TraitSmart

Article by Dr. Randall H. Lucius, PhD.

Using Personality Tests: Believe or Beware?

Myth #1: Personality tests invite legal problems into the selection process.
The mere mention of the word legal liability or lawsuit is enough for some
to break out in a cold sweat. Coupled with personality assessment, and it is easy
to see why certain HR managers avoid such tools like the plague. This fear,
however, is easily allayed once the facts are considered.
A recent research paper titled "Legal implications of personnel assessment: an
analysis of court cases" (Finlinson, Chen, Tischner, Lyle & Popovich, 2001)
found that only 87 court cases involving testing in the workplace have been filed
between 1944 and 1998 "in which one or more tests played some role in the
final court outcome" of the case. Out of these 87 cases, 20 of them involved a
personality assessment (23%) in a selection context.
First of all, note that in a 54 year period of time, only 87 relevant cases were
found involving assessment in the workplace. This alone is a very low number.
When we consider that only 20 of these cases involved a personality test, it
becomes clear that the chances of being sued for the use of a personality test are
staggeringly low about the same as being hit by an asteroid on your way to
work. But for those who are still skeptical, lets probe further into these 20
cases.
Of the 20 cases that involved a personality assessment, 18 of them involved the
same test, the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a test for
psychopathology. Psychopathology literally means The study of the origin,
development, and manifestations of mental or behavioral disorders. This test
was designed to help clinical psychologists and psychiatrists determine what
sort of ailment a mentally disturbed patient might be suffering. The MMPI is
useful for screening whether someone should be admitted to a mental hospital,
and is not designed to screen or select applicants for a job. Several of the
plaintiffs in these 20 cases did win, though not as many as you might expect: 8
out of these 20 cases ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Thus, even using a clearly
inappropriate test, the chances of running into a lawsuit are very, very low.
The moral of this story is that as long as you use a job related test that is valid,
meaning a relationship has been established between test scores and job
performance, there is virtually no legal risk for using a personality assessment as
part of your selection system. At least use a test that is face valid. Clearly
questions like I hear so well it bothers me dont appear to be related to
performance on a job. Given the benefits a personality assessment can add to the
process, the risk/reward ratio seems strongly in favor of their use.
-1-
Legal Myths
Myth #2: Personality tests can be faked and are not useful for screening
applicants.
At first glance, it is easy to see why this perception exists. Many personality
tests have questions where there appears to be right answer that will help the
respondent look good. Many experts agree that some applicants do indeed
intentionally distort their responses, and that these responses alter test scores
(McFarland, Wiechmann & Chandler, 2001).
But like many issues that appear simple on the surface, once you dig a little
deeper, they are more complex. Some responses that may appear to have a
right answer actually are the opposite of what they appear. This is because
different jobs require different profiles to be effective. For example, some jobs
may require someone who is highly agreeable, while other jobs actually require
someone who is more critical, the polar opposite of agreeable. Most applicants
do not know which end is desirable for the position, and respondents who
intentionally distort their responses will end up pushing themselves outside of
the desirable range for the position. The best policy for test respondents is to
respond honestly, and most good measures clearly indicate this in the tests
instructions.
Even so, for those who continue to distort their responses, many tests have a
built in faking scale or response distortion scale. Typically, these scales
identify individuals who respond in a way that is designed to make them look
very favorable much more favorably than is realistic when compared to the
US population. Most good tests have such a measure to help users determine
whether an accurate judgment can be made based on the test-takers responses.
Finally, research has shown that just about all respondents tend to distort their
responses to a small degree, and that this is actually normal (Ones & Barrick,
2001). When compared to how others view the respondent, those who are
closely aligned with others perceptions often suffer from anxiety and low self-
esteem. It seems a certain degree of elevated self-perceptions keeps
individuals optimistic and confident in their abilities.
In regards to the validity of the test, most research has shown that there is little
overall impact based on response distortion (Ones, Viswesvaran & Reiss, 1996).
While the elevation of certain traits may be higher or lower than you would see
in a non-applicant setting, the shape of the profile for a position often remains
the same. For example, research in a non-applicant setting has shown that
people who are Outgoing and Industrious are often effective as sales persons.
An applicant setting will also show this to be the case, but this time effective
people score as Very Outgoing and Very Industrious. The shape of the profile is
the same, it is just elevated higher than in the non-applicant setting.
In summary, people do sometimes distort their responses to personality test
questions, but this often does not hurt the usefulness of the test. What may
appear to be a desirable response may work against the ideal profile for certain
positions. Good tests often include instructions explaining that applicants should
respond honestly, and include a response distortion scale to identify those that
may be overly distorting their responses. The validity of a personality test is
often not affected by response distortion, because the shape of the ideal profile
tends to remain the same.
- 2 -
Legal Myths
Myth #3: Personality is not well understood and cannot predict
performance.
People who hold this opinion most often have been the victim of an invalid
personality test. Certain personality tests, such as the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) and the DISC, are very popular as development tools and have
been used by thousands of employees to help with their leadership, team and/or
interpersonal work style. However, when it comes to selecting employees for a
job, these tools are often not effective, because they do not do a good job of
actually predicting someones performance.
This is not the case with tests based on the Five Factor Model. Throughout the
1980's and continuing through the present, a plethora of personality researchers
have established the Five-Factor Model as the basic paradigm for personality
research. Four excellent summaries of this research tradition are Goldberg
(1993), Digman (1996), John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf (1988), and McCrae
(1992).
In the last 15 years there have been numerous studies which demonstrate that
personality, as assessed through standardized instruments that tap into the Five
Factor model, has a predictive relationship with job performance. Recent
research has demonstrated that personality assessment contributes unique
information to the prediction of job performance, over and above that offered by
methods such as cognitive ability testing and managerial assessment centers
(Sackett, Schmitt, Ellingson & Kabin, 2001; Goffin, Rothstein, & Johnston,
1996). Two widely cited meta-analyses (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson,
& Rothstein, 1991) present evidence from over 200 studies examining the
personality-job performance link and conclude that, at the broadest level,
conscientiousness is positively related to job performance across a majority of
job types.
The predictive utility of personality assessment is enhanced when the
personality profile for a specific job is studied, either based on the findings of
previous research, rational analysis, or a thorough personality oriented job
analysis (Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997). Even more ideal is to study the
personality profiles of high and low performers within a specific job, and create
a custom norm. Different jobs demand different personality profiles (Hogan,
1996). For example, studies have shown that for sales jobs, extraversion and
agreeableness are highly predictive of performance. For blue-collar workers
conscientiousness and agreeableness show a positive relationship to job
performance while extraversion and openness to experience are shown to be
unrelated or in some cases negatively related to performance (Kierstead, 1998).
The five factor model has shed much light on the workings of personality, and
in so doing has made it possible to predict the future performance of job
applicants. Personality is better understood today than it ever has been, and
advances in research continue to uncover more exciting discoveries that help us
develop people and place people in jobs for which they are best suited.
- 3 -
Legal Myths
- 4 -
References
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-27.
Digman, J. M. (1996). The curious history of the five factor model. In J. Wiggens (Ed.),
The Five Factor Model of Personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Finlinson, S., Chen, P. Y., Tischner, E. C., Lyle, J. and Popovich, P. M. (2001). Legal
implications of personnel assessment: An analysis of court cases. Paper presented at the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference, April 2001, San
Diego, CA.
Goffin, R. D. & Rothstein, M. G. (1996). Personality testing and the assessment center:
Incremental validity for managerial selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),
746-756.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits. American
Psychologist. January 1993, 48(1), 26-34.
Hogan, R. , Curphy, G.J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership:
Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.
John, O.P, Angleitner, A., and Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality:
A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-
203.
Kierstead, J. (1998). Personality and Job Performance: A Research Overview (website:
http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/research/personnel/personality_e.htm).
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. In J. Wiggens (Ed.), The Five Factor
Model of Personality. New York: Guilford Press.
McFarland, L. A., Wiechmann, D. and Chandler, C. W. (2001). Using appropriateness
fit to identify faking on a personality test. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology conference, April 2001, San Diego, CA.
Ones, D. S. , Barrick, M. R. and Schmit, M. J. (2001). Conversation at the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference, April 2001, San Diego, CA.
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.
Raymark, P.H., Schmit, M.J., & Guion, R.M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful
personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50, 723-736.
Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E. and Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing
in employment, credentialing and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative
action world. American Psychologist, 56 (4), 304 318.
Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of
job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703-742.