The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics
Open accessAbstract
Given curiosity's fundamental role in motivation, learning, and well-being, we sought to refine the measurement of trait curiosity with an improved version of the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004). A preliminary pool of 36 items was administered to 311 undergraduate students, who also completed measures of emotion, emotion regulation, personality, and well-being. Factor analyses indicated a two factor model-motivation to seek out knowledge and new experiences (Stretching; 5 items) and a willingness to embrace the novel, uncertain, and unpredictable nature of everyday life (Embracing; 5 items). In two additional samples (ns = 150 and 119), we cross-validated this factor structure and provided initial evidence for construct validity. This includes positive correlations with personal growth, openness to experience, autonomy, purpose in life, self-acceptance, psychological flexibility, positive affect, and positive social relations, among others. Applying item response theory (IRT) to these samples (n = 578), we showed that the items have good discrimination and a desirable breadth of difficulty. The item information functions and test information function were centered near zero, indicating that the scale assesses the mid-range of the latent curiosity trait most reliably. The findings thus far provide good evidence for the psychometric properties of the 10-item CEI-II.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788 · cited 1×
“Current guidelines regarding model fit indices (Brown, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2004) suggest that CFA/ NNFI values P.95, and RMSEA/SRMR values 6.08 indicate good model fit.”
BackgroundInfluentialRyan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599 · cited 1×
“…that are identical to curiosity: ''Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one's capacities, to explore, and to learn " (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70).”
BackgroundPrinciples and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
Tabri, N., & Elliott, C. M. (2012) · Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology · doi:10.15353/cgjsc.v1i1.3787 · Cited by 39,094
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210 · cited 2×
“Besides the social benefits linked to curiosity, other psychological needs for autonomy and self-acceptance ([Deci and Ryan, 2000] and [Ryff, 1989]) were more likely to be satisfied for highly curious people.”
BackgroundDevelopment and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266 · cited 1×
“** p < .001. imation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), the standardized root mean residual (SRMR; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996), the non-normed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990).”
BackgroundSignificance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 20,015 · cited 1×
“** p < .001. imation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), the standardized root mean residual (SRMR; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996), the non-normed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990).”
BackgroundConfirmatory factor analysis for applied research
Brown, T. A. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769 · Cited by 15,621 · cited 3×
“Current guidelines regarding model fit indices (Brown, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2004) suggest that CFA/ NNFI values P.95, and RMSEA/SRMR values 6.08 indicate good model fit.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Berlyne, 1967, Arousal and reinforcement, Vol. 15, 1
- Tomkins, 1962, Vol. 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty
Carleton, R. N. (2016) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,104
Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2017) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011 · Cited by 544
“…psychometric properties of measures such as the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II - the embracing of stress in novel and challenging situations subscale had smaller correlations with distress and healthy emotion regulation strategies than the stretching subscale; Kashdan et al., 2009).”
InfluentialSelf-citationDifferent types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000209 · Cited by 583
“Despite the popularity of the hedonia–eudaimonia distinction within the well-being literature, there is skepticism about its empirical support and theoretical utility (Coyne, 2013; Kashdan et al., 2008, Kashdan et al., 2009; Sheldon, 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Light vs. Dark Triad of Personality: Contrasting Two Very Different Profiles of Human Nature
Kaufman, S. B., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsukayama, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467 · Cited by 446
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Hepper, E. G., & Zhou, X. (2015) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.10.001 · Cited by 348
“…ordinary) event condition reported greater growth-related self-perceptions (i.e., self-expansion, curiosity, inclination toward new experiences; Kashdan et al., 2009) and stronger growth-related behavioral intentions (i.e., to engage in novel, self-expansive activities; Luke, Sedikides, &…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F.
- Affiliations
- George Mason University (US)
- University of Kansas (US)
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Colorado State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kashdan, Todd B.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Personality
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 987-998
- ISSN
- 0092-6566 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2770180
- OpenAlex
- W2107615426
- Cited by
- 674
- References
- 113
- Citations by year
- 2026: 73 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 11.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Personality (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH073937)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- trait curiosity, scale development, factor structure, construct validity, item response theory, psychological flexibility, positive affect, well-being, openness to experience
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
