Ph.D., Bowling Green State University, 2011
My primary area of interest regards the role of personality in explaining the behavior of individuals at work, and their general success and well-being in life. Toward this end I utilize and study psychometric theory and analytic techniques to clarify these complex relationships, such as item response theory and psychometric network theory. Additionally, I am interested in the history of applied psychology, and the role of human judgment and decision making in applicant attraction and employee selection.
+ Denotes a student author
Carter, N.T., Miller, J.D., & Widiger, T.A. (in press). Extreme personalities at work and in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Melson-Silimon+, A., Harris, A.M.+, Shoenfelt, E.L., Miller, J.D., & Carter, N.T. (in press). Personality testing and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Cause for concern as normal and abnormal models are integrated. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. [Focal Article]
Harris, A.M.+, Williamson, R.L.+, & Carter, N.T. (in press). A conditional threshold hypothesis for creative achievement: On the interaction between intelligence and openness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
Carter, N.T., Carter, D.R., & DeChurch, L.A. (2018). Implications of observability for the theory and measurement of emergent team phenomena. Journal of Management, 44, 1398-1425.
Carter, N.T., Dalal, D.K., Guan, L.+, LoPilato, A.C.+, & Withrow, S.A. (2017). Item response theory scoring and the detection of curvilinear relationships. Psychological Methods, 22, 191-203.
Carter, N.T., Guan, L., Maples, J.L., Williamson, R.L., & Miller, J.D. (2016). The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological well-being: The role of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 84, 510-522.
Carter, N.T., Dalal, D.K., Boyce, A.S., O’Connell, M.S., Kung, M-C., & Delgado, K. (2014). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 564-586.