Comparison of factor scores and factor structures of NEO-PI R between job applicants and normative group

Main Article Content

SungCheol Jung

Abstract

The present study aimed to analyse the extent to which Positive Presentation Management influences on factor scores and factor structure of NEO-PI R personality inventory in the context of personnel selection. Subjects of present study are 21,349 applicants who applied for a French public transport organization and filled out NEO-PI R personality inventory during 5 years. Comparisons with French norm showed significant differences in scores of all of five factors: scores of Neuroticism and Openness are lower than French norm (deflation of factor scores) and those of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness are higher than French norm (inflation of factor scores). Confirmatory factor analysis and Procrustes rotation demonstrated that variations of factor scores due to Positive Presentation Management did not affect 5-dimensional factor structure. From these results, we can conclude that applicants' Positive Presentation Management affect factor scores but does not affect structural validity of NEO-PI R. We further proposed a norm of NEO-PI R scores for individuals in contexts of high-stakes testing.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
JungS. (2011). Comparison of factor scores and factor structures of NEO-PI R between job applicants and normative group. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 24(1), 207-229. Retrieved from https://journal.ksiop.or.kr/index.php/KJIOP/article/view/290
Section
Empirical Articles
Author Biography

SungCheol Jung, The Catholic University of Korea

Department of Psychology

Funding data

References

유태용 역. (2009). 산업 및 조직심리학(9판). 서울: 시그마 프레스.
Aluja, A., Garcia, O., & Garcia, L. F. (2004). Replicability of the three, four and five Zuckerman’s personality super-factors: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the EPQ-RS, ZKPQ and NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1093-1108.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–272.
Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 14(4), 317-335.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5–Factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 515-524.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 299-337.
Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 119-136.
Collins, J. M., & Gleaves, D. H. (1998). Race, job applicants, and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Implications for Black psychology industrial/organizational psychology, and the Five-Factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 531-544.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self reports and spouse ratings on the NEO-PI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual for the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1999). Inventario de Personalidad NEO revisado (NEO PI-R) e Inventario NEO reducido de cinco factores (NEO-FFI) [NEO PI-R, Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)]. Madrid: TEA Editions.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Rolland, J. P. (1998). Manuel de l’Inventaire NEO PI-R, Paris: ECPA.
DeFruyt, F. (2001). Faut-il prendre en compte la personnalité dans les décisions de recrutement et de sélection: Le rôle particulier de la dimension «Conscience». In C. Lévy-Leboyer, M. Huteau, C. Louche, J.-P. Rolland, La psychologie du travail: RH, les apports de la psychologie du travail, Paris: Editions d’Organisation.
DeFruyt, F., Aluja, A., García, L. F., Rolland, J. P., & Jung, S. C. (2006). Positive Presentation Management and Intelligence and the Personality Differentiation by Intelligence Hypothesis in Job Applicants. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 101-112.
Digman, J. M. (1996). The Curious History of the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins(Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, 1-20, New York: Guilford.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149-170.
Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 155-166.
Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385-400.
Furnham, A. (1990). Faking Personality Qustionnaires: Fabricating Different Profiles for Different Purposes. Current Psychology: Research & Review, 9(1), 46-55.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Hogan, J. (1998). Personality and Job Performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 125-127.
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270-1285.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). To measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273-279.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socio-analytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112.
Hogan, R. (2006). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogan, R. T., DeFruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2006). Validité et intérêt des méthodes d’évaluation de la personnalité à des fins de sélectionune perspective de psychologie appliquée aux problématiques des entreprises. Psychologie française, 51(3), 245-264.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions: Questions and Answers Robert. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469-477.
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, acquaintances, or strangers. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 180-191.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The ‘Big Five’ Personality Variables-Construct Confusion: Description Versus Prediction. Human Performance, 5(1/2), 139–156.
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future–Remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631-664.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869-879.
John, 0. P. (1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (66–100). New York: Guilford.
John, 0. P., & Srivastava S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd Edition, 102-138. New York: Guilford.
Lanyon, R.. I., & Goodstein, L. D. (1997). Personality Assessment, 3rd Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Krahe, B., Becker, J., & Zollter, J. (2008). Contextual cues as a source of response bias in personality questionnaires: The case of the NEO-FFI. European Journal of Personality, 22, 655-673.
Mahar, D., Cologon, J., & Duck, J. (1995). Response strategies when faking personality questionnaires in a vocational selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 605-609.
Marcus, B. (2009). ‘Faking’ From the Applicant's Perspective: A theory of self-presentation in personnel selection settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(4), 417-430.
Marshall, M., DeFruyt, F., Rolland, J. P., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Socially desirable responding and the factorial stability of the NEO-PI-R. Psychological Assessment, 17, 379-384.
Martin, B. A., Bowen, C. C., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 247-256.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The Person, 3rd Edition. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. N., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. P. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 552–566.
Montag, I., & Comrey, A. L. (1990). Stability of major personality factors under changing motivational conditions. In J. W. Neuliep(Ed.), Replication research in the social sciences, 253-262. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Montag, I., & Levin, J. (1994). The five-factor personality model in applied settings. European Journal of Personality, 8, 1-11.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of Social Desirability in Personality Testing for Personnel Selection: The Red Herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 660-679.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, E L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005). Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 297-308.
Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some Determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 552-567.
Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (2001). Personality: Theory and Research, 8th Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rolland, J. P. (2001). Validité interculturelle du modèle de personnalité en cinq facteurs, Psychologie Française, 46(3), 231-249.
Rolland, J. P. (2003). NEO PI-R: Inventaire de Personnalité-Révisé, Additif. ECPA: Paris.
Rolland, J. P. (2004). L’évaluation de la personnalité. Sprimont, Mardaga.
Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., Baron, H., & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 359-391.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 36-43.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Conterproductive Behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2), 117-125.
Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors used for Personnel Selection: An Overview of Constructs, Methods and Techniques. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1., London: Sage.
Sandal, G. M., Musson D., Helmreich, R. L., & Gravdal, L. (2005). Social desirability bias in personality testing: Implications for astronaut selection. Acta astronautica, 57, 634-41.
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974.
Smith, D. B. (1996). The Big Five in personnel selection: Reexamining frame of reference effects. Unpublished master thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Terracciano, A. (2003). The Italian version of the NEO-PI-R: Conceptual and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1859–1872.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.
Topping, G. D., & O'Gorman, J. G. (1997). Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(1), 117-124.
Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2001). The Stability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality in Personnel Selection and Assessment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 290-301.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorder and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment, 1, 305–316.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264.