Download The Construct Validity of the NEO PI-R Personality Inventory in High Stakes Employee Selection PDF

TitleThe Construct Validity of the NEO PI-R Personality Inventory in High Stakes Employee Selection
LanguageEnglish
File Size3.0 MB
Total Pages335
Document Text Contents
Page 167

156

measures are taken into account in adjusting the restricted single study sample

correlations upwards to estimate the unrestricted meta-analytic correlations (Hunter et

al., 2006; Sackett et al., 2007). High stakes selection contexts, on the other hand, are

restricted samples and the correlations found will differ from Connelly and Chang’s

(2016) unrestricted population estimates. In addition, the latent self-report method

factor correlation with the BIDR-IM score will have a smaller direct restriction of

range effect than Agreeableness and Conscientiousness in the restricted high stakes

situation, and is not affected by an indirect restriction of range effect. Therefore its

predictor/criterion correlation in a single study will be less affected in the same

context than Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This is what may have prompted

Connelly and Chang (2016) to state that “we would expect SD scales’ ability to assess

response styles to improve in applicant contexts” (p. 12).

In addition, it can be argued that the use of a pre-test warning may well also

have attenuated the interpredictor correlation of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness

in the field study. Since the adjustment to the restricted interpredictor correlation

arises from the truncation of scores on some of the personality dimensions, and

arguably less so from the truncation of ‘scores’ on the latent self-report method factor

of Connelly and Chang (2016), the variance accounted for by these personality

dimensions will be reduced in a single study such as this field research, while that due

to the self-report method factor may not because of either no, or a lesser, restriction of

range effect. Based on the evidence concerning moral hypocrisy and moral

disengagement, described earlier in Chapter 4 (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008; Shu,

Mazar, Gino, Ariely, & Bazerman, 2012) it is also arguable that variance due to

personality is even further reduced in addition to the restriction of range effect

highlighted above. This is because of the impact of the saliency effect, arsing from the

Page 334

323

Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (2011). The NEO personality inventory revised (NEO-

PI-R): Exploring the measurement structure and variants of the five-factor

model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1300-1304.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates:

Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 59(2), 197-210.

Wainer, H. (1976). Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don't make no

nevermind. Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 213-217.

Walmsley, P. T., & Sackett, P. R. (2013). Factors affecting potential personality retest

improvement after initial failure. Human Performance, 26(5), 390-408.

Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2009). The proximity effect: The role of

inter-item distance on reverse-item bias. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 26(1), 2-12.

White, L. A., Young, M. C., Hunter, A. E., & Rumsey, M. G. (2008). Lessons learned

in transitioning personality measures from research to operational settings.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(03), 291-295.

Wilk, S. L., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. R. (1995). Gravitation to jobs

commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 80(1), 79-85.

Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker

variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique.

Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477-514.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gulick, L. M., & Khare, V. P. (2008). Personality and leadership.

Leadership at the Crossroads, 13-29.

Similer Documents