Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

Last updated

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) is a test to measure 12 biologically and neurochemically based individual differences.

Contents

Purpose and format

The Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) is a self-report (for adult versions) or observer-administered (for children) questionnaire measuring 12 biologically-based characteristics of behaviour (temperament traits). These characteristics are the most consistent aspects of the behaviour of an individual across his or her lifespan and are relatively independent of the content of the situation. Initially, all versions of the STQ were developed and validated on adult samples and were designed for the purposes of organizational, educational and clinical psychology. Now there are also Child versions of the Short and Compact STQ, for administration by observers and/or guardians of the child. [1] [2] Items in all versions of the STQ are given in the form of a statement, with a response following the Likert scale format: "strongly disagree (1)," "disagree (2)," "agree (3)," "strongly agree (4)". The Compact STQ (STQ-77) is the only temperament test based on neurochemical framework of temperament (see Functional Ensemble of Temperament).

Experimental background of the STQ models

The STQ is based on the Eastern-European tradition of experiments investigating the types and properties of nervous systems. This tradition is the longest in (110 years old) among all traditions of temperamental research. It started from extensive experiments on several species of mammals, and then continued with human adults and children within the Pavlovian Institute of Highest Nervous Activity (Pavlov, 1941, 1957). It then was continued within the Laboratory of Differential Psychophysiology and Differential Psychology (Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences), supervised by Boris Teplov (1963), then Vladimir Nebylitsyn (1972), and then Vladimir Rusalov. [3] [1] [4] The STQ has several versions, which are based on two models of the structure of temperament: Rusalov's model and Trofimova's model. All versions of the STQ are based on the Activity-specific approach in temperament research. This approach differentiates between the traits related to 3 aspects of behaviour: social-verbal, physical and mental. All models and all modern versions of the STQ have 12 temperament scales.

Rusalov's versions of the STQ

There are two versions of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire based on Rusalov's model: an Extended STQ (STQ-150) and a Short STQ (STQ-26) [5] [1] Both versions use 12 scales, which are grouped by 3 types of activities and 4 formal-dynamical aspects of activities, and a validity scale:

Rusalov's model of the STQ Rusalov's STQ.jpg
Rusalov's model of the STQ

The Extended STQ is a 150-item self-report measure with 144 items assigned to 12 temperament scales (12 items each), 1 validity scale (6 items), and 6 indexes, which combine these scales. The values on each of temperament scales vary between 12 and 48. The validity scale is designed to measure a social desirability tendency. The value on this scale varies from 6 and 24, and protocols having a score higher than 17 on this scale are considered to be invalid.

Testing with the STQ-150 takes 30 minutes.

There was also an initial version of Rusalov's model, STQ-105, [6] which used the same items and scales as the 8 scales of the STQ-150 (Extended) version, with the exception of the three scales related to intellectual aspects of activities (Intellectual Ergonicity, Intellectual Plasticity, Intellectual Tempo, Intellectual Emotionality). Rusalov upgraded his model to 12 (4 x 3) components implemented in his Extended STQ in the mid-1990s. [5]

Rusalov's version of the STQ measures 12 traits related to 4 aspects of behaviour (ergonicity (endurance), plasticity, tempo and emotionality), which are grouped by three aspects of behavior: motor-physical, social-verbal and intellectual. This model was incorporated in the extended Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. The factor analysis of the data received on Russian, Australian, American, Canadian, Urdu-Canadian, Polish-Canadian and Chinese samples confirmed a separation between the factors related to these three aspects of behavior. [5] [1] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Administration of the Extended STQ in practice was rather time-consuming, so Rusalov and Trofimova agreed to develop shorter, more compact versions of the STQ, which would be more suitable for screening purposes in clinical, organizational, vocational and educational settings. [4] The items with the highest item-total correlations were selected for these versions. Rusalov developed the Short version of the STQ, and Trofimova developed the Compact version of the STQ (STQ-77). The Short STQ (STQ-26) is composed of 2 out of 12 items on each scale of the Extended STQ, including the validity scale. This version was adapted for the assessment of adults, teenagers, preschool and early school children. [11]

Compact version of the STQ (STQ-77) (Trofimova's version)

During the studies of psychometric properties of the Extended STQ and a selection of the most valid items for the Compact version of the STQ Irina Trofimova suggested an update of the structure of the STQ based on her analysis of functionality of neurotransmitters, hormones and opioid systems (known as neurochemical framework Functional Ensemble of Temperament [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] {. [17] [18] With the help of Prof. William Sulis, McMaster University, Canada, she developed the Compact version of the STQ (STQ-77). The STQ-77 consists of 12 temperament scales (6 items each), and a validity scale (5 items), i.e. in total 77 items. STQ-77 has adult and several pilot Childhood versions.

Testing with the STQ-77 takes 12-15 minutes.

The STQ-77 arranges the dimensions of temperament into functional groups differently than the STQ-150 (compare two Figures). Similar to the Rusalov's STQ-150, the STQ-77 differentiates between the traits regulating motor-physical, social-verbal and mental-probabilistic aspects of behaviour. [1] [19] [20] [21] [22]

The differences between Trofimova's and Rusalov's models of temperament (and the structures of their versions of the STQ) are:

The STQ-77 is therefore partially based on the model of Rusalov's STQ-150, but also on the work of Luria describing the functionality of three neurophysiological systems: “sensory-informational block”, “programming block” and “energetic block” regulating human behaviour. The re-arrangement of the STQ scales in the STQ-77 scales was also based on the analysis of commonalities between the leading European and American models of temperament and the latest findings in neurophysiology and neurochemistry. The support of the STQ-77 architecture was recently reinforced by the review in neurochemistry research resulted in development of a neurochemical model Functional Ensemble of Temperament (FET) that maps an interplay between main neurotransmitter systems and temperament traits [12] [13] [14] [23] [16] [17] [15]

Description of the temperament scales of the STQ-77

Versions in other languages and validation

Validation history of the STQ-105 and STQ-150

The Extended (STQ-150) version was adapted to five languages: English, Russian, Chinese, Polish and Urdu. [1]

Evidence for construct, concurrent and discriminatory validity of the STQ-105 and STQ-150 was demonstrated through significant correlations with the following measures:

Trofimova's model: Structure of Temperament Questionnaire-Compact, STQ-77 ("Functional Ensemble of Temperament") Trofima's STQ Model.jpg
Trofimova's model: Structure of Temperament Questionnaire–Compact, STQ-77 ("Functional Ensemble of Temperament")

Factor structure of the STQ-150

Factor analysis of the Russian version of the STQ-150 consistently showed four factors: Motor-physical activity (which includes Motor Ergonicity, Motor Plasticity, Motor Tempo), Social-Verbal activity (which includes Social Ergonicity, Social Plasticity, Social Tempo), Intellectual Activity (which includes Intellectual Ergonicity, Intellectual Plasticity, Intellectual Tempo) and Emotionality (3 scales of Emotionality) [5] [1] [45] [34] [11]

The administration of the English version of the STQ to American, Australian, and Canadian samples showed that the factor structure of this version is similar to the Russian language version, and that the English version possesses good reliability and internal consistency, [1] [10] [8] [9] [7] [64]

Chinese (STQ-C), Urdu (STQ-U) and Polish (STQ-P) Extended versions of the STQ, administered among corresponding populations, showed reliability coefficients in the range 0.70-0.86, item-total correlations in the range 0.42-0.73, and all versions demonstrated robust factor structures similar to those of the original version [1] [7]

The validation of the STQ-77

The Compact (STQ-77) version was adapted to three languages: English, Russian and Chinese. [1] Moreover, evidence for the construct, concurrent and discriminatory validity of the STQ-77 was demonstrated through significant correlations with the following measures:

The clinical validation studies conducted with the use of the STQ-77 showed that its scales match the structure of symptoms of mental disorders described in main classifications DSM-V, ICD much better than other temperament models, and they are capable of differentiating between anxiety and depression [73] [65] [72] [66]

The validation of the STQ-77 structure was successful by its comparison to the main findings in neurochemistry. As the result of such comparison the scales of the STQ-77 were linked to the ensemble interactions between main neurotransmitter systems (presented as a neurochemical Functional Ensemble of Temperament model) [12] [13] [14] [17] [16] [15]

Factor structure of the STQ-77

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Compact STQ (STQ-77) using data from Canadian, Chinese, Russian, and Brazilian samples shows a satisfactory fit of the traditional 4-factor STQ activity-specific model, grouping the scales to the factors of Motor, Social, Intellectual activity and Emotionality and having 2 correlated residuals (from the new scale of Sensitivity to Sensations to Impulsivity and Neuroticism scales) with the CFI > .90, RMSEA < .07 and RMSR < .06. [20] [1] [68]

The STQ-77 arranges the dimensions of temperament into 12 components differently than it is done in the STQ-150 (see and compare two Figures). The structure of the STQ-77 relies on verified neurochemical biomarkers and expands a rough 4-factor structure derived from factor analysis. Similar to the Rusalov's STQ-150, the STQ-77 differentiates between the traits regulating motor-physical, social-verbal and mental-probabilistic aspects of behaviour [1] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Language versions

Beginning from 2017 the STQ-77 is offered for free for a non-commercial use (research and personal testing) in 24 languages: Bulgarian, Chinese-Simplified, Chinese-Traditional, Dari, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Hindu, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, and Urdu. [1] [68] [71] There are versions for screening child temperament in English and Russian for the ages 0–3, 4-7, 8-11 and 12-16, freely available on the website of test developers. There are also several child versions in other languages.

A battery of behavioural testing in line with 12 components of the STQ-77/FET has been developed for adult and children age groups in English and Russian. [2] Behavioural testing batteries are designed for individual and in-group (class) testing.

The extended STQ-150 was also adapted in 6 languages: English (using US, [9] [8] [10] Australian [64] and Canadian [1] [7] samples), Chinese-Simplified, [1] Russian, [1] [7] [5] [11] Polish, [1] [7] [49] Urdu [1] [7] and German. [48] [49] The STQ-150 has an old, less efficient scale structure in comparison to the STQ-77 and, therefore, is not recommended for further translations.

Related Research Articles

Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that examines personality and its variation among individuals. It aims to show how people are individually different due to psychological forces. Its areas of focus include:

In psychology, temperament broadly refers to consistent individual differences in behavior that are biologically based and are relatively independent of learning, system of values and attitudes.

Personality is any person's collection of interrelated behavioral, cognitive and emotional patterns that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life. These interrelated patterns are relatively stable, but can change over long time periods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personality test</span> Method of assessing human personality constructs

A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception, however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales, and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Raymond Cattell</span> British-American psychologist (1905–1998)

Raymond Bernard Cattell was a British-American psychologist, known for his psychometric research into intrapersonal psychological structure. His work also explored the basic dimensions of personality and temperament, the range of cognitive abilities, the dynamic dimensions of motivation and emotion, the clinical dimensions of abnormal personality, patterns of group syntality and social behavior, applications of personality research to psychotherapy and learning theory, predictors of creativity and achievement, and many multivariate research methods including the refinement of factor analytic methods for exploring and measuring these domains. Cattell authored, co-authored, or edited almost 60 scholarly books, more than 500 research articles, and over 30 standardized psychometric tests, questionnaires, and rating scales. According to a widely cited ranking, Cattell was the 16th most eminent, 7th most cited in the scientific journal literature, and among the most productive psychologists of the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Big Five personality traits</span> Personality model consisting of five broad dimensions

In trait theory, the Big Five personality traits are a group of five characteristics used to study personality:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Need for cognition</span> Psychology concept

The need for cognition (NFC), in psychology, is a personality variable reflecting the extent to which individuals are inclined towards effortful cognitive activities.

Neuroticism is a personality trait associated with negative emotions. It is one of the Big Five traits. Individuals with high scores on neuroticism are more likely than average to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, pessimism, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. Such people are thought to respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations, such as minor frustrations, as appearing hopelessly difficult. Their behavioral responses may include procrastination, substance use, and other maladaptive behaviors, which may temporarily aid in relieving negative emotions and generating positive ones.

Openness to experience is one of the domains which are used to describe human personality in the Five Factor Model. Openness involves six facets, or dimensions: active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety (adventurousness), intellectual curiosity, and challenging authority. A great deal of psychometric research has demonstrated that these facets or qualities are significantly correlated. Thus, openness can be viewed as a global personality trait consisting of a set of specific traits, habits, and tendencies that cluster together.

Psychological evaluation is a method to assess an individual's behavior, personality, cognitive abilities, and several other domains. A common reason for a psychological evaluation is to identify psychological factors that may be inhibiting a person's ability to think, behave, or regulate emotion functionally or constructively. It is the mental equivalent of physical examination. Other psychological evaluations seek to better understand the individual's unique characteristics or personality to predict things like workplace performance or customer relationship management.

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a self-reported personality test developed over several decades of empirical research by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber. The 16PF provides a measure of personality and can also be used by psychologists, and other mental health professionals, as a clinical instrument to help diagnose psychiatric disorders, and help with prognosis and therapy planning. The 16PF can also provide information relevant to the clinical and counseling process, such as an individual's capacity for insight, self-esteem, cognitive style, internalization of standards, openness to change, capacity for empathy, level of interpersonal trust, quality of attachments, interpersonal needs, attitude toward authority, reaction toward dynamics of power, frustration tolerance, and coping style. Thus, the 16PF instrument provides clinicians with a normal-range measurement of anxiety, adjustment, emotional stability and behavioral problems. Clinicians can use 16PF results to identify effective strategies for establishing a working alliance, to develop a therapeutic plan, and to select effective therapeutic interventions or modes of treatment. It can also be used within other areas of psychology, such as career and occupational selection.

Sensation seeking is a personality trait defined by the search for experiences and feelings, that are "varied, novel, rich and intense", and by the readiness to "take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experiences." Risk is not an essential part of the trait, as many activities associated with it are not risky. However, risk may be ignored, tolerated, or minimized and may even be considered to add to the excitement of the activity. The concept was developed by Marvin Zuckerman of the University of Delaware. In order to assess this trait he created a personality test called the Sensation Seeking Scale. This test assesses individual differences in terms of sensory stimulation preferences. So there are people who prefer a strong stimulation and display a behavior that manifests a greater desire for sensations and there are those who prefer a low sensory stimulation. The scale is a questionnaire designed to measure how much stimulation a person requires and the extent to which they enjoy the excitement. Zuckerman hypothesized that people who are high sensation seekers require a lot of stimulation to reach their Optimal Level of Arousal. When the stimulation or sensory input is not met, the person finds the experience unpleasant.

Persistence(PS) is a key personality trait identified by psychiatrist C. Robert Cloninger in his Psychobiological Model of Personality. It describes an individual's propensity to remain motivated, resilient and goal-driven in the face of challenges and difficulties they may encounter whilst carrying out tasks and working towards goals. More precisely, persistence refers to “perseverance in spite of fatigue or frustration”. According to Cloninger, this perseverance demonstrates a psychological determination that is foundational in aiding an individual's long-term success in achieving goals.

Within personality psychology, it has become common practice to use factor analysis to derive personality traits. The Big Five model proposes that there are five basic personality traits. These traits were derived in accordance with the lexical hypothesis. These five personality traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience have garnered widespread support.

In psychology, a facet is a specific and unique aspect of a broader personality trait. Both the concept and the term "facet" were introduced by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae in the first edition of the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) Manual. Facets were originally elaborated only for the neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion traits; Costa and McCrae introduced facet scales for the agreeableness and conscientiousness traits in the Revised NEO-PI. Each of the Big Five personality traits in the five factor model contains six facets, each of which is measured with a separate scale. The use of facets and facet scales has since expanded beyond the NEO PI-R, with alternative facet and domain structures derived from other models of personality. Examples include the HEXACO model of personality structure, psycholexical studies, circumplex models, the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), and the California Psychological Inventory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personality in animals</span>

Personality in animals has been investigated across a variety of different scientific fields including agricultural science, animal behaviour, anthropology, psychology, veterinary medicine, and zoology. Thus, the definition for animal personality may vary according to the context and scope of study. However, there is recent consensus in the literature for a broad definition that describes animal personality as individual differences in behaviour that are consistent across time and ecological context. Here, consistency refers to the repeatability of behavioural differences between individuals and not a trait that presents itself the same way in varying environments.

Activity-specific approach in temperament research is the theory related to a structure of temperament, i.e. how temperament traits can be classified and organized. This approach suggests:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vladimir Rusalov</span> Russian psychologist and anthropologist (1939–2023)

Vladimir Mikhailovich Rusalov was a Russian psychologist and anthropologist who was the first to develop a temperament model within the activity-specific approach. He was best known for his work in psychology of personality, temperament and differential psychophysiology.

Functional Ensemble of Temperament (FET) is a neurochemical model suggesting specific functional roles of main neurotransmitter systems in the regulation of behaviour.

Personality neuroscience uses neuroscientific methods to study the neurobiological mechanisms underlying individual differences in stable psychological attributes. Specifically, personality neuroscience aims to investigate the relationships between inter-individual variation in brain structures as well as functions and behavioral measures of persistent psychological traits, broadly defined as "predispositions and average tendencies to be in particular states", including but are not limited to personality traits, sociobehavioral tendencies, and psychopathological risk factors. Personality neuroscience is considered as an interdisciplinary field integrating research questions and methodologies from social psychology, personality psychology, and neuroscience. It is closely related to other interdisciplinary fields, such as social, cognitive, and affective neuroscience.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Rusalov, VM; Trofimova, IN (2007). Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press.
  2. 1 2 Trofimova IN, Zvereva N, Zvereva M, Sergienko A (2024). "Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of the Child (age 7-11) Version of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire-Compact in Two Cultures". Natural Systems of Mind. 4 (1): 17–31. doi:10.38098/nsom_2024_04_01_02 (inactive 1 November 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  3. 1 2 3 Rusalov VM (1979). Biologicheskiye osnovi individual'no-psichologicheskih razlichiy [Biological basis of individual psychological differences] Moscow: Nauka Russia.
  4. 1 2 Rusalov, Vladimir (2018). "Functional systems theory and the activity-specific approach in psychological taxonomies". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 373 (1744): 20170166. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0166. PMC   5832690 . PMID   29483350.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Rusalov, VM (1997). Oprosnik formal'no-dynamicheskih svoystv individual'nosti. Questionnaire of formal-dynamical properties of individual. Moscow: IPRAN.
  6. 1 2 Rusalov, VM (1989). "Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament". Personality and Individual Differences. 10 (8): 817–827. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90017-2.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trofimova, IN (2010). "Exploration of the activity-specific model of temperament in four languages". International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 10/1: 79–95.
  8. 1 2 3 Dumenci, L. (1996). "Factorial validity of scores on the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire". Educational and Psychological Measurement. 56 (3): 487–493. doi:10.1177/0013164496056003010. S2CID   144976424.
  9. 1 2 3 Bishop, D.; et al. (1993). "Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): Results from a US sample". Personality and Individual Differences. 14 (3): 485–487. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90318-w.
  10. 1 2 3 Bishop, D.; Hertenstrein, M. (2004). "A confirmatory factor analysis of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire". Educational and Psychological Measurement. 64 (6): 1019–1029. doi:10.1177/0013164404264843. S2CID   145721602.
  11. 1 2 3 Rusalov, VM (2004). Formal'no-dynamicheskiye svoystva individual'nosti (temperament) [Formal-dynamical properties of individual (temperament)]. Russian Academy of Sciences, IPAN Press: Moscow.
  12. 1 2 3 Trofimova, IN (2016). "The interlocking between functional aspects of activities and a neurochemical model of adult temperament". In: Arnold, M.C. (Ed.) Temperaments: Individual Differences, Social and Environmental Influences and Impact on Quality of Life. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: 77–147.
  13. 1 2 3 Trofimova, I.; Robbins, T.W. (2016). "Temperament and arousal systems: a new synthesis of differential psychology and functional neurochemistry". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 64: 382–402. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.008. hdl: 11375/26202 . PMID   26969100. S2CID   13937324.
  14. 1 2 3 Trofimova, IN (2018). "Functionality vs dimensionality in psychological taxonomies, and a puzzle of emotional valence". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 373, 1744 (1744). doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0167. PMC   5832691 . PMID   29483351.
  15. 1 2 3 Trofimova, I; Gaykalova, A (2021). "Emotionality vs. other biobehavioural traits: a look at neurochemical biomarkers for their differentiation". Frontiers in Psychology. 12: 781631. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781631 . PMC   8720768 . PMID   34987450.
  16. 1 2 3 Trofimova, I. (2021). "Contingent tunes of neurochemical ensembles in the norm and pathology: can we see the patterns?". Neuropsychobiology. 80 (2): 101–133. doi: 10.1159/000513688 . PMID   33721867. S2CID   232243254.
  17. 1 2 3 Trofimova, I (2021). "Functional constructivism approach to multilevel nature of biobehavioural diversity". Frontiers in Psychiatry. 12: 641286. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.641286 . PMC   8578849 . PMID   34777031.
  18. ↑ Trofimova, I (2022). "Transient nature of stable behavioural patterns, and how we can respect it". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 44: 641286. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.10.101109 (inactive 1 November 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trofimova, IN (2010). "Questioning the "general arousal" models". Open Behavioral Science and Psychology. 4: 1–8. doi: 10.2174/1874230001004010001 .
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Trofimova, IN (2010). "An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality". American Journal of Psychology. 123 (4): 467–480. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.4.0467. PMID   21291163. S2CID   35517343.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Trofimova, IN; Sulis, W (2011). "Is temperament activity-specific? Validation of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire – Compact (STQ-77)". International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 11 (3): 389–400.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rusalov VM, Trofimova IN (2011). "O predstavlennosti tipov psichicheskoy deatelnosti v raslichnih modelyah temperamenta [On representation of psychological types in several models of temperament]". Psychological Journal [Psichologicheskii Zjurnal]. 32 (3): 74–84.
  23. ↑ Trofimova, IN (2019). "An overlap between mental abilities and temperament traits". McFarland, D. (Ed.) General and Specific Mental Abilities. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, UK: 176–225.
  24. 1 2 Bodunov MV, Bezdenezhnykh BN, Alexandrov YI (1996). "Charakteristika otvetov na testovie zadania psihologicheskih metodik i structura individual'nogo opita [Peculiarities of psychodiagnostic test item responses and the structure of individual experience]". Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. 17 (4): 87–96.
  25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gritzenko S.V. (1996). Relationship between strength of nervous system, specific types of intellectual activity and auditory sensitivity. In: Education of children and youth: modern methods [Obrazovanie detey i molodeji: sovremenniye metodi]. University Press of Russian Academy of Education. Moscow. pp. 147–156.
  26. 1 2 3 4 Vasyura, S.A. (2008). "Psychology of male and female communicative activity". The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 11 (1): 289–300. doi:10.1017/s1138741600004327. PMID   18630669. S2CID   16765000.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Biryukov SD (1992). "Psychogenetic study of plasticity as a temperamental trait". Psychological Journal (Psikhologicheskii Zjurnal). 13 (5): 64–71.
  28. 1 2 3 4 Chernyshev BV, Lazarev IE, Chernysheva EG (2013). "Temperament: an event-related potential study using the oddball paradigm" (PDF). Psychology & Neuroscience. 6 (3): 235–245. doi:10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.01.
  29. ↑ Dumenci, L. (1995). "The relation between the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire and other personality domains". Educational and Psychological Measurement. 55 (5): 850–857. doi:10.1177/0013164495055005020. S2CID   145539234.
  30. ↑ Trofimova, I (1995). "Interconnections of characteristics of temperament with peculiarities of semantic space". Dissertation Thesis. Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow.
  31. 1 2 3 Kornienko DS (2006). "Characteristics of integral individuality from the perspective of psychogenetic approach". Psychology of Individuality. High Economic School/Series Psychology. Moscow.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Zin'ko, E.V. (2006). Relationship between self-image and aspiration level in parameters of stability and relevance [Sootnoshenie samootsenki i urovnya prityazaniy po parametram ustoychivosti i adekvatnosti]. Dissertation thesis. Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
  33. 1 2 Podbutskaya, NV (2014). "Self-regulation features of engineering students". Ananiev's Readings-2014. Psychological Bases of Professional Activities – Conference Proceedings. Skifia-print: St-Petersburg: 194–196.
  34. 1 2 3 4 Shreyber, TV (2004). "Goal development and self-regulation of modern high school children". Proceedings of Udmurdt University [Vestnik Udmurdskogo Universitheta]. Psychology and Pedagogics. 11: 70–80.
  35. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Drozdov SV (2000). Динамика мотивационно-смысловых образований личности студентов в процессе адаптации к учебе. Dissertation. Kursk State Pedagogical University. Kursk, Russia.
  36. ↑ Rusalov, V.M.; Parilis, S.E. (1991). "Temperament and particularities of cognitive system of personality". Psychological Journal [Psichologicheskii Zjurnal]. 12 (1): 118–123.
  37. ↑ Eputaev, E.Y.; Ikonnikova M.E., Agarkov B.A., Tarabrina N.V. (2003). "Dissociative states and formal-dynamical properties of individual". Proceedings of 7th Multidisciplinary Conference "Stress and Behaviour": 121–123. Moscow: IPRAN Press.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  38. 1 2 Beere D, Pica M (1995). "The predisposition to dissociate: the temperamental traits of flexibility/rigidity, daily rhythm, emotionality and interactional speed". Dissociation. VIII (4): 236–240.
  39. ↑ Rusalov VM (1988). Psychological individual differences and bio-electric activity of the brain (Ed.) [Индивидуально-психологические различия и биоэлектрическая активность мозга]. Moscow: Nauka.
  40. 1 2 Rusalov, VM; Kalashnikov, SV. (1988). "On the correlation of psychic plasticity with the integral factors of human brain bioelectrical activity". Rusalov, V. M. (Ed.) Individual'no -psikhologicheskie Razlichiya I Bioelektricheskaya Aktivnost' Mozga Cheloveka [Individual Psychological Differences and Human Brain Bioelectrical Activity]Moscow: Nauka. 1: 5–55.
  41. 1 2 3 Rathee, N.; Singh, R. (2001). "Mobility or/and Lability of the Nervous Processes as Temperamental Trait(s)". Personality and Individual Differences. 31 (7): 1091–1104. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00206-3.
  42. ↑ Rusalov VM, Kalashnikova IG (1992). "Psychological testing of temperament". Zhurnal Vysshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti [Journal of Higher Nervous Activity]. 42 (1): 44.
  43. ↑ Rusalov VM, Rusalova MN, Kalashnikova IG, Stepanov VG, Strelnikova, TN (1993). "Bioelectrical activity of the brain in subjects with different types of temperament". Zhurnal Vysshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti [Journal of Higher Nervous Activity]. 43 (3): 530–542.
  44. ↑ Brebner, J.; Stough, C. (1993). "The relationship between the Structure of Temperament and Extraversion and Neuroticism". Personality and Individual Differences. 14 (4): 623–626. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90160-5.
  45. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rusalov, VM; Naumova, ER (1999). "On the relationship between general abilities and "intellectual" scales of temperament". Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. 20 (1): 70–77.
  46. 1 2 Buzova VM (1997). "Samoactualizacia predstaviteley Komi i russkogo etnosov [Self-actualization in representatives of Komi and Russian ethnic groups]". Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. 18 (1): 61–69.
  47. ↑ Rusalov VM, Rusalova MN, Strelnikova EV (2000). "Temperament cheloveka i osobennosti vibora mejdu veroyatnostyu dostijeniya tseli i ee tzennostyu [Temperament of man and peculiarities of choice between the probability of goal achievement and its value]". Zhurnal Vysshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti [Journal of Higher Nervous Activity]. 50 (3): 388.
  48. 1 2 Ruch, W; Angleitner, A; Strelau, J (1991). "The Strelau Temperament Inventory Revised (STI-R): Validity studies". European Journal of Personality. 5 (4): 287–308. doi:10.1002/per.2410050403. S2CID   11316083.
  49. 1 2 3 Strelau, J. (1999). The Pavlovian Temperament Survey (PTS): An international handbook. Hogrefe-Huber Publishers.
  50. 1 2 Trofimova (2009). "Exploration of the benefits of an activity-specific test of temperament". Psychological Reports. 105 (2): 643–658. doi:10.2466/pr0.105.2.643-658. PMID   19928626. S2CID   35961439.
  51. ↑ Tkachenko A, Demidova L, Kirenskaya A, ZinaidaStorozheva Z, Samylkin D (2022). "Clinical transforming of personality disorders: comorbidity, severity or dynamical changes in the structure of individuality?". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 43: 88–94. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.08.010. S2CID   237510371.
  52. 1 2 Rusalov, VM; Dudin, SI (1995). "Temperament i intellect: obchie b specificheskiye factori rasvitiya [Temperament and Intelligence: general and specific factors of development]". Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. 16 (5): 12–23.
  53. ↑ Popov YuA (1996). "Psychoregulation and Temperament". Annual Reports of Russian Professional Education (RPO). 4 (2): 57–78.
  54. 1 2 Popov Yu.A. (2006). "Trevojnost' v psycho-pedagogocheskom portrete studenta kolledga [Anxiety in psycho-pedagogical portrait of a College student]". Professional'noye Obuchenie [Professional Education]. 8: 24–25.
  55. ↑ Vorobieva, EV (2004). "Modern psychogenetic studies of intelligence and theory of motivation for achievements". Journal of Applied Psychology. 3: 53–59.
  56. ↑ Rusalov VM, Galimov RA (2002). "On heredity of formal-dynamical properties of individuality". Proceedings of the Second International Luria Memorial Conference. Moscow.
  57. ↑ Vorobyeva, E.V.; et al. (2015). "The relationships between the achievement motivations and temperaments of psychology students with different lateral organization profiles". Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 8: 32. doi: 10.11621/pir.2015.0104 .
  58. ↑ Savchenkov YI, Petrosyan EY (2009). "Comparison of general and specific types of temperament [Sravnitelnaya harakteristika obschih i chastnyh tipov temperamenta]". Siberian Medical Review [Sibirskoye Medicinskoye Obozrenie]. 58 (4): 20–24.
  59. ↑ Rusalov, V.M.; Poltavtzeva, L. I. (1997). "Temperament as a prerequisite of creative abilities". Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous Activity. 47 (3): 451–460.
  60. ↑ Trofimova, I (1999). "How people of different age, sex and temperament estimate the world". Psychological Reports. 85 (2): 533–552. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.533. PMID   10611787. S2CID   8335544.
  61. ↑ Volkova DA (2006). "Analysis of approaches to study activity as temperamental and personality properties of a subject". Reports of RUDN University (Vestnik RUDN), Psychology and Pedagogics. 1 (3): 74–82.
  62. ↑ Trofimova, I.N. (1997). "Interconnections of characteristics of temperament with some peculiarities of cognitive activity of human". Questions of Psychology. 1: 74–82.
  63. 1 2 3 Trofimova, I (2014). "Observer bias: how temperament matters in semantic perception of lexical material". PLOS ONE. 9 (1): e85677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085677 . PMC   3903487 . PMID   24475048.
  64. 1 2 Stough, C.; Brebner, J.; Cooper, C. (1991). "The Rusalov Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): results from an Australian sample". Personality and Individual Differences. 12 (12): 1355–1357. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90212-t.
  65. 1 2 3 4 Trofimova, IN; Sulis, W (2016). "Benefits of distinguishing between physical and social-verbal aspects of behaviour: an example of generalized anxiety". Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 338. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00338 . PMC   4789559 . PMID   27014146.
  66. 1 2 Trofimova, IN; Sulis, W (2018). "There is more to mental illness than negative affect: comprehensive temperament profiles in depression and generalized anxiety". BMC Psychiatry. 18:125 (1): 125. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1695-x . PMC   5946468 . PMID   29747614.
  67. 1 2 3 Sulis, William (2018). "Assessing the continuum between temperament and affective illness: Psychiatric and mathematical perspectives". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 373 (1744): 20170168. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0168. PMC   5832692 . PMID   29483352.
  68. 1 2 3 4 Araki ME, Trofimova I (2021). "Validation of the Portuguese version of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-77Pt) based on a Brazilian sample". Natural Systems of Mind. 1: 35–47. doi:10.38098/nsom_2021_01_03_04. S2CID   246343371.
  69. ↑ Almayev NA, Murasheva OV, Petrovich DL (2020). "EEG correlates of personality questionnaires: Rusalov's STQ-150, Trofimova's STQ-77 and Cloninger's TCI, Russian version". Psychophysiology news (Vestnik psychophisiologii)]. 3: 135–138.
  70. ↑ Almayev NA, Murasheva OV, Petrovich DL (2024). "Rusalov STQ-150 and Rusalov-Trofimova STQ-77 in Relation to the EEG Spectral Power". Natural Systems of Mind. 4 (1): 6–16. doi:10.38098/nsom_2024_04_01_01 (inactive 1 November 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  71. 1 2 3 Trofimova I, Araki M (2022). "Psychometrics vs neurochemistry: A controversy around mobility-like scales of temperament". Personality and Individual Differences. 187: 111446. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111446. S2CID   245108568.
  72. 1 2 3 4 Trofimova, IN; Sulis, W (2016). "A study of the coupling of FET temperament traits with major depression". Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 1848. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01848 . PMC   5123189 . PMID   27933018.
  73. 1 2 Trofimova, IN; Christiansen, J. (2016). "Coupling of temperament traits with mental illness in four age groups". Psychological Reports. 118 (2): 387–412. doi:10.1177/0033294116639430. PMID   27154370. S2CID   24465522.
  74. ↑ Zvereva N, Zvereva M, Pyatnitskaya L (2020). "Temperament profiles of children and adolescents with psychotic and mood disorders". Neuropsychobiology. 80 (2): 176–184. doi:10.1159/000511108. PMID   33130675. S2CID   226235185.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.