A meta-analysis of dependability coefficients (test–retest reliabilities) for measures of the Big Five

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication (2016, background): “Reliabilities are somewhat lower than other, longer scales, but the five scales show satisfactory retest reliabilities (cf. Gnambs, 2014) and substantial convergent validities with longer Big Five instruments (e.g., Ehrhart et al., 2009; Gosling et al., 2003; Rojas & Widiger, 2014).”
Are Social Media Ruining Our Lives? A Review of Meta-Analytic Evidence (2019, background): “Seemingly conflicting findings published in the literature can be frequently attributed to sampling error, measurement error, or other biasing influences that compromise empirical studies (Gnambs, 2014, 2015; Lakens & Etz, 2017; Viswesvaran, Ones, Schmidt, Le, & Oh, 2014).”
Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings (2018, methodology): “The five scales have satisfactory retest reliability (cf. Gnambs, 2014) and substantial convergent validity with longer Big Five instruments (e.g., Ehrhart et al., 2009; Gosling et al., 2003; Rojas & Widiger, 2014).”