of the covariance in factor scores. Although parallel analysis suggested extracting only two factors, doing so rendered the communality for the 6fpq GFP estimate .04, and it did not load strongly onto either factor (pattern coefficients = −.03, .20). This suggested that the GFP estimate from this measure was splitting off as its own, third factor. In the interest of meaningful evaluating GFP estimates from all inventories, we extracted three factors. The pattern coefficients, after Oblimin rotation, are given in Table 2. The factor scores from four measures tended to load more strongly on factor 1 (CPI, HPI, MPQ, TCI) whereas three others loaded more strongly on factor 2 (16pf, HEXACO-PI, NEO-PI-R). As expected, the 6fpq alone loaded most strongly on factor 3. Thus our first effort to identify a unitary cross-instrument GFP failed.
