A review of criterion-related validities of personality constructs indicated that six constructs are useful predictors of important job-related criteria. An inventory was developed to measure the 6 constructs. In addition, 4 response validity scales were developed to measure accuracy of self-description. These scales were administered in three contexts: a concurrent criterion-related validity study, a faking experiment, and an applicant setting. Sample sizes were 9,188,245, and 125, respectively. Results showed that (a) validities were in the .20s (uncorrected for unreliability or restriction in range) against targeted criterion constructs, (b) respondents successfully distorted their self-descriptions when instructed to do so, (c) response validity scales were responsive to different types of distortion, (d) applicants' responses did not reflect evidence of distortion, and (e) validities remained stable regardless of possible distortion by respondents in either unusually positive or negative directions. Recent reviews of criterion-related validity studies show that personality scales, when organized according to predictor construct, correlate significantly with a

No abstract

Mean subgroup (gender, ethnic/cultural, and age) differences are summarized across studies for several predictor domains ± cognitive ability, personality and physical ability ± at both broadly and more narrowly defined construct levels, with some surprising results. Research clearly indicates that the setting, the sample, the construct and the level of construct specificity can all, either individually or in combination, moderate the magnitude of differences between groups. Employers using tests in employment settings need to assess accurately the requirements of work. When the exact nature of the work is specified, the appropriate predictors may or may not have adverse impact against some groups. The possible causes and remedies for adverse impact (measurement method, culture, test coaching, test-taker perceptions, stereotype threat and criterion conceptualization) are also summarized. Each of these factors can contribute to subgroup differences, and some appear to contribute significantly to subgroup differences on cognitive ability tests, where Black±White mean differences are most pronounced. Statistical methods for detecting differential prediction, test fairness and construct equivalence are described and evaluated, as are statistical/mathematical strategies for reducing adverse impact (test-score banding and predictor/criterion weighting strategies).

A predictor battery of cognitive ability, perceptual‐psychomotor ability, temperament/personality, interest, and job outcome preference measures was administered to enlisted soldiers in nine Army jobs. These measures were summarized in terms of 24 composite scores. The relationships between the predictor composite scores and five components of job performance were analyzed. Scores from the cognitive and perceptual‐psychomotor ability tests provided the best prediction of job‐specific and general task proficiency, while the temperament/personality composites were the best predictors of giving extra effort, supporting peers, and exhibiting personal discipline. Composite scores derived from the interest inventory were correlated more highly with task proficiency than with demonstrating effort and peer support. In particular, vocational interests were among the best predictors of task proficiency in combat jobs. The results suggest that the Army can improve the prediction of job performance by adding non‐cognitive predictors to its present battery of predictor tests.

The authors propose a multidisciplinary model of the predictors of reemployment and test its predictive validity for explaining reemployment success. Predictor variables from the fields of economics, sociology, and psychology are incorporated into the model. Reemployment success is conceptualized as a construct consisting of unemployment insurance exhaustion and reemployment speed, and for reemployed persons, job improvement, job-organization fit, and intention to leave the new job. Direct, mediated, and moderated relationships were hypothesized and tested, clarifying the role of the variables in the reemployment process and outcome. The authors' proposal and examination of a multidisciplinary model of reemployment success contributes to a literature that has not tended to adequately cross disciplinary boundaries.