MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010027905 · doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.700466

Psychometric Properties of the Mini-IPIP in a Large, Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adults

2012· article· en· W2010027905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ruth E. Baldasaro, Michael J. Shanahan, Daniel J. Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institutes of HealthConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPsychologySample (material)PersonalityMeasurement invariancePsychometricsMetric (unit)Reliability (semiconductor)Personality Assessment InventoryStructural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyStatisticsSocial psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on a large, nationally representative sample of young adults (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health; N = 15,701; M age = 29.10), we evaluated the psychometric properties of the Mini-IPIP, a 20-item inventory designed to concisely assess the 5 factors of personality. The results suggest that the Mini-IPIP has a 5-factor structure; most of the scales have acceptable reliability; all the scales have partial or full metric invariance; and the scales exhibit some degree of criterion validity. However, the absence of scalar invariance for many of the scales suggests caution when comparing personality scores among groups defined by sex or race and ethnicity. We offer practical considerations for researchers interested in using this inventory with this sample, and also suggestions for modification of the Mini-IPIP.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207