Yet, in selection settings, individuals completing an inventory often do not meet these requirements, which affects the informative value of personality inventories in this context (Hu & Connelly, 2021). Furthermore, personality inventories require that individuals who complete the inventory are both able and willing to describe the target person (often themselves) accurately. For example, personality inventories typically consist of items describing general tendencies (e.g., “I worry about things”) that reveal little about whether and how agreeing with these items translates into behavior. Yet, according to personality researchers, the inventory format is suboptimal for capturing behaviors resulting from personality (Baumeister et al., 2007 Furr, 2009). One reason might be that the measures of choice for assessing personality are predominantly inventory-based (either self-ratings or other-ratings) because personality inventories are easy to administer (Vazire, 2006). ![]() The rationale underlying personality assessment is that personality traits help predict how people will behave and perform on the job (Hogan & Shelton, 1998 Tett & Burnett, 2003).ĭespite the theoretical importance of behavior for understanding personality and for predicting job performance, we still know relatively little about assessing behavioral manifestations of personality in applied settings (for an overview of behavior-based personality measures see Wrzus & Mehl, 2015). Organizations rely on personality assessment because personality traits such as the Big Five (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect/Openness Goldberg, 1990) are thought to manifest in behavior. The same call is warranted with regards to personality assessment in industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, where organizations often assess personality to find a suitable person for a given job or a suitable job for a given person (Ones et al., 2007). This quote stems from a debate in personality research calling for more behavior-focused measures of personality (Back & Egloff, 2009 Schmitt, 2009). Yet, AC effect sizes were modest, suggesting that running personality-based ACs is advisable only under specific circumstances. This implies that different personality measures capture unique information, thereby complementing each other. AC ratings demonstrated incremental validity in predicting job performance over inventory-based personality measures for some traits (including Agreeableness, and Intellect/Openness) but self-ratings also demonstrated incremental validity over AC ratings (for Conscientiousness). Consistent with the self-other knowledge asymmetry model, AC ratings of more observable personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Intellect/Openness) were correlated with inventory-based measures of these traits. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that personality-based AC ratings reflected the Big Five traits. ![]() We obtained data from two personality-based ACs, self- and other-rated personality inventories, and supervisor ratings of job performance. Drawing from the self-other knowledge asymmetry model (Vazire, 2010), we propose that AC ratings are suited to capture personality traits that are observable in social interactions, whereas other methods (i.e., self-ratings) are useful to assess more internal traits. We examine the validity of personality-based AC ratings within a multi-method framework. ![]() To expand our knowledge of personality assessment, this study connects research and theory related to two common selection methods: assessment centers (ACs) and personality inventories.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |