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. Therefore, 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). The overall correlation of conscientiousness and job performance was in line with previous meta-analyses (𝑟̅ = .17, k = 102, n = 23,305). In our analyses, the correlation did not differ across validation designs (concurrent:

Considerations in the use of concurrent or predictive validity in clinical measurement

“…As a result, some incorrectly use these interchangeably. Watrin et al's (2023) meta‐analysis highlights how evidence can predominantly stem from concurrent validation studies but is inappropriately generalized to predictive settings.…”