The Criterion-Related Validity of Personality Measures for Predicting GPA: A Meta-Analytic Validity Competition

Interest in the role of personality traits in predicting academic performance outcomes has steadily increased over the last several decades, enough to produce a number of meta-analyses that summarize this research (e.g., Poropat, 2009; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012). These previous meta-analyses combine a variety of alternative personality measures under the assumption that they all reflect the same personality traits and thus predict outcomes similarly. The current meta-analysis tests this assumption by comparing different personality measures when predicting postsecondary grade point average (GPA). The operational validities (r(+)) of 5 frequently used measures of the Big Five personality traits were compared: the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Big Five Inventory (BFI; e. g., Benet-Martinez & John, 1998), Goldberg's (1992) unipolar Big Five Factor Markers (Markers), and the Big Five International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999). A systematic review of the psychological literature from 1992 to 2012 was conducted, identifying 51 studies containing 274 correlations. Conscientiousness demonstrated the strongest criterion-related validity for predicting GPA (r(+) = .23), consistent with previous meta-analyses; in addition, this overall validity was found to be robust across measures (r(BFI)(+) = .24, r(IPIP)(+) = .21, r(Markers)(+) = .15, r(NEO-FFI)(+) = .24, r(NEO-PI-R)(+) = .26). Although the criterion-related validities for Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (Intellect) differed by measure, they were generally low (r(+) s < .10). Practical implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.