Individual Difference and Performance Sheet

Anonymous

Question Description

Individual Differences and Performance - Research Assignment Instructions

Scoring ID is WU90GH.

Please refer to the attachment for the below questions.

Word limit: 2250 words, not including end-text references and appendix. Note: Please do not exceed the word limit – your marker will stop marking your answers at the word limit, and further content will not be assessed. Referencing Style: APA6. Formatting: 12pt Times New Roman, double line spacing, no additional spaces between paragraphs. Note: Pages documents cannot be uploaded to LMS. Please convert them to .docx, .doc, or .pdf before submitting. Total marks: 40. Outline Based on your results from completing the 120-item IPIP (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) representative of the NEO-PI-R domains of personality, this research assignment asks you to complete a review of your results and their potential implications based on findings from published literature.

There are three major questions to be answered as part this assignment.

1. Using your PSY391 peers as a point of comparison, what do your scores on the 120-item IPIP by Maples et al. (2014) suggest about the five major trait domains of your personality? When answering this question, please address the following as part of your answer: • Provide a standardised statistical indicator (e.g., a Z score) for each of your five domain scores that allows you to describe how much higher, lower, or approximately average you are on each trait domain in comparison to your PSY391 peers. o Hint: You can treat the PSY391 peer data as population data when calculating your Z score. • Based on your IPIP scores, describe what traits for each domain would be more or less characteristic of you in comparison to your peers in the unit. • Based on your IPIP scores and their implications for your personality traits described above, how accurately does this correspond with how you see yourself in comparison to your peers? Provide examples for each domain to substantiate your answer. • Provide a Figure or Figures in your Appendix that demonstrates the distribution of the PSY391 cohort on each domain, and where your score sits on the distribution for each domain.

2. Based on findings from published academic literature, what do your scores on the five personality trait domains suggest about your predicted academic performance at university? When answering this question, please address the following as part of your answer: • Provide a concise summary of the academic literature that has addressed the five personality domains and their expected relationships with tertiary academic performance. • Based on your perceptions of your academic performance, do your IPIP results support the predicted relationships between personality traits and academic performance? Provide examples to substantiate your answer for the relevant trait domains.

3. What validity considerations are important when looking at the relationship between your personality domain scores and their predictions about your academic performance? When answering this question, please address the following as part of your answer: • What aspects of validity may impede or strengthen the accuracy of your trait domain scores as predictors of academic performance? Provide examples to substantiate how these aspects of validity may be directly relevant to the accuracy of these relationships.
Format Please number your answers in your assignment (e.g., 1., 2., 3.) to make it clear to your marker which question you are addressing. Students should address each of the previous questions in a short answer format (i.e., using paragraphs to directly answer the questions, without needing to add introductory or concluding paragraphs to each answer as you would with an essay-style answer), referring to published academic literature where appropriate. Use citations where appropriate per APA6 style. Writing succinctly and directly addressing the components of each question is highly recommended. Include Figure/s following your References in an Appendix section.

Marking Rubric A demonstration version of the rubric used to mark your research assignment is available on LMS.


References Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120item IPIP-based measure of the Five-Factor Model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 10701084. doi:10.1037/pas0000004

You may find browsing through the information available on the IPIP website (http://ipip.ori.org) useful when working on this assignment.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1 Personality Score Description Student fails to describe what their personality scores on each domain infer about their personality. [0] Student provides a poor description of what their scores on each domain infer about their personality, lacking detail across most domains. [1] Student provides a good description of what their scores on each domain infer about their personality, with detail lacking on one or more domains. [2] Student provides a very good description of what their scores on each domain infer about their personality characteristics. [3] Student provides an excellent, clear, and succinct description of what their scores on each domain infer about their personality characteristics. [4] Student provides an accurate description of the level of variation from their peers on each personality domain. [2] Student provides an accurate description of the level of variation from their peers on each personality domain, referring to figures in-text to support their description. [3] Student provides an accurate description of the level of variation from their peers on each personality domain, supported by a relevant statistical indicator of this level of variation. Figures are referred to intext, and support the description. [4] Student describes correspondence between scores and selfperception. Examples are provided for each domain, and demonstrate the student's stance on the accuracy of the scale. [4.5] Student clearly and succinctly describes correspondence between scores and self-perception. Examples are provided for each domain, are highly relevant to peer comparisons, and demonstrate the student's stance on the accuracy of the scale. [6] 1 Peer Personality Comparisons Student does not address the level of variation from their peers with regards to the domains of personality. [0] Student provides either an inaccurate description of the levels of variation from their peers on each personality domain, or omits a description for one or more domains. [1] 1 SelfPerception Accuracy Student does not address or addresses poorly the correspondence between the domain scores and their self-perception of their personality. [0] Student describes correspondence between scores and self-perception without examples to support their discussion. [1.5] Student describes correspondence between scores and self-perception. Examples are presented but not well-integrated into the discussion on the accuracy of the scale. [3] 1 Student omits to include a figure. [0] Student inaccurately represents where their scores on the NEO domains lie in respect to their peers in the unit. [0.5] Student provides an accurate demonstration of where their scores on the NEO domains lie in respect to their peers in the unit. [1] Student graphically provides an accurate demonstration of where their scores on the NEO domains lie with respect to their peers in the unit via a normal distribution. [1.5] Personality and Performance The student does not address, or addresses very poorly, the expected personality domain and tertiary academic performance relationship. [0] Student provides a summary of expected relationships between personality domain/s and tertiary academic performance. Details are lacking, and the structure impedes clarity. [2] Student provides a summary of the expected relationships between the five factor personality domains and tertiary academic performance, referencing academic literature. Clarity and structure could be improved. [4] Student provides a good summary of the expected relationships between the five factor personality domains and tertiary academic performance, as suggested by academic literature. [6] Student provides a wellintegrated summary of the expected relationships between the five factor personality domains and tertiary academic performance, as suggested by aggregated academic literature. [8] Personality and Academic Performance Accuracy Student does not address, or addresses very poorly, whether their perceived academic performance and personality scores are reflective of the expected relationships in the literature. [0] Student superficially addresses whether their perceived academic performance and personality scores bear resemblance to the relationships suggested in the literature. [1.5] Student partially addresses whether their perceived academic performance and personality scores are reflective of the expected relationships in the literature, with limited example substantiation. [3] Student provides a good description of whether their perceived academic performance and personality scores are reflective of the expected relationships suggested in the literature, substantiated by examples. [4.5] Student provides an excellent description of whether their perceived academic performance and personality scores are reflective of the expected relationships suggested in the literature, substantiated by highly relevant examples. [6] Figure/s 2 2 Student graphically provides a clear, accurate demonstration of where their scores on the NEO domains lie with respect to their peers in the unit via a normal distribution. [2] 3 Critical Thinking on Validity Student does not address or addresses very poorly a description of the relevant validity considerations relevant to their personality and academic performance. Critical thinking is not demonstrated in a sufficient capacity. [0] An unclear or vague explanation of which generic facets of validity are valuable to consider. Critical thinking is poorly demonstrated in the description of how these facets of validity are relevant to the consideration of their personality and academic performance. [2] A good explanation of which facets of validity are valuable to consider. Student demonstrates limited critical thinking skills with regard to explaining how these validity facets may be relevant to the consideration of their personality and academic performance. [4] A good explanation of which facets of validity are valuable to consider. Student demonstrates critical thinking skills when explaining how the suggested facets of validity may be relevant to the consideration of their personality and academic performance. [6] A clear, succinct explanation of which facets of validity are valuable to consider. Student demonstrates highly developed critical thinking skills when explaining how the suggested facets of validity may be relevant to the consideration of their personality and academic performance. [8] APA6 Referencing Many severe departures from APA6 style are presented in the submitted work. [0] A poor demonstration of APA6 style referencing for both the in-text and endtext components. [0.5] A good demonstration of APA6 style referencing, with several errors noted either in-text or end-text. [1] A very good demonstration of APA6 style referencing. [1.5] Almost flawless execution of APA6 style for the in-text and end-text components. [2] R Points for each rubric category are represented in square brackets. This assessment is scored out of a maximum of 40. PSY391: Individual Differences and Performance - Research Assignment Instructions Due: Word limit: June 28th, 5:00pm AWST, submission via LMS 2250 words, not including end-text references and appendix. Note: Please do not exceed the word limit – your marker will stop marking your answers at the word limit, and further content will not be assessed. Referencing Style: APA6. Formatting: 12pt Times New Roman, double line spacing, no additional spaces between paragraphs. Note: Pages documents cannot be uploaded to LMS. Please convert them to .docx, .doc, or .pdf before submitting. Total marks: 40. Outline Based on your results from completing the 120-item IPIP (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) representative of the NEO-PI-R domains of personality, this research assignment asks you to complete a review of your results and their potential implications based on findings from published literature. There are three major questions to be answered as part this assignment. 1. Using your PSY391 peers as a point of comparison, what do your scores on the 120-item IPIP by Maples et al. (2014) suggest about the five major trait domains of your personality? When answering this question, please address the following as part of your answer: • Provide a standardised statistical indicator (e.g., a Z score) for each of your five domain scores that allows you to describe how much higher, lower, or approximately average you are on each trait domain in comparison to your PSY391 peers. o Hint: You can treat the PSY391 peer data as population data when calculating your Z score. • Based on your IPIP scores, describe what traits for each domain would be more or less characteristic of you in comparison to your peers in the unit. • Based on your IPIP scores and their implications for your personality traits described above, how accurately does this correspond with how you see yourself in comparison to your peers? Provide examples for each domain to substantiate your answer. • Provide a Figure or Figures in your Appendix that demonstrates the distribution of the PSY391 cohort on each domain, and where your score sits on the distribution for each domain. 2. Based on findings from published academic literature, what do your scores on the five personality trait domains suggest about your predicted academic performance at university? When answering this question, please address the following as part of your answer: • Provide a concise summary of the academic literature that has addressed the five personality domains and their expected relationships with tertiary academic performance. • Based on your perceptions of your academic performance, do your IPIP results support the predicted relationships between personality traits and academic performance? Provide examples to substantiate your answer for the relevant trait domains. 3. What validity considerations are important when looking at the relationship between your personality domain scores and their predictions about your academic performance? When answering this question, please address the following as part of your answer: • What aspects of validity may impede or strengthen the accuracy of your trait domain scores as predictors of academic performance? Provide examples to substantiate how these aspects of validity may be directly relevant to the accuracy of these relationships. Format Please number your answers in your assignment (e.g., 1., 2., 3.) to make it clear to your marker which question you are addressing. Students should address each of the previous questions in a short answer format (i.e., using paragraphs to directly answer the questions, without needing to add introductory or concluding paragraphs to each answer as you would with an essay-style answer), referring to published academic literature where appropriate. Use citations where appropriate per APA6 style. Writing succinctly and directly addressing the components of each question is highly recommended. Include Figure/s following your References in an Appendix section. Marking Rubric A demonstration version of the rubric used to mark your research assignment is available on LMS. Questions? Please feel free to ask questions you may have about the written assignment on the LMS discussion boards for this unit – there is a sub-forum already set up and awaiting queries. References Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120item IPIP-based measure of the Five-Factor Model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 10701084. doi:10.1037/pas0000004 You may find browsing through the information available on the IPIP website (http://ipip.ori.org) useful when working on this assignment. ID 123456 234567 1046SY 3SHA 5030CO a2 AA11BB AA32AA Abc123 AL22PA AM29PE AM51PE AM94PE AQ05BE AS16CA AS29BO av09me AV12AS AV13TO AV23HU AV32HO AV34CO av54me AV54NN AW15CA BA08MA BA21ED bbbbbb BE09PR BI67LU BL18JA BL23DO BR04BR BS12JA BUM CA08MO CA09AR Ca50Do CH23BE CP11LI DA10MU DA11MU DA18GY DA34MI DC26LE DE13OS Agreeableness 72 94 99 86 89 74 79 92 94 84 92 96 100 90 88 104 98 99 100 82 92 81 93 81 83 88 100 87 101 92 78 85 101 83 97 101 75 106 96 104 87 66 92 106 93 79 Conscientiousness 94 92 70 97 66 92 70 80 110 97 82 88 77 87 88 94 89 80 66 73 77 97 85 90 73 107 93 75 87 62 83 83 92 89 74 91 83 89 75 69 79 95 75 95 100 81 Openness Extraversion Neuroticism 79 97 72 59 65 69 86 77 82 77 61 80 97 94 79 81 98 70 116 90 95 73 78 70 96 92 61 104 100 71 73 73 99 80 68 96 74 75 99 72 71 68 83 97 80 101 89 49 100 96 52 80 62 78 97 104 84 69 70 74 110 101 95 84 99 66 100 97 55 84 65 65 69 81 72 85 96 52 69 59 73 91 76 63 91 78 96 81 55 105 62 65 109 74 74 47 95 83 82 91 72 70 87 61 74 86 73 83 74 77 74 108 107 40 77 72 77 95 69 81 77 76 89 97 97 65 91 69 63 69 55 91 81 87 57 86 89 60 DE70SS Di01am DI04AL Di16je DI18DO DK90CL DR26TR DR35AV DR91SO EL67KA EN18SU EN21TO ffkhjm FI02OT FI04JI FL72KE Fluffy fo40fr FO41PI Fo65sy FR38SA Fu89bo gl52an GO19BR GO75NU GR24ZE GR29NI GW18CI HA05GI HA06SU HA07GA HA08JE HA11CH HA11FA HA25JO HA27BA HA39LU HA60PO HA71BO he06ty HE12LA He22my HE56TE HELLO HI HI08CO HO23RO 62 91 99 98 96 83 83 77 114 93 97 82 89 67 80 72 99 91 92 89 105 91 86 95 96 95 99 90 82 89 92 84 79 83 115 90 90 99 110 98 86 100 96 92 98 108 86 69 90 104 98 105 72 99 75 105 89 61 89 72 56 92 85 65 103 86 86 105 97 75 92 70 85 84 115 72 89 66 78 75 70 116 84 79 103 93 93 85 101 89 73 109 91 65 76 94 69 92 77 103 87 93 90 95 95 91 95 112 78 81 82 77 100 90 83 85 78 85 72 87 101 95 75 78 81 90 85 78 93 67 85 81 83 85 64 103 96 101 96 71 79 82 89 83 91 96 68 99 73 84 100 65 71 84 94 72 109 69 59 88 77 98 64 63 71 60 89 86 112 79 90 62 90 78 73 80 54 74 104 52 93 70 100 64 102 95 70 68 71 88 49 74 43 40 46 103 50 78 96 60 68 84 84 40 78 86 59 65 61 57 72 56 77 64 67 37 91 61 88 93 63 74 37 81 80 45 95 36 72 65 81 45 57 75 63 HP11BB HP13DE HP23EL IN12MA IN21LU IN24MI IN71HA INBUBU ja06mo jack JD09MY JE88AR JO05FL JO26SU jojojp JU10GI kallen KB7AS KD17FA ki60so LA07DE LA24BL LA49DI LAURA1 Le05li LE05LI LI22AD li51ch LI62SH LM12BE LM12CO LM12RA LO03MI LO13TA LO26JO lo47mi LR09RG MA08CL MA10SO MA32CL ME30PE MF76RB MH24TU MO12BG MO22MI Moguci MOP148 84 70 101 68 87 86 90 91 91 68 84 98 87 101 81 82 82 79 92 84 100 100 93 93 100 77 68 102 101 89 79 79 75 87 88 91 101 77 77 99 93 94 95 83 90 101 93 74 75 96 77 74 92 85 81 79 88 117 94 69 82 72 72 109 77 89 86 85 97 84 68 74 101 94 61 108 87 60 86 71 82 83 81 94 63 89 74 77 94 92 84 75 79 98 88 94 87 81 78 93 75 74 67 102 65 103 76 84 68 72 91 89 79 78 91 83 95 94 78 79 96 92 99 91 91 75 98 94 55 100 85 69 85 87 87 69 83 60 100 88 96 87 91 80 74 66 88 88 60 63 74 61 93 63 69 74 99 86 72 75 78 70 59 85 100 71 76 76 67 93 90 50 92 84 107 91 78 64 86 81 79 97 74 91 64 66 68 104 90 67 47 91 88 54 54 66 111 88 63 65 98 66 45 86 57 64 65 47 65 72 89 61 88 73 77 55 63 68 106 68 105 39 69 66 82 79 83 86 53 62 78 60 79 99 47 MP30RT mr81ri MU08BO MU11RO MU16BE NB13MI NE08BR NH2316 NI06MY NI53CH NM02LE NO22SI NO22TE NO29RI pa16ha pb1998 PE28WA PE37HO PO13DO POIMCL PR10AL pr24fl pr49bo PRHUTO PSY391 pu05di PU34SH PU42PA RA52JU RE53MO RI07MI RL10JL RO63DO RU15TH S19ST SA03LU SC27LA SH21CH SH28MI SH32CL SH77MA SI39MI SP01GE SP06HA SP07GI SP52Qq ST04MO 81 74 69 102 98 91 86 85 106 89 72 91 79 67 94 95 105 82 58 96 72 86 80 88 96 87 94 103 98 66 97 96 101 91 88 90 92 69 91 88 65 65 85 89 60 95 81 115 112 99 94 78 89 95 72 52 94 92 92 80 77 96 96 93 65 67 96 86 88 100 77 89 69 82 87 84 81 95 64 82 70 67 76 66 81 114 89 75 75 91 97 49 87 82 84 105 90 88 82 111 76 83 72 89 76 65 95 88 74 87 108 89 88 93 101 76 74 91 93 80 71 98 96 109 105 72 99 83 90 79 99 91 81 83 87 82 93 78 49 100 94 90 107 89 93 82 101 76 82 54 86 108 63 62 79 89 74 92 65 90 76 85 91 94 94 87 77 69 89 72 61 98 83 103 77 80 82 83 106 88 90 81 85 101 71 67 86 86 29 42 65 51 55 64 63 53 92 74 52 58 52 89 50 69 76 88 82 78 75 37 60 55 63 58 90 89 86 84 65 69 71 68 83 77 83 76 61 81 68 95 47 98 87 82 67 ST19WI ST21TS ST34BE SU32AW SW32ST TA25WA Ta44as TA62KI TH04FR th08eb TH08LU TH08SM Th11Hu TH16BA TH18KA TH20KO Th22th TH26DO TH45FL TH62PE TH82YO THNYCH TI05JA Ti12ka ti18ja TI51TI TI80RE TM20MA TT99TT TW20XO TW34OS VI21TY VS05YY WE16Z0 WH54FL WO31BL WRRVC WS14MI WU90GH XM06PA YJ24TU zocacl 81 80 104 87 87 105 71 79 86 100 99 103 85 112 106 88 90 101 91 75 98 92 107 75 96 95 90 104 97 83 102 86 93 81 80 92 71 108 98 69 98 95 72 95 81 89 83 99 71 69 78 98 85 96 84 62 82 91 97 104 78 81 67 104 86 68 94 87 103 91 107 71 97 82 89 63 74 62 71 108 86 70 92 106 102 108 100 82 87 81 68 110 69 81 83 83 89 100 79 71 76 79 66 88 83 84 72 94 81 89 79 74 87 97 67 97 76 76 76 88 74 81 86 87 84 85 103 84 76 53 69 96 61 113 85 86 101 89 78 93 66 72 74 99 74 94 67 70 104 72 101 81 85 63 93 85 99 76 80 85 87 63 77 100 65 94 96 94 50 45 80 68 82 51 74 57 78 38 64 55 62 85 81 75 54 53 62 57 94 34 64 87 62 83 79 70 53 84 88 84 59 90 95 74 81 43 59 87 81 41 Social Desirability 6 5 6 5 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 7 10 10 6 4 5 3 9 7 5 3 6 8 9 4 1 8 6 4 6 9 5 5 8 5 5 3 6 7 5 6 1 8 7 5 6 8 7 3 8 4 5 4 3 3 7 4 4 3 7 4 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 8 3 4 6 3 6 6 10 4 7 5 9 8 7 8 5 8 4 6 6 3 4 10 2 3 5 7 4 2 4 7 5 5 4 1 4 7 5 6 5 5 9 7 2 5 2 3 5 4 6 1 6 4 8 6 6 8 2 4 4 8 6 3 4 6 5 4 8 2 7 7 6 8 4 8 3 5 3 6 2 2 6 6 7 3 2 5 5 4 6 6 5 3 2 4 6 4 8 3 6 4 5 6 7 1 6 4 3 4 4 4 2 7 6 6 7 6 4 3 7 8 3 4 10 3 7 4 8 5 6 8 4 2 5 2 8 5 1 5 5 6 9 7 5 8 6 7 1 2 5 3 7 9 0 5 6 Column A B-F Description ID Personality Domains G Social Desirability Student ID based on 2 letters from favourite movie, street number, and favourite pet's na 120 Item IPIP (IRT Version, Maples et al., 2014) OCEAN domain scores based on the measure by Maples et al. (2014), reflective of the NE Higher scores (maximum = 120) indicate traits more strongly indicative of the domain in q Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Form X-2) Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-C Higher scores (maximum = 10) indicate responses that are more likely to be reflective of For the item-level data, column headers refer to the items of Maples et al. (2014) as refle ngly indicative of the domain in question. For descriptions of each domain, please see your textbook, or the relevant slides from Session 2 d short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (1), 119-125. the relevant slides from Session 2's lecture. ID 123456 234567 1046SY 3SHA 5030CO a2 AA11BB AA32AA Abc123 AL22PA AM29PE AM51PE AM94PE AQ05BE AS16CA AS29BO av09me AV12AS AV13TO AV23HU AV32HO AV34CO av54me AV54NN AW15CA BA08MA BA21ED bbbbbb BE09PR BI67LU BL18JA BL23DO BR04BR BS12JA BUM CA08MO CA09AR Ca50Do CH23BE CP11LI DA10MU DA11MU DA18GY DA34MI DC26LE DE13OS NAnx1 NAnx2 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 2 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 5 4 4 5 2 3 NAnx3 5 2 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 4 2 1 5 5 4 5 4 2 3 3 1 3 3 4 5 5 2 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 2 5 3 3 NAnx4 4 3 4 4 2 4 1 4 2 1 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 2 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 4 4 1 5 1 2 1 4 1 4 2 3 4 2 5 1 4 NAng1 2 4 5 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 2 2 5 3 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 1 4 2 4 5 5 1 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 1 NAng2 2 2 2 1 4 4 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 5 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 4 4 4 2 4 1 2 NAng3 3 4 4 2 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 5 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 4 4 2 2 5 3 5 4 3 4 2 4 4 1 3 4 5 4 3 5 1 4 NAng4R 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 4 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 4 4 1 2 2 1 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 3 DE70SS Di01am DI04AL Di16je DI18DO DK90CL DR26TR DR35AV DR91SO EL67KA EN18SU EN21TO ffkhjm FI02OT FI04JI FL72KE Fluffy fo40fr FO41PI Fo65sy FR38SA Fu89bo gl52an GO19BR GO75NU GR24ZE GR29NI GW18CI HA05GI HA06SU HA07GA HA08JE HA11CH HA11FA HA25J ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

DrPrinsen
School: Cornell University

Attached.

Running head: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE AND PERFOMANCE

Individual Difference and Performance
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

2

Individual Difference and Performance
1. Using your PSY391 peers as a point of comparison, what do your scores on the 120-item
IPIP by Maples et al. (2014) suggest about the five major trait domains of your
personality?
Table 1: Z score values
A-z score
-2.20
-0.18
0.28
-0.92
-0.64
-2.02
-1.56
-0.37
-0.18
-1.10
-0.37
0.00
0.37
-0.55
-0.73
0.73
0.18
0.28
0.37
-1.29
-0.37
-1.38
-0.28
-1.38
-1.19
-0.73
0.37
-0.83
0.46
-0.37
-1.65

B-z score

C-z score
0.38
0.23
-1.45
0.61
-1.76
0.23
-1.45
-0.69
1.60
0.61
-0.53
-0.08
-0.92
-0.15
-0.08
0.38
0.00
-0.69
-1.76
-1.22
-0.92
0.61
-0.31
0.08
-1.22
1.37
0.31
-1.07
-0.15
-2.06
-0.46

-1.21
-2.94
-0.61
-1.38
0.35
-1.04
1.99
-1.73
0.26
0.95
-1.73
-1.12
-1.64
-1.82
-0.87
0.69
0.61
-1.12
0.35
-2.08
1.47
-0.78
0.61
-0.78
-2.08
-0.69
-2.08
-0.17
-0.17
-1.04
-2.68

D-z score
E-z score
0.35
0.54
-2.42
0.36
-1.38
1.13
-2.77
1.01
0.09
0.95
0.43
0.42
-0.26
1.91
-1.30
0.42
-0.09
-0.12
0.61
0.48
-1.73
2.15
-2.16
1.97
-1.56
2.15
-1.90
0.30
0.35
1.01
-0.35
-0.83
0.26
-0.66
-2.68
0.89
0.95
1.25
-1.99
0.66
0.69
1.91
0.52
0.18
0.35
-0.48
-2.42
0.12
-1.04
0.54
0.26
-0.66
-2.94
0.60
-1.47
0.00
-1.30
1.97
-3.29
2.50
-2.42
2.74

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE
-1.01
0.46
-1.19
0.09
0.46
-1.93
0.92
0.00
0.73
-0.83
-2.75
-0.37
0.92
-0.28
-1.56
-3.12
-0.46
0.28
0.18
0.00
-1.19
-1.19
-1.74
1.65
-0.28
0.09
-1.29
-0.64
-2.66
-1.47
-2.20
0.28
-0.46
-0.37
-0.64
0.83
-0.46
-0.92
-0.09
0.00
-0.09

-0.46
0.23
0.00
-1.15
0.15
-0.46
0.00
-1.07
-1.53
-0.76
0.46
-1.07
0.46
0.84
-0.61
-1.53
0.08
1.15
0.69
1.22
-1.30
0.76
-1.07
1.22
0.00
-2.14
0.00
-1.30
-2.52
0.23
-0.31
-1.83
1.07
-0.23
-0.23
1.22
0.61
-1.07
0.23
-1.45
-0.31

3
-1.64
0.17
-0.17
-0.52
-0.61
-1.64
1.30
-1.38
0.17
-1.38
0.35
-0.17
-2.08
-1.04
-0.61
-1.47
0.09
-2.08
-0.09
-1.38
0.87
-0.52
0.00
-0.26
0.17
0.17
-0.17
0.17
1.64
-1.30
-1.04
-0.95
-1.38
0.61
-0.26
-0.87
-0.69
-1.30
-0.69
-1.82
-0.52

-1.64
-0.87
-1.82
-2.77
-1.73
-1.38
1.21
-1.82
-2.08
-1.47
0.35
-2.08
-3.29
-0.52
-0.35
-0.95
-0.35
-0.87
-0.17
0.26
-2.16
0.52
-1.73
-0.78
0.61
-2.42
-1.90
-0.78
0.09
-1.82
1.38
-2.08
-2.94
-0.43
-1.38
0.43
-2.51
-2.60
-1.90
-2.85
-0.35

-0.95
1.13
0.42
0.66
1.19
0.66
-1.37
0.83
1.07
1.55
0.12
0.00
1.67
-0.36
-0.18
0.48
1.49
-0.83
0.66
-1.19
-1.37
-1.01
2.38
-0.77
0.89
1.97
-0.18
0.30
1.25
1.25
-1.37
0.89
1.37
-0.24
0.12
-0.12
-0.36
0.54
-0.42
0.83
0.06

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE
0.28
-0.55
-1.29
-0.64
-0.37
-1.10
-1.56
-1.19
1.74
-0.55
-0.55
0.28
1.29
0.18
-0.92
0.37
0.00
-0.37
0.18
1.10
-0.92
-1.10
-2.39
0.46
-2.57
-0.83
-0.92
-0.55
-0.46
-0.46
-2.57
-1.10
0.18
-0.83
0.46
-1.38
-1.29
-1.29
-1.56
-0.37
-1.10

-0.38
1.99
-1.30
0.00
-1.76
-0.84
-1.07
-1.45
2.06
-0.38
-0.76
1.07
0.31
0.31
-0.31
0.92
0.00
-1.22
1.53
0.15
-1.83
-1.15
-1.07
0.53
-0.92
-1.15
0.23
-0.31
-0.61
-0.76
-0.08
2.14
0.38
-1.53
-0.53
-1.30
-1.30
1.53
-0.92
0.00
-0.23

4
0.69
0.17
-1.56
-1.30
-1.04
-0.26
-0.69
-1.30
0.00
-2.25
-0.69
-1.04
-0.87
-0.69
-2.51
0.87
0.26
0.69
0.26
-1.90
-1.21
-0.43
0.09
-0.52
-1.04
-1.30
0.00
-1.56
-1.64
-2.25
0.78
-2.42
0.87
-1.47
-0.78
-2.16
-1.82
-0.17
-0.35
-1.21
-1.30

-0.61
1.64
-1.21
-0.26
-2.68
-0.26
-1.30
-1.73
-1.12
-3.37
-1.64
0.95
-3.55
0.00
-1.99
0.61
-2.51
0.78
0.17
-1.99
-2.16
-0.52
-0.17
-1.12
-1.64
-2.34
-0.43
-0.43
-2.85
-2.60
-1.64
-2.77
0.00
-2.60
-2.08
-1.64
0.52
-0.61
-1.82
-1.56
-1.30

0.24
-1.55
1.67
-0.12
1.49
1.79
0.00
0.66
-1.55
1.07
1.01
-1.07
1.91
-1.61
0.54
0.12
1.07
-1.07
-0.36
0.72
0.00
1.61
0.24
-0.95
1.67
1.49
-0.54
-0.54
0.18
2.86
1.49
0.00
0.12
2.09
0.18
-1.07
1.37
-0.36
0.06
0.12
-0.95

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE
0.37
0.37
-0.28
-0.28
0.37
-1.74
-2.57
0.55
0.46
-0.64
-1.56
-1.56
-1.93
-0.83
-0.73
-0.46
0.46
-1.74
-1.74
0.28
-0.28
-0.18
-0.09
-1.19
-0.55
0.46
-0.28
-1.38
-2.02
-2.48
0.55
0.18
-0.46
-0.92
-1.01
0.92
-0.64
-2.20
-0.46
-1.56
-2.66

-0.31
0.61
-0.38
-1.60
-1.15
0.92
0.38
-2.14
1.45
-0.15
-2.22
-0.23
-1.37
-0.53
-0.46
-0.61
0.38
-1.99
0.00
-1.15
-0.92
0.38
0.23
-0.38
-1.07
-0.76
0.69
1.99
1.76
0.76
0.38
-0.84
0.00
0.46
-1.30
-2.83
0.38
0.23
0.23
-0.69
-0.92

5
-0.17
-0.87
0.17
0.09
-1.30
-1.21
0.26
-0.09
0.52
-0.17
-0.17
-1.56
0.43
0.09
-3.29
0.61
-0.69
-2.08
-0.69
-0.52
-0.52
-2.08
-0.87
-2.85
0.61
-0.43
0.26
-0.78
1.04
-0.26
-0.43
-0.95
1.56
-1.47
-0.87
-1.82
-0.35
-1.47
-2.42
0.17
-0.43

-1.99
-2.94
-0.69
0.61
-1.90
-1.47
-1.47
-2.25
0.00
-0.26
-3.72
-0.09
-0.78
1.21
-0.17
-1.30
-2.51
-0.61
-1.04
-1.21
0.35
-1.64
-0.17
-2.51
-2.34
-2.16
0.95
-0.26
1.21
-0.35
0.00
-0.95
0.69
-1.47
-0.95
-3.37
-0.61
1.30
-2.60
-2.68
-1.21

0.12
0.54
1.55
-0.12
1.49
0.60
0.83
-0.48
0.00
0.30
2.56
0.30
2.50
-1.43
0.36
0.18
1.13
0.95
1.19
1.37
-0.60
-0.06
0.89
-0.18
0.95
2.15
-0.95
-2.03
-1.25
0.12
-0.72
-0.48
0.06
0.00
-0.60
1.73
0.66
-0.66
-0.30
-0.66
1.55

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE
-0.18
-0.09
0.83
-1.29
-3.49
0.00
-2.20
-0.92
-1.47
-0.73
0.00
-0.83
-0.18
0.64
0.18
-2.75
0.09
0.00
0.46
-0.46
-0.73
-0.55
-0.37
-2.48
-0.46
-0.73
-2.85
-2.85
-1.01
-0.64
-3.31
-0.09
-1.38
-1.38
-1.47
0.73
-0.83
-0.83
0.83
-2.30
-1.56

0.53
0.53
0.31
-1.83
-1.68
0.53
-0.23
-0.08
0.84
-0.92
0.00
-1.53
-0.53
-0.15
-0.38
-0.61
0.46
-1.91
-0.53
-1.45
-1.68
-0.99
-1.76
-0.61
1.91
0.00
-1.07
-1.07
0.15
0.61
-3.06
-0.15
-0.53
-1.30
0.46
-0.61
0.00
-0.46
0.76
-1.37
-1.53

6
-1.64
-0.52
1.30
-0.35
-0.43
0.00
0.69
-1.47
-1.64
-0.17
0.00
-1.12
-1.90
0.43
0.26
1.38
1.04
-1.82
0.52
-0.87
-0.26
-1.21
0.52
-0.17
-1.04
-0.87
-0.52
-0.95
0.00
-1.30
-3.81
0.61
0.09
0.78
1.30
0.61
-0.95
-0.52
-1.04
-2.16
1.47

-0.35
-1.64
-0.09
-2.42
-0.26
-1.47
-0.69
-0.17
0.09
0.09
-0.52
-1.38
-2.08
-0.35
-1.82
-2.77
0.43
-0.87
0.87
-1.38
-1.12
-0.95
-0.87
1.12
-0.43
-0.26
-1.04
-0.69
0.69
-1.90
-2.25
-0.61
-0.61
0.87
-0.78
-1.47
-3.46
-2.08
0.26
-2.77
1.73

-0.77
0.36
0.77
1.49
1.13
0.89
0.72
-1.55
-0.18
-0.48
0.00
-0.30
1.61
1.55
1.37
1.25
0.12
0.36
0.48
0.30
1.19
0.83
1.19
0.77
-0.12
1.07
0.30
1.91
-0.95
2.09
1.43
1.13
0.24
-0.77
-1.07
1.01
0.30
1.13
-0.72
0.66
-0.36

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE
-0.92
0.37
0.28
0.64
-1.01
1.47
0.92
-0.73
-0.55
0.46
-0.46
-1.93
0.18
-0.37
1.01
-1.93
0.00
-0.09
-0.55
0.73
0.09
-1.19
0.55
-0.92
-0.28
-1.38
-1.47
-0.37
-2.30
1.10
0.18
-2.48
0.18
-0.09

-0.84
0.69
-0.31
0.53
-0.38
-2.06
-0.53
0.15
0.61
1.15
-0.84
-0.61
-1.68
1.15
-0.23
-1.60
0.38
-0.15
1.07
0.15
1.37
-1.37
0.61
-0.53
0.00
-1.99
-1.15
-2.06
-1.37
1.45
-0.23
-1.45
0.23
1.30

7
-2.08
-1.04
-0.87
-0.87
-0.35
0.61
-1.21
-1.90
-1.47
-1.21
-2.34
-0.43
-0.87
-0.78
-1.82
0.09
-1.04
-0.35
-1.21
-1.64
-0.52
0.35
-2.25
0.35
-1.47
-1.47
-1.47
-0.43
-1.64
-1.04
-0.61
-0.52
-0.78
-0.69

-0.69
-0.61
0.69
-0.35
-1.30
0.00
-2.34
-1.82
-1.64
0.52
-1.64
0.09
-2.25
-1.99
0.95
-1.82
0.69
-1.04
-0.69
-2.60
0.00
-0.69
0.52
-1.47
-1.12
-0.69
-0.52
-2.60
-1.38
0.61
-2.42
0.09
0.26
0.09

0.89
-1.49
0.06
-0.48
-0.06
1.31
1.07
0.72
-0.54
-0.60
-0.06
-0.36
1.85
-1.73
0.06
1.43
-0.06
1.19
0.95
0.42
-0.60
1.25
1.49
1.25
-0.24
1.61
1.91
0.66
1.07
-1.19
-0.24
1.43
1.07
-1.31

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

8

Table 2: Personality traits deviation from the mean

Low

Agreeableness
Moderate
Higher
125
71
Openness
Moderate

low
143

Higher
54

Conscientious
low Moderate
Higher
33
86
74
69

Low
32 136

Neuroticism
low

Moderate
48

Higher
63
30

Social Disability
Higher

69

Extraversion
Moderate

Low
112

Agreeableness
The z values for the five facets of personality traits are displayed in Table 1. Facets zscore values range from -3.12 to 2.86. The scores for this sample data are based on the 120-item
inventory. While satisfactory reliability testing depends on the rationale behind the psychological
testing, -0.44 is more often cited as the minimum level of acceptable personality Maples et al.
(2014). Moreover, these values are essential when making individual life decisions. As one
would expect, the data show that my Agreeableness personality trait is lower compared to those
of my peers by the aforementioned standards. In particular, the Agreeableness domain has 125 as
the majority of z values of LOW, 71 as HIGH, and 33 as HIGHER as shown in Table 2. As such,
I tend to be cooperative, accommodative, and compassionate in social situations as opposed to
being antagonistic (Ogunmakin & Akomolafe, 2013). This personality attribute is positively
associated to academic excellence in a number of research studies.
Conscientious
This particular personality trait is linked with sterling academic performance due to an
act of self-discipline and dutiful acts regardless of the existing challenges. As shown in table 2, I

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

9

display a lower level of Conscientious, with the majority of Z values in the LOWER region of
Conscientious. According to Meyer, Fleckenstein, Retelsdorf and Köller (2019), this personality
trait is among the Big Five and is consistently associated with academic performance. Studies
such Briley, Domiteaux and Tucker-Drob(2014) have affirmed a positive correlation between
Conscientious and academic performance. Ogunmakin and Akomolafe (2013) went ahead to
opine that Conscientiousness is among the strongest predictors of academic achievement.
Contrary to theories concerning this particular personality trait, which affirm that
conscientiousness student achieves higher level success in academics, I have a mixed
relationship with my GPA.
Openness

The personality of Openness is linked with the curiosity for academic success and
creativity. From the table, the majority of the Z values, 143, are distributed in the LOWER
region to suggest the lack of novelty and variety when pursuing education. While several studies
have identified a positive correlation between academic achievement and Openness, other
scholars such as Ogunmakin and Akomolafe (2013) did not find an association between
academic performance and this personality trait under discussion. Comparatively, the findings
suggest that the majority of my peers are moderately students with Openness as their trait, with Z
values amounting to 52. Conversely, there is sufficient convergent validity between Openness
and academic prowess with the smallest number of my fellow students, with the Z values totaling
32.
Extraversion

Students who possess this personality characteristic are characterized by excitability,
assertiveness, and sociability. Talkative and outgoing are other demonstrations of Extraversion
as Briley, Domiteaux and Tucker-Drob (2014) observe, . As the data demonstrate, I belong to the

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

10

quiet and reserved group, with Z values of 136. In comparison, 63 Z values between -.44 and .44
show that most of my peers are moderately correlated with extraversion while the minorities are
associated with a higher extraversion trait of 30. With regard to my academic performance, I am
negatively correlated to the extraversion.
Neuroticism
Neuroticism and academic performance are related in the sense that most students tend to
be in a negative state of emotions as Ogunmakin and Akomolafe (2013) points. Most research
studies have found negative associations between academic excellence and nativism. The data
from Table 2 demonstrate that I reflect high rate of neuroticism with Z values highly
concentrated within the HIGHER region of the domain.. However, my personality traits are far
from depression, anger, and anxiety.
2. Based on findings from published academic literature, what do your scores on the five
personality trait domains suggest about your predicted academic performance at
university?
The central goal of Education Psychology is to improve learning. As such, psychology
focuses on investigating vital issues that contribute to academic achievement that is beyond
intelligence. While cognitive ability has provided the ground for possible achievement in
learning, non-cognitive characteristics such as personality traits play a significant role in
student’s academic prowess. The assumption underlying this phenomenon is largely due to the
influence on the work approach of the students. In particular, these traits call the shots on how
students manage to transform their intelligence into academic achievement. As yet, however,
there is a dearth of data that provides the theoretical possibilities of the interaction effects
between the big five personality domains and intelligence in realizing academic excellence. In

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

11

this light, the literature review provides an overview of the academic literature addressing the
five facets of the big five personality traits and their relationship with intelligence.
Several individual differences impact academically-oriented bearing. This is despite the
documented relationship between cognitive ability and academic achievement. Briley,
Domiteaux and Tucker-Drob, (2014) opine that the causal framework for pursuing academic
excellence within a particular domain is composed of interest, personality, and motivation,
among others. Educational psychologists have developed measures (APMs) that are meant for
measuring personality traits to conclude the determinants of typical education performance.
Coupled with the meta-data, the development of personality measures has been successful. These
systems project variance in academic achievement with the help of values, learning approaches,
intellectual investment, and efforts. Howbeit, the study of these particular measurement systems,
which are done independently of each other do not consider theoretical examination of the
factors compatibility. The presence of this gap in the existing literature has thwarted the
establishment of appropriate theories that examines academic prowess.
A good number of APMs have been adapted to present findings hinged on theoretical
perspectives. Recent reviews have pointed the necessity for multivariate analysis of the
relationship between the personality measures to identify the discriminant validity and meeting
point when defining the measurement of the interrelationship. Research on the investment traits
asserts that the facets are secluded measures of personality with no association to any personality
theory. Concerning this, there is a need for more future research. However, Nighute and S K, S
(2014) contend that there has not been proper unifying research regardless of the length of time
between the initial and recent literature review. Von Stumm and Acman (2013) conducted
research recently on the state of investment and observed the scarcity of data. On the other hand,

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

12

Ogunmakin and Akomolafe (2013) analyzed the APM systems that are commonly used by
educational psychologists and concluded that there is little information to ascertain the
relationship between the operationalizations. More meta-analytic studies have emerged to
provide more information on the relationship between personalities and the Big Five. Similarly,
existing reviews concerning the association between academic achievement and the Big Five
provide varying coefficients.
3. What validity considerations are important when looking at the relationship between
your personality domain scores and their predictions about your academic performance?
According to Maples et al. (2014), personality trait illustrates a distinct level of variance for
individual performance. Notably, a section of the existing literature has factored measures of
different achievement. Such in-depth investigation presents differential domain and results that
can be specifically measured, which confirms the importance of considering different domains
and standards of academic achievement when predicting academic performance. Similarly,
scores from three IPIP measures are essential to consider given that the IPIP model is a widely
used model compared to the NEO-PI-R model. This approach is critical since it checks the
convergent validity of Z values that represent the Big Five domains. For this reason, z values
from the samples demonstrate that the scales can be used to analyze the same traits as those of
NEO PI-R scales.
It is also necessary to look at the criterion of measurement of the personality traits. Although
the provided data suggest a robust convergent validity for the values on IPIP-120, different
samples can produce scores that correlate and differ at ago in terms of other essential criteria. In
this light, it is necessary to pay more attention to the criteria of scores of all FFM measures with
regard to a number of external criteria. The data under consideration, across all the five

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

13

measures, the values of the FFM domain portray significant association between personality
traits and academic achievement. This finding is consistent with the study by Gore and Widiger
(2013), which established that the Big Five facets are laden with the FFM openness. The last
aspect worth paying attention to is the discriminant value. As pointed out by Maples et al.
(2014), discriminant validity is an essential aspect of validating construct. Also, this validity
demonstrates that self-acquaintance correlation satisfies the expected threshold.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

14

Appendix
S/N
1.

FACTOR/DOMAIN
Neuroticism (N)

2.

Extraversion (E)

3.

Openness to experience (O)

4.

Agreeableness (A)

5.

Conscientiousness (c)

Sources: Lievens, Coestsier, Fruyt & Maeseneer (2002)

FACETS
N1: Anxiety
N2: Angry hostility
N3: Depression
N4: Self-consciousness
N5: Impulsiveness
N6: Vulnerability
E1: Warmth
E2: Gregariousness
E3: Assertiveness
E4: Activity
E5: Excitement – seeking
E6: Positive emotions
O1: Fantasy
O2: Aesthetics
O3: Feelings
O4: Actions
O5: Ideas
O6: Values
A1: Trust
A2: Straightforwardness
A3: Altruism
A4: Compliance
A5: Modesty
A6: Tender-mindedness
C1: Competence
C2: Order
C3: Dutifulness
C4: Achievement striving
C5: Self-discipline
C6: Deliberation

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

15

References
Briley, D., Domiteaux, M., & Tucker-Drob, E. (2014). Achievement-relevant personality:
Relations with the Big Five and validation of an efficient instrument. Learning And
Individual Differences, 32, 26-39. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.010
Erfani, S., & Mardan, H. (2017). The Relationship between Big-Five Personality Traits, English
Language Proficiency Scores on IELTS, and Academic Success of Iranian Foreign
Students. Theory And Practice In Language Studies, 7(11), 1046. doi:
10.17507/tpls.0711.13
Meyer, J., Fleckenstein, J., Retelsdorf, J., & Köller, O. (2019). The relationship of personality
traits and different measures of domain-specific achievement in upper secondary
education. Learning And Individual Differences, 69, 45-59. doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.005
Nighute, S., & S K, S. (2014). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIG FIVE PERSONALITY
TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN MEDICAL STUDENTS. Journal Of
Evolution Of Medical And Dental Sciences, 3(17), 4446-4452. doi:
10.14260/jemds/2014/2457
Ogunmakin, A., & Akomolafe, M. (2013). Academic Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control and
Academic Performance of Secondary School Students in Ondo State,
Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal Of Social Sciences. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p570

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE PERFOMANCE

16

Attached.

ID
123456
234567
1046SY
3SHA
5030CO
a2
AA11BB
AA32AA
Abc123
AL22PA
AM29PE
AM51PE
AM94PE
AQ05BE
AS16CA
AS29BO
av09me
AV12AS
AV13TO
AV23HU
AV32HO
AV34CO
av54me
AV54NN
AW15CA
BA08MA
BA21ED
bbbbbb
BE09PR
BI67LU
BL18JA
BL23DO
BR04BR
BS12JA
BUM
CA08MO
CA09AR
Ca50Do
CH23BE
CP11LI
DA10MU
DA11MU
DA18GY
DA34MI
DC26LE

A

B

z score
72
94
99
86
89
74
79
92
94
84
92
96
100
90
88
104
98
99
100
82
92
81
93
81
83
88
100
87
101
92
78
85
101
83
97
101
75
106
96
104
87
66
92
106
93

-2,20
-0,18
0,28
-0,92
-0,64
-2,02
-1,56
-0,37
-0,18
-1,10
-0,37
0,00
0,37
-0,55
-0,73
0,73
0,18
0,28
0,37
-1,29
-0,37
-1,38
-0,28
-1,38
-1,19
-0,73
0,37
-0,83
0,46
-0,37
-1,65
-1,01
0,46
-1,19
0,09
0,46
-1,93
0,92
0,00
0,73
-0,83
-2,75
-0,37
0,92
-0,28

94
92
70
97
66
92
70
80
110
97
82
88
77
87
88
94
89
80
66
73
77
97
85
90
73
107
93
75
87
62
83
83
92
89
74
91
83
89
75
69
79
95
75
95
100

C

z score
0,38
0,23
-1,45
0,61
-1,76
0,23
-1,45
-0,69
1,60
0,61
-0,53
-0,08
-0,92
-0,15
-0,08
0,38
0,00
-0,69
-1,76
-1,22
-0,92
0,61
-0,31
0,08
-1,22
1,37
0,31
-1,07
-0,15
-2,06
-0,46
-0,46
0,23
0,00
-1,15
0,15
-0,46
0,00
-1,07
-1,53
-0,76
0,46
-1,07
0,46
0,84

79
59
86
77
97
81
116
73
96
104
73
80
74
72
83
101
100
80
97
69
110
84
100
84
69
85
69
91
91
81
62
74
95
91
87
86
74
108
77
95
77
97
91
69
81

z score
-1,21
-2,94
-0,61
-1,38
0,35
-1,04
1,99
-1,73
0,26
0,95
-1,73
-1,12
-1,64
-1,82
-0,87
0,69
0,61
-1,12
0,35
-2,08
1,47
-0,78
0,61
-0,78
-2,08
-0,69
-2,08
-0,17
-0,17
-1,04
-2,68
-1,64
0,17
-0,17
-0,52
-0,61
-1,64
1,30
-1,38
0,17
-1,38
0,35
-0,17
-2,08
-1,04

D
97
65
77
61
94
98
90
78
92
100
73
68
75
71
97
89
96
62
104
70
101
99
97
65
81
96
59
76
78
55
65
74
83
72
61
73
77
107
72
69
76
97
69
55
87

DE13OS
DE70SS
Di01am
DI04AL
Di16je
DI18DO
DK90CL
DR26TR
DR35AV
DR91SO
EL67KA
EN18SU
EN21TO
ffkhjm
FI02OT
FI04JI
FL72KE
Fluffy
fo40fr
FO41PI
Fo65sy
FR38SA
Fu89bo
gl52an
GO19BR
GO75NU
GR24ZE
GR29NI
GW18CI
HA05GI
HA06SU
HA07GA
HA08JE
HA11CH
HA11FA
HA25JO
HA27BA
HA39LU
HA60PO
HA71BO
he06ty
HE12LA
He22my
HE56TE
HELLO
HI
HI08CO

79
62
91
99
98
96
83
83
77
114
93
97
82
89
67
80
72
99
91
92
89
105
91
86
95
96
95
99
90
82
89
92
84
79
83
115
90
90
99
110
98
86
100
96
92
98
108

-1,56
-3,12
-0,46
0,28
0,18
0,00
-1,19
-1,19
-1,74
1,65
-0,28
0,09
-1,29
-0,64
-2,66
-1,47
-2,20
0,28
-0,46
-0,37
-0,64
0,83
-0,46
-0,92
-0,09
0,00
-0,09
0,28
-0,55
-1,29
-0,64
-0,37
-1,10
-1,56
-1,19
1,74
-0,55
-0,55
0,28
1,29
0,18
-0,92
0,37
0,00
-0,37
0,18
1,10

81
69
90
104
98
105
72
99
75
105
89
61
89
72
56
92
85
65
103
86
86
105
97
75
92
70
85
84
115
72
89
66
78
75
70
116
84
79
103
93
93
85
101
89
73
109
91

-0,61
-1,53
0,08
1,15
0,69
1,22
-1,30
0,76
-1,07
1,22
0,00
-2,14
0,00
-1,30
-2,52
0,23
-0,31
-1,83
1,07
-0,23
-0,23
1,22
0,61
-1,07
0,23
-1,45
-0,31
-0,38
1,99
-1,30
0,00
-1,76
-0,84
-1,07
-1,45
2,06
-0,38
-0,76
1,07
0,31
0,31
-0,31
0,92
0,00
-1,22
1,53
0,15

86
76
94
69
92
77
103
87
93
90
95
95
91
95
112
78
81
82
77
100
90
83
85
78
85
72
87
101
95
75
78
81
90
85
78
93
67
85
81
83
85
64
103
96
101
96
71

-0,61
-1,47
0,09
-2,08
-0,09
-1,38
0,87
-0,52
0,00
-0,26
0,17
0,17
-0,17
0,17
1,64
-1,30
-1,04
-0,95
-1,38
0,61
-0,26
-0,87
-0,69
-1,30
-0,69
-1,82
-0,52
0,69
0,17
-1,56
-1,30
-1,04
-0,26
-0,69
-1,30
0,00
-2,25
-0,69
-1,04
-0,87
-0,69
-2,51
0,87
0,26
0,69
0,26
-1,90

89
82
89
83
91
96
68
99
73
84
100
65
71
84
94
72
109
69
59
88
77
98
64
63
71
60
89
86
112
79
90
62
90
78
73
80
54
74
104
52
93
70
100
64
102
95
70

HO23RO
HP11BB
HP13DE
HP23EL
IN12MA
IN21LU
IN24MI
IN71HA
INBUBU
ja06mo
jack
JD09MY
JE88AR
JO05FL
JO26SU
jojojp
JU10GI
kallen
KB7AS
KD17FA
ki60so
LA07DE
LA24BL
LA49DI
LAURA1
Le05li
LE05LI
LI22AD
li51ch
LI62SH
LM12BE
LM12CO
LM12RA
LO03MI
LO13TA
LO26JO
lo47mi
LR09RG
MA08CL
MA10SO
MA32CL
ME30PE
MF76RB
MH24TU
MO12BG
MO22MI
Moguci

86
84
70
101
68
87
86
90
91
91
68
84
98
87
101
81
82
82
79
92
84
100
100
93
93
100
77
68
102
101
89
79
79
75
87
88
91
101
77
77
99
93
94
95
83
90
101

-0,92
-1,10
-2,39
0,46
-2,57
-0,83
-0,92
-0,55
-0,46
-0,46
-2,57
-1,10
0,18
-0,83
0,46
-1,38
-1,29
-1,29
-1,56
-0,37
-1,10
0,37
0,37
-0,28
-0,28
0,37
-1,74
-2,57
0,55
0,46
-0,64
-1,56
-1,56
-1,93
-0,83
-0,73
-0,46
0,46
-1,74
-1,74
0,28
-0,28
-0,18
-0,09
-1,19
-0,55
0,46

65
74
75
96
77
74
92
85
81
79
88
117
94
69
82
72
72
109
77
89
86
85
97
84
68
74
101
94
61
108
87
60
86
71
82
83
81
94
63
89
74
77
94
92
84
75
79

-1,83
-1,15
-1,07
0,53
-0,92
-1,15
0,23
-0,31
-0,61
-0,76
-0,08
2,14
0,38
-1,53
-0,53
-1,30
-1,30
1,53
-0,92
0,00
-0,23
-0,31
0,61
-0,38
-1,60
-1,15
0,92
0,38
-2,14
1,45
-0,15
-2,22
-0,23
-1,37
-0,53
-0,46
-0,61
0,38
-1,99
0,00
-1,15
-0,92
0,38
0,23
-0,38
-1,07
-0,76

79
88
94
87
81
78
93
75
74
67
102
65
103
76
84
68
72
91
89
79
78
91
83
95
94
78
79
96
92
99
91
91
75
98
94
55
100
85
69
85
87
87
69
83
60
100
88

-1,21
-0,43
0,09
-0,52
-1,04
-1,30
0,00
-1,56
-1,64
-2,25
0,78
-2,42
0,87
-1,47
-0,78
-2,16
-1,82
-0,17
-0,35
-1,21
-1,30
-0,17
-0,87
0,17
0,09
-1,30
-1,21
0,26
-0,09
0,52
-0,17
-0,17
-1,56
0,43
0,09
-3,29
0,61
-0,69
-2,08
-0,69
-0,52
-0,52
-2,08
-0,87
-2,85
0,61
-0,43

68
87
91
80
74
66
88
88
60
63
74
61
93
63
69
74
99
86
72
75
78
70
59
85
100
71
76
76
67
93
90
50
92
84
107
91
78
64
86
81
79
97
74
91
64
66
68

MOP148
MP30RT
mr81ri
MU08BO
MU11RO
MU16BE
NB13MI
NE08BR
NH2316
NI06MY
NI53CH
NM02LE
NO22SI
NO22TE
NO29RI
pa16ha
pb1998
PE28WA
PE37HO
PO13DO
POIMCL
PR10AL
pr24fl
pr49bo
PRHUTO
PSY391
pu05di
PU34SH
PU42PA
RA52JU
RE53MO
RI07MI
RL10JL
RO63DO
RU15TH
S19ST
SA03LU
SC27LA
SH21CH
SH28MI
SH32CL
SH77MA
SI39MI
SP01GE
SP06HA
SP07GI
SP52Qq

93
81
74
69
102
98
91
86
85
106
89
72
91
79
67
94
95
105
82
58
96
72
86
80
88
96
87
94
103
98
66
97
96
101
91
88
90
92
69
91
88
65
65
85
89
60
95

-0,28
-1,38
-2,02
-2,48
0,55
0,18
-0,46
-0,92
-1,01
0,92
-0,64
-2,20
-0,46
-1,56
-2,66
-0,18
-0,09
0,83
-1,29
-3,49
0,00
-2,20
-0,92
-1,47
-0,73
0,00
-0,83
-0,18
0,64
0,18
-2,75
0,09
0,00
0,46
-0,46
-0,73
-0,55
-0,37
-2,48
-0,46
-0,73
-2,85
-2,85
-1,01
-0,64
-3,31
-0,09

98
115
112
99
94
78
89
95
72
52
94
92
92
80
77
96
96
93
65
67
96
86
88
100
77
89
69
82
87
84
81
95
64
82
70
67
76
66
81
114
89
75
75
91
97
49
87

0,69
1,99
1,76
0,76
0,38
-0,84
0,00
0,46
-1,30
-2,83
0,38
0,23
0,23
-0,69
-0,92
0,53
0,53
0,31
-1,83
-1,68
0,53
-0,23
-0,08
0,84
-0,92
0,00
-1,53
-0,53
-0,15
-0,38
-0,61
0,46
-1,91
-0,53
-1,45
-1,68
-0,99
-1,76
-0,61
1,91
0,00
-1,07
-1,07
0,15
0,61
-3,06
-0,15

96
84
105
90
88
82
111
76
83
72
89
76
65
95
88
74
87
108
89
88
93
101
76
74
91
93
80
71
98
96
109
105
72
99
83
90
79
99
91
81
83
87
82
93
78
49
100

0,26
-0,78
1,04
-0,26
-0,43
-0,95
1,56
-1,47
-0,87
-1,82
-0,35
-1,47
-2,42
0,17
-0,43
-1,64
-0,52
1,30
-0,35
-0,43
0,00
0,69
-1,47
-1,64
-0,17
0,00
-1,12
-1,90
0,43
0,26
1,38
1,04
-1,82
0,52
-0,87
-0,26
-1,21
0,52
-0,17
-1,04
-0,87
-0,52
-0,95
0,00
-1,30
-3,81
0,61

104
90
107
89
93
82
101
76
82
54
86
108
63
62
79
89
74
92
65
90
76
85
91
94
94
87
77
69
89
72
61
98
83
103
77
80
82
83
106
88
90
81
85
101
71
67
86

ST04MO
ST19WI
ST21TS
ST34BE
SU32AW
SW32ST
TA25WA
Ta44as
TA62KI
TH04FR
th08eb
TH08LU
TH08SM
Th11Hu
TH16BA
TH18KA
TH20KO
Th22th
TH26DO
TH45FL
TH62PE
TH82YO
THNYCH
TI05JA
Ti12ka
ti18ja
TI51TI
TI80RE
TM20MA
TT99TT
TW20XO
TW34OS
VI21TY
VS05YY
WE16Z0
WH54FL
WO31BL
WRRVC
WS14MI
WU90GH
XM06PA
YJ24TU
zocacl

81
81
80
104
87
87
105
71
79
86
100
99
103
85
112
106
88
90
101
91
75
98
92
107
75
96
95
90
104
97
83
102
86
93
81
80
92
71
108
98
69
98
95

Agreeableness
Stdeviation

-1,38
-1,38
-1,47
0,73
-0,83
-0,83
0,83
-2,30
-1,56
-0,92
0,37
0,28
0,64
-1,01
1,47
0,92
-0,73
-0,55
0,46
-0,46
-1,93
0,18
-0,37
1,01
-1,93
0,00
-0,09
-0,55
0,73
0,09
-1,19
0,55
-0,92
-0,28
-1,38
-1,47
-0,37
-2,30
1,10
0,18
-2,48
0,18
-0,09

82
72
95
81
89
83
99
71
69
78
98
85
96
84
62
82
91
97
104
78
81
67
104
86
68
94
87
103
91
107
71
97
82
89
63
74
62
71
108
86
70
92
106

-0,53
-1,30
0,46
-0,61
0,00
-0,46
0,76
-1,37
-1,53
-0,84
0,69
-0,31
0,53
-0,38
-2,06
-0,53
0,15
0,61
1,15
-0,84
-0,61
-1,68
1,15
-0,23
-1,60
0,38
-0,15
1,07
0,15
1,37
-1,37
0,61
-0,53
0,00
-1,99
-1,15
-2,06
-1,37
1,45
-0,23
-1,45
0,23
1,30

Conscientiousness
OpennessExtraversion
Stdeviation Stdeviation
Stdeviation

94
102
108
100
82
87
81
68
110
69
81
83
83
89
100
79
71
76
79
66
88
83
84
72
94
81
89
79
74
87
97
67
97
76
76
76
88
74
81
86
87
84
85

Neuroticism
Stdeviation

0,09
0,78
1,30
0,61
-0,95
-0,52
-1,04
-2,16
1,47
-2,08
-1,04
-0,87
-0,87
-0,35
0,61
-1,21
-1,90
-1,47
-1,21
-2,34
-0,43
-0,87
-0,78
-1,82
0,09
-1,04
-0,35
-1,21
-1,64
-0,52
0,35
-2,25
0,35
-1,47
-1,47
-1,47
-0,43
-1,64
-1,04
-0,61
-0,52
-0,78
-0,69

86
103
84
76
53
69
96
61
113
85
86
101
89
78
93
66
72
74
99
74
94
67
70
104
72
101
81
85
63
93
85
99
76
80
85
87
63
77
100
65
94
96
94

11

13,09
mean
89,00

mean
96

11,56
13,90
mean
mean
93,00
87,00

16,77
mean
63,00

Key
A= Agreeableness
B= Conscientious
C= Openness
D= Extraversion
E= Neuroticism
F= Social Disability

Agreeableness
Conscientious
Low
Moderate
Higher low
Moderate
125
71
33
86
Openness
low

Extraversion
Moderate
Higher Low
Moderate
143
54
32
136

Neuroticism

Higher
74

Higher
63

Social Disability

low

Moderate
48

Higher Low
69
112

69

30

z score
0,35
-2,42
-1,38
-2,77
0,09
0,43
-0,26
-1,30
-0,09
0,61
-1,73
-2,16
-1,56
-1,90
0,35
-0,35
0,26
-2,68
0,95
-1,99
0,69
0,52
0,35
-2,42
-1,04
0,26
-2,94
-1,47
-1,30
-3,29
-2,42
-1,64
-0,87
-1,82
-2,77
-1,73
-1,38
1,21
-1,82
-2,08
-1,47
0,35
-2,08
-3,29
-0,52

E
72
69
82
80
79
70
95
70
61
71
99
96
99
68
80
49
52
78
84
74
95
66
55
65
72
52
73
63
96
105
109
47
82
70
74
83
74
40
77
81
89
65
63
91
57

z score
0,54
0,36
1,13
1,01
0,95
0,42
1,91
0,42
-0,12
0,48
2,15
1,97
2,15
0,30
1,01
-0,83
-0,66
0,89
1,25
0,66
1,91
0,18
-0,48
0,12
0,54
-0,66
0,60
0,00
1,97
2,50
2,74
-0,95
1,13
0,42
0,66
1,19
0,66
-1,37
0,83
1,07
1,55
0,12
0,00
1,67
-0,36

F
6
5
6
5
5
3
3
4
5
5
5
2
4
4
2
7
10
10
6
4
5
3
9
7
5
3
6
8
9
4
1
8
6
4
6
9
5
5
8
5
5
3
6
7
5

-0,35
-0,95
-0,35
-0,87
-0,17
0,26
-2,16
0,52
-1,73
-0,78
0,61
-2,42
-1,90
-0,78
0,09
-1,82
1,38
-2,08
-2,94
-0,43
-1,38
0,43
-2,51
-2,60
-1,90
-2,85
-0,35
-0,61
1,64
-1,21
-0,26
-2,68
-0,26
-1,30
-1,73
-1,12
-3,37
-1,64
0,95
-3,55
0,00
-1,99
0,61
-2,51
0,78
0,17
-1,99

60
71
88
49
74
43
40
46
103
50
78
96
60
68
84
84
40
78
86
59
65
61
57
72
56
77
64
67
37
91
61
88
93
63
74
37
81
80
45
95
36
72
65
81
45
57
75

-0,18
0,48
1,49
-0,83
0,66
-1,19
-1,37
-1,01
2,38
-0,77
0,89
1,97
-0,18
0,30
1,25
1,25
-1,37
0,89
1,37
-0,24
0,12
-0,12
-0,36
0,54
-0,42
0,83
0,06
0,24
-1,55
1,67
-0,12
1,49
1,79
0,00
0,66
-1,55
1,07
1,01
-1,07
1,91
-1,61
0,54
0,12
1,07
-1,07
-0,36
0,72

6
1
8
7
5
6
8
7
3
8
4
5
4
3
3
7
4
4
3
7
4
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
8
3
4
6
3
6
6
10
4
7
5
9
8
7
8
5
8
4
6

-2,16
-0,52
-0,17
-1,12
-1,64
-2,34
-0,43
-0,43
-2,85
-2,60
-1,64
-2,77
0,00
-2,60
-2,08
-1,64
0,52
-0,61
-1,82
-1,56
-1,30
-1,99
-2,94
-0,69
0,61
-1,90
-1,47
-1,47
-2,25
0,00
-0,26
-3,72
-0,09
-0,78
1,21
-0,17
-1,30
-2,51
-0,61
-1,04
-1,21
0,35
-1,64
-0,17
-2,51
-2,34
-2,16

63
90
67
47
91
88
54
54
66
111
88
63
65
98
66
45
86
57
64
65
47
65
72
89
61
88
73
77
55
63
68
106
68
105
39
69
66
82
79
83
86
53
62
78
60
79
99

0,00
1,61
0,24
-0,95
1,67
1,49
-0,54
-0,54
0,18
2,86
1,49
0,00
0,12
2,09
0,18
-1,07
1,37
-0,36
0,06
0,12
-0,95
0,12
0,54
1,55
-0,12
1,49
0,60
0,83
-0,48
0,00
0,30
2,56
0,30
2,50
-1,43
0,36
0,18
1,13
0,95
1,19
1,37
-0,60
-0,06
0,89
-0,18
0,95
2,15

6
3
4
10
2
3
5
7
4
2
4
7
5
5
4
1
4
7
5
6
5
5
9
7
2
5
2
3
5
4
6
1
6
4
8
6
6
8
2
4
4
8
6
3
4
6
5

0,95
-0,26
1,21
-0,35
0,00
-0,95
0,69
-1,47
-0,95
-3,37
-0,61
1,30
-2,60
-2,68
-1,21
-0,35
-1,64
-0,09
-2,42
-0,26
-1,47
-0,69
-0,17
0,09
0,09
-0,52
-1,38
-2,08
-0,35
-1,82
-2,77
0,43
-0,87
0,87
-1,38
-1,12
-0,95
-0,87
1,12
-0,43
-0,26
-1,04
-0,69
0,69
-1,90
-2,25
-0,61

47
29
42
65
51
55
64
63
53
92
74
52
58
52
89
50
69
76
88
82
78
75
37
60
55
63
58
90
89
86
84
65
69
71
68
83
77
83
76
61
81
68
95
47
98
87
82

-0,95
-2,03
-1,25
0,12
-0,72
-0,48
0,06
0,00
-0,60
1,73
0,66
-0,66
-0,30
-0,66
1,55
-0,77
0,36
0,77
1,49
1,13
0,89
0,72
-1,55
-0,18
-0,48
0,00
-0,30
1,61
1,55
1,37
1,25
0,12
0,36
0,48
0,30
1,19
0,83
1,19
0,77
-0,12
1,07
0,30
1,91
-0,95
2,09
1,43
1,13

4
8
2
7
7
6
8
4
8
3
5
3
6
2
2
6
6
7
3
2
5
5
4
6
6
5
3
2
4
6
4
8
3
6
4
5
6
7
1
6
4
3
4
4
4
2
7

-0,61
0,87
-0,78
-1,47
-3,46
-2,08
0,26
-2,77
1,73
-0,69
-0,61
0,69
-0,35
-1,30
0,00
-2,34
-1,82
-1,64
0,52
-1,64
0,09
-2,25
-1,99
0,95
-1,82
0,69
-1,04
-0,69
-2,60
0,00
-0,69
0,52
-1,47
-1,12
-0,69
-0,52
-2,60
-1,38
0,61
-2,42
0,09
0,26
0,09

67
50
45
80
68
82
51
74
57
78
38
64
55
62
85
81
75
54
53
62
57
94
34
64
87
62
83
79
70
53
84
88
84
59
90
95
74
81
43
59
87
81
41

0,24
-0,77
-1,07
1,01
0,30
1,13
-0,72
0,66
-0,36
0,89
-1,49
0,06
-0,48
-0,06
1,31
1,07
0,72
-0,54
-0,60
-0,06
-0,36
1,85
-1,73
0,06
1,43
-0,06
1,19
0,95
0,42
-0,60
1,25
1,49
1,25
-0,24
1,61
1,91
0,66
1,07
-1,19
-0,24
1,43
1,07
-1,31

6
6
7
6
4
3
7
8
3
4
10
3
7
4
8
5
6
8
4
2
5
2
8
5
1
5
5
6
9
7
5
8
6
7
1
2
5
3
7
9
0
5
6

Column
A
B-F

Description
ID
Personality Domains

G

Social Desirability

Student ID based on 2 letters from favourite movie, street number, and favourite pet's na
120 Item IPIP (IRT Version, Maples et al., 2014)
OCEAN domain scores based on the measure by Maples et al. (2014), reflective of the NE
Higher scores (maximum = 120) indicate traits more strongly indicative of the domain in q
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Form X-2)
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-C
Higher scores (maximum = 10) indicate responses that are more likely to be reflective of

For the item-level data, column headers refer to the items of Maples et al. (2014) as refle

ngly indicative of the domain in question. For descriptions of each domain, please see your textbook, or the relevant slides from Session 2

d short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (1), 119-125.

the relevant slides from Session 2's lecture.

ID
123456
234567
1046SY
3SHA
5030CO
a2
AA11BB
AA32AA
Abc123
AL22PA
AM29PE
AM51PE
AM94PE
AQ05BE
AS16CA
AS29BO
av09me
AV12AS
AV13TO
AV23HU
AV32HO
AV34CO
av54me
AV54NN
AW15CA
BA08MA
BA21ED
bbbbbb
BE09PR
BI67LU
BL18JA
BL23DO
BR04BR
BS12JA
BUM
CA08MO
CA09AR
Ca50Do
CH23BE
CP11LI
DA10MU
DA11MU
DA18GY
DA34MI
DC26LE
DE13OS

NAnx1

NAnx2
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
2
4
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
5
2
4
4
5
4
4
5
2
3

NAnx3
5
2
3
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
5
5
5
3
4
2
1
5
5
4
5
4
2
3
3
1
3
3
4
5
5
2
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
2
5
3
3

NAnx4
4
3
4
4
2
4
1
4
2
1
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
2
4
4
1
5
1
2
1
4
1
4
2
3
4
2
5
1
4

NAng1
2
4
5
4
4
4
5
2
2
3
5
5
5
4
5
3
2
2
5
3
5
3
2
2
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
1
4
2
4
5
5
1
4
5
4
3
4
5
4
1

NAng2
2
2
2
1
4
4
5
4
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
1
3
4
4
4
1
4
3
5
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
4
4
4
2
4
1
2

NAng3
3
4
4
2
3
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
5
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
2
3
4
4
2
2
5
3
5
4
3
4
2
4
4
1
3
4
5
4
3
5
1
4

NAng4R
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
2
3
4
3
1
4
3
5
4
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
1
2

4
2
2
4
2
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
1
3
2
4
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
3

DE70SS
Di01am
DI04AL
Di16je
DI18DO
DK90CL
DR26TR
DR35AV
DR91SO
EL67KA
EN18SU
EN21TO
ffkhjm
FI02OT
FI04JI
FL72KE
Fluffy
fo40fr
FO41PI
Fo65sy
FR38SA
Fu89bo
gl52an
GO19BR
GO75NU
GR24ZE
GR29NI
GW18CI
HA05GI
HA06SU
HA07GA
HA08JE
HA11CH
HA...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Good stuff. Would use again.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors