The development of a conscientiousness measure for African-American college students

Conscientiousness has become an important construct in predicting the academic performance of students and the job performance of employees. However, there is some question as to whether or not conscientiousness is valid for African-Americans (AFAs). The present research project investigated the differences between AFA and European- Americans (EUA) students on two culturally specific conscientiousness measures: the African-American Conscientiousness Scale (AFACS) and Factor G from the Sixteen- Personality Factor (16PF).

This study was conducted in two phases. In Phase one, the AFACS was developed on AFAs. The AFACS was administered to 160 AFAs to determine the validity and reliability of the scale. The results demonstrated that there were two main factors that formed the AFACS (competence and rule following). In Phase two, differences between 192 AFA and 214 EUA students on the AFACS and Factor G were examined. This study also examined students' reactions (using the face validity scale and the perceived predictive validity scale) to the AFACS and Factor G.

The results of this study show that AFAs had higher mean scores on competence than EUAs, but there were no statistical significant differences on the rule following factor. For Factor G, AFA females had higher conscientiousness scores than EUA females, contrary to my hypothesis. The findings regarding students' reactions to the conscientiousness measures using the face validity scale and the perceived predictive validity scale show that there were no statistically significant differences between AFA females and EUA students on the etic and emic conscientiousness measures. Nevertheless, the findings show that AFA males had more negative reactions toward all of the conscientiousness measures except on the perceived predictive validity scale measuring reactions toward the AFACS. It is proposed that for AFA males, their elevated feelings of distrust in American society may extend to their negative reactions toward tests.

The study on AFA and EUA differences is complex and will not lend itself to simple racial differences but by specific constructs being studied. There is a need for further research regarding etic and emic personality measures for AFAs and EUAs and reactions to these measures.