Reconsidering the Use of Personality Tests in Personnel Selection Contexts

Abstract

Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of personality tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of personality tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report personality tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of personality tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report personality tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report personality measures. Psychology were assembled to discuss the issue of faking in personality testing. The resulting discussion evolved from a focus on faking to a focus on the broader issue of whether the use of personality tests to make high-stakes employment decisions could be justified. With the exception of one of the panelists, there was consensus that there are a number of significant problems associated with the use of self-report personality tests in selection contexts and that perhaps a reappraisal of this literature might be in order. This paper briefly describes the history of the use of personality tests in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and specifically addresses the issue of fakability. The paper then summarizes and expands upon the points made during the panel discussion. A Brief History on the Use of Personality Tests in I-O PsychologyIn 1965, Guion and Gottier summarized 12 years (1952)(1953)(1954)(1955)(1956)(1957)(1958)(1959)(1960)(1961)(1962)(1963) of research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology on the use of personality tests in selection contexts. They concluded that "It is difficult in the face of this summary to advocate, with a clear conscience, the use of personality measures in most situations as a basis for making employment decisions about people" (Guion & Gottier, 1965, p. 160). This view prevailed for more than 25 years, until the 1991 publication of two meta-analyses on the validity of personality tests for personnel selection (Barrick & Mount, 1991;Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Although these two summaries found similar levels of validity as previous quantitative reviews (cf. Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984), they concluded that meta-a...

Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings

“…A recurring criticism of personality testing is that applicants might intentionally distort their responses when they know that their responses will be used to inform admission decisions (Morgeson et al, 2007). However, most of what is known about personality testing in selection contexts comes from the large literature on employee selection (Oswald et al, 2008;Rothstein et al, 2006).…”

An approach to personnel selection based on Swara and Waspas methods

“…(Wright et al, 1989;Morgeson et al, 2007). Braun and Warner (2002) state that in certain circumstances it is not always possible to apply the above mentioned methods.…”

PMK: Medidas válidas para a predição do desempenho no trabalho?

“…Já os estudos sobre a validade preditiva das medidas de traços de personalidade no ambiente de trabalho apresentam resultados contraditórios e inconsistentes (Morgeson et al, 2007a;Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Por isso, ainda não existe consenso na literatura sobre a qualidade preditiva dessas medidas, apesar de serem utilizadas com frequência na seleção de pessoas.…”

“…A literatura aponta que a relação entre os aspectos de personalidade e as medidas de desempenho é complexa (Smith, 1994;Spector, 2004), por isso, o alcance de coefi cientes de validade satisfatórios obtidos a partir de relações diretas entre as medidas desses dois construtos depende de uma cuidadosa seleção das variáveis individuais baseada na compreensão teórica e prática dos indicadores de desempenho (Morgeson et al, 2007a). Borman e Motowidlo (1997) propuseram que as características psicológicas, habilidades cognitivas e personalidade, apresentam poder de predição diferenciado em relação às dimensões do desempenho no trabalho.…”

“…Dentre as medidas de personalidade, o fator Conscienciosidade se mostrou como o preditor importante das médias nas disciplinas ministradas no treinamento no modelo de regressão hierárquico (R 2 =0,10). Trata-se de uma associação fraca sendo o resultado condizente com pesquisas anteriores (Morgeson et al, 2007a;Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Já o estudo conduzido por Dias (2005), no qual se investigou a relação entre as medidas de personalidade obtidas por meio 16 Fatores de Personalidade (16PF) e o absenteísmo no trabalho, os resultados indicaram correlações fracas ou nulas entre os fatores de segunda ordem investigados por meio desse instrumento e a variável dependente absenteísmo.…”