ARE WE GETTING FOOLED AGAIN? COMING TO TERMS WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION

We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report personality tests in personnel selection contexts ( Morgeson et al., 2007 ). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on personality; (2) the observed validities of personality tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using personality tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of personality tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for personality testing research and practice are discussed.     

IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS

Personality constructs have been demonstrated to be useful for explaining and predicting attitudes, behaviors, performance, and outcomes in organizational settings. Many professionally developed measures of personality constructs display useful levels of criterion-related validity for job performance and its facets. In this response to Morgeson et al. (2007) , we comprehensively summarize previously published meta-analyses on (a) the optimal and unit-weighted multiple correlations between the Big Five personality dimensions and behaviors in organizations, including job performance; (b) generalizable bivariate relationships of Conscientiousness and its facets (e.g., achievement orientation, dependability, cautiousness) with job performance constructs; (c) the validity of compound personality measures; and (d) the incremental validity of personality measures over cognitive ability. Hundreds of primary studies and dozens of meta-analyses conducted and published since the mid 1980s indicate strong support for using personality measures in staffing decisions. Moreover, there is little evidence that response distortion among job applicants ruins the psychometric properties, including criterion-related validity, of personality measures. We also provide a brief evaluation of the merits of alternatives that have been offered in place of traditional self-report personality measures for organizational decision making. Given the cumulative data, writing off the whole domain of individual differences in personality or all self-report measures of personality from personnel selection and organizational decision making is counterproductive for the science and practice of I-O psychology.     

Situational Judgment and Job Performance

Data from 160 civil service employees demonstrate the validity of a situational judgment test in predicting overall job performance as well as three performance dimensions: task performance (core technical proficiency), motivational contextual performance (job dedication), and interpersonal contextual performance (interpersonal facilitation). Situational judgment also provided incremental validity over the prediction provided jointly by cognitive ability, the Big Five personality traits, and job experience. These findings extended the work of Clevenger, Pereira, Wiechmann, Schmitt, and Harvey (2001) on the incremental validity of situational judgment tests as well as the meta-analytic results reported by McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, and Braverman (2001). Implications are discussed in terms of research on the prediction and understanding of job performance.     

应聘情境下作假识别量表的开发

在应聘情境中, 被试容易对人格测验作假。应对作假的常用方法是采用社会称许性量表对作假直接测量, 再去校正和识别作假效应。但是采用社会称许性量表测量作假存在很多问题, 因而基于作假的特殊性质开发了《作假识别量表》。采用探索性因素分析证实了量表的单维性, 解释率为54.650%。概化理论检验表明测验信度较好, G系数为0.906, j系数为0.902。采用一个真实的应聘情境检验效度, 发现《作假识别量表》对作假更加敏感, 能够比较充分地测量作假。     

CORRECTING THE 16PF FOR FAKING: EFFECTS ON CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY AND INDIVIDUAL HIRING DECISIONS

The effects of correcting a personality measure for faking were evaluated within an organizational context. Two possible repercussions of score correction were studied using the 16PF personality inventory: the effect on criterion-related validity and the effect on individual hiring decisions (i.e., which applicants would or would not be hired). Results indicated that correction for faking had little effect on criterion-related validity. However, depending on the selection ratio, correction of scores would have resulted in different hiring decisions than those that would have been made on the basis of uncorrected scores. Implications for organizations using personality measures for selection and recommendations regarding the use of faking corrections are discussed.     

META-ANALYSIS OF PERSONALITY-JOB PERFORMANCE RELATIONS: A REPLY TO ONES, MOUNT, BARRICK, AND HUNTER (1994)

Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein's (1991) meta-analysis identified higher average correlations for personality in predicting job proficiency than did Barrick and Mount's (1991). Ones et al. suggest that discrepancies between the two studies involving the Big Five personality dimensions are due to certain procedural differences. In this reply, we show that their arguments do not adequately explain the noted discrepancies. We also show that, because personality traits correlate significantly with job performance both positively and negatively beyond chance levels, use of absolute values, contrary to Ones et al., is important in meta-analyses involving personality. Addressing all of Ones et al.3 statistical concerns, re-analysis of Tett et al.k main data set results in slightly lower mean validities (e.g., .24 vs.29 for fully corrected values based on confirmatory estimates), and renders non-significant the job analysis/no job analysis distinction found to be significant in the original study. Tett et al.'s main conclusions, however, remain unchanged. We suggest that Barrick and Mount's lower mean validities may be due to their averaging signed correlations, pooling exploratory and confirmatory findings, and to the use of different inclusion criteria for selecting source studies.     

Using Personality Testing for Personnel Selection: Faking and Test-Taking Inductions

This research assessed whether warning subjects that faked responses could be detected would reduce the amount of faking that might occur when using a personality test for selection of police officers. Also, personality test subscales which best differentiated honest from dissimulated responses were determined. Subjects (N=120) were randomly assigned to a straight-take (that is, respond honestly), fake good, or modified fake good group. Both fake good groups were instructed to respond to the test so as to appear favourably for the job; additionally, the modified fake good group was warned that faking could be detected and could reduce hiring chances. Multivariate analyses revealed significant differences on the Denial and Deviation subscales between the three conditions (p <0.01). The pattern of differences suggested that the threat of faking detection reduced faking. Potential application of these findings in personnel selection was discussed.     

Overclaiming as a measure of faking

Researchers have recently asserted that popular measures of response distortion (i.e., socially desirable responding scales) lack construct validity (i.e., measure traits rather than test faking) and that applicant faking on personality tests remains a serious concern ( [Griffith and Peterson, 2008] and [Holden, 2008]). Thus, although researchers and human resource (HR) selection specialists have been attempting to find measures which readily capture individual differences in faking that increase personality test validity, to date such attempts have rarely, if ever succeeded. The current study, however, finds that the overclaiming technique captures individual differences in faking and subsequently increases personality test score validity via suppressing unwanted error variance in personality test scores. Implications of this research on the overclaiming technique for improving HR selection decisions are illustrated and discussed.     

Shall we continue or stop disapproving of self-presentation? Evidence on impression management and faking in a selection context and their relation to job performance

The self-presentation tactics of candidates during job interviews and on personality inventories have been a focal topic in selection research. The current study investigated self-presentation across these two selection devices. Specifically, we examined whether candidates who use impression management (IM) tactics during an interview show more faking on a personality inventory and whether the relation to job performance is similar for both forms of self-presentation. Data were collected in a simulated selection process with an interview under applicant conditions and a personality inventory that was administered under applicant conditions and thereafter for research purposes. Because all participants were employed, we were also able to collect job performance ratings from their supervisors. Candidates who used IM in the interview also showed more faking in a personality inventory. Importantly, faking was positively related to supervisors’ job performance ratings, but IM was unrelated. Hence, this study gives rise to arguments for a more balanced view of self-presentation.     

Validation of personality and cognitive measures for insurance claims examiners

Claims Examiners are critical for the profitability of large insurance companies. Mistakes in hiring these people can result in improperly processed claims and/or turnover, and this yields negative financial consequences for the company. This paper describes research evaluating the validity of selection procedures for the position of claims examiner at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma. A job analysis indicated that both cognitive skills and personal abilities are necessary for successful performance as a claims examiner. The job analysis also indicated that both subjective and objective criterion measures reflect important aspects of job performance. The criterion data included nine supervisory ratings, employee nominations, average percent of performance, absences, disciplinary actions, and sick leave. In a concurrent validation strategy, we tested a sample of experienced incumbents (N=50) using four cognitive ability tests (Basic Skills Tests: BST) and two measures of personality (Hogan Personality Inventory and PROFILE). Scales from two personality inventories were combined to form the Claims Examiner Inventory (CEI). Scores from the CEI and three of the four cognitive tests correlated significantly with the average percent of performance and six of the supervisory ratings, including the average supervisory rating. In addition to the cognitive measures, the personality measure contributed significantly to the prediction of percent of performance achieved with R=.64. These results are consistent with other research findings that support the use of both personality and cognitive measures as predictors of job performance.     

A Model of Faking Likelihood in the Employment Interview

There has been surprisingly little research on faking in the employment interview, despite the fact that professional judgment would suggest that faking might occur in the interview. Based on a review of the literature on faking in personality tests and the literature on deception, we propose a model of faking during an employment interview and develop 19 testable propositions to guide future research. We argue that faking is a function of capacity, willingness, and opportunity to fake. Structured interviews provide less opportunity for intentional distortion; however, some components of structure may actually increase faking. Finally, job candidates distort their responses in job desirable ways.     

The impact of “non-targeted traits” on personality test faking,hiring, and workplace deviance

Evidence suggests that job applicants often “fake” on pre-employment personality tests by attempting to portray an exceedingly desirable impression in order to improve the likelihood of being selected. In the current research we shed light on the personality characteristics of those individuals who seem most likely to engage in faking. We refer to these personality variables as non-targeted traits when they are not directly targeted by the organization’s pre-employment personality test. These traits, however, may have an influence on targeted scores used for employment decision making through their effect on faking. Findings suggest that individuals will be more likely to be hired if they are low on non-targeted traits including Honesty–Humility, Integrity, and Morality, and high on Risk Taking. Such individuals also reported higher levels of workplace deviance in their current jobs. Thus, it seems that individuals low on Honesty–Humility, Integrity, and Morality, and individuals high on Risk Taking, may be most likely to engage in personality test faking, be hired, and participate in workplace deviant behaviors if these traits are not directly targeted in selection.     

How Emotional Intelligence Might Get You the Job: The Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Faking on Personality Tests

This study examined trait emotional intelligence (EI) in relation to the ability to fake on personality tests. Undergraduate students (N = 129) were first instructed to fill out a personality inventory honestly, and subsequently in such a way as to maximize their chances of obtaining two distinctive job positions (lawyer and file clerk). Participants were able to change their scores in line with the hypothesized job profiles. Regression analyses showed that EI statistically predicted faking ability to an equal degree in both job scenarios. Finally, EI showed incremental validity over general mental ability and the Big Five personality traits in predicting the ability to fake. Possible implications of the results for the predictive validity of personality tests are discussed.     

Impression management and overclaiming on job applications: Related to future sales performance?

Despite decades of research on the role of socially desirable responding (SDR) in hiring contexts, it remains unclear whether job applicant SDR is related to future employee performance. Drawing on a large sample of 1,084 retail sales employees and their original job application data, this study examined the predictive validity of two operationalizations of SDR: (a) impression management captured using a personality scale and (b) overclaiming familiarity with a list of products that were directly relevant to the job. Neither measure was used to inform the hiring decisions. Results showed that job applicant impression management and overclaiming were unrelated to four indicators of future sales performance as employees. Implications for organizational selection policies involving applicant SDR are discussed.     

人格测验中作假的控制方法

被试很容易对人格测验作假,这严重影响了人格测验的有效性。目前测评专家已经提出了一些应对作假的方法,它们可被分为事前控制技术和事后识别技术两大类。前者包括迫选式量表,警告及假渠道技术等,后者包括作假识别量表,IRT及反应时识别技术等。目前,在人格测验中嵌套使用作假识别量表,以及在测验指导语中加入警告是比较有效的两种方法,迫选式量表的发展也值得期待。由于研究者对作假的内部发生机制了解较少,这制约了IRT与反应时识别技术的发展。     

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.     

职业选拔情境下人格测验作假研究

在职业选拔情境下被试很容易对人格测验作假,从而制约了人格测验在企业中的应用。许多研究者在努力解决作假问题,分别就应聘者是否会作假,作假给人格测验带来的负面影响、应聘者如何作假以及如果应对作假等问题进行了深入的探讨。经过几十年的发展,该研究领域已经形成了包括实验诱导设计、已知群体设计和量表设计等几种特定的研究范式。研究结果显示,大多数应聘者会作假,但其负面影响并不严重;作假不同于社会称许性反应,它是一种工作称许性反应。目前的几种应对作假的方法尚存在一些问题,其有效性有待提高。总之,人格测验的作假作用明显,其研究难度较大,有待革新性理论和方法的出现     

Factors Affecting Potential Personality Retest Improvement After Initial Failure

Attention in the personality test faking literature has been directed toward research designs in which job applicants complete a personality test, fail to get the job, and subsequently retest. This article highlights the extent to which inferences drawn from studies using the retest-after-failure research design address the extent and prevalence of applicant faking. Results from several studies using this design are reviewed, revealing an enormous range of findings. We simulate two aspects of the assessment context that can explain the discrepancy in previous results. The simulation systematically varies the weight given to personality in the assessment battery and the selection ratio to investigate their effects on personality retest scores. Results are useful for interpreting previous findings and understanding settings in which retest improvement occurs.     

Correcting Personality Tests for Faking: A Review of Popular Personality Tests and an Initial Survey of Researchers

We reviewed a number of personality tests that are commonly used for personnel selection and found that some of the more popular tests provide a “correction” for faking. Additionally, a survey of researchers' preferences regarding correcting personality test scores for faking was conducted. The respondents, who were experienced in using personality tests for industrial‐organizational purposes, generally favored the use of faking corrections (69% were in favor). The apparently common practice of correcting personality scores for faking was contrasted with relevant conceptual, empirical, and statistical concerns as to the advisability of applying the correction for faking.