Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T11:34:36.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Argument for Context-Specific Personality Assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Eric D. Heggestad  and
Heather L. Gordon
Eric D. Heggestad*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Heather L. Gordon
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
*
E-mail: edhegges@email.uncc.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 320 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

**

Organizational Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

References

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203.Google Scholar
Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & VanHook, J. B. (2004). Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 150–157.Google Scholar
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919.Google Scholar
DeGroot, T., & Kluemper, D. (2007). Evidence of predictive and incremental validity of personality factors, vocal attractiveness and the situational interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 30–39.Google Scholar
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40–57.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., & O’Brien, E. J. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513–537.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 272–290.Google Scholar
Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545–551.Google Scholar
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60, 1029–1049.Google Scholar
Murphy, K., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18, 343–357.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.Google Scholar
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607–620.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.Google Scholar