Appendix F. Data Availability and Description

The dataset used for the analyses presented in this book is available in this book’s online supplementary materials (https://hdl.handle.net/11299/257780), along with the annotated R code for our meta-analyses.

The database is the result of five years of searching for effect sizes describing the relations between personality traits and cognitive abilities. This project involved scanning thousands of pages; partnering with dozens of librarians, researchers, companies, and translators around the globe; and entering, mapping, and re-checking millions of database values. Myriad sources of information, including many unpublished datasets, were utilized to minimize file drawer biases. The contributing materials were found through electronic literature searches; liaising with relevant investigators; and systematic searches of often overlooked sources like dissertations, grant-funded studies, psychological test manuals, and large applied-setting databases (e.g., military entrance examinations). See Appendix K for citations of all contributing materials.

Each sample was inspected to be sure it was independent of other included samples. However, this task was challenging since many studies did not clearly report if their data overlapped with other reports. Meta-Analysis Sample ID reflects our best understanding of which samples are unique or overlapping in the database.

Some values in this database show “<Not Reported>” because the contributing material did not report the value (e.g., country of the participants). In other cases, the correct value was unclear (e.g., some authors referred to a personality scale by a different name or not all pages of the original material could be obtained or read). When we could not be reasonably sure of the correct value, we put a “?” after the value.

Personality and cognitive ability measures were mapped to constructs according to Stanek and Ones’ (2018) compendia, which are themselves based on examination of several lines of evidence (Hough et al., 2015) (e.g., convergent and divergent validities, item content, scale descriptions). Other works have attempted to explore the relations between constructs across measures (Hough & Ones, 2002; Schwaba et al., 2020), but Stanek and Ones (2018) is the most comprehensive cross-sample examination. Dashes in our construct names indicate different levels of the construct hierarchy, with higher-level constructs listed further left. For example, Acquired Knowledge--Domain Specific Knowledge---Sciences----Life Sciences Knowledge indicates the lineage of the granular Life Sciences Knowledge construct, which is within the broader Sciences construct, which is within the broader Domain Specific Knowledge construct, which is within the broader Acquired Knowledge construct.

In the contributing materials, measures were sometimes scored in the opposite direction of the Stanek and Ones’ (2018) constructs. Effect sizes from such measures were reversed before being included in the current meta-analytic database. Reversals are noted separately for cognitive ability and personality measures since one or both might necessitate reversing the effect size sign.

Unique Row ID is included to provide a common ID for each row across users.

References

Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2002). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233–277). Sage.

Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ock, J. (2015). Beyond the Big Five: New directions for personality research and practice in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 183–209.

Schwaba, T., Rhemtulla, M., Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2020). A facet atlas: Visualizing networks that describe the blends, cores, and peripheries of personality structure. Plos One, 15(7), e0236893.

Stanek, K. C., & Ones, D. S. (2018). Taxonomies and compendia of cognitive ability and personality constructs and measures relevant to industrial, work and organizational psychology. In D. S. Ones, C. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 366–407). Sage.