Abbreviated measures of personality have the promise of providing concise measurements of the broad domains. Nonetheless, few abbreviated instruments assess the lower-order traits within these models. The Five-Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF) is one brief instrument that assesses 30 lower-order facets. Given a tradeoff of abbreviated measures is reduced measurement reliability and fidelity, it is important to determine how well the one-item indicators on the FFMRF fare as stand-alone measures. Using a sample of 530 young adults selected for externalizing psychopathology, we investigated the test–retest stability of the FFMRF over a 12-month period, as well as the correspondence between four specific facets of the FFMRF and conceptually linked impulsigenic facets from the UPPS. The FFMRF facets had a median test–retest correlation of 0.47 over 12 months. These values suggest reasonable measurement precision but are approximately 0.10 to 0.20 lower than lengthier measures, quantifying a tradeoff for brief forms. Further, the four FFMRF facets correlated between 0.43 and 0.63 with the relevant UPPS scales and in each case the convergent value was significantly greater than the discriminant ones. The present findings quantify the stability and validity of the FFMRF facet scales, which helps to contextualize the speed/accuracy tradeoffs of brief personality measures.