The six-factor model of personality: Facets from the big five

Jackson, Douglas N.; Ashton, Michael C.; Tomes, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00046-3

Cited by 78 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SFPQ is similar to other big five measures except that it bifurcates conscientiousness into achievement and methodicalness. The validity and psychometric properties of that measure have been supported in numerous studies (see Jackson, Ashton, & Tomes, ; Jackson, Paunonen, Fraboni, & Goffin, ; Jackson, Paunonen, & Tremblay, ). As was the case for all measures except job performance and the Teamwork‐KSA Test, responses were made on a standard 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…The Six-Factor Personality Questionnaire (SFPQ) was used to assess the 'Big Five' personality variables included in this study. The SFPQ is similar to other big five measures except that it bifurcates conscientiousness into achievement and methodicalness.The validity and psychometric properties of that measure have been supported in numerous studies (see Jackson,Ashton, & Tomes, 1996;Jackson, Paunonen, Fraboni, & Goffin, 1996;Jackson, Paunonen, & Tremblay, 2000).As was the case for all measures except job performance and the Teamwork-KSA Test, responses were made on a standard 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Paulhus's (1991) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding was used to measure impression management and self-deceptive enhancement.…”

Section: Personalitymentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Revisiting the Teamwork‐KSA Test's validity

O’Neill

Goffin

Gellatly

2012

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Teamwork -Knowledge, Skills, and Ability (KSA) Test was developed by Stevens and Campion to operationalize their comprehensive taxonomy of teamwork competencies.The test is generally considered 'valid' and has been used frequently in organizations. Our review of the literature found an average criterion validity of .20 for the Teamwork-KSA Test, although there was considerable variability across studies.We could find no research on the item properties, factor structure, or subscale reliabilities, and no extensive investigations of the nomological net of this test. In our field sample, we found subscale reliabilities to be generally inadequate, no meaningful factor structure, and low predictivenes of employees' performance on team-related dimensions.Although the taxonomy it purports to measure is preeminent, the Teamwork-KSA Test itself may have serious limitations.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Personalitymentioning

confidence: 98%

The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Revisiting the Teamwork‐KSA Test's validity

O’Neill

Goffin

Gellatly

2012

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result reinforces the assumption that the eects are not simply a function of the particular qualities selected. Although debate continues as to whether there are truly ®ve major personality dimensions (Jackson, Ashton, and Tomes 1996;Maraun 1997;Widiger and Trull 1997), the NEO-FFI de®nitely measures a diverse set, if not a complete set, of possible personality dierences. Thus, major dierences in perceptions of related characteristics resulted for both a simple trait rating task, and a task based on more general behavioral descriptors when sense of humor varied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived personality associations with differences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor

Cann

Calhoun²

2001

Humr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having a high sense of humor has been found to be a general social asset, but there has been no assessment of the speci®c qualities that are assumed to be associated with variations in sense of humor. Two studies were conducted to examine the assumptions observers would make about the personal qualities associated with varying levels of sense of humor. In the ®rst study, participants (150 female and 86 male college students) were asked to use a set of adjectives to rate individuals described as varying in sense of humor. The overall pattern of results indicated that, compared to persons described as``typical'' or``below average'' in sense of humor, individuals described as``well above average'' were rated more highly on socially desirable adjectives, lower on socially undesirable adjectives, but no dierent on adjectives re¯ecting social sensitivity. In the second study, participants (120 female and 49 male college students) were asked to use a measure of the``big ®ve'' personality traits to rate individuals described as varying in sense of humor. Results indicated that individuals described as being`w ell above average'' in sense of humor were perceived as lower in neuroticism and higher in agreeableness than``typical'', or``below average'' sense of humor others. The ®ndings of these two studies con®rm the importance of a high sense of humor as a social asset, and provide some clarity concerning the likely underlying bases for the positive expectations sense of humor generates in observers.A great deal of attention has been directed toward understanding sense of humor as a personal characteristic (e.g., . A variety of measures have been developed to quantify this quality and dierentiate it from other traits (

show abstract

“…Participants were then asked to complete the agreeableness inventory and were assured of confidentiality to reduce unwanted trait variance (Jackson, Ashton, & Tomes, 1996). Participants in the six experimental conditions then completed the written manipulation check questions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of rater agreeableness and rating context on the evaluation of poor performance

Randall

Sharples²

2010

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the effects of rater agreeableness on the rating of others' poor performance in performance appraisal (PA). We also examined the interactions between rater agreeableness and two aspects of the rating context: ratee self-ratings and the prospect of future collaboration with the ratee after the feedback of PA ratings. Participants were government employees (N = 230) allocated to one of six experimental groups (a 3 × 2 between-groups design) or a control group (n = 20). Participants received accurate, low-deviated or highdeviated self-ratings from the ratee. Half were notified they would collaborate with the ratee in a future task. High rater agreeableness, positive deviations in self-rating, and the prospect of future collaboration were all independent predictors of higher PA ratings. The interactions between rater agreeableness and rating context were very small and inconsistent. We argue that conflict avoidance is an important motivation for those rating the performance of others.

show abstract

The six-factor model of personality: Facets from the big five

Cited by 78 publications

References 19 publications

The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Revisiting the Teamwork‐KSA Test's validity

The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Revisiting the Teamwork‐KSA Test's validity

Perceived personality associations with differences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor

The impact of rater agreeableness and rating context on the evaluation of poor performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About