CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of the Short Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS-10)

Wang, Bo, Andrews, Wendy, Bechtoldt, Myriam N., Rohrmann, Sonja, de Vries, Reinout E.·2024·European Journal of Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1027/1015-5759/a000747
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract: We readdressed the multidimensionality of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS) by reanalyzing Rohrmann et al.’s (2016) dataset, which led to the development of an improved 10-item CIPS (CIPS-10). The validity of the CIPS-10 was further examined by correlating it with HEXACO personality traits and work-related outcomes in a newly collected working adult sample ( N = 294). Factor analyses, reliability coefficients, and validity coefficients indicated that reporting and interpreting the total scores of both the CIPS and CIPS-10 was sufficient. We found the CIPS-10 to be positively related to Emotionality, job stress, turnover intention, and negatively related to Conscientiousness, Honesty-Humility, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and job satisfaction. The findings offer support for the validity of the CIPS-10.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1015-5759/a000747

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1080/10705510903008204 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/1088868314523838 · DOI
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1080/10705511.2021.2019587 · DOI
  5. 10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_07 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.071 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/h0046016 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1177/001316446402400101 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/1948550619875149 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_6 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1300/J015V06N03_05 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.4135/9781849200479.n9 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.003 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/jopy.12150 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.023 · DOI
  16. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Harvey J. C., 1981, The impostor phenomenon and achievement: A failure to internalise success [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]
  18. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.033 · DOI
  19. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6001_3 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1002/hrdq.21304 · DOI
  22. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720072 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/1745691619898848 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000102 · DOI
  25. Judge, T. A. & Klinger, R. (2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In M. Eid, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393–413). Guilford Press.
  26. 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182 · DOI
  27. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01505 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/job.4030130202 · DOI
  30. 10.1037/rev0000035 · DOI
  31. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.618 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.3758/BF03200807 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E. & Haviland, M. G. (2018). Bifactor modelling and the evaluation of scale scores. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, & D. J. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (Vol. 1, pp. 675–707). Wiley. · DOI
  34. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00821 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00228-2 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.039 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1007/s10869-014-9382-5 · DOI
  38. Widaman, K. F. & Revelle, W. (2022). Thinking thrice about sum scores, and then some more about measurement and analysis. Behavior Research Methods . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01849-w · DOI
  39. 10.1177/2043808720974341 · DOI
  40. 10.5539/ijbm.v7n20p44 · DOI
  41. 10.1177/0146621605278814 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, B., Andrews, W., Bechtoldt, M. N., Rohrmann, S., & de Vries, R. E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Management and Economics, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany
  • Differential Psychology and Psychological Diagnostics, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Psychological Assessment
Publisher
Hogrefe Publishing Group
Published
2024-03
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
158-168
ISSN
  • 1015-5759
  • 2151-2426
DOI
10.1027/1015-5759/a000747
Cited by
28
References
8
Language
en

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