Abstract
Pressures to maximize survey space or mitigate respondent fatigue can lead researchers to employ abbreviated during data collection. This is problematic because short-form measures can suffer from reduced reliability and validity. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether the use of brief measures of the Big Five in business research tends to produce psychometrically sound and criterion-valid results. We compared scale internal consistencies and effect size estimates from our study with meta-analytic estimates for long measures of the Big Five, as established in the literature. Our results indicated that, in general, internal consistency estimates were not substantively different. However, the criterion-related validity comparisons indicated that several point estimates for individual measures did not fall within the credibility intervals obtained from prior meta-analyses. This suggests that although brief measures of the Big Five might appear acceptable for use in business research, caution should be exercised when choosing a brief measure.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
