PERSONALITY TESTING IN PERSONNEL SELECTION - LOVE IT? LEAVE IT? UNDERSTAND IT!

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Melati

Personality Testing in Personnel Selection - Love It? Leave It? Understand It! examines how predictive validity guides the evaluation of selection procedures and why personality tests differ from other established methods. The text reviews decades of research and debates on whether personality measures can forecast job performance, drawing on meta-analyses such as Barrick and Mount’s Big Five findings. It contrasts two perspectives: advocates emphasizing conscientiousness and related traits versus critics highlighting small correlations, limited general theories, and applicant faking that can distort rankings and selection decisions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages39

Reading Time1 h 38 min

AccessFree to download

Love it or Leave it: The validity discussion of personality testing

Predictive validity and the selection problem

The love it perspective

The leave it perspective

Ongoing use of personality tests

Diekmann, J., & König, C. J. (in press) . Personality testing in personnel selection: Love it? Leave it? Understand it! In I. Nikolaou & J. Oostrom (eds.), Employee recruitment, selection, and assessment: Contemporary issues for theory and practice. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. PERSONALITY TESTING IN PERSONNEL SELECTION: LOVE IT? LEAVE IT? UNDERSTAND IT! Janina Diekmann Cornelius J. König Universität des Saarlandes LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT: THE VALIDITY DISCUSSION OF PERSONALITY TESTING The quality of selection procedures is judged primarily by looking at predictive validity results, as the prediction of performance at work is clearly the most important issue for the practice of personnel selection. Based on these results, researchers have made recommendations to improve methods such as the interview (Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012; McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994) or have contributed to the abandonment of methods with no predictive quality, such as graphology (Driver, Buckley, & Frink, 1996) . Although most established selection methods such as mental ability tests or assessment centers have been found to be valid, the situation is significantly different with regard to personality testing. Discussions about whether personality tests are valid instruments began 60 years ago, with studies finding moderate but profession-dependent results at best (Ghiselli & Barthol, 1953) and generally troubling results at worst (Guion & Gottier, 1965) . This discussion was intensified when, in their Big Five meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) found conscientiousness to be the only trait that was generally and at least moderately predictive of work performance, whereas the other four Big Five traits showed only small correlations which varied between different occupations. Currently, the debate about whether or not one should use personality tests in personnel selection procedures is dominated by two perspectives, both of which are supported by good arguments. On the one hand, there are those advocators of personality tests who “love it”(e.g., Bartram, 2004; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005): The findings of Barrick and Mount (1991) as well as further meta-analyses (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997) and a second-order meta-analysis (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001) are used to argue that there are consistent correlations and to support the central role of conscientiousness and (in part) of emotional stability in predicting job performance. Although the other Big Five traits were not related to overall work performance, they were able to predict specific professions or criteria. Numerous studies and meta-analyses explored the personality-performance relationship. For example, they examined the longitudinal impact of the Big Five on career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) using specific criteria such as job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), or specific occupations or roles such as social professions (Blickle & Kramer, 2012) or leadership roles (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002) . In these studies and metaanalyses, researchers frequently found high validities (for a detailed overview of research, see Rothstein & Goffin, 2006) . Moreover, advocates of personality measures in personnel selection argue that personality traits particularly predict typical performance, whereas general mental ability particularly predicts maximum performance (e.g., Marcus, Goffin, Johnston, & Rothstein, 2007) . Some debate within the “love it” group concerns the preference for broad or narrow personality traits: While some researchers recommend using all relevant personality traits together to maximize validity (Barrick & Mount, 2005) or using so-called compound personality traits (Ones et al., 2005; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996) to predict overall job performance, others believe that narrow traits (and specific criteria) with well-considered theoretical assumptions of the traitperformance re

FAQs

Why is predictive validity central in personnel selection decisions?

Selection procedures are judged primarily by predictive validity results, because predicting work performance is the most important practical issue in personnel selection.

What does the debate say about personality tests versus other established methods?

While mental ability tests and assessment centers have been found valid, personality testing shows a different and more contested validity pattern, with discussions starting decades ago and continuing today.

What arguments do advocates of personality testing emphasize?

Advocates argue that meta-analytic evidence supports consistent correlations—especially for conscientiousness and sometimes emotional stability—and that personality traits can predict typical performance while general mental ability predicts maximum performance.

What concerns do critics of personality testing raise?

Critics argue correlations are often small and that convincing general theories linking personality constructs to job performance are lacking, and they also highlight faking by applicants that can change rank orders and affect selection outcomes.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Melati