As described by Feist et. al., a scientific theory is a collection of assumptions, from which testable hypotheses can be formed, and a useful theory has six criteria (Feist,Feist, & Roberts, n.d.). In reality, evaluating a theory has always been a challenging task. For example, some theories were grounded in quantitative data while others were grounded in qualitative data and those groups should be evaluated differently (Fawcett, 2005). This short post proposes the strategy of condensing check-point questions from the works of Fawcett (Fawcett, 2005) and Parse(Parse, 2005) into a new set, which is then mapped to the six criteria listed below.
(1) It generates descriptive research (contributing) and hypothesis testing(indirect verification).
• What are the changes to the theory over the years?
• How does the theory influence research directions and related practices?
• How many publications have arisen from the theory?
(2) It is falsifiable (confirmed or disconfirmed).
• Can it be confirmed or disconfirmed using qualitative and/or quantitativescientific research methods?
• Can it be confirmed or disconfirmed using legal scientific research methods?
• Can it be confirmed or disconfirmed to a satisfiable depth ?
(3) It helps with arranging its building blocks into meaningful arrangements thatfoster better understanding and research.
• Is it generally feasible to implement the theory in practice?
• How hard it is to teach people the theory’s related knowledge components beforeapplying it in the real world?
(4) It guides actions in solving emerging problems.•Has the theory been applied in real world practice?
• Do the theory-based practice lead to favorable outcomes and/or meet expectations?
• Does the theory support measurements of the problem-solving actions’ results?
• Can the theory-based action results be compared?
(5) It is internally consistent.
• Was the scope well-defined?•Does the theory clearly describe concepts, assumptions, and principles?•Are the terms and level of discourse consistent across concepts, assumptions and principles?
• Are philosophical claims, conceptual model(s), propositions of the theory congruent?
(6) It is parsimonious.
•Was the theory stated clearly and concisely?
•Can the theory be re-written at a more abstract level and still remain useful?
Let’s apply the above-mentioned framework in evaluating the "Big Five Personality Traits" theory of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openess (O),Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C) (Costa & McCrae, 1999). Briefly, N isabout emotional stability, E is about the sociability of emotions, O is about the openness of thinking and emotions, A is about pro/anti-social behaviors, and C is about thoughtfulness and self-controls. Within each category of traits, there are pairs of scales. For example, there are conscientious v.s negligence, hardworking v.s lazy,well-organized v.s disorganized, punctual v.s late, ambitious v.s aimless, and perseveringv.s. quitting. Exceptional people lean more towards one end of the pairs while the majority stay at the middle of the bell-curve.
In terms of generating research, Google Scholar search page shows that the NEO-FFI paper published in 1992 got cited 12037 times, and within the next 8 years,there were more than 20,000 citations of just a few key papers by the pair, and relating to the Big Five theory (Google, n.d.). Additionally, there were changes made to thetheory such as "Looking backward: Changes in the mean levels of personality traitsfrom 80 to 12" (Costa, n.d.), and "A contemplated revision of the NEOFive-Factor Inventory" (McCrae & Costa, 2004). Adjustments to the theory as shownby the Costa and McCrae’s later publications mean that the theory is falsifiable, with the derived hypotheses can be measured and compared.
The Big Five theory arranged the human behavior domain into building blocks of:basic tendencies, biological bases, characteristic adaptations, self-concept, objective biography, and external influences. Those components are bounded together by dynamic processes. Because of this well-organized arrangement, the theory was fluently implemented in further research into different more specific directions. For example, it was applied into understanding compulsive buying (Mikoajczak-Degrauwe, Brengman,Wauters, & Rossi, 2012), and academic motivation (Busato, Prins, Elshout, &Hamaker, 1998). In those many papers, not only the theory was proven to be useful in real life applications, but the measured results also reflect the theory's consistency. Finally, while others proposed too many (16 or more personality trait categories), five was proven to be the right number that is concise and effective in classifying human personalities (Feist et al., n.d.).
References
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998). The relation between learning styles, the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation inhigher education.Personality and Individual Differences,26(1), 129–140.doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00112-3
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/284978581
Fawcett, J. (2005). Criteria for evaluation of theory. doi:10.1177/0894318405274823
Feist, J., Feist, G. J., & Roberts, T.-A. (n.d.).Theories of personality.
Google. (n.d.). Paul Costa - Google Scholar Citations. Retrieved fromhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=nrcs0O8AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Looking backward: Changes in the mean levels of personality traits from 80 to 12. -PsycNET. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-00744-009
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-FactorInventory.Personality and Individual Differences,36(3), 587–596.doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1
Mikoajczak-Degrauwe, K., Brengman, M., Wauters, B., & Rossi, G. (2012). DoesPersonality Affect Compulsive Buying? An Application of the Big FivePersonality Model. InPsychology - selected papers. InTech. doi:10.5772/39106
Parse, R. R. (2005). Parse’s criteria for evaluation of theory with a comparison ofFawcett’s and Parse’s approaches. doi:10.1177/0894318405275860
