Personality Test
Part 1 Literature Review
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
135
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,
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
135
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,
References: [4]Thomas A. O’Neill, Richard D. Goffin & lan R. Gellatly(2010). Test-Taking Motivation and Personality Test Validity. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 117-125. [5]Chet Robie(2006). Effects of Perceived Selection Ratio on Personality Test Faking. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 1233-1244. [6]Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16, 1-23. [7]Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267-307. [8]Lynn A. McFarland(2002). Item Placement on a Personality Measure: Effects on Faking Behavior and Test Measurement Properties. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 348-369 [9]Van Hooft, Edwin A [10]Stephen D. Risavy & Peter A. Hausdorf(2011). Personality Testing in Personnel Selection Adverse impact and differential hiring rates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 19-30. [12]Susan J. Stabile(2002). The use of personality tests as a hiring tool: Is the benefit worth the cost? U. PA. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 4, 279-313. [13]T Ryan Dullaghan(2010). The effect of a reasoning warning on faking in personality testing for selection and the perception of procedural justice.