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

From critical-incident analysis and judgments by subject-matter experts, a low-fidelity simulation was developed for selecting entry-level managers in the telecommunications industry. The simulation presents applicants with descriptions of work situations and five alternative responses for each situation. It asks them to select one response they would most likely make and one they would least likely make in each situation. In a sample of approximately 120 management incumbents, simulation scores correlated from .28 (p < .01) to .37 (p < .01) with supervisory ratings of performance. These results show that samples of even hypothetical work behavior can predict performance, without the props, equipment, or role players often required by high-fidelity simulations, such as work-sample tests or assessment centers.Simulations used for employee selection typically present applicants with a task stimulus that mimics an actual job situation and elicit responses that are interpreted as direct indicators of how applicants would handle the task situation if it were actually to occur on the job. Thus, job simulations are designed more to sample job behaviors than to provide signs of underlying ability, temperament, or other traits presumed necessary for job performance. Arguing the basic tenet of behavioral consistency-that past performance is the best predictor of future performance-Wernimont and Campbell (1968) claimed that behavioral samples like those elicited by simulations can be very useful for predicting job performance, probably more useful than predispositional signs, such as results of standard ability, personality, or interest tests. Some forms of simulation, such as work samples and assessment centers, are by now familiar selection tools, and results of meta-analytic reviews show impressive support for their validity (Hunter & Hunter, 1984;Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984).Simulations vary in the fidelity with which they present a task stimulus and elicit a response. The highest fidelity simulations use very realistic materials and equipment to represent a task situation and provide applicants with an opportunity to respond almost exactly as if they were actually in the job situation. Fidelity decreases as stimulus materials and responses become less and less exact approximations of actual job stimuli and responses. At the lower end of the fidelity continuum are simulations that simply present a verbal description of a hypothetical work situation, instead of a concrete representation, and that ask applicants to describe how they would deal with the situation, instead of having them actually carry out some action to deal with it. In this article, simulations that present a

SummaryThis paper is a conceptual and methodological critique of arguments advanced by Ones and Viswesvaran (1996, this issue) favoring 'broad' over 'narrow' personality traits for personnel selection and theoretical explanation. We agree with Ones and Viswesvaran that predictors should match criteria in terms of specificity. We depart from them, however, in our view of how traits should be chosen to obtain the best possible prediction and explanation of a complex overall job performance criterion. We argue that the best criterion-related validities will be attained if researchers use a construct-oriented approach to match specific traits (i.e. traits narrower than the Big Five) to those specific job performance dimensions that have been found to be job relevant. We further argue that researchers should focus on development of theories of job performance that incorporate constructs that are both specific and meaningful. If researchers seek to emphasize only overall job performance and personality traits greater than or equal to the Big Five in breadth, we will fail to acquire a great deal of important knowledge about the nature and causes of important aspects of work behavior.

No abstract

A distinction is made between criterion measures that assess individual performance in terms of concrete job functions and those that reflect organizational outcomes several steps removed from actual behavior (e.g., salary level). It is argued that psychologists should be trying to measure and predict the former, and a modification of the method of scaled expectations is suggested as one technique for doing so. The method was used to develop nine criterion dimensions for department managers in a nationwide retail chain. The resulting behavior rating scales were compared with a summated ratings technique on a sample of 537 department managers. The behavioral scales yielded less method variance, less halo error, and less leniency error. Additional benefits from the method are also noted. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) have distinguished among the concepts of behavior, performance, and effectiveness as three outcomes of organizational roles.Behavior is simply what people do in the course of working (e.g., dictating letters, giving directions, sweeping the floor, etc.). Performance is behavior that has been evalu-.ated (i.e., measured) in terms of its contribution to the goals of the organization. Finally, effectiveness refers to some summary index of organizational outcomes for which an individual is at least partially responsible such as unit profit, unit turnover, amount produced, sales, salary level, or level reached in the organization. The crucial distinction between performance and effectiveness is that the latter does not refer to behavior directly but rather is a function of additional factors not under the control of the individual (e.g., state of the economy, nepotism, quality of raw materials, etc.).