PSY 3630 Module 4 Personality Testing Paper: The Debate Over Validity and Faking in Hiring Example

Conscientious, Calm and Possibly Faking: Should the Credit Union Add a Personality Test?

Student Name

B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management, Thomas Edison State University

PSY-3630: Industrial Psychology

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Conscientious, Calm and Possibly Faking: Should the Credit Union Add a Personality Test?

Introduction

A test vendor has offered the credit union a 20-minute online personality questionnaire that reports scores on the Big Five traits and a customer service index. The vendor claims it will reduce turnover by a third. The human resources director asked whether the test should be added to the four-step process recommended in module two. This paper reviews the research and the debate and makes a recommendation.

The Big Five and Job Performance

Barrick and Mount (1991) meta-analyzed 117 studies relating the five broad traits of the Big Five model to job performance, training proficiency and personnel data across five occupational groups. Conscientiousness was a consistent predictor across all groups, with a corrected correlation of about .22. Extraversion predicted performance in management and sales, jobs with frequent social interaction. Openness and extraversion predicted training proficiency. The study revived interest in personality testing after decades in which researchers had dismissed it.

The Critique

Morgeson et al. (2007), six scholars who had edited leading journals, argued that enthusiasm had outrun the evidence. Uncorrected validities for personality measures were low, often around .10 to .15, and even corrected values were modest compared with other methods. Applicants can raise their scores when they know a job is at stake, and the authors doubted that faking could be prevented or reliably detected. They recommended against using published, off-the-shelf personality tests in selection, while suggesting that measures built for a specific job might perform better.

The Response

Ones et al. (2007) replied that the critique understated the value of personality. They argued that personality measures predict a wide range of outcomes, including job performance, counterproductive behavior, leadership and teamwork, and that compound measures combining traits, such as integrity and customer service scales, show validities comparable to many other methods. They found that faking, while real, does not destroy validity in practice, and that personality measures add prediction beyond cognitive ability with smaller group differences, which helps reduce adverse impact.

Newer Estimates

The 2022 revision by Sackett and colleagues, discussed in module two, placed conscientiousness at about .19, below structured interviews but not negligible. Because personality measures correlate weakly with cognitive and interview scores, even a modest validity can add to prediction when combined with them.

Fitting the Evidence to the Job

The job analysis named emotional control and service orientation among the most important first-day characteristics. Emotional stability and customer service compound scales map onto these more directly than a general Big Five profile. Accuracy with numbers relates to conscientiousness. The structured interview and work sample already measure emotional control and service behavior directly, so any personality measure must add something beyond them.

Evaluating the Vendor's Claim

The vendor's claim of a one-third reduction in turnover comes from a single client study with no comparison group and is not published. The vendor could not provide validity evidence for credit union or banking jobs. Under professional standards, an employer using a test should have evidence that it is job related, and the vendor's materials did not meet that bar.

Faking in Practice

Faking is the critics' strongest point, and it deserves a closer look. In a hiring setting, applicants who know that dependable and calm employees are wanted can choose those answers. Research shows that average scores rise when stakes are high, but the ranking of applicants does not change entirely, which is why validity is reduced rather than erased. Faking also varies across people, which can be unfair to honest applicants. Forced-choice formats, in which applicants choose between equally desirable statements, and warnings that responses will be verified reduce faking somewhat.

An Alternative Worth Considering

A situational judgment test presents short job scenarios, such as a member disputing a fee, and asks applicants to choose the best and worst responses. Such tests measure judgment about work behavior rather than self-described traits, are harder to fake because the best answer is not obvious and are viewed as fair by applicants because they look like the job. The credit union could build one from the critical incidents collected in the job analysis focus groups.

Recommendation

The credit union should not adopt the vendor's general test now. Instead, it should run a local study: give a short, research-based customer service and conscientiousness measure to the next 80 new hires after they are hired, without using scores in decisions, and correlate scores with six-month performance ratings and turnover. If the measure adds prediction beyond the interview and work sample without adverse impact, it can be added to the process with a set weight. To reduce faking, the measure should be used alongside other methods and should not be the only screen.

Ethical Considerations

Personality questionnaires can feel intrusive, and some items may touch on health or disability. Any measure should avoid clinical content, be explained to applicants and comply with disability law. Applicants should know how scores will be used.

What Managers Asked

Branch managers asked whether a personality test would tell them who will stay. Research suggests some traits relate modestly to turnover, but a realistic preview of the job and good early support likely matter more, which the job analysis and training modules address.

Limits

The debate continues, and estimates vary by job and measure. A local study with 80 hires has limited power. The credit union and vendor are invented.

Conclusion

Barrick and Mount showed that conscientiousness predicts performance across jobs, Morgeson and colleagues warned that validity is modest and faking a concern and Ones and colleagues argued that well-chosen measures still add value. For the credit union, a general vendor test with unsupported claims is not justified, but a job-specific measure tested locally might be.

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683-729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995-1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x