The Experts below are selected from a list of 285 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Neal Schmitt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are we getting fooled again coming to terms with limitations in the use of Personality Tests for personnel selection
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of Personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on Personality; (2) the observed validities of Personality Tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using Personality Tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of Personality Tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for Personality testing research and practice are discussed.
-
reconsidering the use of Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that Personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of Personality Tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of Personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in Personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of Personality Tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report Personality Tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of Personality Tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report Personality Tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, Personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report Personality measures.
-
understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and Personality Tests
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998Co-Authors: David Chan, Neal Schmitt, Joshua M Sacco, Richard P DeshonAbstract:: To understand the nature of test reactions and their relationship to test performance, the relationships among belief in Tests, pretest reactions, test performance, and posttest reactions were modeled for cognitive ability and Personality Tests. Results from structural equation models that were fitted to responses from 197 undergraduate examinees supported the hypothesized relationships. On the cognitive ability test, pretest reactions affected test performance and mediated the relationship between belief in Tests and test performance. Test performance affected posttest reactions even after taking into account the effect of pretest reactions. On the Personality test, belief in Tests affected pretest and posttest reactions, but the three variables were unrelated to test performance (Conscientiousness scores). Conceptual, methodological, and practical implications of the findings are discussed in the context of research on test reactions and test performance.
Frederick P Morgeson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are we getting fooled again coming to terms with limitations in the use of Personality Tests for personnel selection
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of Personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on Personality; (2) the observed validities of Personality Tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using Personality Tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of Personality Tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for Personality testing research and practice are discussed.
-
reconsidering the use of Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that Personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of Personality Tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of Personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in Personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of Personality Tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report Personality Tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of Personality Tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report Personality Tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, Personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report Personality measures.
Kevin R Murphy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are we getting fooled again coming to terms with limitations in the use of Personality Tests for personnel selection
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of Personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on Personality; (2) the observed validities of Personality Tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using Personality Tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of Personality Tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for Personality testing research and practice are discussed.
-
reconsidering the use of Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that Personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of Personality Tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of Personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in Personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of Personality Tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report Personality Tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of Personality Tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report Personality Tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, Personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report Personality measures.
John R Hollenbeck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are we getting fooled again coming to terms with limitations in the use of Personality Tests for personnel selection
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of Personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on Personality; (2) the observed validities of Personality Tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using Personality Tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of Personality Tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for Personality testing research and practice are discussed.
-
reconsidering the use of Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that Personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of Personality Tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of Personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in Personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of Personality Tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report Personality Tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of Personality Tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report Personality Tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, Personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report Personality measures.
Robert L Dipboye - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are we getting fooled again coming to terms with limitations in the use of Personality Tests for personnel selection
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of Personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on Personality; (2) the observed validities of Personality Tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using Personality Tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of Personality Tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for Personality testing research and practice are discussed.
-
reconsidering the use of Personality Tests in personnel selection contexts
Personnel Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Frederick P Morgeson, Michael A Campion, Robert L Dipboye, John R Hollenbeck, Kevin R Murphy, Neal SchmittAbstract:Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that Personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of Personality Tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of Personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in Personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of Personality Tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report Personality Tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of Personality Tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report Personality Tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, Personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report Personality measures.