Comprehensive Personality Analysis -...

ComprehensivePersonality

AnalysisC.P.A.

Administrator’s ManualDeveloped by J. M. Llobet, Ph.D.Developed by J. M. Llobet, Ph.D.

0159 USA

i

Table of Contents

G.Neil Assessment Products: An Investment in Your Company’s Future . . . . . . . . . . .1

Use of Assessment Products as “Tools” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Legal Aspects of Assessment Use and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Assessment Products and “Adverse Impact” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Federal Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Title VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

The Americans with Disabilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

State and Local Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Assessment Selection and Follow-Up Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

The Importance of Profiling Personalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Description of the C.P.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Using Job Analysis to Justify Use of the Test and Its Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Administration Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Scoring Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Interpretation and Use of Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Deception Scale Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Comprehensive Personality Analysis

0159 USA

ii

Table of Contents (cont.)

Interviewing with the C.P.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Appropriate Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Inappropriate Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Discussing the Results of the C.P.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Development of the C.P.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Validity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Validity Study #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Validity Study #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Validity Study #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Validity Study #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Validity Study #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Adverse Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

To ensure that you are obtaining the full benefits available to you from the use of G.Neil HR•Assessments™ products, please read all information contained in this manual carefully. By using this testing product, you are acknowledging that you have read and understand thegeneral guidelines provided in this manual, and that if you have any specific questions, you havereferred them to a competent testing and/or legal expert for advice. G.Neil and the test developerdo not accept liability for any unlawful use of this product.

Comprehensive Personality Analysis0159 USA

1

G.Neil Assessment Products: An Investment in Your Company’s FutureThe decision to use assessment products in the employment process is one that can be verybeneficial to your company in many ways. A well-designed, properly validated assessment,when used in conjunction with other employment-screening tools, can save your companyfrom investing training resources in an applicant who is not suited to perform the job forwhich he or she was hired, and, as a consequence, can help protect your company fromnegligent hiring lawsuits.

Each G.Neil assessment has been researched and developed by our own in-house staff ofassessment professionals, which includes experienced industrial psychologists.

Use of Assessment Products As “Tools”Validity studies of the assessment products we offer have shown them to be predictive of job performance and therefore quite useful during the selection process. It is important toremember that assessments should be used in conjunction with other, equally importantemployment-screening tools – such as criminal background checks, work histories andemployer references – to present a balanced picture of the particular job candidate. Only when used in coordination with one another will you be able to truly determine a “fit”between the candidate and the particular job for which he or she is applying.

Employment assessments, as defined in this manual, can be of several different varieties,including trustworthiness or integrity assessments, skills-oriented assessments and personalityassessments. Each assessment can focus on one of these elements, or may include severaldifferent components, assessing a variety of factors. Choosing the proper assessment productfor your needs is a key factor in making your selection process more effective.

Legal Aspects of Assessment Use and AdministrationAlthough employment assessments have been in use for more than 40 years, their use becamemore prevalent after the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988,which made it illegal for most private employers to use polygraph examinations as a routinepre-employment screening tool. Employment assessments that are not prohibited by theEPPA are designed to give the employer a legal way to gauge an employee’s job-related skillsand personality traits as an alternative to the polygraph test. Whereas the polygraph test isdesigned to monitor an applicant’s physiological reaction to certain questions, the employmentassessments seek to gain information on the job candidate through a series of questionsdesigned to measure certain job-related attributes.

Today, the use of employment assessments continues to increase. Many of the country’slargest corporations use these types of screening devices on a regular basis and have foundgreat success in using them to hire and promote the best candidates.

Assessment Products and “Adverse Impact”

A common misperception of these assessments is that they all tend to discriminate againstcertain classes of applicants, in violation of state and federal laws against discrimination inemployment decisions. In fact, this is not the case. While there is evidence of poorer testperformance by some members of protected classes on some skills tests that include languageand mathematical components, the use of such tests is still justified as long as the skillsassessed by the tests are essential for the successful performance of one or more of the job’skey functions. In addition, researchers have found no evidence that well-constructedpersonality assessments discriminate on any unlawful basis.

0159 USA

2

However, it is incumbent upon employers who use assessment products to constantlymonitor selection procedures to ensure that no “adverse impact” is occurring in the overallselection process. Adverse impact is defined as a situation in which there is a substantiallydifferent rate of selection in hiring, promoting or other employment decisions that works tothe disadvantage of members of a race, sex or ethnic group. If adverse impact does occur, the employer needs to be able to demonstrate the job-relatedness of the selection process. For further guidance in this area, read the Assessment Selection and Follow-Up Proceduressection of this manual.

Federal Laws

There are federal laws and regulations governing the use of “selection” tools, such as employmentassessments, insofar as they have any “adverse impact” on the employment opportunities ofprotected classes of individuals. Some of the more subtle aspects of these laws as they applyto the selection process are discussed in the section of this manual entitled Using Job Analysisto Justify Use of Test and Its Sections (Legal Implications).

Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), covering employers with 15 or moreemployees, prohibits discrimination in employment decisions on the basis of race, sex, color,religion and national origin. Title VII authorizes the use of “any professionally developedability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed,intended or used to discriminate” on any unlawful basis. In 1971, the United States SupremeCourt, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424), adopted the standard that employerpractices that had an adverse impact on minorities and were not justified by a business necessityviolated Title VII. Congress amended Title VII in 1972, adopting this legal standard.

As a result of these developments, the government sought to produce a unified governmentalstandard on the regulation of employee selection procedures because the separate governmentagencies had enforcement powers over private employers and each used different standards.This resulted in the adoption of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures(Guidelines), codified at 29 CFR Part 1607, which establishes a uniform federal position in the area of prohibiting discrimination in employment practices on the grounds of race,color, religion, sex or national origin, and applies to all public and private employers coveredby Title VII, Executive Order 11246, the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the IntergovernmentalPersonnel Act of 1970.

Highlights of the Guidelines include:

Provision of a uniform set of principles governing use of employee selection proceduresthat is consistent with applicable legal standards.

Setting out validation standards for employee selection procedures generally accepted by the psychological profession.

The Guidelines do not require a validation of the selection device unless there exists evidence of adverse impact. It is important to note also that compliance with the Guidelinesdoes not remove the affirmative action obligations for test users, including federal contractorsand subcontractors.


3

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that an employer “shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant isan individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.” (42 USCSec. 12112(d)(2)(A); see also 29 CFR Sec. 1630.13.) Inquiries into a person’s disabilities are prohibited at the pre-offer of employment stage, except in a very narrowly definedsituation where the applicant has voluntarily disclosed a medical condition requiringaccommodation. The ADA protects disabilities, not a characteristic that an employer mayconsider to be a personal flaw or undesirable aspect of an applicant’s personality. The ADAdoes not prohibit inquiries into such personality attributes as propensity for honesty, abilityto get along with others, organizational skills or management skills, to name a few examples.No question or series of questions designed to elicit information about a person’s mentalimpairment (as defined by the ADA), or questions that would even tend to elicit suchinformation, should appear on an assessment product. Each of G.Neil’s assessmentproducts has been carefully reviewed under this standard, in order to avoid any conflict with the ADA guidelines.

Recordkeeping Requirements

Various federal laws require employers to retain tests and test results for at least one yearfrom the date the test is administered or from the date of any personnel action relating to the testing, whichever is later.

State and Local Laws

Due to the wide variety, complexity and ever-changing nature of state laws, it is impossibleto summarize each state’s requirements in this brief overview. If you are unfamiliar with thestate and local laws governing the use of screening devices applicable in your locale, consultwith a qualified labor law attorney or testing specialist who may provide competent guidanceon this topic.

0159 USA

4

Assessment Selection and Follow-Up Procedures

Selection

Generally, when selecting an assessment or any other selection tool, you should choose onethat has been specifically designed to measure the skills or traits necessary for the position inquestion. It is recommended that a thorough job analysis be performed to determine thelinks between job functions and the attributes the assessment product is designed to measure.

Monitoring

Monitor your selection process to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state andlocal laws, checking your selection process for evidence of adverse impact. This should beconducted on a continual basis. G.Neil assessment products include testing logs that can beused to record each test-taker’s scores, as well as other important data that may be used tocompute your own norms and adverse-impact statistics.

Validation

Should your monitoring results indicate that adverse impact is occurring in the selectionprocedures, you should determine in which component of the selection process this ishappening. If the use of a certain assessment product is found to be the cause, you will needto conduct a validation study of the assessment. Qualified testing professionals may becontacted to help in conducting a validity study. These professionals will be able to helpdetermine if the assessment is the cause of the adverse impact and whether or not theassessment is focusing on a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. In some instances,assessments that in some contexts may be considered discriminatory may be lawful to use in others, as long as the assessment is focusing on a bona fide occupational qualification.

Scoring

Cut-offs and suggested “pass” or “fail” scores are not provided with these assessments.Instead, norms and, in some instances, average assessment scores for various levels of jobperformance are provided. This information is provided for the elements the assessment isdesigned to measure. This information is a result of the testing universe used in the validationstudies performed by G.Neil and is for demonstrative purposes only. Assessment resultsshould always be interpreted along with other information gathered through your selectionprocess, to ensure that you get a complete picture of the job candidate or employee. It isrecommended that you administer the assessment to your current employees so that youmay develop your own company-specific norms for test performance. These norms can thenbe used as benchmarks during your testing and selection process.


5

The Importance of Profiling PersonalitiesMatching the right personality to the right position or work group is critical to the success ofyour company. If the job calls for someone who can easily change duties on a regular basis,you need someone who is flexible to change. If a job calls for someone to work primarilyalone, you would want a motivated self-starter. If the work-group is in need of a strong leader,some of the qualities you may seek in an applicant are ambition, a positive attitude, goodpeople skills and the ability to make calculated risks when appropriate. Achieving the perfectfit between employee and job or work-group is directly related to personality assessment.

The HR•Assessments™ Comprehensive Personality Analysis (C.P.A.) was designed specificallyto help you match the best-suited employees to the job or work group. The C.P.A. identifiesseven primary personality dimensions and twenty-one sub-dimensions (three sub-dimensionsfor each primary dimension):

1. Service OrientationHelping Disposition: enjoys helping others Cooperation: works well with others, is able to compromise Non-confrontational: is not argumentative, not confrontational

2. ConscientiousnessOrganization: is organized, plans ahead Hard Working: works hard to get ahead Dependable: can be relied upon to get the job done

3. IntellectInvestigative: enjoys researching ideas, problems Problem Solving: enjoys solving problems Idea Generating: enjoys thinking “outside the box”

4. AmbitionCompetitiveness: is motivated by competition Leadership: enjoys being in a leadership role Risk Taking: enjoys taking calculated risks

5. ExtroversionPeople Oriented: enjoys being around other people Assertiveness: would rather take charge than be reserved Positive Attitude: always thinks the best

6. OpennessCreativity: is an innovative thinker Wide Interests: willing to try new things Artistic: is artistically inclined

7. AdjustmentTrusting: trusts the intentions of others Stress Management: handles work-related pressures well Self-Confidence: believes in self

0159 USA

6

The information gathered from the C.P.A. can be used in two beneficial ways:

• To select applicants who have compatible personalities to specific jobs or work-groups

• To identify current employees’ profiles so that their strengths can be maximized in theircurrent job or during their career development

Selecting Top Applicants

Once you have determined the essential personality dimensions necessary to perform the job,the C.P.A. can help you compare an applicant’s disposition to the requirements of that job.You could also test your existing staff to determine a benchmark and then compare applicantsto that benchmark. This would allow you to identify those individuals that would best “fit” into your work-group. Doing this should significantly increase your chances of matching the right personality to the job or department.

The C.P.A. can also be used as a powerful interviewing tool. An applicant’s responses tospecific test questions can be used to generate follow-up interview questions that furtherassess the applicant’s personality, helping you uncover hidden behavioral tendencies.

Determining Current Employee Personalities

In addition to achieving the perfect match between applicants and open positions, theC.P.A. can also be used to evaluate current employees. Using the C.P.A., managers have a better understanding of how to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses. It can also help managers choose the managerial style that works best with each employee.

Research has shown that the better the match between a worker’s personality and thepersonality dimensions required for the job, the greater the chances are for high productivityand job satisfaction. Incorporating the C.P.A. into your selection process should significantlyincrease the accuracy of your hiring decisions and assist you in determining the perfectmatch between applicant or employee and the job or work-group.


7

Description of the C.P.A.The C.P.A. provides a reliable measurement of seven personality dimensions (i.e., serviceorientation, conscientiousness, intellect, ambition, extroversion, openness, and adjustment)and their respective sub-dimensions (see page 5). The C.P.A. consists of 131 questions witha strongly agree/strongly disagree answer format. One hundred twenty-six questions focus onassessing the seven personality characteristics and 5 questions make up the Deception Scale.The Deception Scale is discussed in detail in the section of this manual titled Deception ScaleScore. Although the test is untimed, most people complete it in less than 30 minutes.

The questions that assess each dimension were developed based on information gatheredfrom an extensive review of the psychological literature that focuses on personalitymeasurement. Each question was written specifically with the employment environment inmind, unlike most other “clinically based” personality assessment instruments. Applicantsview tests designed specifically for the employment setting as more job relevant (face valid)than those developed for clinical assessment and therefore are less likely to be questioned interms of their relevance to the position being applied for. Below are the test instructions andan example of a test item.

DirectionsThe following questionnaire consists of statements that describe work-related behaviors andattitudes. Each statement is followed by a rating scale that defines the degree to which youagree or disagree with the statement. The scale ratings are defined as follows:

SA = Strongly AgreeA = AgreeN = NeutralD = Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

A sample statement similar to those found in the questionnaire is provided below.

I am always confident in my decisions. SA A N D SD

As you read each statement, please think of how it applies to you during your day-to-dayworking situations. Please circle the scale rating that best defines the degree to which youagree or disagree with each statement.

Do you have any questions?

This questionnaire contains 131 questions similar to the one presented above. There are noright or wrong answers nor is there a time limit, so please take your time and answer eachquestion carefully and honestly. You should use a ballpoint pen when completing thequestionnaire. If you make a mistake, DO NOT ERASE your mark. Draw an ✗ over yourfirst answer, then circle the desired response. Please make sure you answer every question.

The examiner will not answer any questions once you have started.

0159 USA

8

Using Job Analysis to Justify Use of Test and Its Sections (Legal Implications) From a legal standpoint, if a test is to be used for selection or promotion purposes, it isimportant that users of the test take the necessary steps to establish a clear linkage betweenthe job tasks and the occupational environments measured by the test. This relevancy shouldexist to meet the principles outlined in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee SelectionProcedures (1978) and other federal government, employment-related legislation, such asTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Americanwith Disabilities Act of 1990.

The tasks that are crucial or essential to the job in question should first be identified. Then, the occupational environment that matches the job in question can be determined.This process should be carefully documented to justify the appropriateness of the testadministered in the employee selection process.

The following are examples that indicate the relationship between job tasks and theoccupational environments described in this manual:

As a general guideline for compliance with federal discrimination and disability laws, testusers should not subject test takers to any adverse employment decision based on a testresult, unless the test result and other factors considered in the decision-making processreveal that the person does not possess qualifications that are crucial or essential to the job inquestion. To illustrate, if a test taker performs poorly on a test section designed to measureinspection skills, and inspection skills are not crucial or essential to the position for whichthe test taker is being considered, the test result should not serve as a basis for excluding thetest taker from the position. Similarly, if a test result indicates that a test taker is unable toperform certain physical tasks that are not crucial or essential to the job position at issue,

Task Personality Scale

Handles incoming service-related customer calls.

Performs all duties assigned in a timely and organized manner with little or nosupervision.

Uses available resources effectively whenproblem solving.

Directs and motivates department staff toachieve established goals and objectives.

Obtains sales leads through interactions with conference attendees.

Creates unique and innovative advertising campaigns.

Handles multiple tasks effectively.

Service Orientation

Conscientiousness

Intellect

Ambition

Extroversion

Openness

Adjustment


9

the test taker should not be excluded from that position on the basis of the test result.1

Test users can avoid this type of scenario altogether by carefully identifying the tasks that are essential to the job position at issue, and administering only those tests or test sectionsthat are appropriate and relevant to the position’s requirements.

Tests or test sections that measure proficiency in the English language also should beadministered in accordance with these principles. Thus, if spelling, grammar, vocabulary, orreading comprehension skills are not essential to a job position, a test taker should not besubjected to an adverse employment decision based on poor test results in those areas. Requiringemployees or applicants to be fluent in English may constitute national origin discrimination inviolation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if the requirement is not justified by businessnecessity or directly related to job performance. There are some limited exceptions to this rulefor jobs involving dangerous work requiring a heightened understanding of written or verbalsafety instructions in English, or service positions that require significant communication inEnglish with the public. Test users should consult with an attorney before subjecting any testtaker to an adverse employment decision on the basis of English language deficiencies.

1 If the test taker's ability to perform a particular physical task is essential to the job position at issue, the Americans with Disabilities Act mayrequire the test user to provide certain accommodations to facilitate the test taker's performance of the task at issue. Test users should consultan attorney before making any adverse employment decision based upon a test taker's physical inability to perform a task measured by a test result.

0159 USA

10

Interpretation and Use of ScoresTo help you hire the best individual for your organization or to assist you in identifying areasof strength and areas for development of your current staff, the C.P.A. scale scores should beused in conjunction with other applicant information (e.g., the applicant’s work history,references, skills assessments). A high scale score indicates that the applicant/employee islikely to demonstrate behaviors indicative of the personality dimensions the scale measures. Alow scale score suggests the individual may be deficient in that particular area.

When interpreting scale scores, do so by examining all scores. Do not focus on just one scale.For example, high scores on Extroversion, Conscientiousness and Ambition might beindicative of a highly motivated, yet responsible sales person. However, a high score onExtroversion and low scores on Adjustment and Conscientiousness may be associated withdelinquent behavior. Therefore all scale scores need to be examined together to see how theymight interact so that we might begin to predict behavior.

The definition of each C.P.A. scale is presented below.

1. Service OrientationIndividuals who score high on this scale enjoy helping others. Many times they will sacrificethemselves for the benefit of others. They tend to work cooperatively with others,compromising when necessary. They get along well with most people and are liked by many.They generally avoid arguments and are non-confrontational. The degree to which theseindividuals climb the corporate ladder will partly depend on their Ambition score. HighService Orientation and low Ambition may lead to a service-oriented manager who isunwilling to confront problem employees, nor take the necessary risks when appropriate.

Individuals who score low on Service Orientation tend to be competitive, cold and bossy.These individuals do well in occupations that involve rigid instruction (e.g., the military, law enforcement). Managers who score low on Service Orientation and high on Ambitiontend to be very demanding and task oriented. This management style may increase stresslevels within the work group while frustrating and alienating employees.

2. ConscientiousnessIndividuals with high Conscientiousness scores are organized, thoughtful, detail oriented andplan ahead. They take work very seriously and are hardworking. They are dependable andcan be counted on to get the job done. The extreme cases are workaholics who can beobsessed with cleanliness and organization. In some cases high scorers can also lean towardsbeing conservative, somewhat reserved and reluctant to change. Barrick and Mount (1991)and other researchers have found conscientiousness to be an excellent predictor of job successin a variety of jobs and situations.2

3. IntellectThe Intellect scale measures the degree to which an individual enjoys solving complexproblems, investigating things, researching ideas, and thinking outside the norm. High Intellect scores are associated with those who like to think of new and better ways of doing things (e.g., inventors, scientists, engineers, management).

Conversely, those who score low on Intellect are less curious, less imaginative, not requiringas much cognitive stimulation. Lower to mid-level jobs that require repetitive or basic tasks(e.g., data entry, assembler, maintenance personnel) are examples of jobs that may besatisfactory for those scoring low on Intellect.

2 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). “The Big-Five personality dimensions in job performance: A meta analysis.” Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.


11

4. AmbitionIndividuals scoring high on Ambition tend to be very competitive and achievement oriented.Many enjoy being in a leadership role. They take calculated risks if it means getting ahead.Jobs with the opportunity for growth (both personal and financial) are ideal for ambitiouspeople (e.g., management, sales). Need for achievement, or ambition as defined here, has beenfound to predict managerial success.3, 4

Those scoring low on the Ambition scale are less concerned with competition and achievement.They are easier to satisfy. Individuals who are satisfied being in blue collar jobs with littleopportunity for growth are generally those with average or low levels of ambition.

5. ExtroversionHigh scores on the Extroversion scale translate to individuals who are outgoing, enjoy beingaround other people, are assertive, are generally positive and happy, are the “life of the party,”and thrive on being the center of attention. Effective salespeople tend to score high onExtroversion. High degrees of extroversion have also been found to be related to interests insocial (e.g., teachers and therapists) and enterprising occupations (e.g., management jobs).5

Low scores on extroversion are associated with individuals who are shy, reserved and quiet.These individuals may feel more comfortable in jobs that involve less interaction with people.For example, researchers, librarians and engineers have been found to score low on extroversion.

6. OpennessThose who score high on openness are generally creative, innovative thinkers. These areindividuals who think outside the norm. They have a wide range of interests and are willingto try new things. In many cases they are artistically inclined. Professions that are likely toattract people high on openness are actors, musicians, writers, inventors, product designers,and management.

Individuals who score low on openness are generally conservative thinkers, have fewinterests, are predictable in thought, and rarely stray from the norm. People with lowopenness scores tend to be satisfied in jobs requiring little change, jobs that require the same tasks and responsibilities with little opportunity for diversion.

7. AdjustmentIndividuals who score high on this scale are generally well adjusted, (meaning they aretrusting), believe in themselves and are self-confident, stay calm during stressful situations,and are stable and steady. Researchers have suggested that scores on adjustment serve as a

8. Total CPA ScoreIn some situations (depending on the specific requirements of the job), the ideal candidatefor a particular job will have relatively high scores on all dimensions measured by the C.P.A.For such situations, the overall C.P.A. score should be used as part of the evaluation process.However, even when the overall C.P.A. score is being utilized to compare applicants, it ishighly recommended that each individual scale score also be examined. In theory, anapplicant could score relatively low on one or more C.P.A. scales (suggesting he/she is “weak” in those areas) yet score so high on the remaining scales that his/her overall scorecould end up in the “average to high” range. For this reason, all scale scores should always be examined to ensure that areas of strength and weaknesses are identified across candidates, thus producing a comprehensive and thorough picture of each applicant.

3 Orpen, C. (1983). “The development and validation of an adjective check-list measure of managerial need for achievement.” Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 20, 38-42.

4 Ghiselli, E. E. (1971). “Explorations in managerial talent.” Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.5 Holland, J.L. (1985). “Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational choices and work environments” (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

0159 USA

12

moderator when it comes to career issues.6 Those who score high on adjustment tend to bemore successful in their careers than one might expect given their other talents, while lowadjustment scores tend to bring down the performance of individuals who otherwise wouldbe expected to do well.

Deception Scale Score

Two issues that arise regarding measuring personality tendencies in applied settings such asthose in the C.P.A. are (1) whether the test taker has the ability to improve his/her score, or“fake” results, and (2) whether trying to improve the outcome is an undesirable quality.

When a job candidate takes a personality inventory, a common critique is that he/she hasthe opportunity to answer in ways intended to enhance his/her score. In studies where testtakers are instructed to try to enhance their scores, there is evidence that some people canindeed alter personality measures. Despite this fact, empirical evidence also shows that thebase rate of faking during the actual employment screening process is rare and infrequent(Dunnette, McCartney, Carlson & Kirchner, 1962),7 (Hough, Barge, Houston, McGue, &Kamp, 1985).8

The fact that there are rare cases where some people can enhance personality scores raises the second issue: the question of whether or not self-enhancement tendencies are merelyreflecting a function of most normal interaction. In a social context, people habituallyparticipate in casting the best possible light on themselves, and, in fact, are judged positivelywhen successful. Consequently, it may be viewed that the ability to improve a personalityscore is an index of social competence.

Although test faking is uncommon and, even when it does take place, changes criterion-related validities only slightly (Hough, Easton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990),9

the C.P.A. takes extra precautions against attempted test faking.

As seen in the Validity and Reliability section of this manual, the C.P.A. is demonstrablyvalid for personnel selection purposes regardless of any faking that may have occurred.Further, the C.P.A. includes a Deception Scale that detects test takers who attempt topresent themselves in an overly favorable light, and alerts the employer to the apparentresponse distortion. This Deception Scale is designed to alert you about applicants who give answers that vary from the norm. This is not a polygraph or lie detector test, andits results should not be used as such.

The Deception Scale score can range from “0” to “5.” The higher the score, the likelier theapplicant was trying to present him/herself in a favorable light. This suggests that some oftheir responses to the inventory may reflect how they want you to perceive them and notnecessarily how they truly feel. The following is a general guideline that you can use wheninterpreting the Deception Scale. However, as you test more applicants and follow up withmore targeted interview questions that offer more insight into the applicants’ responses, you may develop your own interpretation guidelines.

6 Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual, 2nd Edition. Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc. 7 Dunnette, M.D., McCartney, J. Carlson, H.C., & Kirchner, W.K. (1962). “A study of faking behavior on a forced-choice, self-choice, and

self-description checklist.” Personnel Psychology, 15, 13-24.8 Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D., & McCloy, R.A. (1990). “Criterion-related validities of personality constructs

and the effect of response distortion on those validities.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.9 Hough, L.M., Barge, B.N., Houston, J.S., McGue, M.K., & Kamp, J.D. (1985, August). “Problems, issues, and results in the development

of temperament, biographical, and interest measures.” Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Los Angeles.


13

A score range of 0-1 suggests that there is a Low Likelihood that the applicant wasattempting to “fake” his/her responses. The applicant’s responses are likely to be an accurate representation of his/her attitudes and behaviors.

A score range of 2-3 suggests that there is a Moderate Likelihood that the applicantattempted to “fake” some of his/her responses. Some of the applicant’s responses may notaccurately represent his/her true attitudes. However, as mentioned above, it is normal forsome applicants to attempt to present themselves in a favorable light during theinterview/testing process. This score range is not likely to invalidate the test results.

A score range of 4-5 suggests that there is a High Likelihood that the applicant attempted to“fake” some of his/her responses. Some of the applicant’s responses may not accuratelyrepresent his/her true attitudes. Follow-up interview questions asking the applicant to givejob or work-related examples of some of his/her overly positive responses is recommended.

Norms

When evaluating applicants, norms provide a point of reference regarding the relative scalescore of each applicant/employee. Norms are the average scores or distribution of scoresobtained from the study sample. These score “patterns” can be compared to your ownapplicants’/employees’ scale scores to better define their personality characteristics.

Tables 1 to 30 on the following pages present the distribution of scores for each Scale andthe associated percentile rank for the employees who have participated in C.P.A. validity andnorm studies. The percentile rank is the percentage of applicants/employees in the samplewho obtained lower scores than the corresponding test score. For example, when reviewingTable 1, it can be said that an applicant/employee obtaining a score of 76 scored in the 90th percentile. This means the applicant/employee scored higher than 90% of theapplicants/employees in the norm sample.

0159 USA

14

Test ScoreCorresponding

Percentile

Table 1Helping Disposition

30+ 10028-29 99

27 9626 9425 9024 8223 7622 6521 5420 3919 2618 1817 916 4

15 or less 1

Average Score 21Standard Deviation 3.12Number of Participants 272


15


Percentile

Table 2Cooperation

30+ 10029 9928 9627 9226 8725 7924 7023 5322 3921 2420 1719 1018 717 316 2

14 or less 1


0159 USA

16


Percentile

Table 3Non-Confrontational

30+ 10029 9928 9727 9526 9125 8724 7723 6922 5521 4720 3819 2918 2217 1616 12

14-15 613 2

12 or less 1



17


Percentile

Table 4Service Orientation

84+ 10083 9982 98

80-81 9678-79 94

77 9176 9075 8874 8673 8372 7971 7570 7169 6568 5967 5466 4965 4564 4163 3762 3261 2860 2659 2258 2057 1756 1355 1054 953 652 4

49-50 248 or less 1


0159 USA

18


Percentile

Table 5Organization

30+ 10029 9928 9727 9126 8525 7924 7623 6522 5121 3520 2619 1918 1417 716 415 314 2

13 or less 1



19


Percentile

Table 6Hardworking

30+ 10029 9928 9827 9626 9325 9024 8223 7422 6221 4720 3719 2818 2017 816 615 3

14 or less 1


0159 USA

20


Percentile

Table 7Dependability

30+ 10029 9928 9727 9526 9325 8824 8123 6922 5721 4020 2819 1918 1317 516 3

15 or less 1



21


Percentile

Table 8Conscientiousness

85+ 10083 9982 9781 9680 95

78-79 9377 9276 9175 8974 8773 8472 7971 7670 7169 6768 6467 5866 5265 4764 3963 3562 3161 2860 2559 2158 1757 1456 1155 854 753 552 451 2

50 or less 1


0159 USA

22


Percentile

Table 9Investigative

30+ 10029 9828 9727 9526 9325 9124 8623 7822 6821 5820 4919 3818 2717 1816 1415 1114 713 512 311 2

10 or less 1



23


Percentile

Table 10Problem Solving

30+ 10028-29 99

27 9826 9725 9524 9223 8422 7421 6520 5319 4318 3517 2216 1415 1014 613 412 311 2

10 or less 1


0159 USA

24


Percentile

Table 11Idea Generating

30+ 10029 9928 9827 9726 9625 9424 9323 8622 7821 7120 6019 4818 3817 2316 1515 814 413 2

12 or less 1



25


Percentile

Table 12Intellect

84+ 10080-83 9978-79 98

77 9774-76 96

73 9472 9371 9070 8969 8568 8067 7766 7465 7164 6963 6562 6361 5860 5359 4858 4557 3856 3255 2754 2253 1852 1451 1250 1049 948 847 646 3

45 or less 1


0159 USA

26


Percentile

Table 13Competitiveness

28+ 10027 9926 9825 9424 9223 8422 7821 6920 6019 4818 3617 2516 1615 1114 613 412 311 2

10 or less 1



27


Percentile

Table 14Leadership

30+ 10029 98

27-28 9726 9525 9224 8823 8022 7221 6220 5119 4018 3217 2016 1315 8 14 513 2

12 or less 1


0159 USA

28


Percentile

Table 15Risk Taking

29+ 10027-28 99

26 9625 9424 9023 8322 7221 6020 4419 3618 2617 1016 615 314 2

13 or less 1



29


Percentile

Table 16Ambition

84+ 10082-83 9979-80 98

78 9776-77 96

74 9573 9472 9271 9070 8769 8468 8267 7866 7465 6964 6463 6162 5861 5660 5159 4758 4257 3756 3355 2954 2453 1752 1451 1150 849 648 547 4

44-46 243 or less 1


0159 USA

30


Percentile

Table 17People Orientation

29+ 10028 9927 9826 9625 9324 8823 8322 7321 5920 5019 4318 3417 2316 1715 1114 613 512 3

11 or less 1



31


Percentile

Table 18Assertiveness

29+ 10027 9926 9825 9724 9423 9122 8621 8320 7419 6418 5517 4116 3115 1714 1213 1012 411 2

10 or less 1


0159 USA

32


Percentile

Table 19Positive Attitude

28+ 10027 9926 9725 9424 9223 7922 7121 6120 5319 4518 3417 2216 1315 914 613 312 2

11 or less 1



33


Percentile

Table 20Extroversion

83+ 10077-81 9975-76 98

74 9773 9572 9471 9370 9169 8968 8667 8466 8165 7864 7563 7062 6661 6060 5759 5458 4957 4556 4255 3954 3553 2752 2351 2050 1649 13

47-48 1046 845 7

43-44 541-42 3

40 235 or less 1


0159 USA

34


Percentile

Table 21Creativity

30+ 10029 98

26-27 9725 9424 9223 8722 8021 7420 6519 5718 4717 3316 2815 1914 1713 1112 6

9-11 27 or less 1



35


Percentile

Table 22Wide Interests

27+ 10026 9925 9524 9423 9022 8321 7120 6119 4418 3817 2416 1515 814 313 2

12 or less 1


0159 USA

36


Percentile

Table 23Artistic

30+ 10029 9628 9227 8826 8325 8024 7623 6822 5821 4820 4319 3418 3017 2016 1315 1114 713 5

12 or less 3



37


Percentile

Table 24Openness

84+ 10081-83 99

80 9878 9777 95

75-76 9474 9373 9272 9171 8970 8769 8668 8367 7966 7465 7264 6863 6362 6061 5660 5359 4858 4457 4256 3755 3254 2953 2252 1851 1550 1349 1148 1047 8

45-46 644 543 442 341 2

40 or less 1


0159 USA

38


Percentile

Table 25Trust

28+ 10025 9924 9523 8822 8121 7320 6519 5218 4317 3116 2115 1414 1213 712 511 310 2

8 or less 1



39


Percentile

Table 26Stress Management

28+ 10027 9826 9625 9224 8923 7422 6421 5320 4419 3218 2617 1716 1515 914 513 312 2

11 or less 1


0159 USA

40


Percentile

Table 27Self-Confidence

29+ 10028 9927 9826 9725 9624 9123 8422 7721 6820 5619 4618 3917 2816 2215 1414 813 512 3

10-11 29 or less 1



41


Percentile

Table 28Adjustment

79+ 10077 9976 9875 9774 9673 9572 9371 9270 9069 8768 8467 8166 7865 7464 6963 6462 6061 5760 5059 4758 4357 4156 3955 3454 3053 2652 2351 1750 1549 1248 1047 946 845 744 542 3

38-40 237 or less 1


0159 USA

42

Continued on next page


Percentile

Table 29C.P.A. Total

576+ 100529-568 99516-527 98

508 97502-506 96495-501 95

493 94491-492 93

490 91488-489 90

487 89484-485 88

482 86481 85479 84

476-477 82473-475 81471-472 80469-470 79

468 78467 77

463-465 76462 75461 74

459-460 72455-457 71452-453 70

451 69450 67449 66

447-448 65445-446 64

444 63442 62441 61440 60

437-438 59436 57435 56434 54433 53

429-432 51427 50


43


Percentile

Table 29 (cont.)C.P.A. Total

426 49423-425 48

422 47421 46420 45419 43418 42417 41416 40415 38414 37413 36410 33

408-409 32407 30402 28401 26400 23399 21398 20

396-397 19394 18392 17391 15390 14389 13

385-386 12383 11382 10

379-380 9378 8

376-377 7374-375 6369-372 5363-368 4

358 3354-356 2

353 or less 1


0159 USA

44


Percentile

Table 30Deception

5 1004 903 812 681 490 26


Note: The higher the score on the Deception Scale, the likelier it is that the applicant/employee may be trying to “fake” the scale.


45

You can use the information in Tables 1 to 30 as a guide when evaluating job candidates;however, we strongly recommend that you collect and validate your own test data. The applicant/employee pool in your organization may differ from the study samplepresented in this manual. Factors such as geographic location, business type and jobresponsibilities may have a significant effect on test scores.

One way to develop your own norms and benchmarks is to administer the C.P.A. to yourcurrent employees. This will allow you to compare the scores of your top performers withthose of your less productive employees. The information can then serve as a guide duringyour applicant evaluation process.

In addition, if you can establish and document that, in general, high scorers on specificScales are also your better performing employees, this can serve as an initial step inestablishing the validity of the C.P.A. within your organization.

If you do administer the C.P.A. to your employees for the purpose of establishing company-specific norms, make sure your employees understand that the results of yourstudy will be used for norm development only and that their employment status will in no way be affected by their scores.

The EEOC and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures recommendthat for those selection tools causing adverse impact, a job analysis needs to be performed in conjunction with validation studies. This should be done to determine the job-relatednessof each test and other selection tools used throughout the hiring process. It is the employer’sresponsibility to periodically monitor its employment screening process to ensure that it isfair and valid.

Each packet of the C.P.A. includes a testing log that you can use to record eachapplicant’s/employee’s test scores, as well as other important applicant/employee data that may be used to compute your own test norms. Using this form allows the user to see a “snapshot” of the profiles of those tested on one sheet, therefore, aiding the testadministrator when comparing test scores of test takers. Page 48 presents an example of how one might utilize this testing log to assist in interpreting test taker profiles.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

EDUCATION1 - Less than High School diploma2 - High School diploma3 - Two or more years of College4 - College Degree5 - Graduate Degree

RACEA - AsianB - Black (not of Hispanic Origin)H - HispanicW- White (not of Hispanic Origin)O - Other

HIRING STATUSE - EmployeeH - HiredN - Not HiredR - ReferredP - Pending

DateName of Applicant Position

EducationSex

RaceServ.

Consc. Intellect AmbitionExtro- Open

Adjust.Total C.P.A

Decept.Hiring

or Code Number Applied for M-F Orient. version ness Score Status

Comprehensive Personality Analysis (C.P.A.) – Testing Log

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

0159 USA

46

After reviewing the information on the Testing Log shown above, the following observationscan be made.

A. Of the two individuals applying for the manager position (i.e., Bob Jones and Sarah Gomez),Sarah’s C.P.A. scores suggest that her disposition may be better suited for the managementrole rather than that of Bob’s. Bob scored just above average (50th percentile beingaverage) on Intellect and below average on Ambition and Extroversion. These threepersonality dimensions have been associated with positive management performance. For example, a review of Validity Study #1 in this manual shows that these threedimensions are important in predicting managerial success. The higher one scores on thesethree dimensions, the likelier one is to succeed in a managerial role. When Bob’s C.P.A.scores are compared to that of Sarah’s, it is clear that Sarah’s chances for success as amanager appear to be higher than that of Bob’s. But always keep in mind that otherfactors outside of test scores need to be considered when making employment decisions.

B. When trying to fill customer service jobs, finding people who are service oriented is critical.A review of the three, customer-service job candidates above reveals that Liz Silkes’ ServiceOrientation score was below average (45th percentile), while the other two candidatesscored relatively high (i.e., Tim Horne – 83rd percentile and Mitchell Fleming – 96thpercentile). In addition, Liz’s score on Conscientiousness (which measures dependability,organization and work habits) was close to average, whereas Tim and Mitchell scored wayabove average on this important dimension. All other scale scores for the three applicantswere above average. Based on this information, Tim and Mitchell should receive highermarks than Liz with respect to their performance on the C.P.A. At this point, otherselection criteria should be examined to obtain a more comprehensive view of these twoapplicants, thus making it possible to arrive at an informed and objective hiring decision.

C. High levels of Ambition, Intellect and Extroversion and somewhat lower levels ofConscientiousness have been associated with sales performance,10 Therefore, when wereview the CPA percentile scores of the two individuals applying for the sales positions,the following can be said:

Brenda scored relatively high on Ambition, Intellect and Extroversion, yet below average (average being 50th percentile) on the Conscientiousness scale. On the other hand, Jim

10 Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual, 2nd Edition. Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc.


47

scored lower than Brenda on Ambition, Intellect and Extroversion but quite high onConscientiousness. Based on these scores, Brenda’s profile seems to mirror the profileresearchers have found to lead to sales success more so than Jim’s test results. Moreover,Brenda’s scores on Service Orientation, Openness and Adjustment are all above average,suggesting there are no significant problems in those areas. Therefore, if all other selectioncriteria comparing these two candidates were relatively equal, the CPA profile for Brendawould suggest she is the better candidate.

Interviewing with the C.P.A.In addition to providing an objective measure of seven personality characteristics, the C.P.A.scales can also serve as a useful tool during the interviewing process. Responses to the questionscan be addressed during the interview and the applicant may be given the opportunity toexplain his/her answer. This approach may reveal some interesting insights into the applicant’sunique style or tendencies.

Appropriate Responses

As has been described previously in this manual, the essential functions of the job(s) for whichthe applicant is being evaluated should be identified through job analysis. The interviewprocess can then be structured to focus on those personality characteristics or skill sets thatare essential for effective job performance.

Before you interview the job applicant, carefully review his/her answers to the C.P.A. scaleitems. Select several questions that were answered appropriately relative to the requirementsof the job. Follow up during the interview with reinforcing/positive questions to “break theice” and establish rapport with the applicant.

Below is an example of a follow-up question to an appropriate response.

“You strongly agreed with the statement that said, ‘Most successful people have planned for their success.’ (Question #12). I agree with your response. Can you tell me specifically why you feel this way?”

Asking follow-up questions to positive responses helps ease some of the tension inherent inthe interviewing process. Positive feedback encourages the applicant to open up and sharemore potentially critical information.

Inappropriate Responses

Questions answered inappropriately relative to the requirements of the job should also beanalyzed. Inappropriate responses should be followed up with questions to clarify thereasons for the response. Clarification is important in helping to understand the applicant’sthoughts and potential behaviors as they pertain to the “negative” answer.

Below is an example of a follow-up question to an inappropriate response.

“You agreed with the statement, ‘I am not as trusting as most people’ (Question #41).Can you elaborate on this? What specifically do you mean? Can you give me some examples?”

Follow-up questions to inappropriate responses can be used to better understand the opinionsor thoughts of the applicant that may be contrary to the ideal employee. This information isextremely valuable in determining an individual’s fit into the organization.

0159 USA

48

Discussing the Results of the C.P.A.Your company should develop a procedure so that the applicant can be told what the nextstep in the hiring process is, regardless of his/her score on the C.P.A. or any other assessmenttool. Emphasize that the C.P.A. is only one of the criteria used to determine if the applicantis a good match for the position. Remind the applicant that there are many people applyingfor the same position and that each applicant will be considered based on how all of his/herqualifications and experience match the position’s requirements.

Some interviewers may be tempted to look for a quick or easy reason to tell the applicantwhy he/she was not selected. “Blaming” an assessment may seem like a plausible reason, butit is no comfort to the rejected applicant and should not occur. The fact is, the reason to hireor not to hire should never be based solely on any single assessment score. It is the interviewer’sresponsibility to review all of the information gathered from the various tools used duringthe hiring process – such as the job application, the interview, reference checks and otherassessments – to form the decision on the applicant’s appropriateness for the position.

The issue is, and should always be, whether there is an appropriate job fit between job andapplicant. Using the C.P.A. is only one part of the information you need to make a decision.The other important part is knowing what else is required and desired in the employeefilling the position, and effectively using all the sources available to you to make the bestdecision. This will ensure an effective selection process that offers a more comprehensiveview of the applicant and results in hiring the best employee for your organization.

The employer assumes full responsibility for the proper use of the C.P.A. as mentioned inthis manual. This includes establishing its job-relatedness to the position in question. If youhave any questions about the proper use of employment assessments, contact G.Neil or anemployment testing specialist.


49

Development of the C.P.A.The development of the C.P.A. was motivated by employers’ needs to have a reliable, valid,relatively brief, comprehensive personality assessment instrument that measures personalitydimensions important in the business setting. Many personality tests available today werenot developed for the business population and therefore may not be appropriate for usewithin the business environment.

The first step in the development of the C.P.A. was to conduct an extensive review of thepersonality theory and assessment literature. The two theories or assessment methodologiesmost often sited and researched were the Five-Factor Model (McCrae &Costa, 1987)11

and Dr. Robert Hogan’s seven-factor structure (Hogan & Hogan, 1995).12

Based on extensive factor analytic research, the Five-Factor Model contends that we thinkabout and describe each other in terms of five broad characteristics (i.e., neuroticism,extroversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness). The definitions of these fivecharacteristics are provided in Table 31.

11 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1987). “Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.


Table 31Five-Factor Model Scale Definitions

Factor Definition

Neuroticism The degree to which an individual experiences negative effects suchas fear, anger, guilt, irrational ideas, is unable to control impulses ordeal with stress.

Extroversion The degree to which an individual is outgoing, sociable, assertive, talkative and has a tendency toward excitement and stimulation.

Openness The degree to which an individual has an active imagination, is attentive to inner feelings, is curious, and has independence of judgement.

Agreeableness The degree to which an individual is sympathetic, altruistic,cooperative and enjoys helping others.

Conscientiousness The degree to which an individual is self-disciplined, purposeful, determined, thoughtful and organized.

0159 USA

50

Much like the Five-Factor Model, Dr. Hogan’s factor analytic research of hundreds ofpersonality items has produced a relatively small number of factors (7). These seven factorstheoretically make up the underlying structure of an individual’s personality. Table 32 showsDr. Hogan’s seven factors and their respective definitions. These definitions were takendirectly from the Hogan Personality Inventory Manual (2nd edition).13

Table 32Hogan’s Seven-Factor Model Scale Definitions

Factor Definition

Adjustment The degree to which a person appears calm and self -acceptingor, conversely, self-critical and tense.

Ambition The degree to which a person seems socially self-confident,leader like, competitive and energetic.

Sociability The degree to which a person seems to need and/or enjoyinteracting with others.

Likeability The degree to which a person is seen as perceptive, tactful and socially sensitive.

Prudence The degree to which a person seems conscientious, conforming and dependable.

Intellectance The degree to which a person is perceived as bright, creative and interested in intellectual matters.

School Success The degree to which a person seems to enjoy academic activitiesand to value educational achievement for its own sake.



51

Both of these personality structure theories are well founded in scientific research and areboth well respected in the field of personality assessment. They are very similar, yet havedistinct differences. For example, while Hogan’s structure maintains that “Ambition” is a major personality factor, the Five-Factor Model considers it a sub-dimension of“Conscientiousness” and thus, it does not carry as much weight as it does with the Hoganstructure. Hogan’s model includes a “School Success” factor, the Five-Factor Model doesnot. And Hogan’s “Intellectance” factor is somewhat imbedded in the Five-Factor Model’s“Openness” and “Conscientiousness” factors, again receiving less importance.

The development of the C.P.A. was undertaken with three major goals in mind:

The first goal was to produce a personality inventory that included personality dimensionsidentified by both the Five-Factor Model and Hogan’s seven-factor model, yet restructurethe dimensions so that they address the business-related measurement needs of employers.To accomplish this goal, an examination of both the Five-Factor and the Hogan personalitystructure models was conducted. The following intuitive restructuring and renaming of thedimensions took place to create the structure of the C.P.A.

1. Consistent with Hogan, the Ambition dimension in the C.P.A. was treated as a majordimension rather than a sub-dimension as it appears in the Five-Factor Model. As thevalidation results presented in the Validity and Reliability section of this manual will show,Ambition is an important dimension for predicting job success particularly within higherlevel jobs (e.g., management) and therefore should be treated with importance.

2. Again consistent with Hogan, Intellect or Intellectance (as it appears in Hogan’s literature)was viewed as a major personality dimension rather than as a sub-dimension as describedby the Five-Factor Model. Intelligence has often been sited as one of the best predictors of job performance (if not the best).14 Given that the focus of the Intellect scale is tomeasure characteristics that should be related to intelligence, it is included as a majorfactor in the C.P.A.

3. Hogan’s definition of Intellectance includes the Five-Factor Model’s Openness factor. The Five-Factor Model also imbeds intellect within the Openness and Conscientiousnessfactors. The C.P.A. clearly separates Intellect from Openness. Intellect referring totendencies to investigate things, problem solve and generate ideas, while Openness refers more to creativity, having wide interests and/or artistic inclinations. These twodimensions, from an employer’s standpoint, should be viewed as two distinctly differentpersonality dimensions and therefore are presented as such in the C.P.A.

4. Hogan’s School Success factor does not appear in the Five-Factor Model nor was itincluded in the C.P.A. The definition of the School Success factor appears too similar tothat of Intellectance to warrant it being treated as a separate major factor.

5. With the exception that the C.P.A. items were written strictly with the businessenvironment in mind, the remaining differences between the C.P.A., the Hogan Modeland the Five-Factor Model in terms of the overall structure are based more on semanticsthan true differences. For example, the C.P.A.’s Adjustment dimension is equivalent tothe Five-Factor Model’s Neuroticism factor and Hogan’s Adjustment factor; the C.P.A.’sExtroversion dimension is equivalent to the Five-Factor Model’s Extroversion andHogan’s Sociability factors; the C.P.A.’s Service Orientation dimension is the same as theFive-Factor Model’s Agreeableness factor and Hogan’s Likeability factor; and the C.P.A.’sConscientiousness dimension is similar to the Five-Factor Model’s Conscientiousnessfactor and Hogan’s Prudence factor.

14 Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R.F. (1984). “Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance.” Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-96.

0159 USA

52

Once the seven major C.P.A. dimensions were identified, three sub-dimensions per majordimension were determined based again on a review of the personality testing literature (see page 5 for a listing of dimensions and sub-dimensions). The goal was to include sub-dimensions that were consistent with how the seven major dimensions were defined inthe literature and by how they were defined by the Five-Factor’s and Hogan’s personalitystructure models. One hundred sixty-eight items were generated (24 for each of the sevenmajor dimensions, 8 for each of the three sub-dimensions per major dimension). After aseries of item analysis, including internal consistency analysis, 126 items were retained (18 for each of the seven major dimensions, 6 for each of the three sub-dimensions per majordimension). Table 33 shows the seven C.P.A. dimensions along with their respective definitions.

The second goal during development of the C.P.A. was to produce a reliable inventory thatdemonstrates both construct and predictive validity. The Validity and Reliability section ofthis manual will show that this goal was in fact achieved. The C.P.A. scales have been foundto have high internal consistency, as well as good construct and criterion-related validities.

Finally, the third goal in developing the C.P.A. was to produce a comprehensive, yet briefpersonality assessment instrument. This goal was also met. The final item count for theC.P.A. was 131 items (126 personality assessment items and 5 deception scale items). For comparison purposes, the Five-Factor Model’s assessment instrument (NEO-PIR)consists of 243 items and the Hogan Personality Inventory is made up of 206 items. In addition, the C.P.A. can be completed in thirty minutes or less.

Table 33C.P.A. Dimension Definitions

Dimension Definition

Service Orientation The degree to which an individual enjoys helping others, workswell with others, is able to compromise, is non-confrontational,is not argumentative.

Conscientiousness The degree to which an individual is organized, plans ahead,works hard to get ahead, can be relied upon to get the job done.

Intellect The degree to which an individual enjoys researching ideas,solving problems, enjoys thinking “outside the box”.

Ambition The degree to which an individual is motivated by competition,enjoys being in a leadership role, enjoys taking calculated risks.

Extroversion The degree to which an individual enjoys being around otherpeople, would rather take charge than be reserved, always thinksthe best.

Openness The degree to which an individual is an innovative thinker, iswilling to try new things, is artistically inclined.

Adjustment The degree to which an individual trusts the intentions ofothers, handles work-related pressures well, believes in self.


53

Validity and Reliability Effective applicant/employee evaluation procedures need to be valid and reliable.

Validity can be defined as the extent to which the instrument measures what it is supposedto measure. In other words, validity can be conceptualized as whether or not there is arelationship between test scores and actual personality characteristics that may impact anindividual’s behavior including job performance. Reliability refers to how consistent aninstrument is at measuring what it is supposed to measure.

The research studies described next have been conducted to demonstrate the validity andreliability of the C.P.A.

The first type of validation design that follows is known as concurrent, criterion-relatedvalidation. A professionally conducted, concurrent, criterion-related validation study is anaccepted means of test validation, as described by the federal government’s UniformGuidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Essentially, this approach requires that thetest be administered to current employees and, concurrently, data on the performance ofthese employees be gathered. If the test is valid for predicting job performance, one wouldexpect a statistically significant correlation between individual test scores and performance.In other words, those employees scoring high on the test would be those who also performbest on the job; those who do poorly on the test would also be those likely to receive poorperformance evaluations.

0159 USA

54

Validity Study #1

The C.P.A. was administered to 39 managers and assistant managers employed in a propertymanagement company. The supervisors of these employees were asked to rate each on 10work-related behaviors. The 10 work-related behaviors and associated rating scales arepresented below:

Very VeryLow Level Average Level High Level

1. Service OrientationEnjoys helping customers and/or coworkers, has a helping disposition, is cooperative andgets along well with people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. ConscientiousnessCan be counted on to get the job done. Requires little follow-up when assigned a project or task. Is thoughtful and consistent. Is organized and hard working. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Attendance and PunctualityHas a good attendance and punctuality record. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Stress ManagementAbility to stay calm under work-related pressure situations. Ability to handle multiple tasks effectively and efficiently. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Self-ConfidenceBelieves in self and in his/her actions. Not afraid to make decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. People OrientationEnjoys working with people. Is outgoing andpersonable. Can be described as extroverted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. CreativityThoughts are original and innovative. Able tothink “outside the box.” A unique thinker. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. IntellectEnjoys investigating, and solving problems. Is intellectually competent. Is an idea generator. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. AmbitionIs a competitive risk taker. Enjoys taking the lead on projects. Strives for success in all aspects of work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Achievement of Sales GoalsConsistently meets or exceeds sales goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


55


In addition to the 10 performance criteria listed above, an overall performance rating wascalculated by simply summing up the ratings for these 10 criteria.

The study participants’ Scale scores were then statistically compared to the supervisors’performance ratings using correlation analysis. All correlations above .20 are presented in Table 34.

C.P.A. Scale Work-Related Validity Significance NBehavior Coefficient Level

Table 34Correlation between C.P.A. Scale Scores and

Work-Related Behaviors for Management Personnel

Service Orientation .32 p<.06 38

People Orientation .24 p<.16 38

Self-Confidence .28 p<.09 37


Creativity .33 p<.05 37

Intellect .33 p<.05 37

Ambition .37 p<.03 37

Overall Performance .32 p<.06 37

Attendance .27 p<.13 35

Stress Management .24 p<.18 35


Achievement of Sales Goals .27 p<.13 35











Conscientiousness

Service Orientation

Adjustment

Extroversion

0159 USA

56


Table 34 (cont.)Correlation between C.P.A. Scale Scores and

Work-Related Behaviors for Management Personnel
















People .37 p<.03 36




Overall Job Performance .46 p<.01 36

Note: N equals the number of participants in the analysis.

Openness

Intellect

Ambition

A review of Table 34 reveals that the personality dimensions measured by the C.P.A. werehighly correlated with the job performance of the managers and assistant managers in thestudy sample. These correlations indicated that, in general, those individuals who scoredhigh on the C.P.A. scales demonstrated a high degree of numerous work-related behaviorsimportant for job success.

Most notably is the relatively high correlation found between the Extroversion Scale and thevarious job performance ratings, particularly overall job performance. The strongrelationship between extroversion and management performance found here is consistentwith the findings of Costa, McCrae, & Holland (1994).15 These authors found thatmeasures of extroversion are highly correlated with interest in managerial occupations.

It is also important to note that of the remaining scales, those scales measuring personalitycharacteristics most often associated with higher level occupations (e.g., openness, intellect,ambition) were the ones with the higher validity coefficients.

15 Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). “Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390-400.


57

Validity Study #2

In another concurrent, criterion-related validation study, the C.P.A. was administered to 34maintenance workers employed in a property management company and 30 plant operatorsemployed in an electronics factory. Both of these jobs required similar duties and responsibilitiesand therefore were combined for the purposes of this analysis. The supervisors of these employeeswere asked to rate each on the same work-related behaviors rated in Validity Study #1.

Validity coefficients between scale scores and the supervisory ratings were then calculated. All coefficients above .20 are presented in Table 35.




Work-Related Behaviors for Maintenance Personnel


Conscientiousness .25 p<.05 62
















Conscientiousness

Service Orientation

Adjustment

0159 USA

58



Work-Related Behaviors for Maintenance Personnel















Openness

Extroversion

Intellect

Ambition


Table 35 reveals that while all of the C.P.A. personality scales were positively correlated withthe work behaviors of maintenance personnel, the Adjustment scale had the highest correlations,followed by the Extroversion scale. As suspected, the Openness, Intellect and Ambition scalescores were more predictive of manager’s performance (see Validity Study #1) than that ofthe performance of maintenance workers. These personality characteristics are more oftenassociated with higher-level positions (e.g., managers) than they are lower-level, labor-intensive jobs.


59

Validity Study #3

In yet another concurrent, criterion-related validation study, the C.P.A. was administered to15 cashiers in a retail establishment and 8 customer service representatives of a propertymanagement company. Given the similarities in these two jobs in terms of personalityrequirements (e.g., both jobs require interaction with customers, multi-tasking, and similarlevels of stress management and problem solving), both jobs were combined for validationpurposes. Again, the supervisors of the study participants were asked to rate each employeein terms of the ten work-related behaviors rated in Validity Studies #1 and #2.

Validity coefficients were computed between the C.P.A. scale scores and the supervisoryratings. All coefficients above .20 are presented in Table 36.




Work-Related Behaviors for Customer Service Personnel





























Conscientiousness

Service Orientation

Adjustment

0159 USA

60



Work-Related Behaviors for Customer Service Personnel






































Openness

Extroversion

Intellect

Ambition



61

A review of Table 36 again shows that all of the C.P.A. personality scales are positivelyrelated with work-behaviors. While, in general, the correlations are extremely high, it isimportant to recognize that the data presented here are based on only 22 employees. It ispossible that these correlations would drop a bit in magnitude if more data were added tothe study sample. Nonetheless, the C.P.A. was extremely predictive of performance for theemployees that participated in this study.

Validity Study #4

In an effort to see the relationship between college GPA (grade point average) and thepersonality scale scores of the C.P.A., 90 college students (19 males, 71 females) enrolled invarious psychology courses, completed the C.P.A. In addition, these students provided theircollegiate GPA. Correlation analysis was then performed to determine the degree to whichthe C.P.A. scales were predictive of GPA. Only the Openness scale was related to GPA.Table 37 shows the validity coefficients obtained for the Openness scale by gender, as well as both genders combined.

Gender ValidityCoefficient

Males .38 .13 19

Females .32 .01 71

Both Combined .30 .01 90


SignificanceLevel N

Table 37Correlation between the Openness Scale and College GPA

Correlation analysis, looking at the relationship between C.P.A. scales and GPA, revealedthat the Openness scale was positively related to GPA. That is, the higher a student scoredon the Openness scale, the higher his/her GPA was likely to be. These findings areconsistent with what the scale measures. The Openness scale measures the degree to whichan individual is open to new experiences, therefore is eager to learn and take on newchallenges, much like what is necessary to succeed in a school environment. The otherC.P.A. scales were not correlated to GPA.

0159 USA

62

Validity Study #5

In addition to the criterion-related validity studies discussed above, a construct validationstudy was conducted. Construct validation attempts to answer two questions: (1) what is thepsychological construct the test is attempting to measure? and (2) how good is the test atmeasuring that construct?

During the administration of the C.P.A. in Validity Study #4, study participants were alsoasked to complete NEO-PIR (NEO). The NEO is a respected personality assessment tooldeveloped for and used primarily in the clinical environment. The NEO measures the fivepersonality dimensions that make up the Five Factor model discussed in the Development ofthe C.P.A. section of this manual. Correlation analysis was then performed comparing theseven personality dimensions assessed by the C.P.A. to their corresponding dimensionsassessed by the NEO. Table 38 presents the results of these analyses.

C.P.A. Scale NEO Scale Validity Significance NCoefficient Level

Table 38Correlation between the C.P.A. Scale and the NEO Scale

Service Orientation Agreeableness .69 p<.001 86

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness .56 p<.001 86

Adjustment Neuroticism -.66* p<.001 87

Extroversion Extroversion .63 p<.001 88

Openness Openness .63 p<.001 90

Intellect Ideas .74 p<.001 90

Ambition Assertiveness .64 p<.001 92

A review of Table 38 shows that the five C.P.A. scales intended to measure similarconstructs as the five NEO scales are in fact highly correlated with their respective counterpart.In addition, the two C.P.A. scales not treated as “major” personality constructs by the FiveFactor Model (i.e., Ambition and Intellect) were found to be highly correlated with twoNEO subscales (Assertiveness and Ideas, respectively). The NEO model defines theAssertiveness dimension as someone who is aggressive, not shy, confident, enthusiastic andforceful. The NEO defines its Ideas dimension as someone who is inventive, original,insightful and imaginative.

While the correlations presented here are relatively high and statistically significant (p<.001),they are not in the .80 to .90 range that might be expected when comparing equivalent forms.One reason for this might be that the C.P.A. was developed with the business setting inmind. It includes many items that were written in a business context. The NEO’s items arenot specific to the work environment. Changing the context in which test questions arewritten tends to affect responses and therefore could be responsible for some of the differencesobserved between the C.P.A. and the NEO scale scores. Regardless of these differences, thestatistically significant correlations between the two instruments suggest they are measuringsimilar constructs.

Note: N equals the number of participants in the analysis.*The negative correlation here indicates that the higher the score on the C.P.A. Adjustment Scale, the lower the score on the NEO PI-R Neuroticism Scale.


63

Reliability

In addition to validity research, internal consistency analyses have been conducted to determinethe reliability of the seven personality scales that make up the C.P.A.; that is, to what degreedo the items in the scale measure the same thing? Reliability coefficients for each scale arepresented in Table 39. These coefficients were calculated using a sample that consisted of100 collegiate students and 165 employed personnel.

The magnitude of these reliability coefficients suggests that the C.P.A. scales are highly reliableand consistent in measuring the constructs they portray to measure.

Table 39Reliability Coefficients

for the C.P.A. Scales

C.P.A. Scale ReliabilityCoefficients

Service Orientation .80

Conscientiousness .81

Adjustment .85

Extroversion .84

Openness .87

Intellect .82

Ambition .84

0159 USA

6401/02

Adverse ImpactTo determine if the C.P.A. could have an adverse effect on members of a protected class(e.g., minorities), the average score for each of the seven scales for 117 white and 31 AfricanAmerican study participants was statistically compared using t-tests.

The results of these comparisons revealed that there were three scales with mean score differencesthat were statistically significant or approached significance. However, there were nosignificant differences between the overall C.P.A. score means for the two groups. The scalemeans by ethnic group with their respective significance levels are presented in Table 40.

The relatively small C.P.A. mean differences between white and African American study participants suggest that if the C.P.A. were to be used in conjunction with theapplicant’s/employee’s job interview, reference checks, work history and other job-relevantsources of information, it is not likely that adverse impact would occur.

Even though these results suggest that the use of the C.P.A. would not be likely to have anadverse effect on the hiring rates of minorities versus non-minorities, we always recommendthat you periodically monitor your selection process to ensure that it continues to be fair and valid.

The results obtained in the criterion validity studies #1-#4, the construct validity study(Validity Study #5), and the reliability and adverse impact analyses offer strong evidence thatthe C.P.A. is a valid, reliable and fair predictor of seven work-related personality dimensions.

Based on all of the validity, reliability and adverse impact research presented in this manual,it appears that in addition to providing a sound, reliable and job-related basis for makingemployment decisions, the C.P.A. can also enhance equal employment opportunities byincreasing the objectivity, standardization and job-relatedness of the selection process.

If you have any questions regarding the Comprehensive Personality Analysis or any otherHR•Assessments™ product, call toll-free 800-264-0074 or shop online at NewHireTesting.com

C.P.A. Scale White

Service Orientation 85 85 p<.95

Conscientiousness 62 58 p<.02

Intellect 81 79 p<.31

Ambition 81 80 p<.51

Extroverted 79 78 p<.56

Openness 82 78 p<.05

Adjustment 78 74 p<.03

Overall C.P.A. Score 547 532 p<.12

AfricanAmerican

Sig.Level

Table 40C.P.A. Scale Means by Ethnic Group

©2002 G.NeilCall 800-264-0074 or shop online at www.NewHireTesting.com to reorder Comprehensive Personality Analysis (C.P.A.) Manual #R2-T0159

G.Neil and the test developer do not assume any responsibility for the employer’s use of this test or any decision the employermakes which may violate local, state or federal law. By selling this test, G.Neil is not giving legal advice. (07/02)

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanthuy
View:	233 times
Download:	0 times

Comprehensive Personality Analysis -...

Documents