Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES-Core)

1. Abstract

The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) is a psychometrically validated, 12-item self-report instrument designed by Timothy A. Judge, Amir Erez, Joyce E. Bono, and Carl J. Thoresen (2003) to directly assess core self-evaluations (CSE). Core self-evaluations represent a broad, higher-order, latent personality construct that captures an individual’s fundamental, subconscious appraisals about their personal self-worth, agency, competence, and capacity to navigate life challenges. Conceptually and empirically, the construct integrates four well-established lower-order personality traits that had historically been studied in isolation: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability (the inverse of neuroticism).

Rather than relying on composite scores aggregated across lengthier separate inventories measuring these four subsidiary dimensions—an approach that introduced substantial measurement redundancy, construct contamination, and administrative burden—the CSES was developed as an economical, direct, and unidimensional measure of the latent core. Respondents evaluate 12 statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), with an even split of six positively keyed items and six negatively keyed (reverse-scored) items designed to mitigate acquiescence response bias.

Extensive psychometric investigations across diverse clinical, educational, community, and organizational populations confirm that the CSES exhibits robust internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha values consistently between .81 and .88; test-retest reliability r = .81 over three months). Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that the unidimensional model demonstrates superior fit relative to competing multi-factor specifications. The instrument exhibits extensive convergent validity with the four individual core traits (correlations ranging from .50 to .80), strong discriminant validity with non-core Big Five personality traits, and profound criterion-related validity in predicting subjective well-being, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, goal self-concordance, stress coping, and objective job performance across occupational strata.

2. Keywords

Core self-evaluations, CSES, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, emotional stability, neuroticism, psychometrics, job satisfaction, job performance, higher-order personality traits, subjective well-being.

3. Authors

The Core Self-Evaluations Scale was developed and validated through a multi-study collaborative program led by four prominent researchers in organizational behavior, psychometrics, and applied psychology:

• Timothy A. Judge, Ph.D.: A distinguished organizational psychologist who served on the faculties of the University of Florida, the University of Notre Dame (Mendoza College of Business), and the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. Judge formulated the theoretical framework of core self-evaluations in 1997 alongside Edwin A. Locke and Cathy C. Durham, establishing the higher-order structural linkages between self-appraisals and work outcomes.
• Amir Erez, Ph.D.: The W.A. McGriff, III Professor of Management at the Warrington College of Business, University of Florida. Erez’s research focuses on the impact of affect, positive psychology, and subconscious cognitive mechanisms on decision-making, individual productivity, and workplace interpersonal dynamics.
• Joyce E. Bono, Ph.D.: Professor of Management at the Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, and former faculty member at the University of Minnesota. Bono is widely recognized for her meta-analytic work on personality architecture, leadership, workplace interactions, and the intersection between self-concept traits and occupational well-being.
• Carl J. Thoresen, Ph.D.: An industrial-organizational psychologist affiliated with Tulane University and organizational assessment consultancies, specializing in quantitative measurement, latent construct modeling, personnel selection, and employee stress coping dynamics.

4. Purpose

The central purpose of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) is to provide an efficient, psychometrically sound, and direct measurement instrument for assessing the underlying higher-order construct of core self-evaluations. Prior to the creation of the CSES by Judge et al. (2003), researchers investigating core self-evaluations were forced to operationalize the construct indirectly. They typically administered four separate, protracted scales: the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (10 items), the New General Self-Efficacy Scale or the Sherer Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (8–17 items), Levenson’s or Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (10–29 items), and a Neuroticism/Emotional Stability subscale from an omnibus personality inventory such as the NEO Personality Inventory or the International Personality Item Pool (10–24 items).

This indirect aggregation approach suffered from several severe theoretical and methodological limitations:

• Construct Redundancy and Collinearity: Factor analytic and meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002) revealed that the four traits shared an enormous amount of common variance, with true-score intercorrelations frequently exceeding .60 to .80. Treating them as independent predictors in regression models produced extreme multicollinearity, unstable regression weights, and artificial suppression effects.
• Administrative and Respondent Burden: Administering batteries of 40 to 80 items generated participant fatigue, high attrition rates in longitudinal studies, and cognitive drift, rendering the assessment impractical for applied field surveys and commercial organizational assessments.
• Measurement of Trait-Specific Peripheral Variance: Individual scales include items measuring peripheral, trait-specific nuances (e.g., somatic manifestations of anxiety in neuroticism scales, or institutional cynicism in locus of control scales) that deviate from the shared, fundamental evaluative appraisal of the self. Consequently, an aggregated composite contaminated the higher-order construct with idiosyncratic lower-order noise.

To resolve these dilemmas, Judge et al. (2003) designed the CSES to tap directly into the shared latent core. In clinical and counseling psychology, the CSES serves as an invaluable diagnostic baseline for evaluating a client’s global self-worth and resilience against affective disorders, identifying individuals vulnerable to depressive helplessness, catastrophic appraisal styles, or chronic imposter phenomena. In industrial-organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior, the scale is extensively utilized for pre-employment screening, leadership development, employee well-being monitoring, and explaining individual variance in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), task productivity, work strain, occupational burnout, and turnover intentions.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CSES is Core Self-Evaluations (CSE). Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) defined core evaluations as fundamental, subconscious conclusions individuals reach about themselves, other people, and the world around them. Core self-evaluations represent the most foundational self-appraisal: an overarching baseline evaluation of one’s personal worth, efficacy, self-determination, and capability to successfully master challenges across the life course. According to construct taxonomy, CSE is a wide-bandwidth, higher-order latent personality trait that subsumes and unifies four historically prominent individual personality dimensions:

1. Self-Esteem

Self-esteem refers to an individual’s overall evaluative appraisal of their worth, value, and respect as a human being (Rosenberg, 1965). It represents the affective and evaluative dimension of self-concept. Individuals high in self-esteem fundamentally accept themselves, acknowledge their inherent dignity, and maintain self-respect even when encountering failure or external criticism. In the CSES, self-esteem is directly reflected in items such as “Overall, I am satisfied with myself” and “Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless” (reverse-scored). In individuals with positive core self-evaluations, self-worth is stable and unconditional, shielding them against acute self-recrimination.

2. Generalized Self-Efficacy

Rooted in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, generalized self-efficacy reflects an individual’s generalized, enduring belief in their capacity to mobilize cognitive, emotional, and behavioral resources needed to successfully execute actions and master demands across a wide spectrum of novel or challenging situations. Unlike domain-specific task self-efficacy, generalized self-efficacy represents an overarching motivational orientation. Within the CSES, this dimension is operationalized through statements such as “When I try, I generally succeed,” “I complete tasks successfully,” and “I am capable of coping with most of my problems.” High-CSE individuals exhibit persistent effort, proactive problem-solving, and rapid recovery following setbacks.

3. Locus of Control

Originating from Julian Rotter’s social learning theory, locus of control pertains to the generalized belief regarding whether life outcomes are primarily determined by one’s internal actions, choices, and effort (internal locus of control) or by external, uncontrollable forces such as luck, fate, chance, or powerful others (external locus of control). People with an internal locus view themselves as active agents of their destiny. In the CSES, internal locus of control is captured by items such as “I determine what will happen in my life” and the reverse-keyed “I do not feel in control of my success in my career” and “Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work.” High-CSE individuals believe that their personal agency dictates their life trajectories.

4. Emotional Stability (Low Neuroticism)

Emotional stability represents the positive pole of the Neuroticism domain within the Big Five personality model. It reflects a chronic dispositional tendency to remain calm, secure, confident, and emotionally resilient, devoid of excessive anxiety, mood volatility, dysphoria, or cognitive hypervigilance. Emotional stability prevents individuals from over-interpreting benign events as catastrophic threats. The CSES assesses this aspect via items such as “Sometimes I feel depressed” (reverse-scored) and “There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me” (reverse-scored). Individuals with elevated CSE maintain composure and optimistic affect under severe stress.

Rather than functioning as independent, isolated faculties, these four attributes coalesce into a single, cohesive, self-reinforcing psychological architecture. An individual cannot sustainably believe they possess total mastery over their environment (high locus of control) while feeling completely incompetent (low self-efficacy) and wallowing in worthlessness and despair (low self-esteem and high neuroticism). Thus, core self-evaluations represent the common psychological root from which these four traits stem.

6. Theoretical Framework

The CSES is grounded in the integrative theoretical framework articulated by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), expanded by Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000), and further developed in subsequent organizational and cognitive models. The model posits that human cognition, motivation, and affective reactions do not emerge spontaneously from external objective stimuli; rather, they are fundamentally shaped by deep-seated cognitive structures termed core evaluations.

Epistemological and Cognitive Foundations

Drawing from cognitive appraisal theories (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and cognitive therapy frameworks (e.g., Beck’s cognitive schemas), Judge and colleagues argued that individuals possess fundamental, subconscious self-schemas. These schemas govern how individuals perceive, categorize, and interpret life situations. When an individual encounters an environmental stressor (such as an ambiguous workplace assignment, negative feedback, or interpersonal conflict):

• Individuals with Positive Core Self-Evaluations: Possess cognitive schemas characterized by agency, capability, and worth. They automatically frame ambiguous situations as stimulating opportunities or controllable challenges. Because they believe they possess the competence to succeed and control over outcomes, they engage approach-oriented self-regulation, adopt intrinsic goals, and experience positive emotional states.
• Individuals with Negative Core Self-Evaluations: Possess schemas characterized by deficiency, helplessness, and vulnerability. They routinely frame the identical objective situation as a threatening, insurmountable crisis. Expecting failure, feeling unworthy of success, and assuming external forces dictate their lives, they deploy avoidance-oriented coping mechanisms, succumb to anxiety, and disengage from effort.

The Tripartite Action Mechanism

Judge et al. formalized three primary psychological mechanisms through which core self-evaluations translate into tangible life outcomes, such as subjective well-being and job performance:

1. Action Process 1: Objective Situation Selection and Modification: High-CSE individuals actively select and curate environments that match their positive self-concept. In career domains, they seek out complex, autonomous, and intrinsically rewarding positions (Judge et al., 2000). They engage in job crafting, restructuring their working environment to maximize congruence between personal strengths and environmental demands.
2. Action Process 2: Cognitive Perception and Appraisal: Even when placed in identical objective environments, high-CSE individuals perceive greater intrinsic challenge, autonomy, and significance in their work than low-CSE individuals. Meta-analyses demonstrate that high-CSE individuals rate the job characteristics of their positions more favorably, indicating that positive core self-evaluations act as a positive perceptual perceptual lens that colors environmental appraisal.
3. Action Process 3: Self-Concordance and Motivation: Core self-evaluations directly influence the nature of goals individuals adopt. Utilizing Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) self-concordance model, Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke (2005) proved that high-CSE individuals choose self-concordant goals—goals that reflect personal values, intrinsic interest, and authentic identity—rather than externally mandated, defensive, or guilt-driven goals. Pursuing self-concordant goals generates higher motivational persistence, greater sustained effort, superior task performance, and greater subjective satisfaction upon goal attainment.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the CSES has been established through extensive validation studies involving collegiate, community, executive, healthcare, and industrial samples internationally.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation studies conducted by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003) across four independent samples totaling over 1,000 participants, the CSES demonstrated pronounced convergent validity with each of the four individual core traits. The correlation coefficients between the CSES and standard benchmark measures were remarkably strong:

• Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: r = .74 to .81, confirming that high-CSE individuals exhibit elevated, stable feelings of personal worth.
• New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE): r = .68 to .75, indicating that the CSES captures robust beliefs regarding global personal competence.
• Levenson’s / Rotter’s Internal Locus of Control: r = .40 to .56 (and negative correlations with external locus scales of r = -.45 to -.52), demonstrating that high scorers view outcomes as internally contingent.
• NEO-FFI Neuroticism: r = -.64 to -.73, confirming that the scale strongly and negatively taps dispositional emotional instability and vulnerability.

Crucially, Judge et al. (2003) demonstrated that the CSES correlated as strongly with each individual trait measure as the four trait measures correlated with each other, empirically substantiating that the CSES directly measures the common core variance without suffering from peripheral trait contamination.

Discriminant Validity

The CSES exhibits distinct discriminant validity when contrasted with non-core personality traits. While the scale exhibits moderate, theoretically anticipated positive correlations with Extraversion (r ≈ .35 to .45) and Conscientiousness (r ≈ .30 to .42)—given that proactive behavior and perseverance overlap partially with self-efficacy—it is empirically distinct from Agreeableness (r ≈ .08 to .18) and Openness to Experience (r ≈ .10 to .20). Confirmatory factor analytic tests demonstrate that a model separating CSE from the Big Five personality factors yields superior fit indices compared to any collapsed models. Furthermore, the CSES demonstrates adequate discriminant validity against generalized positive and negative affectivity (PANAS), proving it measures an enduring evaluative cognitive structure rather than temporary, fluctuating mood states.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The criterion-related predictive power of the CSES has been documented across hundreds of applied empirical investigations and subsequent meta-analyses (e.g., Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012):

• Job Satisfaction: The CSES consistently predicts overall job satisfaction with uncorrected correlation coefficients ranging from r = .35 to .45 (operational corrected validities ρ ≈ .40 to .50). It explains significant unique variance in job satisfaction over and above the individual Big Five traits, cognitive ability, and demographic variables.
• Life Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal studies demonstrate that the CSES predicts life satisfaction (r = .45 to .58) across multi-year spans, highlighting its influence as an overarching life appraisal mechanism.
• Job Performance: CSES scores correlate significantly with objective and supervisor-rated task performance (r = .23 to .32; corrected ρ ≈ .30). Employees possessing positive core self-evaluations set higher task goals, exhibit greater organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), and show lower rates of counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
• Coping and Health Outcomes: Individuals scoring high on the CSES experience significantly lower levels of work-related physiological strain, lower psychological burnout (depersonalization and emotional exhaustion), and engage in more problem-focused coping strategies than emotion-focused avoidance.

8. Reliability

The Core Self-Evaluations Scale exhibits consistently high reliability across varied demographic groups, languages, and testing environments.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original four development and validation samples published by Judge et al. (2003), the internal consistency of the 12-item instrument, as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, was consistently robust:

• Sample 1 (Undergraduate business students, N = 252): α = .84
• Sample 2 (University business school students, N = 254): α = .83
• Sample 3 (Employees from a southeastern health organization, N = 163): α = .85
• Sample 4 (Engineers and professional staff, N = 360): α = .88

Subsequent international validations have corroborated these findings. For instance, the German translation validated by Stumpp, Muck, Hülsheger, Judge, and Maier (2010) yielded α values between .81 and .86. The Spanish adaptation (Rodríguez-Carvajal et al., 2010) reported an alpha of .84, the Dutch version (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012) reported α = .83, and the Chinese adaptation (Du, Bernardo, & Ye, 2015) reported α = .82 to .85. Item-total correlations across all published validation studies typically exceed .40, with median item-total correlations clustering between .48 and .65, confirming that all 12 items contribute meaningfully to the measurement of the underlying construct.

Test-Retest Stability

Because core self-evaluations are conceptualized as an enduring, dispositional trait structure, temporal stability is an imperative psychometric requirement. In longitudinal investigations evaluating temporal reliability:

• Judge et al. (2003) evaluated test-retest reliability across a 3-month interval and observed a test-retest correlation coefficient of r = .81 (p < .001), indicating remarkable stability over time.
• Longer temporal intervals (e.g., studies tracing participants over one-year and two-year intervals) continue to yield test-retest coefficients exceeding r = .70, demonstrating that the CSES captures a stable personality core that resists short-term transient fluctuations, yet remains sensitive to substantive life transitions or deliberate, long-term cognitive-behavioral interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive factor analytic studies have confirmed the psychometric structure of the CSES, validating its underlying unidimensional design.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the scale’s original development, Judge et al. (2003) began with an initial pool of 65 items generated by subject matter experts to reflect the intersection of self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability. Principal components and common factor analyses with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations were conducted. Scree plot analyses and eigenvalue evaluations (utilizing Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently pointed to a dominant, single general factor accounting for the vast majority of common variance. Successive item reduction based on factor loadings, conceptual breadth, and semantic clarity distilled the instrument down to the final 12 items. In exploratory models, each of the 12 items loaded strongly onto the primary factor (loadings ranging from .45 to .75), with no persistent secondary substantive factors emerging.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis has repeatedly validated the single-factor structural model of the CSES against several theoretically competing models:

• Single-Factor Model: In this baseline model, all 12 items load directly onto a single, overarching core self-evaluations latent factor. Across validation cohorts, this model demonstrates excellent fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values ranging from .94 to .97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values from .93 to .96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values between .045 and .062, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values below .050.
• Competing Four-Factor Orthogonal/Oblique Models: Models attempting to force the 12 items into four distinct, correlated or uncorrelated sub-factors (representing self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability separately) either fail to converge due to severe mathematical collinearity or produce inter-factor correlations approaching unity (r > .85), demonstrating lack of empirical discriminant separation among the sub-facets within these items.
• Higher-Order Hierarchical Models: When tested against hierarchical models where the four classic traits serve as first-order factors loading onto a second-order CSE factor, the direct 12-item single-factor CSES exhibits comparable or superior parsimony, fit statistics, and predictive power, confirming that direct assessment via the CSES is mathematically superior to indirect composite modeling.

Measurement Invariance

Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have substantiated configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance across biological sexes (male vs. female), diverse age categories (early career vs. late career), and distinct occupational groups (white-collar, healthcare, industrial). Cross-cultural research has similarly confirmed metric and partial scalar invariance across North American, European, and East Asian populations, confirming that the scale functions equivalently across diverse demographic segments.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The CSES is a concise, highly standardized psychometric scale. Below are its precise technical specifications, administration guidelines, and scoring algorithms:

• Instrument Name: Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES-Core)
• Test Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire / dispositional personality assessment
• Target Population: Adults, working professionals, college students, and clinical outpatients (typically ages 16 and older)
• Item Count: 12 items
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-administered, or mobile survey delivery; individual or group administration
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Reading Level: 6th to 8th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid grade level ≈ 6.8)
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Item Valence and Keying Distribution:
  • Positively Keyed Items (6 items): Item 1, Item 3, Item 5, Item 7, Item 9, Item 11
  • Negatively Keyed Items (6 items – Reverse Scored): Item 2, Item 4, Item 6, Item 8, Item 10, Item 12
• Detailed Scoring Procedure:
  1. Reverse Scoring: Prior to aggregate calculation, reverse-code the responses to items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Transforming responses proceeds via the formula: Recoded_Score = 6 - Original_Score (i.e., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1).
  2. Scale Score Computation: Calculate the overall core self-evaluations score by either:
     • Summed Score Method: Sum all 12 items (after reversing the designated items). The resulting total raw score ranges from 12 to 60.
     • Mean Score Method (Recommended): Compute the arithmetic mean of all 12 items (sum of items divided by 12). The resulting mean score preserves the original metric, ranging from 1.00 to 5.00.
  3. Handling Missing Data: If no more than 2 items are missing (out of 12), the mean of the completed items can be substituted for missing items or used directly as the scale average. If 3 or more items are omitted, the protocol should be considered invalid.
  4. Score Interpretation:
     • Scores 1.00 – 2.79 (Sum: 12 – 33): Low Core Self-Evaluations. Individuals in this range exhibit chronic doubts regarding self-worth, feel vulnerable to environmental demands, hold external locus beliefs, and are vulnerable to emotional distress and workplace burnout.
     • Scores 2.80 – 3.79 (Sum: 34 – 45): Moderate Core Self-Evaluations. Reflects typical, normative levels of self-appraisal with balanced adaptive capacities under routine environmental conditions.
     • Scores 3.80 – 5.00 (Sum: 46 – 60): High Core Self-Evaluations. Characterizes individuals who view themselves as fundamentally capable, intrinsically worthy, efficacious, internally agentic, emotionally stable, and resilient.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Core Self-Evaluations Scale was published in 2003 by Timothy A. Judge, Amir Erez, Joyce E. Bono, and Carl J. Thoresen in the peer-reviewed journal Personnel Psychology. Under academic psychometric conventions, the 12-item CSES instrument is placed in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, educational instruction, and scientific replication purposes. Researchers, graduate students, and behavioral scientists may administer, translate, and analyze the scale without paying licensing fees or seeking formal written copyright permissions from the authors or the publisher, provided appropriate academic citation is credited to Judge et al. (2003).

For commercial personnel selection, high-stakes organizational consulting, proprietary software integration, or profit-generating assessment batteries, practitioners should verify commercial compliance, adhere to ethical test standards (e.g., Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing), and consult appropriate copyright licensing guidelines. Inquiries regarding translation rights, adaptations, and ongoing international research initiatives may be directed to Dr. Timothy A. Judge or through scholarly research repositories.

12. References

Below are primary foundational references and empirical validations documenting the theoretical framework, scale development, and psychometric properties of the CSES, formatted in APA 7th edition:

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311425152
• Du, H., Bernardo, A. B., & Ye, Z. (2015). Core self-evaluation and life satisfaction: The mediating role of personal growth initiative. Social Indicators Research, 124(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0779-7
• Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237
• Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693
• Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
• Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.
• Kool, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2012). Servant leadership and commitment to change, the mediating role of core self-evaluations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731211193133
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Moreno-Jiménez, B., de Rivas Hermosilla, S., Álvarez-Bejarano, A., & Sanz Vergel, A. I. (2010). Spanish version of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale. Psicothema, 22(4), 986–991.
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
• Stumpp, T., Muck, P. M., Hülsheger, U. R., Judge, T. A., & Maier, G. W. (2010). Measuring core self-evaluations in Germany: Validation of a German measure and its relationships with work-related variables. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000029

13. Items of the Scale