Measuring personality trait of conscientiousness

Running head: TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 1
Testing for Conscientiousness
Conducted: October - December 2018
Jacob Stotler, Aiden Goldstein,
Gary Goll, Casey L. Neison
PSYCH 4400-01
The University of Wyoming
Dr. Pepper

TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 2
Abstract
The paper was written to provide information and the found incremental progress, regarding
utilizing psychometric testing, to measure the personality trait conscientiousness. The test was
designed and built from reliable modern-day research; the test utilized four well-known facets to
measure the constructed personality trait of conscientiousness. The different facets that were
designed in the instrument included achievement, deliberation, order and self-discipline. 62
voluntary individuals from an in-session college institution underwent testing and completed the
23-item personality trait inventory and an additional demographic form. The 23-item main
section of the psychometric assessment utilized a 7-choice agreeability scale per each item. 19 of
these individuals completed the inventory again one week later as a measure of test-retest
reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability and internal consistency was calculated at .77, and
the test retest reliability was measured by a Pearson’s correlation coefficient, which equaled
.966. The overall test could be interpreted to be of moderate reliability because of these statistics.
The test was seen to have an outstanding test-retest reliability, and a somewhat significant
reliability overall, yet the results of the measure by item analyses, and overall dissection, does
not leave the measure reliable or valid enough, for usage in the clinical setting. The study
provided useful statistical information and data to assist in the evolution of a clinically utile
measure of the personality trait conscientiousness.

Testing for Conscientiousness
Introduction
Conscientiousness is a widely recognized personality trait that has been defined in several
different lights. This specific personality trait has been clearly defined under a number of facets
such as achievement, competence, deliberation, dutifulness, order, and self-discipline
(Educational Testing Service, 2018). A historic definition of the personality trait
conscientiousness was defined by Costa, McCrae, & Dye (1991) as “the personal need for
achievement, and commitment to work, and an attribute that entails being detail oriented, and
cautious.”
Conscientiousness is a mostly positive personality trait, as people who score high in
conscientiousness are predicted to have a healthy lifestyle (Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson &
Robest, 2013), “are protected from cognitive impairment,” (Terracciano, Sutin, & An, 2013) and
are known to be intrinsically skilled at bridging the psychological heuristic the intention-
behavior gap (Lippke, Pomp & Fleig, 2018). The lack of the personality trait conscientiousness
could predict if the individual lacks a protective health factor, while the presence of the
personality trait conscientiousness may be such a functional trait that it may help guard from
neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia (Terracciano, Sutin, and An,
2013).
Being able to measure this personality trait could be beneficial to many areas in society
and some industries for particular administrations could use the measures in use with hiring
procedures to add to current hiring techniques. Some elements of conscientiousness are attributes
that some businesses highly depend on, such as self-discipline, and organization. (Terraciano,
Sutin & An, 2013).

Conscientiousness alone is a reliable predictor of adherence to medical prescriptions; the
origination of a reliable scale would make it possible to predict who is at high risk of skipping
medication regimens, and/or which clients need manual or automatic assistance to adhere to all
of their clinician’s orders. (Bogg & Roberts, 2013).
The attribute has been associated with living longer (Deary, Batty, Pattie, & Gale, 2008;
Friedman et al., 1993), having a positive well-being (Smith, Ryan, Rocke, 2013), and is
negatively related to suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes, arthritis, high blood
pressure, CVA (stroke), and tuberculosis (Goodwin & Friedman, 2006; Marks & Lutgendorf,
1999). Knowing how to closely gauge this trait, could lead to people learning how to adopt it,
and/or scientists learning how to administer it.
Our research group developed a test and conducted a study on the test, while attempting
to measure the personal trait of conscientiousness. The test was designed around two convergent
validity hypotheses. Smith, Ryan, & Rocke (2013) reported with Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi,
& Goldeberg (2007) that young adults who were high in conscientiousness receive better grades,
in turn we proposed that the results of the test would show that people who scored higher on the
test overall, would also report having a higher tier GPA.
The second convergent validity hypothesis was implemented based on the results of a
study conducted by Duckworth, Weir, Tsukayma & Knok, (2012), they redounded research by
covariate calculations involving conscientiousness, personality factors, and mental ability with
subjective and objective success. The authors reported that “conscientiousness showed small-to-
medium associations with all dimensions of subjective success.” The hypothesis that we
proposed to measure within the test was that that people who are score highly on the entirety of
the conscientiousness test would report the highest subjective success (life satisfaction).

The test was designed around a third hypothesis in which we measured a discriminate
validity item. Item number 15 measured extroversion, requesting that participants report how
much they agree with the statement “I am outgoing and social.” The writing and research
regarding the personality trait conscientiousness, and the characteristic of being introverted or
extraverted are limited; we could find no evidence that these markers were linked. Thus, we
proposed that item number 15 (which tested for extroversion) would have no correlation to one’s
overall score on the test.
There have been innumerable evaluations that study or have reported successful means of
measuring conscientiousness. One such evaluation is that of the NEO personality inventory –
three (NEO PI-R), in which is said to predict overall positive performance in all occupations by
measuring the construct of conscientiousness (Kaplan, Saccuzzo, 2018).
Another test that has measured conscientiousness successfully was that of the
Conscientiousness Adjective Checklist or the CAC. The CAC has been used in research to
measure the trait for use in defining correlations between facets of conscientiousness and overall
health (Smith, et al., 2009). There are also conscientiousness scales underpropping tests as
subscales on some major tests, one such example is that of the nine scales that assess
conscientiousness from the AB5C-IPIP. This subscale measure too has been used in research
because of its known reliability (Smith, et al., 2009).
The progress that the success of our test would make, would be that of a short form
measure, and a test that would easily show results, of the participants in different areas of
conscientiousness separate from scoring only the trait under one broad definition. This test was
designed to assess the trait by emboldening four integral branches of the trait in which would
establish reports of conscientiousness.

Method
Participants
The psychometric test was administered to 62 participants; 22 males and 40 females
participated, these individuals were chosen by convenience sampling. The sample was made
from active on-campus scholars attending the University of Wyoming the fall of 2018 in
Laramie, Wyoming, these students all were enrolled in at least one college-tier psychology class.
The participants ranged in age from ~16 to an indicated “30+” years of age. Most of the
individuals surveyed reportedly came from the “20-25” years old category (80.6%).
Instrument
The test was designed and built from reliable modern-day research; the test utilized four
well-known facets to measure the constructed personality trait of conscientiousness:
achievement, deliberation, order and self-discipline. These facets were named for the reason that
all of these domains reoccurred through numerous articles and research reports. Participants were
asked to disclose all responses to the initial 23 items as a numerical unit from 1-7 (1-strongly
disagree, 7-strongly agree). The instructions for the test were written on the test in two sentences,
both advising the participant to “mark the box with the correct agreeability with the statement,”
and “circle the correct demographic that describes you.”
Items were carefully modeled and adapted in personal statement form, each item was
derived from well-known research and/or reports written by researchers that have examined the
trait. One example of this process was that a reference article stated that “conscientiousness is
highly associated with health-related behaviors,” this was the basis of test item number four “the
only time I focus on my health is when there is a noticeable problem.” The research further
stated that conscientious people likely attend more regular checkups with their doctor. (Chuah,

Drasgrow & Roberts, 2006). Item number four was placed under the sub-domain “deliberation,”
and reverse coded.
Lippke, Pomp & Fleig (2018) stated that conscientious [individuals] might be more
efficient in using planning as a strategy to implement behavior than less conscientious
[individuals].” We utilized these findings relatively in item number 14 “I tend to act
impulsively”; this was a reversed item, placed within the “self-discipline” subscale.
11 of the questions were reverse coded and were measured for low scores, these low
scores were mathematically interpreted to indicate a high level of conscientiousness. The test
was arranged entirely of sub-domains, therefore each item belonged within one of the four
subsets with exception to the three validity items; there were five questions per each domain, and
the validity items were left uncategorized.
Criterion items as an example of each domain were thus “I am always prepared,” which
was categorized under “achievement”; “I like to think of myself as an organized person” is an
example of an item that was measured under the sub-domain of “order”. “I frequently waste
time…” (a reversed item) was one of the five “self-discipline” items, and “sometimes I speak or
act without considering the consequences,” (a reversed item) in which was assigned under the
“deliberation” domain.
Procedure
The test was administered in a classroom group test setting. The 62 individuals were
assigned a code number / unique identifier number that stood as a nominal number to distinguish
participants; the assigned numbers distinguished each individual. 19 participants took the test
two times to calculate the test-retest reliability, the marker would have read “[unique identifier

number] T1,” and on the second test trial, the participant would have marked on the test “[same
unique identifier number] T2.” (Original format of test [unlabeled] is seen in Appendix A).
Results
Normative Data
The normative data gathered from the test results explained that the mean of the total test
was 97.10 raw points out of a total possible 161; the standard deviation for the entirety was
13.18, the minimum score was 75, and the maximum of all 62 scores was 127.
We derived the normative data for each of the four subscales in addition to the entirety of
the test. The “achievement” subscale of 62 scores showed a minimum of 17, a maximum of 34, a
mean of 25.35 (all out of a 35 possible raw points), and a standard deviation of 3.76. The “order”
subscale showed a number of 61 total scores that were calculated at a minimum score of 17, a
maximum score of 34, a mean score of 25.35, and a standard deviation of 3.94 (all out of 35).
The “self-discipline” measure showed a total 62 participants, a minimum score of 15, a
maximum score of 34, a mean score of 23, and a standard deviation of 5 (all out of the possible
35 points). Lastly, the “deliberation” subscale was tested, and 60 participants were accounted for
with a minimum of 18, a maximum of 35, a mean of 26, and a standard deviation of 4.01 (all out
of 35).
Reliability
The reliability, and internal consistency of the test was calculated and measured with
varying statistical tools and formulas. The total score reliability was calculated by Cronbach’s
alpha correlation, the reported reliability was .777, and utilized the 23 main items of the test.
(Statistical table is shown in Appendix B1).

Each subset, and sub-domain of conscientiousness was calculated too by Cronbach’s
alpha reliability formula. The subtest scores were as follows, for the “achievement” subscale of
the personality trait Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .341 and was formulated using only the
five items designed within the subscale. The “order” subcategory of conscientiousness was
formulated using Cronbach’s alpha and was calculated at α=.108, and thus only utilized the five
items that were relative to the convergence of conscientiousness by items discerning organization
and order. The “self-discipline” scale was formulated at α=.582 and used the five items that
were specifically relevant to this domain. The “deliberation” subscale was calculated at a
Cronbach’s alpha of .521 and was formulated using only the scores on the 5 items configured
under this domain. (These tabular statistics shown in Appendix B1-B5).
The test-retest measure was calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient between
the initial test scores of 19 individuals, and the participant’s reports on a parallel form on the
second trial one-week latter of test-run number one. The test-retest was found to read a .966
Pearson correlation coefficient with a significance level of a two tailed test at .000. The measure
read using only the 19 scores that had been derived from two testing periods, reported separately
by the same participants. The correlation was said to be significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
(Table shown in Appendix B7).
The internal consistency is expressed from the results of the split-half calculations, these
are such that of a Cronbach’s alpha correlation, and Spearman-Brown correction coefficient. Part
1 of the split-half read a .765 of 10 items. Part 2 read the value of .638 and accounted for 10
different items. The correlation between forms was .365, and the Spearman-Brown correction.
coefficient redounded at .534 for equal length, and .534 for unequal length of the test. The

Guttman split-half coefficient was a .533. (Tabular statistics for split-half shown in Appendix
B8).
Validity
The validity statistics were derived from both the two convergent validity items (the
correlation between total score on the conscientiousness test and GPA rank) (the correlation
between total score on the conscientiousness test and life satisfaction), and our one discriminant
item (the correlation between the total score and prominence of extroversion).
Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine these correlations; between GPA
and the score on the entirety of the test the correlation was found to be a .296 (significant at the
.05 level 2-tailed), with a .023 significance. The correlation found between our second
convergent validity item, life satisfaction and total score on the test was calculated at .538
(correlation being significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) at the .000 significance level. The
discriminant item (reported score of extroversion), was found to be a .200 at a .130 significance
level. (Tabular statistics are shown in Appendix B9).
Item Analysis
Item analysis was configured by item difficulty, and item discrimination on three items,
item-1 ”I am always prepared,” item-16 “I put as much effort into important tasks as I possibly
can,” and item-21 “I think carefully before making important decisions.” Item difficulty (P) was
found to be .72 for item-1, .808 for item-16, and .848 for item-21.
The item discrimination value was calculated by Pearson correlation coefficient for all
items. For item-1 the correlation was found to be .705**, the significance level was calculated to
be .000 (2-tailed). For item-16 item discrimination was found to be .578**, a 2-tailed test at the
** Correlation significant at .01 level (2-tailed test).

.000 significance level. Item-21 was found to have a discrimination value of .528**, a 2-tailed
test at the .000 significance level.
Discussion
The intent of the project was to research and design a test to accurately assess a modern
psychological construct and carry the means of incremental validity within the test instrument.
Although the content validity evidence seems strong, as the items are worded very close to the
research defining the construct, the test items, and the lexicon used to establish the sub-domains
are in need to be revised for the instrument to function more optimally, this was established by
the lack of reliability between sub-domains to the overall test. The meaning of the construct was
too broad, and/or there may not have been enough items to precisely define the sub-domains in
accordance with conscientiousness (the trait) itself.
The test was found to have a high reliability in its entirety at a Cronbach’s alpha of .777,
this value is significant enough to base decisions upon, and could be used for accurate research
purposes, yet the reliability of the test did not reach clinical significance in its entirety. The test-
retest reliability of the scale was a superb Pearson correlation coefficient value at .966** with
significance of .000. One convergent validity item supported our hypothesis and served to
function as designed. Our convergent validity item of “life satisfaction” was reported to be
correlated at the value of .538** with the measure of the total of the test, at significance level of
.000.
Within strict limits the discrimination items showed to be somewhat functional items
within the test. Item-1 showed to be of a significant correlation of .705** at a .000 significance
level; item-16 correlation coefficient of .578** at .000 significance level, and item-21 showed to

have a .528** correlation coefficient. These items were fairly useful discriminators to identify
the trait of conscientiousness.
The test-retest reliability, the Cronbach’s value measuring internal consistency of the
entire test, item discrimination, and the evidence supporting the “life satisfaction” convergent
validity hypothesis, defined that the test had at least a few successful properties to function as
dependable and professional psychometric scale.
Furthermore, the test struggled with its other measurements of reliability and validity.
The four subsets that organized the entirety of the test (achievement, deliberation, order, and
self-discipline) did not show to have good reliability or internal consistency. The subsets were all
recognized to be less than significant; the Cronbach’s alpha values read to be .341, .521, .108,
and .582 respectively. These values show that the subtests did not perform as accurately as
predicted, the accepted values would have been reached with a correlation of .7 or greater.
Corrections could be made to these measures by delicately adjusting the items to more
tightly define the objective of the sub-domains. Currently, the items within all of the sub-
domains conflict with the entirety of the test.
The validity items within the test overall, failed to justify the validity of our test. Our
hypothesis for the convergent validity item regarding “objective success / GPA” was not strongly
supported. Reports of higher GPA were found not to correlate meaningfully with high scores on
the entirety of the test; that value was a Pearson correlation of .296 of a .023 significance level
(correlation significant at the .05 level 2-tailed). The discriminant validity item also, was an
ineffective appendage to the test; we predicted that “extroversion” would have nothing to do with
the construct of conscientiousness, yet the statistics showed a weak but insignificant correlation –
a Pearson correlation value of .200, significance level of .130.

The function and design of the test could be improved by a multitude of precision strategies.
The quality of the test is lower tier, but the test could one day function properly by
exacting and refining the content. The test could be improved as is stated above, by minimizing
the spread of diction between items and sub-domains; after these changes are made and by the
law of small numbers, it seems accurate to assess more people / more data, and then assess the
errors involved in the functionality of the test. It seems very likely that the test / reliability of the
sub-domains could be corrected by simplifying the definition of the construct, and/or constricting
the items that make up the facets. These items within each sub-domain should be made more
congruent to each other; with the very low reliability within the sub-domains to the overall test it
is shown that we have propagated multiple metrics, therefore we had taken measure of more than
what we had intended to.
For further testing and research this test could be broken into its sub-domains and each
sub-domain could be elaborated, each sub-domain then could be assessed again for validity and
reliability as functioning as separate tests. By refining these sub-domains to hold profound
reliability and validity first, the measures could then be reintroduced and therefore the validity
and reliability would be built into the test by partible interior components / subdomains.
With work this measure as a short form test, could be understood as an incremental asset
relevant to science. The test would be utile in nearly all industries and would be relevant to
integrate in nearly all testing environments, yet the constituent elements must be finally defined
and limited according to actual prominence in the populations, and the specified populations
being tested. The test showed discrepancies between the sub-domains, and the overall construct
and the extent of the interconnections of the sub-domains to the construct was questioned. Are
the measures of conscientiousness that we adopted to form our constructs dependent upon where

those studies were conducted, and with what kind of people from the world population were
included? Do the branches of conscientiousness depend on the environment in which the person
has grown in, lived in, and/or currently resides? Is conscientiousness heritable, or endowed; is it
a trait that originates prenatally? Can conscientiousness be administered to individuals through
psycho-behavioral therapy or by other applications? Is conscientiousness a malleable personality
trait? Questions like these, and current potential in these subjects give us justification to conduct
further research on the topic, this to better our validity and reliability within such measures.
The study was a very good study even though the test was not found to be highly
functioning. Factors of design, statistics, research, definitions, allocation, placement and
psychology were all applications that were dissected to be able to derive meaningful reports from
the test. The test would be a perfect short form self-report psychometric test to be able to provide
all patients entering the system in need for psychological service and otherwise, but clinical
significance must be achieved.
Investigation into current / available research on the trait, and the connections between
conscientiousness and health may remind someone of the promises of probiotics, and vitamin
consumption. The business in psychology includes the need for traits, protective factors, and risk
factors to be readily assessable, and perhaps at all ages. With these measures the possibility of
helping people better themselves through psychology thus becomes more tangible. The test could
be better engineered in nearly all of its aspects, yet the test could then be utilized to harvest the
depths of people’s conscientiousness, which is a trait associated with prolonging human life
(Deary, Batty, Pattie, & Gale, 2008; Friedman et al., 1993).

References
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B.W. (2013). The case for conscientiousness: Evidence and implications
for a personality trait marker of health and longevity. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,
45(3), 278-288.
Costa Jr, C., McCrab, R. & Dye, D. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and
conscientiousness: a revision of the Neo Personality Inventory. Personal Individual
Differences, 12, 9, 887-898.
Chuah, S, Drasgow, F and Roberts, B. 2006. Personality assessment: Does the medium matter?
No. Journal of Research in Personality, 40: 359–376.
Deary, I. J., Batty, G.D., Pattie, A., & Gale, C.G. (2008) More intelligent, more dependable
children live longer: A 55-year longitudinal study of a representative sample of the
Scottish nation. Psychological Science, 19, 874-880. Doi:10.1111/j1467-
9280.2008.02171.x.
Duckworth, A., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., Kwok, D. (2012). Who does well in life?
Conscientious adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Front. Psychol., 12,
9, 887-898.
Educational Testing Service. (2012). Facets of the Big Five [Pamphlet]. Published by
Educational Testing Service.
Friedman, H.S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J.E., Windgard, D.L., and
Criqui, M.H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(l), 176-185. Doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.176.

Goodwin,R.D. and Friedman,HS. (2006).Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a
nationally representative sample. Journal of Health Psychology, 11: 643–654.
Kaplan, R., Saccuzzo, D. (2018). Psychological Testing, Principals, Applications, and Issues, 9.
11-703. ISBN: 978-1-337-09813-7.
Lippke, S., Pomp, S., Fleig, L. (2018). Rehabilitants’ conscientiousness as a moderator of the
intention-planning-behavior chain. Rehabilitation Psychology, [s.I.] 63[3], 460-467.
Marks, G., and Lutgendorf, S. (1999). Perceived health competence and personality factors
differentially predict health behaviors in older adults. Journal of Aging and Health,
11: 221–239.
Nia, M., Besharat, M. (2010). Comparison of athletes’ personality characteristics in individual
and team sports. Social and Behavioral Sciences 5, 808-812.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., N., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. 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 (4), 313–345. Doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.
Smith, J., Ryan, L., Röcke, C. (2013) The day-to-day effects of conscientiousness on well-being,
Research in Human Development, 10[1] 9-25, DOI: 10.1080/15427609.2013.760257.
Terracciano, A., Sutin, A., An, Y., O’Brien, R., Ferrucci, F., Zonderman, A., Resnick, S. (2013).
Personality and risk of Alzheimer’s disease: New data and meta-analysis. Alzheimer’s &
Dementia, 10, 2, 179-186.

Appendix A:
Please read each of the following statements and mark the box that best describes you according
to the given scale:
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Please circle the answer that best describes to you.
24. I am a: Male Female
25. I am in the age group of: 16-18 20-25 25-30 30+
26. I identify my ethnicity as: Asian Black/African American Caucasian Hispanic/Latin
Native American Prefer not to answer Other:____________
27. My grade point average (GPA) is somewhere near: 2 2.5 3 3.5 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. I am always prepared.
2. It’s difficult for me to stay focused on extensive tasks like
solving a puzzle for long periods of time.
3. I like to think of myself as an organized person.
4. The only time I focus on my health is when there is a noticeable
problem.
5. I try to excel in everything that I do.
6. I am a workaholic.
7. I am satisfied with my grade point average (GPA).
8. I often forget to put things back in their proper place.
9. I put deliberate thought into my actions.
10. It is hard for me to get motivated when it comes to starting a
new project.
11. I am satisfied with my overall success in life.
12. I avoid situations which I can make a mistake.
13. I do just enough work to get by.
14. I tend to act impulsively.
15. I am outgoing and social.
16. I put as much effort into important tasks as I possibly can.
17. Sometimes I speak or act without considering the consequences.
18. I frequently waste my time instead of focusing on more
important things.
19. I have difficulties getting organized.
20. I am disciplined.
21. I think carefully before making important decisions.
22. When I set a goal, I accomplish it.
23. I keep all of my belongings well organized.

Appendix B:
Table B1
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimu
m
Maximu
m Mean
Std.
Deviation
Entire Test 59 75.00 127.00 97.1017 13.17612
Achievement 62 17.00 34.00 25.3548 3.75520
Order 61 14.00 31.00 22.4426 3.94345
Self-discipline 62 15.00 34.00 22.9839 4.98684
Deliberation 60 18.00 35.00 25.9333 4.09575
Valid N
(listwise)
59

Table B2
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 59 95.2
Excludeda
3 4.8
Total 62 100.0
Table B3
N %
Cases Valid 61 98.4
Excludeda
1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
“Total Score” Reliability
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.777 23
“Order” Reliability
Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.108 5

Table B4
“Achievement”
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.341 5
N %
Cases Valid 62 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 62 100.0

Table B5
N %
Cases Valid 62 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 62 100.0
Table B6
N %
Cases Valid 60 96.8
Excludeda
2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
“Self-discipline”
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.582 5
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.521 5

Table B7
Correlations
total
Test-
Retest
Pearson
Correlation
.966**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 19
**. Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table B8
Cronbach's Alpha Part 1 Value .765
N of Items 10a
Part 2 Value .638
N of Items 10b
Total N of Items 20
Correlation Between Forms .365
Spearman-Brown
Coefficient
Equal Length .534
Unequal Length .534
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .533
a. The items are: Item1, Item3, Item5, Item8, Item9,
Item16, Item20, Item21, Item22, Item23.
b. The items are: item2rev, item4rev, item6rev,
item10rev, item12rev, item13rev, item14rev, item17rev,
item18rev, item19rev.

Table B9
Correlations
total
GPA
(academic
achievement)
Pearson Correlation .296*
N 59
Life
satisfaction
Pearson Correlation .538**
N 59
Introversion
extroversion
Pearson Correlation .200
N 59
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table B10
Correlations
total
Item1 Pearson
Correlation
.705**
N 59
Item16 Pearson
Correlation
.578**
N 59
Item21 Pearson
Correlation
.528**
N 59
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Measuring personality trait of conscientiousness

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Measuring personality trait of conscientiousness

Similar to Measuring personality trait of conscientiousness (20)

More from Jacob Stotler

More from Jacob Stotler (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Measuring personality trait of conscientiousness