Personality assessment for work: Legal, I-O, and clinical perspective

Abstract

Personality tests are reliable and valid tools that can aid organizations in identifying suitable employees. They provide utility for maximizing organizational productivity and for avoiding claims of negligent hiring. When properly deployed, personality tests (both normal and abnormal/clinical) pose little threat of violating individuals' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or other Equal Employment Opportunity-related laws and regulations. As evidenced by a dearth of successful legal challenges, even with increasing use of personality tests in recent years, organizations have become educated and sophisticated with regard to the ethical and legal use of such tests in employment settings. We predict this trend will continue, incorporating recent developments relating to contemporary models of psychopathology (Kotov et al., 2017; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005), neurobiologically informed theoretical explanations of psychopathology (DeYoung & Krueger, 2018), and the alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) included in the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition; DSM-5). Crying wolf Melson-Silimon, Harris, Shoenfelt, Miller, and Carter (2019) correctly note that contemporary models of psychopathology recognize the dimensional nature of personality disorders. However, their concerns that using normal-range personality tests in occupational assessments could violate the ADA are unfounded and exaggerated. In this comment, we first correct the focal article's interpretive errors relating to the legal context. Second, we discuss the appropriate use of normal-range personality measures in HR systems. Third, we address the nature of mental disorder diagnosis and correct misconceptions about the role of personality tests in the diagnostic process. We conclude by highlighting the scientifically appropriate and legal use of normal-range and clinical personality measures in workplace assessments. The legal perspective New models of psychopathology do not change intention and use of normal-range personality measures and have little bearing on existing EEOC guidance. Melson-Silimon et al. (2019) refer to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Enforcement Guidance (2000) that clarifies when tests might be considered medical examinations The third author of this commentary was involved in the DSM-5 development process as a member of the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group and as the workgroup's text coordinator. His service on the Work Group ended in December 2012; this commentary reflects only the positions and opinions of its three authors as independent scholars.

Selection of industrial and organisational psychology master’s students: Exploring the predictive validity of a person–job fit approach

“…The study, additionally, adds that secondary training can be used as a useful pre-screening tool to admit candidates into higher level training programmes. In general, the predictive validity of personality measures has been widely documented (Dilchert, Ones, & Krueger, 2019;Van Aarde, Meiring, & Wiernik, 2017).…”

Who will go the extra mile? Selecting organizational citizens with a personality-based structured job interview

“…An advantage of personality-based interview questions over OCB-based interview questions might be that personality traits are supposed to be more stable predictors across various situations as opposed to OCBs (Cohen, Ben-Tura & Vashdi, 2012;Fassina, Jones & Uggerslev, 2008). In addition, it might be more common and legally accepted to assess personality traits in selection settings (e.g., Dilchert, Ones & Krueger, 2019), whereas the conditions are less clear when it comes to explicitly assessing OCBs in a selection context (for an overview see Organ et al, 2011). However, more research is needed to understand whether and how the criterion-related validity of personalitybased and OCB-based interview questions differs.…”