The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale and Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale: Testing their Convergent Validity, Factor Structure, and Measurement Invariance Across Gender/Sex among Canadian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 7-item Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS-7) and 11-item Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale (NVS-11) are two efficient and flexible measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Both scales demonstrate evidence of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity, but their factor structure and gender/sex-based measurement invariance have received less attention. In addition, their relationships with the HEXACO (Honesty-humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness) have rarely been examined. Using a large sample of Canadian adults (N = 1712) we evaluated the convergent validity, factor structure, and gender/sex-based measurement invariance of the NGS-7 and NVS-11. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that a one-factor model was a poor fit for both the NGS-7 and NVS-11. Modifications did not substantially improve fit for the NVS-11. However, removing one NGS-7 item (“authoritative”) led to much greater fit, and the revised 6-item NGS-6R demonstrated configural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance between men/non-binary and women. The NGS-6R was strongly associated with honesty-humility (r = -.42) and extraversion (r = .28), and uniquely associated with the facet of modesty. In summary, the unidimensionality of the NGS-7 and NVS-11 were not supported. However, the revised NGS-6R demonstrated evidence of unidimensionality, gender/sex-based invariance, and convergent validity. The NVS-11 may require revision, but the NGS-6R appears to be a robust measure of narcissistic grandiosity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".