MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114807267 · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000933

The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale and Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale

2025· article· en· W7114807267 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandiosityMeasurement invarianceScale (ratio)Confirmatory factor analysisNarcissismSocial desirabilityVulnerability (computing)Convergent validity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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, respectively. Both scales demonstrate evidence of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity, but their factor structure and gender/sex-based measurement invariance have received less attention. Their relationships with the HEXACO (Honesty-humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness) have also rarely been examined. Using a large sample of Canadian adults ( N = 1,725), 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, including one correlated error term between “Authoritative” and “Dominant” led to much greater fit, and the NGS-7 demonstrated configural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance between men and women. The NGS-7 was strongly associated with honesty-humility and extraversion, and its strongest facet-level correlates were modesty (honesty-humility) and social boldness (extraversion). In summary, the revised NGS-7 demonstrated evidence of unidimensionality, gender/sex-based invariance, and convergent validity. The unidimensionality of the NVS-11 was not supported, and the scale may need to be revised.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Psychological AssessmentSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207