Toward a classification of persons.

Owens, William A.; Schoenfeldt, Lyle F.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.569

Cited by 181 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Owens and his colleagues (e.g., Mumford & Owens, 1987;Mumford & Stokes, 1992;Owens, 1976;Owens & Schoenfeldt, 1979) have reported extensive efforts to use background data, in the form of biodata items, to subgroup samples of individuals with similar biographical profiles. To do so, they developed biodata items that captured important behaviors and experiences related to student development.…”

Section: Early Development and Validation Of The Noncognitive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To do so, they developed biodata items that captured important behaviors and experiences related to student development. Using scores derived from principal components analyses of responses to the biodata items, they clustered 2,000 freshmen into subgroups with similar profiles, producing 23 male and 15 female subgroups (Owens & Schoenfeldt, 1979). To evaluate this subgroup approach, they assessed the degree to which subgroup membership was associated with external performance criteria.…”

Section: Early Development and Validation Of The Noncognitive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students.

Schmitt

Keeney

Oswald

et al. 2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

135

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to determine the validity of noncognitive and cognitive predictors of the performance of college students at the end of their 4th year in college. Results indicate that the primary predictors of cumulative college grade point average (GPA) were Scholastic Assessment Test/American College Testing Assessment (SAT/ACT) scores and high school GPA (HSGPA) though biographical data and situational judgment measures added incrementally to this prediction. SAT/ACT scores and HSGPA were collected and used in various ways by participating institutions in the admissions process while situational judgment measures and biodata were collected for research purposes only during the first few weeks of the participating students' freshman year. Alternative outcomes such as a self-report of performance on a range of student performance dimensions and a measure of organizational citizenship behavior, as well as class absenteeism, were best predicted by noncognitive measures. The racial composition of a student body selected with only cognitive measures or both cognitive and noncognitive measures under various levels of selectivity as well as the performance of students admitted under these scenarios is also reported. The authors concluded that both the biodata and situational judgment measures could be useful supplements to cognitive indexes of student potential in college admissions.Keywords: college admissions, selection, noncognitive measures, biodata, situational judgment As is true when organizations hire employees, colleges and universities seek to admit and recruit the best students. Just as the qualifications deemed to make a good employee vary across organizations or managers, so do the factors underlying notions about excellent student performance. In the educational context, these factors vary as a function of the university or admissions personnel who evaluate student credentials and performance. Traditionally, college admissions personnel use high school grade point averages (HSGPA), standardized tests of cognitive ability in the areas of verbal and mathematical skills (Scholastic Assessment Test/American College Testing Assessment, or SAT/ACT), and sometimes records of achievement in specific subject matter areas to assess student potential. Each factor provides unique information about the applicant. Letters of recommendation, essays, or interviews are being used increasingly by universities to complement these HSGPA and SAT/ACT scores. Schools vary widely in their assessment of the information contained in these supplemental materials. For example, while a reviewer at one school might assign a subjective rating to each component of the application, a reviewer at another school might form ratings of personal qualities (e.g., leadership) on the basis of a holistic review of the materials (Rigol, 2003). Clearly, any systematic and thorough processing of this information, especially when large numbers of applicants must be processed in a short period of time, places a heavy burden on admissions p...

show abstract

Section: Early Development and Validation Of The Noncognitive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Early Development and Validation Of The Noncognitive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students.

Schmitt

Keeney

Oswald

et al. 2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

135

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biodata is based on the premise that past behavior will influence future behavior (Owens & Schoenfeldt, 1979). Therefore, if one wants to predict an individual's behavior, such as leadership ability, you would look at his or her past experiences.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participants completed a 398-item background questionnaire (Owens & Schoenfeldt, 1979). From there, a self-evaluation leadership scale was constructed using 19 background data items.…”

Section: Development and Empirical Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of ARI Leader Assessment Measures

Mathieu¹,

Klimoski²,

Rouse³

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this study, they administered Owens and Schoenfeldt's (1979) questionnaire intended to tap general developmental influences along with background data scales intended to measure object beliefs, negative beliefs about humanity, outcome uncertainty, and negative beliefs about outcomes. As noted earlier, the development of more complex, higher-order beliefs (e.g., object beliefs and negative beliefs about humanity) emerged from more basic beliefs (e.g., outcome uncertainty and negative beliefs about outcomes).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%