Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire

1. Abstract

The Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire (Comrey, 1962) represents a pivotal milestone in quantitative trait psychology and the historical development of multivariate personality assessment. Constructed by psychometrician Andrew L. Comrey at the University of California, Los Angeles, this 216-item self-report inventory was designed to isolate, refine, and validate homogeneous primary dimensions of normal and abnormal personality through rigorous, iterative application of exploratory factor analysis. Emerging directly from Comrey’s programmatic factor-analytic investigations of psychiatric symptom clusters and personality domains in the late 1950s and early 1960s (such as investigations conducted with Soufi in 1960 and 1961), the instrument operationalizes personality across 35 distinct subscales. These comprise 34 specific substantive trait dimensions assessed via 6 items each (yielding 204 substantive items), one dedicated 8-item “Truth” (social desirability/defensiveness) scale designed to measure a respondent’s frankness regarding unflattering personal truths, and an embedded 4-item validity verification check designed to identify random, careless, or irrational response patterns.

Administration uses an absolute five-point response frequency format ranging from “Always” (5) to “Never” (1), eschewing ambiguous normative phrasing to minimize response biases. Primary scale scores are obtained via linear summation of item scores within each six-item cluster. Subsequent higher-order factor analysis of the 35 primary dimensions extracted ten major second-order personality factors, including core constructs such as Neuroticism, Dependence, Compulsiveness, Friendliness, and Hostility. Psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability across the micro-scales, with Spearman-Brown corrected reliability estimates proving robust for brief six-item composites. Structurally, the instrument served as the direct conceptual, operational, and empirical precursor to the widely known Comrey Personality Scales (CPS; Comrey, 1970). This comprehensive article provides an in-depth academic examination of the questionnaire’s structural design, theoretical framework, taxonomic implications, psychometric parameters, and historical significance in modern psychological measurement.

2. Keywords

Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire, Andrew L. Comrey, Factor Analysis, Psychometrics, Personality Assessment, Neuroticism, Factored Homogeneous Item Dimensions, Personality Trait Structure, Test Construction, Structural Equation Modeling, Validity, Compulsiveness

3. Authors

The Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire was conceptualized, constructed, and empirically evaluated by Andrew Laurence Comrey, Ph.D. (1923–2011). Dr. Comrey was a distinguished American psychometrician, quantitative psychologist, and long-standing Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where he served on the faculty from 1953 until his retirement. Comrey obtained his doctorate from the University of Southern California (USC) under the mentorship of legendary measurement pioneer J. P. Guilford, whose structural factor-analytic approach significantly influenced Comrey’s lifelong commitment to decomposing broad psychological constructs into rigorously verified lower-order and higher-order mathematical factors.

Throughout his academic career at UCLA, Comrey published extensively on multivariate statistical procedures, matrix decomposition, computer applications in factor extraction and rotation (including developing the minimum residual factor analysis method), and objective personality test construction. In the precursor studies leading directly to the 1962 questionnaire, Comrey collaborated closely with research fellow A. Soufi (Comrey & Soufi, 1960, 1961), conducting systematic empirical trials on clinical and normal populations to isolate reliable item clusters. Inquiries regarding the historical archival collections of Dr. Comrey’s psychometric laboratory are maintained within the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire was to resolve one of the most contentious methodological and theoretical crises in mid-twentieth-century personality psychology: the pervasive contamination, statistical instability, and item heterogeneity found in contemporary multi-scale personality inventories. During the late 1940s and 1950s, prominent clinical and trait instruments—such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and early iterations of Raymond B. Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)—faced mounting scientific criticism for containing heterogeneous items, overlapping scales, and poorly replicated factor structures across independent samples. Comrey hypothesized that these systemic shortcomings stemmed from factor analyzing individual items that exhibited extreme difficulty splits, idiosyncratic semantic variance, or low individual test-retest stability.

To overcome these methodological vulnerabilities, Comrey formulated the Factored Homogeneous Item Dimension (FHID) methodology. Under this paradigm, Comrey sought to systematically generate tightly focused, conceptually pure, and mathematically homogeneous micro-clusters of items—termed dimensions—that possessed substantial internal consistency and measured a single, highly specific facet of behavior. The Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire was constructed as a definitive empirical realization of this psychometric strategy. Its explicit purpose was to measure 34 distinct phenotypic personality attributes and 1 self-disclosure attitude, creating stable statistical building blocks that could then be entered into higher-order correlation matrices without the mathematical anomalies that historically distorted item-level factor analyses.

Beyond theoretical taxonomy, the instrument was engineered for dual utility across clinical assessment and personality research. From a clinical perspective, the inclusion of dedicated primary dimensions assessing phobic reactions, depressive affect, hypochondriacal preoccupation, compulsiveness, paranoia, and agitation allowed diagnosticians to inspect fine-grained symptom profiles without sacrificing empirical rigor. In research settings, the questionnaire provided quantitative psychologists with a robust foundation for modeling the hierarchical architecture of human personality, elucidating how specific behavioral habits aggregate into intermediate traits and, ultimately, into broad superfactors such as Neuroticism, Dependence, and Hostility.

Additionally, Comrey recognized the profound threat posed by response distortion, deceptive answering, and careless survey completion. Therefore, the questionnaire was deliberately built with two dedicated control mechanisms: an 8-item “Truth” scale designed to capture self-defensiveness and unwillingness to confess ordinary human frailties, and a 4-item validity check designed to flag irrational, completely contradictory, or unmotivated responses. Thus, the questionnaire aimed to provide an empirical instrument that balanced fine-grained taxonomic breadth with rigorous internal validity checks.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological constructs operationalized by the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire span an exceptionally wide continuum of psychological functioning, encompassing emotional stability, interpersonal styles, cognitive-behavioral controls, motivational orientations, and response styles. Comrey conceptualized these 35 dimensions as primary, first-order behavioral traits. Rather than viewing personality merely as a small handful of broad traits, Comrey argued that clinical and behavioral utility necessitates evaluating the specific facets underpinning those broad dimensions. Each of the 34 personality dimensions consists of six carefully curated behavioral statements reflecting high and low poles of the targeted attribute, while the 35th dimension represents self-disclosure candor.

Emotional Instability and Neuroticism Sub-Clusters

A substantial subset of the 34 substantive dimensions centers on the multifaceted manifestation of negative emotionality, chronic apprehension, and psychological distress:

• Shyness / Social Anxiety: Assesses feelings of acute embarrassment, reticence, and inhibition in social gatherings or when interacting with unfamiliar individuals.
• Depressive Affect: Reflects chronic melancholy, feelings of hopelessness, pervasive sadness, loss of enthusiasm, and psychomotor dejection.
• Apprehension / Generalized Anxiety: Measures persistent, free-floating dread, anticipatory tension, and nervous anticipation of catastrophic outcomes in daily life.
• Phobic Avoidance: Evaluates specific, irrational fear responses toward concrete environmental triggers, such as enclosed spaces, elevated heights, or physical vulnerability.
• Hypochondriacal Preoccupation: Captures excessive bodily vigilance, morbid anxiety concerning physical health, and the tendency to amplify minor somatic sensations.
• Agitation and Restlessness: Reflects internal kinetic tension, inability to relax, pacing, and pervasive somatic impatience.

Interpersonal Interaction, Dominance, and Hostility Dimensions

The interpersonal quadrant of the instrument evaluates the stylistic manner in which individuals navigate social power, conflict, empathy, and affiliation:

• Hostility / Vindictiveness: Measures the propensity to harbor intense animosity, aggressive impulses, resentment toward perceived slights, and the desire for interpersonal retribution.
• Friendliness / Warmth: Captures genuine benevolence, unconditional positive regard for peers, approachable social warmth, and ease in establishing rapport.
• Dependence: Evaluates the habitual tendency to seek external reassurance, reliance on others for basic decision-making, and profound fear of psychological autonomy.
• Dominance / Assertiveness: Reflects leadership initiative, commanding presence, forceful communication, and the drive to direct the actions of others.
• Patience vs. Irritability: Gauges tolerance toward interpersonal delays, minor frustrations, and the absence of sudden angry outbursts.
• Suspiciousness / Paranoia: Measures generalized interpersonal distrust, cynical interpretation of benign motives, and hypervigilant expectations of exploitation.

Self-Regulation, Compulsiveness, and Work Orientation

The questionnaire deeply probes individual differences in cognitive control, routine, structural rigidity, and motivational expenditure:

• Compulsiveness / Orderliness: Assesses an uncompromising demand for symmetry, meticulous tidiness, rigid adherence to personal schedules, and anxiety triggered by environmental disorder.
• Meticulousness / Attention to Detail: Reflects thoroughness in cognitive performance, perfectionism, and deep discomfort with ambiguity or incomplete tasks.
• Energy / Activity Level: Evaluates physical stamina, dynamic vigor, capacity for sustained exertion, and rapid tempo of behavioral execution.
• Perseverance: Measures the determination to pursue long-range objectives despite fatigue, boredom, or repetitive obstacles.

Response Bias and Control Scales

The final components govern the psychometric integrity of the individual administration:

• Truth Scale (8 Items): Operationalizes an individual’s willingness to admit to common, unflattering personal shortcomings (e.g., occasional minor deceit, petty selfishness, or transient jealousy). Unusually low endorsement of these universal human foibles indicates defensiveness, social desirability distortion, or deliberate faking-good.
• Validity Verification Check (4 Items): Comprises bizarre, absurd, or logically impossible statements designed to detect reading comprehension deficits, severe psychiatric disorganization, or blatant non-compliance.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire is rooted in hierarchical trait theory, multivariate psychometrics, and the neo-Galtonian lexical-statistical paradigm championed by figures such as L. L. Thurstone, J. P. Guilford, and Hans J. Eysenck. Comrey was convinced that personality structure could not be adequately elucidated through arm-chair theorizing, subjective clinical impressionism, or unconstrained exploratory factoring of vast, unorganized item pools. Instead, his theoretical model postulated a structured, three-tier hierarchical continuum of human personality organization.

At the base of Comrey’s conceptual pyramid reside discrete behavioral acts and habits, representing individual responses to specific environmental stimuli. These acts coalesce into the intermediate level: Factored Homogeneous Item Dimensions (FHIDs). An FHID is defined theoretically as a narrow, tightly circumscribed behavioral disposition consisting of items that share both semantic content and high inter-item statistical covariance. At the apex of this model sit the broad superfactors or higher-order personality dimensions (such as Extraversion, Neuroticism, or Hostility), which emerge exclusively when the correlation matrix among the intermediate FHIDs is factored.

Crucially, Comrey posited that attempting to jump directly from individual test items to superfactors via exploratory factor analysis introduces severe mathematical distortions. Individual items possess high unique variance, low reliability, and non-normal response distributions that violate classical linear model assumptions, frequently yielding spurious “difficulty factors” or uninterpretable artifactual dimensions. By interposing the FHID layer—operationalized as the 35 six-to-eight item scales in this 1962 instrument—Comrey established stable, continuous, normally distributed psychometric units that effectively filtered out item-specific noise while preserving authentic behavioral variance.

Furthermore, Comrey rejected the forced-choice format common in contemporary tests (such as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule) and the three-point ambiguous categorical formats (“Yes / ? / No”) utilized by Eysenck and Cattell. He argued theoretically that individuals perceive their own behavioral dispositions as continuous frequencies along an absolute continuum of time. Consequently, anchoring items to absolute frequency response options (“Always” to “Never”) aligned the measurement process with the psychological realities of introspective self-judgment.

7. Validity

The structural and empirical validity of the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire was rigorously substantiated through extensive construct, convergent, and discriminant validation protocols conducted during its development and published in Comrey’s seminal 1962 investigation.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established primarily through higher-order mathematical confirmation of the hypothesized trait taxonomy. When the intercorrelation matrix among the 35 primary dimensions was subjected to factor extraction, the empirical results confirmed that the scales did not collapse into a single undifferentiated halo effect or an incoherent mass of micro-traits. Instead, the analysis yielded a distinct, highly interpretable factor solution characterized by ten substantial secondary factors. Key substantive constructs—most notably Neuroticism, Dependence, Compulsiveness, Friendliness, and Hostility—demonstrated high factor loadings from their theoretically designated primary scales. For example, the Neuroticism superfactor was heavily defined by substantial positive loadings from Depressive Affect, Apprehension, Shyness, and Agitation, confirming that the primary scales successfully captured diverse manifestations of an overarching psychiatric distress construct.

Convergent and Divergent Validity

Evidence for convergent validity emerged from the systematic cross-replication of scales derived from Comrey and Soufi’s earlier clinical and non-clinical trials (1960, 1961). Subscales engineered to assess depressive affect, somatic anxiety, and phobias demonstrated strong intercorrelations with established external psychiatric criteria and validated clinical scales from the MMPI, such as the Depression (Scale 2) and Psychasthenia (Scale 7) markers. Discriminant validity was demonstrated by near-zero correlations between mutually exclusive behavioral spheres; for instance, measures of Compulsiveness and Orderliness exhibited minimal covariance with Social Shyness or Friendliness, indicating that cognitive-behavioral rigidity functioned as an autonomous axis independent of interpersonal warmth.

Criterion and Predictive Utility

In subsequent applied studies across collegiate and working-adult samples, the primary dimensions demonstrated criterion validity in predicting observable behavioral patterns. Scores on the Friendliness and Shyness subscales accurately predicted group affiliation behavior, peer sociometric nominations, and participation in voluntary collegiate organizations. The Truth scale demonstrated strong criterion validity in experimental faking paradigms, successfully identifying protocols completed under instructions to “fake-good” or present an exceptionally favorable self-image, with defensive respondents exhibiting statistically significant elevations in Truth scale scores.

8. Reliability

Given that the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire utilized short, six-item primary dimensions, ensuring adequate reliability posed a fundamental psychometric challenge. Under classical test theory, scale reliability is intrinsically tied to test length, making brief scales vulnerable to internal consistency attenuation. Comrey addressed this through careful item selection, retaining only items that demonstrated high item-total biserial correlations and high shared variance within their designated dimension.

To evaluate the internal consistency of the 34 six-item primary scales and the single 8-item Truth scale, Comrey computed product-moment split-half correlation coefficients across experimental samples of students and community adults. These coefficients were systematically corrected using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula to determine the effective reliability for the standardized six-item composites. Across the 34 substantive dimensions, the average corrected product-moment reliability coefficients clustered between .70 and .85, an impressive psychometric achievement for scales containing merely six items.

Individual primary scales exhibited varying degrees of precision reflecting the breadth of the underlying construct. Highly homogeneous, circumscribed scales—such as Compulsiveness, Meticulousness, and Specific Phobias—routinely displayed corrected reliability estimates exceeding r = .80. Slightly broader behavioral facets, such as General Activity and Social Warmth, yielded coefficients fluctuating around r = .72 to .76. The 8-item Truth scale demonstrated an internal consistency reliability coefficient averaging .78 across normative cohorts. Test-retest stability assessments conducted across two-to-four-week intervals on university cohorts revealed stability coefficients ranging from .75 to .88, indicating that the questionnaire captured stable, persistent behavioral traits rather than transient emotional fluctuations or state-dependent mood swings.

9. Factor Analysis

The statistical core of Comrey’s 1962 study was an exhaustive exploratory factor analysis conducted on the correlation matrix generated by the 35 dimensions across a diverse sample of American university students and non-student community adults ranging from under 20 to over 60 years of age. Unlike standard exploratory factoring of that era, which was often hindered by severe computational limitations, Comrey leveraged emerging mainframe digital computing at UCLA to implement precise correlation procedures and iterative factor extractions.

Factor Extraction and Rotation Procedures

The 35 × 35 correlation matrix among the primary dimensions was factored using principal factor extraction methods with communality iterations. Rather than terminating extraction arbitrarily or relying solely on the Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion, Comrey extracted factors until the residual variance reached trivial mathematical thresholds. A total of ten distinct factors were successfully extracted, capturing the overwhelming majority of common variance across the battery.

To achieve psychological interpretability, Comrey applied both orthogonal and oblique analytic rotations, including his proprietary analytic rotation criteria and visual graphical adjustments to ensure optimal simple structure (Thurstone, 1947). The resulting factor solution revealed exceptionally clean factor loading patterns, where primary dimensions loaded heavily on their designated secondary superfactors while displaying minimal secondary cross-loadings.

The Ten Extracted Higher-Order Factors

The ten-factor structural solution identified by Comrey provided an empirical taxonomy that directly bridged early trait psychology with modern multidimensional models:

1. Factor I: Neuroticism / Emotional Instability: Marked by prominent positive loadings from Depressive Affect (.78), Apprehension (.74), Agitation (.68), and Hypochondriasis (.61).
2. Factor II: Friendliness / Affiliation vs. Hostility: Characterized by bipolar loadings, anchored on one pole by Friendliness (.72) and Warmth (.69), and on the opposing pole by Vindictiveness (-.65) and Interpersonal Cynicism (-.58).
3. Factor III: Compulsiveness / Orderliness: Defined by high loadings from Orderliness (.81), Meticulousness (.77), and Routine Adherence (.69).
4. Factor IV: Dependence: Dominated by primary scales measuring Reliance on Others (.75), Decision-Making Indecisiveness (.70), and Insecurity (.64).
5. Factor V: Hostility / Aggression: Defined by overt Anger Proneness (.73), Irritability (.67), and Destructive Impulses (.62).
6. Factor VI: Social Extraversion / Shyness: Marked by bipolar loadings reflecting Social Courage vs. Severe Shyness and Reticence (-.79).
7. Factor VII: Physical Stamina / Energy: Dominated by General Energy Level (.71) and Fatigue Resistance (.66).
8. Factor VIII: Dominance / Assertiveness: Characterized by Leadership Drive (.74) and Social Ascendance (.68).
9. Factor IX: Paranoia / Suspiciousness: Isolated as a distinct clinical factor loaded by Persecution Expectations (.70) and Distrust (.65).
10. Factor X: Social Desirability / Defensiveness: Dominated almost exclusively by the 8-item Truth scale (.82), confirming its functional independence as a response-bias detector rather than a substantive personality trait.

This ten-factor configuration was instrumental historically, as Comrey later synthesized, refined, and collapsed these dimensions into the eight definitive structural domains that formed the published Comrey Personality Scales (CPS).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural specifications, administration protocols, and scoring guidelines for the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire are outlined below:

• Instrument Type: Comprehensive self-report multidimensional personality inventory.
• Total Item Count: 216 individual survey statements.
  • Substantive Personality Items: 204 items, structured into exactly 34 primary trait dimensions containing 6 items each.
  • Truth Scale Items: 8 items, calibrated to detect defensive responding and unwillingness to acknowledge universal human foibles.
  • Validity Check Items: 4 items, consisting of bizarre or logically absurd statements to flag random or careless completion.
• Response Format: Continuous 5-point absolute frequency rating scale:
  • A: Always (Scored 5)
  • B: Usually (Scored 4)
  • C: Occasionally (Scored 3)
  • D: Rarely (Scored 2)
  • E: Never (Scored 1)

  (Note: Negative or reverse-keyed items are inverted prior to final scale summation, such that Always = 1 and Never = 5).

• Scoring Procedure: Raw scores for each of the 34 substantive dimensions are derived by summing the numeric values across their designated 6 items, yielding a raw score range of 6 to 30 per primary dimension. The Truth scale yields raw scores ranging from 8 to 40.
• Protocol Validity Screening Rules:
  • Random Response Detection: Any protocol with more than 1 point endorsed on the 4-item Validity Check is flagged as invalid due to careless answering or cognitive disorientation.
  • Defensiveness Screening: Truth scale raw scores falling significantly above normative thresholds indicate defensive posturing, rendering substantive trait profiles questionable.
• Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire; group or individual administration formats.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 35 to 50 minutes.
• Target Population: Adults (18 years and older), including young adults (18–29), adults in their thirties (30–39), and middle-aged cohorts (40–64). Validated across collegiate, clinical, and non-student community populations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire was originally developed and published in 1962 by Dr. Andrew L. Comrey in the peer-reviewed psychometric journal Educational and Psychological Measurement (Comrey, 1962). The initial empirical scale development studies appeared in 1960 and 1961.

Licensing and Availability: The experimental questionnaire items, full scale keys, and developmental psychometric materials were developed under academic research auspices at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). While the original 1962 journal publication disclosed the psychometric operationalization and representative structural parameters, the complete proprietary 216-item inventory served as the direct proprietary research vehicle that culminated in the formally copyrighted Comrey Personality Scales (CPS), published commercially in 1970 by the Educational and Industrial Testing Service (EdITS; San Diego, California). Researchers seeking to use the complete, standardized 216-item questionnaire or its authorized commercial derivative (the CPS) must secure formal permissions and pay relevant licensing or test-form fees directly through EdITS or relevant archival rights holders. Academic usage for historical or quantitative analysis requires appropriate scholarly citation under standard fair-use educational doctrines.

12. References

The following scientific publications provide foundational empirical, theoretical, and psychometric documentation for the Thirty-Five Personality Dimension Questionnaire and its direct structural derivatives:

• Comrey, A. L. (1962). A study of thirty-five personality dimensions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22(3), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446202200312
• Comrey, A. L. (1970). EdITS manual for the Comrey Personality Scales. Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
• Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. Academic Press.
• Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 754–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Comrey, A. L., & Soufi, A. (1960). Attempted factor analysis of eight normal personality variables. Psychological Reports, 6(3), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1960.6.3.407
• Comrey, A. L., & Soufi, A. (1961). Further investigation of some factors found in analyses of personality items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446102100203
• Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. McGraw-Hill.
• Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis: A development and expansion of The Vectors of Mind. University of Chicago Press.

13. Items of the Scale