Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T13:17:11.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Reflections, Progress, and Prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Leaetta M. Hough  and
Frederick L. Oswald
Leaetta M. Hough*
Affiliation:
The Dunnette Group, Ltd.
Frederick L. Oswald
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
E-mail: leaetta@msn.com, Address: The Dunnette Group, Ltd., 370 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55142
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the title suggests, this article takes a broad perspective on personality as it is conceptualized and measured in organizational research, and in the spirit of this Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology journal, we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five-factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 272 - 290
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, Michigan State University

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.Google Scholar
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
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effect of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773–1801.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in “strong” versus “weak” situations. Human Performance, 14, 125–148.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.Google Scholar
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.Google Scholar
Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 1–31.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
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910.Google Scholar
Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 238–241.Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D, & Oppler, S. H. (1991). Models of supervisory job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 863–872.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity in the multi-trait multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 39–73). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1996). Group differences and personnel decisions: Validity, fairness, and affirmative action. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 122–158.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P, & Knapp, D. (2001). Project A: Exploring the limits of performance improvement through personnel selection and classification. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A, Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Outtz, J. L., Zedeck, S., Schmidt, F. L., Kehoe, J. F., Murphy, K. R., et al. (2001). The controversy over score banding in personnel selection: Answers to 10 key questions. Personnel Psychology, 54, 149–185.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678–707.Google Scholar
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the MacAndrew Alcoholism scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 818–829.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.Google Scholar
Cullen, M. J., Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2006). Threats to the operational use of situational judgment tests in the college admissions process. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 142–155.Google Scholar
Dalal, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.Google Scholar
De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Combing predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1380–1393.10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1380Google Scholar
Delery, J. E., & Kacmar, K. M. (1998). The influence of applicant and interviewer characteristics on the use of impression management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1649–1669.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
Dunnette, M. D. (1963). A note on the criterion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 251–254.Google Scholar
Dunnette, M. D., McCartney, J., Carlson, H. C., & Kirchner, W. K. (1962). A study of faking behavior on a forced-choice self-description checklist. Personnel Psychology, 15, 13–24.Google Scholar
Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability correction in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 155–166.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1200–1208.Google Scholar
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72.Google Scholar
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks . Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Foldes, H., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (in press). Group differences in personality: Meta-analyses comparing five U.S. racial groups. Personnel Psychology.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1961). Criterion measurement and personnel judgments. Personnel Psychology, 14, 141–149.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. L., & McLellan, R. A. (1997, April). Social desirability and item content. In Lautenschlager, G. J. (Chair), Faking on non-cognitive measures: The extent, impact, and identification of dissimulation. Symposium conducted at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 507–541). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Heron, A. (1956). The effects of real-life motivation on questionnaire response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 65–68.Google Scholar
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270–1285.Google Scholar
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.Google Scholar
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 513–541). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Personnel Psychology’s citation leading articles: The first five decades [Introduction]. Personnel Psychology, 51, Editorial.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1997). The millennium for personality psychology: New horizons or good old daze. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 233–261.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1998a). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209–244.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1998b). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In Hakel, M. (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (pp. 131–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (2001). I/Owes its advances to personality. In Roberts, B. & Hogan, R. T. (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 19–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (2003). Emerging trends and needs in personality research and practice: Beyond main effects. In Barrick, M. & Ryan, A. (Eds), Personality and work (pp. 289–325). New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Dilchert, S. (2007, October). Inventors, innovators, and their leaders: Selecting for Conscientiousness will keep you “inside the box.” Paper presented at SIOP’s 3rd Leading Edge Consortium: Enabling Innovation in Organizations, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. L., 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 [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Furnham, A. (2003). Importance and use of personality variables in work settings. In Weiner, I. B. (Ed-in-Chief) & Borman, W., Ilgen, D., & Klimoski, R. (Vol. Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial organizational psychology. (Vol. 12, pp. 131–169). New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233–377). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998, April). Personality correlates of managerial performance constructs. In Page, R. (Chair), Personality determinants of managerial potential, performance, progression and ascendancy. Symposium conducted at 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future—Remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631–664.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In Murphy, K. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization for 12,000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Service.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance, and supervisor ratings. In Landy, F., Zedeck, S., & Cleveland, J. (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory (pp. 257–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.Google Scholar
Kamp, J. D., & Hough, L. M. (1986). Utility of personality assessment: A review and integration of the literature. In Hough, L. M. (Ed.), Utility of temperament, biodata, and interest assessment for predicting job performance: A review and integration of the literature (ARI Research Note No. 88-02, pp. 1–90). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T., & Goff, M. (1995). Personality and intelligence in industrial and organizational psychology. In Saklofske, D. H. & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 577–602). New York: Plenum Publishing.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1999). Individual differences in motivation: Traits and self-regulatory skills. In Ackerman, P. L. & Kyllonen, P. C. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 293–313). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Kirchner, W. K. (1962). “Real-life” faking on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule by sales applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 128–130.Google Scholar
Klehe, U. C., & Anderson, N. (2007). Working hard and working smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 978–992.Google Scholar
Klein, H. J., & Lee, S. (2006). The effects of personality on learning: The mediating role of goal setting. Human Performance, 19, 43–66.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & Collela, A. (1993). Beyond the mean bias: Effects of warning against faking on biodata item variances. Personnel Psychology, 46, 763–780.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1994). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. In Puka, B. (Ed.), New research in moral development (Moral development: A compendium) (Vol. 5, pp. 126–188). New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Komar, S., Brown, D. G., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 140–154.Google Scholar
Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and the goal-striving process: The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 256–265.Google Scholar
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & DeVries, R. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179–197.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.Google Scholar
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 299–316.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement of ego development. American Psychologist, 21, 195–206.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1994). In search of grand theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 142–144.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McFarland, L., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016.Google Scholar
McFarland, L., Yun, G., Harold, C. M., Viera, R. Jr., & Moore, L. (2005). An examination of impression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: The role of competency demands. Personnel Psychology, 58, 949–980.Google Scholar
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.Google Scholar
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675–680.Google Scholar
Michaelis, W., & Eysenck, H. J. (1971). The determination of personality inventory factor pattern and intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 223–234.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In Magnusson, D. & Endler, N. S. (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mol, S. T., Born, M. P. H., Willemsen, M. E., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting expatriate job performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 590–620.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007a). 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
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007b). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683–729.Google Scholar
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 272–280.Google Scholar
Nilsen, D. (1995). Investigation of the relationship between personality and leadership performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success. A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18, 389–404.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17(Suppl), S19–S38.Google Scholar
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730–749.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.Google Scholar
Orpen, C. (1971). Fakability of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 24, 1–4.Google Scholar
Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556.Google Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.Google Scholar
Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2005). Situational judgment tests and their predictiveness of college students’ success: The influence of faking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 70–89.Google Scholar
Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377–396.Google Scholar
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103–113.Google Scholar
Potosky, D., Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2005). Forming composites of cognitive ability and alternative measures to predict job performance and reduce adverse impact: Corrected estimates and realistic expectations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 304–315.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139.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
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Levin, R. A., & Miller, J. L. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.Google Scholar
Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16, 155–180.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298–307.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakability, reactions of test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 248–256.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441–464.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K. & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Ellingson, J. E. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707–721.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482–486.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., Bel-Bahar, T., & Fernandez, C. (2007). What modifies the expression of personality tendencies? Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75, 479–503.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implication of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.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
Schmitt, N., & Kunce, C. (2002). The effects of required elaboration of answers to biodata questions. Personnel Psychology, 55, 569–587.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Oswald, F. L. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 613–621.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Rogers, W., Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings, D. (1997). Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 719–730.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–779.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. J., & Hough, L. M. (1995). Personality and industrial/organizational psychology. In Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75–129). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.Google Scholar
Schwab, D. P., & Packard, G. L. (1973). Response distortion on the “Gordon Personal Inventory” and the “Gordon Personal Profile” in a selection context: Some implications for predicting employee tenure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 372–374.Google Scholar
Smith, P. C. (1976). Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 745–775). Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing.Google Scholar
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.Google Scholar
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shulz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. (1998). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959–968.Google Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. B. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967–993.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-analysis of bi-directional relations in personality-job performance research. Human Performance, 12, 1–29.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both sides of the personality-job performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335–356.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.Google Scholar
Trattner, M. H. (1982). Synthetic validity and its application to the Uniform Guidelines validation requirements. Personnel Psychology, 35, 383–397.Google Scholar
Trent, T. (1987, August). Armed forces adaptability screening: The problem of item response distortion. Paper presented at the 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Convention, New York City.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18, 19–23.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210.Google Scholar
Westerman, J. W., & Simmons, B. L. (2007). The effects of work environment on the personality-performance relationship: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 288–305.Google Scholar
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
Wood, J. L., Schmidke, J. M., & Decker, D. L. (2007). Lying on job applications: The effects of job relevance, commission, and human resource management experience. Journal of Business Psychology, 22, 1–9.Google Scholar
Young, M. C. (2003, June). Effects of retesting on a new Army measure of motivational attributes: Implications for response distortion, test validity, and operational use. Paper presented at the 27th IPMAAC Conference on Personnel Assessment, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar