User:Sierra Herndon/sandbox
Sources
[edit][4] - Good source for relation to dark triad/Big 5/HEXACO by the author of our class book Jakebeinart (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
Begin Your Article
[edit]Information to include in Intro/Overview Section:
- What is Narcissism --> what is the difference between clinical and sub-clinical levels of narcissism? (Careful wording, so that people do not draw conclusions from Wiki content) --> What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory measure? --> When was the NPI established (including years for each, NPI-40, NPI-16, and NPI-1) --> Provide a brief overview of how the NPI works and what it was founded on --> What are the applications of the NPI? (listed; these will become subheadings) --> What are the criticisms of the NPI? --> What are alternatives to NPI? (in the actual article these would be linked to respective pages).
Rough sentence: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) was developed in 1979 by Raskin and Hall, and since then, has become one of the most prevalently utilized personality measures for non-clinical levels of the trait narcissism. Since its initial development, the NPI has evolved from 220 items to the more commonly employed NPI-40 and NPI-16, as well as the novel NPI-1 inventory that has more recently been developed (insert year). This personality inventory may be found in a variety of fields, including: X, Y, Z... Sierra Herndon (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Sections to include:
First Summary Sentence
Narcissism Personality Inventory is a non-clinical test to measure the level of narcissism in an individual.
Overview
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) was developed in 1979 by Raskin and Hall, and since then, has become one of the most widely utilized personality measures for non-clinical levels of the trait narcissism.[1] Since its initial development, the NPI has evolved from 220 items to the more commonly employed NPI-40 (1984) and NPI-16 (2006), as well as the novel NPI-1 inventory (2014).[5] Derived from the DSM-III criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), the NPI has been employed heavily by personality and social psychology researchers.[1] Sierra Herndon (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The NPI is not intended for use in diagnosing Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Rather, it is often said to measure "normal" or "subclinical" (borderline) narcissism (i.e., in people who score very high on the NPI do not necessarily meet all criteria for diagnosis with NPD).
Background
Items for the NPI were determined with the intention of use in a non-pathological setting and was based on the DSM-III criteria for NPD.[1] Sierra Herndon (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Psychometric Properties
The psychometric properties of the NPI have been continually investigated since its creation in 1979, both by original creators Raskin and Hall, as well as a variety of reseearchers to come, including: Emmons, Bushman and Baumeister, Rhodewalt and Morf, and more. According to reliability and validity research conducted by Raskin and Hall, the NPI has strong construct validity and ecological validity.[1] When Five Factor Model (FFM) profiles were created, expert-rated and meta-analytic studies established high correlation to the NPI profiles, indicating high reliability pertaining to personality trait and behavior correlations. These correlations are supported by research conducted by Raskin and Hall, as well as Emmons, in which strong, positive correlations to extraversion and psychoticism were found.
The NPI has weak convergent validity and some items have been argued not to reflect the central dogma of narcissism (i.e. "I see myself as a good leader"). Additionally, the factor structure of the NPI has been questioned. In research conducted by Emmons, four factors were identified through principal components analysis (PCA), including: leadership/authority, self-admiration/self-absorption, superority/arrogance, and exploitativeness/entitlement. On the other hand, research conducted by Raskin and Terry identified seven factors, also through PCA, including: authority, exhibitionism, superiority, entitlement, exploitattiveness, self-sufficiency, and vanity. More recently, research by Kubarych, Deary, and Austin have identified two factors, including: power and exhibitionism. Corry, Merritt, Mrug, and Pamp also identified two factors, including: leadership/authority and exhibitionism/entitlement. Generally, variations in data reduction techniques have been partially attributed to factor structure issues.
The NPI has also been found to have poor internal consistency. ~~~~ [Sierra]
Since the psychometric properties of the NPI have been continually investigated.
- Stay away from numbers, use words 'moderate', 'weak', etc...
- Relation to the Big 5/HEXACO/dark triad (if applicable)
Applications (separated into subheadings with fields of applicability)
- Personality Psych
- Social Psych
Criticism of NPI
- Many criticisms of the NPI call into question its validity. It has been shown that scores on the NPI are positively correlated with self-esteem, with some arguing that the test could be producing false-positives for healthy individuals. Others have argued that this outcome is expected and those expressing narcissistic traits would also express traits indicative of high self-esteem.[1]Jakebeinart (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Alternatives of NPI[3] Other tests have been developed to measure narcissism and its more specific components such as grandiosity and entitlement. The Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI), Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS), and Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES) are among those tests that have been researched to replace the NPI. Elements of the Five Factor Model (FFM) have also been used to measure narcissism and, although these tests show significant correlations with most other scales, some researchers suggests that these tests aren't quite ready to replace the NPI.[6] The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire's Psychoticism and Extraversion scales have been shown to have a significant positive correlation with the NPI's narcissism measure, though the combination of the scales produced much stronger correlations than either of the scales alone. These strong positive correlations with other scales show that the NPI has good construct validity.[3]
Sierra Herndon (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
[edit]Topic: Narcisistic Personality Inventory
The following questions are addressed in this evaluation:
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- The key points in the article relate back to the NPI; however, the organization of ideas and lack of clear topic sentences to guide the purpose of each paragraph was distracting in itself. Additionally, the audience is presumed to have a background--or at least some familiarity--with the DSM-III criteria, which then requires an unfamiliar audience to look into this new term to get an adequate understanding of the NPI. As a result, I would suggest including a background section discussing the DSM-III critera, as well as any other foundational surveys/critera that have impacted the NPI. Reasonings behind the transition from previous surveys to the NPI should be discussed here as well.
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- As the reader, it felt like the article was bias in one regard in particular; however, any bias was established unintentionally on the writer's behalf. Furthermore, it was a subtle bias in the brief discussion of the advantage of a single-question survey without discussing any disadvantage(s). If disadvantages had not been studied in the research, then this would have been an instance where a source-based statement indicating such would be appropriate.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Largely, every point is underrepresented. Parts of the content presented currently would be beneficial in an introduction section (lead section), and the specifics could be moved to background, application, research, and additional sections.
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- The links do work, and the source generally seems to support the general principles in the article; however, two of the sources are rather old, which may impact the credibility of the content in spite of new information and research.
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- No, each fact was not referenced; however, most of the cited information did seem to draw from the referenced source and be an accurate representation. Based on the different tones and writing styles of each part, it seems likely that multiple writers contributed to the article, and the information at the end of the article was added by someone who did not have sources.
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- Two of the sources were older than 2000, which in a clinical/research-oriented topic may result in outdated information.
- Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Currently, there is a single post in the Talk page. In the comment, the individual is discussing the lack of a source in the last tidbits of information. The individual went on to provide evidence for their statement; however, I would be willing to argue that their approach lacked the professionalism needed to accomplish a discussion.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated as a S-Class of mid-importance. It states that it is within the scope of a Psychology WikiProject.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- N/A
In addition to the aforementioned questions and answers, I would add that the article is difficult to read largely due to a lack of formatting and clear paragraphs. The variations in tone between sentences and repetition was also slightly distracting/detracting from the overall quality of the article.
Peer Review
[edit]Your outline is looking pretty good; I agree with all the details/sections you added, and I think that you'll want to be especially sure that you spend a good chunk of time (it's own section?) defining what the test is actually looking for and how it differs from narcissistic personality disorder[not necessary since links to the article will be provided](and what that is), to provide context for the rest of the article. I might also note how the inventory relates to the big 5/hexaco[could be added to Psychometric properties] (if it does). Your questions seem to cover all the important info, but i think that many of them should be their own sections rather than include in the introduction, maybe something like: Intro/Overview (What is Narcissism? Distinguish/specify what you're measuring.)[Split up first paragraph]
Background (When was the NPI established? Provide a brief overview of what theries it was founded on. WHo founded it?)
Psychometric Properties (How does it work?)
Applications
Criticisms /Alternatives
Overall, the article needs more detail pretty much everywhere (which will inevitably require more citations), as well as improved organization, but you seem to have noted everything important already. Cmbrm5 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review Checked by User:BDHXVC/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Sierra Herndon. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
- ^ a b c d e Tamborski, Michael (2011). The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissitic Personality Disorder. pp. 133–140. ISBN 9781118093108.
- ^ Ackerman, Robert (2011). "What Does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Really Measure?". SAGE. doi:10.1177/1073191110382845.
- ^ a b c Raskin, R.; Hall, C. S. (April 1981). "The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: alternative form reliability and further evidence of construct validity". Journal of Personality Assessment. 45 (2): 159–162. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4502_10. ISSN 0022-3891. PMID 16370732.
- ^ Ashton, Michael (2 December 2004). "Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure" (PDF). Science Direct. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
- ^ van der Linden, Sander; Rosenthal, Seth A. "Measuring narcissism with a single question? A replication and extension of the Single-Item Narcissism Scale (SINS)". Personality and Individual Differences. 90: 238–241. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.050.
- ^ Miller, Joshua D.; Price, Joanna; Campbell, W. Keith (6 December 2011). "Is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Still Relevant? A Test of Independent Grandiosity and Entitlement Scales in the Assessment of Narcissism". Assessment. 19 (1): 8–13. doi:10.1177/1073191111429390.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help)
Peer Review
[edit]The outline for what you're planning to do is good, especially considering the article doesn't have sufficient information. The information you are planning to put into the article is well though out, but It may be beneficial to put some of the stuff that is in the introduction, into it's own categories somehow, just so the introduction isn't over bearing and the rest of the article is put aside. I saw someone comment on relating Narcissism to the big 5 if you can, and I'd add on to that just briefly referencing the dark triad[could be done] in that, so that a reader can know where the personality resides. Overall, it appears you have a solid game plan, especially with the amount of work that needs to be added. Just make sure to have pretty solid sources on the history of NPI and Narcissism in and of itself. Mullin.rae (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)