Abstract:
A common question asked by researchers involved with large-scale, cross-cultural investigations is ‘how can comparisons of personality factor scores (or other individual difference variables) be facilitated across many different countries?’ Guided by this question, we examined the structure and function of two shortened versions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Colledani, Anselmi, & Robusto, 2019; Francis, Brown, & Philipchalk, 1992) using the data from Eysenck and Barrett (2013), which includes responses from over 43,000 individuals from 35 different countries. We leveraged the cutting-edge factor alignment method, which allowed us to gain comprehensive and nuanced insight into the cross-cultural measurement invariance of the EPQ’s extraversion, psychoticism, neuroticism, and lie scales. Crucially, we found that observed scores would have weak comparability across countries had alignment not been applied. Together, our findings underscore several critical implications for researchers and practitioners, and suggest a number of future research initiatives.

The use of team projects is common in higher education. Teamwork offers an avenue to help students learn to collaborate and develop the interpersonal skills needed for career success. However, the teams are not always effective, which may undermine student learning, growth, and development. In the current research, we integrate accountability, valence, motivation, and social loafing theories in order to advance an understanding of the role of peer evaluations conducted at the end of a team project. We use a state-of-the-art peer feedback system that allows students to assess and evaluate each other on five competencies critical to teamwork. This system also permits the assessment of overall team functioning. These outcomes are critical as they are related to learning as well as grades on team projects. Over three years and using a total sample size of 162 teams and 873 students, we found that the use of peer evaluations for grading purposes, compared to a control group, promoted effective team member behaviour and overall team health. Future research is needed to further investigate the optimal use of peer evaluations in a variety of contexts using a variety of methods.”