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

Abstract

Abstract. The current study examined the degree to which applicants applying for medical internships distort their responses to personality tests and assessed whether this response distortion led to reduced predictive validity. The applicant sample (n = 530) completed the NEO Personality Inventory whilst applying for one of 60 positions as first-year post-graduate medical interns. Predictive validity was assessed using university grades, averaged over the entire medical degree. Applicant responses for the Big Five (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) and 30 facets of personality were compared to a range of normative samples where personality was measured in standard research settings including medical students, role model physicians, current interns, and standard young-adult test norms. Applicants had substantially higher scores on conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, and extraversion and lower scores on neuroticism with an average absolute standardized difference of 1.03, when averaged over the normative samples. While current interns, medical students, and especially role model physicians do show a more socially desirable personality profile than standard test norms, applicants provided responses that were substantially more socially desirable. Of the Big Five, conscientiousness was the strongest predictor of academic performance in both applicants (r = .11) and medical students (r = .21). Findings suggest that applicants engage in substantial response distortion, and that the predictive validity of personality is modest and may be reduced in an applicant setting.

HEXACO personality predicts counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior in low-stakes and job applicant contexts

“…In addition to the primary aim, the data also allowed for an examination of the predictive validity of the HEXACO model of personality, which is an increasingly popular alternative to the Big Five (Lee, Ashton, Morrison, Cordery, & Dunlop, 2008), particularly as it relates to unethical and deviant behavior (for a review see, Ashton, Lee, & de Vries, 2014). As we had data on the full 200-item measure of the HEXACO PI-R that provides reliable measurement of personality facets, the study also contributes to discussion about the relative merits of narrow traits in employee selection (Anglim, Bozic, Little, & Lievens, 2018;Ashton, 1998;Christiansen & Robie, 2011;Salgado, Moscoso, & Berges, 2013;Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003).…”

The relationship between cognitive ability and personality scores in selection situations: A meta‐analysis

“…Faking—the intentional distortion of answers by applicants—is a frequently occurring phenomenon found when personality tests are used for personnel selection (e.g., Anglim et al., 2018; Birkeland et al., 2006; Galić et al., 2012; Griffin & Wilson, 2012). In this context, interindividual differences in faking behavior are particularly problematic, as they can affect the applicants’ rank order and thus the validity of selection decisions (König et al., 2011; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Mueller‐Hanson et al., 2006; Raymark & Tafero, 2009).…”

Effects of response instructions on situational judgment test performance in operational selection and developmental contexts

“…In contrast, in the low-stakes developmental context, motivation to fake should be extremely low because respondents are already in a residency program and importantly, these respondents were told that results will be seen by them alone and used solely for their personal development. Thus, just as highly motivated medical school applicants show more response distortion on personality tests than nonapplicants (Anglim et al, 2018;Griffin & Wilson, 2012), we expected a similar result for our SJT. We hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 1 Controlling for instruction condition, SJT scores will be higher in the selection (i.e., high-stakes) versus developmental (i.e., low-stakes) context.…”