Construct validation using multitrait‐multimethod‐twin data: The case of a general factor of personality

By R. Riemann, C. Kandler. 2010

132 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Genetics, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17af7aca767304bfdd1b1d653e266693778deca1

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Sacha Epskamp
2. David M. Condon
3. M. Back
4. William Revelle
5. R. Mõttus
6. G. Costantini
7. Matthias Ziegler
8. Colin G. DeYoung

In Genetics

1. Aaron W. Lukaszewski
2. Colin G. DeYoung
3. Johannes Zimmermann
4. Tal Yarkoni
5. Wendy Johnson
6. Sacha Epskamp
7. R. Mõttus

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. David M. Condon
2. Aaron W. Lukaszewski
3. Colin G. DeYoung
4. Samuel Greiff
5. Tal Yarkoni
6. M. Back
7. William Revelle
8. Sacha Epskamp

Citations in the corpus

• Testing an Adaptationist Theory of Trait Covariation: Relative Bargaining Power as a Common Calibrator of an Interpersonal Syndrome (2013, background): “…among different psychometric scales due to several sources of shared method variance (e.g. Chang et al., 2012; Pettersson et al., 2012; Riemann & Kandler, 2010), future research should replicate these findings with personality measurements made through both self- and peerreports…”
• Descriptive, Predictive and Explanatory Personality Research: Different Goals, Different Approaches, but a Shared Need to Move beyond the Big Few Traits (2020, background): “This hierarchy arises because most Big Few traits inter-correlate, suggesting few very general super-traits such as Stability and Plasticity (DeYoung, 2006), although methodological artifacts may contribute to this (Bäckström, Björklund, & Larsson, 2009; Riemann & Kandler, 2010).”
• Core and Surface Characteristics for the Description and Theory of Personality Differences and Development (2014, background): “4After correction for random error of measurement and rater biases, estimates of heritability are often considerably larger (e.g. Riemann & Kandler, 2010).”
• A model of “substance” and “evaluation” in person judgments (2015, background): “Several studies show that, once person descriptions are obtained across different sources (e.g., self versus peer-ratings), the general factor of personality is at least substantially weakened (e.g., Danay & Ziegler, 2011; Riemann & Kandler, 2010).”
• Cybernetic Big Five Theory. (2015, background): “Though typically estimated at around 40–60% in self-ratings of adults, the heritability of the Big Five is in the range of 60–80% when assessed with multiple raters (Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997; Riemann & Kandler, 2010).”