MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971496905 · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1301_5

Correlates of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Method Effects

2006· article· en· W1971496905 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConscientiousnessAgreeablenessExtraversion and introversionHierarchical structure of the Big FivePersonalityConfirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityAcquiescenceSelf-esteemSocial psychologyScale (ratio)Big Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyTest validityPsychometricsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Investigators of personality assessment are becoming aware that using positively and negatively worded items in questionnaires to prevent acquiescence may negatively impact construct validity. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) has demonstrated a bifactorial structure typically proposed to result from these method effects. Recent work suggests that these method effects may have substantive meaning. These studies examined the relation between method effects associated with positively and negatively worded items in the RSES and primary, broad personality constructs: approach and avoidance motivation and the "Big Five" (emotional stability, extraversion, intellect, agreeableness, and conscientiousness). A series of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that method effects are required in the measurement model of self-esteem and are related to important personality constructs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it