Identifying Potentially Useful Personali

8/17/2019 Identifying Potentially Useful Personali

1/14

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

1991.50

IDENTIFYING POTENTIALLY USEFUL PERSONALITY

CONSTRUCTS FOR EMPLOYEE SELECTION

PATRICK H. RAYMARK

The Ohio State University-Newark

MARK

J.

SCHMIT

Departmentof Management

University of Florida

Bowling Green State University

ROBERT rd. GUION

T h e Personality-RelatedPosition Requirements Form (PPRF) , a job ana l-

ysis form to be used in making hypotheses abo ut personality predic-

tors of jo b performance, is described. Th e Big Five personality factors

provided an organizing framework for the PPRF. Subsequ ent develop-

men t resulted in identifying

12

specific sets of items fo r facets of each

of t he Big Five. study was condu cted by gathering jo b descriptions

on

260 different jobs to determine if t he PPRF could reliably d iffer-

ent iate jobs; such evidence was found. Th e PPRF is offered t o both

researchers and practitioners for use, refinement, an d fu rth er testing

of

its technical meri ts

and

intended purposes.

Description

of

he

Practice

Douglas Jackson, in his presidential address to the Division of Eval-

uation and Measurement of the American Psychological Association

(Jackson, 1990), said that the dormancy in the use of personality vari-

ables for personnel selection can

be

laid to job analytic procedures

that do not encourage their consideration. Although some job analy-

sis forms appear to identify some aspects of personality-related position

requirements (e.g., Position Analysis Questionnaire, PAQ; McCormick,

The authors, n addition to Pilar Delaney, Michelle Brodke,

Bob

Hayes, Sandra

Martens, Karen Mattimore, Laura Mattimore, and Murray Weaver were the members

of

the team that developed the instrument we describe in this article; though their tenures

in

the groupvaried widely, all of them made significant contributions. Gracious thanks are

extended to

all

the individuals who contributed their time, effort, opinions, or comments

on the project.

Mark J. Schmit is now with Personnel Decisions Inte rnational, Minneapolis, MN.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Patrick H. Raymark,

Department

of

Psychology, The Ohio State University-Newark Campus,

1179

University

Drive, Newark, OH 43055.

Ken Perlman

with

Lucent technologies

was

he

guest

Editor

on his

article.

COPYRIGHT

1997

PERSO NNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.

723


2/14

724

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Mecham, Jeanneret, 1977), these attempts have been rather unsys-

tematic and incomplete in their coverage of potentially relevant person-

ality variables.

Ideas for selection procedures may come from a hunch, other psy-

chologists, or test catalogs, but modern literature urges the development

of testable hypotheses about predictor and criterion construct variables

and the choice of valid instruments for measuring them (Binning Bar-

rett, 1989; Landy, 1986). Selection hypotheses generally emerge from

an understanding of jobs based on job analysis. Most job analysis in-

ventories are quite clear in providing help for hypothesizing ability o r

aptitude variables tliat might make good predictors but are less clear

for those traits more closely associated with personality variables. If a

job analysis method emphasizes only cognitive or psychomotor aspects

of jobs, it is likely that only cognitive or psychomotor predictors will be

hypothesized. Therefore , an approach to job analysis explicitly directed

to generating hypotheses about relevan t personality variables would be

helpful. This paper discusses the development of such an instrument,

the

Personality-Related Position Requirements

Form

(PPRF).

This instrument was designed to identify aspects of work potentially

related to individual differences in personality. If personality traits are

relevant to som e aspects of job perform ance, and if they are no t identi-

fied and measured, they will be overlooked for selection. Although the

PP RF was designed to aid in the identification and developm ent of se-

lection hypotheses that certainly does not guarantee that the identified

personality variables will successfully pred ict performance. The value

of the P PR F is as a supplem ent to o ther job analysis techniques which

will allow a more thorough examination of the job performance dom ain,

specifically that part of the domain that is related to personality vari-

ables.

Development

of

the PPRF

On the basis of several job analysis forms, personality measures, and

job analysis reviews (Gael, 1988, Harvey, 1991), it was decided to use

the following stem for all items: “Effective performance in this position

requires the person to.. second decision was to use the following

3-point response scale format: 0

=

not require4

1

= helpful

and 2

= es-

sentiaL

The initial stage of item generation (conducted without the aid of

a theoretical framework) resulted in a list of 185 statements that might

technical report, containing the entire PPRF, scoring instructions, and additional

details concerning the development and scaling of the PPRF is available upon request

from the first author.


3/14

PATRICKH. AYMARKETAL.

725

be used in the analysis of jobs and lead to the formation of hypothe-

ses about personality variables as predictors of job performance. n

attempt to identify a work-related structure by sorting the position re-

quirement items was unsuccessful; therefore, existing taxonomies were

considered (Browne Howarth, 1977; Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963;

Wiggins, 1980). The taxonomy that seemed to fit the position require-

ment items best was that tagged as the “Big Five” (see Barrick Mount,

1991; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae

John,

1992).

Research group members sorted the 185 items into five separate

stacks to represent the five factors. Items not readily placed in any

of

these categories were placed

in

a sixth labeled “Other.” Only those

items placed in the same major dimension

in

80 or more of the sorts

were retained, reducing the number of items to 92. Although these re-

maining items were consistently allocated to their respective Big Five

factor, items within the five groups seemed to suggest a variety of per-

sonality characteristics. At this point it became clear that the Big Five

factors were too broad to describe work-related employee characteris-

tics, a problem noted

by

others (e.g., Costa McCrae, 1992; Goldberg,

1981, 1990; Hogan, 1987; Hough, 1992; McCrae Costa, 1985; Nor-

man, 1963). Accordingly, the items were subdivided within the major

factor groupings into smaller but more homogenous clusters. An initial

attempt resulted in

54

clusters of items; subsequent analyses winnowed

this down to 12 clusters. Each cluster of items was then named on the

basis of the items contributing to it and on the Big Five factor to which

it had been assigned. Some subdimensions (i.e., item clusters) had very

few items, so 44 new items were written to ensure that the content

do-

main of each subdimension had been adequately captured; therefore,

the item count was increased to 136. The taxonomy was hierarchical;

each subdimension was conceptuaily linked to

one

of the Big Five fac-

tors. The 12 subdimensions, their definitions, and the Big Five dimen-

sion

to

which they were assigned are presented in Bble 1

Forty-four psychologists with extensive knowledge of psychological

aspects of work, personality theory, or both were asked to judge whether

each item was relevant to any of three subdimensions (the task was lim-

ited to three subdimensions because a request to make judgments for

all 136 items on 12 subdimensions would have imposed unreasonable

time demands on judges). Responses were received from 41 of the 44

judges. Xventy-four items were not reliably allocated to the appropri-

ate subdimension and were therefore dropped, leaving 112 items.

new questionnaire was developed to scale (i.e., weight) the importance

of the items within the subdimensions. Each set of position require-

ments was formed into a paired-comparison questionnaire (i.e., one set

of

paired items was developed for each of the 12 dimensions, using each


4/14

726 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

T BLE 1

Brief Definitions and Sample Items for the Subdimenswnsof the PPRF

~

I.

Surgency

1.

General Leadership: a tendency to take charge of situations or groups, o

influence or motivate behavior or thinking

of

other persons. Sample items: Lead

group activities through exercise of power or authority; Xike control in group situ-

ations.

2.

Interest in Negotiation: an interest in bringing together contesting parties

through mediation

or

arbitrationor as a contesting party, an ability and willingness

to see and understand differing points

of

view. Sample items: Negotiate on behalf

of the work unit for a fair share of organizational resources; Mediate and resolve

disputes at individual, group, or organizational levels.

3. Achievement StrivinK an ambition and desire to achieve, to win,

or

to do

better than others, a desire to exert effort to advance,

to

do better than one’s

own prior achievement. Sample items: Work beyond established or ordinary work

period

to

perfect servicesor products; Work to excel rather than work to perform

assigned tasks.

11 Agreeableness

4.

Friendlv Diswsition: a tendency to be outgoing in association with other

people, to seek and enjoy the companyof others, to be gregarious, to interacteasily

and well with others. Sample items: Represent and promote the organization in

social contacts away from work; Attract new clients or customers through friendly

interactions.

5. Sensitivitv to Interest

of

Others: a tendency to be a caring person in relation

to other people, to be considerate, understanding, and to have genuine concern for

others. Sample items: Listen attentively to the work-related problems of others;

Give constructive criticism tactfully.

6.

Cooperativeor Collaborative Work bndenw: a desire or willingness towork

with others to achieve a common purpose and to be part of a group, a willingness

and interest in assisting clients, customers, or coworkers. Sample items: Work as

part of an interacting work group; Work with one or more co-workers to complete

assigned tasks.

Ill. Conscientiousness

7.General ’Ifustworthiness: pattern of behavior that leadsone to be trusted by

other people with property, money, or confidential information, a demonstration

of honesty, truthfulness, and fairness. Sample items: Refuse to share or release

confidential information; Make commitments andfollowthroughon them.

8. Adherence to a Work Ethic: a tendency to work hard and to be loyal, to give

a full day’s work each day and to do one’s best to perform well, a tendency to

follow instructions and accept company goals, policies, and rules. Sample

items:

See things that need to

be

done and do them without waiting for instructions; Work

until

task

is done rather than stopping at quitting time.

9.

Thorounhness and Attentiveness o Details: a tendency to carry out

tasks

with attention to every aspect, a meticulous approach to one’s own ask perfor-

mance. Sample items: Examine all aspectsof written reports to be sure that nothing

has been omitted; Remain attentive to details over extended periods of time.


5/14

PATRICKH.

AYMARK T

AL. 727

lhble 1 continued)

I\

Emotional Stability

10.

Emotional Stabilitv: a calm, relaxed approach to situations, events,

or

peo-

ple, emotionally controlled responses to changes in the work environment situa-

tions. Sample items: Adapt easily to changes in work procedures; Keepcoolwhen

confronted with conflicts.

V Intellectance

11. Desire to Generate Ideas: a preference for situations in which one can de-

velop new things, ideas, or solutions to problems through creativityor insight, or

try new or innovative approaches to tasks or situations. Sample items: Help find

solutions for the work problems of other employees

or

clients; Develop innovative

approaches to old or everyday problems.

12.

Rndencv to Think ThinasThrouah: a habit

of

mentally going through pro-

ceduresor a sequence of probable events before taking action, a tendency to

seek

and evaluate information, and toconsider consequences. Sample items: Solve

corn-

plex problems one step at a time; Analyze past mistakes when faced with similar

problems

pair once). For each pair of position requirements, the respondents were

instructed to “Check the statement in each pair that, in your judgm ent,

more strongly suggests a need for the trait.” Questionnaires were sent to

145 psychologists, including the original 44. Com pleted questionnaires

were returned by 100of the 145 psychologists. Responses were analyzed

using Thurstone’s Case

V

(Ghiselli, Cam pbell, Zedeck,

1981),

the

results of which were used to eliminate

5

items and to scale the remaining

107 items for the final form of the job analysis questionnaire.

This paper describes an initial test of the usefulness of the form for

differentiating various jobs on persona lity-related dimensions. Reliable

differentiation of jobs is a requirement for an effective approach to job

analysis. Accordingly, it was important to determine the extent to which

(a) the 12 subdimensions could be discriminated, and (b) jobs could be

described reliably.

Sample Charactetistics

A sample of positions was obtained through various recruitment ef-

forts. Each member of the research team sent forms to friends, relatives,

and acquaintances; a call for participants was made at an annual confer-

ence of the Society for Industrial and Organ izational Psychology; and

several conscientious senior-level undergraduate and gradua te students

were recruited to distribute forms to friends and relatives. Data collec-

tors were instructed to recruit participants who had held their curren t

position in an organization for more than

6

months and worked at least


6/14

728

PERSONNEL

PSYCHOLOGY

20 hours per week. In a few cases, consultants, whose contracts with

clients had included extensive job analysis, completed forms from the

results of their analyses, using information they had obtained in consen-

sus meetings with job incumbents.

This unusual approach to job samplingwas intentional. Alternative

approaches might have included administering the PPRF or jobs within

one or a few organizations, or perhaps a mailing

asking

for a sample of

jobswithin a national surveyof organizations. The first of these options

seemed poor because it could exacerbate organizational idiosyncracies

in

job definitions; organizational characteristics would be seriously con-

founded with job-characteristics. Although some such confounding is

realistic, too much of it could spuriously reduce the extent to which the

dimensions discriminate among jobs.

A

sample by mail for a prelimi-

nary pilot study seemed questionable partly because of expense and even

more becauseof the absence of any real control over the care exerted in

completing the descriptions. The procedure chosen was expected to pro-

vide a substantial variety of jobs described by people who, either because

of personal involvement or professional standards, could

be

expected to

complete the forms carefully.

Job descriptions were obtained for

260

different jobs from a total of

283 completed forms. For eight of these jobs, more than one incum-

bent

in

a single organization completed the inventory for the same job;

their responses were consolidated into a single

consensus

orm. That

is, an item by item comparison was made across forms and a final rat-

ing was based on majority agreement on the item; where there was no

clear majority, the higher rating was favored (i.e., the rating leaning to-

ward “essential”). The 260 jobs were demonstrably different, but not

as diverse as desired. They were assigned six-digit occupational codes

from the Dictionav of Occupational Titles

US.

epartment of Labor,

1991).

Two members of the research group assigned a code number,

based,

if

possible,

on

the job title given by the incumbent and/or

on

per-

sonal knowledge of the incumbents ob. Where the job title

was

vague or

could not be matched in the DOT, a code deemed appropriate by both

researchers was assigned, and consensus was sought from a second pair

of coders for a final decision. Consensus was not reached for six of the

job titles.

The first digit of the code identifies

1

of 10primary occupational

categories; tallying these categories shows the danger of the sampling

method used. About

4

jobs in 10 were managerial, more than a quar-

ter

of

them were in the clerical or sales classifications, and nearly that

many were professional or technical jobs. Very few of what are typically

called blue-collarjobswere in this sample. Specifically, he tally

was:

0-

Professional and technical occupations

(21.5%);

1-Managerial occupa-


7/14

PATRICK H.

RAYMARK ETAL.

729

TABLE

Correlations

and

Internal Consistency Reliabilities

of the 12 Subsets of the PPRF N

=

260)

1 ( 3 5 )

2 .65 (.84)

3 .29 .37 (.83)

4 .24 .42 .25 (.72)

5 .48

.52 .18 .38 (.76)

6 .2E .33 .41 .13 .36 (.78)

7

.22

.32 .25

.46

-35

.19

(.72)

8 .24 .29 .44 .I9 .21 .38 .33

.a)

9 .23 .37 .58 .14 .20

.36

.24 .49 (.92)

10 .34 .38 .19 .38 .56 .26 .41 .32 .17 (.78)

11 .45 54 .56 .29 .33 .39 .21 .40

S O

.24

(. I)

12 .39 .53 .59 .26 .32 .39 .22 .43 .70 .29 .68 (.88)

Note: Numberson the diagonal are alpha coefficients;all correlations are significantat

p <

.05.

tions (38.8%); 2-Clerical and sales occupations (27.7%); 3Service oc-

cupations (7.3%); &Agriculture, fishery, forestry, and rela ted

(0 );

5

Processing occupations (0.8%); &Machine trade occupations

(0 );

7-

Benchwork occupations (0.8%); &Structural work occupations (0.8 );

%M iscellaneous occupations (2.3%).

It is not surprising that the data-people-things part of the classifica-

tion code indicated that many of these jobs were fairly highly concerned

with data or with people, but most were quite low in responsibility for

things. Insofar as personality variables are concerned with interpersonal

relationships, and many of them are , this skewing of the distribu tion may

not pose a serious problem. The paucity of jobs emphasizing

hings,

how-

ever, means that some of the

12

subdimensions may be under repre-

sented in the current data.

Evidence Supporting the fiac tice

Diflerentiation of Occupational Categories

The

12

set scores were determined for each of the 260

job

descrip-

tions using the scaled items. The correlations among the set scores were

then calculated to determine if there was a useful level of scale inde-

pendence. Tdble

2

presents the correlations among the 12 sets and the


8/14


9/14


10/14


11/14

PATRICKH. AYh4ARKETAL. 733

category. Thus, an intraclass correlation of an average (Guilford

Fruchter, 1973; Mean Square between set rating minus Mean Square

for residuals divided by Mean Square for residuals) was calculated using

each set score as a rating. For example, in the DO T

032

group, a

12

x 8

matrix of subdimensionsby raters was analyzed. The average ratings had

adequate levels of rater agreement ranging from .66 to

.92

(see 'Ihble

3).

These coefficients represent the expected correlations of the averaged

set scores with averaged set scores from a similar sized group of raters

drawn from the sam e population.

Reiiubility

of the PPRF in

Describing Jobs

The responses across raters of the same job in the sam e organization

can be used to determine how reliable the PPR F is in describing jobs.

Da ta were available for four positions for which PPR Fs were completed

independently by incumbents in the same organization: Brewery Super-

visor

(7

incumbents); Production-line M anager (5 ) ; Sales A ssociate ( 5 ) ;

and Computer Programmer (4). An intraclass correlation of the average

ratings was computed for each of the

12

sets for each job. An overall

intraclass correla tion was then derived for each job by calculating the

mean of these

12

coefficients. For example, for Set 1 (i.e.,

9

items) rat-

ings by the Brewery Supervisors, a

9

x

7

matrix of items by ra ters was an-

alyzed. The same was done for Sets

2-12;

these

12

coefficients were then

summed and divided by

12.

The average intraclass correlations were

.97

for the Brewery Supervisor job, .89 for the Production-line Manager,

.90

for the Sales Associate job, and .85 for the Com puter Programmer

job. These findings suggest that incumbents can consistently agree on

the im portance of the PPRF's behavior clusters for a job, and that a sta-

tistical combination of rating forms might yield reliable job information

relevant to the personality domain.

Implicatiomfor Practice

The PP RF has now gone through several rounds of revision and field

testing. large number of people have been able to use it to describe a

variety of jobs. The PPRF has dimensions of important work behaviors

that were found to

be

internally consistent and not redundant. The

12

sets appeared to be effective in the differentiation

of

occupational cate-

gories. Finally, the intrarater reliability of the 12

sets

was demonstrated.

Indeed, the use of four or five raters to describe a job with the P PR F was

found to result in very good reliability estimates. In summary, the evi-

dence suggests that this instrument can prove useful in the development


12/14

734 PERSONNEL

PSYCHOLOGY

of hypotheses about the relationships between personality predictors and

performance criteria.

The major question left to be answered is whether the PPRF actually

does assist in identifying valid personality predictors of job performance.

This is likely to be a difficult question to answer, given the current tech-

nology for the measurement of personality traits. For now, users must

infer, on the basis of limited information about personality measures,

which instrument might fit the scales and then conduct the necessary

empirical validation work to test these hypotheses.

It is worth noting that the search for potentially useful personal-

ity variables on the basis of the PPRF need not be limited to those

subdimensions that are considered “helpful” or “essential” to effective

performance.2 It is possible that a subdimension evaluated

as

“not re-

quired for effective performance may be indicative of a predictor that

is negatively correlated with performance (e.g., although Surgency may

be rated

as

“not required” for structured team settings, low Surgency

scores may identify higher performing workers). Therefore, although

the PPRF is intended to help in hypothesis development, it should not

be viewed as a substitute for a user’sprofessional udgment. If one or

two

of the 12 item sets dominate the description of a job, the user may infer

both personality traits and criterion constructs appropriate to those sets

(or to the most descriptive items in them), but neither trait nor criterion

constructs are discrete categories.

As

Hofstee, de Raad, and Goldberg

(1992) pointed out, different uses of a personality trait may emphasize

different aspects of the trait (or item set). Different instruments may

differ in how well they match different aspects

of

a trait, that is, have dif-

ferent construct validities for the different specifics of trait definition.

Nevertheless, evidence should be accumulated to show whether hy-

potheses developed with the help of the PPRF tend to be supported

in practical use. So far, one study has been conducted that used the

PPRF to form hypotheses about the relationship between personality

test scores and both training and job performance. Valid predictions

were made by matching scale content definitions of scales from the Mil-

lon Index of Personality Styles (Millon, 1994)with definitions of PPRF

dimensions judged by subject matter experts to be essential for success-

ful

performance (pp. 103-106). Clearly, much more evidence

is

needed

before the scores on the PPRF scales can be assumed to provide solid

evidence that related predictors will be valid. For example, further in-

vestigations may examine the extent to which the predictors identified

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this point.


13/14

P TRICKH. AYMARK

ET

AL.

735

using the PPRF result in higher validities than other predictors not hy-

pothesized to be related to job performance for a particular job.

This

process will have to be conducted for many different typesof jobs.

The criterion space also must

be

considered invalidation efforts. The

PPRF should assist in the development of criterion measures related

to the assumed underlying personality predictor traits. The behavioral

statements on the PPRF are very general in nature, so that they can be

used with any job. These general statements can be linked to specific

tasks that are thought to lead to successful performance. Performance

ratings for these specific tasks, or outcomes associated with the tasks,

may be useful for building either specific or global job performance

criterion measures.

Certainly, use of the PPRF is likely to be an improvement over the

uninformed use of personality predictors in personnel selection. Some

deficiencies in the current study, however, make the results tentative.

First, there is limited information about its use in describing blue collar

jobs. Second, the Big Five was relied upon

as

an organizing taxonomy.

However, this taxonomy may be incomplete in its coverage of work-

related traits (cf.Hough,1992). For example, there are several low inter-

correlations within the clusters of PPRF dimensions falling under each

of the Big Five factors. Because the PPRF dimensions have been linked

to their most appropriate Big Five factor and have been shown to be in-

ternally consistent, the low within-categoryscale intercorrelationswould

appear to be due to a limitation in the organizing taxonomy. Therefore,

future refinements of the PPRF should consider additional higher or-

der constructs and subdimensions. Referring to work styles rather than

to personality, Borman, McKee, and Schneider

(1995)

provided a sim-

ilar taxonomy of 7 (not

5)

higher-order constructs divided further into

a total of 17 lower-order constructs; their taxonomy may offer additions

to the 12 dimensions now in the PPRF. Despite the above limitations,

the current paper presents a start toward the development of an instru-

ment specificallyaimed at personality-related position requirements. At

this point, the PPRF is offered to researchers and practitionersso that

improvements, refinements, and additional tests of the efficacy of the

instrument in generating hypothesescanbe conductedon a broad front.

REFERENCES

Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job perfor-

mance: A meta-analysis. PERSONNEL

PSYCHO^, 44,

-26.

Binning JF, Barrett GV 1989). Validity of personnel decisions: conceptual analysis of

the inferential and evidential

bases.

Journal

ofApplied

Psychology

74,

478494.

Borman WC, McKee AS, Schneider RJ.

1995). Work

styles.

In

kterson NG, Mumford

MD, Borman WC, Jeanneret

PR,

Fleishman EA (Eds.),Devefopment of ap m to x

OCCUpatWMl Information

Netwok

(O*NET)ontent model (Vols.1-2, pp. 1-26).

Salt Lake City, UT:Utah Departmentof Employment Security.


14/14

736 PERSONNEL

PSYCHOLOGY

Browne JA, How arth

E.

(1977).

comprehensivefactor analysis

of

personality question-

naire items: A test of 20 positive factor hypotheses. Multivariate Behavioml Re-

search, 2 399-427.

Costa

PT,

McCrae RR.

(1992).

NEO

PI-Rpmfess wnal manuaL

Odessa, F L Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Digman JM . (19 ). Personality structure: Emergence

of

the five-factor model. Annual

Review of fychology,

41,417-440.

Gael S (Ed.). (1988).

The

job n bsis handbook for

business,

industry, and govenunent

(Vols.

1-2).

New York Wiley.

Ghiselli EE, Campbell JP, Zedeck S. (1981). Measurementtheoryforthebehaviomlsciences.

San Francisco: Freeman.

Goldberg LR.

(1981).

Lang3age and individual d ifferences: The search for universals in

persona lity exicons. In Wheeler L (Ed.), Review ofpersonality andso cialps ych olq p

(Vol.

2,

pp.

141-165).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg LR.

(1990).

An alternative “description

of

personality”: The big five factor

structure.

Journal of rson ali@ and Soc ial Pychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Goldberg LR.

(1993).

The s tructu re of phenotypic personality traits. American Psycholo-

gkt,

4t

26-34.

Guilford JP, Fruchter B.

(1973). Fwrdamental statistics n psychology and tion (5th

ed.). New York McCiraw-Hill.

Harvey RJ. (1991). Job analysis. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM (Ed ), Handbook of

industrial and organ izatio nal psychology

2nd

ed.,

Vol.2,

pp.

71-163).

Pa10

Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hofstee WKB, de Raad B, Goldb erg LR.

(1992).

Integration of the Big Five and circum-

plex taxonom ies of traits. Journa lofPerSoMlify

and

Social Pych olq p, 63, 146-163.

Hogan R.

(1987).

Personality psychology: Back

to

basics.

In

Aronoff J, Rabin AI, Zucker

RA Eds.),

The emergence of pe rs on ab (pp.

141-188).

New York Springer.

Hough LM. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables-cons truct confusion: D es cr ip

tion versus prediction.

Human p e r f o r m n c ~ , 139-155.

Jackson DN. (1990 August). @an ti far iv e perspectives on the personality-jobpedormance

relationship. Presidential address to the Division of Evaluation, Measurement, and

Statistics at the Am erican Psychological Association Annual Convention, Boston.

Landy FJ. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation ashypothesis esting. Amer-

ican Psychologist, 41, 1183-1192.

McCormick El,Mecham RC, Jeanneret PR.

(1977).

Technical m nu l for the Posirion

Analysis Questionnaire

(PAQ)

(System 2). West Layfayette, I N University Book

Store.

McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequa te taxonomy”: In telligence

and personality dimensions in natura l language and in questionnaires. Journal

of

PerSo lify and Social Pycholqp, 49,710-721.

McCrae RR. John

OR

(1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and

its

applica-

tions. Joumal ofhona v ,

60,

75-215.

Millon

7: (1994). Mil lon

Index

of

firsonulily Styh:

Manual San Antonio, Tx. he

Psychological Corpo ration .

NormanW

1 3).

lbward an adequate

taxonomy

of personality attribu tes.

J o w ~ lf

Abnormal

and Social Psychology,

66,574583.

US.

epartmen t of Labor.

1991 ) .

Dictionary of occ upation altitles

(Vols.

-2).

M h i n g -

ton, D C Employment and Ttaining Administration, U.S. Departm ent of L abor.

Wiggins JS. (1980). Circumplex models of in terpersonal behavior. In Wheeler L Ed.),

Review ofpersonal and socialpsychology (Vol. 1, pp. 265-294). Beverly Hills, C A

Sage.

Identifying Potentially Useful Personali

Documents

Transcript of Identifying Potentially Useful Personali