Measuring Intellectual Curiosity across Cultures: Validity and Comparability of a New Scale in Six Languages

References

• Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Thomas, K. M., Johnson, C. D., & Mack, D. A. (2007). Assessing the multigroup ethnic identity measure for measurement equivalence across racial and ethnic groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406299105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 45(3), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S176–S181. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245143.08679.cc
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361–379). Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Buchholz, J., & Hartig, J. (2020). Measurement invariance testing in questionnaires: A comparison of three multigroup-CFA and IRT-based approaches. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(1), 29–53.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). The maximum likelihood alignment approach to testing for approximate measurement invariance: A paradigmatic cross-cultural application. Psicothema, 29(4), 539–551. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The Efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2012). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111421987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, L., Tsai, J. L., & Fung, H. H. (2021). Association between age and intellectual curiosity: The mediating roles of future time perspective and importance of curiosity. European Journal of Ageing, 18(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-020-00567-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieciuch, J., & Davidov, E. (2015). Establishing measurement invariance across online and offline samples. A tutorial with the software packages Amos and Mplus. Studia Psychologica, 15(2), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2015.14.2.06
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidov, E., Datler, G., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2018). Testing the invariance of values in the Benelux countries with the European Social Survey: Accounting for ordinality. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed., pp. 157–179). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, T. L., Severy, L. J., Kraus, S. J., & Whitaker, J. M. (1993). Predictors of sentencing decisions: The beliefs, personality variables, and demographic factors of juvenile justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(6), 451–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellenbach, M., Zimprich, D., & Martin, M. (2008). Kognitiv stimulierende Aktivitäten im mittleren und höheren Erwachsenenalter - ein gerontopsychologischer Beitrag zur Diskussion um informelles Lernen. In A. Kruse (Ed.), Weiterbildung in der zweiten Lebenshälfte (pp. 121–159). Bertelsmann.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Y., & Dumas, D. (2020). Are personality measures valid for different populations? A systematic review of measurement invariance across cultures, gender, and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 160, 109956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhard, G., & Monsaas, J. A. (1988). Grade level, gender, and school-related curiosity in urban elementary schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, T. D. (2012). QuantPsyc: Quantitative psychology tools. R package version 1.5. https://cran.r-project.org/package=QuantPsyc
   Google Scholar
• Furnham, A., & Thorne, J. D. (2013). Need for cognition. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GESIS. (2021). PIAAC pilot studies on non-cognitive skills. https://www.gesis.org/piaac/fdz/daten/piaac-pilot-studies-on-non-cognitive-skills
   Google Scholar
• Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.537
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2001). Testing parameters in structural equation modeling: Every “one” matters. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.6.3.258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorges, J., Koch, T., Maehler, D. B., & Offerhaus, J. (2017). Same but different? Measurement invariance of the PIAAC motivation-to-learn scale across key socio-demographic groups. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 5(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-017-0047-5
   Google Scholar
• Grosjean, P., & Ibanez, F. (2018). Pastecs: Package for analysis of space-time ecological series. R package version 1.3.21. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pastecs
   Google Scholar
• Gross, J., & Ligges, U. (2015). Nortest: Tests for normality. R package version 1.0-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nortest
   Google Scholar
• Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grüning, D. J., & Lechner, C. M. (2023). Measuring six facets of curiosity in Germany and the UK: A German-language adaptation of the 5DCR and its comparability with the English-language source version. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2057318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284–1295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, J. H., III, Ness, A. M., & Mecca, J. (2017). Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, 1, 35–56.
   Google Scholar
• Hensley, B., Martin, P., Margrett, J. A., MacDonald, M., Siegler, I. C., Poon, L. W., Jazwinski, S. M., Green, R. C., Gearing, M., Woodard, J. L., Johnson, M. A., Tenover, J. S., Rodgers, W. L., Hausman, D. B., Rott, C., Davey, A., & Arnold, J., The Georgia Centenarian Study 1. (2012). Life events and personality predicting loneliness among centenarians: Findings from the Georgia centenarian study. The Journal of Psychology, 146(1–2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.613874
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henze, N., & Zirkler, B. (1990). A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 19(10), 3595–3617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610929008830400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity Activates Reward Circuitry and Enhances Memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011
   Google Scholar
• Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate Normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031
   Google Scholar
• Lauriola, M., Litman, J. A., Mussel, P., De Santis, R., Crowson, H. M., & Hoffman, R. R. (2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenth, R. V. (2021). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.6.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
   Google Scholar
• Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, J. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou, N. M., & Li, L. M. W. (2023). The mindsets × societal norm effect across 78 cultures: Growth mindsets are linked to performance weakly and well-being negatively in societies with fixed-mindset norms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maehler, D. B., & Rammstedt, B. (Eds.). (2020). Large-scale cognitive assessment: Analyzing PIAAC data. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47515-4
   Google Scholar
• Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Nagengast, B., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Dicke, T. (2018). What to do when scalar invariance fails: The extended alignment method for multi-group factor analysis comparison of latent means across many groups. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 524–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2020). Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2287–2305. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857
   Google Scholar
• Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mussel, P., Spengler, M., Litman, J. A., & Schuler, H. (2012). Development and validation of the German Work-Related Curiosity Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(4), 622–647. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1004_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2012 results: Ready to learn (Volume III): Students’ engagement, drive and self-beliefs. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201170-en
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018a). Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), English pilot study on non-cognitive skills. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6940 Data file Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13062
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018b). Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), International pilot study on non-cognitive skills. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6941 Data file Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13063
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). What the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) measures. In The survey of adult skills: Reader’s companion (3rd ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0e96cba5-en
   Google Scholar
• Orcutt, J. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2017). Beyond being there: Practices that establish presence, engage students and influence intellectual curiosity in a structured online learning environment. Online Learning, 21(3), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partsch, M. V., & Danner, D. (2021). Measuring self-control in international large-scale surveys: Development and validation of a four-item scale in English, French, German, Japanese, Polish, and Spanish. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(5), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Piotrowski, J. T., Litman, J. A., & Valkenburg, P. (2014). Measuring epistemic curiosity in young children. Infant and Child Development, 23(5), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, C., & Nettelbeck, T. (2014). Intellectual curiosity may not incrementally predict academic success. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, C., Nettelbeck, T., & Burns, N. R. (2016). Deconstructing intellectual curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rammstedt, B. (2013). Grundlegende Kompetenzen Erwachsener im internationalen Vergleich: Ergebnisse von PIAAC 2012. Waxmann. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-360687
   Google Scholar
• Rammstedt, B., Grüning, D. J., & Lechner, C. M. (2022). Measuring growth mindset: Validation of a three-item and a single-item scale in adolescents and adults. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., & Bluemke, M. (2021). Examining multidimensional measuring instruments for proximity to unidimensional structure using latent variable modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(2), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420940764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Version = 2.0.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royston, J. P. (1983). A simple method for evaluating the Shapiro–Francia W-test of non-normality. The Statistician), 32(3), 297–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/2987935
   Google Scholar
• Royston, P. (1995). Remark AS R94: A remark on algorithm AS 181: The W-test for normality. Applied Statistics), 44(4), 547–551. https://doi.org/10.2307/2986146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski, C. J. (1993). An examination of the short need for cognition scale. The Journal of Psychology, 127(4), 451–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9915581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, R., & Campos, D. G. (2022). Measuring those who have their minds set: An item-level meta-analysis of the implicit theories of intelligence scale in education. Educational Research Review, 37, 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeders, U., & Gnambs, T. (2018). Degrees of freedom in multigroup confirmatory factor analyses. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeders, U., Schipolowski, S., & Böhme, K. (2015). Typical intellectual engagement and achievement in math and the sciences in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2021). Afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 1.0-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. C., Rose, A. D., Ross-Gordon, J., & Smith, T. J. (2015). Adults’ readiness to learn as a predictor of literacy skills. Retrieved September 02, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amy-Rose-11/publication/285588147_Adults’_Readiness_to_Learn_as_a_Predictor_of_Literacy_Skills/links/5660696308ae418a78665846/Adults-Readiness-to-Learn-as-a-Predictor-of-Literacy-Skills.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner, M. D., & Grieder, S. (2020). EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(53), 2521. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02521
   Google Scholar
• Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2020). Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines: An illustration using M plus and the lavaan/semTools packages. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trudewind, C. (2000). Curiosity and anxiety as motivational determinants of cognitive development. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 131, pp. 15–38). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(00)80004-7
   Google Scholar
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3
   Google Scholar
• von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 841–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030746
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wald, A. (1943). Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 54(3), 426–482. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1943-0012401-3
   Google Scholar
• Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2021). Dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.0.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
   Google Scholar
• Wiggin, K. L., Reimann, M., & Jain, S. P. (2019). Curiosity tempts indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(6), 1194–1212. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo, S. E., Harms, P. D., & Kuncel, N. R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1635–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? The American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagumny, M. J. (2016). Q-test of undergraduate epistemology and scientific thought: Development and testing of an assessment of scientific-epistemology. International Journal of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, 10(5) 1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1124261
   Google Scholar
• Zagumny, M. J. (2018). Psychometric examination of the QUEST-25: An online assessment of intellectual curiosity and scientific epistemology. International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 12(7), 928–932. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1317376
   Google Scholar
• Zimprich, D., Allemand, M., & Dellenbach, M. (2009). Openness to experience, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence in middle-aged and old adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar