References
Academic sources and further reading
The sources below are the primary research SELVET is built on: the original papers behind Big Five, the Enneagram and Schwartz’s model of values, the validated instruments the tests are derived from, and the critical meta-studies that mark the limits of what the models can say.
About this reference list
This document gathers the most important academic sources SELVET builds on. They are organized by theme and include primary sources, validated instruments and critical meta-studies.
Big Five (OCEAN)
Foundational theoretical work
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992)
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
The standard work on Big Five measurement
Goldberg, L. R. (1992)
The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
The foundation of IPIP
Goldberg, L. R. (1999)
A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models.
The launch of IPIP as a public-domain alternative
IPIP validation
Gow, A. J., et al. (2005)
Goldberg's 'IPIP' Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 317-329.
Donnellan, M. B., et al. (2006)
The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203.
Schwartz Value Theory
Schwartz, S. H. (1992)
Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
The foundational theoretical work
Schwartz, S. H. (2012)
An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).
An accessible overview article
Schwartz, S. H., & Cieciuch, J. (2022)
Measuring the refined theory of individual values in 49 cultural groups. Assessment, 29(5), 1005-1019.
The most recent validation of the PVQ-RR
Enneagram
Hook, J. N., et al. (2021)
The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 865-883.
The most comprehensive scientific review
Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999)
The wisdom of the Enneagram. New York: Bantam Books.
Introduces the RHETI instrument
Jung’s theory of types
Jung, C. G. (1921/1971)
Psychological types. Collected Works, Vol. 6. Princeton University Press.
The original work
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989)
Reinterpreting psychological types from the perspective of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40.
A key critical study, with correlation findings
The Barnum effect
Forer, B. R. (1949)
The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118-123.
The classic experiment
Furnham, A., & Schofield, S. (1987)
Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychology, 6(2), 162-178.
Cross-mapping and meta-analyses
Parks-Leduc, L., et al. (2015)
Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3-29.
Central to SELVET’s cross-mapping
Sutton, A., et al. (2013)
Personality type and work-related outcomes: An exploratory application of the Enneagram model. European Management Journal, 31(3), 234-249.
- IPIP – 3300+ personality items, public domain
- Open Psychometrics – Open tests and datasets
- European Social Survey – PVQ-21 values, 30+ countries
Recommended reading order
For beginners
- Schwartz (2012) – "An overview of the Schwartz theory" (freely available)
- Costa & McCrae (1992) – NEO-PI-R manual (foundational Big Five)
- Hook et al. (2021) – systematic Enneagram review
For the more advanced
- McCrae & Costa (1989) – type theory from a Big Five perspective
- Parks-Leduc et al. (2015) – personality–values meta-analysis
- Forer (1949) – the Barnum effect (a classic)
Where science meets practice
SELVET’s scientific grounding rests on primary sources for all four frameworks, validated instruments with documented reliability, critical perspectives such as the Barnum effect, and the cross-mapping sources that make the hybrid approach possible.
Building on that foundation, SELVET combines scientific robustness with practical usefulness, while openly acknowledging the limits of each framework.