psychology

Introduction

The Big Five Inventory-Short Form (BFI-S) is a 15-item abbreviated version of the widely-used Big Five Inventory, designed to provide efficient yet reliable assessment of the five major personality dimensions. Developed by Lang and colleagues (2011) from the original 44-item BFI, this shortened version maintains strong psychometric properties while dramatically reducing administration time, making it ideal for research contexts where brief personality assessment is needed but ultra-brief measures sacrifice too much reliability.

The BFI-S addresses a common dilemma in personality research: comprehensive personality inventories like the NEO-PI-3 (240 items) provide detailed, reliable assessment but are impractical for many research applications, while ultra-brief measures like the TIPI (10 items) are quick but suffer from low reliability. The BFI-S occupies the middle ground, offering a practical compromise.

The Sweet Spot in Brief Personality Assessment

Brief personality measures exist along a continuum of trade-offs between comprehensiveness and efficiency. The BFI-S represents what many researchers consider the optimal balance point:

Compared to ultra-brief measures (TIPI, 10 items):

• Higher internal consistency (50% more items per dimension)
• Better content coverage of each personality domain
• More reliable for individual assessment
• Adequate sensitivity for detecting change over time

Compared to comprehensive measures (NEO-PI-3, 240 items):

• 94% reduction in administration time
• Minimal participant burden and fatigue
• Maintains 85-90% of validity with 94% fewer items
• Practical for repeated measurement designs

Compared to medium-length measures (NEO-FFI, 60 items):

• 75% time savings while maintaining comparable validity
• Better suited for large-scale surveys and panel studies
• Easier to translate and validate cross-culturally

This strategic positioning makes the BFI-S particularly valuable for longitudinal research requiring multiple personality assessments, large-scale surveys where personality is one of several measured constructs, and cross-cultural studies where translation and administration costs must be minimized.

Theoretical Foundation

The BFI-S is based on the Big Five model of personality, which organizes personality traits into five broad dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (Emotional Stability), and Openness to Experience. This model emerged from decades of lexical research and represents the most robust framework for understanding personality across cultures.

Evidence-based item selection:

Rather than arbitrarily selecting items from the original BFI, Lang and colleagues (2011) employed a systematic approach:

Factor loading prioritization: Selected items with the highest loadings on their target factors, ensuring each item strongly represents its dimension.

Content representation: Chose items that best capture the breadth of each Big Five domain, maintaining diverse content coverage despite fewer items.

Psychometric optimization: Tested multiple item combinations to maximize reliability and validity while minimizing redundancy.

Cross-validation: Verified that the selected items maintained their psychometric properties across independent samples and cultural groups.

Hierarchical trait structure:

With 3 items per dimension, the BFI-S measures personality at the broad domain level rather than attempting to assess specific facets within each dimension. This is an appropriate design choice—3 items cannot adequately measure 6 facets per domain (as in the NEO-PI-3), but they can reliably assess the overarching personality dimension.

The BFI-S thus provides domain-level personality description suitable for research examining broad personality effects, personality as a control variable, or personality profiles at the group level. It should not be used when detailed facet-level assessment is required or when individual clinical assessment is needed.

📊 Optimal Balance: The BFI-S provides the best compromise between assessment brevity and measurement reliability in the brief Big Five inventory family.

Key Features

Assessment Characteristics

• 15 items total (3 items per Big Five dimension)
• 5-8 minutes administration time
• Ages 16+ through adult populations
• 5-point Likert scale for balanced response options
• Domain-level assessment of broad personality dimensions
• Free to use for research and educational purposes

Big Five Dimensions Assessed

• Extraversion – Sociability, assertiveness, energy level
• Agreeableness – Cooperation, compassion, trust
• Conscientiousness – Organization, reliability, achievement orientation
• Neuroticism – Emotional stability vs. anxiety and negative affect
• Openness to Experience – Intellectual curiosity, creativity, aesthetic appreciation

Reliability and Validity Advantages

• Higher reliability than ultra-brief 2-item per dimension measures
• Adequate internal consistency (α = 0.61-0.86) for research applications
• Better content coverage with 3 items capturing dimension breadth
• Stable factor structure across diverse populations and cultures
• Strong convergent validity (r = 0.85-0.90) with longer Big Five measures

Practical Benefits

• Moderate time investment suitable for most research contexts
• Reduced participant fatigue compared to comprehensive inventories
• Easy administration in various settings and formats
• Cost-effective for large-scale data collection
• Cross-cultural applicability with validated translations

Research and Applied Applications

• Survey research where personality is important but not primary focus
• Longitudinal studies requiring repeated personality assessments
• Large-scale population research with efficiency requirements
• Cross-cultural studies needing practical validated measures
• Organizational research on workplace personality and behavior
• Educational research examining personality and academic outcomes

View Testable Demo

► Click here to try the Testable implementation

Assess your personality across the five fundamental dimensions in 5-8 minutes.

Scoring and Interpretation

Response Format

Participants rate their agreement with each statement using a 5-point scale:

• 1 = Disagree strongly
• 2 = Disagree a little
• 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
• 4 = Agree a little
• 5 = Agree strongly

Complete BFI-S Items

Instructions: “How well do the following statements describe your personality? Please rate each statement.”

“I see myself as someone who…”

Extraversion (3 items):

1. …is talkative
2. …is reserved (R)
3. …is outgoing, sociable

Agreeableness (3 items): 4. …is helpful and unselfish with others 5. …has a forgiving nature 6. …is generally trusting

Conscientiousness (3 items): 7. …does a thorough job 8. …does things efficiently 9. …makes plans and follows through with them

Neuroticism (3 items): 10. …worries a lot 11. …gets nervous easily 12. …is relaxed, handles stress well (R)

Openness to Experience (3 items): 13. …is original, comes up with new ideas 14. …values artistic, aesthetic experiences 15. …is sophisticated in art, music, or literature

Scoring Procedure

Step 1: Reverse score items marked (R)

• Items 2 and 12: Reverse score = 6 – original score

Step 2: Calculate dimension scores by averaging the 3 items for each domain:

• Extraversion: (Item 1 + Item 2 reversed + Item 3) ÷ 3
• Agreeableness: (Items 4 + 5 + 6) ÷ 3
• Conscientiousness: (Items 7 + 8 + 9) ÷ 3
• Neuroticism: (Items 10 + 11 + Item 12 reversed) ÷ 3
• Openness: (Items 13 + 14 + 15) ÷ 3

Score Interpretation

Scale Range: 1.0 – 5.0 for each dimension

Score Range	Interpretation
4.0 – 5.0	High – Strong presence of trait
2.5 – 3.9	Moderate – Average trait expression
1.0 – 2.4	Low – Weak presence of trait

Population Norms

German sample (Lang et al., 2011):

Dimension	Mean	SD
Extraversion	3.54	0.91
Agreeableness	3.82	0.73
Conscientiousness	3.97	0.75
Neuroticism	2.96	0.96
Openness	3.51	0.87

Interpretation Guidelines

Appropriate uses:

• Domain-level personality description for research
• Personality profiles at group level
• Control variables in multivariate research
• Preliminary screening for comprehensive assessment

Interpretation considerations:

• Focus on broad trait categories rather than specific facets
• Consider measurement error with only 3 items per dimension
• Use for group-level analyses more than individual assessment
• Supplement with detailed measures when clinical precision needed

Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties

Reliability Evidence

Internal consistency:

• Extraversion: α = 0.77 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Agreeableness: α = 0.61 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Conscientiousness: α = 0.69 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Neuroticism: α = 0.70 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Openness: α = 0.76 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Mean alpha across dimensions adequate for research applications

Test-retest reliability:

• 4-week interval: r = 0.74-0.84 across dimensions, demonstrating good temporal stability (Hahn et al., 2012)
• Comparable to test-retest correlations of longer Big Five measures

Validity Evidence

Convergent validity with original 44-item BFI:

• Extraversion: r = 0.90, demonstrating excellent convergence (Lang et al., 2011)
• Agreeableness: r = 0.86 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Conscientiousness: r = 0.87 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Neuroticism: r = 0.85 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Openness: r = 0.86 (Lang et al., 2011)
• Captures 85-90% of variance in full BFI with 66% fewer items

Factor structure confirmation:

• Five-factor model: Consistently replicated across samples and methods (Hahn et al., 2012)
• Confirmatory factor analysis: Good model fit for five-factor structure (Lang et al., 2011)
• Cross-cultural validity: Factor structure confirmed in multiple European countries (Zecca et al., 2013)
• Age invariance: Similar structure across adult age groups from young to older adults (Lang et al., 2011)

Discriminant validity:

• Appropriate low to moderate inter-correlations among dimensions (Lang et al., 2011)
• Dimensions show expected independence

Criterion Validity

Life outcomes prediction:

• Academic performance: Conscientiousness predicts GPA comparable to longer measures (Vedel, 2014)
• Job performance: Similar predictive validity for Conscientiousness as comprehensive inventories (Salgado, 2003)
• Psychological well-being: Expected correlations with life satisfaction and mental health (Steel et al., 2008)
• Social relationships: Extraversion and Agreeableness predict social network outcomes as expected

Cross-Cultural Research

International validation:

• German validation: Original development with strong psychometric properties (Lang et al., 2011)
• Swiss validation: Comparable reliability and validity confirmed (Zecca et al., 2013)
• Multi-national studies: Successfully used across European countries
• Measurement invariance: Equivalent factor structure across cultural groups (Zecca et al., 2013)

Comparative Performance

vs. TIPI (10 items):

• Higher reliability across all dimensions (Ziegler et al., 2014)
• Better internal consistency with 50% more items per dimension
• More adequate for individual-level research

vs. NEO-FFI (60 items):

• Comparable validity with 75% reduction in items (Lang et al., 2011)
• Similar convergence with longer Big Five measures
• Better suited for time-constrained research

vs. Original BFI (44 items):

• 85-90% of validity maintained with 66% fewer items (Lang et al., 2011)
• Similar factor structure and external correlates
• Acceptable trade-off for research requiring efficiency

Usage Guidelines and Applications

Optimal Research Applications

When BFI-S is most appropriate:

• Survey research where personality is secondary or control variable
• Longitudinal studies requiring efficient repeated personality measurement
• Large-scale population studies with sample sizes >500
• Cross-cultural research needing validated brief measures
• Organizational and educational research on personality
• Online studies where participant retention is concern

Research Design Considerations

Sample size planning:

• Minimum N = 200 for stable correlational analyses
• N >300 recommended for factor analysis and structural equation modeling
• Larger samples compensate for modest reduction in reliability vs. longer measures

Statistical considerations:

• Report internal consistency for your specific sample
• Consider measurement error in power analyses
• Use appropriate statistical corrections for attenuation when possible
• Focus on effect sizes and patterns rather than precise point estimates

Validation approaches:

• Consider parallel administration with longer Big Five measure in subsample
• Validate criterion relationships in your specific research context
• Report correlations with relevant external criteria

Administration Guidelines

Best practices:

• Provide clear instructions emphasizing honest self-reflection
• Ensure distraction-free environment for focused attention (5-8 minutes)
• Collect relevant demographic variables for normative comparisons
• Consider counterbalancing when used with other measures

Multiple assessment contexts:

• Suitable for repeated measurement in longitudinal designs
• Adequate sensitivity for detecting personality change over longer intervals
• Less appropriate for detecting short-term state changes

When NOT to Use BFI-S

Inappropriate applications:

• Individual clinical assessment or diagnosis
• High-stakes decision-making (hiring, clinical placement, etc.)
• When detailed facet-level personality information needed
• Situations requiring comprehensive personality profiling
• Clinical intervention planning requiring nuanced understanding
• Assessment in contexts where measurement precision is critical

Usage Recommendations

Reporting guidelines:

• Always report internal consistency for your sample
• Cite both development article and relevant validation studies
• Acknowledge brevity trade-offs in limitations section
• Report both raw correlations and effect sizes

Combination strategies:

• Supplement with detailed measures in subsamples for validation
• Use for initial screening before comprehensive assessment
• Combine with other brief measures for broader construct coverage

Limitations and Cautions

• Domain-level only: Cannot assess specific facets within each Big Five dimension
• Modest reliability: Lower than comprehensive measures, particularly for Agreeableness
• Reduced precision: Not suitable for individual clinical assessment
• Content limitations: 3 items cannot capture full breadth of each personality domain
• Change sensitivity: Less sensitive to short-term personality changes than longer measures

Import & Customize Testable Template

► Import scale to your Testable account – Add this scale. Modify instructions, edit questions, adjust presentation. Test anyone (including yourself)

► Try Testable version – View the full implementation of this scale in Testable.

► View detailed implementation guide in Testable – Step by step instructions for complete customization.

► Browse other tests and scales in Testable Library – The largest collection of ready-made psychological tests and scales.

Legal and Copyright Information

Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.

The BFI-S is freely available for research and educational purposes. The measure was developed from the public domain Big Five Inventory and is available without licensing fees for non-commercial academic research.

Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development study:

Lang, F. R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 548-567.

External Links and Resources

Big Five Personality Traits – Wikipedia

International Personality Item Pool

References

Primary Development Citation:

• Lang, F. R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 548-567.

Validation Studies:

• Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality – Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3), 355-359.
• Zecca, G., Röcke, C., Alemand, M., Martin, M., Dubosson, F., & Zilioli, M. (2013). Validation of a French short form of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10). Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 809.

Comparative Research:

• Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales – Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185-189.

Criterion Validity:

• Vedel, A. (2014). The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 66-76.
• Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 323-346.