The purpose of this study was to investigate conflicting findings in previous research on personality and job performance. Meta‐analysis was used to (a) assess the overall validity of personality measures as predictors of job performance, (b) investigate the moderating effects of several study characteristics on personality scale validity, and (c) appraise the predictability of job performance as a function of eight distinct categories of personality content, including the “Big Five” personality factors. Based on review of 494 studies, usable results were identified for 97 independent samples (total N= 13,521). Consistent with predictions, studies using confirmatory research strategies produced a corrected mean personality scale validity (.29) that was more than twice as high as that based on studies adopting exploratory strategies (.12). An even higher mean validity (.38) was obtained based on studies using job analysis explicitly in the selection of personality measures. Validities were also found to be higher in longer tenured samples and in published articles versus dissertations. Corrected mean validities for the “Big Five” factors ranged from .16 for Extroversion to .33 for Agreeableness. Weaknesses in the reporting of validation study characteristics are noted, and recommendations for future research in this area are provided. Contrary to conclusions of certain past reviews, the present findings provide some grounds for optimism concerning the use of personality measures in employee selection.

In this study, we examined relations between the performance of first-level managers in a large food service company and their affective commitment (i.e., emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization), continuance commitment (i.e., perceived costs associated with leaving the company), and job satisfaction. Commitment and satisfaction scores were correlated with three indexes of performance obtained from the managers' immediate supervisors. As predicted, affective commitment correlated positively and continuance commitment correlated negatively with all three measures of performance. Job satisfaction did not correlate significantly with performance ratings. The findings are interpreted as illustrating the importance of distinguishing between commitment based on desire and commitment based on need and as supporting organizational efforts to foster affective commitment in their employees.

Should one do a component analysis or a factor analysis? The choice is not obvious, because the two broad classes of procedures serve a similar purpose, and share many important mathematical characteristics. Despite many textbooks describing common factor analysis as the preferred procedure, principal component analysis has been the most widely applied. Here we summarize relevant information for the prospective factor/component analyst. First, we discuss the key algebraic similarities and differences. Next, we analyze a number of theoretical and practical issues. The more practical aspects include: the degree of numeric similarity between solutions from the two methods, some common rules for the number of factors to be retained, effects resulting from overextraction, problems with improper solutions, and comparisons in computational efficiency. Finally, we review some broader theoretical issues: the factor indeterminacy issue, the differences between exploratory and confirmatory procedures, and the issue of latent versus manifest variables.

No abstract

Issues raised by Paul Meehl's classic manifesto on the dynamics of structured personality inventories are reviewed in the light of a quarter of a century of experience. A series of principles relating to personality scale development is proposed, which highlights the role of psychological theory and item content in formulating a multifaceted item pool, and the importance of suppressing response biases. Because of the competing and often interacting relation of trait and method variance, multivariate procedures for scale construction and evaluation of discriminant validity are considered essential. It is concluded that considerably more is now known about personality and scale construction than 25 years ago. Personality assessment specialists need not, and indeed as scientists should not, abandon their unique human capacity to judge and evaluate item content.