A game-like personality measure (GPM) has been developed to reduce careless and biased responding associated with traditional Big 5 measures. The novel measure presents a rich narrative where people choose from different personality-relevant options to proceed. While the GPM has shown construct validity for measuring the Big 5, present work is focused on assessing the measure’s predictive validity for everyday behaviors, such as academic performance. This study pools several online studies that included the GPM, the IPIP-50 (International Personality Item Pool), and GPA (Grade Point Average) to examine correlations between the variables. The results demonstrate the construct validity of the GPM, replicate previous research finding a significant correlation between a traditional measurement of conscientiousness and GPA, and finds a weaker but significant correlation between the game-like measure of conscientiousness and GPA.
AriasV. B.GarridoL. E.JenaroC.Martínez-MolinaA.AriasB. (2020). A little garbage in, lots of garbage out: Assessing the impact of careless responding in personality survey data. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2489–2505. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01401-8
2.
BairdA. F.CarterJ. S.RoosJ. M. (2019). Seeking evidence of grade inflation at for-profit colleges and universities. Sociological Focus, 52(4), 343–358.
EllingsonJ. E.SackettP. R.HoughL. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.84.2.155
6.
FajnzylberE.LaraB.LeónT. (2019). Increased learning or GPA inflation? Evidence from GPA-based university admission in Chile. Economics of Education Review, 72, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.05.009
7.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
8.
GroveW. A.WassermanT. (2004). The Life-cycle pattern of collegiate GPA: Longitudinal cohort analysis and grade inflation. Journal of Economic Education, 35(2), 162–174.
HessenP. R.KuncelN. R. (2022). Beyond grades: A meta-analysis of personality predictors of academic behavior in middle school and high school. Personality and Individual Differences, 199, 111809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111809
11.
HurtzG. M.DonovanJ. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
12.
LiuJ.ZhangJ. (2019). An item-level analysis for detecting faking on personality tests: Appropriateness of ideal point item response theory models. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03090
13.
MammadovS. (2022). Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 222–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12663
14.
McAbeeS. T.OswaldF. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031748
15.
McCordJ.-L.HarmanJ. L.PurlJ. (2019). Game-like personality testing: An emerging mode of personality assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.017
16.
Mueller-HansonR.HeggestadE. D.ThorntonG. C.3rd. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.348
17.
PiedmontR. L.McCraeR. R.RiemannR.AngleitnerA. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.582
18.
PoropatA. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
19.
RichardsonM.AbrahamC.BondR. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
20.
RothP. L.BeVierC. A.SwitzerF. S. I.SchippmannJ. S. (1996). Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 548–556.
21.
StajkovicA. D.BanduraA.LockeE. A.LeeD.SergentK. (2018). Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.014
22.
TrapmannS.HellB.HirnJ.-O. W.SchulerH. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132
23.
VedelA. (2014). The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011
24.
ZellE.LesickT. L. (2022). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses. Journal of Personality, 90(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12683
