Fig. 2. Trofimova`s model of the structure of temperament with 12 temperament traits
("Functional Ensemble of Temperament, FET") that is the basis of the
("Compact") STQ-77.
The FET model links
temperament traits to neurotransmitter systems in the following pattern
:
Bold shadowed text highlights the names of temperament traits and their
abbreviations. Blue font highlights neurotransmitter systems. Note: 5-HT:
serotonin; DA: dopamine; NE: noradrenalin; ACh: acetylcholine; Estr: estrogen;
OXY: oxytocin; SubP: Substance P;
NP: neuropeptides; H: histamine; A: adenosin;Glu: glutamate; KOPr, MOPr, DOPr: kappa-, mu- and delta-opioid
receptors correspondingly.
|
Functional aspects:
|
Behavior.
orientation to..
(NE+...)
|
Integration aspects (DA+...)
|
Energetic aspects
(5-HT, ACh +...)
|
|
Probabilistic/ >
analytic
aspects
|
to learning probabilities, PRO
NE+ACh+Glu,
DA
|
Plasticity vs. rigidity,
PL
DA+ACh,
5-HT,
GABA
|
Intellectual Endurance, ERI
ACh+NE,
5-HT
|
|
Social-verbal
|
to others:
Empathy,
EMP
NE+OXY, VSP
|
Social Tempo,
TMS
DA+ Estr
|
Social Endurance,
ERS
5-HT+Estr, H
|
|
Physical-motor
(>deterministic)
|
to sensations,
SS
Teststrn,
Adr,
Cort(-),
NE
|
Motor Tempo,
TMM
DA+GABA, A, NP
|
Motor Endurance
ERM,
5-HT+ORE, H, NP
|
|
Emotional amplifier
|
Neuroticism, NEU
KOR, cytokins, biota
→NE-HPA
|
Impulsivity,
IMP
DOR→DA, MOR
|
Satisfaction, SLF
MOR, biota→5-HT, DA
|
This
model is called the Functional Ensemble of Temperament, because it considers
ensemble-like interaction of neurotransmitters in regulation of
temperament traits (i.e. there is no one-to-one correspondence between a single
neurotransmitter and a single trait). It also views temperament traits as reflecting
functional aspects of behavior in a diversity
of situations:
* three
dynamical aspects of the construction of an action (energetic, dynamic and orientational), presented here as three columns.
* similarly to Rusalov`s model, this model differentiates between physical-motor
and verbal-social aspects of well-determined activities, and considers the
probabilistic traits of temperament (3 top traits) as related to the mental,
intellectual aspects of activities. Such differentiation is in line with the
neuroanatomic localization of control over motor coordination (via parietal
cortex), verbal functions (via left temporal cortex) and mental functions (via
frontal cortex). Note: It is simplistic to associate the performance of social,
physical and intellectual activities with precisely demarcated anatomic
structures in the brain, given that any activity is performed by an ensemble of
structures. It is reasonable, however, to suggest that `membership` in these
ensembles changes with a change in the primary type of activity.
* two levels of situational complexity: high level, which requires a greater
probabilistic tuning of behavior using higher cortical functions, and level of
learned or simple (deterministic) situations, which allows an individual to rely
primarily on well-learned habits. The top row in the Figure addresses
probabilistic situations (high uncertainty), and the two middle rows of 6 traits
relate to the more defined (deterministic) aspects of actions.
* two levels of situational emergency, associated with the degree of involvement
of emotional response (whether or not an emotional amplifier is needed in the
case of insufficient capacity to resolve the situation); these two levels divide
the traits into the groups of Emotionality (the lower row with 3 traits) and
Activity (the top 9 traits).
Trofimova`s
model of the structure
of temperament is presented in the Compact version of the Structure of
Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-77), which
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 Early Childhood versions.
Versions
in other languages: The Extended and the Compact versions were adapted to
five languages: English, Russian, Chinese, Polish and Urdu (Rusalov & Trofimova,
2007). The Compact, STQ-77 was translated to 22 languages. You can
download paper-pencil pdf forms and Excel files associated with the the STQ-77 version
from the links on this page.
Validation
history of the STQ
Evidence for construct, concurrent
and discriminatory validity of the STQ-105, STQ-150 and STQ-77 was demonstrated
through significant correlations with the following measures:
v
Pavlovian Temperamental Survey (PTS)
v Big Five Questionnaire (NEO-PI)
v
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
v I7 Impulsiveness
Questionnaire (Eysenck, S. et al., 1985) (I-7)
v Rogers adaptivity scale
v State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
v Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS)
v
Rosenzveig Test
v Motivation in Achievements Test
v Motivation of professional choices measure
v
Liri Interpersonal Relations Test
v
Cattell 16 Personality Factors Test (16PF)
v Wechsler IQ test
v
Gotshield IQ test
v Shepard IQ test
v Speed of reading
v Auditory and visual sensitivity
v Alcohol impact
v Torrance Nonverbal Test of Creative Thinking
v
Dembo-Hoppe Level of aspiration
v
Dissociative Experiences Scale
v Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS)
v
Rotter Locus of Control Scale (LOC)
v EEG data
v 25 measures of Mobility and Plasticity
v Verbal activity measures
v Hamilton Depression Inventory (HDI)
v Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)
v Symptom Checklist (SCL-90)
v high-school grades
More specifically, during the experimental validation
of the Extended STQ the performance by participants on the following
measures was compared with scores on STQ scales in a series of studies in the
1980-90s: speed of writing, reading and speed of generation of words, maximal
and optimal tempo of performance in sensory-motor tasks and intellectual
(including unsolvable) tasks, performance on nonverbal tasks, with which
participants were unfamiliar, rigidity of perception in tactile and visual
modalities, duration of the switch between one way of solving the task and
another, mobility in attention, variability in line drawing (Rusalov, 1979,
1997, 2004; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007).
Ergonicity scales of the STQ correlated positively
with Eysenck Personality Questionnaire`s Extraversion scale (Rusalov, 1989;
Brebner & Stough, 1993, Zin`ko, 2006), with the
Big-Five Extraversion scale (Bodunov, Bezdenezhnykh & Alexandrov,
1996; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007), with Strelau`s PTS Strength of Excitation
scale (Ruch, Angleitner, &
Strelau, 1991; Bodunov et. al., 1996; Strelau, 1999), with Torrance` Nonverbal
Tests of Creative Thinking (Rusalov & Poltavtzeva, 1997), Rotter`s Locus of
Control scale (Byzova, 1997), with goal-driven choice of profession as opposed
to accessibility of profession (Rusalov, Rusalova, & Strel`nikova, 2000),
and with the Motivation for Achievement scale (Vorobieva, 2004).
Plasticity
scales of
the STQ were found to have significant positive correlation with Strelau`s PTS
Mobility scale (Ruch et.al, 1991, Bodunov et. al., 1996, Strelau, 1999; Rathee
& Singh, 2001),
with adaptivity of behaviour in
Dembo-Hoppe Level of Aspiration experiment (Zin`ko,
2006), with 20 behavioral and experimental measures of plasticity
(Rusalov & Kalashnikov, 1988), with 8 measures of plasticity (Biryukov,
1992), with Torrance Nonverbal Tests of Creative Thinking (Rusalov,
Poltavtzeva,1997), Rogers Adaptivity scale (Drozdov, 1998), Rotter`s Locus of
Control scale (Byzova, 1997) and with Motivation for Achievement scale (Vorobieva,
2004). Rathee and Singh (2001) reported a comparison of 25 measures of
Mobility, including English STQ Plasticity and Tempo scales. The authors found
high correlation of the Plasticity scales of the English version of the STQ
with the Alteration task, Flexibility of attention, proof-reading ability, and
the number of trials needed for a subject to reach the optimal reaction time
after alteration of stimulus. Plasticity scales
also positively correlated with
Eysenck`s EPQ
Extraversion scale (Rusalov, 1989,
Brebner & Stough, 1993, Zinko, 2006), with
Big-Five Extraversion scale (Dumenci, 1995, Bodunov et. al., 1996), with PTS
Strength of Excitation scale (Ruch et.al, 1991, Strelau, 1999).
Tempo
scales of the STQ were reported to have significant positive correlation with
the Strelau`s PTS Mobility scale (Ruch et.al, 1991, Bodunov et. al., 1996, Strelau,
1999), and
multiple Mobility measures used by
Rathee and Singh (2001) and by Rusalov
and Kalashnikova (1992). In Rathee and Singh (2001) study the scores on the
scale of Motor Tempo of the STQ was correlated with EEG α-general speed,
with the time taken to generate simultaneous contrast, duration of
`after-image` reaction, with critical flicker fusion and with a size of
uncertainty interval.
Scores on
Emotionality scales of the STQ correlated positively with those on the
Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Rusalov, 1989; Brebner
& Stough, 1993; Zin`ko, 2006), with the Big-Five Neuroticism scale (Dumenci,
1995; Bodunov, et. al., 1996), on the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Popov,
2006), with Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Popov, 2006; Zin`ko, 2006), and use
of alcohol (Bodunov, et. al. 1996), and correlated negatively with scores on
the Dissociative Experiences Scale (Beere & Pica, 1995; Eputaev et al,
2003; Vasyura, 2008), the Rosenzveig test (Zin`ko, 2006), PTS Strength of
Excitation and Strength of Inhibition scales (Ruch et. al, 1991; Strelau,
1999), scores on A, H, Q2 and Q4 factors of the Cattell`s16-PF inventory (Vasyura,
2008), Torrance` Nonverbal Tests of Creative Thinking (Rusalov & Poltavtzeva,
1997), and the Motivation for Achievement scale (Vorobieva, 2004).
The STQ scales,
which measure dynamic aspects of intellectual activity, had positive
correlations with such measures of intelligence as the Wechsler, Shepard and Gotshield
Figure tests, including the tasks measuring classification abilities
(`Excluding the third`) and plasticity in nonverbal thinking (Rusalov & Dudin,
1995; Rusalov & Naumova, 1999). Intellectual activity scales had positive
correlations with scores on the Locus of Control scale (Byzova, 1997), and
goal-oriented choice of profession (Rusalov et.al., 2000), and negative
correlations with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Popov, 2006), Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale (Popov, 2006; Zin`ko, 2006) and the access-oriented
choice of profession (Rusalov et. al., 2000). Intellectual plasticity also
correlated with PTS-mobility scale (Trofimova, 2009), with 25 measures of
mobility in Rathee and Singh`s study (2001) and with the school grades of high-school
students (Gritzenko, 1996).
In terms of the
scales measuring the social-verbal aspects of activities, the STQ-150 scales
were compared to the experimentally measured time of performance on a task
involving the classification of common words. The most significant correlations
between the speed on this task and the scales were found for the scales of
Social Tempo, Social Endurance and Social Plasticity (r = -.20, -.18,
and -.14, respectively) (Trofimova, 2009).
In an
experimental study of a content validity of the STQ-150, the scales of this
test were compared to the semantic perception of participants, via comparisons
of contrast temperament groups. Participants with higher Motor Endurance or
Social Endurance gave significantly more positive ratings to common abstract
concepts used in the Semantic Projective method, in comparison to the
participants with lower Endurance. Participants with high scores on the three
Emotionality scales demonstrated significantly more negative estimations of
common abstract objects than their contrast temperament group. Moreover, people
with high emotionality did not have a universal negative bias in their
perception, and their negative affect was specific to words describing
potential areas of failure: people with higher Social Emotionality perceived
social objects more negatively than other objects; people with higher Motor
Emotionality perceived time-related objects more negatively than other objects
(Trofimova, 1999, 2013)
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) (Rusalov, 1997, 2004, Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007).
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 (Stough, Brebner & Cooper, 1991;
Bishop, Jacks & Tandy, 1993; Dumenci, 1995, 1996; Bishop & Hertenstein,
2004; Rusalov, 2004; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007; Trofimova, 2009).
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
(Trofimova, 2010a).
During the
experimental validation of the Compact STQ (STQ-77) the studies of
reliability and content, concurrent and discriminant validity showed that the
reliability of these scales is in the range of .70-.86.
Due to the
composition of the STQ-77, being partially based on the items and scales of the
Extended STQ, which were already validated (see above), most efforts in
validation of the STQ-77 were focused on the validity of new scales, discriminant
validity of all scales and on the factor structure of the STQ-77.
Extraversion, as
measured by the Big Five (NEO-FFI), correlates with the Social Endurance and
the Impulsivity scales (r = .46 and .52, respectively). The Neuroticism
scales of the NEO-FFI and the STQ-77 have positive correlation of r = .38,
and all these values show large effect sizes (Trofimova, 2010b). The Openness
to Experience scale of Big Five correlates most significantly with the STQ-77
scales of Intellectual Endurance (r =.31), Sensitivity to Probabilities
(r =.40), Impulsivity (r =.25) and Empathy (r =.52). The
scale of Agreeableness of Big Five correlates most significantly with the
Empathy scale of the STQ-77 (r =.46). The scale of Conscientiousness of
Big Five has the most significant correlation with the STQ-77 scales of Motor
Endurance (r =.35) and Intellectual Endurance (r =.34).
Statistically
significant positive correlations were found between the new STQ-77 scales of
Impulsivity, Sensitivity to Sensations, Empathy and the corresponding scales of
Impulsiveness (r = .51), Venturesomeness (.64) and Empathy (.73) of Eysenck`s
I-7 questionnaire (Trofimova and Sulis, 2009).
STQ-77 Sensitivity
to Sensation scale showed significant positive correlation with the Impulsivity
scale (r =.68) of the of Eysenck`s I-7 questionnaire (Trofimova & Sulis,
2009) and with the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale (r =.37)
(Trofimova, 2010b).
STQ-77 scales showed
activity-specific correlations with high school grades (Trofimova & Sulis,
2009): the grades in athletics have significant positive correlations with the
STQ-77 scales of Motor Endurance and Motor Tempo (r = .53 and .45,
respectively), the grades in verbal assignments correlate positively with
Social Endurance and with Social Tempo scales (r = .28 and r =
.27, respectively), and the grades in math and science correlate with the
scales of Intellectual Endurance and Plasticity (r = .26 and .22,
respectively) (Trofimova and Sulis, 2009).
In an
experimental study of the content validity of the STQ-77 using Semantic
Projection Method the scales of this test were compared to the semantic
perception of participants, via comparisons of contrast temperament groups
(Trofimova, 2013). Similarly to the results of validation of the STQ-150,
participants with higher Motor and Social Endurance gave significantly more
positive ratings to abstract common concepts than participants with lower
Endurance scores. Significant positive bias in estimations of men with higher
Motor Tempo (TMM) was found in their evaluation of `timing` concepts. People
with high scores on the Neuroticism scale demonstrated significantly more
negative estimations of common abstract objects than their contrast temperament
group, and their negative affect was specific to words describing potential
areas of failure. Moreover, in this experimental study people with higher
scores on the Sensitivity to Sensation (SS) scale of the STQ-77 gave more
negative estimations of routine-related (work- and reality-related) concepts,
than participants with lower SS scores .
In another study,
the Social Tempo scale of the STQ-77 was found to have a statistically
significant correlation with the time, which people spent on completing two
personality questionnaires (r = -.31) (Trofimova & Sulis, 2009).
This scale, as well as the Self-Confidence scale of the STQ-77 also had
significant negative correlations with the time of performance on a task
involving the classification of common verbal material (r =-.36 and
-.29, respectively) (Trofimova, 2010c).
Factor
structure of the STQ-77:
The Confirmatory
Factor Analysis of the Compact STQ (STQ-77) using data from a Canadian sample
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 (Trofimova, 2010b).
*
- opposite trait
Temperament vs. Personality
There is often confusion, even among psychologists,
on the differences between temperament and personality.
Historically the concept and the study of
temperament emerged in the European (UK included) tradition within the
discipline of medicine about 2500 years ago, and then in differential
psychophysiology from the beginning of the 20th century. The European tradition
primarily used experimental methods on adult human subjects, children human
subjects and animals. This tradition started from the work of Hippocrates and
Galen and continued in the work of Kant, Pavlov, Heymans, Wundt,
Stern, Lasursky, Jung, Adler, Kretschmer, Spränger,
Teplov, Nebylizyn, Eysenck, Thayer, Gray, Tellegen,
Rusalov, Netter, Watson and Tellegen, Strelau and
Zawadski, etc (references were removed). The majority of these authors suggested
that temperament has at least two major dimensions, Emotionality (reactivity)
and Activity (energetic aspect).
The North-American tradition of temperament research
was scattered within three different disciplines: developmental psychology,
psychiatry and personality theory using a lexical approach. Child temperament
was studied within developmental psychology from the 1970s and is based on the
parental and guardian observations of children (Thomas & Chess, Buss & Plomin,
Windle & Lerner, Derryberry & Rothbart). Since then North American
psychologists, especially in California, often consider temperament as
applicable primarily to children. Adult temperament was analyzed within clinical
research, uncovering a consistency of neuroticism (Kagan, Cloninger,
Akiskal), sensation and novelty seeking (Zuckerman,
Cloninger) and energetic traits (Cloninger, Akiskal)
(references were removed).
A third line of temperament research in N. America
emerged in the lexical approach to studying personality, which, after the use of
factor analysis of personality descriptors, described 5 dimensions (factors) of
personality (Fiske 1949; Tupes & Christal, 1961; Norman, 1963; Borgatta, 1964;
Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Since the appearance of the Big Five, Eysenck noted that the
two largest factors in the Big Five model of personality were similar to the two
basic temperament dimensions (i.e. Extraversion and Neuroticism) and overall
just reflect aspects of socialization, rather than dynamical aspects of
behavioral regulation. Lexical approach theorists, however, hesitate to admit
that their approach did not bring anything new that temperament researchers had
not known already for decades, at least in Europe. They continue promoting the
two largest factors in the Big Five model as dimensions of personality, and not
temperament, but naming it `biologically based personality traits.
Personality researchers often use the argument that personality is a product of
integration between temperament (or other biological factors) and socio-cultural
factors, and therefore there is no possibility to separate these factors.
However, sex, age and mental illness (also based on neurochemical and
physiological systems) interact with socio-cultural factors as well so they also
contribute to personality but we don’t blend these concepts with personality.
There are benefits to keeping our concepts differentiated. Temperament, in line
with its original concept, is defined here as neurochemically-based
individual differences noted both, in pre-cultural individuals (animals,
infants) and adult humans, whereas personality is a socio-cultural concept
describing individual differences primarily in humans. Temperament traits
include consistent formal-dynamical individual differences in behavioral
regulation (endurance, speed of behavioural integration, reactivity, sensitivity
to specific reinforcers, emotionality), whereas personality classically is
considered as comprising the content characteristics of human behavior (such as
values, attitudes, habits, preferences, personal history, self-image etc).
Allport (1927),
the father of the lexical approach that the Five Factor model of personality is
based on, warned about the danger of mixing temperament with personality: ...There
is also confusion between personality and the factors underlying personality.
Tests for physique, for intelligence, or for temperament are not tests of
personality... If, then, personality is the object of inquiry, traits of
personality should not be confused with qualities or quantities of intelligence,
physique, or temperament.`
The concept of
temperament was employed in the medical and social sciences for 2500 years and
was a subject of intense experimental studies during all of the 20th
century. There is no reason to make a confusing overlap of this concept with the
personality concept now only because its use would otherwise compromise the fame
of the Big Five model. After all, the Big Five model is based not on experiments,
but rather on language descriptors, which by definition are
created through social interaction and designed for social interaction. As we
have far more words describing the degree of engagement of an individual in
social interactions than we have words describing other important tasks, the
main dimensions in the factor analysis of social descriptors will be biased in
favour of social compliance vs. withdrawal differentiation.
Structure of personality traits (for example, in
the FFM model) does not represent the structure of biologically-based traits, as
temperament. Personality is the social level of integration of individual
differences and it is affected by pro-social biases, which highlight some traits
and downplay others. For example, FFM dimensions resemble societal expectations:
sociability, assertiveness, conformity, obedience. Yet, individual differences
such as physical endurance, plasticity of actions, sensitivity to specific
reinforcers remain in the shadows. In spite of the rather aggressive spread of
the FFM in psychology and its claim for
describing “human universals”, it is often
forgotten that the FFM is primarily a lexical model of peer perception (i.e. of
how people see each other and express it in words (Trofimova, 2014), not a model
of biologically-based differences. The lexical nature of this model together
with people’s subjectivity inevitably create several language biases in the
resulting factor structure. The massive number of cross-cultural studies is
often used as an argument for the validation of this model, but these studies
are designed to find universal features between cultures, not the structure of
individual differences. What is being validated in these studies, therefore, are
only the pro-social bias of language, the negativity bias of emotionality
(emerging as Extraversion and Neuroticism factors) and people’s conflation of
traits in their social perception, not taxonomy of biologically-based
differences.
Another factor promoting the FFM was the use of
factor analysis (FA) and its derivatives,
such as structural equation modeling (SEM). These are the most popular
mathematical methods in differential psychology (psychology of individual
differences), and their use by psychometrists is often confused with the task of
classifying individual differences. FA is not used in the mature sciences
(biology, cosmology, chemistry, medicine and even mathematics itself) for their
classifications due to the weaknesses of FA: linearity (even so-called nonlinear
FA uses linear correlations), an incapacity to deal with highly integrated
systems, etc. As described in our Editorial, it has been 100 years since the
fist objections to using FA for psychological taxonomies emerged, and criticism
of FA models (such as FFM) has continued throughout the century [112-113]. When
everything is interdependent in biological processes, a correlation-based
analysis collapses the complexity of measurements of these systems into a very
limited number of dimensions which are not very useful for practical
considerations.
The requirement of
independence of scales is very convenient for mathematical purposes and is
important in psychometric practice except for the fact that it doesn’t really
exist in natural systems. For example, the independence of the dimensions in the
Positive/Negative Affect model appears to be due, not to independence of the
underlying regulatory systems, but rather to the fact that these interconnected
systems act differently in response to positive or negative events. The
priorities of psychometrists and differential psychologists, therefore, differ
greatly, and psychometrists or statisticians are the last people to be consulted
when developing taxonomies of biologically-based traits. Unfortunately this is
not the case: there is a commonly held view in differential psychology that FA
results of psychometric studies (i.e. how the items or scales in psychological
tests were grouped) provide valid evidence of associations between real
neurophysiological processes. This is, perhaps, a reflection of too much public
trust being given to self-report tests and verbal descriptors in psychology, and
too little awareness of their profound methodological weaknesses in comparison
to neurophysiologic experiments. With the development of psychometrics (which
demands independence of scales in psychological tests), FA became dominant in
differential psychology. These days most of the discussion in this field cycles
around the FA structure of self-report tests obtained from various populations (eg.
what facet belongs to what factor as if this facet (or factor) relates to a real
neurophysiological system). The confusion of mistaking psychometric evidence for
experimental evidence is very wide-spread, “trumping” [1]
psychometrically-derived models, such as the recent FFM, to a dominant position
in psychology. As Norman and Streiner [114, p.144] noted, “factor analysis …-
when applied blindly and without regard for its limitations, it is about as
useful and informative as tarot cards.” Indeed, in spite of the ability to
group variables in a way that resembles something real, like tarot cards, FA
cannot enable us to differentiate between the components of integrated systems.
That is what happened with the two major dimensions of psychological taxonomies,
leading basically to a deadlock that appears as a single “doing good – doing
bad” dimension.
-----------------
[1] We
can use the term “trumping” in science for cases in the sociology of science
associated with the aggressive spread of rather weak theories while avoiding
stronger opponents. A trump card in card games refers to a card of low value
that can take a leading position, overpowering more deserving cards merely
because of a temporary advantage. In our time, when educational systems around
the word suffer from insufficient funding of biological studies and evolutionary
research, it creates an advantage for relying upon easy-to-use statistical
methods and simplified models, rather than experimental research.
References (only
STQ- and FET-related)
Almayev, N.A., Murasheva O.V., Petrovich
D.L. EEG correlates of personality questionnaires: Rusalov's STQ-150,
Trofimova's STQ-77 and Cloninger's TCI, Russian version. Psychophysiology
news (Vestnik psychophisiologii), 2020;03:135-138.
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.
Bishop, D., & Hertenstrein, M. (2004) A
confirmatory factor analysis of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 64, 1019-1029.
Bishop, D., Jacks, H., & Tandy, S. B. (1993)
Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): Results from a US sample. Personality
and Individual Differences, 14, 485-487.
Bodunov M. V., Bezdenezhnykh
B. N., & Alexandrov Yu. I. (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 [in Russian].
Brebner, J., & Stough, C. (1993). The
relationship between the Structure of Temperament and Extraversion and
Neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences. 14, 623-626.
Byzova, V.M. (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 [in Russian].
Dumenci, L. (1995) The relation between
the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire and other personality domains. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 55, 850-857. CA: Sage
Dumenci, L. (1996) Factorial validity of scores on the
Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 56, 487-493. CA: Sage.
Dumenci, L. (1996) Factorial validity of scores on the
Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 56, 487-493. CA: Sage.
Eputaev E. Y., Ikonnikova M. E., Agarkov
B. A., & Tarabrina N. V. (2003) Dissociative states and formal-dynamical
properties of individual. Materials of 7th Multidisciplinary
Conference `Stress And Behavior`, 121-123. Moscow: IPRAN Press.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968) Manual
for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San
Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial
Testing Service.
Gray, J. A (1964) Pavlov`s typology; recent
theoretical and experimental developments from the laboratory of B. M. Teplov. New York: Macmillan.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety:
An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University
Press.
Nebylitsyn, V. D. (1972) Fundamental properties of
the human nervous system. New York: Plenum.
Pavlov, I. P. (1941)
Lectures
on conditioned reflexes, v. IIi: types
of the higher nervous activity, their interdependence with neuroses and
psychoses and the physiological mechanism of neurotic and psychotic symptoms. NY: International Publishers.
Pavlov, I. P. (1957) General Types of
Animal and Human Higher Nervous Activity. Experimental Psychology and other
Essays. Philosophical Library, Inc., New
York.
Postman, L.., Bruner, J. S.,
& McGinnies, E. M. (1946) Personal values as selective. factors in
perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 142-154
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. Moscow, Russia. [in Russian]
Rathee N., & Singh, R. (2001) Mobility or/and Lability
of the Nervous Processes as Temperamental Trait(s). Personality and
Individual Differences, 31, 1091-1104.
Ruch, W., Angleitner, A., & Strelau,
J. (1991) The Strelau Temperament Inventory – Revised (STI-R): Validity
studies. European Journal of Personality, 5, 287-308.
Rusalov, V. M. (1979) Biologicheskiye osnovi individual`no-psichologicheskih
razlichiy. (Biological basis of individual psychological differences) Nauka:
Мoscow. [in Russian]
Rusalov, V. M. (1989) Motor and communicative aspects
of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament. Personality
and individual differences, 10, 817-827.
Rusalov, V. M. (1997) Oprosnik formal`no-dynamicheskih
svoystv individual`nosti. Rukovodstvo. [Questionnaire of formal-dynamical
properties of individuality. Manual]. Russian Academy of Sciences, IPAN
Press: Moscow. [in Russian]
Rusalov, V. M. (2004) Formal`no-dynamicheskiye svoystva
individual`nosti (temperament) [Formal-dynamical properties of individual
(temperament)]. Russian Academy of Sciences, IPAN Press: Moscow. [in Russian]
Rusalov, V.M. (2012) Temperament in the
structure of human individuality: psychophysiological studies. In Russian.
Moscow, IPRAS, Russia. (In Russian)
Rusalov, V. M., & Dudin C. I. (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. [in Russian]
Rusalov, V. M., & Kalashnikov, S.
V. (1988) On the correlation of psychic plasticity with the integral factors of
human brain bioelectrical activity. In: Rusalov, V. M. (Ed.) Individual`no -psikhologicheskie
razlichiya i bioelektricheskaya aktivnost` mozga cheloveka (Individual
Psychological Differences and Human Brain Bioelectrical Activity), 5-55. Moscow: Nauka.
Rusalov, V. M., & Kalashnikova I.
G. (1992) Psychological testing of temperament. Zhurnal Vysshey Nervnoy Deyatel`nosti
(Journal of Higher Nervous Activity), 42(1), 44.
Rusalov, V. M., & Naumova E. R.
(1999) On the relationship between general abilities and "intellectual"
scales of temperament. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 20
(1), 70-77
Rusalov, V. M., & Poltavtzeva,
L. I. (1997) Temperament as a
prerequisite of creative abilities. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous
Activity, 47, 3, 451-460.
Rusalov, V. M, Rusalova, M. N., & Strel`nikova, E.
V. (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 Deyatel`nosti
[Journal of Higher Nervous Activity], 50(3), 388. [in Russian]
Rusalov, V. M., & Trofimova, I. N. (2007) Structure
of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press.
Rusalov, V. M., Trofimova, I. N. (2011). О
представленности
типов психической
деятельности
в различных моделях
темперамента.
Психологический
журнал, 32, 3, 74-84.
Rusalov, V.M. (2018)
Functional systems and activity-specific approaches to taxonomy of psychological
individual differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
Biology, 383 (1744) |doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0166
Stough, C., Brebner, J., & Cooper, C. (1991) The
Rusalov Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): results from an
Australian sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
1355-1357.
Strelau, J. (1999) The Pavlovian Temperament Survey
(PTS): An international handbook. Germany: Hogrefe, & Huber.
Strelau, J., & Angleitner, A. (Eds.) (1991) Explorations
in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement. N.Y.:
Plenum.
Teplov, B.M. & Nebylitsyn, V.D.
(1963) Experimental study of properties of the nervous system in man. Journal
of Highest Nervous Activity, 13: 789-797.
Trofimova I. (1999). How people of different age, sex
and temperament estimate the world. Psychological Reports. N 85/2,
pp.533-552. See DOC
Trofimova I.N. (1997) Interconnections
of characteristics of temperament with some peculiarities of cognitive activity
of human // Questions of psychology, N 1. Pp. 74-82.
Trofimova, I. (2009) Exploration of the benefits of an activity-specific
test of temperament. Psychological Reports, 105, 643-658.See PDF
Trofimova, I. (2010a). Exploration of the activity-specific model of
temperament in four cultures. International Journal of Psychology and
Psychological Therapy. 10, 1, 79-95. See PDF
Trofimova, I. (2010b)
Questioning the "general arousal" models. Open
Behavioral Science and Psychology, 4, 1-8. DOI:
10.2174/1874230001004010001
http://bentham-open.com/contents/pdf/TOBSJ/TOBSJ-4-1.pdf
Trofimova, I. (2010c). 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
PDF
Trofimova, I. & Sulis W.
(2010). The
lability of behavior as a marker of comorbid depression and anxiety. Advances in
Bioscience and Biotechnology, 1,
3, 190-199. DOI:
10.4236/abb.2010.13027. See PDF
Trofimova, I. & 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. See PDF.
Trofimova, I. (2013) A study
of the dynamics of sex differences in adulthood. International
Journal of Psychology, 48 (6), 1230-1236. DOI:
10.1080/00207594.2012.756981 See PDF
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, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085677
Trofimova, I. (2015) 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. Nova Science
Publishers, Inc., NY pp. 77-147
Trofimova, I. & Christiansen, J. (2016)
Coupling of temperament traits with mental illness in four age groups. Psychological Reports,
118, 2.
DOI 10.1177/0033294116639430.
PDF
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.
PDF
Trofimova, I. & Sulis W. (2016a). 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
PDF
Trofimova, I. & Sulis, W. (2016b). A study of the coupling of FET
temperament traits with Major Depression. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1848. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01848.
PDF
Trofimova, I. (2018).
Functionality vs
dimensionality in psychological taxonomies, and a puzzle of emotional valence.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biology, 383/1744.
doi:
10.1098/rstb.2017.0167
Trofimova, I. & Sulis W. (2018). There is more to mental illness than just
negative affect: comprehensive temperament profiles
in depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry,
18: 125.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1695-x
Trofimova, I. (2019). An overlap between mental abilities and temperament
traits. In: McFarland, D. (Ed.) General and specific mental abilities.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 176-225.
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
Kanen, J. W., Robbins,
T.W. & Trofimova, I.N. (2021). Harnessing Temperament to Elucidate the Complexities
of Serotonin Function. PsyArXiv. July
18. doi:10.31234/osf.io/gvmuy.
Trofimova, I.
(2021). Functional constructivism approach to multilevel nature of
biobehavioural diversity. Frontiers in
Psychiatry. 12:641286, doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.641286
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.
Trofimova
I. (2022). Transient nature of stable behavioural patterns, and
how we can respect it. Current
Opinions in Behavioural Sciences, 44. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101109.
Trofimova,
I. & Araki, M. (2022). Psychometrics vs neurochemistry: A controversy
around mobility-like scales of temperament. Personality
and Individual Differences, 187, 111446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111446.
Kanen,
J., Robbins, T.W., Trofimova I. (2022) Harnessing temperament to elucidate the
complexities of serotonin function. Current
Opinions in Behavioural Sciences, 45. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101108.
Trofimova,
I. & Pickering, A. Neurobiology of temperament, personality and
psychopathology: what's next? Current
Opinions in Behavioural Sciences, 44. doi:
10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101112.
Rezaei, S., Bakhshani, N.M., Fanaei, H., &
Trofimova, I. (2020). Opium effect in pregnancy on the dynamics of maternal
behaviour: testing a neurochemical model. Neuropsychobiology 80(2),
79-83, doi: 10.1159/000514409.
Vasyura, S. A. (2008). Psychology of male and female communicative
activity. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 289-300.
Vorobieva E. V.
(2004). Modern psychogenetic studies of intelligence and theory of motivation
for achievements. Journal of Applied Psychology. 3, 53-59.
Vorobyeva,
E.V., Ermakov, P.N. & Saakyan, O.S. (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,
1, 32-42. doi:10.11621/pir.2015.0104.
Watkins D., Sachs J., Balev J., Dahlin B.,
Fleming J., Klis M., Lopez L.W., Mortazavi S., Trofimova
I., Sunar D., Tam Sing-fai A. & Van der Vijver F.
(2000). Culture, gender, and the nature of self-concept: further
evidence. International Journal of Psychology.
Watkins D., Mortazavi S.
& Trofimova I. (2000). Independent and interdependent conceptions of self:
an investigation of age, gender and culture differences in importance and
satisfaction ratings. Cross Cultural Research. Vol. 34, N2,
pp.113-134.
Zin`ko E. V. (2006) Kharakteristiki
samootcenki i urovnya dostijeniy i ih sopolojenie [Characteristics of
self-image and of level of aspiration and its relationships].
Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal],
3, 18-30; 4, 15-25.
Zvereva, N., Zvereva, M. & Pyatnitskaya L (2020). Temperament profiles
of children and adolescents with psychotic and mood disorders.
Neuropsychobiology. doi:10.1159/000511108
Keys and Testing with the STQ-77
Join us in our 10 year anniversary of the Compact STQ-77
and 30 year anniversary of the first STQ:
from 2017 use the STQ-77 for free! Those who purchased it, we will reimburse
your expenses - we have a database of purchases.
For the users
of the two Chinese versions: please note that that the pre-2021 STQ-77C-S
and STQ-77C-T had a mistake in the instruction (1 should be "Strontly
Disagree", 2
- "Disagree", 3 - "Agree", 4 - "Strongly Disagree"),
however the numbers were misplaced. If you used Excel files for STQ-77C-S
and STQ-77C-T, the Summary page would give wrong profiles. Our apologies, we haven't
noticed this right away (our knowledge of Chinese language is rather weak :).
If you've collected the data using previous Chinese templates,
the data can be still used, just look at the instruction of that template
and decode the data according to the coding indicated here. If you decode
the data, the processing in Excel will work correctly.
We are very grateful to the colleagues and specialists
who were working on the translation and adaptation of these versions!
Forms for testing adults (age
17-100)
Pdf forms can be used for a paper-pencil testing, and
Excel - for a computer-assisted testing, processing and data collection.
The Excel sheet "Summary" has formulas tuned to the
keys of the test. If you need more detailed information, please contact
Psychological Services.
All our STQ-related services are free for personal and
research purposes. The keys to the scales
are here but we truly recommend using Excel files instead of manual
calculations of the scores: you will have less errors!
If you have sufficiently large samples (200+) then you can use
our contrast-groups calculator - just
prepare your data in Excel, then open this Excel file and follow the
described steps.
|
Language
|
Abbreviation
|
Pdf files
|
Excel files
|
Contributors to translation and
adaptation
|
Affiliation of contributors
|
|
Bulgarian/Български
|
STQ-77Bg |
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Nikola Markov
|
Bulgarian University, Bulgaria |
|
Chinese-Simplified
正体字
|
STQ-77C-S
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Doreen Wing Han Au, Iris Wen Wen, Wen Xiao Wei,
Yuning Zhang, Wen Hou (Nico),
Shin Chian (Russel) Lu, Yiyu
Shi (Shirley)
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
Chinese-Traditional
正體字
|
STQ-77C-T
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Yiyu
Shi (Shirley),
Yaoxue (Madeline) Xu
|
McMaster University, Canada,
Toronto, Canada
|
|
Dutch /Netherlands
|
STQ-77Du
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Eleonora Risi Valdettaro
|
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
English
|
STQ-77E
|
Pdf Letter
Pdf A4
|
Excel file
|
Prof. William Sulis, Prof.
Irina Trofimova, Kristine Espiritu, Patricia Marcoccia, Chandrima
Bandyopadhyay,
Jenn Bossio
Anastasia Trofimova *
|
McMaster University, Canada
*University of Toronto in Mississauga, Canada
|
|
Estonian/ Eesti keel
|
STQ-77Es
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Katre Sakala
Federica Pagliani
|
Estonian Centre of Behavioural and Health Sciences,
University of Tartu, Estonia
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
Farsi-Persian/
|
STQ-77Fa
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof.
Nour-Mohammad Bakhshani
Dr. Hussein Khalili
Prof. Mahnaz Mousavi
|
Department of clinical psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Zahedan
University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran
Student
Wellness & Counseling Center
Georgetown University in Qatar, Qatar.
|
|
Finnish /Suomi
|
STQ-77Fi
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Giuseppe Sebastiani
|
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
French /Français
|
STQ-77Fr
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Patrice Renaud;
Katya Konioukhova
|
Dept of Psychology, Quebec University, Canada
Montreal, QB, Canada
|
|
German /Deutsch
|
STQ-77Ge
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Petra Netter
|
Fachbereich Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Universität Gießen
|
|
Hebrew /עברית
|
STQ-77He
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Yonathan Mizrachi
|
Sociology & Anthropology Dept, YVC Academic College
LAMBDA Lab at Tel-Aviv University, Israel
|
|
Hindi /हिन्दी
|
STQ-77Hi
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Leonardo Taddei
|
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
Italian /Italiano
|
STQ-77It
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Giuseppe Sebastiani
|
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
Japanese /日本語
|
STQ-77Jp
|
For the pilot version -->
|
please contact -->
|
Prof.
Yukari Hashimoto:
y u k a r i @sun.ac.jp
Prof. Mitsuyo Shibasaki,
Prof. Fumiko Anzaki
Prof. Makoto Kuroiwa
Asst. Prof. Azusa Takashita
Junko Kimura,
Mie Takaki, Andrew Grimes
|
Department of Public Policy, Education Development Center,
University of Nagasaki, Japan
Meisei University, Japan
Tokyo city University, Japan
Meisei University, Japan
Matsumoto Junior College
Tokyo Counselling Services, Japan
|
|
Norwegian /Norsk
|
STQ-77No
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Giuseppe Sebastiani
|
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
Polish /Polski
|
STQ-77Po
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Agata Samborska
Marek Petruczynik
Wojtek Latkowski
Andrzej Bernat
|
UTM,
Toronto, Canada
Engineering
Systems, Toronto
ACTRA,
Toronto,
Canada
Waterloo University, Canada
|
|
Russian
/Русский
|
STQ-77Ru
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Vladimir Rusalov, Michael Bodunov
Anastasia Trofimova
|
IPRAN, Moscow, Russia
University of Toronto in Mississauga, Canada
|
|
Serbian /Cрпски
|
STQ-77Se
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof.
Petar Colovic,
Terence McEneny
|
Dept
of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy,
Dept
of English language at the Faculty of Philosophy, both: University
of Novi Sad, Serbia
|
|
Spanish /Espanol
|
STQ-77Sp
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Gengo
Anonimous young lady
|
Gengo, the professional translation services.
OTC conference in Murcia, Spain, May 2018
|
|
Swedish /Svenska
|
STQ-77Sw
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Giuseppe Sebastiani
|
Translated, the professional translation services.
|
|
Urdu /
اُردُو
|
STQ-77Ur
|
Pdf file,
|
Excel file
|
Ambreen Tahir, Chandrima Bandyopadhyay, Samira Patel
Azfar Ahmad Tahir
|
McMaster University, Canada
Toronto University, Canada
|
Forms for testing children to be completed by children's guardians:
|
Language
|
Abbreviation
|
Pdf
files
|
Excel
files
|
Contributors to adaptation
|
Affiliation
|
|
|
Age 0-3
(C1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
|
STQ-77E-C1
|
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Torianne Ipema
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
Russian
/Русский
|
STQ-77R-C1
|
Pdf file
|
Excel
file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
|
Age 4-7 (C2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
|
STQ-77E-C2
|
Pdf
Letter
Pdf A4
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
Prof. William Sulis
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
Russian /Русский
|
STQ-77R-C2
|
Pdf Letter
Pdf A4
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
|
Age 8-11 (C3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
|
STQ-77E-C3
|
Pdf Letter
Pdf A4
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
Prof. William Sulis
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
Russian
/Русский
|
STQ-77R-C3
|
Pdf Letter
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
Svetlana Piskunova
|
McMaster University, Canada
School 112, Novosibirsk, Russia
|
|
|
Age 12-16 (C4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
|
STQ-77E-C4
|
Pdf Letter
Pdf A4
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
Prof. William Sulis
|
McMaster University, Canada
|
|
Russian
/Русский
|
STQ-77R-C4
|
Pdf Letter
Pdf file
|
Excel file
|
Prof. Irina Trofimova
Svetlana Piskunova
|
McMaster University, Canada
School 112, Novosibirsk, Russia
|
To Contact Us
To Contact us:
E-mail:
psychologicalser@gmail.com
Tel: 1-905-527-0129,
Fax: 1-866-410-6766
Address: #530-73
McCaul St., Toronto, ON, M5T 2X2
http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/cilab/PS/PS.htm
You-tube videos on the FET
model
Presentation of the
FET model at the Karolinska Institute, Sweden (in English)
Presentation of the
FET model at the World Congress of Mental Health (in Russian)
Neuroscience of Polymathy: Interview with Irina Trofimova at the Annual
Creativity Conference 2019
Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ)