An Openness Scale for the California Psychological Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a 36-item scale to measure Openness, using items on the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1957, 1987, 1996), Form 434. Items were initially chosen on the basis of content validity. Five samples (N = 2,375) were used to establish reliability, validity, and norms; 4 samples consisted of university undergraduate students, and 1 comprised applicants for nonmanagement call centerjobs. Internal consistency estimates obtained in each sample averaged approximately .75, and test-retest stability, assessed in 1 sample, was estimated at .84. Cross-correlations with related scales, for example, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised Openness scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and other CPI-based scales, provided evidence of construct validity. Statistically significant predictive validities were obtained in 2 call centerjob-incumbent samples, with range-corrected true validities of .20 to .36 for a number of job performance criteria. Construct and predictive validity were found to be higher than for other scales consisting of CPI items designed to measure Openness or a related construct. Finally, norms were prepared for university undergraduate students (n = 1,847) and nonmanagement service-sector job applicants (n = 528).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".