Psychology NEO-Personality Inventory-3 Assignment

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 1/9

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA 7th Edition (American Psychological Assoc.):

NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

References Benson, N., & Kluck, A. S. (2014). NEO Personality Inventory-3. The Nineteenth Mental Measurements

Yearbook. <!--Additional Information: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=mmt&AN=test.3238&site=ehost-live&custid=s8407648 End of citation-->

NEO Personality Inventory-3 Review of the NEO Personality Inventory-3 by NICHOLAS F. BENSON, Assistant Professor of School Psychology, The University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD:

DESCRIPTION. The NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3) was designed to measure five factor- analytically derived domains of personality. The NEO-PI-3 consists of 240 items, 37 of which are new to this revision. The new items serve as replacements for deleted items and are believed to be more appropriate for middle-school-aged children and adolescents because they are easier to read and have better psychometric properties. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The NEO-PI-3 is designed for use with individuals aged 12 years and older, includes both self-report and observer rating options, and can be completed in approximately 30 to 40 minutes. The instrument also includes the previous version (i.e., the Revised NEO Personality Inventory; NEO- PI-R) and an abridged version (i.e., the NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3; NEO-FFI-3). The NEO-PI-R is included primarily for researchers and clinicians who elect to continue using the previous version and norms. As the NEO-PI-R previously was reviewed by Botwin (1995) and Juni (1995), this review will focus on the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3. The NEO-FFI-3 is a revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory in which 15 of 60 items were replaced.

DEVELOPMENT. The NEO-PI-3 is the latest revision of the original inventory, which was designed to measure three domains represented by the acronym NEO (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience). The test authors added the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness domains in subsequent revisions. The five-factor structure originated from the lexical hypothesis, which posits that natural languages develop to include words that societies can use to identify and describe salient differences between people (Allport & Odbert, 1936). In accordance with this hypothesis, several researchers developed personality items from words viewed as describing personality traits and subjected these items to factor analyses (Goldberg, 1993). Debate ensued regarding the uniqueness, precision, and objectivity of the resulting solutions. McCrae and Costa favored the five-factor solution

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 2/9

and thus developed a set of items to measure five domains of personality. As noted in the test manual, McCrae and Costa selected items for inclusion in their questionnaire based on factor loadings as well as the balance of positively and negatively keyed items. Positively and negatively keyed items were balanced in an attempt to control for response acquiescence.

Like the NEO-PI-R, the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 have a hierarchical structure. In addition to five domains, the NEO-PI-3 measures 30 facets of personality. Each domain is composed of 6 facets, and each facet is intended to represent a meaningful division within its respective domain. Scores for these facets were included in an effort to increase predictive utility. In contrast, although 28 of 30 facets are represented on the NEO-FFI-3, only scores representing the five domains can be derived from this abridged version.

TECHNICAL. Adult and adolescent norms for the NEO-PI-3 self-report (n = 635 and 500, respectively) and observer rating (n = 649 and 465, respectively) scales are available. Separate male and female norms are provided. The NEO-PI-3 adult and adolescent norms also are utilized when scoring the NEO- FFI-3. Supplementary norms for the NEO-PI-3 are available, including norms for adults ages 21 to 30 (n = 218), norms for adults 31 and older (n = 417), and international norms based on observer ratings for adolescents ages 12 to 17. Separate male and female norms also are provided for the supplementary norms. Information regarding representation of various ethnicities, education levels, and geographical areas in the normative samples is lacking. The test authors do note that the adolescent sample was recruited from 26 states and that the majority of respondents were high academic achievers. The test authors also note that the adult sample was recruited from 29 states, most respondents had obtained more than a high school education, and 92.6% of the sample was White.

Internal consistency estimates for adults who completed the self-report NEO-PI-3 ranged from .89 to .93 for domains and from .54 to .83 for facets. Internal consistency estimates for observer ratings were slightly higher. Internal consistency estimates for adolescents are not provided. The evidence reported suggests that each domain appears to be distinct and informative, whereas unreliability precludes the interpretability of at least some facet scores.

Test-retest reliability estimates for the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 are not available. Therefore, estimates obtained from NEO-PI-R data are included in the test manual as substitutes. These estimates suggest adequate temporal stability across the samples examined, although the generalizability of estimates obtained from NEO-PI-R data to scores obtained from the most recent revisions is unknown. Notably, a reliability generalization study of the NEO-PI-R by Caruso (2000) found that Agreeableness scores obtained from self-reports had modest reliability. Test-retest reliability for self-report Agreeableness scores was found to be particularly problematic (mean of .58 across 4 samples), as was the internal consistency of Agreeableness within clinical samples (mean of .62 across 7 studies). Moreover, use of the abridged form was found to result in problematic reliability for self-report ratings of Agreeableness (mean of .67 across 20 samples) and Openness to Experience (mean of .65 across 20 samples). In sum, reliability evidence for the latest revision is lacking. However, existing evidence suggests that domain scores, with the exception of scores representing Agreeableness, tend to display adequate reliability.

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 3/9

Goldberg (1993) noted that extensive external validity research examining relationships between the NEO Inventories and a wide variety of personality questionnaires did much to increase acceptance of the five-factor model. This tradition has continued and the five-factor structure is now considered integral to dimensional models of assessment and classification that overcome some important limitations of categorical systems by focusing on normal adaptive personality traits in addition to maladaptive personality traits (Widiger, Clark, & Livesley, 2009). As described in the test manual, research suggests that personality domains measured by the NEO Inventories play an important role in a variety of psychological phenomena, including but not limited to psychological well-being, coping, defense mechanisms, motivation, acculturative stress, and prejudice. Moreover, research suggests that personality domains are important influences on both academic and job performance (Kanfer, Wolf, Kantrowitz, & Ackerman, 2010) and that Conscientiousness plays a role in academic performance that is largely independent of intelligence (Poropat, 2009).

COMMENTARY. The NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 can be administered to individuals or groups using a paper-and-pencil format or an optional software format. Answer sheets are available for hand-scoring and scanning. The scannable answer sheet can be sent to the publisher for scoring or scanned by the user if optional on-site scanning software is purchased.

The appropriateness and representativeness of the normative samples is questionable. Norm- referenced score interpretations should be made carefully given that the samples do not appear to approximate U.S. Census projections with regard to variables such as geographical region, race/ethnicity, linguistic status, and education level. The inclusion of separate norms for males and females is beneficial given that recent research suggests females tend to score higher than males and that these differences are reasonably robust even when some assumptions of measurement invariance are violated (Marsh et al., 2010).

Although five domains of personality traits have been identified consistently using exploratory factor analysis, the five factor structure has shown poor fit when evaluated using other methods such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Thus, the structural fidelity (Loevinger, 1957) of the NEO Inventories (i.e., correspondence between inter-item structure and the five-factor structure) is debatable. As some attribute this lack of correspondence, at least in part, to overly restrictive assumptions of CFA, the use of a new technique known as exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) has been proposed (Marsh et al., 2010). Although ESEM suggests better correspondence with the five-factor structure than does CFA, the adequacy of this correspondence is still relatively modest. Notably, CFA and ESEM studies examining the factor structure of the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 are not available at this time.

Juni (1995) commented extensively on concerns regarding the format of NEO-PI-R items. These concerns relate to features shared by some items that likely produce construct-irrelevant variance and contribute to poorly fitting CFA and ESEM models. Some of these concerns were addressed in the revision process. As a number of items have been revised in an effort to improve readability and psychometric properties, it would not be surprising if future CFA and ESEM studies of the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 indicate improved model fit relative to studies involving the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI.

There is a large body of theoretical literature and empirical studies to support score interpretation when

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 4/9

attempting to understand and describe personality using the NEO Inventories. In fact, a bibliography of more than 2,500 publications pertaining to the NEO Inventories is available at the publisher’s website. Notably, external validity evidence for NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 scores is lacking and must be extrapolated from studies involving earlier versions. Also notably absent is evidence that covariance among the self-report and observer rating scales is caused by personality domains rather than method artifacts. The proportion of construct-related variance in the observed variance of self-report and rater versions (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) could be studied by developing confirmatory factor analytic models and analyzing data from participants for whom both self-report and observer rating scales have been completed.

SUMMARY. The NEO-PI-3 is the latest revision of the NEO Inventory and is designed to measure five domains of personality. The NEO-FFI-3 is an abridged version of the NEO-PI-3. The NEO Inventories have a long history and there is a large body of theoretical literature and psychometric studies to support the validity of score interpretations. However, most of this reliability and validity evidence must be extrapolated to the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 from studies pertaining to earlier versions. Additional research pertaining to test-retest reliability, internal structure, and external validity is needed to determine the extent to which existing reliability and validity evidence generalizes to scores derived from the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3.

REVIEWER’S REFERENCES

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1, Whole No. 211).

Botwin, M. D. (1995). [Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory]. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 862-863). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental ?Measurements.?

Caruso, J. C. (2000). Reliability generalization of the NEO personality scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 236-254.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Juni, S. (1995). [Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory]. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara, (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 863-868). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Kanfer, R., Wolf, M., Kantrowitz, T. M., & Ackerman, P. L. (2010). Ability and trait complex predictors of academic and job performance: A person-situation approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 40–69.

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 5/9

Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338.

Widiger, T. A., Clark, L. A., & Livesley, W. J. (2009). An integrative dimensional classification of personality disorder. Psychological Assessment, 21, 243-255.

Review of the NEO Personality Inventory-3 by ANNETTE S. KLUCK, Associate Professor, Auburn University, Auburn, AL:

[Note: This review addresses the following forms: NEO-PI-3 Form S; NEO-PI-3 Form R; NEO-FFI-3 Form S; NEO-FFI-3 Form R.]

DESCRIPTION. The NEO Personality Inventory–3 (NEO-PI-3) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory–3 (NEO- FFI-3; collectively NEOs-3) represent the most recent revision to the NEO inventories, maintaining the approach and structure of the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO-PI-R). The NEOs-3 are appropriate for use with adolescents (ages 12 to 20) and adults (ages 21 and older) to measure individual differences in normal personality traits. The administration allows for individual or group assessment, and offers parallel self-report (Form S) and informant (Form R) options, as well as a short form (the NEO-FFI-3). The NEO inventories are available in over 50 languages. The manual that accompanies the NEOs-3 contains information regarding the NEO-PI-R development, and research on the NEO-PI-R is often offered as evidence for the validity and reliability of the NEO-PI-3. Although valid criticisms remain regarding the empirical support for the NEO-PI-R, previous reviewers (Botwin, 1995; Hess, 1992; Juni, 1995) have examined these concerns. This review is limited to the development and evaluation of data specific to the NEOs-3.

The NEOs-3 administration is simple; the test manual and item booklet directions are clear. Evaluators give respondents the appropriate item booklet and response form, based upon the rater, age (adolescent or adult), length, and preferred scoring. The administration typically takes 30 to 40 minutes (5 to 10 minutes for the NEO-FFI-3), but will be longer for individuals with weak reading skills (the NEO- PI-3 has a fifth grade reading level). New to the test manual is a table with easy-to-understand definitions for 28 less familiar words, which can be provided to respondents (manual, p. 8).

Hand scoring for the NEO-PI-3 requires the use of the hand-scorable answer sheet, which contains information needed to compute the raw scores. Scannable answer sheets should be used for computer/scanned scoring available through the publisher’s Professional Report Service. NEO-FFI-3 is

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 6/9

only available for hand scoring and the combined item-response booklets contain all scoring information. Scoring requires approximately 5 minutes. The test manual provides scoring procedures for both NEOs (identical to NEO-PI-R procedures), computation of factor analytic domain scores, as well as checking for invalidity due to item omission, acquiescence, nay-saying, and random responding. The NEO-PI-3 yields 35 scores, with six facet scales comprising each of the following five domains: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The NEO-FFI-3 yields only the five domain scores. Both versions contain three face-valid validity questions.

DEVELOPMENT. Primary goals for the development of the NEO-PI-3 were to (a) make the test appropriate for use with adolescents, (b) update the norms, and (c) retain strengths of the NEO-PI-R (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005). The literature on factor analytic approaches to personality assessment is extensive and provides ample empirical support for the Five-Factor Model (FFM). The FFM is derived from a trait approach to understanding personality through empirical methods rather than classic developmental theories (McCrae & Costa, 2003). NEOs-3 authors argue that “personality assessment should begin at the top and work down” (manual, p. 59), maintaining the focus on domains and their specific traits.

The revision of the NEO-PI-R involved obtaining current norms and replacing hard-to-read and psychometrically-weak items. Based on omitted items and low item-facet correlations (rs < .30), 48 items were deemed problematic. Alternative questions for each of these items were piloted with the NEO-PI-R on adolescent (N = 500; ages 14–20) and adult (N = 635; ages 21–91) mixed gender samples, primarily recruited from acquaintances of undergraduate research assistants (McCrae, Costa et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin, & Costa, 2005). Older (18–20) adolescents tended to be in college and were overrepresented in the adolescent sample. Pilot participants completed Forms S and R, the latter for another participant or unknown target (McCrae, Costa et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin et al., 2005). In the adolescent sample, 84.6% were White and 7.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 92.6% of the adult sample was White such that Hispanic and African American individuals were substantially underrepresented compared to current U.S. Census data (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). Three- quarters of adults had more than a high-school education and over one-quarter had at least a bachelor’s degree (McCrae, Martin et al., 2005). Based on omission frequencies and correlations with respective facets and nonparent domains in the adolescent sample, 37 items were replaced. Similar findings were obtained for the 37 new items on the adult sample. To evaluate item performance and readability in younger individuals a third sample of 424 middle-school students (ages 12–13, primarily Grades 6–8) completed only the NEO-PI-3. The NEO-PI-3 contains the same number of items and facets as the NEO-PI-R and 11 facets remained unchanged (McCrae, Costa et al., 2005).

In the revision of the NEO-FFI, 9 items with low factor loadings in previous research and 5 hard-to-read items were identified. The 180 items not originally considered for inclusion in the short form were considered to replace the 14 problematic items. Fifteen items were replaced based on item-factor correlations and facet scale representation.

TECHNICAL. The previously described adolescent and adult samples were used for computing NEO- PI-3 norms. The adolescent norms were derived from responses from 242 males and 258 females for Form S and 211 males and 254 females (ages 14–20) for Form R. The adult norms are based on 279

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 7/9

men and 356 women for Form S and 301 men and 348 women for Form R. The adolescent and adult respondents were from 26 and 29 states, respectively, with the majority from Pennsylvania (McCrae, Costa et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin et al., 2005). Adolescent and adult norms are available by gender and combined. Norms for the NEO-FFI-3 were derived from the NEO-PI-3 responses of the norming samples.

Studies on the reliability of the NEOs-3 provide support for their use. NEO-PI-3 internal consistencies across adolescents and adults are good for domains (.87–.93 and .88–.95) and ranged from unacceptable to good on the facet scales (.48–.83 and .56–.86 for Forms S and R, respectively), with slightly lower internal consistency values obtained for the adolescent sample (McCrae, Costa et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin et al., 2005). NEO-FFI-3 internal consistency values for the domains are lower (ranging from .66 to .88 for the norming samples). There are no test-retest reliability studies on the NEOs-3. NEO-PI-3 reliabilities across self- and other-report (interrater reliability across the parallel- worded Form S and Form R) were similar to those obtained for the same samples using NEO-PI-R items and scoring (McCrae, Costa et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin et al., 2005), with reliabilities being lower for adolescents (.38 to .60 for domains, .21 to .59 for facets) than adults (.52 to .65 for domains, .39 to .68 for facets) (manual, p. 79). NEO-FFI-3 correlations between parallel-form reliabilities were similar to those obtained for the NEO-PI-3 domains.

Criterion-related validity of the NEO-PI-3 is supported by strong correlations with the NEO-PI-R for adolescents (rs = .98–.99 for domains, .83–.98 for altered facets) and adults (rs = .98–.99 for domains, .86–.99 on facets) in the norming sample. The weakest correlations between the previous and current edition were found for A6: Tender-Mindedness, a facet on which half of the items were replaced. Correlations between the NEO-FFI-3 and NEO-PI-3 ranged from .34 to .60, and were often lower in the adolescent sample.

Examination of the factor structure of the NEO-PI-3 offers construct evidence of validity. In the adult norming sample, all facets loaded onto their assigned domain. Similar to the NEO-PI-2 factor structure and research findings, a few facets had moderate to high loadings (in one case, E3: Assertiveness, equal) on second factors. Consistent gender (similar to the NEO-PI-R) and age effects were found, supporting the use of gendered and aged norms (McCrae, Martin et al., 2005).

COMMENTARY. The NEOs-3 appear to retain the strengths of their predecessors as easily administered measures of individual differences in nonpathological domains of personality. The NEO-PI- 3 norming sample is more geographically, and likely educationally, representative than the NEO-PI-R, and norms are now available for adolescents. The NEO-PI-3 is psychometrically similar to the NEO-PI- R, with improved psychometrics when used with adolescent individuals. Finally, the availability of parallel forms continues to be a strength of the NEO inventories.

Many criticisms of the NEO-PI-R remain true of the NEO-PI-3. Face-valid items are used to assess validity. Although attempts to correct for socially desirable responding have been unsuccessful, the authors’ dismissal of the concern is problematic. In clinical work, providers administering tests with validity scales sometimes obtain results that are invalid unexpectedly. One does not always know when a person is motivated (consciously or otherwise) toward biased responding. Because one of the

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 8/9

purported uses of the NEO-PI-3 is in clinical settings, concerns regarding assessment of valid responding limit the confidence clinicians can place in the results. Although the NEO-PI-3 can likely be used for establishing rapport and increasing self-understanding, clinical decisions should be grounded in measures with adequate validity checks. A new limitation of the NEO-PI-3 is the ethnic/racial composition of the norming sample. Although some research has found the factor structure to replicate across cultures, this is unlikely to convince individuals concerned about the appropriateness of using the NEO-PI-3 with non-White clients. Finally, test-retest reliability evidence, even with much of the measure remaining the same, needs to be strengthened.

SUMMARY. The NEOs-3 are updated scales of the NEO series and can be used as valid measures to assess individual differences in personality for adolescents and adults. Psychometrically, the NEO-PI-3 is similar enough to the NEO-PI-R that previous research findings and clinical familiarity and cautions should generalize to the new version.

REVIEWER'S REFERENCES

Botwin, M. D. (1995). [Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.] In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hess, A. K. (1992). [Review of the NEO Personality Inventory.] In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011, March). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010 Census briefs (United States Census Bureau Publication No. C2010BR-02). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Juni, S. (1995). [Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.] In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261-270. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05

McCrae, R. R., Martin, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Age trends and age norms for the NEO Personality Inventory–3 in adolescents and adults. Assessment, 12, 363-373. doi:10.1177/1073191105279724

*** Copyright © 2023. The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the Buros Center for Testing. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Buros Center for Testing, Buros Institute, Mental Measurements Yearbook, and Tests in Print are all trademarks of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and may not be used without express written consent.

3/10/23, 11:00 PM EBSCOhost

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6632e867-9992-4740-8947-481770936d1c%40redis&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.s.ebsco… 9/9