The Assessment of Counterproductive Tendencies by Means of the California Psychological Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors developed an 80‐item scale to measure counterproductive tendencies, using items on the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), Form 434, and choosing items on the basis of their correlations, in a sample of 1,019 university undergraduates, with a self‐report instrument measuring counterproductive behaviors. A factor analysis of this criterion instrument revealed nine underlying dimensions. Analyses of scores on the new scale revealed significant gender differences (males higher) and yielded separate‐gender norms for four populations of interest. Internal‐consistency and test‐retest reliability estimates ranged between .80 and .90 across five samples. Correlations with standard CPI scales and domain and facet scales from the NEO PI‐R provided evidence of construct validity. Estimated true criterion‐related validity for the scale (a) averaged .60 in a student sample against the self‐report counterproductive‐behavior criterion, (b) was .35 against rated counterproductive job behavior in an employee sample, and (c) ranged as high as .36 against several other job‐performance ratings in two additional workplace samples.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".