psychological testing in personnel selection, part iii: the

Psychological Testingin Personnel Selection,Part III: The Resurgenceof Personality TestingBy Wesley A. Scroggins, PhD, Steven L. Thomas, PhD, andJerry A. Morris, PsyD

This article is the third in a three-part series examining the development ofselection testing. Part I focused on the historical development of personnelselection testing from the iate 19th century to the present, with particular attentiongiven to personality testing. Attention was given to the efforts of eariy industrialpsychoiogists that shaped and defined the roie of testing in the scientific seiectionof empioyees. Part il examined the development of methods and standards inempioyment testing, with particuiar emphasis on seiection validity and utility. Wealso explored the issues of selection fairness and discrimination in selection asthey reiate to psychologicai testing. Part iii explores the development andapplication of personality testing with a particular emphasis on the development ofthe Big Five personaiity modei and the utiiity of adding personaiity testing to themenu of choices for personnei selection methods. The transient nature of modeisof personality is noted, and current paradigms and the utiiity and fairness ofpersonaiity testing for modern organizations is discussed.

I n the first article in this series, which was published in the Spring 2008 issue ofPublic Personnel Management, we noted that while the utility of some selectioninstruments, particularly cognitive ability testing, has been widely accepted, the

usefulness of personality testing in selection has not faired nearly as well.̂ Logic dic-tates that personality should influence performance, and research has revealed thatsuccessful managers share a large number of personality traits regardless of time ororganization.2 However, reviews of the research exploring the validity of personalitytesting has generally not supported the validity or utility of personality testing.^ Nev-ertheless, recent research in personality testing has been promising, and there seemsto be considerably more optimism about the role of personality testing in selection."*It is to these issues we now turn.

Contemporary Personality Testing inEmployee SelectionIn recent years, the use of personality testing as a human resource selection methodhas been heavily criticized because personality tests have historically had low criterion

Public Personnel Management Volume 38 No. 1 Spring 2009 67

validity, low predictive validity, high development and use costs, and considerable risksfor adverse impact. When coupled with the risk personality tests present for invasion ofprivacy and their generally lack of acceptance by test takers, their application asselection instruments is sanctioned only with a fair amount of caution by staffingexperts. 5

Certainly however, all personality tests do not share either the same limitationsnor strengths. Individual instruments are developed using methods, and each testassesses a unique set of psychometric properties. Also, each will have been validatedfor use in either quite narrow or broader populations. Certainly, the personality testsdeveloped for discriminating between people with a mental disorder and peoplewithout a mental disorder have only very specific utility in highly specialized personnelselection activities. On the other hand, personality tests developed to assess test takers'possession of certain traits or personality-related abilities may be useful for predictingemployees' behaviors and outcomes across a broad array of positions.^

Despite a significant amount of research, there remains considerabledisagreement about the value of personality testing in employee selection. While amajority of the selection research of the last 30 years has called the value of personalitytesting into question, the search for predictors of job performance that have lessadverse impact than cognitive ability tests has renewed interest in personality testing.^Some have suggested that using personality testing in conjunction with cognitiveability testing can enhance the validity of employee selection decisions while alsoreducing the adverse impact of the decision-making process.^ However, confusion overthe definition oipersonality, how to measure personality, and what exactly personalitytests measure has hampered such efforts and kept the controversy over personalitytesting alive.^ In part to answer critics, the focus in personnel psychology in recentyears has been on developing theories of the psychological processes that underlieand determine job performance, and this work is opening new doors for the use ofpersonality testing for selection purposes.^°

Proponents of general mental ability (GMA) as a solid predictor of jobperformance are aware that the core components of this predictor seem to relate tothe acquisition of job knowledge: People with demonstrated high levels of GMA seemto acquire job knowledge with greater speed and depth, and this boosts jobperformance. At the same time, is well known and well accepted by experiencedpsychologists that certain personality traits enhance a person's ability to actuateintellectual capacity and that other personality traits dampen that ability. ̂ ^ It is likely,then, that using efficient and valid tools to measure a person's GMA and assessing hisor her personality traits that influence receptiveness to information, interference ofcognitive and affective states, and willingness to ally and interface with others wouldlead to better personnel selection decisions.

Although developing tools to fairly and thoroughly measure GMA and personalitytraits is the most complex approach to improving the selection process in terms ofcriterion validity and cost-effectiveness, it is also potentially the most fruitful. The fieldof personnel psychology has only recently become equipped to seriously undertakethe development of meta and trait-oriented instruments for employee selection. The

68 Public Personnel Management Volume 38 No. 1 Spring 2009

reason for this is the natural maturation of the nearly 100-year-old science and relatedscientific methods, the advent of sophisticated and readily available computer supportin most major organizations, and the success of the education system in training anarmy of managers, psychologists, business owners, investors, specialty consulting firmsand staffs with advanced research skills.

A number of meta-analyses have produced precise and generalizable estimates ofthe validity of different constructs for predicting job performance and made it possibleto calculate correlations among the constructs. This work of identifying predictivepersonality traits, adapting statistical and psychometric methods, and dealing withworkforces and hardware has been done against a backdrop of the rapid evolution ofmeasurement techniques that score aspects of personality that are themselvesamalgamations of subcomponent parts^^ labeled by construction rather than absurdity.The research findings are only beginning to be applied to employee selection, so oneshould not be discouraged by the infancy of this approach and the current crudity ofthe tools the approach has yielded. A vast array of metapredictors and metautilities thatcould amplify the strong but comparatively simple utility of cognitive tests awaitdiscovery.

Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts^^ have noted that since the early 1990s, personalityhas come to be understood as the enduring and stable reputational aspects of how aperson wishes to be seen and behave in interpersonal relationships. Thus, when aperson completes a personality questionnaire, the evaluator is getting a rough index ofreputation. These authors believe that the link between personality scale scores andreputation is why well-constructed personality tests predict nontest behavior.

Since the early 1990s, estimates of the validity of personality measures haveinched upward. This may be largely due to the resurgence of factorial approaches,which have consistently found what have come to be known as the Big-Five personalityfactors that seem to reoccur as core elements of personality across many studies.^''With the confusion about what represents personality beginning to clear, with thevalidity of personality as a personnel selection measure improving, and with personalityfactors beginning to demonstrate increasing stability within and across instruments,interest in the use of personality tests in selection has increased.

The Big-Five Personality FactorsWe noted above that a person's GMA is associated with his or her ability to acquire thejob knowledge and job-related skills that result in improved individual andorganizational performance. It is also reasonable to assume that, all other things beingequal, the degree to which an employee possesses the personality trait ofconscientiousness should be correlated with job performance. Schmidt and Hunterfound this to be the case when analyzing findings from several studies of personalityand job performance, writing that, "controlling for mental ability, employees who arehigher in conscientiousness develop higher levels of job knowledge, probably becauseconscientious individuals exert greater efforts and spend more time 'on task.'"^5 Theseauthors go on to point out that the central determining variables in job performance


appear to be GMA, job experience, and the personality trait of conscientiousness. Fromthese conclusions, it is reasonable to surmise that a combination of intellectual abilityand personality traits and attributes that potentiate focus, dedication, commitment,collaboration, readiness to learn, dependability, group orientation, and problemsolving (i.e. some form of maturity or psychological uniqueness) is really what is beingmeasured by tests of GMA.

The Big Five personality factors can be traced to the factor analytic studies ofLouis Leon Thurstone in the 1930s. Thurstone^^ was probably the first to describe fiveindependent common factors that emerged in his factorial research. While he set asidethese studies of the core of personality and never followed up on his findings, otherstook up the work. Raymond Cattell repeatedly talked of at least 12 core factors thatemerged from his personality research, but when others later analyzed his variables,only five factors proved to be unique. ̂ ^ A number of other investigators have found thefive core factors.̂ ®

The Big-Five factors have been labeled as follows:

• Factor 1: Extraversion, or surgency.• Factor 2 : Agreeableness.• Factor III: Conscientiousness.• Factor IV: Emotional Stability, or neuroticism.• Factor V: Culture, or, more recently intellect^'^ or openness to experience. ̂ °

Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts, and others,^^ have pointed out that the basicpersonality factors can be organized hierarchically and that each factor can be brokendown into hundreds, if not thousands, of traits. For example, talkativeness,assertiveness, and activity level traits such as silence and passivity are indicative ofextraversion. Agreeableness is demonstrated through kindness, trust, and warmth anddisagreeableness is demonstrated by hostility, selfishness, and distrust. Organization,thoroughness, and reliability are signs of conscientiousness, while carelessness,negligence, and unreliability are signs that an individual lacks this factor of theirpersonality. Lack of emotional stability is manifested in nervousness, moodiness, andtemperamentality, and negative culture traits are shallowness and imperceptiveness. Asrefiected in the newer terminology for Factor V—intellect or openness to experience—imagination, curiosity, and creativity are traits for people with a positive culture.

The five personality factors have been shown to reliably predict supervisors'ratings of employees' job proficiency and training proficiency.̂ ^ In fact, whencomparing the validity coefficients of measures of the personality factors of intellectand agreeableness and job performance with the validity coefficients of scores on well-accepted cognitive tests used for selection purposes and job performance, Hogan,Hogan, and Roberts^' indicated that the correlations approach each other. Certaininstruments such as integrity tests, U.S. Army personnel selection tests, and customerservice measures, which contain facets of the Big-Five personality factors have beenfound to have validity coefficients in the .33 to .50 range.^'' This is certainly asrespectable as the range of validity coefficients for GMA assessments and fiies in the


face of the old prevailing opinion that personality tests have low validities for personnelselection. Some psychology researchers are now modifying their stance with regard tothe use of personality tests in personnel selection. Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts^^ haveclearly stated that those who label personality tests in employment selection as havinglow validities and limited utilities are simply wrong.

New instruments have begun to emerge.^^ The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) '̂' is an adaptation of the Eysenck three-factor modeP^ that, through interactionswith Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts,^^ permits the assessment of agreeableness andconscientiousness. A prolific body of work on the NEO-PI scales has emerged thatintegrates a wider variety of other questionnaire scales, including those developed byEysenck, Jackson, and Spielberger;^^ the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory;and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.^! As a result, it is now possible to identityemployees and job candidates who possess the personality factors and traits of goodsalesmen.^^ These instruments allow a rallying point for the application and refinementof personality tests in personnel selection.

The debate about how many factors represent the useful core of personalitycontinues, with critics such as Cattel, Hans Eysenck, and Susan Clonninger arguing formore or fewer components.^' However, psychology researchers and HR practitionersare increasingly becoming convinced that personality can be defined in quantifiableand measurable ways and that measures of personality have considerable proven utilityin informing personnel selection decisions.

Evidence for the utility of personality assessment instruments is growing asresearchers identify the job performance correlates of personality traits and theimportance of these relationships for work organizations. The development of betterconceptual frameworks for the study of personality and of meta-analyticmethodologies has facilitated the examination of the effects of personality traits onattitudinal and behavioral variables of interest to organizations.

In one of the earliest meta-analyses of Big Eive personality factors and jobperformance, Barrick and Mount̂ "̂ found that conscientiousness was a significantpredictor of job performance across each of the occupational groups studied. Theyalso reported that extraversion was a significant predictor of success in managerial andsales positions. At approximately the same time, Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein'^ reportedmoderate validities for using measures of the personality factors of agreeableness andopenness to experience (i.e., culture) as predictors of job performance.

EoUowing up their earlier analysis, Barrick and Mount'^ examined therelationships between the Big Eive personality factors and job proficiency and trainingproficiency. They reported in 1993 that conscientiousness was significantly related toboth job proficiency and training proficiency and that extraversion was significantlyrelated to job performance in managerial and sales positions. They also reported thatopenness to experience and agreeableness were valid predictors of training proficiencyacross all occupations studied.

In a more recent meta-analysis. Judge and Ilies'^ examined the relationshipsbetween the Big Eive factors and performance motivation. Their results indicate thatneuroticism was moderately negatively correlated with performance motivation.


especially for goal-setting motivation. They also found conscientiousness to be asignificant predictor of performance motivation across the three motivationalperspectives of goal-setting, expectancy, and self-efficacy.

Research findings further suggest that personality is related to career success.Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick^^ studied the relationships between the Big Fivefactors and three indicators of career success—job satisfaction, income, andoccupational status. Similar to other researchers. Judge et al. found thatconscientiousness was a valid predictor of all three indicators of career success, whileneuroticism negatively predicted income and occupational status.

Recent research has also indicated that personality may have a significant effecton the types of psychological contracts that employees form with their employers.'^Individuals who score highly on measures of neuroticism are more likely to formtransactional psychological contracts, and individuals who score highly on measures ofconscientiousness are more likely to form relational contracts. Relational contractshave been found to influence employee attitudes and behaviors positively, beingrelated to higher levels of job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment andto fewer intentions to leave the organization. Individuals with high neuroticism and lowconscientiousness are also more likely to perceive a breach of the psychologicalcontract.

The research cited above suggests that personality is directly or indirectly relatedto cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral variables that organizations value. Thisevidence, along with the availability of more construct valid measures of personalityand better methods for assessing personality, has made the use of personality tests inpersonnel selection and development more common.

Personality Testing, Adverse Impact, andIncremental ValiditySome evidence exists for the utility of using personality tests in combination withcognitive ability tests to reduce adverse impact and increase the validity of theorganization's selection methods. The assumptions underlying this argument are thatthere are predictors of job performance other than cognitive ability and that measuringthose "other" predictors will allow employers to make more-informed, fairer personneldecisions.

However, recent research has shown that adding assessments of people'scharacteristics that differ less consistently across groups (i.e., personality) to anassessment of a characteristic that can vary across groups, (i.e., basic cognitive ability)does not reduce the potential for adverse impact to the degree that is often expected.Schmitt et al.̂ ° demonstrated this using an example of the addition of a predictor thatdemonstrated no group differences {d = .00) to a predictor that demonstrated a largegroup difference (d = 1.00) to form a predictor composite. It is often believed in suchcases that the effect size of the composite predictor will be .50. Actually, the effect sizeonly decreases to .71. The chance of obtaining a smaller than expected reduction in

72 Public Personnei Management Volume 38 No. 1 Spring 2009

effect size increases if the predictors are uncorrelated and share little common variancewith the criterion variable.

Studies indicate that the addition of alternative predictors such as biodata andperformance on personality tests and in interviews to measures of cognitive ability in aselection battery reduced, but did not remove, the potential for significant adverseimpact. The reduction in adverse impact appears to only occur with the addition of twoor three predictors. Beyond the addition of two or three predictors, there is little gainin the reduction of potential for adverse impact."̂ ^ Furthermore, not only did thepotential for adverse impact exist when the alternative predictors were used incombination with cognitive ability, but substantial potential remained even when thealternative predictors were used alone without cognitive ability, and effect sizes were aslow as .20.

Although the use of personality tests in conjunction with cognitive ability testsmay not have the desired effects on reducing adverse impact, it appears that the usingcomposite predictors results in significant incremental improvements in predictivevalidity.'*^ The smallest group differences were created when the alternative predictorswere used without cognitive ability, produced low group differences, had validities of atleast. 30, and had high levels of intercorrelations (.50 and above) among themselves.^^

These findings create a conflict for organizations that want optimal prediction inselection processes but also want to avoid the negative effects that optimal predictionmight have on protected groups. For optimal prediction, it is best to create acomposite predictor that includes a measure of cognitive ability and an additionalmeasure such as a personality if those constructs are valid predictors of jobperformance. Incremental validity and prediction will be enhanced to the degree thatthe composite predictors are uncorrelated and account for unique variance in thecriterion variable. Under such conditions, however, the potential for group differencesin performance on the assessment instruments and adverse impact increase. Formaximum reductions in group differences, a composite predictor is needed thatexcludes cognitive ability and ensures high correlations among the alternativepredictors. This should result in minimum potential for adverse impact, but it will alsoresult in decreased predictive and incremental validity due the increased commonvariance among predictors and the common variance that the predictors share with thecriterion variable.

Research supports the use of personality tests in addition to cognitive abilitymeasures where both are valid predictors of job performance.'*'' However,organizations must be aware that the inclusion of a personality test will probably notreduce group differences to the degree that they might expect. Therefore,organizations will need to make their own decisions regarding the use of thesepredictors, validity maximization, and potential adverse effects based on their ownvalues, needs, and strategy. Since using personality tests alone can result in adverseimpact, some have argued that it would be better to use them in combination withcognitive ability in order to ensure maximum predictive validity and be more defensiblein court, if necessary'*5


The rich history of the application of scientific methods and testing in personnelselection and management traces an evolution from crude measures to quite refinedand valid ones. Clearly, personality testing in employee selection has passed through asimilar development and may be emerging as one of the exciting and promising areasthat will provide managers with needed tools in the 21st century. As the measurementand correlates of personality in work organizations continue to receive attention fromresearchers, we can no longer doubt that personality measures will be refined to thepoint that they will someday play a vital role in employee selection.

Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (1998) Human resource selection (4th ed.). Forth Worth:Dryden Press.

Jackson, D. N., Peacock, A. C, & Holden, R. R. (1982). Professional interviewers' trait inferentialstructures for diverse occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 29, 1-20; Grimsley, G., &Jarrett, H. (1975). The relation of past managerialachievement to test measures obtained in the employment situation: methodology andresults—ii. Personnel Psychology, 28, 215-231; Bray, D. W, Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L.(1979). Formative years in business. Hunnington, NY: Robert E. Krieger

Guión, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1966). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.

Heneman, H. G., Ill, Judge, T. A., & Heneman, R. L (2000). Staffing organizations (3rd ed.).Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W (1996). Personality measurement and employmentdecisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51{5), 469-477.

Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Personnel selection. Annual Review ofPsychology, 43, 627-670.

Hough, H. (1976) Personality and personality assessment. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbookof industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 571-607). Chicago: RandMcNaily; Ryan, A.M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A.(1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: Acautionary note, fournal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 298-307.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

" Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big-Five personality dimensions in job performance:A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26; Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). Thevalidity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoreticalimplications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials ofWAIS-lII assessment. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

2 Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of jobperformance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98; Schmidt, E L., & Rothstein, H. R. (1994).Application of validity generalization methods of meta-analysis to biographical data scores inemployment selection. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford, 8LM k. Owens (Eds.), The BiodataHandbook: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 237-260). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologist Press.


5 Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

" Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991), op cit.

5 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998), op cit.

* Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1-32.

'' Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors.Psychometrika, 12, 197-220, Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

^ Borgatta, E. E. (1964a). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9: 8-17;Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. In M. R.Rosenzwig & L. W Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews; Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robustfactors OÏ personality, foumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123; Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big-Five factor structure. PsychologicalAssessment, 4, 26-42; John, O. P (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions ofpersonality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guliford Press; McCrae, R. R., &Costa, P T (1985). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy": Intelligence and personalitydimensions in natural language and in questionnaires./owrwa/ of Personality and SocialPsychology, 49, 710-721; McCrae, R. R., & John, O.P (1992). An introduction to the five-factormodel and its applications, foumal of Personality, 60, 175-215; Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L.(1992). Personality: Structure and assessment. In M. R. Rosenzwig & L. W Porter (^ás). AnnualReview of Psychology, 43, 473-504. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

9 Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality:Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 16, 149-170; Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.; Peabody, D., &Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-traitdescriptors, foumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.

° McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality acrossinstruments and observers, foumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 81-90.

1 Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.; John, O. P, Hampson, S.E. & Goldberg, L.R. (1991). The basic level in personality-trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility indifferent contexts, foumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 348-361; Shweder, R. A., &Sullivan, M. A. (1990). The semiotic subject of cultural psychology. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 399-416). New York: Guilford Press.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991), op cit.; Tett, R. P, Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991).Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 703-742.

5 Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

"* McDaniel, M. A. & Frei, R. L. (1994). Validity of customer service measures in personnelselection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Unpublished manuscript; McHenry, J.J., Hough, L. M. , Toquam, J. L, Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results:The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354;Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C, & Schmidt, E. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integritytest validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of jobperformance, foumal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 78, 679-703.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

' Costa, P X, & Widiger, T. A. (Eds.). (1994). Personality disorders and the flve factor model ofpersonality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


" Costa, E T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NED Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

'^^ Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomicparadigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.

2' Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

30 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P T. (1985), op cit.; McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P T (1987), op cit.

3' McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P T. (1987), op cit.

32 Greenberg, H., Weinstein, H., & Sweeney, P (2001). How to hire and develop your next topPerformer: The five qualities that make salespeople great. New York: McGraw-Hill.

» Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W (1996), op cit.

3'' Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991), op cit.

35 Tett, R. P, Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991), op cit.

3'' Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship betweenthe Big-Five personality dimensions and job performance./owr««/ of Applied Psychology, 78,111-118.

3'Judge, T. A., & Hies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic revie-w. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807.

38 Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personalitytraits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52,621-652.

3' Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts.Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350-367.

•*" Bobko, P, Roth, P L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrixincorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. PersonnelPsychology, 52, 561-589; Schmitt, N., Rogers, W, Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings D. (1997).Adverse impact and predictor efficiency of various predictor combinations./owrwa/ of AppliedPsychology, 82(5), 719-730.

••̂ Sackett, P R., & Ellingson, J. E. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites ongroup differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50: 707-721.

^̂ Bobko, P, Roth, P L., & Potosky, D. (1999), op cit.; Schmitt, N., Rogers, W, Chan, D., Sheppard,L., & Jennings D. (1997), op cit.

•» Schmitt, N., Rogers, W, Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings D. (1997), op cit.

'*'' Bobko, P, Roth, P L., & Potosky, D. (1999), op cit.; Sackett, P R., & Ellingson, J. E. (1997), opcit.; Schmitt, N., Rogers, W, Chan, D., Sheppard, L., op cit.

^'^ Bobko, P, Roth, P L., & Potosky, D. (1999), op cit.

76 Publie Personnel Management Volume 38 No. 1 Spring 2009

AuthorsWesley A. Scroggins, PhDAssociate Professor of Management

Department of Management

Missouri State University

901 S. National

Springfield, MO 65897

(417) 836-5505

[email protected]

Steven L. Thomas, PhDProfessor of Management

Missouri State University

901 S. National

Springfield, MO 65897

(417) 836-5076

[email protected]

Jerry A. Morris, PsyDConsultant

Morris & Morris, Inc.

815 S. Ash

Nevada, MO 64772

(417) 667-8352

[email protected]

Dr. Wesley A. Scroggins is an associate professor of management at Missouri StateUniversity He earned his PhD from New Mexico State University and has published sev-eral articles in the HR management areas of selection and compensation.

Dr. Steven L. Thomas is a professor of management at Missouri State University. Heearned his PhD from the University of Kansas and has published extensively in laborrelations and HR management.

Dr. Jerry A. Morris has an MBA from Missouri State University and is a licensed psy-chologist, director of a mental health care center, author, and consultant.


psychological testing in personnel selection, part iii: the

Documents