A general factor of personality,social desirability,cognitive ability,and the survey of work styles in an employment selection setting

How a general factor of personality (GFP) correlated with employment screening measures in an applied setting was examined. Participants were 540 adult insurance sales job applicants who completed scales from two personality measures, the five scales from the Survey of Work Styles (SWS), an intelligence measure, and a social desirability scale. A joint factor analysis of the personality questionnaires produced four first order factors. A single GFP was also extracted. Strong correlations were found between some of the personality factors and the SWS scales. Strong significant correlations were found between the GFP and three of the four personality factors with social desirability. Neither the GFP nor the personality factors correlated significantly with cognitive abilities.     

A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures

This study investigates the extent to which job applicants fake their responses on personality tests. Thirty‐three studies that compared job applicant and non‐applicant personality scale scores were meta‐analyzed. Across all job types, applicants scored significantly higher than non‐applicants on extraversion (d=.11), emotional stability (d=.44), conscientiousness (d=.45), and openness (d=.13). For certain jobs (e.g., sales), however, the rank ordering of mean differences changed substantially suggesting that job applicants distort responses on personality dimensions that are viewed as particularly job relevant. Smaller mean differences were found in this study than those reported by Viswesvaran and Ones (Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 (2), 197–210), who compared scores for induced “fake‐good” vs. honest response conditions. Also, direct Big Five measures produced substantially larger differences than did indirect Big Five measures.     

Contextualized personality measures in employee selection: Extending frame‐of‐reference research with job applicant samples

This study compared contextualized and non‐contextualized personality measures in operational hiring situations, unlike previous research which has largely relied on student or job incumbent samples. Comparisons were made with regard to (A) the frames‐of‐reference adopted by applicants when responding to the measures, (B) relations with subsequent employment interview scores, (C) applicant reactions, and (D) mean scores for the personality scales. The findings highlight potential concerns with using non‐contextualized personality measures for employee selection, as job applicants will likely adopt various frames‐of‐reference unrelated to the intended focus of measurement (i.e., work). Results also indicated that it may be premature to assume contextualized measures elicit improved applicant reactions despite their apparent job‐relatedness. The discussion concludes with suggested directions for future research.     

Racial differences in socially desirable responding in selection contexts: magnitude and consequences

Two studies were conducted to examine the magnitude and consequences of racial differences on social desirability (SD) scales. Study 1 included 1,063 job applicants, and Study 2 included 3 sets of incumbents (total N = 534). In both studies, participants were administered several personality measures and an SD scale. Across all samples, Whites scored lower on the SD scale than Blacks (average d = .37), Hispanics (average d = .47), and Asians (average d = 1.04), but these differences were not observed on the personality scales. The consequence of differences in socially desirable responding (SDR) is that fewer minority group members would be selected if SD scales were used to derive cut scores to eliminate individuals from the applicant pool or if the scales were used to correct personality test scores for SDR. However, applying the SD correction did not affect the validity of the personality test for any of the racial groups. Overall, our findings suggest that researchers and practitioners should consider the use of SD scales very carefully, as their use may have unintended consequences. These studies also demonstrate a need to closely examine the construct validity of SD measures across diverse groups.     

Improving Prediction of Work Performance Through Frame‐of‐Reference Consistency: Empirical evidence using openness to experience

A work‐specific measure of openness to experience was compared with the general NEO PI‐R Openness scale for predicting supervisory ratings of creative performance at work. Results at the scale and facet levels indicated that the use of a consistent and criterion‐matched frame of reference improved validity of this personality construct for the prediction of work‐related creative problem solving. Scores from the Work‐specific Openness scale significantly predicted creative work performance, whereas scores from the general measure did not. Results also showed incremental validity of the Work‐specific scale over the NEO PI‐R scale. Evidence is mounting that specifying a work context for personality measures can increase validity for predicting job performance beyond that typically observed when using general scales.     

Using item-level covariance to detect response distortion on personality measures

The covariance index is a response validity scale created with the purpose of detecting intentional distortion in self-report measures. Based on evidence that strong response sets increase the covariance between responses, a method was developed to identify increased covariance at the individual level. Two studies were conducted to evaluate the validity of this new measure across laboratory and field settings. Results showed that individuals who scored higher on the covariance index in situations where strong response sets were present were those who had distorted responses the most and whose scores on personality measures had worse validity. In addition, the new validity scales improved identification of distorted responses beyond traditional social desirability scales.     

Predicting Adaptive Performance: Further Tests of a Model of Adaptability

This research further investigates an 8-dimension taxonomy of adaptive performance developed by Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) and the usefulness of past experience, interest, and self-efficacy predictors developed to measure these same 8 dimensions for predicting adaptive job performance. Participants in the concurrent, criterion-related validation study included 739 military personnel. They completed the 3 adaptability measures as well as more traditional cognitive and noncognitive predictors. Supervisors of the study participants rated their adaptive job performance. Results showed support for the 8-dimension model of adaptability. In addition, cognitive ability, personality, and the new adaptability predictors were shown to predict adaptive performance, with some past experience items adding incremental validity beyond the more traditional cognitive ability and personality measures. Results are discussed.     

On the Construct Validity of Integrity Tests: Individual and Situational Factors as Predictors of Test Performance

Although integrity tests are widely applied in screening job applicants, there is a need for research for examining the construct validity of these tests. In the present study, a theoretical model examining the causes of destructive behavior in organizational settings was used to develop background data measures of individual and situational variables that might be related to integrity test scores. Subsequently, 692 undergraduates were asked to complete these background data scales along with (a) two overt integrity tests – the Reid Report and the Personnel Selection Inventory, and (b) two personality‐based measures – the delinquency and socialization scales of the California Psychological Inventory. When scores of these measures were correlated with and regressed on the background data scales, it was found that relevant individual variables, such as narcissism and power motives, and relevant situational variables, such as alienation and exposure to negative peer groups, were related to scores on both types of integrity tests. However, a stronger pattern of validity evidence was obtained for the personality‐based measures and, in all cases, situational variables were found to be better predictors than individual variables. The implications of these findings for the validity of inferences drawn from overt and personality‐based integrity tests are discussed.     

The influence of job familiarity and impression management on self-report measure scale scores and response latencies

Two studies were conducted to examine the effects of job familiarity and impression management on response latencies and scale scores for measures of personality and situational judgment. In a laboratory study using university students and a field study using U.S. Border Patrol Agent applicants, impression management was generally associated with faster personality item responses when job familiarity was high and with slower responses when job familiarity was low. Both impression management and job familiarity were associated with personality item responses that were more likely to lead to a job offer. The field study revealed a similar pattern of results for situational judgment scale response latencies, although only impression management was associated with item responses that were more likely to lead to a job offer. The implications for using response latencies to detect impression management on self-report measures are discussed.     

The Use of Mobile Devices in High‐stakes Remotely Delivered Assessments and Testing

With Internet access no longer restricted to desktop and laptop computers, job applicants now have the opportunity to complete remotely delivered assessments on mobile, handheld small screen devices such as smartphones, and personal digital assistants. In this study, a large dataset is used to investigate demographic and score differences between job applicants who completed a remotely delivered high‐stakes assessment on a mobile device and those who completed it on a nonmobile device. Based on a sample of 3,575,207 job applicants who completed an unproctored Internet‐based assessment between January 2011 and April 2012, the percentage of applicants completing the assessment on a mobile device was small, 1.93%, but nevertheless represented more than 69,000 people. Overall, there were small test‐taker demographic differences in the use of mobile devices versus nonmobile devices in that mobile devices were slightly more likely to be used by women, African‐Americans and Hispanics, and younger applicants. Scores on a personality measure were similar for mobile and nonmobile devices but scores on a general mental ability test were substantially lower for mobile devices. Tests of measurement invariance also indicated equivalence across the mobile and nonmobile samples. Test taker and organizational implications for completing remotely delivered high‐stakes noncognitive and cognitive assessments on mobile versus nonmobile devices are discussed.     

On the usefulness of measures of normal personality for clinical assessment: evidence of the incremental validity of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory

As a means of examining the incremental validity of a normal personality measure in the prediction of selected Axis I and II diagnoses, 1,342 inpatient substance abusers completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2 (MMPI-2) and were assessed with structured clinical interviews to determine diagnostic status. Results demonstrated that scores from the NEO-PI-R (a) were substantially related to the majority of diagnoses, accounting for between 8% and 26% of the variance in the diagnostic criteria; (b) explained an additional 3% to 8% of the variability beyond 28 selected MMPI-2 scale scores; (c) increased diagnostic classification an additional 7% to 23% beyond MMPI-2 scale scores; and (d) were significantly more useful when examined at the facet trait level than at the domain trait level. Implications for incorporating measures of normal personality into clinical assessment batteries are discussed.     

Correction for faking in self‐report personality tests

Faking is a common problem in testing with self‐report personality tests, especially in high‐stakes situations. A possible way to correct for it is statistical control on the basis of social desirability scales. Two such scales were developed and applied in the present paper. It was stressed that the statistical models of faking need to be adapted to different properties of the personality scales, since such scales correlate with faking to different extents. In four empirical studies of self‐report personality tests, correction for faking was investigated. One of the studies was experimental, and asked participants to fake or to be honest. In the other studies, job or school applicants were investigated. It was found that the approach to correct for effects of faking in self‐report personality tests advocated in the paper removed a large share of the effects, about 90%. It was found in one study that faking varied as a function of degree of how important the consequences of test results could be expected to be, more high‐stakes situations being associated with more faking. The latter finding is incompatible with the claim that social desirability scales measure a general personality trait. It is concluded that faking can be measured and that correction for faking, based on such measures, can be expected to remove about 90% of its effects.     

Paper-and-pencil and web-based testing: the measurement invariance of the Big Five personality tests in applied settings

This study investigates the measurement equivalence of a five-factor measure of personality across two groups applying for jobs, who completed the same questionnaire using either a paper-and-pencil (n = 429) or a web online answer format (n = 651). The data were collected using the Big Five Questionnaire-2 (BFQ-2; which is a measure of the Five Factor Model) of personality traits. Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to test for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures of the BFQ-2. Findings suggested that the Five Factor Model scales have the same measurement unit and origin across applicants using different administration modes. However, latent means were slightly higher for applicants who responded in a web and unproctored condition than for applicants who completed a paper-and-pencil version of the same test. Practical implications for personality assessment are discussed.     

Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking

Intentional response distortion or faking among job applicants completing measures such as personality and integrity tests is a concern in personnel selection. The present study aimed to investigate whether eye-tracking technology can improve our understanding of the response process when faking. In an experimental within-participants design, a Big Five personality test and an integrity measure were administered to 129 university students in 2 conditions: a respond honestly and a faking good instruction. Item responses, response latencies, and eye movements were measured. Results demonstrated that all personality dimensions were fakeable. In support of the theoretical position that faking involves a less cognitively demanding process than responding honestly, we found that response times were on average 0.25 s slower and participants had less eye fixations in the fake good condition. However, in the fake good condition, participants had more fixations on the 2 extreme response options of the 5-point answering scale, and they fixated on these more directly after having read the question. These findings support the idea that faking leads to semantic rather than self-referenced item interpretations. Eye-tracking was demonstrated to be potentially useful in detecting faking behavior, improving detecting rates over and beyond response extremity and latency metrics.     

Effects of the testing situation on item responding: cause for concern

The effects of faking on personality test scores have been studied previously by comparing (a) experimental groups instructed to fake or answer honestly, (b) subgroups created from a single sample of applicants or nonapplicants by using impression management scores, and (c) job applicants and nonapplicants. In this investigation, the latter 2 methods were used to study the effects of faking on the functioning of the items and scales of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. A variety of item response theory methods were used to detect differential item/test functioning, interpreted as evidence of faking. The presence of differential item/test functioning across testing situations suggests that faking adversely affects the construct validity of personality scales and that it is problematic to study faking by comparing groups defined by impression management scores.     

Affect, personality, and social activity.

These studies examined relations between social activity and state and trait measures of Positive and Negative Affect. In Study 1 Ss completed scales relevant to 3-factor models of personality and a weekly mood and social activity questionnaire for 13 weeks. In Study 2 Ss completed measures of the 5-factor model of personality and a daily mood and social activity survey for 6-7 weeks. In within- and between-Ss analyses, socializing correlated significantly with state measures of Positive Affect and with trait measures of Extraversion/Positive Emotionality. These relations were relatively general across various types of positive affect and social events; however, specific types of social events also were differentially related to affect. In contrast, social activity had no consistent association with measures of Negative Affect or the other personality dimensions. The results support a temperamental view of Extraversion.     

Personality traits and job characteristics as predictors of job experiences

This study investigates the relationships of personality traits and job characteristics (predictors) with job experiences (criteria) in a sample of job incumbents working in a broad variety of occupations. Subjects were 181 job applicants, who participated in a personnel selection procedure carried out by a Dutch staffing organization. As a part of this procedure, subjects completed a number of personality questionnaires. Personality scale scores were factor-analysed, and four orthogonal trait dimensions were identified: Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Sensation Seeking, and Achievement Motivation. Between l½ and 2 years after the selection, subjects rated their current jobs on four job characteristics dimensions, namely dynamicity, autonomy, external–internal, and structure. At the same time, they completed a questionnaire measuring job experiences, namely job satisfaction, job-induced tension, propensity to leave the job, and self-appraised performance. The results indicated that personality traits had several significant and hypothesized longitudinal effects on the job experience criteria. Personality contributed to the prediction of the criteria even when the effects of job characteristics were taken into account. No significant Personality X Job Characteristics interactions were found, although subgroup analysis revealed a number of interesting differences among the various categories of occupations. For example, Sensation Seeking predicted job strain and propensity to leave, especially in highly structured and not very autonomous jobs. It is concluded that work experiences are clearly determined by person and job characteristics, although in an additive rather than in an interactional way.     

Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales in assessing self-reported personality disorder criteria

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Personality Psychopathology-Five (PSY-5) scales were developed to measure abnormal personality symptomatology. The present study examines the incremental validity of the PSY-5 scales beyond the clinical and content scales in assessing criteria associated with personality disorders. The current sample includes 240 male and 407 female clients from private practice settings who completed the MMPI-2 and the Multiaxial Diagnostic Inventory (MDI), a self-report checklist of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., revised) symptoms. Six of the MDI personality disorder scales, conceptually related to the PSY-5 scales, are used as criteria. Hierarchical regression analyses determine the incremental validity of each PSY-5 scale. In most analyses, PSY-5 scales add a significant increment of variance to the clinical and content scales. Implications of the results are discussed.     

The Stability of the Five‐Factor Model of Personality in Personnel Selection and Assessment in Greece

The stability and replicability of the Five‐Factor model of personality across samples and testing purposes remain a significant issue in personnel selection and assessment. The present study explores the stability of a new Greek Big Five personality measure (TPQue) across different samples in order to explore the suitability of the measure in personnel selection and assessment. The factor structure of the measure across three samples (students, employees, and job applicants) is examined. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses show that the five‐factor structure remains intact for the students’, the applicants’ and the employees’ samples – contrary to previous studies – with all the sub‐scales of the personality measure (TPQue) loading on the intended factors. Furthermore, congruence coefficients between the samples justify the stability of the model in the working settings.