THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TEST
Introduction
The focus of this assignment is to identify the effectiveness and usefulness, as well as criticism of the Big Five Personality Test. This psychological test aims to measure one’s personality. The administrators who helped the author facilitate the survey process and the owner/manager who was interviewed provided statements for and against this test. The respondents/employees, on the other hand, commented on the process itself.
The idea for this assignment to utilize the Big Five Personality Test grew out of my belief that people have long term, dispositional traits that influence their behavior in work settings. I believe that there are meaningful relationships between individuals’ personalities and performance outcomes at work. While psychologists have traditionally viewed personality testing as contributing little to the prediction of job performance, recent development of the `big five’ personality constructs has shown that personality tests can be valid predictors of performance and may add significant incremental validity to tests of cognitive ability. I think that the use of the Big Five framework in testing personality provides a solid foundation for investigating personality-performance relationship.
The Big Five Personality Test
During the past three decades the view that personality is a poor predictor of job performance has become established among many occupational psychologists in New Zealand. Early reviews by Guion and Gottier (1965) and Mischel (1968) were overly pessimistic in their conclusions. Many criticisms raised by early personality test reviews have been addressed and shown to be less significant than previously thought (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988). One such improvement is the development of personality inventories designed to measure qualities among typical individuals instead of psychopathology among the deviant or mentally disordered.
Guion and Gottier (1965) found that tests developed for specific purposes were more predictive of performance than tests scored with standardized algorithms. Moreover, personality tests designed to measure “normal” behavioral traits are likely to improve the development of logical links between job requirements, personality measurement, and performance (Rosse, Miller, & Barnes, 1991).
In reading the literature pertaining to the structure of personality, it shows that while there is not unanimous agreement among researchers, the views of a number of personality psychologists are converging on five basic factors of personality (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience). Particularly impressive is the evidence showing that these five factors have been obtained in different cultures, with different languages, using different instruments and with different theoretical frameworks. In my opinion, this is the missing link in studies seeking to understand personality-performance relationships. This has provided a useful taxonomy in which to identify consistent and meaningful relationships between personality traits and performance criteria for different occupations.
The five-factor model of personality is based upon peer ratings using ordinary trait vocabulary (Digman, 1990). While a number of researchers have claimed to successfully identify a larger number of major personality traits, these five dimensions have proved to be replicable over different theoretical frameworks, using different instruments, and with ratings obtained from different sources, a variety of samples, and with a high degree of generality.
In brief, Extraversion is marked by sociability, energy, and a buoyant frame of mind. Neuroticism is the inclination towards expressing anxiety, anger, depression, and other negative affects. Agreeableness is a tendency towards altruism, trust, and sympathy. Conscientiousness is characterized by self-discipline, order, reliability, and foresight. And Openness is characterized by objectivity, need for variety, and curiosity. According to McCrae and Costa (1987), these dimensions are relatively independent of cognitive ability measures. Personality tests tap into performance variance beyond that which can be explained by cognitive tests alone (Driskell, Hogan, Salas, & Hoskin, 1994).
Inconsistencies in research findings highlight the need for precise and differentiated research on personality-job performance links (Goldberg, 1993). The poor validity of many job performance measures, and summarizing of criterion-related validities across either predictor or criterion constructs, obscures the usefulness of personality scales (Hough, 1992). Furthermore, the relationship between personality and performance is susceptible to the moderating variables of performance criterion and job type (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
While the five-factor model has demonstrated the usefulness of personality for selection, the `big five’ themselves may in fact be too broad to have predictive usefulness among job applicants (e.g., McAdams, 1992). Hough (1992) found nine factors to be more appropriate than the “big five”. Saville, Nyfield, Sik, and Hackston (1991; cited in Schmit & Ryan, 1993) found specific facets of the `big five’ constructs were better predictors than the broader global measures.
Schmit and Ryan (1993) have identified an “ideal employee” factor based upon work-related facets, further suggesting that the `big five’ model may be inappropriate for personnel selection. Their ideal employee factor included mainly Conscientiousness items but also items from the other four broad dimensions. Personality tests designed to measure middle-level traits within the big five may better account for different personality requirements between occupational groups (Schmit & Ryan, 1993) than instruments designed to only assess the broader `big five’ dimensions.
Methodology
For this assignment, I conducted a survey and interview. As I am only concerned on how the respondents view the Big Five Personality Test in terms of effectiveness, the results are not discussed. The use of the questionnaire would provide the researcher the ability to test the views and attitudes of the respondents. The distribution and collation methods used to manage the questionnaire process would ensure anonymity.
Twenty-five employees from a small company (retail) participated in the survey. The owner and manager of the business is a friend of the author, so it was never difficult to access its human resource. Despite this, the author issued a letter of consent, containing the purpose of the survey. Further, the author made sure that the employees completely understand what was to be done. A random sampling was conducted. During their break, the respondents were divided into five groups. Each group was facilitated by a member of my team. We encouraged the respondents to clarify statements that were not clear. After answering the questionnaires, we had a brief focus group to find out how they view the survey process. The respondents were told that the purpose of the test was to measure their personality; and that the management (owner) had nothing to do with it. They were told that it was part of the author’s assignment.
Prior to the survey process, the author selected four colleagues to help in administering. They were told as to what this assignment intended to accomplish. The administrators did not need to be trained because they had previous experience in such research process. As part of the objective of this assignment, the administrators were asked about their view on the test.
For the interview part, open-ended questions were used to obtain as much information as possible about how the interviewee feels about the research topic. The owner/manager of the small business was also interviewed. The interviews took 45 minutes. The questions were based on the questions for this assignment: how effective is the Big Five Personality Test in terms of the effects of personality on performance. Here, the researcher encouraged the interviewee to clarify vague statements and to further elaborate on brief comments. The researcher did not share personal beliefs and opinions.
To determine how the respondents perceive their own personality, the researcher prepared a questionnaire that was based directly on the Big Five Personality Test. The questionnaire was a 48-item test. This test aimed to measure the respondents’ personality in terms of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. The structured questionnaire was based on a Likert scale, a rating scale that requires the subject to indicate his or her degree of agreement or disagreement with a statement. The respondents would grade each statement in the survey-questionnaire using a Likert scale with a five-response scale wherein respondents would be given five response choices.
By rating scale we mean the scales that are usually used to measure attitudes towards an object, the degree to which an object contains a particular attribute, toward some attribute, or the importance attached to an attribute. Rating scales require the rate to place an attribute of the object being rated at some point along a numerically valued continuum or in one of a numerically ordered series of categories. The equivalent weights for the answers would be: 1- Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4- Agree, 5- Strongly Agree.
For validation purposes, the author initially submitted the sample of the set of survey questionnaires to some of her peers; and after approval, the survey was initially conducted to five respondents. After the questions were answered, the author asked the respondents for any items that were not clear to them to ensure further improvement and validity of the instrument. The researcher again examined the content of the interview questions to clear vague statements. Afterwards, the author changed words that would be deemed difficult by the respondents, to much simpler terms. The author excluded the five respondents who were initially used for the validation of the instrument.
In/Effectiveness of the Device
This section presents the merits as well as criticisms of the Big Five Personality Test as viewed by the administrators; the importance of this test for the owner/manager of the small company; and the comments of the employees.
Administrators
Mr. D states that the results of the study may enhance understanding and contribute to the theoretical development of causal models explaining job performance. He believes Conscientiousness to be the important trait-oriented motivation variable that has long eluded I-O psychologists. This meant that there are now two dispositional predictors in our field whose validity generalizes: general mental ability and conscientiousness.
Ms. A argues that if prediction rather than description is important, the Big Five may not be an adequate taxonomy. She suggests that the Big Five is not an adequate taxonomy of personality variables for predicting important criteria. Mr. B adds that the Big Five constructs are too heterogeneous and incomplete. Moreover, he noted a study by Houggh (1992) that provides evidence of different patterns of criterion-related validity for at least nine personality constructs. If only the Big Five personality constructs are used, he says, several important differences in the criterion-related validities of Dependability, Achievement, Potency, and Affiliation are obscured and the usefulness of the taxonomy thereby diminished. According to him, the constructs Locus of control and Rugged Individualism are important predictors of important life outcomes and are missing entirely from the Big Five. If prediction of life outcomes or criteria is important in evaluating personality taxonomies, the Big Five is an inadequate taxonomy of personality constructs.
The Owner/Manager
Personality tests such as the Big Five Personality Test are beneficial to any business as research has found that personality has something to do with job performance. According to the owner/manager, the strength of the test lies in the positive correlation of one of the Big Five dimensions, Conscientiousness, with job performance. Individuals who are dependable, persistent, goal directed and organized tend to be higher performers on virtually any job; viewed negatively, those who are careless, irresponsible, low achievement striving and impulsive tend to be lower performers on virtually any job.
In addition, extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations, managers and sales, where interactions with others are a significant portion of the job. Thus, traits such as being sociable, talkative, assertive, and energetic contribute to performance in such jobs. Extraversion and Openness to Experience were valid predictors of training proficiency across occupations. Being active, sociable, and open to new experiences may lead individuals to be more involved in training and, consequently, learn more. This test, according to the owner/manager, no matter what job one is selecting for, if the employer wants employees who will turn out to be good performers, he or she should hire those who work smarter and work harder.
Employees
As for the employees, they felt that the survey was not a big deal. It was as if they were only answering something that had not significance at all. When asked how they found the process, the problems they encountered, if there is any, majority of them said that the questionnaire was easy to understand and answer. With regard to privacy, a respondent/employee stated that the survey did not require them to provide very personal information. Thus, according to him, there was no need for anonymity. What alarmed the author was when an employee joked that if it were not for my assignment, he would fake his answers. He said that if the management were the one who conducted the test, of course he would lie so as to provide a more positive answer.
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.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Driskell, J.E., Hogan, J., Salas, E., & Hoskin, B. (1994). Cognitive and personality predictors of training performance. Military Psychology, 6(1). 31-46
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Guion, R.M., & Gottier, R.F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hogan, R. & Nicholson, R. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores. American Psychologist, 43, 621-626.
Hough, L.M. (1992). The “big five” personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329-361.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
Rosse, J.G., Miller, H.E., & Barnes, L.K. (1991). Combining personality and cognitive ability predictors for hiring service-oriented employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 431-445.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment