Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) has greatly facilitated the scientific study of trait narcissism. However, there is great variability in the reported reliability of scores on the NPI. This study meta-analyzes coefficient alpha for scores on the NPI and its sub-scales (e.g. entitlement)...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-12, Vol.13 (12), p.e0208331-e0208331 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0208331 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | e0208331 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Miller, Brian K Nicols, Kay M Clark, Silvia Daniels, Alison Grant, Whitney |
| description | The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) has greatly facilitated the scientific study of trait narcissism. However, there is great variability in the reported reliability of scores on the NPI. This study meta-analyzes coefficient alpha for scores on the NPI and its sub-scales (e.g. entitlement) with transformed alphas weighted by the inverse of the variance of alpha. Three coders evaluated 1213 individual studies for possible inclusion and determined that 1122 independent samples were suitable for coding on 12 different characteristics of the sample, scale, and study. A fourth author cross-coded 15 percent of these samples resulting in 85 percent overall agreement. In the independent samples, comprised of 195,038 self-reports, the expected population coefficient alpha for the NPI was .82. The population value for alpha on the various sub-scales ranged from .48 for narcissistic self-sufficiency to .76 for narcissistic leadership/authority. Because significant heterogeneity existed in coded study alphas for the overall NPI, moderator tests and an explanatory model were also conducted and reported. It was found that longer scales, the use of a Likert response scale as opposed to the original forced choice response format, higher mean scores and larger standard deviations on the scale, as well as the use of samples with a larger percentage of female respondents were all positively related to the expected population alpha for scores on the overall NPI. These results will likely aid researchers who are concerned with the reliability of scores on the NPI in their research on non-clinical subjects. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0208331 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2149881380</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A564306283</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_68c6534d12cd4ce18af7bdb259195ac3</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A564306283</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-a228ade9c52f5058bb3b9daa7188088610c5123fcb4205c24cf02c73e5bc9da43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBEQkJw0eKPOHFuJk3TgEqDIT4vrZMTu3WVxsVOpvXf49BsatAuUC4c2c_7Hp_jN0meUzKnvKDv1q73LTTzrWv1nDAiOacPkmNacjbLGeEPD_6PkichrAkRXOb54-SIE0E5ZcVx8uuT7mAG0WgXbEidSdFpYyxa3XYpNNsVpMb5NKDzOp63abfS6WfwaEMUdBbTL9oHFw1st0sX7XXUOb97mjwy0AT9bFxPkh_vL76ff5xdXn1YnJ9dzjAvWTcDxiTUukTBjCBCVhWvyhqgoFISKXNKUFDGDVYZIwJZhoYwLLgWFUYu4yfJy73vtnFBjTMJitGslJJySSKx2BO1g7XaersBv1MOrPq74fxSgY99NFrlEnPBs5oyrDPUVIIpqrpioqSlAOTR63Ss1lcbXWPs1UMzMZ2etHallu5a5awoSTYYvBkNvPvd69CpjQ2omwZa7frh3nEKrCCMRvTVP-j93Y3UEmIDtjUu1sXBVJ2JPOMkZ3IoO7-Hil-tNxZjgIyN-xPB24kgMp2-6ZbQh6AW377-P3v1c8q-PmBXGppuFVzTd9a1YQpmexC9C8FrczdkStSQ_9tpqCH_asx_lL04fKA70W3g-R_GUgAP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2149881380</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Miller, Brian K ; Nicols, Kay M ; Clark, Silvia ; Daniels, Alison ; Grant, Whitney</creator><contributor>Denissen, Jaap</contributor><creatorcontrib>Miller, Brian K ; Nicols, Kay M ; Clark, Silvia ; Daniels, Alison ; Grant, Whitney ; Denissen, Jaap</creatorcontrib><description>The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) has greatly facilitated the scientific study of trait narcissism. However, there is great variability in the reported reliability of scores on the NPI. This study meta-analyzes coefficient alpha for scores on the NPI and its sub-scales (e.g. entitlement) with transformed alphas weighted by the inverse of the variance of alpha. Three coders evaluated 1213 individual studies for possible inclusion and determined that 1122 independent samples were suitable for coding on 12 different characteristics of the sample, scale, and study. A fourth author cross-coded 15 percent of these samples resulting in 85 percent overall agreement. In the independent samples, comprised of 195,038 self-reports, the expected population coefficient alpha for the NPI was .82. The population value for alpha on the various sub-scales ranged from .48 for narcissistic self-sufficiency to .76 for narcissistic leadership/authority. Because significant heterogeneity existed in coded study alphas for the overall NPI, moderator tests and an explanatory model were also conducted and reported. It was found that longer scales, the use of a Likert response scale as opposed to the original forced choice response format, higher mean scores and larger standard deviations on the scale, as well as the use of samples with a larger percentage of female respondents were all positively related to the expected population alpha for scores on the overall NPI. These results will likely aid researchers who are concerned with the reliability of scores on the NPI in their research on non-clinical subjects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208331</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30513127</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Clinical psychology ; Coders ; Coefficients ; Cronbach's alpha ; Development and progression ; Diagnosis ; Exhibitionism ; Female ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Leadership ; Medical diagnosis ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Narcissism ; Personality ; Personality Disorders ; Personality Inventory ; Physical Sciences ; Psychometrics ; Quantitative psychology ; Reliability analysis ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Researchers ; Self esteem ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-12, Vol.13 (12), p.e0208331-e0208331</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Miller et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Miller et al 2018 Miller et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-a228ade9c52f5058bb3b9daa7188088610c5123fcb4205c24cf02c73e5bc9da43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-a228ade9c52f5058bb3b9daa7188088610c5123fcb4205c24cf02c73e5bc9da43</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6294-5235</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279043/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279043/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,862,883,2098,2917,23849,27907,27908,53774,53776,79351,79352</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30513127$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Denissen, Jaap</contributor><creatorcontrib>Miller, Brian K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicols, Kay M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daniels, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grant, Whitney</creatorcontrib><title>Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) has greatly facilitated the scientific study of trait narcissism. However, there is great variability in the reported reliability of scores on the NPI. This study meta-analyzes coefficient alpha for scores on the NPI and its sub-scales (e.g. entitlement) with transformed alphas weighted by the inverse of the variance of alpha. Three coders evaluated 1213 individual studies for possible inclusion and determined that 1122 independent samples were suitable for coding on 12 different characteristics of the sample, scale, and study. A fourth author cross-coded 15 percent of these samples resulting in 85 percent overall agreement. In the independent samples, comprised of 195,038 self-reports, the expected population coefficient alpha for the NPI was .82. The population value for alpha on the various sub-scales ranged from .48 for narcissistic self-sufficiency to .76 for narcissistic leadership/authority. Because significant heterogeneity existed in coded study alphas for the overall NPI, moderator tests and an explanatory model were also conducted and reported. It was found that longer scales, the use of a Likert response scale as opposed to the original forced choice response format, higher mean scores and larger standard deviations on the scale, as well as the use of samples with a larger percentage of female respondents were all positively related to the expected population alpha for scores on the overall NPI. These results will likely aid researchers who are concerned with the reliability of scores on the NPI in their research on non-clinical subjects.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Clinical psychology</subject><subject>Coders</subject><subject>Coefficients</subject><subject>Cronbach's alpha</subject><subject>Development and progression</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Exhibitionism</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Narcissism</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Personality Disorders</subject><subject>Personality Inventory</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Reliability analysis</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Self esteem</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBEQkJw0eKPOHFuJk3TgEqDIT4vrZMTu3WVxsVOpvXf49BsatAuUC4c2c_7Hp_jN0meUzKnvKDv1q73LTTzrWv1nDAiOacPkmNacjbLGeEPD_6PkichrAkRXOb54-SIE0E5ZcVx8uuT7mAG0WgXbEidSdFpYyxa3XYpNNsVpMb5NKDzOp63abfS6WfwaEMUdBbTL9oHFw1st0sX7XXUOb97mjwy0AT9bFxPkh_vL76ff5xdXn1YnJ9dzjAvWTcDxiTUukTBjCBCVhWvyhqgoFISKXNKUFDGDVYZIwJZhoYwLLgWFUYu4yfJy73vtnFBjTMJitGslJJySSKx2BO1g7XaersBv1MOrPq74fxSgY99NFrlEnPBs5oyrDPUVIIpqrpioqSlAOTR63Ss1lcbXWPs1UMzMZ2etHallu5a5awoSTYYvBkNvPvd69CpjQ2omwZa7frh3nEKrCCMRvTVP-j93Y3UEmIDtjUu1sXBVJ2JPOMkZ3IoO7-Hil-tNxZjgIyN-xPB24kgMp2-6ZbQh6AW377-P3v1c8q-PmBXGppuFVzTd9a1YQpmexC9C8FrczdkStSQ_9tpqCH_asx_lL04fKA70W3g-R_GUgAP</recordid><startdate>20181204</startdate><enddate>20181204</enddate><creator>Miller, Brian K</creator><creator>Nicols, Kay M</creator><creator>Clark, Silvia</creator><creator>Daniels, Alison</creator><creator>Grant, Whitney</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6294-5235</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181204</creationdate><title>Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory</title><author>Miller, Brian K ; Nicols, Kay M ; Clark, Silvia ; Daniels, Alison ; Grant, Whitney</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-a228ade9c52f5058bb3b9daa7188088610c5123fcb4205c24cf02c73e5bc9da43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Clinical psychology</topic><topic>Coders</topic><topic>Coefficients</topic><topic>Cronbach's alpha</topic><topic>Development and progression</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Exhibitionism</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Narcissism</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Personality Disorders</topic><topic>Personality Inventory</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Reliability analysis</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Self esteem</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miller, Brian K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicols, Kay M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daniels, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grant, Whitney</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miller, Brian K</au><au>Nicols, Kay M</au><au>Clark, Silvia</au><au>Daniels, Alison</au><au>Grant, Whitney</au><au>Denissen, Jaap</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-12-04</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e0208331</spage><epage>e0208331</epage><pages>e0208331-e0208331</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) has greatly facilitated the scientific study of trait narcissism. However, there is great variability in the reported reliability of scores on the NPI. This study meta-analyzes coefficient alpha for scores on the NPI and its sub-scales (e.g. entitlement) with transformed alphas weighted by the inverse of the variance of alpha. Three coders evaluated 1213 individual studies for possible inclusion and determined that 1122 independent samples were suitable for coding on 12 different characteristics of the sample, scale, and study. A fourth author cross-coded 15 percent of these samples resulting in 85 percent overall agreement. In the independent samples, comprised of 195,038 self-reports, the expected population coefficient alpha for the NPI was .82. The population value for alpha on the various sub-scales ranged from .48 for narcissistic self-sufficiency to .76 for narcissistic leadership/authority. Because significant heterogeneity existed in coded study alphas for the overall NPI, moderator tests and an explanatory model were also conducted and reported. It was found that longer scales, the use of a Likert response scale as opposed to the original forced choice response format, higher mean scores and larger standard deviations on the scale, as well as the use of samples with a larger percentage of female respondents were all positively related to the expected population alpha for scores on the overall NPI. These results will likely aid researchers who are concerned with the reliability of scores on the NPI in their research on non-clinical subjects.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30513127</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0208331</doi><tpages>e0208331</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6294-5235</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2018-12, Vol.13 (12), p.e0208331-e0208331 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2149881380 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Clinical psychology Coders Coefficients Cronbach's alpha Development and progression Diagnosis Exhibitionism Female Heterogeneity Humans Leadership Medical diagnosis Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Narcissism Personality Personality Disorders Personality Inventory Physical Sciences Psychometrics Quantitative psychology Reliability analysis Research and Analysis Methods Researchers Self esteem Social Sciences |
| title | Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T15%3A40%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Meta-analysis%20of%20coefficient%20alpha%20for%20scores%20on%20the%20Narcissistic%20Personality%20Inventory&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Miller,%20Brian%20K&rft.date=2018-12-04&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e0208331&rft.epage=e0208331&rft.pages=e0208331-e0208331&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0208331&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA564306283%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2149881380&rft_id=info:pmid/30513127&rft_galeid=A564306283&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_68c6534d12cd4ce18af7bdb259195ac3&rfr_iscdi=true |