MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549957728 · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12154

Development and Validation of Research Scales for the Leadership Multi‐rater Assessment of Personality (LMAP)

2016· article· en· W2549957728 on OpenAlexaff
Brian S. Connelly, Ronald A. Warren, Hyunji Kim, Stefano I. Di Domenico

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Selection and Assessment · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAgreeablenessConscientiousnessDiscriminant validityPersonalityOpenness to experienceBig Five personality traitsPersonality Assessment InventoryAlternative five model of personalitySocial psychologyPsychometricsInternal consistencyDevelopmental psychologyBig Five personality traits and cultureExtraversion and introversion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents large‐sample developmental and validation research for a set of research scales of an existing 360‐degree personality measure, the LMAP 360 (Leadership Multi‐rater Assessment of Personality). In Study 1 ( N = 1,771), we identified 6 broad domains underlying LMAP item clusters: Neuroticism, Dominance, Enthusiasm, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Scales measuring these broad domains and their constituent facets showed strong internal consistency, inter‐rater reliability, and self‐informant correlations. In Study 2 ( N = 729 and N = 694), we examined LMAP research scales’ convergent and discriminant validity against three well‐validated personality inventories (Goldberg's adjectives, the Big Five Inventory, and the Big Five Aspects Scales) and one measure of cognitive ability (the International Cognitive Ability Resource). LMAP research scales correlated strongly with corresponding scales from other inventories and were distinct from cognitive ability.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Selection and AssessmentSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207