The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with academic performance

Background. The relationship between personality and academic performance has long been explored, and a recent meta‐analysis established that measures of the five‐factor model (FFM) dimension of Conscientiousness have similar validity to intelligence measures. Although currently dominant, the FFM is only one of the currently accepted models of personality, and has limited theoretical support. In contrast, the Eysenckian personality model was developed to assess a specific theoretical model and is still commonly used in educational settings and research. Aims. This meta‐analysis assessed the validity of the Eysenckian personality measures for predicting academic performance. Sample. Statistics were obtained for correlations with Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (20–23 samples; N from 8,013 to 9,191), with smaller aggregates for the Lie scale (7 samples; N= 3,910). Methods. The Hunter–Schmidt random effects method was used to estimate population correlations between the Eysenckian personality measures and academic performance. Moderating effects were tested using weighted least squares regression. Results. Significant but modest validities were reported for each scale. Neuroticism and Extraversion had relationships with academic performance that were consistent with previous findings, while Psychoticism appears to be linked to academic performance because of its association with FFM Conscientiousness. Age and educational level moderated correlations with Neuroticism and Extraversion, and gender had no moderating effect. Correlations varied significantly based on the measurement instrument used. Conclusions. The Eysenckian scales do not add to the prediction of academic performance beyond that provided by FFM scales. Several measurement problems afflict the Eysenckian scales, including low to poor internal reliability and complex factor structures. In particular, the measurement and validity problems of Psychoticism mean its continued use in academic settings is unjustified.