Validation of the Short Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS-10)
Abstract
Abstract: We readdressed the multidimensionality of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS) by reanalyzing Rohrmann et al.’s (2016) dataset, which led to the development of an improved 10-item CIPS (CIPS-10). The validity of the CIPS-10 was further examined by correlating it with HEXACO personality traits and work-related outcomes in a newly collected working adult sample (N = 294). Factor analyses, reliability coefficients, and validity coefficients indicated that reporting and interpreting the total scores of both the CIPS and CIPS-10 was sufficient. We found the CIPS-10 to be positively related to Emotionality, job stress, turnover intention, and negatively related to Conscientiousness, Honesty-Humility, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and job satisfaction. The findings offer support for the validity of the CIPS-10.
References
2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
(2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
(2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245
(2022). Sample size requirements for bifactor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(5), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.2019587
(2019). Noncompliant responding: Comparing exclusion criteria in MTurk personality research to improve data quality. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.015
(2002). Applying the big five personality factors to the impostor phenomenon. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(2), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_07
(2016). Validation of the German-language Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (GCIPS). Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.071
(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
(1964). The importance of factor-trueness and validity, versus homogeneity and orthogonality, in test scales 1. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400101
(2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
(1995). Validation of the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_6
(1987). The imposter phenomenon: An internal barrier to empowerment and achievement. Women & Therapy, 6(3), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015V06N03_05
(2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
(2008). The Revised Neo Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Sage Publications, Inc.
(2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 871–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.003
(2016). What is engagement? Proactivity as the missing link in the HEXACO model of personality. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12150
(2008). The psychometric properties of the Clance Impostor Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1270–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.023
(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
(2006). Doing it all bass-ackwards: The development of hierarchical factor structures from the top down. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.001
(1981). The impostor phenomenon and achievement: A failure to internalise success [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University.
(2014). To boast or not to boast: Testing the humility aspect of the Honesty–Humility factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.033
(1993). Measuring the impostor phenomenon: A comparison of Clance’s IP Scale and Harvey’s IP Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6001_3
(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
(2018). What impostors risk at work: Exploring impostor phenomenon, stress coping, and job outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21304
(2021). Examining the impostor-profile – Is there a general impostor characteristic? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article
(3847 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.7200722020). Common academic experiences no one talks about: Repeated rejection, impostor syndrome, and burnout. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898848
(2012). When will they blow my cover? The impostor phenomenon among Austrian doctoral students. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000102
(2008).
(Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work . In M. EidR. J. LarsenEds., The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393–413). Guilford Press.2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182
(2017). All impostors aren’t alike – Differentiating the impostor phenomenon. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article
(1505 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.015051957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3(3), 635–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
(2019). Impostor phenomenon measurement scales: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article
(671 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.006712016). A multi-rater framework for studying personality: The trait-reputation-identity model. Psychological Review, 123(5), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000035
(1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.618
(1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52(3), 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294365
(2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
(2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
(2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
(2018).
(Bifactor modelling and the evaluation of scale scores . In P. IrwingT. BoothD. J. HughesEds., The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (Vol. 1, pp. 675–707). Wiley.2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
(2016). Validation of the impostor phenomenon among managers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article
(821 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.008212001). The imposter phenomenon, achievement dispositions, and the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1347–1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00228-2
(2018). Using factor analysis to validate the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale in sample of science, technology, engineering and mathematics doctoral students. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.039
(2014). Fear of being exposed: The trait-relatedness of the impostor phenomenon and its relevance in the work context. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9382-5
(2020, November 9). HEXACO personality facets and the imposter phenomenon. https://osf.io/nfbe4/
(2022, September 1). Validation of the Short Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS-10). https://osf.io/pdb6a/
(2022). Thinking thrice about sum scores, and then some more about measurement and analysis. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01849-w
(2020). Validation of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale with female Hebrew-speaking students. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 11(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043808720974341
(2012). Examining the relationships among job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention: An empirical study. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(20), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n20p44
(2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814
(