This article extends the literature on 21st-century learning skills needed for workplace success by providing an empirical examination of employers’ direct communication to potential employees via job advertisements. Our descriptive analysis of 142,000 job advertisements provides two contributions. First, this is one of the first studies to empirically rank-order skill demand. In doing so, it is clear that oral and written communication, collaboration, and problem-solving skills are in high demand by employers, with particular emphasis on the pairing of oral and written communication. Furthermore, it is apparent that many of the skills suggested in the literature as being critical for workplace success are in very low demand by employers, and some were not found to be mentioned at all (e.g., social responsibility). Second, this study explicitly examined whether 21st-century skill demand varied by job characteristics, which was found to be the case, with differences being noted for both education level and degree field requirements. Results were replicated with a sample of roughly 120,000 job advertisements collected 1 year from the initial data collection. Implications for developing educational standards around 21st-century skill development are discussed.

Human behavioral factors have been insufficiently represented in structured models (e.g., ontology frameworks) of insider threat risk. This paper describes the design and development of a structured model that emphasizes individual and organizational sociotechnical factors while incorporating technical indicators from previous work. We compare this model with previous research and describe a use case to demonstrate how the model can be applied as an ontology. We also summarize results of an expert knowledge elicitation study to reveal relationships among indicators and to examine several quantitative models for assessing threat of cases comprising multiple indicators.

We describe research on a comprehensive ontology of sociotechnical and organizational factors for insider threat (SOFIT) and results of an expert knowledge elicitation study. The study examined how alternative insider threat assessment models may reflect associations among constructs beyond the relationships defined in the hierarchical class structure. Results clearly indicate that individual indicators contribute differentially to expert judgments of insider threat risk. Further, models based on ontology class structure more accurately predict expert judgments. There is some (although weak) empirical evidence that other associations among constructssuch as the roles that indicators play in an insider threat exploit-may also contribute to expert judgments of insider threat risk. These findings contribute to ongoing research aimed at development of more effective insider threat decision support tools.

No abstract

Forced‐choice (FC) measures are becoming increasingly common in the assessment of personality for high‐stakes testing purposes in both educational and organizational settings. Despite this, there has been relatively little research into the reliability of scores obtained from these measures, particularly when administered as a computerized adaptive test (CAT). This study examined the test–retest reliability of an FC personality CAT, comparing its reliability to the reliability of personality measures using a Likert‐type rating scale. Using a relatively large sample (N = 743), participants completed multiple personality measures across two time points. The test–retest reliability estimates for the personality dimensions had a mean of .63 with a mean reliability of .73 when formed into Big Five personality trait composites. The FC personality reliabilities were lower than those of the Likert‐type scales, though the findings are within the range of those found in meta‐analytic studies.