Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool

By Beng-Chong Lim, Robert E. Ployhart. 2006

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f6d3bbf7347d74782e821f59147bcba3e946da9f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Impacts of Personality Traits on Consumer Innovation Success (2016, methodology): “…agreeableness, and neuroticism, were measured using 50-item International Personality Item Pool representation of the domain constructs of the Five-Factor Model by Costa and McCrae’s (1992), available on the Internet (Goldberg 1992, 1999; Goldberg et al. 2006, Lim and Ployhart 2006).”
Structural model of employee involvement in skill development activity: The role of individual differences (2008, background): “Recent research suggests that the IPIP scales are not single dimensions (Lim & Ployhart, 2006).”
How Lead Founder Personality Affects New Venture Performance (2013, background): “Lim and Ployhart (2006) find it surprising that the validity of the well-developed personality instruments is based solely on internal consistency estimates, not a regular CFA, and argue for improvements to the instruments.”
The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. (2006, methodology): “A recent CFA of the IPIP-FFM did not show good model fit at the item level (Lim & Ployhart, 2006), and indeed, the fit of the CFA model for IPIP-FFM for this sample was certainly not ideal ( 2 2,822.68, df 1,165, p .05; 2/df 2.42; CFI .74; RMSEA .07, p close fit .05; parameter estimates for this…”
I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes ☆ (2008, background): “The IPIP Big 5 has demonstrated high levels of validity and reliability in past research (Goldberg, 1999; Lim & Ployhart, 2006).”
The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five (2011, methodology): “This means it is possible to model Big Five data so that goodness-of-fit measures such as CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR will exceed recommended thresholds as shown by Lim and Ployhart (2006).”
A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale (2010, methodology): “Indeed, several studies have sought to use CFA to test the factor structure of the 50-item IPIPFFM, and in each case item-level CFA analyses of the IPIP-FFM have shown poor overall model fit (Guenole & Chernyshenko, 2005; Lim & Ployhart, 2006).”