MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058090646 · doi:10.1080/00223890902935878

The HEXACO-60: A Short Measure of the Major Dimensions of Personality

2009· article· en· W2058090646 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Ashton, Kibeom Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityPersonality Assessment InventoryInternal consistencyBig Five personality traitsCalifornia Psychological InventoryPersonality testFacet (psychology)PsychometricsSocial psychologyTest validityDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the HEXACO–60, a short personality inventory that assesses the 6 dimensions of the HEXACO model of personality structure. We selected the 10 items of each of the 6 scales from the longer HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised (Ashton & Lee, 2008 Ashton, M. C. and Lee, K. 2008. The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality., 42: 1216–1228. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Lee & Ashton, 2004 Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. 2004. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39: 329–358. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2006 Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. 2006. Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18: 182–191. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), with the aim of representing the broad range of content that defines each dimension. In self-report data from samples of college students and community adults, the scales showed reasonably high levels of internal consistency reliability and rather low interscale correlations. Correlations of the HEXACO–60 scales with measures of the Big Five factors were consistent with theoretical expectations, and convergent correlations between self-reports and observer reports on the HEXACO–60 scales were high, averaging above .50. We recommend the HEXACO–60 for use in personality assessment contexts in which administration time is limited.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.334 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1,700
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207