CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 638Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentEmployer Branding and e-HRM

RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS

Open access
MORGESON, FREDERICK P., CAMPION, MICHAEL A., DIPBOYE, ROBERT L., HOLLENBECK, JOHN R., MURPHY, KEVIN, SCHMITT, NEAL·2007·Personnel Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of personality tests in high‐stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of personality tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self‐report personality tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of personality tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self‐report personality tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self‐report personality measures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Correcting for faking using scales designed to measure deliberate lying does not seem to improve predictive validity.

    “Correcting for faking using scales designed to measure deliberate lying does not seem to improve predictive validity.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye et al. [2007]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MORGESON, F. P., CAMPION, M. A., DIPBOYE, R. L., HOLLENBECK, J. R., MURPHY, K., & SCHMITT, N.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
MORGESON, FREDERICK P.
ORCID
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
683-729
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x
OpenAlex
W2103608739
Cited by
638
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 48
FWCI
32.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 3 d)
Locations
  • Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
Keywords
personality tests, personnel selection, job performance prediction, self-report personality measures, faking, test validity, personality constructs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review