Étude des propriétés psychométriques de la version papier-crayon du NEO-PI-3 (2016) auprès d’une population d’étudiants universitaires francophones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’adaptation canadienne-française de l’Inventaire de personnalité NEO-PI-3 (McCrae & Costa Jr., 2016) a fait l’objet de peu de recherches relativement à ses propriétés psychométriques. Afin de nous assurer de sa pertinence pour la population québécoise francophone, un devis corrélationnel à deux temps de mesure a été utilisé pour collecter des données auprès d’étudiants universitaires (n = 451 ont complété le Temps 1 ; n = 123 ont complété les Temps 1 et Temps 2). L’inventaire présente des indices de consistance interne acceptables pour les facteurs, mais variables pour les facettes et une fidélité test-retest adéquate. Les résultats de l’analyse factorielle confirmatoire démontrent que le modèle de base n’est pas soutenu avec cette version du NEO-PI-3. Quant à la valeur prédictive, le facteur Conscience est le seul des cinq facteurs à prédire – modestement – la performance académique. Des recommandations quant à l’utilisation de cet instrument concluent notre article.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".