The Temperament and CharacterInventory-Revised (TCI-R): psychometriccharacteristics of the French version

Introduction

The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)was developed by Robert Cloninger, based on theTridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ),with the goal of assessing the seven factors of thepsychobiological model of personality (14). TheTCI is a 240-item true/false questionnaire measur-ing the four dimensions of temperament [noveltyseeking (NS), harm avoidance (HA), rewarddependence (RD), and persistence (P)] and threedimensions of character [self-directedness (SD),cooperativeness (C), and self-transcendence (ST)];25 facets are also measured as subscales of theseven main TCI dimensions.The TPQ and the TCI have been used exten-

sively in research studies worldwide during the past15 years. We identied 377 original peer-reviewedpapers published between 1988 and 2002 usingthese questionnaires (5). The main applicationdomains are neurobiological correlations of

personality traits (6, 7), genetic studies of person-ality (8), and numerous clinical and etiologicalstudies in psychiatry and psychosomatic (912).The TCI has been translated and validated invarious countries. The validity and the reliability ofthe original American version of the TCI have beenestablished in the general US community (2).Translated versions of the TCI have been validatedin general population studies with the Swedish(13), Japanese (14), Dutch (15, 16), German (17),Korean (18), Finnish (19), and recently Chinese(20). These studies have established the factorialand internal validity of the questionnaire in thevarious languages. Similar results have beenobtained in clinical samples (16, 2125). Test-retest across 13-month intervals suggests a goodtemporal reliability (18, 26). Convergent and con-current validity of the TCI with several models ortraits of personality have been explored, in partic-ular with Millons system (27, 28), Coolidgessystem (28), the Rorschach test (29), the

Pelissolo A, Mallet L, Baleyte J-M, Michel G, Cloninger CR, AllilaireJ-F, Jouvent R. The Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised(TCI-R): psychometric characteristics of the French version.Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005: 112: 126133.BlackwellMunksgaard 2005.

Objective: To explore the psychometric characteristics of a modiedversion of the Cloningers personality questionnaire, the Temperamentand Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R).Method: A 482-subject sample, including clinical and non-clinicalsubjects, completed the TCI-R. We performed principal componentanalyses and explored the factorial structure of the questionnaire, andthe internal consistency of each dimension.Results: The factorial structure of the TCI-R was well dened asexpected and similar to those shown with the TCI. Robust factors wereobtained for Reward Dependence and Persistence in the TCI-R, evenmore clearly than in the original TCI. All dimensions obtained higheralpha Cronbach coecients with the TCI-R than with the TCI. Weobtained highly satisfying reliability coecients in test-retest and TCI/TCI-R comparisons.Conclusion: The TCI-R seems to have similar psychometric andfeasibility characteristics as those of the initial version, but withsignicant improvements in terms of factorial structure and internalconsistency of most dimensions.

A. Pelissolo1, L. Mallet1,J.-M. Baleyte1, G. Michel2,C. R. Cloninger3, J.-F. Allilaire1,R. Jouvent11Psychiatry Department and CNRS UMR 7593, HpitalPiti-Salptrire, AP-HP, Paris, France, 2UFR Arts etSciences Humaines, Tours University, Tours, France and3Departments of Psychiatry and Genetics, WashingtonUniversity School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

Key words: character; personality; psychometric;questionnaire; temperament; validation

Dr Antoine Pelissolo, Service de psychiatrie adulte,Hpital Piti-Salptrire, 47, bd de l'Hpital, 75013Paris, France.E-mail: antoine.pelissolo@psl.aphp.fr

Accepted for publication February 21, 2005

Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005: 112: 126133All rights reservedDOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00551.x

Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard 2005ACTA PSYCHIATRICA

SCANDINAVICA

126

ve-factor model of personality (3032), and ameasure of alexithymia (33).The French version of the TCI has been valid-

ated in a 602-subject normative community sample(34). Psychometric data have also been obtained inclinical samples, and various test-retest reliabilitystudies have been conducted in normal, psychi-atric, and addictive subjects (26, 35). A conrmat-ory factor analysis has been used in order toevaluate the internal structure of the French TCI ina sample of 689 subjects (36). Pelissolo et al. (11)used the French TCI in a large sample of socialphobics, and this questionnaire has been used withBelgian depressive patients (37). Interestingly, themean scores and the internal structure of theFrench TCI were very similar in the validationstudies carried out in France and in Belgium (34,38).Thus, the TCI seems to allow a reliable assess-

ment of the seven dimensions and subdimensionsof Cloningers model of personality, with a stableinternal structure and numerous indices of externalvalidity. However, a clinical instrument is alwaysimprovable, and some authors have suggested thatthe factorial structure of the TCI could be streng-thened (36, 39, 40). The most frequent psychomet-ric limitations emerging in validation studies of theTCI are the weak reliability parameters (test-retestreliability, internal structure and consistency)obtained for persistence and reward dependence,the unequal numbers of subscales for all dimen-sions, and the true-false response mode which isknown to be less reliable than Likert modalities.These observations and the psychometric analysesemerging from more than 10 years of TCI utiliza-tion recently led Cloninger to propose a newversion of this questionnaire, named TCI-Revised(TCI-R). The major dierences between the twoversions are the following:i) The response mode has been modied: true/

false statements in the TCI, and ve points ratingscale in the TCI-R (1, denitively false; 2, mostly orprobably false; 3, neither true nor false, or aboutequally true or false; 4, mostly or probably true; 5,denitively true). This modality is meant toimprove the reliability of the responses, becausemoderate answers are possible; various currentlyused personality questionnaires include thisresponse pattern with satisfying psychometriccharacteristics (41, 42). In particular, the moreinformative response set was designed to improvethe precision of measuring the subscales withoutincreasing the number of items.ii) The total number of items is the same in both

versions, i.e. 240 but only 189 items are common toTCI and TCI-R; 37 items have been eliminated

(mostly related to character dimensions), and 51new items have been introduced in the TCI-R,including ve validity items (Please circle thenumber x).iii) The constitution of the four temperament

dimensions and the three character dimensions hasbeen modied and homogenized, with an increaseof subscales measuring RD and P for a total of 29TCI-R subscales (see Table 1).The last point is perhaps the most important

because RD initially included P in the rst modeldescribed by Cloninger (i.e. the TPQ). These twodimensions were later distinguished for psycho-metric reasons, so there was only one short scalemeasuring P and three scales measuring RD. Thismay explain why RD and P are the least robustdimensions in most populations (11, 19). Never-theless, Persistence appeared to be a very relevantconstruct with, for example, a prognostic value forrelapse in alcohol dependence following treatment(43) and a signicant correlation with cerebralactivity (7). Only a Spanish version of the TCI-Rhas been studied in a published paper to date, withrather good psychometric characteristics (44). TheTCI-R is available at http://psychobiology.wustl.edu.The French version of the TCI-R was developed

in several steps following classical guidelines,including translation by four bilingual clinicians,back-translation by a native English speakerunaware of the original version of the TCI-R,revision item-by-item of this back-translation by R.Cloninger, population testing, and nal consensusof all participants. Only two items from the TCIwere modied. The nal version has been approvedby Cloninger in 2000.Although a majority of items in the TCI-R were

present in the TCI, the modications of items andsubscores, as well as the change in the answermode, led to signicant dierences between the twoscales and thus to the necessity of a new validationof this questionnaire.

Table 1. Comparison of scales composition in the TCI and in the TCI-R

TCI TCI-R

No. ofsubscales

No. ofitems

No. ofsubscales

No. ofitems

Novelty seeking (NS) 4 40 4 35Harm avoidance (HA) 4 35 4 33Reward dependence (RD) 3 24 4 30Persistence (P) 1 8 4 35Self-directedness (SD) 5 44 5 40Cooperativeness (C) 5 42 5 36Self-transcendence (ST) 3 33 3 26Total items 25 226 (+14 not

analysed)29 235 (+5

validity items)

Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

127

Aims of the study

The current paper presents the rst validation dataon the French version of the TCI-R in clinical andnon-clinical subjects, with an emphasis on analy-sing its factor structure and reliability. This paperhas two objectives: i) to determine if the TCI-Rshares important psychometric characteristics withthe TCI (with the implication that the validationdata obtained with the TCI could be transferred tothe TCI-R), and ii) to know if this new versionprovides some signicant psychometrics superior-ity when compared with the TCI.

Material and methods

Subjects

Three groups of subjects were included in thisstudy: 333 psychiatric patients (group 1), 71neurological patients (group 2) and 78 non-clinicalsubjects (group 3). Psychiatric patients representthe population in which the questionnaire is themore frequently used, but Cloningers model canbe also applied in neurological samples (45), and innon-clinical subjects (7). Our choice was to includea large sample of subjects coming from varioussettings (e.g. inpatients and outpatients), to berepresentative of habitual users of the TCI.Group 1 subjects were psychiatric out- and

in-patients, with or without personality disordersand varying mood and anxiety disorders, whopresented for treatment to the Psychiatric Depart-ment of the Pitie-Salpetrie`re University Hospital,Paris, France. Exclusion criteria were age under18 years, diagnoses of organic brain disorder,lifetime diagnosis of schizophrenia or other chronicpsychosis, mental retardation or insucient intel-lectual capacity to complete a relatively complexset of tests, or an inability to speak Frenchadequately.Group 2 subjects were out- and in-patients who

presented for treatment to the NeurologicalDepartment of the Pitie-Salpetrie`re UniversityHospital, essentially for Parkinsons disease(Hoehn and Yahr score o medication between4 and 5; and on medication between 0 and 3) ormultiple sclerosis (mean Expanded DisabilitySeverity Scale score 7). The same exclusion criteriaas those used for patients in group 1 were applied.Group 3 subjects were non-clinical subjects from

the community (mostly members of the hospitalsta), selected on the bases of the absence of majorpsychiatric disorder history and of their HospitalAnxiety and Depression (HAD) scale scores: sub-jects with anxiety and/or depression subscores of

11 or more were excluded, according to theclassical cut-o values used with this scale (46).

Measurement instruments and procedure

All subjects lled in the TCI-R, which wasanalysed in accordance with the calculationmethod indicated by R. Cloninger: the scores ofeach facet were obtained by the sum of allcorrespondent items (15, directly or after inver-sion for reverse items), and the scores of the sevenmain dimensions were calculated as the sum of thecorrespondent facets. We use modied scores(between 0 and 100) in clinical practice to facilitateindividual interpretation, but in this paper wepresent only non-transformed raw scores.Subjects from the groups 1 and 3 lled in also

the HAD scale (46, 47). This scale has been used toexplore the correlations between the TCI dimen-sions and anxiety and depression levels. Patientsfrom group 1 were interviewed with the MiniInternational Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI),version 5.0.0, to describe axis I main psychiatricdiagnoses (48).To estimate test-retest reliability of the TCI-R

and its stability over time, we asked 21 psychiatricpatients from the group 1 and 15 non-clinicalsubjects from the group 3 to ll in the question-naire twice, with about a 3-week interval for thepsychiatric patients and a 1-week interval for thenon-clinical subjects. Lastly, we asked 15 othernon-clinical subjects from the group 3 to ll in theTCI-R and, about 1 week later, the TCI in order tocompare the two questionnaires.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were carried out with version 10.1 ofthe SPSS statistical software. The mean scores inthe total population were computed for each of theseven main dimensions and 29 facets. Their asso-ciations with age (Pearson r coecients) and sex(t-test) were explored. The dierences between thethree groups were studied, taking into account ageand sex as covariates (General Linear Model). Theassociation between TCI-R scores and HAD anxi-ety and depression scales (Pearson r coecients)were explored in the total population and thenseparately in the three groups. At the level ofindividual items of the TCI-R, the mean percent-age of answers for each response was calculated.The internal consistency of the scores and

subscores of the TCI-R were calculatedthrough the Cronbach alpha coecient for thewhole population. We performed two explorat-ory principal-components analysis with Varimax

Pelissolo et al.

128

transformation, one for the temperament subscalesand one for the character subscales, in accordancewith the methods used in similar previous studieson the TCI (2, 13, 34). Temperament and characterscales were factor analysed separately becausetemperament and character show strong non-linearities in development that cannot beadequately specied by the linear assumptions offactor analysis (49).In order to explore test-retest reliability, intra-

class correlation coecients (ICC) were calculatedfor the two assessments in psychiatric patients andin non-clinical subjects for each TCI-R dimension.In the same way, Spearman rho correlation coef-cients between TCI and TCI-R scores werecalculated for the non-clinical subjects who lledin the two versions.

Results

Samples

The total sample consisted of 482 subjects; malesaccount for 54.1% of this group, and the mean agewas 41.3 15.6 years. No signicant dierenceswere obtained concerning the sex ratio among thethree groups, but there were important variationsconcerning the mean ages, being lowest in group 3(32.5 13.3) and highest in group 2 (59.5 10.0). These statistically signicant variations werecoherent with the composition of the groups(highest mean age in neurological patients), butmust be taken into account in future analyses.The mean HAD scores conrmed the presence of

high levels of anxious symptoms (11.9 4.3) andmoderate depressive symptoms (8.2 4.8) ingroup 1, and low levels of anxious (6.3 2.4)and depressive symptoms (3.5 2.5) in group 3.The most frequently observed diagnoses from theMINI in group 1 patients were (lifetime and/orcurrent disorders): depressive disorder (60.4%),social phobia (28.2%), and panic disorder (20.4%).

Mean scores and correlations

No serious acceptability or comprehension di-culties appeared in the completion of the TCI-R.The mean scores of main dimensions and facets onthe whole sample are shown in Table 2.On the whole sample, signicant (but low)

correlations were obtained between age on theone hand and NS (r )0.24, P < 0.001), SD(r 0.17, P < 0.001), ST (r 0.15, P 0.001),and C (r 0.11, P 0.02), on the other hand.There were signicant dierences between malesand females in terms of RD (respectively 96.1 vs.

103.4, P < 0.001), C (129.0 vs. 137.2, P < 0.001),and more slightly concerning SD (129.8 vs. 133.6,P 0.04).Comparing the scores obtained in the three

groups, and taking age and sex into account, moresignicant dierences (P < 0.001) were obtained:

i) for harm avoidance, with highest scores ingroup 1 (115.5 19.4) compared with group2 (99.1 18.8) and group 3 (90.2 15.9),

ii) for persistence, with highest scores in group 2(123.2 17.0) compared with group 3(117.6 17.1) and group 1 (111.2 21.9),

iii) for self-directedness, lowest scores in group 1(127.2 19.8) compared with group 3(142.4 15.7) and to group 2 (142.1 16.4).

Moderate signicant correlations were observedbetween HA and HAD-anxiety (r 0.52), betweenHA and HAD-depression (r 0.49), between SDand HAD-anxiety (r )0.39), between SD andHAD-depression (r )0.43), and between RDand HAD-depression (r )0.28).

Table 2. Mean scores and Cronbach alpha coefficients for TCI-R dimensions andfacets on the whole sample (n 482)

No. of items Mean SD Cronbach alpha

Novelty seeking (NS) 35 100.6 15.3 0.80Exploratory excitability (NS1) 10 30.0 5.5 0.59Impulsiveness (NS2) 9 24.4 5.6 0.70Extravagance (NS3) 9 27.7 6.8 0.78Disorderliness (NS4) 7 18.6 4.3 0.46Harm avoidance (HA) 33 109.0 21.3 0.92Anticipatory worry (HA1) 11 35.6 7.9 0.81Fear of uncertainty (HA2) 7 25.1 5.4 0.74Shyness (HA3) 7 22.7 6.6 0.85Fatigability (HA4) 8 25.7 6.9 0.83Reward dependence (RD) 30 100.1 14.9 0.84Sentimentality (RD1) 8 29.5 4.3 0.55Openness to warm communication (RD2) 10 32.9 6.9 0.79Attachment (RD3) 6 18.4 5.4 0.78Dependence (RD4) 6 19.3 3.7 0.47Persistence (PS) 35 114.0 21.0 0.92Eagerness of effort (PS1) 9 29.0 5.8 0.75Work hardened (PS2) 8 26.8 5.7 0.78Ambitious (PS3) 10 31.9 7.0 0.80Perfectionist (PS4) 8 26.3 6.0 0.78Self-directedness (SD) 40 131.8 20.0 0.88Responsibility (SD1) 8 27.2 5.6 0.72Purposeful (SD2) 6 19.6 5.2 0.76Resourcefulness (SD3) 5 16.0 3.8 0.68Self-acceptance (SD4) 10 33.4 7.5 0.75Enlightened second nature (SD5) 11 35.6 6.9 0.78Cooperativeness (C) 36 133.4 15.2 0.81Social acceptance (C1) 8 30.1 4.8 0.72Empathy (C2) 5 18.1 3.3 0.61Helpfulness (C3) 8 29.3 3.8 0.53Compassion (C4) 7 26.1 6.2 0.63Pure-hearted conscience (C5) 8 29.8 4.3 0.45Self-transcendence (ST) 26 69.4 15.4 0.85Self-forgetful (ST1) 10 29.7 7.1 0.74Transpersonal identification (ST2) 8 20.6 5.6 0.71Spiritual acceptance (ST3) 8 19.1 6.6 0.77

Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

129

Answer-to-item analysis

The mean percentages of responses to each degreeof the 5-point response scale were the following, onthe whole sample:

i) response 1 (denitively false): 18.1 10.6%ii) response 2 (mostly or probably false):

18.3 9.8%iii) response 3 (neither true nor false, or about

equally true or false): 23.4 10.1%iv) response 4 (mostly or probably true):

24.1 9.8%v) response 5 (denitively true): 15.6 11.9%

These mean percentages were about the samewhen the three groups were considered individu-ally.Because this new version of the TCI gives the

choice to answer neither true nor false, or aboutequally true or false (response 3), it is of interest toknow if some items frequently received thisresponse. The ve items with the highest rates ofthis response were item 161 (I think I will havevery good luck in the future) from HA1 (43% ofresponse 3), item 130 (It is easy for other people toget close to me emotionally) from RD2 (40%),item 230 (I usually have good luck in whatever Itry to do) from HA1 (38%), item 233 (Individualrights are more important than the needs of anygroup) from RD4 (38%), and item 240 (I amquick to volunteer when there is something to bedone) from PS1 (37%).There was a slight, but signicant, correlation

between the percentage of 3 answers and thenumeration of the item (r 0.17, P < 0.001),reecting perhaps an enhanced trend to response3 because of fatigue or lassitude during the courseof the questionnaire completion.

Internal consistency and factor structure

The internal consistency of the main dimensionsand of the facets has been explored by the mean ofthe alpha Cronbach coecient, presented inTable 2. All main dimension coecients weresuperior or equal to 0.80, and those of the facetsvaried from 0.45 (C5 Pure-hearted Conscience) to0.85 (HA3 shyness) with a mean at 0.70.The correlation matrices of the seven main

dimensions are shown in Table 3. The highestcorrelations were obtained between HA and SD()0.60), SD and C (0.41), and HA and P ()0.39).Two principal component analyses were per-

formed for temperament and character subscoresseparately, with Varimax orthogonal transforma-tion taking into account factors with eigenvalues of

1 or more. Three factors were identied fortemperament subscales, accounting for 64.2% ofthe variance (Table 4). This solution correspondsto the rationally dened dimensions, except forNS1 which loaded negatively on factor 2 (HA).Three factors were also identied for character

subscales (Table 5), accounting for 55.6% of thevariance, and corresponding closely to the threehypothesized dimensions, except for SD4 whichloaded moderately on factors 2 and 3, but not onfactor 1 (SD).We performed also a global principal component

analyses on the 29 subscores of the TCI-R (data notshown). Seven factors were identied, accountingfor 65% of the total variance. However, NS and SDloaded on the same factor of this solution, and RDand C did not load on clearly dened factors.

Test-retest reliability and correlation with the TCI

In order to explore its test-retest reliability, theTCI-R was administered twice in 21 patients (11males and 10 females, mean age 38.1 13.3) fromgroup 1, with a 3-week interval, and in 16 subjects

Table 3. Correlations between temperament and character scores of the TCI-R

NS HA RD P SD C

HA )0.30RD 0.30 )0.23PS )0.01 )0.39 0.12SD )0.06 )0.60 0.15 0.36C )0.04 )0.23 0.47 0.20 0.41ST 0.19 )0.12 0.17 0.31 )0.06 0.19

HA, harm avoidance; RD, reward dependence; PS, persistence; SD, self-directed-ness; C, cooperativeness; ST, self-transcendence.Correlations with P-values 0.01 and abs(r) 0.30 are shown in bold.

Table 4. Principal component analysis of temperament subscales (Varimax trans-formation including factors with eigenvalue of 1 or more)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

NS1 0.18 )0.48 0.38 0.27NS2 )0.08 )0.08 0.01 0.78NS3 )0.01 0.07 0.25 0.73NS4 )0.19 )0.28 )0.03 0.68HA1 )0.14 0.82 )0.03 )0.01HA2 )0.13 0.77 0.08 )0.17HA3 )0.15 0.72 )0.26 )0.13HA4 )0.22 0.69 )0.01 0.06RD1 0.27 0.19 0.63 0.14RD2 0.14 )0.34 0.77 0.18RD3 )0.06 )0.26 0.76 0.10RD4 )0.25 0.17 0.61 )0.30PS1 0.75 )0.26 0.14 0.00PS2 0.84 )0.30 )0.06 )0.08PS3 0.85 )0.11 0.02 )0.06PS4 0.87 )0.08 0.05 )0.15Explained variance (%) 27.7 16.6 11.8 8.0

Loadings with absolute values of 0.40 or more are shown in bold.

Pelissolo et al.

130

(eight males and eight females, mean age30.5 10.4) from group 3, with an 1-week inter-val. The mean scores of the seven main dimensionsof the TCI-R at T1 and T2, in both groups, and theICCs are presented in Table 6. All ICCs wereabove 0.80, although signicant reductions inHAD-A and HAD-D scores were observed inpsychiatric patients.Similarly, a comparison of TCI and TCI-R main

scores was conducted in 23 subjects from group 3(13 females and 20 males, mean age 28.3 12.6),both questionnaires being administered twice witha 1-week interval and a balanced order of comple-tion (11 subjects completed the TCI rst, and 12subjects completed the TCI-R rst). The raw scoresof the two versions could not be compared directly,but the spearman rho correlation coecientsbetween both completions were between 0.75 (forRD) and 0.82 (for SD).

Discussion

We explored various psychometric characteristicsof this new version of Cloningers personality

questionnaire, in three dierent populations, inorder to compare them to those of the originalTCI. We obtained general psychometric featuresfor the TCI-R that were very close to those of theTCI, i.e. the factorial structure was similar to thoseshown with the French version in general andclinical populations (34, 38, 50). The correlationswith HAD scores were also consistent with previ-ous data (50, 51). The principal component ana-lyses of temperament and character dimensionsshowed that only two subscores, NS1 and SD4,loaded on factors dierent from their rationallydened dimensions, but the same results have beenobtained with the TCI (34). The dierencesbetween the three groups, especially the higherHA scores and the lower SD scores in psychiatricpatients, were consistent with numerous studiescomparing TCI proles of depressive and anxiouspatients with non-psychiatric subjects (11, 37).Moreover, despite our small sample size, thecomparison of the two versions of the question-naire showed very satisfying correlation coe-cients, conrming that the TCI and TCI-R scoresmeasure very close dimensions. The lowest corre-lation coecients were obtained for RD (r 0.75)and P (r 0.77), which are the two most modiedfactors in the TCI-R.The psychometric improvements provided by the

TCI-R could be seen in two aspects:

i) the principal component analysis of tempera-ment dimensions supplied particularly robustfactors for RD and P, which was not the casewith the TCI (19, 23, 34).

ii) the Cronbach alpha coecients of all dimen-sions were above 0.80 and, except for C, whichobtained the same results in both versions(alpha 0.81), all dimensions obtained higheralpha coecients than with the TCI (34),suggesting better internal consistencies foreach dimension measured. This was partic-ularly signicant for RD (alpha 0.84 instead

Table 5. Principal component analysis of character subscales (Varimax transfor-mation including factors with eigenvalue of 1 or more)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

SD1 0.72 0.22 )0.25SD2 0.75 0.06 0.20SD3 0.85 0.08 0.02SD4 0.07 0.47 )0.43SD5 0.81 0.17 )0.03C1 0.25 0.67 0.03C2 0.23 0.53 0.32C3 0.26 0.69 0.08C4 0.08 0.70 0.01C5 )0.08 0.54 0.08ST1 )0.08 )0.04 0.82ST2 0.18 0.16 0.77ST3 )0.08 0.19 0.69Explained variance (%) 27.2 16.6 11.7

Loadings with absolute values of 0.40 or more are shown in bold.

Table 6. Results of the test-retest study for the main TCI-R dimensions

Psychiatric patients (n 21) Non-clinical subjects (n 15)

T1 T2 ICC T1 T2 ICC

Novelty seeking 101.1 14.9 101.7 15.1 0.91 102.8 15.2 103.0 14.7 0.93Harm avoidance 118.1 20.2 112.5 19.8 0.81 91.4 16.2 93.1 17.1 0.89Reward dependence 100.9 15.8 100.1 14.9 0.83 101.5 14.9 101.9 14.0 0.86Persistence 110.7 20.3 111.1 20.8 0.83 119.5 17.1 117.9 18.3 0.90Self-directedness 128.2 18.1 130.0 19.3 0.82 140.1 19.4 140.5 20.7 0.93Cooperativeness 132.2 20.1 133.1 20.3 0.90 139.1 19.1 138.6 20.5 0.88Self-transcendence 70.2 15.1 69.1 15.9 0.87 67.1 18.0 68.3 19.2 0.82HAD anxiety 12.9 4.6 9.1 4.8 0.60 6.7 3.6 6.2 3.9 0.70HAD depression 8.6 4.4 6.8 5.1 0.60 3.2 2.2 3.3 2.3 0.73

ICC, intra-class correlation coefficient.

Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

131

of 0.68) and for P (alpha 0.92 instead of0.49), for whom the increased number of itemscould play a role in the improvement of theirinternal consistency (the number of items isinclude in Cronbach alpha formula), but thisexplanation is not applicable for other dimen-sions. Indeed, all of them involve fewer itemsin the TCI-R than in the TCI (see Table 1).

These results indicate that RD and P havebecome, in the TCI-R, as reliable as other factorsof the model and, thus, can be used for specicexplorations (predictive value, psychobiologicalcorrelations, etc.), which would not have beenpossible with the TCI for psychometric reasons.More generally, the greater precision of the TCI-Rallows reliable measurement of the 29 subscales.Cloninger has recently provided a detailed theor-etical basis for the clinical signicance of thesubscales in personality assessment, so futurework with the TCI-R can now provide morerened understanding of the psychobiologicalbasis of mental health and its disorders (4).Moreover, the test-retest and temporal reliability

of the TCI-R dimensions in psychiatric and non-clinical subjects were strong, even if in relativelymodest samples. These results are similar or betterthan those obtained with the TCI in severalpopulations (1, 26, 50).The answer-to-item analysis showed interesting

results for this new version of the questionnaire.Indeed, the distribution of the ve degrees ofresponse was relatively well balanced. The response3 (neither true nor false, or about equally true orfalse) received the maximum of choices(23.4 10.1%), reecting the diculties experi-enced by many patients when faced with a largenumber of the items, but this option did not distortthe sensibility and the interpretability of the results.Thus, the multi-choice answer modality, which didnot alter the ability of participants to complete thequestionnaire, likely has more psychometricadvantages than inconveniences, as hoped for.In all, this revised version of the TCI seems to

have similar psychometric characteristics as thoseof the initial version, but with signicant improve-ments in terms of factorial structure and internalconsistency of most dimensions, in particularreward dependence and persistence.

Acknowledgements

The authors of the French translation of the TCI-R are: A.Pelissolo, C. Notides, C. Musa, M. Teherani, J.-P. Lepine. Wethank Cecile Behar for her clinical work, and Stephanie Llyodfor her helpful review of the manuscript. Preliminary dataobtained from a smaller population were presented in the form

of a poster at the 1st Congre`s de lEncephale (Paris, 810January 2003).

References

1. Cloninger CR, Przybeck TR, Svrakic DM, Wetzel RD. TheTemperament and Character Inventory (TCI): a guide to itsdevelopment and use. St Louis, Missouri: Center for psy-chobiology of personality, Washington University, 1994.

2. Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. A psychobio-logical model of temperament and character. Arch GenPsychiatry 1993;50:975990.

3. Cloninger CR. A systematic method for clinical descriptionand classication of personality variants. Arch Gen Psy-chiatry 1987;44:573588.

4. Cloninger CR. Feeling good: the science of well-being. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2004.

5. Pelissolo A, Jouvent R. Le mode`le psychobiologique depersonnalite de Cloninger: revue des publications derecherche de 1986 a` 2002. Paris: 1er Congre`s de lEncep-hale, Abstract in Encephale 2003;28:12.

6. Sugiura M, Kawashima R, Nakagawa M et al. Correlationbetween human personality and neural activity in cerebralcortex. Neuroimage 2000;11:541546.

7. Gusnard DA, Ollinger JM, Shulman GL et al. Persistenceand brain circuitry. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:34793484.

8. Benjamin J, Osher Y, Kotler M et al. Association betweentridimensional personality questionnaire (TPQ) traits andthree functional polymorphisms: dopamine receptor D4(DRD4), serotonin transporter promoter region (5-HTTLPR) and catechol O-methyltransferase (COMT).Mol Psychiatry 2000;5:96100.

9. Freeman EW, Schweizer E, Rickels K. Personality factors inwomen with premenstrual syndrome. Psychosom Med1995;57:453459.

10. Guillem F, Bicu M, Semkovska M, Debruille JB. Thedimensional symptom structure of schizophrenia and itsassociation with temperament and character. SchizophrRes 2002;56:137147.

11. Pelissolo A, Andre C, Pujol H et al. Personality dimensionsin social phobics with or without depression. Acta Psy-chiatr Scand 2002;105:94103.

12. Etter JF, Pelissolo A, Pomerleau C, DE Saint-Hilaire Z.Associations between smoking and heritable temperamenttraits. Nicotine Tob Res 2003;5:401409.

13. Brandstrom S, Schlette P, Przybeck TR et al. Swedishnormative data on personality using the Temperament andCharacter Inventory. Compr Psychiatry 1998;39:122128.

14. Kijima N, Tanaka E, Suzuki N et al. Reliability and validityof the Japanese version of the Temperament and CharacterInventory. Psychol Rep 2000;86:10501058.

15. De LA Rie SM, Duijsens IJ, Cloninger CR. Temperament,character, and personality disorders. J Personal Disord1998;12:362372.

16. Duijsens IJ, Spinhoven P, Goekoop JG et al. The Dutchtemperament and character inventory (TCI): dimensionalstructure, reliability and validity in a normal and psychi-atric outpatient sample. Pers Individ Dif 2000;28:487499.

17. Richter J, Brandstrom S, Przybeck T. Assessing personality:the Temperament and Character Inventory in a cross-cul-tural comparison between Germany, Sweden, and theUSA. Psychol Rep 1999;84:13151330.

18. Sung SM, Kim JH, Yang E et al. Reliability and validity ofthe Korean version of the Temperament and CharacterInventory. Compr Psychiatry 2002;43:235243.

Pelissolo et al.

132

19. Miettunen J, Kantojarvi L, Ekelund J et al. A large popu-lation cohort provides normative data for investigation oftemperament. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2004;110:150157.

20. Parker G, Cheah YC, Parker K. Properties of the tem-perament and character inventory in a Chinese sample.Acta Psychiatr Scand 2003;108:367373.

21. Kleifield EI, Sunday S, Hurt S, Halmi KA. Psychometricvalidation of the Tridimensional Personality Question-naire: application to subgroups of eating disorders. ComprPsychiatry 1993;34:249253.

22. Svrakic DM, Whitehead C, Przybeck TR, Cloninger CR.Dierential diagnosis of personality disorders by the seven-factor model of temperament and character. Arch GenPsychiatry 1993;50:991999.

23. Gutierrez F, Torrens M, Boget T et al. Psychometricproperties of the Temperament and Character Inventory(TCI) questionnaire in a Spanish psychiatric population.Acta Psychiatr Scand 2001;103:143147.

24. Sato T, Narita T, Hirano S et al. Factor validity of thetemperament and character inventory in patients withmajor depression. Compr Psychiatry 2001;42:337341.

25. Ignjatovic TD, Svrakic DM. Western personality modelsapplied in Eastern Europe: Yugoslav data. Compr Psy-chiatry 2003;44:5159.

26. Gourion D, Pelissolo A, Lepine JP. Test-retest reliability ofthe Temperament and Character Inventory in patients withopiate dependence. Psychiatry Res 2003;118:8188.

27. Bayon C, Hill K, Svrakic DM et al. Dimensional assess-ment of personality in an out-patient sample: relations ofthe systems of Millon and Cloninger. J Psychiatr Res1996;30:341352.

28. Griego J, Stewart SE, Coolidge FL. A convergent validitystudy of Cloningers Temperament and Character Inven-tory with the Coolidge Axis II Inventory. J Personal Dis-ord 1999;13:257267.

29. Fassino S, Amianto F, Levi M, Rovera GG. Combining therorschach test and the temperament character inventory: anew perspective on personality assessment. Psychopathol-ogy 2003;36:8491.

30. De Fruyt F, Van De Wiele L, Van Heeringen C. Cloningerspsychobiological model of temperament and character andthe Five-Factor Model of personality. Pers Individ Dif2000;29:441452.

31. MacDonald DA, Holland D. Examination of the psycho-metric properties of the temperament and characterinventory self-transcendence dimension. Pers Individ Dif2002;32:10131027.

32. Ramanaiah NV, Rielage JK, Cheng Y. Cloningers tem-perament and character inventory and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Psychol Rep 2002;90:90.

33. Grabe HJ, Spitzer C, Freyberger HJ. Alexithymia and thetemperament and character model of personality. Psych-other Psychosom 2001;70:261267.

34. Pelissolo A, Lepine JP. Normative data and factor structureof the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) in theFrench version. Psychiatry Res 2000;94:6776.

35. Pelissolo A, Veysseyre O, Lepine JP. Validation of a com-puterized version of the temperament and characterinventory (TCI) in psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatry Res1997;72:195199.

36. Gana K, Trouillet R. Structure invariance of the Tem-perament and Character Inventory. Pers Individ Dif2003;34:113.

37. Hansenne M, Reggers J, Pinto E et al. Temperament andcharacter inventory (TCI) and depression. J Psychiatr Res1999;33:3136.

38. Hansenne M, Le Bon O, Gauthier A, Ansseau M. Belgiannormative data of the Temperament and CharacterInventory. Eur J Psychol Assess 2001;17:5662.

39. Ball SA, Tennen H, Poling JC et al. Personality, tempera-ment, and character dimensions and the DSM-IV person-ality disorders in substance abusers. J Abnorm Psychol1997;106:545553.

40. Tomita T, Aoyama H, Kitamura T et al. Factor structure ofpsychobiological seven-factor model of personality: amodel-revision. Pers Individ Dif 2000;29:709727.

41. Costa JR PT,Mccrae RR. NEO-PI-R: professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.

42. Schumacker RE, Beyerlein ST. Conrmatory factor analysiswith dierent correlation types and estimation methods.Struct Equation Model 2000;7:629636.

43. Sellman JD, Mulder RT, Sullivan PF, Joyce PR. Low per-sistence predicts relapse in alcohol dependence followingtreatment. J Stud Alcohol 1997;58:257263.

44. Gutierrez-Zotes JA, Bayon C, Montserrat C et al. Tem-perament and Character Inventory revised (TCI-R).Standardization and normative data in a general popula-tion. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 2003;32:815.

45. Kaasinen V, Nurmi E, Bergman J et al. Personality traits andbrain dopaminergic function in Parkinsons disease. ProcNatl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:1327213277.

46. Herrmann C. International experiences with the HospitalAnxiety and Depression Scale a review of validation dataand clinical results. J Psychosom Res 1997;42:1741.

47. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety andDepressive Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361370.

48. Lecrubier Y, Sheehan DV, Weiller E et al. The MiniInternational Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) a shortdiagnostic structured interview: reliability and validityaccording to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry 1997;12:224231.

49. Cloninger CR, Svrakic NM, Svrakic DM. Role of person-ality self-organization in development of mental order anddisorder. Dev Psychopathol 1997;9:881906.

50. Pelissolo A. Le questionnaire de personnalite TCI (Tem-perament and Character Inventory): validation de la ver-sion francaise et application en psychiatrie. PhD Thesis,The`se de Doctorat de lUniversite Paris 7, 2000.

51. Pelissolo A, Corruble E. Personality factors in depressivedisorders: contribution of the psychobiologic modeldeveloped by Cloninger. Encephale 2002;28:363373.

Psychometric study of the TCI-revised

133