Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance.

Conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis based on 665 validity coefficients across 576,460 data points to investigate whether integrity test validities are generalizable and to estimate differences in validity due to potential moderating influences. Results indicate that integrity test validities are substantial for predicting job performance and counterproductive behaviors on the job, such as theft, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism. The estimated mean operational predictive validity of integrity test for predicting supervisory ratings of job performance is .41. Results from predictive validity studies conducted on applicants and using external criterion measures (i.e., excluding self-reports) indicate that integrity tests predict the broad criterion of organizationally disruptive behaviors better than they predict employee theft alone. Despite the influence of moderators, integrity test validities are positive across situations and settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors.

Over the past 2 decades, increasing attention has been directed at the relationship between individual differences and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). However, most of this research has focused on personality variables as potential predictors of CWB; surprisingly little research has investigated the link between counterproductivity and cognitive ability. This study presents the first focal investigation of the cognitive ability-CWB relationship. The authors measured organizational and interpersonal CWB using organizational records of formally recorded incidents (e.g., destruction of property, physical violence). In a predictive study, for a large sample of law enforcement job applicants, a standardized psychometric test of cognitive ability predicted CWB, whereas educational attainment did not. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Integrity tests: Overlooked facts, resolved issues, and remaining questions.

Comments on W. J. Camara and D. L. Schneider's (see record 1994-23870-001) summary of reports on integrity tests (ITs). It is argued that in reviewing empirical findings about the validity of ITs, they overlooked critical findings regarding how well they work and what they measure. Also, their concerns regarding research on ITs conducted by test publishers are unfounded. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring.

Response bias continues to be the most frequently cited criticism of personality testing for personnel selection. The authors meta-analyzed the social desirability literature, examining whether social desirability functions as a predictor for a variety of criteria, as a suppressor, or as a mediator. Social desirability scales were found not to predict school success, task performance, counterproductive behaviors, and job performance. Correlations with the Big Five personality dimensions, cognitive ability, and years of education are presented along with empirical evidence that (a) social desirability is not as pervasive a problem as has been anticipated by industrial-organizational psychologists, (b) social desirability is in fact related to real individual differences in emotional stability and conscientiousness, and (c) social desirability does not function as a predictor, as a practically useful suppressor, or as a mediator variable for the criterion of job performance. Removing the effects of social desirability from the Big Five dimensions of personality leaves the criterion-related validity of personality constructs for predicting job performance intact. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers' judgments of applicant qualifications.

Eighty-four managers who make hiring decisions in 1 of 6 occupations representative of J. L. Holland's (1973) 6 job typologies (medical technologist, insurance sales agent, carpenter, licensed practical nurse, reporter, and secretary) rated 39 hypothetical job applicants on 2 dependent variables, hirability and counterproductivity. Applicants were described on the Big Five personality factors (Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and on general mental ability. Results showed that general mental ability and conscientiousness were the most important attributes related to applicants' hirability and that Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness were the most important attributes related to counterproductivity. In most respects, these results mirror meta-analytic reviews of validity studies, thereby confirming hypotheses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Academic Performance, Career Potential, Creativity, and Job Performance: Can One Construct Predict Them All?

This meta-analysis addresses the question of whether 1 general cognitive ability measure developed for predicting academic performance is valid for predicting performance in both educational and work domains. The validity of the Miller Analogies Test (MAT; W. S. Miller, 1960) for predicting 18 academic and work-related criteria was examined. MAT correlations with other cognitive tests (e.g., Raven's Matrices [J. C. Raven, 1965]; Graduate Record Examinations) also were meta-analyzed. The results indicate that the abilities measured by the MAT are shared with other cognitive ability instruments and that these abilities are generalizably valid predictors of academic and vocational criteria, as well as evaluations of career potential and creativity. These findings contradict the notion that intelligence at work is wholly different from intelligence at school, extending the voluminous literature that supports the broad importance of general cognitive ability (g). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity.

The bulk of personality research has been built from self-report measures of personality. However, collecting personality ratings from other-raters, such as family, friends, and even strangers, is a dramatically underutilized method that allows better explanation and prediction of personality's role in many domains of psychology. Drawing hypotheses from D. C. Funder's (1995) realistic accuracy model about trait and information moderators of accuracy, we offer 3 meta-analyses to help researchers and applied psychologists understand and interpret both consistencies and unique insights afforded by other-ratings of personality. These meta-analyses integrate findings based on 44,178 target individuals rated across 263 independent samples. Each meta-analysis assessed the accuracy of observer ratings, as indexed by interrater consensus/reliability (Study 1), self–other correlations (Study 2), and predictions of behavior (Study 3). The results show that although increased frequency of interacting with targets does improve accuracy in rating personality, informants' interpersonal intimacy with the target is necessary for substantial increases in other-rating accuracy. Interpersonal intimacy improved accuracy especially for traits low in visibility (e.g., Emotional Stability) but only minimally for traits high in evaluativeness (e.g., Agreeableness). In addition, observer ratings were strong predictors of behaviors. When the criterion was academic achievement or job performance, other-ratings yielded predictive validities substantially greater than and incremental to self-ratings. These findings indicate that extraordinary value can gained by using other-reports to measure personality, and these findings provide guidelines toward enriching personality theory. Various subfields of psychology in which personality variables are systematically assessed and utilized in research and practice can benefit tremendously from use of others' ratings to measure personality variables. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school.

Admissions and personnel decisions rely on stable predictor–criterion relationships. The authors studied the validity of Big Five personality factors and their facets for predicting academic performance in medical school across multiple years, investigating whether criterion-related validities change over time. In this longitudinal investigation, an entire European country’s 1997 cohort of medical students was studied throughout their medical school career (Year 1, N = 627; Year 7, N = 306). Over time, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness factor and facet scale scores showed increases in operational validity for predicting grade point averages. Although there may not be any advantages to being open and extraverted for early academic performance, these traits gain importance for later academic performance when applied practice increasingly plays a part in the curriculum. Conscientiousness, perhaps more than any other personality trait, appears to be an increasing asset for medical students: Operational validities of conscientiousness increased from .18 to .45. In assessing the utility of personality measures, relying on early criteria might underestimate the predictive value of personality variables. Implications for personality measures to predict work performance are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings.

This study used meta-analytic methods to compare the interrater and intrarater reliabilities of ratings of 10 dimensions of job performance used in the literature; ratings of overall job performance were also examined. There was mixed support for the notion that some dimensions are rated more reliably than others. Supervisory ratings appear to have higher interrater reliability than peer ratings. Consistent with H. R. Rothstein (1990), mean interrater reliability of supervisory ratings of overall job performance was found to be .52. In all cases, interrater reliability is lower than intrarater reliability, indicating that the inappropriate use of intrarater reliability estimates to correct for biases from measurement error leads to biased research results. These findings have important implications for both research and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis.

Interpersonal deviance (ID) and organizational deviance (OD) are highly correlated (R. S. Dalal, 2005). This, together with other empirical and theoretical evidence, calls into question the separability of ID and OD. As a further investigation into their separability, relationships among ID, OD, and their common correlates were meta-analyzed. ID and OD were highly correlated (p = .62) but had differential relationships with key Big Five variables and organizational citizenship behaviors, which lends support to the separability of ID and OD. Whether the R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000) instrument was used moderated some relationships. ID and OD exhibited their strongest (negative) relationships with organizational citizenship, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. Correlations with organizational justice were small to moderate, and correlations with demographic variables were generally negligible. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)