MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378907810 · doi:10.5539/jel.v12n4p1

Development and Validation of a Short-Form Inventory to Identify Personality Types: The Personality Identity Estimator (PIE)

2023· article· en· W4378907810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gary J. Conti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalityPsychologyPersonality Assessment InventoryCategorical variableSample (material)Identity (music)Social psychologyPersonality testPsychometricsTest validityStatisticsDevelopmental psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of personality inventories has been limited because of their cost and the length. To overcome these limitations, this study created the Personality Identity Estimator (PIE), an easy-to-use inventory to estimate personality types that can be used at no cost. PIE is a categorical inventory containing 12 items with 3 items for each of the 4 personality-type dimensions in Jungian theory. A sample of 1,104 was used to create PIE. Validity was established through multivariate analyses using data from the administration of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to 553 of the sample. Reliability was established by test-retest. Consequently, PIE is a new short-form instrument to estimate personality type following Jung’s concept of personality types. PIE can be completed quickly, is easy to score and interpret, and can be used for self-assessment of personality types. PIE can be used to address individual differences, to increase self-awareness, and as an interactive instructional tool. Thus, PIE is a new valid and reliable tool that can be used in both instructional and research settings confidently and at no charge. Permission is granted to use the Personality Identity Estimator in practice and research. A printable copy of PIE is appended.

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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207