MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108275656 · doi:10.1177/1073191110382845

What Does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Really Measure?

2010· article· en· W2108275656 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

VenueAssessment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcissismPsychologyExhibitionismEntitlement (fair division)Nomological networkGrandiosityFacet (psychology)Social psychologyPersonalityNarcissistic personality disorderPersonality Assessment InventoryDimension (graph theory)Big Five personality traitsPersonality disordersOperationalizationEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a widely used measure of narcissism. However, debates persist about its exact factor structure with researchers proposing solutions ranging from two to seven factors. The present research aimed to clarify the factor structure of the NPI and further illuminate its nomological network. Four studies provided support for a three-factor model consisting of the dimensions of Leadership/Authority, Grandiose Exhibitionism, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness. The Leadership/Authority dimension was generally linked to adaptive outcomes whereas the other two dimensions, particularly Entitlement/Exploitativeness, were generally linked to maladaptive outcomes. These results suggest that researchers interested in the psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with the NPI should examine correlates at the facet level. In light of the findings, we propose a hierarchical model for the structure of the NPI and provide researchers with a scoring scheme for this commonly used instrument.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.343 · 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