Understanding and Measuring Creative Thinking in Leaders

188 THE 71F ADVANTAGEthe correlation matrix relating each instrument’s scales with those of theother (see table 8–3). These results generally support the assertion thateach instrument’s scales are roughly measuring the same Big Five dimension.The critical correlations in terms of concurrent validity arefound along the diagonal, where they range from an absolute value of.57 to .77, with that between the two openness measures being .60. Atthe same time, one can be encouraged that in terms of the off-diagonalcorrelations, there are none for openness that are above .25. While evenlower off-diagonal correlations would be desirable, the mutually discriminatingpower of the scales across instruments is fairly good.Table 8–3. Mini-markers and IPIP–NEO Big Five Scale IntercorrelationMatrixIPIP–NEOSurgencyMini-markersEmotionalStabilityAgreeablenessConscientiousnessOpennessExtraversion .77* .21* .08 .17* .18*Agreeableness -.06 .57* .19* .30* .01Conscientiousness.11 .31* .64* .17* .17*Neuroticism -.32* -.29* -.22* -.65* -.10Openness .25* .19* -.12 -.04 .60*Note: N = 235–242; all (*) correlations are significant at p < .05.Within-instrument scale orthogonality. Within each instrument, oneshould see interscale correlations as low as possible to justify assertionsthat each is measuring an orthogonal or conceptually distinct Big Fivepersonality dimension. This assumption, of course, also underlies thevarimax rotation method in the factor extraction analyses. Table 8–4presents the scale intercorrelations for both the MM and IPIP–NEO instrumentson the openness measures. While openness has statisticallysignificant correlations with extraversion/surgency and agreeablenessfor both instruments, these are moderate to low, which renders someconfidence these respective instrument scales are at least partially orthogonalto one other.