Researchers have studied personality test for a long history. At one time, personality tests were not perceived as a valid selection method. However, personality tests are widely used and get generally positive conclusions today. (1) Reliability and validity
In recent years, there are many researches focusing on the illumination of the value of personality tests as predictors of performance. In 2007, Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt cautioned that personality tests have very low validity for predicting job performance. But very recently, in 2011, Craig M. Reddock, Michael D. Biderman and Nhung T. Nguyen investigated the efficacy of frame-of-reference(FOR) instructions and a measure of within-person inconsistency in predicting grade. And they found that under FOR instructions and a measure of inconsistency extracted from the personality questionnaire is included as a predictor, the validity of the personality test could increase by as much as 80% from the base value. Another issue is how socially desirable responding influence personality test validity. Last year, Sampo V. Paunonen and Etienne P. Lebel used Monte Carlo methods to evaluate various models of socially desirable responding. They claimed that there are only relatively minor decrements in criterion prediction except under the most extreme situation. Thomas A. O’Neill, Richard D. Goffin and lan R. Gellatly claimed that it appears that test-taking motivation relates to the criterion validity of personality testing differently depending on the personality trait assessed. (2) Faking issues
Various issues have been studied in relation to faking and personality measurement including: the use of warnings to reduce faking (Dwight & Donovan, 2003); the use of forced-choice personality instruments as less fake-able alternatives (Christiansen, Burns, & Montgomery, 2005); and the role of social desirability scales in detecting fakers (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996). Through experiments, Chef Robie showed there are no statistically significant mean differences between personality scale scores across levels of perceived selection ratios for each personality inventory. Lynn A. McFarland researched the item placements on personality test and concluded that the grouped item placement format was more fak-able. So the item placement should be seriously considered because different format may affect faking. Another research conducted by Edwin A. J. van Hooft and Marise Ph. Born suggest that eye tracking is potentially useful when detecting faking behavior in a personality test. Besides eye tracking, there are other ways to reduce faking. Patrick D. Converse, Frederic L. Oswald, Anna Imus, Cynthia Hedricks, Radha Roy& Hilary Butera’s study supported incremental validity for a forced choice (FC) method and likert-scale measure in warning and no-warning conditions, above and beyond cognitive ability. And some evidence suggested that FC and warnings may cause negative applicants reactions. (3) Adverse impact
Stephen D. Risavy and Peter A. Hausdorf suggest that organizations seeking to make hiring decisions based on personality test data and seeking to avoid adverse impact against minorities should utilize compensatory top down with fixed/sliding bands or compensatory cut score selection decision methods. Part 2: HR analysis
Recently, there is a significant number of employers who use personality test to screen job applicants. There are several factors that can explain why personality test is so popular. Below are the advantages of personality test: It can test for specific traits that may predict success in a job. Personality test has the potential to help the employers to detect the applicants that may be unsuitable for the job. For example, Disney puts a lot of emphasis on customer service. Thus their employees should have a positive smile and good aptitude. By personality test, applicants...