Personality Correlates of Assessment Center Consensus Competency Ratings: Evidence from Russia

Controversy has revolved around whether assessment center ratings have construct validity to measure intended dimensions of managerial performance. In contrast to much recent research on the internal structure of assessment center ratings, the present studies investigated the relationship of final competency ratings derived by consensus discussion with external questionnaire measures of personality characteristics. Expanding on previous studies showing correlations of dimension scores in relation to individual trait measures, this study investigated the relationship of complex competencies with both single personality traits and with composites of personality traits. Evidence from two samples of managers in Russia shows that final competency ratings are related to predicted composites of personality factors more consistently than to single factors. Taken together, these findings provide evidence that assessment center ratings derived by consensus discussion show construct validity in relationship with predicted composites of personality characteristics.     

A Five-Factor Measure of Dependent Personality Traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM). Dependent personality trait scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of FFM facets (e.g., Gullibility as a maladaptive variant of FFM trust). Based on responses from 383 undergraduates, the convergent validity of the Five-Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI) scales was tested with respect to 2 measures of the FFM, 6 dependency trait scales, and 4 measures of dependent personality disorder. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to FFM facets from alternative domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM dependent personality trait scales to account for variance in 2 established measures of dependency, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facet scales and other measures of DPD was first removed. The results of this study provided support for the validity of the FFDI assessment of dependency from the perspective of the FFM.     

A five-factor measure of dependent personality traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM). Dependent personality trait scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of FFM facets (e.g., Gullibility as a maladaptive variant of FFM trust). Based on responses from 383 undergraduates, the convergent validity of the Five-Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI) scales was tested with respect to 2 measures of the FFM, 6 dependency trait scales, and 4 measures of dependent personality disorder. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to FFM facets from alternative domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM dependent personality trait scales to account for variance in 2 established measures of dependency, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facet scales and other measures of DPD was first removed. The results of this study provided support for the validity of the FFDI assessment of dependency from the perspective of the FFM.     

Separate personality traits from states to predict depression

Results have been inconsistent regarding the ability of personality measures to predict future depression severity levels, leading some researchers to question the validity of personality assessment, especially when patients are acutely depressed. Using a combination of regression and factor analytic techniques, we separated the variance of personality measures into stable trait and variable state-affect components. Findings supported the hypotheses that depression severity measured at different time points would correlate with both stable trait and concurrent state-affect components in personality measures, whereas change in depression severity would correlate with state changes but not with stable trait scores. Thus, personality assessments tap both state affect and trait variance, with the state-affect variance masking the trait variance when patients are depressed.     

Enhancing Criterion-Related Validity Through Bottom-Up Contextualization of Personality Inventories: The Construction of an Ecological Conscientiousness Scale for Ph.D. Candidates

In this article the concept of “ecological personality scales” is introduced. These are contextualized inventories with a high ecological validity. They are developed in a bottom-up or qualitative way and combine a relatively high trait specificity with a relatively high situational specificity. An ecological Conscientiousness or time management scale for Ph.D. candidates was developed. It significantly predicted Ph.D. performance criteria and showed incremental validity beyond Big Five (Study 1) and narrow trait and frame-of-reference scales (Study 2). These findings suggest that an ecological approach may contribute to further improving the criterion validity of personality measures.     

On the validity of narrow and broad personality traits: A response to

Salgado, Moscoso, and Berges (2013) have recently commented on the issue of the comparative validity of broad factor-level personality traits and narrow facet-level personality traits, providing arguments and data suggesting superior validity for the former. In response, we first clarify some of our previous points that were discussed by Salgado et al. and comment on some other aspects of their article. We then provide an empirical example in which a facet-level personality scale does better in predicting a delinquency criterion than does the factor-level personality scale that contains that facet. We also use CFA to demonstrate that it was the specific trait variance in our narrow predictor that added significantly to predictive validity, above and beyond the validity achieved by the common factor variance contained within the trait measure. These results support our previous conclusion that exclusive reliance on broad factor measures can be counterproductive for understanding and predicting behavior.     

A large sample investigation of the presence of nonlinear personality-job performance relationships

We examine 123 data sets from validation studies of a single five-factor model-based occupational personality measure for evidence of curvilinear relationships with job performance. Research has produced discrepant findings about whether and when to expect curvilinear relationships between normal range personality measures and job performance. Previous studies have relied on small and unsystematic sampling, a variety of noncomparable performance criteria, the use of personality inventories for which construct validity evidence is not immediately available, and a focus on only one or two of the Big Five personality factors. We report minimal evidence of curvilinearity, suggesting that these effects are unlikely to undermine typical uses of personality test scores in decision making. Any expected declines in performance at high ends of the predictor range were very small on average and would be highly unlikely to produce scenarios in which those passing a realistic cut score would underperform those screened out. Indices of job complexity and the importance of the personality trait did not moderate the forms of each personality–performance relationship. The results are useful for evaluating whether curvilinearity is likely to be an issue when self-report personality assessments are used to make decisions with tangible employment consequences.     

The five-factor narcissism inventory: a five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of narcissistic personality traits created from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Fifteen scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Reactive Anger as a narcissistic variant of angry hostility), with item selection made on the basis of a criterion-keying approach using results from 167 undergraduates. On the basis of data from 166 additional undergraduates, the convergent validity of these 15 scales was tested with respect to 8 established measures of narcissism (including measures of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism) and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM narcissism trait scales to account for variance in 2 alternative measures of narcissism, after variance accounted for by respective NEO PI-R facet scales and other established measures of narcissism were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of narcissistic personality traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.     

A Meta‐Analytic Multitrait Multirater Separation of Substance and Style in Social Desirability Scales

Though unlikely virtues scales have a long history in personality, clinical, and applied psychology for detecting socially desirable responding, using such social desirability (SD) scales has generally failed to improve the validity of personality measures. We examined whether this is because (a) response distortion itself has minimal impact on personality's validity, (b) SD scales are ineffective at assessing response distortion, or (c) SD scales are conflated with substantive trait variance. We compiled a meta‐analytic multitrait multimethod matrix consisting of multirater personality traits, SD scales, and performance outcomes. We examined the influence of trait factors and self‐report method factors on SD scales and performance. We found that self‐report method variance (a) was negatively related to performance, (b) would suppress personality‐performance relationships for self‐report measures, and (c) was (partially) assessed by SD scales. However, relative to the effects of self‐report method variance, SD scales are even more strongly influenced by Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness. It is not the case that SD scales are insensitive to inflated responding but that their susceptibility to personality trait variance likely outweighs their benefits. We discuss the implications of these results for using SD scales in research and practice.     

Trait-specific dependence in romantic relationships

ABSTRACT Informed by three theoretical frameworks—trait psychology, evolutionary psychology, and interdependence theory—we report four investigations designed to develop and test the reliability and validity of a new construct and accompanying multiscale inventory, the Trait-Specific Dependence Inventory (TSDI). The TSDI assesses comparisons between present and alternative romantic partners on major dimensions of mate value. In Study 1, principal components analyses revealed that the provisional pool of theory-generated TSDI items were represented by six factors: Agreeable/Committed, Resource Accruing Potential, Physical Prowess, Emotional Stability, Surgency, and Physical Attractiveness. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis replicated these results on a different sample and tested how well different structural models fit the data. Study 3 provided evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the six TSDI scales by correlating each one with a matched personality trait scale that did not explicitly incorporate comparisons between partners. Study 4 provided further validation evidence, revealing that the six TSDI scales successfully predicted three relationship outcome measures—love, time investment, and anger/upset—above and beyond matched sets of traditional personality trait measures. These results suggest that the TSDI is a reliable, valid, and unique construct that represents a new trait-specific method of assessing dependence in romantic relationships. The construct of trait-specific dependence is introduced and linked with other theories of mate value.     

Applications of Personality Assessment to the Workplace: A Review

Our review of the relevant research literature in the recent past strongly supports the view that personality assessment has high utility in the workplace. We review the evidence that personality assessment measures, especially those based upon the Big Five factors of personality, can effectively predict job performance and thus can be used for personnel selection. The validity of integrity testing in predicting counterproductivity on the job has been demonstrated both for overt measures of integrity and, to a lesser degree, for more general (subtle) measures of personality. We also found good evidence of validity for measures of (supervisory) management and (transformational) leadership, a complex field which includes a number of multidimensional instruments each built around its own theory. Finally, we review the empirical literature that supports the use of assessment centers and the use of personality assessment in training and development.     

Empirical evaluation of the MCMI-III personality disorder scales

The MCMI-III personality disorder scales were empirically validated with a sample of 870 clinical patients and inmates. Prevalence rates of personality disorders were in general lower on the MCMI-III than clinical ratings, but trait prevalence was generally higher; thus a base rate of 75 on the MCMI-III could be a guideline in the screening of trait prevalence. However, the sensitivity of some MCMI-III scales was very low. Moreover, the correlations of most personality disorder scales of the MCMI-III were significant and positive with corresponding measures on clinical ratings and MMPI-2 personality disorder scales, but these were, in general, not significantly higher than some other correlations. As a consequence the discriminant validity seems to be questionable. The MCMI-III alone cannot be used as a diagnostic inventory, but the test could be useful as a screening device as a part of a multimethod approach that allows aggregation over measures in making diagnostic decisions.     

Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments

Past studies of socially desirable self-reports on the items of personality measures have found inconsistent effects of the response bias on the measures' predictive validities, with some studies reporting small effects and other studies reporting large effects. Using Monte Carlo methods, we evaluated various models of socially desirable responding by systematically adding predetermined amounts of the bias to the simulated personality trait scores of hypothetical test respondents before computing test-criterion validity correlations. Our study generally supported previous findings that have reported relatively minor decrements in criterion prediction, even with personality scores that were massively infused with desirability bias. Furthermore, the response bias failed to reveal itself as a statistical moderator of test validity or as a suppressor of validity. Large differences between some respondents' obtained test scores and their true trait scores, however, meant that the personality measure's construct validity would be severely compromised and, more specifically, that estimates of those individuals' criterion performance would be grossly in error. Our discussion focuses on reasons for the discrepant results reported in the literature pertaining to the effect of socially desirable responding on criterion validity. More important, we explain why the lack of effects of desirability bias on the usual indicators of validity, moderation, and suppression should not be surprising.     

Factorial validity of the Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48

The purpose of this study was to assess the factorial validity of the Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002). In total, 8207 participants (male n = 4019, female n = 3922, unspecified = 266) aged between 16 and 68 years (M = 37.00, SD = 12.09) completed the MTQ48. Model fit was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling, in addition to the robust maximum likelihood estimator. Overall, our results support the factorial validity of the MTQ48 and indicate that the MTQ48 is a robust psychometric measure of mental toughness. Along with previous data, which supports the internal validity of the MTQ48 in addition to results of this study, it would appear that the MTQ48 is an acceptable method of assessing mental toughness.     

The Influence of Work Personality on Job Satisfaction: Incremental Validity and Mediation Effects

ABSTRACT Drawing from recent developments regarding the contextual nature of personality (e.g., D. Wood & B. W. Roberts, 2006 ), we conducted 2 studies (1 cross-sectional and 1 longitudinal over 1 year) to examine the validity of work personality in predicting job satisfaction and its mediation of the effect of global personality on job satisfaction. Study 1 showed that (a) individuals vary systematically in their personality between roles— they were significantly more conscientious and open to experience and less extraverted at work compared to at home; (b) work personality was a better predictor of job satisfaction than both global personality and home personality; and (c) work personality demonstrated incremental validity above and beyond the other two personality measures. Study 2 further showed that each of the work personality dimensions fully mediated the association between its corresponding global personality trait and job satisfaction. Evidence for the discriminant validity of the findings is also presented.     

Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability.

On the basis of job analysis results, the validity of using measures of general cognitive ability, job-specific skills, and personality traits jointly at both the individual level and the group level to predict the performance of 79 four-person, human resource work teams was evaluated. Team member trait and job skill scores were aggregated with a conjunctive model of task performance. At the individual level of analysis, measures of personality (i.e., Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) predicted peer ratings of team member performance beyond measures of job-specific skills and general cognitive ability. Similarly, at the group level of analysis, both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness predicted supervisor ratings of work team performance, objective measures of work team accuracy, and work completed. At both the individual and group levels, the trait of Agreeableness predicted Interpersonal Skills.     

A Psychometric Network Perspective on the Validity and Validation of Personality Trait Questionnaires

This article reviews the causal implications of latent variable and psychometric network models for the validation of personality trait questionnaires. These models imply different data generating mechanisms that have important consequences for the validity and validation of questionnaires. From this review, we formalize a framework for assessing the evidence for the validity of questionnaires from the psychometric network perspective. We focus specifically on the structural phase of validation, where items are assessed for redundancy, dimensionality, and internal structure. In this discussion, we underline the importance of identifying unique personality components (i.e. an item or set of items that share a unique common cause) and representing the breadth of each trait's domain in personality networks. After, we argue that psychometric network models have measures that are statistically equivalent to factor models but we suggest that their substantive interpretations differ. Finally, we provide a novel measure of structural consistency, which provides complementary information to internal consistency measures. We close with future directions for how external validation can be executed using psychometric network models. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Predicting social behavior from personality traits

The classic view of traits as dispositions was examined and a number of ambiguities noted. When clarified, implications for predicting social behaviors from personality variables were derived. Two types of behavioral criterion were delineated, and it was argued that personality measures should be systematically related to multiple act criteria, but not necessarily to single act criteria. It was suggested that behaviors could be treated as items on a behavioral measure of personality and that standard scaling criteria be applied in identifying behaviors that should be related to a given trait dimension. In attempting to identify behaviors which are linearly related to a personality trait, the application of Bayes theorem was shown to be of theoretical interest. Two indices, a validity index and a linearity index, were derived from Bayes theorem and it was shown that validity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for linearity.     

Are we assessing guilt correctly? An investigation of the psychometric properties of a prominent guilt measure

The construct of trait guilt has played an important role in psychological theory across many fields of psychology (e.g., as a diagnostic criterion in clinical psychology, as an individual difference in personality psychology, and as a motivational antecedent or emotional moderator in social and organizational psychology); however, the measurement of guilt has received comparatively limited attention in the literature. Specifically, existing measures have limited factor analytic support, limited evidence of convergent validity among the measures, and although the theoretical distinction between guilt and shame is well established, there is limited empirical support for the discriminant validity of these constructs as they are currently measured. The current study investigates the psychometric properties of the most commonly used measure of guilt, the Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3 (TOSCA-3; in: Tangney, The Test of Self Conscious Affect-3. George Mason University, Fairfax, 2000), in order to (a) examine the factor structure of the measure, (b) estimate the convergent validity of the measure with other guilt assessment instruments, and (c) examine the discriminant validity of guilt and shame. Results involving a sample of 1760 participants provide support for a multitrait-multimethod model and the discriminant validity of guilt and shame. However, limited evidence of convergent validity between the TOSCA-3 and the Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory (φ?=?.21) and the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory (φ?=?.10) suggested the TOSCA-3 is not assessing guilt in the same manner as more contextualized measures of guilt, highlighting the importance of measurement choice for guilt researchers. Implications for the measurement of trait guilt are discussed.