Reliability Generalization of the Neo Personality Scales

By John C. Caruso. 2000

177 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0344b084344dec4ee1a4982524e1cb24e3c20c6d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Clinical Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa (2011, background): “…techniques to reliability coefficients to investigate the generalizability of score reliability across multiple studies (e.g., Capraro et al. 2001; Caruso 2000; Helms 1999; Henson et al. 2001; Huynh et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2007; Rohner and Khaleque 2003; Vacha-Hasse 1998; Viswesvaran and Ones…”
A Framework for Reporting and Interpreting Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (2002, result): “Consistent with this assertion, several researchers (e.g., Caruso, 2000; Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001; VachaHaase, 1998; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000; Yin & Fan, 2000) have provided examples of score reliability estimates that have varied significantly among different administrations of the same…”
Reliability of Scores from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: A Reliability Generalization Study (2001, unknown): “, Caruso, 2000; Caruso & Edwards, in press; Vacha-Haase, 1998; Yin & Fan, 2000; but see Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000), supporting the notion that reliability is a property of scores and not tests. Based on this notion, the manuscript submission guidelines for empirical manuscripts submitted to this jour”
Two Approaches for Correcting Correlation Attenuation Caused by Measurement Error: Implications for Research Practice (2003, background): “As shown in several meta-analytic reliability generalization studies (e.g., Capraro, Capraro, & Henson, 2001; Caruso, 2000; Yin & Fan, 2000), measurement reliabilities in psychological studies were often as low or lower than 0.”
Characterizing Measurement Error in Scores Across Studies: Some Recommendations for Conducting “Reliability Generalization” Studies (2002, methodology): “, TJ 2, R2), and whichever analysis is used, one of these effect sizes should be both reported and interpreted (Snyder & Lawson, 1993 ). Generally we should treat these effects as estimating a distribution of true effects rather than a single true or population effect across studies (Hedges, 1983). ”
Relevance of Openness as a Personality Dimension in Chinese Culture (2008, methodology): “However, in a meta-analysis of psychometric properties of the NEO scales (Caruso, 2000), the reliability coefficient of Openness had the largest variation across studies among the five factors, with a standard deviation of .13 and a range of .65.”
Understanding Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: A Conceptual Primer on Coefficient Alpha (2001, background): “The reader is referred to Caruso (2000), Henson eta!. (2001 ), Viswesvaran and Ones (2000), Yin and Fan (2000), and Vacha-Haase (1998) for examples of this phenomenon.”
Measurement Error of Scores on the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale across Studies (2001, methodology): “Examples of RG studies include examinations of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Vacha-Haase, 1998), Beck Depression Inventory (Yin & Fan, 2000), “Big Five Factors” of personality across various tests (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000), NEO–Five Factor Inventory (Caruso, 2000), White Racial Identity Attitude Scal”
Reliability Generalization of the Life Satisfaction Index (2002, methodology): “This type of phenomenon has been discussed with other RGs and termed a possible file drawer problem (e.g., Caruso, 2000; Vacha-Haase, 1998).”
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) (2007, background): “Our finding of higher reliability estimates reported in published studies confirms prior speculations that because higher quality studies may be more likely to be published, journal editors tend to be less receptive of low-quality studies, such as those studies reporting low reliability coefficients”
Reliability Generalization: Moving toward Improved Understanding and Use of Score Reliability (2002, background): “Caruso (2000) : NEO personality scales 12.3 15.2 19.3 44.3 Caruso and Edwards (2001): Eysenck”
Reliability Generalization: An Examination of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale (2002, methodology): “…including sample size, type of sample, age of sample, type of reliability coefficient calculated, language of test, and standard deviation of scores (e.g., Caruso, 2000; Caruso, Witkiewitz, Belcourt-Dittloff, & Gottlieb, 2001; Vacha-Haase, 1998; Vacha-Haase et al., 2001; Yin & Fan 2000).”
Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach. (2005, unknown): “Guastello (1993), for example, noted that uncertainties regarding the Big Five have tended to surround certain traits more than others, and that certain traits are more reliable and replicable than others (Caruso, 2000; Egan, Deary, & Austin, 2000).”
Reliability Generalization of Scores on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (2002, background): “…generalization studies have investigated sources of variability in score reliability for instruments such as theMathematicsAnxietyRating Scale (Capraro, Capraro,&Henson, 2001), the NEO personality scales (Caruso, 2000), and the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001).”