The Criterion-Related Validity of Conscientiousness in Personnel Selection: A Meta-Analytic Reality Check

Abstract

A key finding in personnel selection is the positive correlation between conscientiousness and job performance. Evidence predominantly stems from concurrent validation studies with incumbent samples but is readily generalized to predictive settings with job applicants. This is problematic because the extent to which faking and changes in personality affect the measurement likely vary across samples and study designs. We meta-analytically investigated the relation between conscientiousness and job performance, examining the moderating effects of sample type (incumbent vs. applicant) and validation design (concurrent vs. predictive). Our review of the published literature reveals that only a small minority of studies were conducted with real applicants in predictive designs, which questions the generalizability of the findings to real selection processes. However, the overall correlation of conscientiousness and job performance was in line with previous meta-analyses (𝑟̅ = .17, k = 102, n = 23,305) and this effect was not moderated by either validation design (concurrent: 𝑟̅ = .18, k = 78, n = 19,132; predictive: 𝑟̅ = .15, k = 24, n = 4,173), sample type (incumbents: 𝑟̅ = .18, k = 92, n = 20,808; applicants: 𝑟̅ = .14, k = 10, n = 2,497), or the interaction thereof. We discuss how these results are limited by a potentially large file drawer problem in the industry and conclude with a call for more multivariate research on the validity of selection procedures in predictive settings with actual applicants.