Cited by 49Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

A comparison of the nomological networks associated with forced-choice and likert formats of the narcissistic personality inventory.

Miller, Joshua D., Gentile, Brittany, Carter, Nathan T., Crowe, Michael, Hoffman, Brian J., Campbell, W. Keith·2018·Journal of Personality Assessment

Abstract

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is one of the most popular measures of narcissism. However, its use of a forced-choice response set might negatively affect some of its psychometric properties. The purpose of this research was to compare a Likert version of the NPI, in which only the narcissistic response of each pair was given, to the original NPI, in 3 samples of participants (N = 1,109). To this end, we compared the nomological networks of the forced-choice and Likert formats of the NPI in relation to alternative measures of narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder, entitlement, self-esteem, general personality traits (reported by self and informants), interpersonal styles, and general pathological traits included in the DSM-5. The Likert format NPI-total and subscales-manifested similar construct validity to the original forced-choice format across all criteria with only minor differences that seem to be due mainly to the increased reliability and variability found in the Likert NPI Entitlement/Exploitativeness subscale. These results provide evidence that a version of the NPI that employs a Likert format can justifiably be used in place of the original.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00223891.2017.1310731

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., Carter, N. T., Crowe, M., Hoffman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Joshua D.
Venue
Journal of Personality Assessment
Published
2017-04-24
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
259-267
ISSN
  • 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7752
OpenAlex
W2609994411
Cited by
49
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Narcissistic Personality Inventory, narcissism, nomological network, construct validity, narcissistic personality disorder, entitlement, self-esteem, interpersonal style, DSM-5
MeSH terms
Adult, Employment, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Narcissism, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Self Concept, Students, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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