Brief Conscientiousness Scales: How Low Can You Go? ACT Research. Issue Brief. R2407
Saved in:
| Title: | Brief Conscientiousness Scales: How Low Can You Go? ACT Research. Issue Brief. R2407 |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Kate E. Walton, ACT, Inc. |
| Source: | ACT, Inc. 2024. |
| Availability: | ACT, Inc. 500 ACT Drive, P.O. Box 168, Iowa City, IA 52243-0168. Tel: 319-337-1270; Web site: http://www.act.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 12 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Junior High Schools Middle Schools Secondary Education Higher Education Postsecondary Education High Schools |
| Descriptors: | Psychometrics, Error of Measurement, Rating Scales, Reliability, Scores, Self Control, Goal Orientation, Delay of Gratification, Personality Traits, Academic Achievement, Job Performance, Prediction, Middle School Students, Social Emotional Learning, College Entrance Examinations, Adults, Validity, High School Students, Race, Ethnicity, Gender Differences |
| Assessment and Survey Identifiers: | ACT Assessment |
| Abstract: | There is a tradeoff between scale length and psychometric concerns. The two are, in fact, directly linked. Generally, when scales are shortened, reliability is reduced, and when scales are lengthened, reliability is improved, provided the items added to the scale are comparable psychometrically (AERA et al., 2014). Scale reliability, in turn, affects validity. Typically, to the extent that scores are unreliable (i.e., reflect measurement error), their ability to accurately predict criteria is compromised. In the present collection of studies, the author examines whether shortened conscientiousness scales maintain acceptable levels of reliability and validity. The author also examines whether scale shortening results in unintentional exaggerated subgroup differences. They focus on conscientiousness (defined as "socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks"; John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121) because this trait has the strongest associations with academic and job performance (Zell & Lesick, 2021). |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | ED673791 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | There is a tradeoff between scale length and psychometric concerns. The two are, in fact, directly linked. Generally, when scales are shortened, reliability is reduced, and when scales are lengthened, reliability is improved, provided the items added to the scale are comparable psychometrically (AERA et al., 2014). Scale reliability, in turn, affects validity. Typically, to the extent that scores are unreliable (i.e., reflect measurement error), their ability to accurately predict criteria is compromised. In the present collection of studies, the author examines whether shortened conscientiousness scales maintain acceptable levels of reliability and validity. The author also examines whether scale shortening results in unintentional exaggerated subgroup differences. They focus on conscientiousness (defined as "socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks"; John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121) because this trait has the strongest associations with academic and job performance (Zell & Lesick, 2021). |
|---|
