Predicting Typical and Maximum Performance with Measures of Motivation and Abilities

Abstract

The current study integrated the literature on selection tests of typical versus maximum performance (Cronbach, 1960) with the literature on job performance under typical and maximum performance conditions (Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1988). Tests of maximum performance (i.e., measures of task-related knowledge, skills, and abilities) loaded onto a different factor than tests of typical performance (i.e., measures of task-related motivation). Nevertheless, these two factors were moderately correlated (r = .44). Further, both task-related ability and motivation predicted typical performance. Maximum performance was predicted only by ability. Cronbach (1949;1960) classified personnel selection tests into two broad categories, tests of maximum and tests of typical performance. The former term designates ability tests such as measures of cognitive ability or tests of a particular knowledge or skill. The distinguishing feature of maximum performance tests is that they seek to assess how much or how well people can perform at their best. Hence, candidates are encouraged to do well in order to earn the best score they can. In contrast, "tests of typical performance are used to investigate not what the person can do but what he does" (Cronbach, 1960, p. 31) and "the test of a suitable employee is whether she maintains that courtesy in her daily work even when she is not 'on her best behaviour'". Tests of typical performance therefore do not assess a candidate's ability or what that person can do under maximum circumstances, rather they assess how the ability of a job candidate is evident on a day-to-day basis. In short, these tests assess what the candidate chooses to do. Hence they assess a candidate's motivation rather than his or her ability.Applying Cronbach's classification from the selection domain to actual job performance, Sackett, Zedeck, and Fogli (1988; see also Sackett, 2007) argued that typical job performance occurs when people are not aware that they are being evaluated on the job, when they are not instructed to do their 'very best', and when their job performance is assessed over an extended 68 PREDICTING TYPICAL AND MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE period of time. In contrast to typical job performance, maximum job performance occurs when people know that their performance is being evaluated, when they receive instructions to exert great effort, and when the duration of assessment is short enough to enable performers to remain focused on the task. Sackett et al. (1988; see also Sackett, 2007) acknowledged that in practice, typical and maximum job performance represent a continuum rather than a dichotomy, thus rendering any comparison between typical and maximum performance relative.Tests of maximum versus typical performance on the predictor side and maximum versus typical job performance on the criterion side are obviously related. Yet, very few empirical studies have been conducted that take into account these two domains. Instead, past studies on the prediction of typical versus maximum job performance have ...

Actions define a character: Assessment centers as behavior‐focused personality measures

“…This allows assessors to observe how personality manifests in behavior in situations that are most critical to performing well on the job, which in turn should facilitate job performance predictions. In line with this assumption, previous research found that selection measures of maximum performance are valid predictors of performance under both maximum and typical conditions (Klehe & Latham, 2008). Hence, we predict: Hypothesis 3a: Within-exercise AC ratings of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Intellect/Openness explain a significant proportion of variance in supervisor ratings of job performance over and above self-ratings of the same traits.…”

Developing a New Quantitative Reasoning Test for Indonesian High School Students using the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Intelligence

“…In the next step, test construction, we start by selecting the type of test. This instrument is classified as a maximum performance test for which the objective is to see how well a person can perform (Cronbach, 1960 as cited in Klehe & Latham, 2008). Next, we select the item types.…”

Predicting the dynamic criteria of basketball players: The influence of the ‘Big Five’, job experience, and motivation

“…There are certain similarities between the stages of the model developed by Murphy (1989) and the typical/maximum performance distinction. According to Klehe and Latham (2008), in typical performance episodes motivation is more important than abilities as in the maintenance stage. In contrast, maximum performance was predicted only by abilities as in the transition stage.…”