Considerations in personality measurement: Replicability, transparency, and predictive validity

Matthew E.K. Hall, Gary E. Hollibaugh, Jonathan D. Klingler, Adam J. Ramey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


In another article in this issue, Black et al. discuss their preferred approach to estimating Supreme Court justices’ Big Five personality traits from written text and provide several critiques of the approach of Hall et al. In this rejoinder, we show that Black et al.’s critiques are substantially without merit, their preferred approach suffers from many of the same drawbacks that they project onto our approach, their specific method of implementing their preferred approach runs afoul of many contemporary social scientific norms, our use of concurrences to estimate personality traits is far more justifiable than they suggest (especially in contrast to their use of lower court opinions), and their substantive critiques reflect a potential misunderstanding of the nature of conscientiousness. Nonetheless, we also acknowledge their broader point regarding the state-of-the-art textual analysis methodology vis-à-vis the estimation of personality traits, and we provide some constructive suggestions for the path forward.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)397-405
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Law and Courts
Issue number2
StatePublished - Sep 1 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'Considerations in personality measurement: Replicability, transparency, and predictive validity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this