Effects of Faking on the Predictive Validity of a Quasi-Ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventory: Implications for Sustainable Personnel Selection

Abstract

Faking behavior is one of the main problems of personality measures. For this reason, determining the potential effects of faking on personality assessment procedures is relevant. The aim of this study has been to examine the impact of faking, induced in a laboratory setting, on the predictive validity of a quasi-ipsative forced-choice (FC) inventory based on the five-factor model. It also examined whether the magnitude of the predictive validity varied depending on the type of criteria analyzed (self-reported performance ratings and grade point average). The participants were 939 students from the University of Santiago de Compostela. As expected, the results showed that: (1) conscientiousness is the best predictor of performance even under faking response conditions; (2) conscientiousness predicts performance better when it is assessed using rating scales; and (3) reliability and validity were attenuated under faking conditions. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the research and practice of personnel selection.

Quasi-ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventories and the Control of Faking: The Biasing Effects of Transient Error

“…In the present sample, test-retest reliabilities were ,82, .83, ,83, .78, and .84, for ES, EX, OE, A and C, respectively. Evidence of the convergent validity of the QI5F_tri using an SS personality inventory was reported by Otero et al (2020) and Martínez et al (2021a;2021b).…”

“…For instance, faking increases the mean and decreases the standard deviation (SD) of the score distribution of personality variables. In addition, faking also produces a decrease in reliability and criterion validity and can modify the factor structure of personality inventories (e.g., Birkeland et al, 2006;Douglas et al, 1996;Hooper, 2007;Hough et al, 1990;Martínez et al, 2021aMartínez et al, , 2021bSalgado, 2016;Salgado & Lado, 2018;Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999).…”

“…In the last few years, FC personality inventories have been recommended as measures that might better control the effects of faking than SS tests do (Adair, 2014;Cao & Drasgow, 2019;Martínez et al, 2021aMartínez et al, , 2021bMartínez & Salgado, 2021). FC personality Quasi-ipsative FC Inventories, Faking, and Transient Error…”

“…From a practical perspective, the results supported the idea that quasi-ipsative FC personality inventories are robust instruments that control faking effects. Therefore, we suggest practitioners use quasi-ipsative FC personality inventories in applied settings (i.e., personnel selection) because, in addition to being relevant predictors of organizational outcomes (e.g., Martínez et al, 2021a;Salgado et al, 2015;Salgado & Táuriz, 2014), they are robust against faking.…”

“…Faking is one of the most pervasive phenomena in work and organizational psychology (W/O) and, particularly, in the personnel selection area. For instance, empirical findings have shown that applicants can fake their responses to personality measures (e.g., the Big Five) when they are involved in an assessment process (such as personnel selection, work promotions processes, or academic decisions) increasing or decreasing their actual scores on these measures (Martínez, 2019;Martínez et al, 2021aMartínez et al, , 2021bMartínez & Salgado, 2021;Morgeson et al, 2007;Murphy, 2005;Salgado, 2016;Zickar & Gibby, 2006). Consequently, this behavior may have serious consequences for hiring and organizational decision-making because the quality of the decisions may be questionable (see, for instance, Donovan et al, 2014;Griffith et al, 2007;Martínez, 2019;Morgeson et al, 2007;Salgado, 2016).…”