<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><!-- generator=Zoho Sites --><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><atom:link href="https://www.cognipsy.com/blogs/tag/psychometrics/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><title>Cognipsy - Blog #psychometrics</title><description>Cognipsy - Blog #psychometrics</description><link>https://www.cognipsy.com/blogs/tag/psychometrics</link><lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2025 16:00:15 -0800</lastBuildDate><generator>http://zoho.com/sites/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Personality differences in LGBTQ+ managers ]]></title><link>https://www.cognipsy.com/blogs/post/personality-differences-in-lgbtq-managers</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.cognipsy.comhttps://images.unsplash.com/photo-1562591981-b262d690a0c9?crop=entropy&amp;cs=tinysrgb&amp;fit=max&amp;fm=jpg&amp;ixid=Mnw0NTc5N3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDMwfHxsZ2J0fGVufDB8fHx8MTYyMTE2MDA0NQ&amp;ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;q=80&amp;w=1080"/>In this post, we discuss insights from our research with LGBTQ+ employees from various sectors. Key differences lie in how LGBTQ+ employee adapt to life challenges.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_6Ff1FU6OSIK5Rnt470Kcew" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_Sr4UQKRkShmQh3shZU_QBw" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_WKe2FWR3R2KZG_XGB7Q4Tg" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_xnT3YILKRoaehBFeW0zIzw" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center " data-editor="true"><p style="text-align:left;">Diversity, equity and inclusion are critical to organizations and leaders today more than ever. While gender diversity and inclusion are a specific focus area for many organisations and researchers, little work has been done with respect to alternative gender and sexualities. We undertook an investigation of personality differences in LGBTQ+ managers and are glad to report some of our findings.</p><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><p style="text-align:left;">The table below presents the effect size or mean differences for 8 personality factors from SPS-MAX in a sample of 192 employees who identified themselves as LGBTQ+. All comparisons were made with the India National Norm of over 998 sample size.</p></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_R999RWK8R3ZQyVVeFY982w" data-element-type="table" class="zpelement zpelem-table "><style type="text/css"> [data-element-id="elm_R999RWK8R3ZQyVVeFY982w"].zpelem-table{ border-radius:1px; } [data-element-id="elm_R999RWK8R3ZQyVVeFY982w"] .zptable{ width:100% !important; } </style><div class="zptable zptable-align-left zptable-header- zptable-header-none zptable-cell-outline-on zptable-outline-on zptable-style- " data-width="100" data-editor="true"><table style="width:100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Personality Factors</td><td style="width:50%;" class="zp-selected-cell"> Cohen's D</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Compassion</td><td style="width:50%;"> 0.26</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Politeness</td><td style="width:50%;">- 0.03</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Industriousness</td><td style="width:50%;">-  0.19</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Organization</td><td style="width:50%;">-  0.16</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Extraversion</td><td style="width:50%;"> 0.23</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Social-Agency</td><td style="width:50%;">-  0.17<br></td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Openness</td><td style="width:50%;"> 0.23</td></tr><tr><td style="width:50%;"> Creativity</td><td style="width:50%;"> 0.28</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_1bYZAkpjQarJ0zBuSQu6-w" data-element-type="table" class="zpelement zpelem-table "><style type="text/css"> [data-element-id="elm_1bYZAkpjQarJ0zBuSQu6-w"].zpelem-table{ border-radius:1px; } [data-element-id="elm_1bYZAkpjQarJ0zBuSQu6-w"] .zptable{ width:100% !important; } </style><div class="zptable zptable-align-left zptable-header- zptable-header-none zptable-cell-outline-on zptable-outline-on zptable-style- " data-width="100" data-editor="true"><table style="width:100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="width:49.3967%;">Adaptive Styles<span style="color:inherit;"><div></div></span></td><td style="width:49.5064%;"><span style="color:inherit;"><div> Cohen's D</div></span></td></tr><tr><td style="width:49.3967%;"> Composure<br></td><td style="width:49.5064%;"> 0.56</td></tr><tr><td style="width:49.3967%;">  Moderation</td><td style="width:49.5064%;" class="zp-selected-cell"> -0.39</td></tr><tr><td style="width:49.3967%;">  Positivity</td><td style="width:49.5064%;"> -0.27</td></tr><tr><td style="width:49.3967%;">  Calmness</td><td style="width:49.5064%;"> 0.44</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_pFQbL-enU9R2V4l_zQM29Q" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center " data-editor="true"><p style="text-align:left;">You will notice that while there are many important statistically significant differences, none of them are large differences from a practical standpoint. However, there were interesting patterns when we broke this data point between individuals who are completely out, selectively out and completely closeted.&nbsp;</p></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_o684u8NE08uWL2bmRrwVAQ" data-element-type="table" class="zpelement zpelem-table "><style type="text/css"> [data-element-id="elm_o684u8NE08uWL2bmRrwVAQ"].zpelem-table{ border-radius:1px; } [data-element-id="elm_o684u8NE08uWL2bmRrwVAQ"] .zptable{ width:100% !important; } </style><div class="zptable zptable-align-left zptable-header- zptable-header-none zptable-cell-outline-on zptable-outline-on zptable-style- " data-width="100" data-editor="true"><table style="width:100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="width:25%;"><span style="color:inherit;"><div>Personality Factors </div></span></td><td style="width:25%;"> Completely Out (27)</td><td style="width:25%;">Completely Closeted (112)</td><td style="width:25%;"> Selectively Out (53)</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;"> Compassion<br></td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.50*</td><td style="width:25%;">-0.23 </td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.32</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Politeness</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.27</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.14</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.18</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Industriousness</td><td style="width:25%;">- 0.19</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.08</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.07</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Organization </td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.10</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.18</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.16</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;"> Extraversion <br></td><td style="width:25%;">0.11</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.26</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.28</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Social-Agency</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.23</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.19</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.27</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Openness <br><div></div></td><td style="width:25%;" class="zp-selected-cell"> 0.52*</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.13</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.35</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;"><span style="color:inherit;"><div> Creativity </div></span></td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.54*</td><td style="width:25%;">0.18 </td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.41</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_X_vP1j8r038mVCBEPNKmyw" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center " data-editor="true"><p style="text-align:left;">We also looked at Adaptive Styles from SPS Max. The differences in means as a function of pooled standard deviation are provided below.<br></p></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_qNLvZF8ZNdOWha9i2VOyoA" data-element-type="table" class="zpelement zpelem-table "><style type="text/css"> [data-element-id="elm_qNLvZF8ZNdOWha9i2VOyoA"].zpelem-table{ border-radius:1px; } [data-element-id="elm_qNLvZF8ZNdOWha9i2VOyoA"] .zptable{ width:100% !important; } </style><div class="zptable zptable-align-left zptable-header- zptable-header-none zptable-cell-outline-on zptable-outline-on zptable-style- " data-width="100" data-editor="true"><table style="width:100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="width:25%;">Adaptive Styles<span style="color:inherit;"><div></div></span></td><td style="width:25%;"> Completely Out (27)</td><td style="width:25%;">Completely Closeted (112)</td><td style="width:25%;"> Selectively Out (53)</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;"> Composure<br></td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.59</td><td style="width:25%;">-0.09</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.40</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Moderation</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.17</td><td style="width:25%;" class="zp-selected-cell"> -0.41</td><td style="width:25%;">- 0.38</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Positivity</td><td style="width:25%;">- 0.21</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.38</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.05</td></tr><tr><td style="width:25%;">  Calmness</td><td style="width:25%;"> 0.72</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.09</td><td style="width:25%;"> -0.15</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
</div><div data-element-id="elm_V7ZLbAIpL0SWPqtghPF9hA" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center " data-editor="true"><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br></span></p><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conclusions</span><br></p><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br></span></p><p style="text-align:left;">The effect sizes between straight and cis-gender employees vs LGBTQ+ employees indicate that LGBTQ+ employees are more likely to use composure as a means to adapt. There are definite benefits to LGBTQ+ employees due to this adaptive style, e.g. getting along with others, being patient with others, being measured in interpersonal communication and ability to navigate difficult interpersonal situations without dominating over others. They may also impact LGBTQ+ individuals adversely, e.g. inability to speak up against discrimination, being polite even when display of temper may be warranted and lacking assertiveness especially in conflict or negotiations. On other personality factors there were no big differences. Personality differences are smaller than overall individual differences.&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><p style="text-align:left;">Within the LGBTQ+ community, we see small but critical differences depending on their status with respect to a socialized identity i.e. whether they are out or not.&nbsp; We find that LGBTQ+ employees who are completely out to their colleagues report being more Compassionate, Open and Creative. Completely out employees feel more Social-agency than those who are selectively out. We hypothesize that being less out is likely to make one acutely aware of their out status which may lead to feeling less in control and confident in social settings. More qualitative research may be warranted with this group. With respect to the adaptive styles we found that completely out individuals favored Composure and Calmness as key means to adapt to adverse situations. As expected, we found completely closeted employees scoring low on all adaptive styles. This may indicate a clear adaptive benefit for being completely out in the workplace. Key questions that interest us are - how do completely closeted individuals adapt? Is there a lack of adaptive competence or is it about an absence of a clear style? Is there a lack of general awareness of the adaptive styles in case of closeted individuals?</p></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2021 15:44:25 +0530</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[What we know about predicting leadership]]></title><link>https://www.cognipsy.com/blogs/post/what-we-know-about-predicting-leadership</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.cognipsy.com/images/57e2d34a4e57a414f6da8c7dda79367f103cd9ed55536c48732f78dd904bc05fb9_1280.jpg"/>We review the current scientific consensus on how to predict leadership potential. This review demonstrates how different constructs predict different aspects and abilities that go into leadership. But which one of them is more important than others?]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_AawMb4_NQsWnqzX07MMQRQ" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_19rt59WPTGmtyPxjy2U4Dg" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_JVmoRj10Tm2bt-KY1I32lg" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_y1dhJD3mTkeSEzC4iXFZBw" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center " data-editor="true"><div style="text-align:left;">Leadership, as you may already in know, is a rather complex phenomenon. But what you should also know is that great amount of money is spent by companies to hire leaders, train/develop them and deal with them should they not perform. Of all costs the latter is the greatest and is seldom accurately reported.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">In this summary of research we briefly discuss the science of predicting leadership emergence and effectiveness. An emergent leadership is a very different from effectiveness model of leadership. However, this difference is not the scope of the article.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Intelligence</span></div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">Better described as general cognitive ability, intelligence is a great predictor of leadership. In fact of all psychological factors g can predict leadership emergence the best (r=0.4). Ability to work with complexity, think about future, build scenarios, learning things quickly and solving problems on the fly are all much needed competence in a leader and g predicts just that. Needless to say g alone is not a mark of a good leader, but from statistical point of view, g predictss leadership the best.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="color:inherit;"><br></span></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Personality</span><br></div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><p style="text-align:left;">Personality is a good predictor of job performance. Leadership requires different behaviours at different instances. The ability to exercise one's traits is a mark of good leadership. However, a great deal of research has proven that conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to idea are all good predictors of leadership emergence. Extraversion and agreeableness have mixed results. Surprisingly, agreeableness has been found to have negative correlations with leadership emergence and positive correlations with effectiveness.<br></p><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Handling Stress</span><br></p><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">Leaders are less impacted by stress. And the proof is irrefutable. Biological evidence from cortisol level (stress causing hormone) suggest that the basal levels of cortisol in leaders are higher. Which entails that leaders are used to high stress and their cortisol levels do not increase much with stress. Emotional stability factor from personality also has positive correlations with leadership emergence. Hence, ability to not be perturbed&nbsp; by stress is also a sound predictor of leadership capability.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="color:inherit;"><br></span></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Emotional Intelligence/Ability</span><br></div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="color:inherit;"><br></span></p><div style="text-align:left;">While studies show that EI predicts leadership effectiveness, EI itself is highly correlated with g and big 5 factors. Hence , from psychometric standpoint it doesn't offer any additional insights into leadership capability. Alarmingly, some studies have shown that high EI leads to lower leadership effectiveness.<br></div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="color:inherit;"><br></span></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Creativity</span><br></div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">Creativity both in terms of a trait as well as ability is a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness and not emergence. Surprisingly this is true across industries and sectors. This could be a reflection of the fact that strategizing and exploring new avenues of growth do require creativity.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="color:inherit;"><br></span></p><div style="text-align:left;">In all, psychology has enough insights into what would make a great leader. Furthermore, definitions of what effective leadership looks like across cultures is similar. This doesn't mean that culture has no impact on leadership. Adequate evidence exists to suggest that socially acceptable leadership behaviours differ from culture to culture. E.g. in US a good leader is expected to be an extrovert while in Japan a good leader is culturally perceived to be introverted. That said, a great amount of leadership can be scientifically predicted with analytical models which are customised to an organization, industry and culture.<br></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:33:10 +0530</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Lens of Consequential Validity]]></title><link>https://www.cognipsy.com/blogs/post/the-lens-of-consequential-validity</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.cognipsy.comhttps://images.unsplash.com/photo-1471520201477-47a62a269a87?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;q=80&amp;fm=jpg&amp;crop=entropy&amp;cs=tinysrgb&amp;w=1080&amp;fit=max&amp;ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjQ1Nzk3fQ"/>Explore the concept of consequential validity. We discuss why is it important to assess this. But how do we quantify this elusive concept is a challenge for many.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_bGNclM5iRu2Spq05PYciIQ" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_U4t44-rSQ9e9UKfYrNmi8g" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_F1qKcvYOSP-T5bfZgbsW9A" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_L-Y-IycsT4OX9LXBNX2Kqw" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style> [data-element-id="elm_L-Y-IycsT4OX9LXBNX2Kqw"].zpelem-text { border-radius:1px; } </style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center " data-editor="true"><div style="text-align:left;">For a very long time, publishers could easily move on after publishing an instrument and establishing its basic psychometric properties. Times have changed now. Just publishing, ensuring that certified professionals use the instruments and taking care of operations are not enough. Recent debates on consequential validity are taking the field by storm.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">A critical question that some psychometricians are asking is what should matter the most to the user when it comes to validity. There are no easy answers. But it is obvious that the real test of validity of an instrument is not just that it measures what it purports to measure but also that it has the impact on end users that it purports to have.</div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">Succinctly put, this concept for many is an issue of ethical concern and not an issue of validity. Many others have called it the soft validity of an instrument. The key component of the debate&nbsp; however is that whatever we may call it, can we really escape it? Can a publisher or practitioner take a hands off approach and claim that while an instrument was proved to be valid over a tested sample, its real impact need not be evaluated?</div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">This allows us to ask other questions too. Where does a publisher's or a practitioner's responsibility end when it comes to assessments and its impact. Would it be fair to hold a publisher responsible if environmental factors dilute the utility of an instrument?</div><p style="text-align:left;"><br></p><div style="text-align:left;">It is definitely not one of the easier debates where numbers could hold the verdict. A more comprehensive view and probably a more paradigm shifting view of the field and its applications is required.</div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:38:15 +0530</pubDate></item></channel></rss>