Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T10:12:47.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: A Productive Exchange and Some Future Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Frederick L. Oswald  and
Leaetta M. Hough
Frederick L. Oswald*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Leaetta M. Hough
Affiliation:
The Dunnette Group, Ltd.
*
E-mail: foswald@rice.edu, Address: Rice University, Department of Psychology, 6100 Main Street, MS 205, Houston, TX 77007
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of our focal article was to provide a current perspective on personality testing and its use in organizational research and to elicit constructive discussion and suggestions for future research and practice. The present article caps off the discussion by integrating the main ideas presented in the commentaries within our original framework of questions and topics, with the immodest hope of advancing our understanding of personality and its measurement in the context of industrial–organizational psychology. In short, we recommend continuing to take advantage of the organizing framework of the Big Five while also pursuing more “bottom-up” approaches that examine facet-level relationships with multidimensional performance outcomes, in addition to developing process models that include more proximal motivational and situational variables. Work along these lines is valuable to both organizational science and practice.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 323 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University

References

Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 270–304.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V. (2008). Practitioner’s view of personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: Practical and legal issues. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 299–302.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00051.xGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in “strong” versus “weak” situations. Human Performance, 14, 125–148.Google Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.Google Scholar
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190–210.10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.190Google Scholar
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Woo, S. E., & Conz, G. (2008, April). Openness to experience: Its facet structure, measurement, and validity. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Cheung, M. W. L. (2004). A direct estimation method on analyzing ipsative data with Chan and Bentler’s (1993) method. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 217–243.Google Scholar
Christiansen, N. D., & Tett, R. P. (2008). Toward a better understanding of the role of situations in linking personality, work behavior, and job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 312–316.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754–761.10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754Google Scholar
Converse, P. D., Oswald, F. L., Imus, A., Hedricks, C., Roy, R., & Butera, H. (2008). Comparing personality test formats and warnings: Effects on criterion-related validity and test-taker reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 155–169.10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00420.xGoogle Scholar
Cornwell, J. M., & Ladd, R. T. (1993). Power and accuracy of the Schmidt and Hunter meta-analytic procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 877–895.Google Scholar
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Liebecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40–57.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.Google Scholar
Griffith, R. L., & Peterson, M. H. (2008). The failure of social desirability measures to capture applicant faking behavior. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 308–311.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00053.xGoogle Scholar
Heggestad, E. D., & Gordon, H. L. (2008). An argument for context-specific personality assessments. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 320–322.Google Scholar
Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167–184.Google Scholar
Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627–637.Google Scholar
Hogan, R. T. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Page, M. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1997). The millennium for personality psychology: New horizons or good old daze. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 233–261.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Dilchert, S. (2007, October). Inventors, innovators, and their leaders: Selecting for conscientiousness will keep you “inside the box.” Invited presentation, SIOP Leading Edge Consortium: Enabling Innovation in Organizations. Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Furnham, A. (2003). Importance and use of personality variables in work settings. In Weiner, I. B. (Ed.-in-Chief) & Borman, W., Ilgen, D., & Klimoski, R. (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 131–169). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Anderson, N. R., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of work psychology (pp. 233–377). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998, April). Personality correlates of managerial performance constructs. In Page, R. C. (Chair), Personality determinants of managerial potential performance, progression and ascendancy. Symposium conducted at 13th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 272–290.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.Google Scholar
Houston, J. A., Borman, W. C., Farmer, W. F., & Bearden, R. M. (2006). Development of the Navy Computer Adaptive Personality Scales (NCAPS) Technical Report (NPRST-TR-06-2). Millington, TN: Navy Personnel Studies, Research and Technology.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–184.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N., Wrobleski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced-choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371–388.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131–163.10.1177/109442819812001Google Scholar
Jenkins, M., & Griffith, R. (2004). Using personality constructs to predict performance: Narrow or broad bandwidth. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 255–269.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. W. (2008). Process models of personality and work behavior. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 303–307.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00052.xGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. W., & Hezlett, S. A. (2008). Modeling the influence of personality on individuals at work: A review and research agenda. In Cartwright, S. & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personnel psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, J. W., & Arnold, D. W. (2008). Protecting the legal and appropriate use of personality testing: A practitioner perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 296–298.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00050.xGoogle Scholar
Kanfer, R.. (1990). Motivation theory and Industrial/Organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Volume 1. Theory in industrial and organizational psychology (pp.75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Kemery, E. R., Mossholder, K. W., & Dunlap, W. P. (1989). Meta-analysis and moderator variables: A cautionary note on transportability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 168–170.Google Scholar
Klehe, U.-C., & Anderson, N. (2007). Working hard and working smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 978–992.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., & Borneman, M. J. (2007). Toward a new method of detecting deliberately faked personality tests: The use of idiosyncratic item responses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 220–231.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593.Google Scholar
Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4, 192–211.Google Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Böckenholt, U. (2005). Structural equation modeling of paired comparison and ranking data. Psychological Methods, 10, 285–304.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Johnson, J. W. (1998). On the robustness, bias, and stability of statistics from meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: Some initial Monte Carlo findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 164–178.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Manual for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-7). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025–1060.Google Scholar
Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556.Google Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.Google Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389–405.Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B.-C., & Chan, K.-Y. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54, 809–843.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Bogg, T., Walton, K., Chernyshenko, O., & Stark, S. (2004). A lexical approach to identifying the lower-order structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 164–178.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Friede, A., Imus, A., & Merritt, S. (2008). Perceived fit with an academic environment: Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 317–355.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1999). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.Google Scholar
Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2002). An EM approach to parameter estimation for the Zinnes and Griggs paired comparison IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 207–227.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. L. (2008). Let us not become too narrow. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 317–319.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both sides of the personality-job performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335–356.Google Scholar
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Taylor, M. A., & Eidson, C. E. Jr. (2005). Broad versus narrow facets of integrity: Predictive validity and subgroup differences. Human Performance, 18, 151–177.Google Scholar
Voelkle, M. C., Wittmann, W. W., & Ackerman, P. L. (2006). Abilities and skill acquisition: A latent growth curve approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 303–319.Google Scholar
White, L. A., Young, M. C., Hunter, A. E., & Rumsey, M. G. (2008). Lessons learned in transitioning personality measures from research to operational settings. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 291–295.Google Scholar