Scoring the Big Five for longitudinally assessed academic achievement predictiveness: Manifest, correlated‐factors model, and bifactor modeling across multiple contexts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on a large ( N = 612) longitudinal sample in a teacher education program, we compared how three methods of personality scoring—manifest mean scores, correlated‐factors model scores, and bifactor model scores—predict academic achievement assessed by grade point averages. Furthermore, we compared predictiveness across honest responses, applicants' responses and responses collected under laboratory faking‐good instructions. To this end, a real‐life selection setting was part of our study (i.e., applicants to initial teacher education selected, among other things on their personality). We found the expected pattern of manifest mean scores (honest responses were the lowest, applicants' responses higher and faking‐good responses highest) and could demonstrate that applicant faking does not reduce personality assessment's predictiveness. Overall, correlated‐factors model scoring increased the predictiveness of honest and applicants' responses, and scoring via bifactor model even more so. No method of scoring could retrieve the predictiveness in the faking‐good response condition. Regarding the practical application within selection processes, bifactor model scores only slightly outperformed mean scores, and this only occurred in the case of small selection ratios. Nevertheless, we showed that there is criterion‐related and systematic variance within applicants' personality scores above and beyond their personality traits that can be extracted when modeled with bifactor models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it