Programming Conscientiousness as a Personality Factor

1. Running head: TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 1 Testing for Conscientiousness Conducted: October - December 2018 Jacob Stotler, Aiden Goldstein, Gary Goll, Casey L. Neison PSYCH 4400-01 The University of Wyoming Dr. Pepper

2. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 2 Abstract The paper was written to provide information and the found incremental progress, regarding utilizing psychometric testing, to measure the personality trait conscientiousness. The test was designed and built from reliable modern-day research; the test utilized four well-known facets to measure the constructed personality trait of conscientiousness. The different facets that were designed in the instrument included achievement, deliberation, order and self-discipline. 62 voluntary individuals from an in-session college institution underwent testing and completed the 23-item personality trait inventory and an additional demographic form. The 23-item main section of the psychometric assessment utilized a 7-choice agreeability scale per each item. 19 of these individuals completed the inventory again one week later as a measure of test-retest reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability and internal consistency was calculated at .77, and the test retest reliability was measured by a Pearson’s correlation coefficient, which equaled .966. The overall test could be interpreted to be of moderate reliability because of these statistics. The test was seen to have an outstanding test-retest reliability, and a somewhat significant reliability overall, yet the results of the measure by item analyses, and overall dissection, does not leave the measure reliable or valid enough, for usage in the clinical setting. The study provided useful statistical information and data to assist in the evolution of a clinically utile measure of the personality trait conscientiousness.

3. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 3 Testing for Conscientiousness Introduction Conscientiousness is a widely recognized personality trait that has been defined in several different lights. This specific personality trait has been clearly defined under a number of facets such as achievement, competence, deliberation, dutifulness, order, and self-discipline (Educational Testing Service, 2018). A historic definition of the personality trait conscientiousness was defined by Costa, McCrae, & Dye (1991) as “the personal need for achievement, and commitment to work, and an attribute that entails being detail oriented, and cautious.” Conscientiousness is a mostly positive personality trait, as people who score high in conscientiousness are predicted to have a healthy lifestyle (Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson & Robest, 2013), “are protected from cognitive impairment,” (Terracciano, Sutin, & An, 2013) and are known to be intrinsically skilled at bridging the psychological heuristic the intention- behavior gap (Lippke, Pomp & Fleig, 2018). The lack of the personality trait conscientiousness could predict if the individual lacks a protective health factor, while the presence of the personality trait conscientiousness may be such a functional trait that it may help guard from neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia (Terracciano, Sutin, and An, 2013). Being able to measure this personality trait could be beneficial to many areas in society and some industries for particular administrations could use the measures in use with hiring procedures to add to current hiring techniques. Some elements of conscientiousness are attributes that some businesses highly depend on, such as self-discipline, and organization. (Terraciano, Sutin & An, 2013).

4. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 Conscientiousness alone is a reliable predictor of adherence to medical prescriptions; the origination of a reliable scale would make it possible to predict who is at high risk of skipping medication regimens, and/or which clients need manual or automatic assistance to adhere to all of their clinician’s orders. (Bogg & Roberts, 2013). The attribute has been associated with living longer (Deary, Batty, Pattie, & Gale, 2008; Friedman et al., 1993), having a positive well-being (Smith, Ryan, Rocke, 2013), and is negatively related to suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure, CVA (stroke), and tuberculosis (Goodwin & Friedman, 2006; Marks & Lutgendorf, 1999). Knowing how to closely gauge this trait, could lead to people learning how to adopt it, and/or scientists learning how to administer it. Our research group developed a test and conducted a study on the test, while attempting to measure the personal trait of conscientiousness. The test was designed around two convergent validity hypotheses. Smith, Ryan, & Rocke (2013) reported with Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldeberg (2007) that young adults who were high in conscientiousness receive better grades, in turn we proposed that the results of the test would show that people who scored higher on the test overall, would also report having a higher tier GPA. The second convergent validity hypothesis was implemented based on the results of a study conducted by Duckworth, Weir, Tsukayma & Knok, (2012), they redounded research by covariate calculations involving conscientiousness, personality factors, and mental ability with subjective and objective success. The authors reported that “conscientiousness showed small-to- medium associations with all dimensions of subjective success.” The hypothesis that we proposed to measure within the test was that that people who are score highly on the entirety of the conscientiousness test would report the highest subjective success (life satisfaction).

5. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 5 The test was designed around a third hypothesis in which we measured a discriminate validity item. Item number 15 measured extroversion, requesting that participants report how much they agree with the statement “I am outgoing and social.” The writing and research regarding the personality trait conscientiousness, and the characteristic of being introverted or extraverted are limited; we could find no evidence that these markers were linked. Thus, we proposed that item number 15 (which tested for extroversion) would have no correlation to one’s overall score on the test. There have been innumerable evaluations that study or have reported successful means of measuring conscientiousness. One such evaluation is that of the NEO personality inventory – three (NEO PI-R), in which is said to predict overall positive performance in all occupations by measuring the construct of conscientiousness (Kaplan, Saccuzzo, 2018). Another test that has measured conscientiousness successfully was that of the Conscientiousness Adjective Checklist or the CAC. The CAC has been used in research to measure the trait for use in defining correlations between facets of conscientiousness and overall health (Smith, et al., 2009). There are also conscientiousness scales underpropping tests as subscales on some major tests, one such example is that of the nine scales that assess conscientiousness from the AB5C-IPIP. This subscale measure too has been used in research because of its known reliability (Smith, et al., 2009). The progress that the success of our test would make, would be that of a short form measure, and a test that would easily show results, of the participants in different areas of conscientiousness separate from scoring only the trait under one broad definition. This test was designed to assess the trait by emboldening four integral branches of the trait in which would establish reports of conscientiousness.

6. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 6 Method Participants The psychometric test was administered to 62 participants; 22 males and 40 females participated, these individuals were chosen by convenience sampling. The sample was made from active on-campus scholars attending the University of Wyoming the fall of 2018 in Laramie, Wyoming, these students all were enrolled in at least one college-tier psychology class. The participants ranged in age from ~16 to an indicated “30+” years of age. Most of the individuals surveyed reportedly came from the “20-25” years old category (80.6%). Instrument The test was designed and built from reliable modern-day research; the test utilized four well-known facets to measure the constructed personality trait of conscientiousness: achievement, deliberation, order and self-discipline. These facets were named for the reason that all of these domains reoccurred through numerous articles and research reports. Participants were asked to disclose all responses to the initial 23 items as a numerical unit from 1-7 (1-strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree). The instructions for the test were written on the test in two sentences, both advising the participant to “mark the box with the correct agreeability with the statement,” and “circle the correct demographic that describes you.” Items were carefully modeled and adapted in personal statement form, each item was derived from well-known research and/or reports written by researchers that have examined the trait. One example of this process was that a reference article stated that “conscientiousness is highly associated with health-related behaviors,” this was the basis of test item number four “the only time I focus on my health is when there is a noticeable problem.” The research further stated that conscientious people likely attend more regular checkups with their doctor. (Chuah,

7. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 7 Drasgrow & Roberts, 2006). Item number four was placed under the sub-domain “deliberation,” and reverse coded. Lippke, Pomp & Fleig (2018) stated that conscientious [individuals] might be more efficient in using planning as a strategy to implement behavior than less conscientious [individuals].” We utilized these findings relatively in item number 14 “I tend to act impulsively”; this was a reversed item, placed within the “self-discipline” subscale. 11 of the questions were reverse coded and were measured for low scores, these low scores were mathematically interpreted to indicate a high level of conscientiousness. The test was arranged entirely of sub-domains, therefore each item belonged within one of the four subsets with exception to the three validity items; there were five questions per each domain, and the validity items were left uncategorized. Criterion items as an example of each domain were thus “I am always prepared,” which was categorized under “achievement”; “I like to think of myself as an organized person” is an example of an item that was measured under the sub-domain of “order”. “I frequently waste time…” (a reversed item) was one of the five “self-discipline” items, and “sometimes I speak or act without considering the consequences,” (a reversed item) in which was assigned under the “deliberation” domain. Procedure The test was administered in a classroom group test setting. The 62 individuals were assigned a code number / unique identifier number that stood as a nominal number to distinguish participants; the assigned numbers distinguished each individual. 19 participants took the test two times to calculate the test-retest reliability, the marker would have read “[unique identifier

8. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 8 number] T1,” and on the second test trial, the participant would have marked on the test “[same unique identifier number] T2.” (Original format of test [unlabeled] is seen in Appendix A). Results Normative Data The normative data gathered from the test results explained that the mean of the total test was 97.10 raw points out of a total possible 161; the standard deviation for the entirety was 13.18, the minimum score was 75, and the maximum of all 62 scores was 127. We derived the normative data for each of the four subscales in addition to the entirety of the test. The “achievement” subscale of 62 scores showed a minimum of 17, a maximum of 34, a mean of 25.35 (all out of a 35 possible raw points), and a standard deviation of 3.76. The “order” subscale showed a number of 61 total scores that were calculated at a minimum score of 17, a maximum score of 34, a mean score of 25.35, and a standard deviation of 3.94 (all out of 35). The “self-discipline” measure showed a total 62 participants, a minimum score of 15, a maximum score of 34, a mean score of 23, and a standard deviation of 5 (all out of the possible 35 points). Lastly, the “deliberation” subscale was tested, and 60 participants were accounted for with a minimum of 18, a maximum of 35, a mean of 26, and a standard deviation of 4.01 (all out of 35). Reliability The reliability, and internal consistency of the test was calculated and measured with varying statistical tools and formulas. The total score reliability was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha correlation, the reported reliability was .777, and utilized the 23 main items of the test. (Statistical table is shown in Appendix B1).

9. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 9 Each subset, and sub-domain of conscientiousness was calculated too by Cronbach’s alpha reliability formula. The subtest scores were as follows, for the “achievement” subscale of the personality trait Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .341 and was formulated using only the five items designed within the subscale. The “order” subcategory of conscientiousness was formulated using Cronbach’s alpha and was calculated at α=.108, and thus only utilized the five items that were relative to the convergence of conscientiousness by items discerning organization and order. The “self-discipline” scale was formulated at α=.582 and used the five items that were specifically relevant to this domain. The “deliberation” subscale was calculated at a Cronbach’s alpha of .521 and was formulated using only the scores on the 5 items configured under this domain. (These tabular statistics shown in Appendix B1-B5). The test-retest measure was calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the initial test scores of 19 individuals, and the participant’s reports on a parallel form on the second trial one-week latter of test-run number one. The test-retest was found to read a .966 Pearson correlation coefficient with a significance level of a two tailed test at .000. The measure read using only the 19 scores that had been derived from two testing periods, reported separately by the same participants. The correlation was said to be significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). (Table shown in Appendix B7). The internal consistency is expressed from the results of the split-half calculations, these are such that of a Cronbach’s alpha correlation, and Spearman-Brown correction coefficient. Part 1 of the split-half read a .765 of 10 items. Part 2 read the value of .638 and accounted for 10 different items. The correlation between forms was .365, and the Spearman-Brown correction. coefficient redounded at .534 for equal length, and .534 for unequal length of the test. The

10. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 10 Guttman split-half coefficient was a .533. (Tabular statistics for split-half shown in Appendix B8). Validity The validity statistics were derived from both the two convergent validity items (the correlation between total score on the conscientiousness test and GPA rank) (the correlation between total score on the conscientiousness test and life satisfaction), and our one discriminant item (the correlation between the total score and prominence of extroversion). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine these correlations; between GPA and the score on the entirety of the test the correlation was found to be a .296 (significant at the .05 level 2-tailed), with a .023 significance. The correlation found between our second convergent validity item, life satisfaction and total score on the test was calculated at .538 (correlation being significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) at the .000 significance level. The discriminant item (reported score of extroversion), was found to be a .200 at a .130 significance level. (Tabular statistics are shown in Appendix B9). Item Analysis Item analysis was configured by item difficulty, and item discrimination on three items, item-1 ”I am always prepared,” item-16 “I put as much effort into important tasks as I possibly can,” and item-21 “I think carefully before making important decisions.” Item difficulty (P) was found to be .72 for item-1, .808 for item-16, and .848 for item-21. The item discrimination value was calculated by Pearson correlation coefficient for all items. For item-1 the correlation was found to be .705**, the significance level was calculated to be .000 (2-tailed). For item-16 item discrimination was found to be .578**, a 2-tailed test at the ** Correlation significant at .01 level (2-tailed test).

11. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 11 .000 significance level. Item-21 was found to have a discrimination value of .528**, a 2-tailed test at the .000 significance level. Discussion The intent of the project was to research and design a test to accurately assess a modern psychological construct and carry the means of incremental validity within the test instrument. Although the content validity evidence seems strong, as the items are worded very close to the research defining the construct, the test items, and the lexicon used to establish the sub-domains are in need to be revised for the instrument to function more optimally, this was established by the lack of reliability between sub-domains to the overall test. The meaning of the construct was too broad, and/or there may not have been enough items to precisely define the sub-domains in accordance with conscientiousness (the trait) itself. The test was found to have a high reliability in its entirety at a Cronbach’s alpha of .777, this value is significant enough to base decisions upon, and could be used for accurate research purposes, yet the reliability of the test did not reach clinical significance in its entirety. The test- retest reliability of the scale was a superb Pearson correlation coefficient value at .966** with significance of .000. One convergent validity item supported our hypothesis and served to function as designed. Our convergent validity item of “life satisfaction” was reported to be correlated at the value of .538** with the measure of the total of the test, at significance level of .000. Within strict limits the discrimination items showed to be somewhat functional items within the test. Item-1 showed to be of a significant correlation of .705** at a .000 significance level; item-16 correlation coefficient of .578** at .000 significance level, and item-21 showed to ** Correlation significant at .01 level (2-tailed test).

12. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 12 have a .528** correlation coefficient. These items were fairly useful discriminators to identify the trait of conscientiousness. The test-retest reliability, the Cronbach’s value measuring internal consistency of the entire test, item discrimination, and the evidence supporting the “life satisfaction” convergent validity hypothesis, defined that the test had at least a few successful properties to function as dependable and professional psychometric scale. Furthermore, the test struggled with its other measurements of reliability and validity. The four subsets that organized the entirety of the test (achievement, deliberation, order, and self-discipline) did not show to have good reliability or internal consistency. The subsets were all recognized to be less than significant; the Cronbach’s alpha values read to be .341, .521, .108, and .582 respectively. These values show that the subtests did not perform as accurately as predicted, the accepted values would have been reached with a correlation of .7 or greater. Corrections could be made to these measures by delicately adjusting the items to more tightly define the objective of the sub-domains. Currently, the items within all of the sub- domains conflict with the entirety of the test. The validity items within the test overall, failed to justify the validity of our test. Our hypothesis for the convergent validity item regarding “objective success / GPA” was not strongly supported. Reports of higher GPA were found not to correlate meaningfully with high scores on the entirety of the test; that value was a Pearson correlation of .296 of a .023 significance level (correlation significant at the .05 level 2-tailed). The discriminant validity item also, was an ineffective appendage to the test; we predicted that “extroversion” would have nothing to do with the construct of conscientiousness, yet the statistics showed a weak but insignificant correlation – a Pearson correlation value of .200, significance level of .130. ** Correlation significant at .01 level (2-tailed test).

13. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 13 The function and design of the test could be improved by a multitude of precision strategies. The quality of the test is lower tier, but the test could one day function properly by exacting and refining the content. The test could be improved as is stated above, by minimizing the spread of diction between items and sub-domains; after these changes are made and by the law of small numbers, it seems accurate to assess more people / more data, and then assess the errors involved in the functionality of the test. It seems very likely that the test / reliability of the sub-domains could be corrected by simplifying the definition of the construct, and/or constricting the items that make up the facets. These items within each sub-domain should be made more congruent to each other; with the very low reliability within the sub-domains to the overall test it is shown that we have propagated multiple metrics, therefore we had taken measure of more than what we had intended to. For further testing and research this test could be broken into its sub-domains and each sub-domain could be elaborated, each sub-domain then could be assessed again for validity and reliability as functioning as separate tests. By refining these sub-domains to hold profound reliability and validity first, the measures could then be reintroduced and therefore the validity and reliability would be built into the test by partible interior components / subdomains. With work this measure as a short form test, could be understood as an incremental asset relevant to science. The test would be utile in nearly all industries and would be relevant to integrate in nearly all testing environments, yet the constituent elements must be finally defined and limited according to actual prominence in the populations, and the specified populations being tested. The test showed discrepancies between the sub-domains, and the overall construct and the extent of the interconnections of the sub-domains to the construct was questioned. Are the measures of conscientiousness that we adopted to form our constructs dependent upon where

14. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 14 those studies were conducted, and with what kind of people from the world population were included? Do the branches of conscientiousness depend on the environment in which the person has grown in, lived in, and/or currently resides? Is conscientiousness heritable, or endowed; is it a trait that originates prenatally? Can conscientiousness be administered to individuals through psycho-behavioral therapy or by other applications? Is conscientiousness a malleable personality trait? Questions like these, and current potential in these subjects give us justification to conduct further research on the topic, this to better our validity and reliability within such measures. The study was a very good study even though the test was not found to be highly functioning. Factors of design, statistics, research, definitions, allocation, placement and psychology were all applications that were dissected to be able to derive meaningful reports from the test. The test would be a perfect short form self-report psychometric test to be able to provide all patients entering the system in need for psychological service and otherwise, but clinical significance must be achieved. Investigation into current / available research on the trait, and the connections between conscientiousness and health may remind someone of the promises of probiotics, and vitamin consumption. The business in psychology includes the need for traits, protective factors, and risk factors to be readily assessable, and perhaps at all ages. With these measures the possibility of helping people better themselves through psychology thus becomes more tangible. The test could be better engineered in nearly all of its aspects, yet the test could then be utilized to harvest the depths of people’s conscientiousness, which is a trait associated with prolonging human life (Deary, Batty, Pattie, & Gale, 2008; Friedman et al., 1993).

15. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 15 References Bogg, T., & Roberts, B.W. (2013). The case for conscientiousness: Evidence and implications for a personality trait marker of health and longevity. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(3), 278-288. Costa Jr, C., McCrab, R. & Dye, D. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision of the Neo Personality Inventory. Personal Individual Differences, 12, 9, 887-898. Chuah, S, Drasgow, F and Roberts, B. 2006. Personality assessment: Does the medium matter? No. Journal of Research in Personality, 40: 359–376. Deary, I. J., Batty, G.D., Pattie, A., & Gale, C.G. (2008) More intelligent, more dependable children live longer: A 55-year longitudinal study of a representative sample of the Scottish nation. Psychological Science, 19, 874-880. Doi:10.1111/j1467- 9280.2008.02171.x. Duckworth, A., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., Kwok, D. (2012). Who does well in life? Conscientious adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Front. Psychol., 12, 9, 887-898. Educational Testing Service. (2012). Facets of the Big Five [Pamphlet]. Published by Educational Testing Service. Friedman, H.S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J.E., Windgard, D.L., and Criqui, M.H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(l), 176-185. Doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.176.

16. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 16 Goodwin,R.D. and Friedman,HS. (2006).Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Health Psychology, 11: 643–654. Kaplan, R., Saccuzzo, D. (2018). Psychological Testing, Principals, Applications, and Issues,9. 11-703. ISBN: 978-1-337-09813-7. Lippke, S., Pomp, S., Fleig, L. (2018). Rehabilitants’ conscientiousness as a moderator of the intention-planning-behavior chain. Rehabilitation Psychology, [s.I.] 63[3], 460-467. Marks, G., and Lutgendorf, S. (1999). Perceived health competence and personality factors differentially predict health behaviors in older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 11: 221–239. Nia, M., Besharat, M. (2010). Comparison of athletes’ personality characteristics in individual and team sports. Social and Behavioral Sciences 5, 808-812. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., N., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science,2 (4), 313–345. Doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047. Smith, J., Ryan, L., Röcke, C. (2013) The day-to-day effects of conscientiousness on well-being, Research in Human Development, 10[1] 9-25, DOI: 10.1080/15427609.2013.760257. Terracciano, A., Sutin, A., An, Y., O’Brien, R., Ferrucci, F., Zonderman, A., Resnick, S. (2013). Personality and risk of Alzheimer’s disease: New data and meta-analysis. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 10, 2, 179-186.

17. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 17 Appendix A: Please read each of the following statements and mark the box that best describes you according to the given scale: Strongly disagree 1 2 3 Strongly agree 4 5 6 7 1. I am always prepared. 2. It’s difficult for me to stay focused on extensive tasks like solving a puzzle for long periods of time. 3. I like to think of myself as an organized person. 4. The only time I focus on my health is when there is a noticeable problem. 5. I try to excel in everything that I do. 6. I am a workaholic. 7. I am satisfied with my grade point average (GPA). 8. I often forget to put things back in their proper place. 9. I put deliberate thought into my actions. 10. It is hard for me to get motivated when it comes to starting a new project. 11. I am satisfied with my overall success in life. 12. I avoid situations which I can make a mistake. 13. I do just enough work to get by. 14. I tend to act impulsively. 15. I am outgoing and social. 16. I put as much effort into important tasks as I possibly can. 17. Sometimes I speak or act without considering the consequences. 18. I frequently waste my time instead of focusing on more important things. 19. I have difficulties getting organized. 20. I am disciplined. 21. I think carefully before making important decisions. 22. When I set a goal, I accomplish it. 23. I keep all of my belongings well organized. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please circle the answer that best describes to you. 24. I am a: Male 25. I am in the age group of: 16-18 20-25 25-30 30+ 26. I identify my ethnicity as: Asian Black/African American Caucasian Hispanic/Latin Native American Prefer not to answer Other:____________ 27. My grade point average (GPA) is somewhere near: 2 2.5 3 3.5 4.0 Female

18. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 18 Appendix B: Table B1 Descriptive Statistics Minimu Maximu Std. N m m Mean Deviation Entire Test 59 75.00 127.00 97.1017 13.17612 Achievement 62 17.00 34.00 25.3548 3.75520 Order 61 14.00 31.00 22.4426 3.94345 Self-discipline 62 15.00 34.00 22.9839 4.98684 Deliberation 60 18.00 35.00 25.9333 4.09575 Valid N 59 (listwise)

19. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 19 Table B2 “Total Score” Reliability Cronbach's Case Processing Summary Alpha N of Items N % .777 23 Cases Valid 59 95.2 Excludeda 3 4.8 Total 62 100.0 Table B3 “Order” Reliability Statistics Case Processing Summary Cronbach's Alpha N of Items N % .108 5 Cases Valid 61 98.4 Excludeda 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0

20. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 20 Table B4 “Achievement” Reliability Statistics Case Processing Summary Cronbach's N % Alpha N of Items Cases Valid 62 100.0 .341 5 Excludeda 0 .0 Total 62 100.0

21. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 21 Table B5 “Self-discipline” Reliability Statistics Case Processing Summary Cronbach's N % Alpha N of Items Cases Valid 62 100.0 .582 5 Excludeda 0 .0 Total 62 100.0 Reliability Statistics Table B6 Cronbach's Case Processing Summary Alpha N of Items N % .521 5 Cases Valid 60 96.8 Excludeda 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0

22. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 22 Table B7 Correlations total .966** Test- Pearson Retest Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 19 **. Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

23. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 23 Table B8 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Part 1 Value .765 10a N of Items Part 2 Value .638 10b N of Items Total N of Items 20 Correlation Between Forms .365 Spearman-Brown Equal Length .534 Coefficient Unequal Length .534 Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .533 a. The items are: Item1, Item3, Item5, Item8, Item9, Item16, Item20, Item21, Item22, Item23. b. The items are: item2rev, item4rev, item6rev, item10rev, item12rev, item13rev, item14rev, item17rev, item18rev, item19rev.

24. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 24 Table B9 Correlations total .296* GPA Pearson Correlation (academic Sig. (2-tailed) .023 achievement) N 59 .538** Life Pearson Correlation satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 59 Introversion Pearson Correlation .200 extroversion Sig. (2-tailed) .130 N 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

25. TESTING FOR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 25 Table B10 Correlations total .705** Item1 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 59 .578** Item16 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 59 .528** Item21 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).