Concurrent validity study of the conditional reasoning test - workplace psychopathy : subclinical psychopathy, integrity, workplace deviance, and other professional outcomes in the Canadian military
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A concurrent validity study was conducted using the Conditional Reasoning Test for \nWorkplace Psychopathy (CRT-WP), with a sample of military members within the Canadian \nArmed Forces (CAF). The CRT-WP is a newly developed implicit measure of subclinical \npsychopathy which has shown resistance to impression management (Cook & Roulin, 2021). \nHigher levels of psychopathy in the workplace have been associated with adverse outcomes such \nas toxic leadership, bullying, negative employee wellbeing as well as many other harmful \nconsequences (Boddy, 2014). The criteria that were assessed against the CRT-WP were integrity \n(via personality factors), counterproductive work behaviour, transformational leadership and \norganizational citizenship behaviour. \nThe CRT-WP was found to relate with personality and behavioural factors relevant to \nintegrity which were in line with tendencies typically observed in those higher in psychopathy. It \nwas also able to predict acts of counterproductive work behaviour and abuse. It should be noted \nthat all observed significant relationships achieved small effect sizes. Most notably the CRT-WP \ndisplayed incremental validity over integrity measures being investigated within the Canadian \nMilitary, in assessing workplace deviance and abuse and was deemed to be important in \npredicting abusive workplace behaviours. The results of this study give more support for the \nCRT-WP’s viability in selection settings as this implicit measure has shown promise to predict \nabusive acts, conduct associated with many detrimental impacts for employees.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".