The Five-Factor model and job performance in low complexity jobs: A quantitative synthesis

Lado, Mario; Alonso, Pamela

doi:10.1016/j.rpto.2017.07.004

Cited by 25 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The total sample size was 43,203 individuals. The oldest study was published in 1933 (Farmer, 1933) and the most recent was published in 2017 (Lado and Alonso, 2017). Therefore, the time period covered by this meta-analysis was 84 years.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of Interrater Reliability of Supervisory Performance Ratings: Effects of Appraisal Purpose, Scale Type, and Range Restriction

Salgado

Moscoso

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This reliability generalization study aimed to estimate the mean and variance of the interrater reliability coefficients (ryy) of supervisory ratings of overall, task, contextual, and positive job performance. The moderating effect of the appraisal purpose and the scale type was examined. It was hypothesized that the ratings collected for research purposes and multi-item scales have higher ryy. It was also examined whether ryy was similar for the four performance dimensions.Method: A database consisting of 224 independent samples was created and hierarchical sub-grouping meta-analyses were conducted.Results: The appraisal purpose was a moderator of ryy for the four performance dimensions. Scale type was a moderator of ryy for overall and task performance collected for research purposes. The findings also suggest that supervisors seem to have less difficulty evaluating overall job performance than task, contextual, and positive performance. The best estimates of the observed ryy for overall job performance are 0.61 for research-collected ratings and 0.45 for administrative-collected ratings.Conclusions: (1) Appraisal purpose moderates ryy and researchers and practitioners should be aware of its effects before collecting ratings or using empirically-derived interrater reliability distributions, (2) Scale type seems to moderate ryy in the case of the ratings collected for research purposes, only, (3) overall job performance is more reliably rated than task, contextual, and positive performance. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of Interrater Reliability of Supervisory Performance Ratings: Effects of Appraisal Purpose, Scale Type, and Range Restriction

Salgado

Moscoso

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This research has made several unique contributions to the literature on CR. The first unique contribution has been to show that CR is a relevant predictor of job performance and educational outcomes, and that the magnitude of the validity is similar or even more substantial than the validity of other well-studied predictors (e.g., cognitive abilities, personality dimensions; [88][89][90]). Moreover, in the case of academic performance, the findings showed that CR was a valid predictor for the three types of educational outcomes (i.e., GPA, UEM, and EG).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Reflection and General Mental Ability as Predictors of Job Performance

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a study with four independent samples on the validity of cognitive reflection (CR) for predicting job performance and academic outcomes. The results showed that CR was a valid predictor of academic outcomes (i.e., grades and exam marks) and job performance (i.e., assessment center ratings). The magnitude of the CR validity was similar to the validity of GMA. Moreover, we found that CR and GMA were moderately correlated, and multiple regression analyses showed that CR added a small amount of validity over GMA validity for predicting both types of performance. Finally, we discuss the implications of the findings for the theory and practice of predicting performance and organizational sustainability.

show abstract

“…For this reason, it is important that if personality inventories are used for selection purposes, they combine two features: (a) criterion validity and (b) faking resistance. Quasi-ipsative FC personality inventories showed to be the most valid predictors of job performance among all varieties of personality inventories (see, for instance, Lado & Alonso, 2017;Salgado, 2017;Salgado et al, 2015). However, the resistance to faking of quasi-ipsative FC inventories developed for assessing the FFM of personality remained relatively unexplored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faking Resistance of a Quasi-ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventory without Algebraic Dependence

Salgado

Lado

2018

Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Five-Factor model and job performance in low complexity jobs: A quantitative synthesis

Cited by 25 publications

References 53 publications

Meta-Analysis of Interrater Reliability of Supervisory Performance Ratings: Effects of Appraisal Purpose, Scale Type, and Range Restriction

Meta-Analysis of Interrater Reliability of Supervisory Performance Ratings: Effects of Appraisal Purpose, Scale Type, and Range Restriction

Cognitive Reflection and General Mental Ability as Predictors of Job Performance

Faking Resistance of a Quasi-ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventory without Algebraic Dependence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About