Contextualized personality measures in employee selection: Extending frame‐of‐reference research with job applicant samples

Abstract

This study compared contextualized and non-contextualized personality measures in operational hiring situations, unlike previous research which has largely relied on student or job incumbent samples. Comparisons were made with regard to (A) the frames-of-reference adopted by applicants when responding to the measures, (B) relations with subsequent employment interview scores, (C) applicant reactions, and (D) mean scores for the personality scales. The findings highlight potential concerns with using non-contextualized personality measures for employee selection, as job applicants will likely adopt various frames-of-reference unrelated to the intended focus of measurement (i.e., work). Results also indicated that it may be premature to assume contextualized measures elicit improved applicant reactions despite their apparent job-relatedness. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijsa

Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality––A combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective

“…These methods could be tailored to focus on the context‐specificity of personality judgments. Finally, researchers could also present individuals prespecified context‐categories after completing a personality inventory (Fisher et al, 2017; McCune, 2010).…”

“…Although the literature suggests that imposing a frame‐of‐reference makes the context of items in personality tests less ambiguous, thus, decreasing the variability of the individuals' construals (Lievens et al, 2008), some variability may remain. This may be because individuals still focus on different information in the specified context (see also Fisher, Cunningham, Kerr, & Allscheid, 2017). Individuals who work from home may still focus on work‐related tasks when answering “at home” contextualized Conscientiousness items, whereas others may focus on domestic chores.…”

Enabling Corporate Sustainability from a Talent Acquisition Perspective

“…A close examination of the research literature designates that empirical findings have, to a great extent (although not entirely), substantiated benefits of using measures and ratings to quantify the decisions [68]. Methods such as training the interviewer may be useful in eliminating biases to an extent, but not entirely [65].…”

Measuring moral disengagement with a situational judgment test: Advancing the assessment of an important workplace construct

“…A growing body of research in the domain of personality measurement highlights the potential value of measures that are directly work‐contextualized (Hunthausen et al., 2003; Lievens et al., 2008; Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012). This is based on the idea that contextualization has the potential to reduce measurement error and improve predictive validity, as respondents are less likely to provide responses based on various idiosyncratic domains of life (e.g., school and romantic), and instead will provide responses directly relevant to the intended domain of application (e.g., work; Fisher et al., 2017). This same logic can be extended to the measurement of MD.…”