Personality Tests - How Worthy Are They in Job Recruitment - Research Proposal Example

 Industrial or organizational/occupational (I/O) psychology is one of the specialty areas of psychology. It is widely known that I/O psychologists’ job is: selection and placement, training and development, quality of work life, performance appraisal, organization development, and ergonomic. In this research, selection and placement will be considered as it is the main focus of the research. Selection and placement involves the development of assessment methods for the selection, placement, and promotion of employees by I/O psychologists. They also study and analyze jobs in order to determine just how much a test can predict performance in those specific positions. Specialists in the field use many tests not only to assess personalities of the candidates for the job, but more importantly to predict employee’s performance (Muchinsky, 2007). PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING The most frequently used “predictors” that I/O psychologists use are psychological tests. These tests can be grouped by their content or by their administration (Muchinsky, 2007). By administration: Speed and Power Tests – Speed tests are tests composed of a large number of very easy questions. This test is timed, and the result will thus reflect the individual’s speed of work. Power tests, on the other hand, are composed of fairly difficult questions. There is no timing and the total score would be the number of items that were correctly answered. Individual and Group Tests – Individual tests are administered to a single person at a time. This kind of test is not usually administered because of the amount of time needed to administer it to all participants. Group tests, on the other hand, are administered to several people simultaneously. Paper-and-pencil tests – The most common type of test used in industrial and educational organizations is the paper-and-pencil test. This kind of test does not involve manipulation of objects or pieces of equipment (Muchinsky, 2007). The questions usually asked required answers in the form of an essay or multiple-choice type. This test is an assessment method where the responses are analyzed in terms of their correctness. Performance tests – It involves the individual’s manipulation of an object or a piece of equipment. The individual’s score is the measure of his ability to perform the said manipulation. Intelligence Tests –The interest in the assessment of cognitive ability started more than a century ago, there exists no unique or standard means to measure it. Intelligence had been conceptualized as having single, and fundamental basis, or what is called the “general mental ability” (g) by assessing the g, an understanding of an individual’s general level of cognitive ability may be determined. These have been tests that measure g that have been found to the predictive of work performance in a wide variety of occupations. Other tests – Psychologists also administer mechanical aptitude tests, sensory/motor ability tests among others. The above tests are used by the organizations for the selection and placement of people in their organizations. A study by Rosses and colleagues found out, however, that faking of the responses was indeed great among job applicants. Due to their desire to create a good impression in the assessment, the test-takers would most likely to fake their answers than the job incumbents. Such findings suggest that a faking and social desirability bias in personality assessment is a matter that needs more attention According to the recent study, it is said that the link between the job recruitment or job performance and personality test is weak. This is due to the problem of fake answers given during the personality tests. Personality tests are based on self-reporting and can lead to biasness due to a lot of potential for fake answers (Leon, 2007). There are a numerous tests used by the organizations today. Below are some of the tests which show how valid and reliable they are in helping the organization to employee people. 1. PERSONALITY INVENTORIES Personality inventories have no correct and incorrect answers, which primarily distinguish it from the other tests that were discussed earlier. The items in these tests are usually in statement-form and the test-taker usually responds according to his/her level of agreement with a particular statement. A pre-determined scoring key will be the basis for scoring every test-taker in such a way that a higher score will mean higher level of being introvert, conscientious, etc. The scores are then analyzed and used to predict job performance. It has been assumed that a particular job require an individual that scores high in a specific personality structure (Muchinsky, 2007). 1. THE MMPI – 2 In 1972, Dahlstrom et al. made an emphasis on the “intentional ambiguity” of the development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI. According to them, such an ambiguity was important in order to have “differential interpretations” by clients who would usually facilitate what they call “dependable personoligical interpretations” (Dahlstrom et al., 1972). In their method, items in the scale that are “common to general distress or nonspecific to clinical conditions were often chosen:” (Rogers et al 2004). Because of that, the resulting MMPI scales have overlaps in its items, thus, limiting their discriminability between clinical conditions. Due to some inconsistencies in the original MMPI test it is not really suitable as a criterion for employee selection. When Butcher, Williams, and others published MMPI-2 in 1989, the application of the test in the clinical setting was confirmed. Criticisms have also surrounded MMPI-2 {e.g. Tellegen et. al, (2003) Simms, (2006) Rogers et. al, (2006)} but none of them discussed how fitting might the test be in the industrial/organizational setting. MMPI scores are fairly stable over a period of years. The Si scale was found to be the most stable with a retest correlation of .74, after a 30-year period (Leon, Gillum, Gillum, & Gouze, 1979). Test-retest correlations for the clinical scales averaged .66. Scales Si (.85), Pt (.83) and A (.86) were highly stable, and Pa (.55) was the least stable clinical scale. (Gordon, 2001). Thus it may be concluded, that the MMPI and MMPI-2 are not made for I/O psychologists but for clinical psychologists who are much interested in simple behaviors and not performance prediction. 2. THE 16PF The 16PF Personal Career Development Program Profile (PCDP) is a “computer-generated, interpretive report based on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire- Fifth Edition (16PF Questionnaire” (Walter, 2000a). Coming from the studies of strong, (1939), Porter (1976), Cattell (1973), and Campbell, Hyne, and Wilsen (1992), the report is actually a summary of an individual’s career strength based on his/her personality. The PCDP also matches a test-taker to a specific career in which most people having the same personality traits as the test-taker have been employed. According to Olson and Matlock (1994), the PCDP was made in order to make the assessment more enhanced in terms of the individual’s overall effectiveness. It is also a part of the career counseling wherein an appraisal of interests and abilities, an evaluation of work history, and an analysis of knowledge about jobs are included. The PCDP report requires a result of the 16PF5 Questionnaire. As was known, the 16PF5 Questionnaire was made in order to correctly identify the key personality factors and is used to predict behaviors. The test is not under time pressure and may be administered individually or in groups. It is in paper-and-pencil format and usually takes 30 minutes to be completed (Russel and Karol, 1994). In terms of the accuracy of test, the institute posts the reliability and validity of the 16PF5. According to them, the internal consistency reliabilities are having values from 0.66 to 0.86, and having a median of 0.75 on two general population samples and a sample of college students. The test had also been subjected to series of test – retest reliabilities and the results were not far from the first one. Wallis and Birt (2003) pointed out the possibility of having a difficulty in finding the equivalent of some English words; if ever the test is administered to a non-English speaking group of people it maybe also hard to reconcile. Another research done by Reid (2005) found out that there are several items in the test that require the sense of sight in selecting the answer. Therefore, the questionnaire and the report were inappropriate for use with individuals who are visually impaired. 3. MBTI, NEO – PI, AND HOGAN PERSONALITY INVENTORY Another popular type of assessment which is actually a development tool rather than a job selection test is the Myers – Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI. Sixteen personality types predicate this test, each being based on an individual’s status on four dimensions namely, Judgment – Perception, Thinking – Feeling, Sensing – Intuition and Extroversion – Introversion. According to the Myers – Briggs theory of personality, each of 16 personality types can be characterized in terms of job or role preferences that best match their personality. MBTI is highly criticized in terms of its being useful in analyzing or conceptualizing personality into specific “types”. The MBTI reports reliability coefficients for its four scales on general population samples in the ranges from 0.61 to 0.87. Its dimensions had been questioned in terms of its validity, and the lack of differentiation in interpreting a high score and a low score was also pointed out. Despite such issues, however, the test remains to be one of the most widely used in the I/O field. The MBTI’s underlying theory, the Five – Factor model of Personality, gave birth to the NEO – PI (P.T. Costa, 1996) and the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan and Hogan, 1992). Since the mentioned tests had the Big 5 Theory as a back up, numerous studies supporting the theories also reflect support for these tests: In a meta-analysis that they have performed in 1991, Barrick and Mount suggested that extroversion is indeed a valid predictor of job performance, especially those that require social interactions. In 1998, Tokar, Fisher and Subich found out that there is a link between many aspects of work – related behavior including career progression, vocational interests and job performance. Salgado (1997) found out that the consistency of the correlation of conscientiousness with job performance is cross – cultural. Hurtz and Donovan made a major meta-analysis of the Big 5 Theory and suggested that the validity coefficients for correctly predicting job performance criteria were not that high, only about 0.20. A report by Collins and Gleaves (1998) stated that the Big 5 Theory was applicable for both Black and White job applicants and also for Blue and White collar job seekers. Having reviewed the literature, it would be safe to assume that the theory underlying the MBTI, the NEO – PI and the Hogan Personality Inventory is a durable framework for taking into consideration the differences across nations. McCral and Costa (1997) have even stated that their pattern of interrelationships may be considered universal. Furthermore, these personality tests give a predictive validity that is “incremental” beyond intelligence tests (Judge, et al., 1999). 1. PROJECTIVE PERSONALITY TESTS THE RORSCHACH TEST (RIM) The Rorschach Inkblot Method had long been used and is still being used by I/O psychologists as a means of gathering information regarding the emotional, cognitive and social functioning of a job seeker 43% of the total population of clinical psychologists use the RIM. However, it had been found that only 24% of school psychologists actually utilize the test (Stinnett, Havey, and Oehler-Stinnett, 1994) which may mean that RIM is more suitable in the work place setting. However, there had been many criticisms regarding the nature, the use, and interpretation of the RIM. To start with, administering the test requires a lot of time. On the contrary, Gacono, DeCato, Brabender and Goertzel (1997), have argued that it is the skill level of the administrator that ascertains the test duration. In other words, if the administer is skilled, the test can be administered in less time rather than the time taken by an unskilled administrator. Another criticism that RIM faces is that the test is not cost-effective in terms of time-to-benefit ratio. The test can be valuable if it is administered as a part of multi-method strategy (Hughes, Gacono, and Owen, 2007) although a single method can be used for data collection. The disadvantage of using a single method can be in the long run where this data can be limited, shallow and give narrow understanding of the test-taker’s responses (Meyer, et al., 2001; Myers and Winters, 2002). The RIM is also criticized on the basis of psychodynamic orientation which is necessary for effective and efficient RIM interpretation. It was defended by the supporters as a false claim because Rorschach had been embraced by the psychodynamic field of psychology when it was first introduced. However, such acceptance did not necessarily mean that the RIM is based on a psychodynamic view (Constantino, Flanagan and Malady, 1995). Despite the criticisms, several supporters of the RIM expressed positive descriptions of the method based on substantial empirical evidences (Ganellen, 1996; Viglione, 1999; Viglione and Hilsenroth, 2001; Weiner et al., 2002). Studies on test validity also show support for the RIM. There exist meta-analyses which thoroughly elaborated on the effectiveness of the method (Atkinson, 1988; Atkinson, Quarrington, Alp and Cyr, 1986; Bornstein, 1996; Hiller, Bornstein, Rosenthal, Berry end Brunell-Neulib, 1999; Parker, Hunsley and Hansen, 1988). After correcting several problems that were not addressed by the previous meta-analyses, Hiller and colleagues (199) have found that the Rorschach test’s indices have “unweighted” mean effect size of .29. The Rorschach test had also been found to be suitable for both clinical and research areas (Piotrowski, 1996; Piotrowski and Keller, 1989; Piotrowski, Shevey and Keller, 1985). Finally, Hughes, Gacono, and Owen (2007) gave four distinct advantages of the RIM: 1. The variables included in the RIM provide a clear context for understanding the data that are obtained from self-report measures. 2. RIM assessment may provide a better way of collecting a standardized behavior sample aside from the self-report or interview. That is, the behavior of the job seeker maybe observed while the test is being conducted. 3. Since the RIM images are ambiguous, responses are expected to vary greatly, and thus may provide a better performance prediction. The variables of the RIM are resistant to the test-taker’s efforts to hide difficulties or to inaccurately present themselves in the hopes of establishing good impression (bornstein, Rossner, Hill and Stepanian, 1994; Brems and Johnson, 1991; Ganellen, 1994; Harder, 1984; Shedler, Mayman and Manis, 1993). Unlike the objective personality tests which were previously discussed, the RIM minimizes the test-taker’s chances of faking a response. 4. The data gathered from the RIM aids the psychologists in targeting specific interventions. The RIM’s contribution to the proper understanding of a potential employee’s traits, skills, difficulties, and conflicts is very important in the selection of employees (Hughes, Gacono, and Owen, 2007). 6. DISC DISC stands for Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Conscientiousness. These are the four behaviors that this test is based on. Although this is not a complete personality test, it does provide an insight into individual’s style which can be used to predict their behavior trends. DiSC uses a measurement technique that is known as “forced-choice.” According to this format respondents are presented with four adjectives and then are asked to choose one that is most like them and one that is least like them. According to the Disc Validation Research Report, the four scales of DiSC Classic have been assessed for their test-retest reliability over different time periods and have produced the following coefficients: According to the above validity criterion, it can be clearly assumed that this test is very unreliable as these coefficients cannot be achieved unless some biasness is involved either from the side of the test-takers or the administrators. The DiSC personality assessment can in other words be said that it is a subjective test. 7. ASSESSMENT CENTERS An assessment center is defined as “a method of assessing job candidates via a series of structured, group-oriented exercises that are evaluated by raters” (Muchinsky, 2007). These centers give services that are related to job candidate evaluation. These specialized centers were pioneered by the researchers who work at AT&T who were then studying the lives of managers over the span of their managerial career. Thus, it may be reflected that assessment centers typically evaluate and analyze jobs at the managerial-level. Given different tests, the job seeker provides important information about his or her performance. The centre’s raters then evaluate the job seeker’s on a series of performance dimensions that were viewed as essential for the job desired. The dimensions include practical judgment, leadership, and decision-making and interpersonal relation skills—most typically associated with managerial jobs. The raters will then prepare a report include a feedback section which reflects important notes on the job seeker. The raters will then forward their recommendations for the organization to review and consider (Muchinsky, 2007) Assessment centers can identify who among a batch of test takers have a potential for success in management. These centers have been successful in their aim of selecting the right people for the right job. However, ratings that were from the assessment of these centers seem to be better predictors of advancement or edge, than of performance. A study by Jansen and Stoop (2001) found that there is a .39 correlation between the assessment center ratings and career advancement over a seven-year period. Despite such good predictions, evaluations coming from assessment centers are particularly prone to criterion contamination (Muchinsky, 2007). A possible source of such contamination is when the overall judgments of performance are based on several evaluation methods such as test, interviews, and others. Different methods having different validities may affect the overall evaluation. But since the incremental value of the mentioned methods are only implied in the general judgment, it may be arguable how much the center’s ratings actually contribute to predicting the future job performance beyond the district methods that were also used. Kleinmann (1993) suggested that there is evidence that the test-takers actually have an idea on how to impress their raters. They “fashion” their behaviors according to the dimension that is being assessed. Another source of contamination is subtler. Klimoski and Strickland (1977) stated that the evaluations made by the assessment center and predictive because the stereotypes of both the raters and the supervisors of the company of what an “effective employee” is are congruent. The center’s raters tend to give higher evaluations to jib seekers who fit into the “good management talent” stereotype while the supervisors tend to give higher evaluations to applicants who fit into the “good company people” stereotype. Lievens and Klimoski (2001) made a similar statement: “Assessors do not judge assesses exclusively on the basis of the prescribed dimensions but also take into account the fit of the applicants into the culture of the organization” (p. 259) This would be in the long run, result into employee homogeneity within the organization. Klmoski and Brickner (1987) concluded that the evaluations made by the assessment centers are not questionable in terms of its validity, and this is an issue that has not been addressed in I/O psychology at that time. The authors then give five possible explanations to this phenomenon: 1. Actual criterion contamination-assessment evaluations by assessment centers had been used by different companies to help them make decision on raises, promotions, and rated job performance. There is then confusion between the criteria. 2. Subtle criterion contamination – as was mentioned earlier, biased assessment evaluations have a relationship with biased performance evaluations. 3. Self-fulfilling prophecy – companies request their “potential” employees to attend assessment centers, then after the evaluation; those same individuals are actually the ones who get ahead ion the company. 4. Performance consistency – individuals who usually succeed in work-related activities also succeed in different areas such as in assessment centers, in training, on the actual job, and so on. They are inherently good performers. Thus, success in the evaluation done by assessment centers may also mean success on the job. 5. Managerial intelligence – the knowledge, skills, and abilities that were required in order to be successful in assessment centers and on the job have so much in common. Talents such as analytic reasoning, verbal skills, and well-developed plans of action are more often than not, acquired by people who are more intellectually capable. Klimoski and Strickland (1977) refer to such construct “managerial intelligence”. Assessment centers have been the subject of recent researches. Previous researches addressed whether assessment evaluations were predictive of job success and found that indeed, they were. More recent studies tackled the limitations of this method of assessment and the possible reasons why they are predictive (Muchinsky, 2007). Of the tests that were discussed, none seemed to have considered the value of employee engagement. The mentioned tests focused on personality and intelligence as predictors of job performance, but not of employee engagement. The term may be used to refer to psychological state engagement, behavioral engagement and trait engagement. According to Macey and Schneider (2008), having engaged employees may be an advantage to a company, especially if engagement “produces effects at levels of analysis of concern to management”. As we can see, employee engagement is as important as employee's job performance, and it would be worthy to notice that such factor wasn't considered in existing tests. One characteristic of tests is that these are designed in such a way that selection would but effective, but employee retention is not as necessary. It might be worthy to study how the prediction of employee engagement might help in the selection of employees. LEGAL ISSUES ON SELECTION Current issues on selection not only deal with the reliability and validity of the predictors that are being used. Some concerns on the legal environment for selection have also been of interest to researchers. An extensive study done by Myors et al (2008) grouped the existing perspectives of 22 countries on the aspects of the legal environment for employee selection into four groups: issues on disadvantaged groups, discrimination laws, minority preference, and specific I/O tools and impact on I/O. The first group of perspectives is centered on disadvantaged groups. According to Myors et al (2008), disadvantaged groups may be divided into four subgroups: foreigners, religious groups, ethnic minorities, and language group minorities. In the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan, a large percent of the disadvantaged groups is composed of ethnic minorities. It has also been found that very few nations considered having studies that would focus on the mean differences of cognitive ability, personality, and job performance and that in terms of cognitive ability, results usually favor men—who happen to belong to the advantaged group (Myors et al, 2008). It shows that tests used in employee selection do not cut across cultural differences. Thus, in a company accepting applicants from different parts of the country and administering a single test, that company is most likely to hire members of the advantaged group (that is why they are called such). And members of the advantaged group do not necessarily have all the talents that would make them fit for the job. The only difference is that they fully comprehend the test and may even have a hint on what the test is trying to measure, as opposed to applicants who, for instance, do not fully understand the language of the test, or cannot fully relate to the situations simulated. The second group of perspectives collected by Myors et al (2008) tackled the discrimination laws. The researchers have found that in many countries, only a few actual cases of discrimination were actually filed or brought to court. This is not because the victims accept that discrimination did not really occur, but because a large number of the workers do not know or understand their rights, do not know how to protect such rights, or do not see any gain in bringing the matter to the court. Furthermore, it was found that many countries do not make use of important workforce comparisons as their basis for discrimination (Myors et al, 2008). According to the research, most countries do not require validity evidence, and that the empirical validity of tests that were used for selection is implicitly assumed (Myors et al, 2008). However, if the test was done by only a single person from the HR department, without an I/O psychology training, there is a risk of creating an invalid test that is based on in-group biases. Such tests may cause subtle discrimination, eliminating members of the disadvantaged groups at once. The third group of perspectives is called the minority preference. Explicit banning of preferential treatment is rare (Myors et al, 2008). It has also been found that private-sector companies do not engage in preferential treatment. This can be viewed positively or negatively. If by minority, I mean, a group of exceptionally talented individuals then the disadvantaged group remains on the lower job positions. But if we mean, racial minority, women, or the handicapped, then opportunities are given to those who are previously disadvantaged. The last group of perspectives determined by Myors et al (2008) discusses the specific I/O tools and their impact on Industrial/Organizational psychology. The field is young, but is growing rapidly. It is not surprising why the tools of the I/O psychology field are not yet referenced explicitly in local laws or in common legal practices. Large companies seem to set the trend in terms of what tests should be used, since they seem to be more knowledgeable of the “social and business pressures for effective selection” (Myors et al , 2008). What then, would be a universal standard in terms of choosing a test or a predictor? The answer is yet to be finalized. As studies replicate, new information about the validity, reliability, and accuracy of tests are being found. It is therefore recommended that more studies be done on the applicability of tests in both the advantaged and disadvantaged groups. From an individual’s perspective, personality is her/his perceptions of herself or himself across a wide variety of situations (Hogan, 2001, 875). Accordingly, most tests measure personality in a manner that is expected to generalize across situations. However, the global nature of such tests can lead to ambiguity in the manner in which test-takers may respond and lower criterion-related validity (e.g., Hunthausen, Truxillo, 2001, 531; Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995, 608). Mischel and Shoda (1995, 246) point out that despite the popular view of personality as stable across time and situations, research often shows surprising variability across contexts. In an attempt to explain such variability, they proposed the cognitive-affective personality system. Their model suggests that individuals react to situational cues; these cues influence cognitive processing dynamics, which in turn elicit different reactions, or personality manifestations, depending on the situation. It is thought that when global personality items are used, it is difficult to predict what cues individuals will focus on. Some test-takers may respond in accordance with how they perceive their personality across situations while others may respond specifically to how they view themselves at work, home, or elsewhere. On a related point, researchers have argued that a test- taker’s FOR varies depending on why they are taking the personality test. Specifically, Schmit and Ryan (1993, 966) argue that in applicant samples a sixth “ideal employee” factor emerges that is not observed in student samples. Thus, failing to provide a common FOR may have negative consequences for the psychometric properties of personality tests. In fact, researchers have demonstrated that providing a work-specific FOR can lead to more positive scale scores and significantly less prediction error (Hunthausen et al., 2003, 547; Schmit et al., 1995, 609). For example, Hunthausen et al. (2003, 550) recently demonstrated that when a work-specific FOR was provided, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience all were significantly correlated to job performance, whereas the same constructs measured with general personality items were not related to job performance. Pre-Test Information While altering personality items to include an “at-work” FOR may improve test responses and reactions, it may also be possible to collect similar benefits by simply informing test-takers that the test is job-related. Research suggests that providing pre-test information to test-takers can influence the psychometric quality of test responses. For example, Schmit et al. (1995, 610) manipulated test instructions to remind test-takers to respond as actual job applicants; their results showed higher scale scores compared with a general instruction condition. However, they did not measure test perceptions, and their instructions were not direct manipulations of job-relatedness or procedural justice (i.e., describing how and why the test is related to performance on the job). Overall, research suggests that providing relevant information prior to testing can have important benefits on test responses and post-test reactions. However, little research has actually examined how providing test-takers with relevant information might foster more favorable test perceptions, and improves the psychometric properties of personality tests. The use of personality tests for selection purposes is currently an area of considerable interest (Rough & Oswald, 2000). Much of this renewed appeal stems from meta-analyses showing moderate criterion-related validities for traits based on the Five Factor Model (FFM) (Barrick & Mount, 2001, 23; Rough, 1998; Mount & Barrick, 1995, 155), and from research showing that personality tests often produce smaller subgroup differences than cognitive ability tests (e.g., Rough, 1998; Schmitt, Clause, & Pulakos, 1996, 115). Recent research has moved beyond trying to demonstrate the validity of personality tests to exploring approaches for enhancing responses to, and perceptions of, these tests. The Gilliland (2003, 691) model of organizational justice delineates several potential approaches to realizing this goal as it is the dominant framework for studying applicant reactions (e.g., Ryan & Ployhart, 2000, 566) and has been widely used and supported in previous research (e.g., Bauei Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998; Gilliland, 2004, 694; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998, 3). This model proposes 10 justice rules that, if satisfied or violated, will engender positive or negative test-taker reactions, respectively. Research hypothesis The purpose of the present study is to compare and contrast two approaches for enhancing personality test scores and perceptions; manipulating the job-relatedness of a test by providing an “at-work” frame-of-reference (FOR) and the information provided to the test-takers. This is important because relatively few studies have examined combinations of procedural justice rules as a means of enhancing test perceptions. The present study tests and extends portions of the Gilliland (2003, 694) justice model to better understand the relationship between reactions and personality tests. Specifically, I will manipulate two key procedural justice rules (i.e., job-relatedness and information), by altering items to include work-specific FOR and by providing pretest validity information. I will examine how these manipulations influence not only test-taker reactions but also actual test responses, to a popular measure of the FFM of personality. Gilliland’s (2003, 691) organizational justice model is perhaps the dominant framework for studying applicant reactions (e.g., Ryan & Ployhart, 2000, 566) and has been widely used and supported in previous research (e.g., Bauei Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998; Gilliland, 2004, 694; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998, 3). REFERENCES 1. Anastasi. A. and Urbina. S. (1997) Psychological testing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 2. Ackerman, P.L., & Heggested, E.D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence of overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245. 3. Atkinson. L., (1988). The comparative validities of the Rorschach and MMPI. Canadian Psychology, 27. 238-347. 4. Atkinson, L., Quarrington, B., Alp. I.E. & Cyr. J.J. (1986). Rorschach validity: An empirical approach to the literature. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42. 360-362. 5. Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and the job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. 6. Brems. C., & Johnson. M.E. (1991). Subtle-obvious scales of the MMPI: Indicators of profile Validity in psychiatric population. Journal of Personality Assessment. 56. 536-544. 7. Bornstein. R.F. Rossner. S.C. Hill E.L. & Stepanian, M.I. (1994). Face validity and take ability of objective and projective measures of dependency: Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363-386. 8. Butcher, J. N., dahlstrom, W. G., Graham , J. R., Tellegen. A., & Kaemmer. B. (1989). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press. 9. Campbell, D., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Campbell interest and skill survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. 10. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personalityand mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 11. Chan, D. (1997). Racial subgroup differences in predictive validity perceptions on personality and cognitive ability tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 311 320. 12. Collins, J.M., & Gleaves, D.H. (1998). Race , job applicants, and the five factor model of personality: Implications for black psychology, Industrial/Organizational psychology, and the five factor theory. Journal of Applied Psyhology, 83, 531-544. 13. Constantino, G.I-Ianagan, R., & Malgady R. (1995). The history of the Rorschach: Overcoming bias in multicultural projective assessment. In 1B. Weiner (Ed). Rorschachiana Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. 14. Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L. E., (1972). An MMPI handbook: Volume 1. Clinical interpretation (Rev. ed.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 15. Exner. J.E. (1993). The Rorschach A comprehensive system Basic foundations and principles of interpretation (Vol. 1. 3rd ed.) New York Wiley. 16. Fink, A.M. and Butcher, J.N. (2002) Reducing objections to personality inventories with special instructions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 631 639. 17. Fussel, M. T., & Karol, D.L. (1994). 16PF – Fifth Edition: Administrator’s manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. 18. Gacono, C., DeCato. C., Brabender. V. & Goertzel, T. (1997) Vitamin C or Pure C: The Roschach of Lions Painting. In J.R. Meloy M. Acklin. C.B. Gacano. C. Peterson, & J. 19. Murray (Eds) Contemporary Rorschach interpretation Mahwah. NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 20. Ganellen. R.J. (1994). Attempting to conceal psychological disturbance. MMPI defensive sets and the Rorschach: Journal of Personality Assessment. 63. 423-437. 21. Ganellen. R.J (1996). Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of the MMPI, MCMI-II, and Rorschach: Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 219-243. 22. Gilliland, SW. (2003) The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 694—734. 23. Gilliland, SW. (2004) Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reaction% to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 691 701. 24. Graham. J.R. (2000) The MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press. 25. Harder, D.W. (1984). Character style of the defensively high self-esteem man. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 26-35. 26. Hathaway, S.R., & Mckinley, J.C., (1976) MMPI manual (Rev. ed.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 27. Hiller, J.B. Rosenthal. R., Bornstein, R.F., Berry. D.T. & Brunell-Neuleib. S. (1999). A comparative meta- analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity: Psychological Assessment, 11, 278-296 28. Hogan, R.T., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory. Tulsa, Ok: Hogan Assessment Systems. 29. Hogan, R. T., & Hogan, J., & Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477. 30. Hogan, R.T. (2001) Personality and personality measurement. In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. 31. Horvath, M., Ryan, A.M. and Stierwalt, S. (2000) Explanations for selection test use, outcome favorability and self-efficacy: What influences test-taker perceptions? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 310 330. 32. Hough (Eds.), Hanhook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 873 919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 33. Hughes, T.L., Gacano, C.B., & Owen, P.F. (2007). Current status of Rorschach Assessment: Implications for the school psychologist: Psychology in the Schools. 44 (3). 281-291. 34. Hunthausen, J.M., Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N. and Hammer, L.B. (2003) A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545 551. 35. Jones, J.W. (2001) Assessing privacy invasiveness of psychological test items: Job relevant versus clinical measures of integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 531 535. 36. Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., & Cable, D.M> (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 383-406. 37. Kehoe J.F. (2000). Research and practice in selection. In J.F. Kehoe (Ed.) Managing selection in changing organizations ( pp. 397-437). San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. 38. Kleinmann, M. (1993). Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 988-993. 39. Klimoski, R.J., & Strickland, W.J. (1977). Assessment centers—valid or merely prescient? Personnel Psychology, 30, 353-361. 40. Kluger, A.N. and Rothstein, H.R. (2003) The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 3 25. 41. Lievens, F., & Klimoski, R.J., (2001). Understanding the assessment center process: Where are we now? In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.) International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 245-286). 42. Macan, T.H., Avedon, Mj. Paese, M. and Smith, D.E. (1994) The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715 738. 43. Macey W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1 (2008). 3-30. 44. Marks. P.A., Seeman. W., & Haller, D.L. (1974). The actuarial use of the MMPI with adolescents and adults. New York Oxford University Press. 45. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American 46. Psychologist, 52, 586-516. 47. Meyer, G.J., & Archer, R.P. (2001). The hard science of Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go? Psychological Assessment, 13, 486-502. 48. Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. (1995) A cognitive—affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situation%, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246 268. 49. Mount M.K. and Barrick, M.R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 13. 153 200. 50. Myers, K., & Winters N.C. (2002). Ten –year review of rating scales: 1. Overview of scale functioning, psychometric properties, and selection. Journal of American Academic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 114-122. 51. Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schoallert, E. et al (2008). International perspectives on the legal environment for selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1. 206-246. 52. Naglieri, J.A., Drasgow, F., Schmitt, M., Handler, L., Prifiteria, A., margolis, A., K. Velasquez, 53. R. (2004). Psychological testing on the Internet; New problems, old issues. American Psychologist. 59, 150-162. 54. Olson, G.T., & Matlock, S.G. (1994). Review of the Sixteen PF Personal Career Development Profile (PCDP). In J.T. Kapes, M> M> Mastie, & E>A> Whitfield (EDS.), A counselor’s guide to career assessment instruments (3rd ed., pp. 302-305). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Associates. 55. Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: the red herring. Journal of applied Psychology. 81,660-679. 56. Parker, K.C., Hanson, R.K. & Hunsley, J. (1988). MMPI. Rorschach, and WAIS: a Meta analytic comparison of reliability, stability and validity. Psychological Bulletin. 103, 367-373. 57. Ployhart, R.E. and Ryan, A.M. (1998) Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3 16. 58. Ployhart, R.E., Ryan, A.M. and Bennett, M. (1999) Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants’ reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84. 87 106. 59. Ployhart, R.E., Ziegert, J.C. and McFarland, L.A. (2003) Understanding racial differences on cognitive ability tests in selection contexts: An integration of stereotype threat and applicant reactions research. Human Performance, 16. 231 259. 60. Porter, E. H. (1976). On the development of relationship awareness theory: A personal note. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 302-309 61. Piotrowski. C. (1996). The status of Exner’s Comprehensive System in Contemporary research: Perceptual and Motor skills. 82, 1341-1342. 62. Piotrowski, C., Sherry, D., & Keller J.W. (1985). Psychodiagnostic test usage: A survey of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment. 49, 115-119. 63. Piotrowski, C., Sherry. D., & Keller. J.W. (1989). Use of assessment in mental health clinics and services: Psychological Reports. 64, 1298. 64. Reid, J. (2000). Iatial evaluations of mainstream personality tests for use with visually impaired adults in vocational assessment and guidance. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94(4), 229-232. 65. Rogers, R., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., & Jordan, M.J. (2006) The MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales: a paradigmatic shift in scale development. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2) 139-147. 66. Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000) Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26. 565 606. 67. Rynes, S.L. (2003) Who’s selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant attitudes and behaviors. In N. Schmitt and W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 240 274). Jossey-Bass. 68. Rynes, S.L. and Connerley, M.L. (2003) Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 261 277. 69. Schmit, Mj. and Ryan, A.M. (1993) The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant population%. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78. 966 974. 70. Schmitt, M.J., Ryan, A.M., Stierwalt, S.L. and Powell, A.B. (1995) Frame-of-Reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607 630. 71. Schmitt, N., Clause, CS. and Pulakos, E.D. (1996) Subgroup differences associated with different measures of some common job-relevant constructs. International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 11. pp. 115 139). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 72. Shedler, J., Mayman, M. & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American Psychologist, 48, 1117-1131. 73. Simms, L.J. (2006). Bridging the divide: comments on the restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2), 211-216. 74. Smith, D.B., Hanges, P.J. and Dickson, M.W. (2001) Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Reexamining the effects of applicant’s frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86. 304 315. 75. Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Pearlman, K. and Stoffey, R.W. (2003) Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49 76. 76. Stinnett. T.A., Havey, J.M., & Ochler-Stinnett. J. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists. A national survey. Journal of Psycho educational Assessment. 12, 331. 77. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1939). Strong vocational interest blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 78. Tellegen. A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi. P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation an interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 79. Trochim, W. (2001). The research methods knowledge base, 1st Edition. OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. 80. Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, TN., Campion, M.A. and Paronto, M.E. (2002) Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1020 1031. 81. Viglione, D.J., (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach: 82. Psychological Assessment. 11. 251-265. 83. Viglione. D., & Hilsenroth, M. (2001). The Rorschach Facts, fictions, and future. Psychological Assessment, 13, 452-471. 84. Wallis, T.K., & Birt, M. (2003). A comparison of native and non-native English-speaking groups: Understanding of the vocabulary contained within the 16PF (SA92). South African Journal of Psychology. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Sielkunde, 33(3), 182-190. 85. Walter, V. (2000a). 16PF personal career development profile: Information and product pricing guide. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from www.ipat.com. 86. Walter, V. (2000b). 16Pf personal career development profile: Technical and interpretive manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. 87. Walter, V. (2000c). 16PF --- Fifth Edition: Personal career development profile. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. 88. Werner. I.B., Spielberger, C.D., & Abeles, N. (2002). Scientific psychology and the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Clinical Psychologists, 55, 7-12. 89. Leon. (December 2007). Personality Test Problems .Sox First. Retrieved August 15,2008 from http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/personality_test_problems.php 90. Gordon, R. M. (2001). MMPI/MMPI-2 Changes in Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. Issues in Psychoanalytic Psychology 91. Disc Validation Research Report. Inscape Publishing. Read More