Cited by 3,094Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A revised version of the psychoticism scale

Eysenck, S.B.G., Eysenck, H.J., Barrett, Paul·1985·Personality and Individual Differences

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1985-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
21-29
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051037982
Cited by
3,094
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 139 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 128 · 2014: 96 · 2013: 132 · 2012: 130
FWCI
14.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
psychoticism, scale revision, personality assessment, internal consistency, score distribution, psychometric properties

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review