CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits.

Dudley, Nicole M., Orvis, Karin A., Lebiecki, Justin E., Cortina, José M.·2006·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40

Cites

5 of 5 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<289::AID-JOB841>3.0.CO;2-C · DOI
  2. 10.1002/per.417 · DOI
  3. 10.1006/jrpe.1998.2214 · DOI
  4. 10.1006/jrpe.1995.1025 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1023/A:1016200317002 · DOI
  6. Barbaranelli, 1996, How many dimensions to describe personality? A comparison of Cattell, Comrey, and the Big Five taxonomies of personality traits., European Review of Applied Psychology, 46, 15
  7. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.821 · DOI
  8. Behling. Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the job? 12 77 1998 · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349 · DOI
  10. Black, 2000, Personality testing and police selection: Utility of the "Big Five., New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 29, 2
  11. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.212 · DOI
  12. Borman, 1993, Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance., 71
  13. Campbell, 1993, A theory of performance., 35
  14. 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00030-1 · DOI
  15. Cattell, 1970, Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.
  16. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.898 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.410 · DOI
  18. Cohen, 1983, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
  19. Collins. Personality, integrity, and white-collar crime-A construct validity study. 46 295 1993 · DOI
  20. Cortina. The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. 53 325 2000 · DOI
  21. Costa, 1992, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
  22. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199803/04)12:2<117::AID-PER295>3.0.CO;2-C · DOI
  24. 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D · DOI
  25. Cronbach, 1960, Essentials of psychological testing
  26. Doster, 2000, Stability and factor structure of the Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised., Psychological Reports, 86, 421, 10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.421 · DOI
  27. 10.1207/s15327876mp0601_2 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-Z · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1023/A:1007880203956 · DOI
  30. Fleenor, 1997, The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and the California Psychological Inventory., Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 698, 10.1177/0013164497057004013 · DOI
  31. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.474 · DOI
  32. Goldberg, 1981, Language and individual differences: The search for universale in personality lexicons., Vol. 2, 141
  33. Gordon, 1978, Gordon Personal Profile-Inventory manual-7978 revision.
  34. Hahn, 1994, Factor analysis of the NEO-PI and the Comrey Personality Scales., Psychological Reports, 75, 355, 10.2466/pr0.1994.75.1.355 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02473.x · DOI
  36. Hogan, 1997, Conscientiousness and integrity at work., 849, 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50033-0 · DOI
  37. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<627::AID-JOB2828>3.0.CO;2-F · DOI
  38. 10.1007/BF01013931 · DOI
  39. 10.1207/s15327043hup0501&2_8 · DOI
  40. Hough, 2001, The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology., 233
  41. Hough, 1996, The frontiers of I/O personality research., 31
  42. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/0191-8869(96)00046-3 · DOI
  44. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.5.673 · DOI
  45. 10.2307/1252175 · DOI
  46. 10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Moberg, 1998, Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity and the five-factor model., The International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 258, 10.1108/eb022812 · DOI
  48. Moon, 2001, The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas., The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533, 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.535 · DOI
  49. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475 · DOI
  50. 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1 · DOI
  51. Mount. Five reasons why the "Big Five" article has been frequently cited. 51 849 1998 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/BF02230957 · DOI
  53. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.193 · DOI
  54. 10.1023/A:1022963108025 · DOI
  55. 10.1037/h0040291 · DOI
  56. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<609::AID-JOB1828>3.0.CO;2-K · DOI
  57. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679 · DOI
  58. 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2 · DOI
  59. Paunonen, 1998, Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524, 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1006/jrpe.1996.0003 · DOI
  61. Paunonen, 2001, The personality hierarchy and the prediction of work behaviors., 151, 10.1037/10434-007 · DOI
  62. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3<389::AID-JOB917>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
  63. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.630 · DOI
  64. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612 · DOI
  65. Pulakos. Test validation for scientific understanding: Two demonstrations of an approach to studying predictor-criterion linkages. 41 703 1988 · DOI
  66. Raymark. Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for personnel selection. 50 723 1997 · DOI
  67. Reynolds, 1997, Factor scales of the CPI: Do they capture valid variance?, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 907, 10.1177/001316447703700413 · DOI
  68. Robertson, 1993, Personality assessment and personnel selection., European Review of Applied Psychology, 43, 187
  69. Rothstein. 1994 · DOI
  70. Sackett, 2001, Counterproductive behaviors at work., 145
  71. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30 · DOI
  72. 10.1111/1468-2389.00198 · DOI
  73. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.904 · DOI
  74. 10.1080/026999496378639 · DOI
  75. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<639::AID-JOB3828>3.0.CO;2-9 · DOI
  76. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.959 · DOI
  77. Swinburne. A comparison of OPQ and 16PF in relation to their occupational application. 14 29 1985 · DOI
  78. Tett. Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. 44 703 1991 · DOI
  79. 10.1002/job.191 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2006-01
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
40-57
ISSN
  • 1939-1854
  • 0021-9010
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40
Cited by
423
References
5
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