Scoring Biodata: Is it rational to be quasi‐rational?

Abstract

Five quasi‐rational biodata scales were developed by empirically keying biodata items to predict scores on a measure of the Big Five dimensions of personality. The criterion‐related validities of the quasi‐rational scales were compared to empirical and rational biodata keying methods using supervisory ratings of job performance as the criterion. Empirical keying outperformed the quasi‐rational and rational methods (which had similar validities).

Meta-analysis of biodata in employment settings: Providing clarity to criterion and construct-related validity estimates.

“…The major takeaway is that past history can explain currently existing differences in people, which in turn are related to important life criteria (e.g., job performance). These past experiences can be conceptually grouped into factors or components, such that certain experiences are expected to covary; this has been demonstrated both empirically and based on a priori theory (e.g., Cucina et al, 2013; Karas & West, 1999; Mumford & Owens, 1987; Mumford et al, 1996; Oswald et al, 2004; Sisco & Reilly, 2007; Stricker & Rock, 1998). These covarying experiences share a similar construct domain, acting either as reflective indicators caused by a latent construct, or serving as causal indicators that influence a formative construct.…”

“…Extraversion (Cucina et al, 2013); social adjustment (Reiter-Palmon & Connelly, 2000) Agreeableness Demonstrates tendency to work well with others, altruistic behavior, compliance, and modesty.…”

“…Conscientiousness (Cucina et al, 2013); need for achievement (Stricker & Rock, 1998) Emotional stability and self-confidence…”

“…Emotional stability (Cucina et al, 2013); calmness/selfassurance (Stokes et al, 1999) Openness to experience Demonstrates an appreciation of art, music, and poetry; curious, creative, imaginative, and considers new ideas.…”