The current research sought to validate the Chernyshenko Conscientiousness Scales (CCS), a novel measure designed to assess six facets of conscientiousness. Data from 7,569 U.S. participants and 649 U.K. participants were analyzed to assess the internal reliability and factorial structure of the scales. Test–retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and criterion-related validity were also evaluated using a separate U.K. sample (n = 118; n = 80 for test–retest). The results showed that those items designed to measure industriousness, order, self-control, traditionalism, and virtue were best represented by a five-factor structure, broadly consistent with the five scales. However, the content and structure of the responsibility scale requires further investigation. Overall, the CCS has the potential to be a useful alternative to the faceted measures of conscientiousness that are currently available. However, future research is required to refine a number of problematic items and to clarify which facets can be better described as interstitial dimensions between conscientiousness and other Big Five domains.
BoggT.RobertsB. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887-919. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887
2.
ChernyshenkoO. S. (2002). Applications of ideal point approaches to scale construction and scoring in personality measurement: The development of a six-faceted measure of conscientiousness. Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
3.
ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.DrasgowF.RobertsB. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88-106. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.88
4.
ConnerM.AbrahamC. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: Toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1547-1561. doi:10.1177/01461672012711014
5.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
6.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
7.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
8.
DudleyN. M.OrvisK. A.LebieckiJ. E.CortinaJ. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57.
GartlandN.O’ConnorD. B.LawtonR. (2012). Effects of conscientiousness on the appraisals of daily stressors. Stress & Health, 28, 80-86.
11.
GartlandN.O’ConnorD. B.LawtonR.FergusonE. (2014). Investigating the effects of conscientiousness on daily stress, affect and physical symptom processes: A daily diary study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 311-328.
12.
GavinD. R.RossH. E.SkinnerH. A. (1989). Diagnostic validity of the drug abuse screening test in the assessment of DSM-III drug disorders. Addiction, 84, 301-307. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03463.x
13.
GoodwinR. D.FriedmanH. S. (2006). Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 643-654. doi:10.1177/1359105306066610
14.
Hagger-JohnsonG.BerwickB.ConnerM.O’ConnorD. B.ShickleD. (2012). School-related conscientiousness, alcohol drinking and cigarette smoking in a representative sample of English school pupils. British Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 644-665.
15.
HaytonJ. C.AllenD. G.ScarpelloV. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-205. doi:10.1177/1094428104263675
16.
HillP. L.RobertsB. W. (2012). The role of adherence in the relationship between conscientiousness and perceived health. Health Psychology, 30, 797-804. doi:10.1037/a0023860
17.
HofsteeW. K.de RaadB.GoldbergL. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146-163.
18.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
19.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
JudgeT. A.HigginsC. A.ThoresenC. J.BarrickM. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
21.
KendlerK. S.MyersJ. (2010). The genetic and environmental relationship between major depression and the five-factor model of personality. Psychological Medicine, 40, 801-806. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991140
22.
KernM. L.FriedmanH. S. (2008). Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review. Health Psychology, 27, 505-512. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.505
23.
LedesmaR. D.Valero-MoraP. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1-11.
24.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.
25.
Lorenzo-SevaU.ten BergeJ. M. F. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57-64. doi:10.1027/1614-1881.2.2.57
26.
MacCannC.DuckworthA. L.RobertsR. D. (2009). Empirical identification of the major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 451-458. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007
27.
McCraeR. R.JohnO. P. (1992). An introduction to the five factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
28.
MoonH. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533-540.
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.
31.
O’ConnorD. B.ConnerM.JonesF.McMillanB.FergusonE. (2009). Exploring the benefits of conscientiousness: An investigation of the role of daily stressors and health behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 184-196. doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9087-6
32.
PeabodyD.De RaadB. (2002). The substantive nature of psycholexical personality factors: A comparison across languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 983-997.
33.
PeruginiM.GallucciM. (1997). A hierarchical faceted model of the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 11, 279-301.
34.
RobertsB. W.BoggT. (2004). A longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness and the social-environmental factors and substance-use behaviors that influence health. Journal of Personality, 72, 325-354. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00264.x
35.
RobertsB. W.BoggT.WaltonK. E.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS. E. (2004). A lexical investigation of the lower-order structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 164-178. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00065-5
36.
RobertsB. W.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.GoldbergL. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x
37.
RobertsB. W.JacksonJ. J.FayardJ. V.EdmondsG.MeintsJ. (2009). Conscientiousness. In LearyM.HoyleR. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behaviour (pp. 369-381). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
RobertsB. W.KuncelN. R.ShinerR.CaspiA.GoldbergL. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
39.
RobertsB. W.LejuezC.KruegerR. F.RichardsJ. M.HillP. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed?Developmental Psychology, 50, 1315-1330. doi:10.1037/a0031109
40.
SaucierG.OstendorfF. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 613-627.
41.
TuckerJ. S.KressinN. R.SpiroA.RuscioJ. (1998). Intrapersonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 211-225. doi:10.1177/0265407598152005
42.
TuckerL. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington DC: Department of the Army.
43.
VelicerW. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.
44.
VickersR. R.ConwayT. L.HervigL. K. (1990). Demonstration of replicable dimensions of health behaviors. Preventive Medicine, 19, 377-401. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(90)90037-K
45.
WaltonK. E.RobertsB. W. (2004). On the relationship between substance use and personality traits: Abstainers are not maladjusted. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 515-535.
46.
ZwickW. R.VelicerW. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
