WORK DISCIPLINE COMPOUND PERSONALITY SCALE
DEVELOPMENT WITH ITEM RESPONSE THEORY
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
MEHMET GÜLTAŞ
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
SEPTEMBER 2014
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science.
Prof. Dr. Tülin Gençöz
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
Asst. Prof. Dr. Yonca Toker
Advisor
Examining Committee Members
Prof. Dr. Reyhan Bilgiç (METU, PSY)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. F. Pınar Acar (METU, BA)
Asst. Prof. Dr. Yonca Toker (METU, PSY)
iii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name: Mehmet Gültaş
Signature:
iv
ABSTRACT
WORK DISCIPLINE COMPOUND PERSONALITY SCALE DEVELOPMENT
WITH ITEM RESPONSE THEORY
Gültaş, Mehmet
M.S., Department of Psychology
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Yonca Toker
September 2014, 141 pages
The Big Five personality factors differentially relate to various organizational criteria.
The most notable characteristic of personality scales while used in prediction is that
they are criteria dependent. Nevertheless, even the predictive power of the most
promising of the factors (i.e., conscientiousness) varies across occupations and
situations. Increasing the specificity of a measurement instrument by designing the
instrument considering criterion-relevant facet-level behaviors has been shown to
improve prediction. In this study I developed a compound scale that uses facet level
constructs of the Five Factor Model (FFM). By using an empirical and rational match
between predictors and criteria, predictive power of the scale is expected to be better
than conventional FFM factors. In the development of this compound scale, first the
literature was reviewed to identify the personality facets that predict work
behavior/performance. Indicator items of these facets were obtained from the
International Personality Item Pool. Items were put to empirical analysis based on
Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) in order to fine-tune the
instrument by identifying the best items. The compound scale correlation with task
performance was larger than the BFI factor compound. Herein, the proposed study will
contribute to the literature on facet-based compund scales and the IRT applications in
personality scale development.
Keywords: Personality, compound scale, job performance, item response theory,
situational strength
v
ÖZ
İŞ DİSİPLİNİ BİRLEŞİK KİŞİLİK ÖLÇEĞİNİN MADDE TEPKİ KURAMI İLE
GELİŞTİRİLMESİ
Gültaş, Mehmet
Yüksek Lisans, Psikoloji Bölümü
Tez Danışmanı: Yard. Doç. Dr. Yonca Toker
Eylül 2014, 141 sayfa
Büyük Beşli kişilik faktörleri farklı kurumsal sonuçlarla farklılaşan şekillerde
ilişkilidir. Bu kişilik faktörlerinden en önemlisi olan öz disiplin faktörünün bile
yordayıcılığı meslek ve durumlara göre farklılık gösterir. Büyük Beşli kişilik
faktörlerinin alt boyutlarından iş ile ilgili olanları bir araya getirerek tasarlanan
ölçeklerin yordayıcı gücünü arttırdığı yazında görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Büyük
Beşli faktörlerinin görev performansı ile ilişkili olan alt boyutları birleştirilerek
bütünleşik bir kişilik ölçeği geliştirilmiştir. Bütünleşik kişilik ölçeğinin yordayıcı
gücünün Büyük Beşli faktörlerinden daha yüksek olacağı tahmin edilmektedir.
Bütünleşik kişilik ölçeğinin, üniversitede araştırma görevlilerinin beraber çalıştıkları
bir öğretim üyesi tarafından değerlendirimiş olan iş performanslarını istatistiksel
olarak anlamlı düzeyde yordadığı bulunmuştur. Oluşturulan ölçek, madde tepki kuramı
(MTK) uygulaması ile elde edilen madde ayırdedicilik parametresi ve madde bilgi
fonksiyonu kullanılarak, en iyi çalışan maddeler kullanılarak kısaltılmıştır. Böylelikle,
araştırma sınırlı sayıda görülen kişilik ölçeği geliştirilmesinde MTK kullanımı
yazınına da katkı sağlamıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kişilik, bütünleşik ölçek, iş performansı, madde tepki kuramı,
durumsal kuvvet
vi
to those who collect, create, and disseminate
knowledge
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Assit. Prof. Yonca Toker for
providing relentless efforts in guiding me during the thesis.
I also thank my thesis committee members Assoc. Prof. Pınar Acar and Prof. Reyhan
Bilgiç for their valuable contributions.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone who helped me collect
data in a short period of time; Assoc. Prof. Ahmet Uysal, Assist. Prof. Bahar Öz,
Assist. Prof. Banu Cingöz Ulu, Prof. Bengi Öner-Özkan, Assoc. Prof. Özlem Bozo,
and Prof. Reyhan Bilgiç.
My friends provided me with valuable gift of their times and support.
My family supported me in my entire life. Knowing that you are there for me cannot
be thanked or appreciated enough. I know that, but I thank you.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iv
ÖZ ...................................................................................................................... v
DEDICATION.........................................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Correspondence between Predictor and Criteria ................................... 3
1.3 Rationale for Using Facet Level Predictors .......................................... 6
1.4 Work Discipline Compound Personality Scale ................................... 10
1.4.1 Conscientiousness and its Facets ..................................................... 11
1.4.2 Extraversion and its Facets .............................................................. 13
1.4.3 Openness to Experience and its Facets ........................................... 15
1.4.4 Agreeableness and its Facets ........................................................... 15
1.5 Effects of Situations and Situational Strength .................................... 20
1.6 Application of the Item Response Theory .......................................... 24
2. STUDY 1 METHOD ......................................................................................... 30
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................. 30
2.2 Participants and Procedure .................................................................. 30
2.3 Measures ............................................................................................. 31
2.3.1 The Big Five Inventory ................................................................... 31
ix
2.3.2 Development of the Compound Personality Scale .......................... 32
3. STUDY 1 RESULTS .......................................................................................... 34
3.1 Exploratory Factor Analyses ................................................................ 34
3.2 IRT Analyses ........................................................................................ 39
4. STUDY 2 METHOD and RESULTS ................................................................. 55
4.1 Participants and Procedure................................................................... 55
4.2 Measures .............................................................................................. 56
4.2.1 Situational Strength at Work Scale .................................................. 56
4.2.2 AEF .................................................................................................. 57
4.3 Results .................................................................................................. 58
4.3.1 Interrelations of Compound Scale and BFI Factors ......................... 59
4.3.2 Compound Personality Scale and Job Performance Relationship ... 63
4.4 Moderating Effects of Situational Strength ......................................... 66
4.5 The use of IRT Methodologies ............................................................ 69
5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 70
5.1 The Use of Personality Facets ............................................................. 71
5.2 The Nature of Facet-Performance Associations in the Present Study . 73
5.3 Using IRT Methods in Personality Scale Refinement ......................... 75
5.4 Situational Strength as the Proposed Moderator of the Personality-
Performance Association ........................................................................................ 76
5.5 Practical Implications .......................................................................... 80
5.6 Limitations ........................................................................................... 81
5.7 Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................... 82
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 83
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX A: Compound Personality Measure Items of Study 1 .................. 93
APPENDIX B: Compound Personality Measure Items of Study 2 .................. 98
APPENDIX C: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) Items ...................................... 102
APPENDIX D: Assistant Evaluation Form ..................................................... 104
APPENDIX E: Situational Strength at Work (SSW) Scale ............................. 106
x
APPENDIX F: Research Assistant Informed Consent ................................... 108
APPENDIX G: Faculty Informed Consent .................................................... 109
APPENDIX H: Debriefing Form .................................................................... 110
APPENDIX I: Facet Item Information Function Plots .................................... 111
APPENDIX J: Study 1 Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix ................................. 123
APPENDIX K: Tukish Summary ................................................................... 126
APPENDIX L: Tez Fotokopisi İzin Formu .................................................... 141
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 1 Correlations of Facets with Performance Dimensions ............................. 17
Table 2 Definitions of NEO Facets ....................................................................... 19
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the 12-factor solution ........................................ 36
Table 4 1st Facet Self-Discipline ........................................................................... 44
Table 5 2nd Facet Excitement Seeking .................................................................. 46
Table 6 3rd Facet Altruism ..................................................................................... 47
Table 7 4th Facet Achievement Striving ................................................................ 48
Table 8 5th Facet Deliberation ............................................................................... 49
Table 9 6th Facet Assertiveness ............................................................................. 50
Table 10 7th Facet Compliance .............................................................................. 50
Table 11 8th Facet Order ........................................................................................ 51
Table 12 9th Facet Openness to Ideas .................................................................... 51
Table 13 10th Facet Assertiveness/Exhibition ....................................................... 52
Table 14 11th Facet Dutifulness ............................................................................. 53
Table 15 12th Facet Trust ....................................................................................... 54
Table 16 Descriptive Statistics of the Situational Strength Measure .................... 56
Table 17 Descriptive Statistics for the CTT and IRT Based Facets ...................... 61
Table 18 Correlations between the BFI Factors and Compound Scale ................. 62
Table 19 Compund Facet and BFI Correlations with Performance ...................... 64
Table 20 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results .............................................. 66
Table 21 Situational Strength Hierarchical Regression ANOVA Results ............. 67
Table 22 Situational Strength Hierarchical Regression ........................................ 67
Table 23 Job Performance and IRT Based Scale Correlations .............................. 69
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 1 Item Response Function (IRT) with differing sample characteristics. ... 28
Figure 2 Parallel Analysis Real and Random Data Generated Eigenvalues ......... 35
Figure 3 IIF of the 11th Item of the Excitement Seeking Scale ............................ 42
Figure 4 IIF of the 8th Item of the Excitement Seeking Scale .............................. 43
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
In today’s world personality measures are enjoying quite a widespread acceptance and
use in organizational settings, even though this is not as much as cognitive ability tests
(Scroggins, Thomas, & Morris, 2009). But according to Hough and Oswald (2008),
research that is relating personality variables to organizational outcomes (either
objective measures or subjective evaluations) was on hold for almost two decades
during the 70s and 80s. Hough and Oswald connect this lack of interest to the
conclusions of Guion and Gottier’s (1965) review article. In their concluding
statements Guion and Gottier emphasized that “taken as a whole, there is no
generalizable evidence that personality measures can be recommended as good or
practical tools for employee selection” (p. 159). These negative remarks merged with
the attack of the work of Mischel (1968) on trait psychology almost stopped the
research that was investigating the relationship between personality and organizational
outcomes.
The interest to the use and research of personality testing with regard to organizational
criteria of interest exploded in the last two and a half decades (Hough & Oswald,
2008). This surge of interest for the research and application of personality test may
be attributed, in part, to the common conceptual ground that was afforded by the use
of the Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1985). In any scientific research
domain, without a reliable and stable conceptual ground, development is hardly
possible. FFM afforded researchers and practitioners to share a common language and
work on the same constructs. Even though previous sentence may sound like a cliché,
theoretical and practical benefits of a common understanding and common language
cannot be overemphasized.
According to Barrick and Mount (2012) there are still unresolved issues that need
research attention on the use of personality measures in selection contexts of
2
ogranizations. One of the issues that was mentioned is the discussion regarding the
utility of lower-level facets. Specifically, they emphasized that the issue of whether the
use of lower-order facets will lead to higher validity coefficients is waiting to be
resolved. Using higher level constructs (e.g. conscientiousness, emotional stability)
of the FFM generally yield corrected validities not exceeding .30s in predicting overall
job performance. For instance, in their meta-analysis of previously published meta-
analyses Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) found that, conscientiousness predicted
job-performance in different criteria (i.e. supervisor ratings, objective performance,
training performance, and teamwork) within the ranges of .23 to .31. All of these
correlations are estimated corrected correlations at the construct level, meaning that
these values are corrected for imperfect construct assessment. Without this correction,
validities ranged from .19 to .26.
One significant aspect of personality constructs is their criterion dependency, meaning
that, validities of FFM factors change significantly as a function of the criterion used.
Extraversion and openness to experience best predict training performance (ρ = .28
and ρ = .33, respectively), emotional stability and agreeableness best predict team
work (ρ = .22 and ρ = .34), and conscientiousness best predicts supervisor ratings (ρ
= .31) (Barrick et al., 2001). Meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that only
conscientiousness is a valid predictor of job performance across various jobs (Barrick
& Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon,
1994).
As a result of these less than impressive true score correlations, not everybody was
convinced about the use of personality measures in applied settings (e.g. Guion, 1998).
Morgeson et al. (2007) voiced a dissenting opinion about the use and usability of self-
report personality measures in the employee selection contexts. While criticizing self-
report personality tests, they were setting aside faking as an issue, in order to
emphasize the low validities of personality scales observed in selection contexts.
According to their view, validities this low should make practitioners use personality
measures appended to cognitive ability tests. Another concern that was voiced was the
relevancy of items to the job at hand. What is meant by that is that personality measures
3
should be constructed to be clearly job related in face valid ways. The main aim of the
compound scale being developed in this study is, more or less, in line with this advice.
Even though the scale that is going to be developed will not be clearly job related, the
facets that will be included in the scale is going to be job related. In other words, the
personality facets that are rationally and/or empirically related and theoretically
aligned with the specified job at hand (i.e. research assistant) will be included in the
compound scale.
Before delving into the literature I would like to point out to the naming convention
that is going to be used within this paper. When describing the conceptual domain of
FFM, researchers often use facet, subfacet, subfactor, factor, dimension, sub-
dimension, domain, sub-domain, or other naming conventions interchangeably. In this
paper “factor” will always be used to mean one of the five factors of FFM (i.e.
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism) and facet
will always be used to indicate sub-dimensions of these factors. Having said that,
researchers are trying new conceptual models by merging facets of FFM or by
following other theoretical hunches (e.g. the Hogan Personality Inventory). While
describing these kind of conceptual subdivisions of FFM factors, I will refer to them
as sub-dimensions.
The literature is reviewed focusing on the factor and facet predictors of job
performance and the usefulness of combining facets to form compound personality
scales. In addition, situational characteristics defining strong or weak situations that
influence how much personality can be expressed on the job is reviewed as situational
strength has been proposed as a moderator of personality-criterion valities. Finally, as
the compound measure will be refined based on IRT applications, the theory and its
proposed uses for personality and attitude measurement are described.
1.2 Correspondence between Predictor and Criteria
Adoption of the Big Five as a common framework to study personality related
organizational outcomes significantly improved the acceptance of personality
measures as selection tools. Because of the structure and common language offered by
4
the FFM, researchers are able to collaborate and accumulate knowledge regarding job
performance and personality much more easily. But, as stated above, and summarized
in Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007), meta-analytic results show that the
effect sizes corrected for unreliability in the criterion and range restriction are small in
predicting overall job performance, (R = .27), and objective measures of performance
(R = .23) from personality factors.
In order to better predict job performance, some researchers point out the importance
of theoretical alignment between the criterion and predictor (Jenkins & Griffith, 2004).
They are indicating that in organizations, before using any content based test in other
assessment areas, such as job knowledge, job analyses is typically conducted or
existing job descriptions are examined in order to decide what kind of knowledge
domain should be covered in the test. Similarly, Jenkins and Griffith (2004) concluded
that, selecting sub-domains of personality (i.e. sub-domains of 16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire; 16PF) that are relevant to the job increases the predictive power of
personality tests. Besides various theoretical standpoints for the use of specific
behaviors, the predictive power of compound personality scales should be an incentive
for their use (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001), as operational predictive validities of these
tests can be as high as .41 (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993).
In their meta-analysis Hogan and Holland (2003) also emphasized the importance of
having conceptually aligned personality predictor and job performance criteria. In this
study, prior to the meta-analysis, subject matter experts (SEMs) were used to assign
criteria to one of the seven sub-dimensions of the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
(i.e. adjustment, ambition, sociability, likeability, prudence, intellectance, and school
success). For instance, ‘likeability’ was matched with ‘shows interpersonal skills’,
‘exhibits capacity to compromise’, ‘demonstrates tactfulness and sensitivity’, and
‘shares credit’ criteria. In addition to that, same set of criteria was assigned to one of
the two groups, namely ‘getting along’ (i.e. getting along with members of a group)
and ‘getting ahead’ (i.e. inclination for achievement and gaining status). These formed
groups of job performance dimensions later served as criteria in their meta-analysis.
5
Results of this study (Hogan & Holland, 2003) showed that the sub-dimensions of
adjustment, prudence, and likeability, but not sociability and intellectance, predicted
getting along criteria with true validities of .34, .31, and .23, respectively. Getting
ahead criteria were predicted by the ambition ( = .26), adjustment ( = .22), and
prudence ( = .20) scales but not sociability. More importantly, criteria that were
assigned to and labelled as the adjustment criteria set by SMEs was empirically
predicted by the adjustment sub-dimension ( = .43), the ambition criteria set was
predicted by the ambition sub-dimension ( = .35), and the prudence criteria set was
predicted by the prudence sub-dimension ( = .36). Effect size were higher thus these
results highlighted that alignment of predictors and criteria has utility in validity
studies. This may lead us to the conclusion that using personality constructs (in this
case HPI sub-dimensions) with a related job criterion rather than a more general
criterion can increase the predictive power of the measurement.
Jenkins and Griffith (2004) emphasized the relatedness of certain personality concepts
to specific occupations, following the advice about using personality based job
analysis for analyzing the content of the jobs and the selection of relevant personality
constructs for prediction. They compared the predictive power of two 16PF broad
dimensions (i.e. self-control and independence) with the Accountant Personality Fit
Scale (APFS). Contents of this scale (i.e. which sub-dimensions it encapsulates) was
determined by a personality based job analysis and it includes the 16PF sub-
dimensions of warmth, openness to change, emotional stability, and trusting. Results
of the study showed that APFS predicted job performance (i.e. a performance review
completed by an immediate supervisor) (r = .35, p < .05) while general dimensions of
self-control and independence did not.
The study conducted by Oh et al. (2008) developed compound personality scales
specifically geared towards identified criteria. The compound scale to predict
teamwork performance included items from the dimensions of coperation, goodwill,
carefulness, savvy, and stability and the highest uncorrected correlation of this scale
6
was observed with teamwork performance (r = .29). Another compound scale to assess
managerial potential most highly correlated with managerial performance (r = .30).
Job performance should be considered as a concept that has a multi-faceted nature,
where nature of the jobs and tasks tend to change across occupations and organizations
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). In order to match specificity on the criterion side of the
personality job performance relationship, specific aspects of job performance should
be matched with specific sub-dimensions of generic personality dimensions or specific
individual differences variables. This basic premise is also an incentive to use narrow
over broad personality constructs to maximize predictive validity (Tett & Christiansen,
2007; Christiansen & Tett, 2008). Facet level constructs of the FFM provide us the
concepts that are specific enough for a predictive instrument. Other side of the equation
(i.e. occupational and job related information) can be filled with taxonomies of job
performance (Johnson, 2003) or also by extant job descriptions that can be found in
the occupational information network (O*NET).
Applicants seem to perceive custom made compound personality scales more job-
related than omnibus measures of the FFM (Jenkins & Griffith, 2004). This kind of
face validity may motivate applicants to take personality measures more seriously.
Another aspect is that, extremely long measures can dissuade practitioners in
organizations from using personality scales as prediction tools. When validity results
are less than impressive, human resources personnel may be inclined to use more
practical tools within selection processes, rather than time consuming and long
personality measurement tools that appear as irrelevant to the jobs at hand. A
compound personality scale that includes only the facets matched to the focal criteria
would offer a shorter measure which still can assess all relevant dimensions of
behavior.
1.3 Rationale for Using Facet Level Predictors
There are two reasons, one rational and the other empirical, for using facets of FFM
for the prediction of behaviors or job performance. First, I will discuss empirical
evidence that can be found in the extant literature that scrutinized the relationships
7
between personality and job performance. Then I will discuss the conceptual
underpinnings that are indicating the use of facets.
Hurtz and Donovan (2000) discussed the merits of using FFM facet level constructs
rather than broad dimensions. Even though they noted that their meta-analysis revealed
low to moderate correlations between factor level personality dimensions and job
performance (i.e. operational validity between conscientiousness and overall job
performance was .22), one thing they wrote is that different personality constructs
seem to affect job performance in different jobs or in different job performance
dimensions. As a result of this, they indicated that these theoretically meaningful
relationships were not practically impressive but “the magnitude of these correlations
might be enhanced if the most relevant specific facets of these broad dimensions could
be specified” (p. 877). Their suggestion was the use of facets that can have “theoretical
links to the performance dimensions under investigation” (p. 877). Furthermore, they
suggested that in order to increase criterion-related validity these facets can be used
individually or in combination with other theoretically-relevant facets. They proposed
not only to form composites from within a broad Big Five factor, but also noted the
possible practical merits of grouping facets from across different factors of FFM.
There is a vast amount of literature regarding the use of sub-dimensions of factors to
predict various work related outcomes. In their empirical research, Moon, Hollenbeck,
Marinova, and Humphrey (2008) suggested a tripartite model (i.e. a model that has
three parts) of extraversion with surgency, sociability, and positive affectivity as the
sub-dimensions, to differentially predict organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
They tested the relationships between extraversion, these sub-dimensions and OCB
using hierarchical regression analysis. Extraversion and sociability were found to be
unrelated to OCB. On the other hand, the sub-dimension of surgency was negatively
related with OCB behaviors (β = -.22, ΔR2 = .06), and individuals who had higher
positive emotion scores were more likely to engage in OCB (β = .19, ΔR2 = .06). They
noted that their results may be used to shed light on the contradictory findings on the
relationship between extraversion and OCBs. This may be taken as evidence that when
extraversion was used as a broad factor, in some situations its predictive validity
8
diminishes as well as its utility. The study of Moon et al. (2008) highlights another
reason to use specifically formed compound scales with facets instead of factors, as
facets within one factor may predict criteria in opposite directions.
Another study that indicates broad constructs' lack of predictive validity is of Mussel,
Winter, Gelleri, and Schuler (2011). The authors of this study focused on the facets of
openness to experience, rather than the broad factor itself, and highlighted that the non-
significant association that was found in the meta-analysis of Barrick et al. (2001) can
be ascribed to the wide scope and heterogeneity of the factor. Results of their research
indicated that sub-dimension level analyses revealed large differences in criterion and
construct-related validity across facets of openness to experience. Specifically, using
EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) they formed two sub-dimensions of the
openness factor; one of which was ‘perceptual’ which includes the facets of openness
to fantasy, aesthetics, and feelings, and the other was ‘epistemic’ which includes the
facets of openness to actions, ideas, and values. They compared three different latent
path models in the prediction of job performance and academic performance. The first
model included the broad openness to experience factor as the predictor, the second
model included the two-factor solution that includes epistemic and perceptual sub-
dimensions, and the third model included the six-factor solution composed of six facets
of openness. The six-factor and two-factor path models predicting performance had
better fit indices than the one-factor openness to experience model. In the two-factor
model, only epistemic openness predicted job and academic performance, whereas
perceptual openness did not. Still, the authors noted that the six-facet model explained
more variance in job and academic performance over the rest of Big Five factors, than
the two-factor model. Facet-level correlation analyses indicated that, of the three
epistemic openness facets, it was openness to ideas which showed the highest range of
correlations with the performance indices of job and academic performance, peer
ratings, university achievement, ranging from .25 to .27. This was followed by
openness to actions and values. The epistemic factor correlations ranged from .27
to .30.
9
Regarding the use of specific facets, De Vries et al. (2011) found similar results using
facets of the six-dimensional personality model. Their study suggests that the
academic criterion of grade point average (GPA) and counterproductive academic
behavior (CAB) can be predicted by using the narrow facets of conscientiousness and
honesty-humility dimensions of HEXACO (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality,
eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience). In
HEXACO the sub-dimensions of conscientiousness are organization, diligence,
perfectionism, and prudence and sub-dimensions of honesty-humility are sincerity,
fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty.
In order to compare the effectiveness of the dimensions of conscientiousness and
honesty-humility with the previously listed sub-dimensions, De Vries et al. (2011) used
hierarchical regression analyses. In the hierarchical regression analyses, GPA and CAB
at first regressed on gender, then on emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, and
openness, and at the final step on conscientiousness and humility-honesty dimensions.
On a similar manner, the sub-dimensions (e.g. organization, diligence, etc.) were
entered in the final step of a separate hierarchical regression analyses. Results showed
that while dimensions were explaining 10% of GPA scores, sub-dimensions explained
17% of the variance of GPA, and this difference was significant. A similar pattern was
observed when CAB was taken as the dependent variable. While dimensions were
explaining 23% of the variance, sub-dimensions explained 35% of the variance. A
separate test indicated that the sub-dimensions are more strongly related to CAB than
the dimensions.
The value of sub-dimensions in the prediction of job performance is also handled in
one of the meta-analytic studies. Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, and Cortina (2006)
examined the prediction power of sub-dimensions above and beyond the
conscientiousness factor. They examined the predictive power of achievement,
dependability, order, and cautiousness above and beyond conscientiousness and also
the criterion related validity with different outcomes (i.e. overall job performance, task
performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, counterproductive work
behaviors). They found variability across sub-dimensions while predicting
10
performance criteria. For instance, job dedication was predicted by dependability (
= .46) to a greater extent than cautiousness ( = .08) and overall job performance was
predicted by dependability ( = .25) differently than cautiousness ( = -.01).
In this study (Dudley et al., 2006) the incremental validity of sub-dimensions on top
of conscientiousness factor was also analyzed. Across different criteria, specific sub-
dimensions added incremental variance on top of conscientiousness. Specifically, in
explaining job dedication, sub-dimensions added 26%, in explaining
counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) they added 14%, and in explaining overall
job performance added 4% of incremental variance. As a result they advised the
consideration of sub-dimensions in the prediction of job performance. Another
important contribution of this study is their indication of fluctuation of predictive
power of narrow traits in particular performance dimension or with regard to the
specific occupation at hand. Findings of this study is signaling that the qualities of
tasks that inherently vary across jobs, or the job criteria that were used have an
important influence on criterion validity strength of personality constructs.
Taken together, empirical studies highlighted using facet level personality constructs
to predict performance as a promising area to study. In the literature, even where no
relationships between factors and criteria are found, studies using facet level constructs
have found significant relationships between facets and the criteria of interest. Thus,
the work discipline compound scale will be formed based on the facets identified as
being associated with the generic academic or job performance dimensions.
1.4 Work Discipline Compound Personality Scale
In order to match FFM traits with job performance dimensions, first an empirical
findings based on the existing literature, and also a rational approach to link personality
facests to the dimensions of a job performance taxonomy is needed. The starting point
is identifying a job performance taxonomy. Johnson (2003) proposed an integrated
taxonomy of job performance dimensions. This classification system uses three levels
to organize performance dimensions, from broad to specific. Level one of the
taxonomy, which includes broader dimensions, consists of task performance,
11
citizenship performance and adaptive performance. I focused on the third level of this
taxonomy in which the dimensions of performance are more specific, and composed
of sub-dimensions, such as handling emergencies or crisis situations, engaging in self-
development, demonstrating effort.
Because of their inherent nature, some of these dimensions seem to be more related to
ability and job-specific knowledge such as technical proficiency, solving problems
creatively, and decision making/problem solving. On the other hand, dimensions like
conscientious initiative, maintaining personal discipline, engaging in self-
development reflect the non-ability behavioral tendencies of individuals and would be
predicted from personality.
Initially, these level three dimensions of this taxonomy were selected for a literature
search with an aim of identifying any relationships between these dimensions and the
FFM traits. Specifically, these dimensions are demonstrating effort, handling stress (in
other words, stress tolerance), taking initiative, learning work tasks, maintaining
personal discipline, adaptability, and engaging in self-development. Concepts that are
related to job performance and studied within the literature are also included in this
search. These concepts are work engagement, demonstrating flexibility, task
persistence, and procrastination. Compound scale will consist of the Big Five facets
that were found to be related to these constructs or conceptually related ones. Each Big
Five factor’s relation to job performance dimensions is presented separately.
1.4.1 Conscientiousness and its Facets
Conscientiousness relationship with job performance was empirically well
documented, and known to be the most consistent FFM factor across different jobs and
occupational groups (Barrick et al., 2001). So, facets of conscientiousness (i.e. self-
efficacy, orderliness, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, cautiousness)
are natural candidates for a composite scale that is going to be related with job
performance.
12
Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, and Crawford (2013) conducted a meta-analysis in
order to examine the relationship between the NEO facets and task performance.
Accordingly, all conscientiousness facets had meta-analytic uncorrected validities
ranging from .10 to .15. Similar line of evidence comes from the work of Dudley et al.
(2006). They found that two facets of conscientiousness, namely, achievement striving
(r = .13 and r = .20) and dependability (corresponding to the self-discipline facet of
NEO-PI-R) (r = .09 and r = .23) were more related to task performance and job
dedication, whereas cautiousness (r = .06 and r = .04) and order (r = .08 and r = .05)
had lower associations.
Lievens, Coetsier, De Fruyt, and De Maesener (2002) studied the relationships
between medical students’ personality characteristics and academic performance. In
their study, after the initial NEO-PI-R administration, they followed the end-of-year
academic performance of medical students. Only FFM factor that predicted academic
performance in each of the years was conscientiousness. Standardized regression
coefficients for the first, second, and third year were .24, .17, and .19, respectively.
When they examined the correlation between academic end-of-year performances,
only two of the facets, namely achievement striving (r = .15, r = .19, r = .15) and self-
discipline (r = .23, r = .24, r = .18) were significantly correlated with academic
performance in each of the years. Their results replicated those of Dudley et al. (2006)
in terms of showing the most highly associated facets. They also conducted a series of
t-tests to determine the differences between successful and unsuccessful students.
Even though only self-discipline, appeared as a variable that differentiated between
successful and unsuccessful students after a Bonferoni correction, dutifulness,
achievement striving positively, gregariousness and excitement seeking negatively
related to end-of-year academic success. Bonferonni procedure entails multiplying
alpha levels and in this research, this caused alpha levels of .0018 to reach significant
results. This correction when used with over twenty concurrent significant tests, causes
alpha levels lower than conventional p < .05. For this reason it was criticized as being
too stringent (Perneger, 1998). For this reason, findings that were significant for
13
dutifulness, achievement striving, gregariousness and excitement seeking should be
taken into account.
Bakker, Demerouti, and ten Brummelhuis (2012) found in their moderation analysis
that work engagement and conscientiousness interacted in relation to task
performance. Work engagement was related to task performance for only those who
scored high (β = .45) or average (β = .26) on conscientiousness.
With regard to effort as a criterion, Hough (1992) found criterion-related validities
with regard to achievement and dependability. Validities of effort for achievement and
dependability were .21 and .14. Procrastination as a criterion was also shown to be
related to low conscientiousness and all of its facets, with the self-discipline facet
accounting for most of the variance (Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Watson, 2001).
Finally, with regards to adaptability as the performance criterion, Shoss, Witt, and Vera
(2012) found that adaptive performance lead to task performance in high
organizational politics perceptions, only for those high in conscientiousness. Neal,
Yeo, Koy, and Xiao (2012) found that conscientiousness positively (.09, .12, .14)
related to individual, team, and organizational adaptability, respectively, but no facet-
level associations were offered.
Dudley et al., (2006) suggested the use of four specific narrow facets of
conscientiousness, namely, achievement striving, order, cautiousness, and
dependability. Dependability definition of these authors seems to match the self-
discipline facet, and cautiousness reflects the deliberation facet of NEO PI-R. In the
development of the initial version of the compound personality scale I will also add
dutifulness to this list as it has empirical support.
1.4.2 Extraversion and its Facets
The meta-analytic investigation of Judge et al. (2013) indicatet that the most highly
associated extraversion facets with task performance were activity (r = .10),
excitement seeking (r = .09), and assertiveness (r = .07). Even though this meta-
analysis suggested all positive associations with performance for these three facets,
14
several other research showed inverse associations for activity and excitement seeking.
For instance, a study which focused on the facets of extraversion in predicting job
dedication and task performance found excitement seeking to have the highest
associations, though they were negative correlations of -.31 and -.27 (Denis, Morin, &
Guindon, 2010). Similarly, a study by Detrick, Chibnall, and Luebbert (2004) which
investigated the predictive validity of FFM facet level personality constructs on
academic performance on a sample of police academy recruits using three consecutive
classes, showed that being low on the excitement seeking (β = -.29, p = .05) facet
significantly predicted better academic performance (where performance did not
include physical performance or firearms performance). A study by Chamorro-
Premuzic and Furnham (2003) also reported a negative association with the activity
facet and university course exam grades, from -.16 to -.27.
Evidence of the relationship between the excitement seeking facet of extraversion and
various other criteria can also be found in the literature. Pincombe, Luciano, Martin,
and Wright (2007) studied monozygotic, dizygotic and their nontwin siblings in order
to understand the relationship between facets of extraversion and IQ. As a result of
their research they found no significant correlation between extraversion score and IQ
scores. But, in their sample excitement seeking facet score was significantly and
negatively correlated with both of the IQ scores, namely verbal (r = -.15) and
performance (r = -.11).
Hallberg, Johansson, and Schaufeli (2007) studied the relationship between Type A
behavior and work engagement. Their conclusion was that, one of the aspects of Type
A behavior, specifically achievement striving, was related to work engagement.
Achievement striving was defined as including the adjectives of energetic, fast,
powerful, enterprising, enthusiastic, ambitious, individualistic, talkative, extraverted,
and strong. These elements are much more similar to the extraversion factor of the
FFM. Its correlation with work engagement was .36. Based on rational grounds, the
assertiveness facet of extraversion as defined in the NEO PI-R were decided to be
included in the compound measure. Fein and Klein (2011) argued that the facet of
15
assertiveness has self-regulatory elements helping individuals to allocate attention and
energy toward the pursuit of goals.
Taken together, assertivess is expected to correlate positively with performance,
whereas activity and excitement seeking are expected to correlate negatively. These
three facets were included in the compound personality measure.
1.4.3 Openness to Experience and its Facets
Regarding openness to experience, in their meta-analysis Judge et al. (2013) indicated
that openness to values (r = .12), ideas (r = .07), and actions (r = .07) were the most
highly correlated facets with task performnce.
As mentioned in an earlier section, Mussel et al. (2011) found that the facet of
openness to ideas was correlated with work-related criteria, such as job performance
(r = .26), academic performance (r = .27), and peer-ratings of job competence (r = .25).
They also divided openness to experience into two dimensions. One of the sub-
dimension was epistemic openness to experience which included openness to actions,
ideas, and values. The other one was named perceptual openness to experience, which
was composed of openness to fantasy, aesthetics, and feelings. Considering epistemic
and perceptual openness to experience, they show different validities for academic and
job performance as noted in the previous section, favoring the espitemic factor. In light
of these results, compound scale will include the openness to actions and ideas facets
of the openness to experience factor.
1.4.4 Agreeableness and its Facets
Rossier, Zecca, Stauffer, Maggiori, and Dauwalder (2012) found that agreeableness
can predict work engagement (r = .25), after controlling for gender and adaptability.
When agreeableness is considered, there is one meta-analytic study indicating facet
task performance associations (Judge et al., 2013). Accordingly, the facets of trust (r
= .10) and compliance (r = .09) were most highly associated with task performance.
Based on its rational appeal altruism was included.
16
All facet-performance associations are summarized in Table 1. As a result, in the work
discipline compound personality scale being developed to predict performance, five
facets from conscientiounsness (achievement striving, deliberation, dutifulness, order,
self-discipline), three facets from extraversion (assertiveness, excitement seeking,
activity), two facets from openness to experience (ideas and actions), and three facets
from agreeableness (compliance, altruism, and trust) will be included. Definitions of
these facets are presented in Table 2 that is following this paragraph.
17
Table 1 Correlations of Facets with Performance Dimensions
Factor Facet Performance index Effect Size Study
C Achievement striving Task performance ṝ = .15 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Competence Task performance ṝ = .14 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Deliberation Task performance ṝ = .10 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Dutifulness Task performance ṝ = .12 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Order Task performance ṝ = .10 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Self-discipline Task performance ṝ = .13 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Achievement striving Task performance ṝ = .13 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Dependability Task performance ṝ = .09 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Order Task performance ṝ = .08 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Cautiosness Task performance ṝ = .06 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Achievement striving Job dedication ṝ = .20 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Dependability Job dedication ṝ = .23 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Order Job dedication ṝ = .05 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Cautiosness Job dedication ṝ = .04 Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina (2006)
Self-discipline Academic performance r = .18 to .23 Lievens, Coetsier, De Fruyt, & De Maesener (2002)
Achievement striving Academic performance r = .15 to .19 Lievens, Coetsier, De Fruyt, & De Maesener (2002)
Achievement striving Effort ratings r = .21 Hough (1992)
Dependability Effort ratings r = .14 Hough (1992)
Achievement motivation Motivation to learn r = .27 Colquitt, LePine, & Noe (2000)
All facets, mostly self-discipline Procrastination Johnson & Bloom (1995); Watson (2001)
E Activity Task Performance ṝ = .10 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Assertiveness Task Performance ṝ = .07 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Excitement Seeking Task Performance ṝ = .09 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
18
Table 1 (Continued)
Adjectives defining an assertive
Type A personality Work engagement r = .36 Hallberg, Johansson, & Schaufeli (2007)
Activity University course exam grades r = -.16 to -.27 Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham (2003)
Excitement seeking Job dedication r = -.31 Denis, Morin, & Guindon (2010)
Excitement seeking Task performance r = -.27 Denis, Morin, & Guindon (2010)
Excitement seeking Academic performance of
policemen β = -.29 Detrick, Chibnall, and Luebbert (2004)
O Openness to ideas Task Performance ṝ = .07 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Openness to actions Task Performance ṝ = .07 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Openness to values Task Performance ṝ = .12 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Openness to ideas Job performance r = .26 Mussel, Winter, Gelléri, & Schuler (2011)
Openness to ideas Peer ratings of job performance r = .25 Mussel, Winter, Gelléri, & Schuler (2011)
Openness to ideas Academic performance r = .27 Mussel, Winter, Gelléri, & Schuler (2011)
Epistemic openness to
experience (ideas, actions,
values)
Job performance, peer ratings,
and academic performance r = .27 to .30 Mussel, Winter, Gelléri, & Schuler (2011)
A Trust Task Performance ṝ = .10 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013)
Compliance Task Performance ṝ = .09 Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford (2013) Note. C = Conscientiousnes, A = Agreeableness, O = Openness to experience, E = Extraversion, ṝ = uncorrected meta-analytic correlation coefficient
.
19
Table 2 Definitions of NEO Facets that were utilized in the Development of the Work
Discipline Compound Scale
Conscientiousness
Self-Discipline Ability to begin and carry out tasks, self-motivating;
persistent
Achievement Striving High aspirations and work hard to achieve goals; driven to
succeed
Dutifulness Governed by conscience; ethical; fulfill moral obligations
Order Neat, tidy, and well-organized; methodical
Deliberation Ability to think carefully before acting; cautious and
deliberate
Extraversion
Assertiveness Dominant, forceful, and socially able; take charge and
assume leadership
Activity Prefer fast-paced life; high energy level; vigorous
Excitement Seeking Crave excitement and stimulation; sensation seeking
Agreeableness
Altruism Active concern for others’ welfare; helpful, generous, and
considerate
Trust Belief that others are honest and well intentioned; not
skeptical
Compliance Cooperative; seek to inhibit aggression; forgiving; mild-
mannered
Openness
Openness to Ideas Intellectual curiosity; willingness to consider new ideas
Openness to Actions Willingness to try new activities; preference for variety to
the routine
Note. FFM facet definitions were taken from Judge, Rodell, Klinger, and Crawford (2013).
Further support for the combination of these scales, though not a precise match, can
be seen in the work of Fein and Klein (2011) where behavioral self-regulation was the
focal outcome, including goal level, feedback seeking, and performance meta-
cognition. Their compound measure included the same four conscientiousness facets,
the assertiveness and activity facets of extraversion, and the openness to ideas facet.
Self-regulatory outcomes were predicted with observed correlations from .16 to .35.
Other examples of compound scales in the literature developed to predict specific
criteria can be count in the work of Hogan and Hogan (1992) with their specific
20
occupational scales, Ones and Viswesvaran (2001) with their criterion-focused
occupational personality scales and Oh et al. (2008) with their criterion-focused
personality indices.
In this study it was hypothesized that composite factors within the compound scale
will predict task performance better than their respective broad FFM factors. And it
was hypothesized that composite factors of the compound scale will predict task
performance ratings above and over respective FFM factors. Thus:
Hypothesis 1: The compound personality scale that is going to be developed will
perform better in predicting task performance than the broad FFM factors.
Hypothesis 2: The compound personality scale will add incremental variance over the
broad FFM factors in the prediction of task performance.
The hypotheses that was just mentioned are investigating the influences of personality
on the job behavior of interest (i.e. task performance). Though, personality is an
important construct to understand and predict on-the-job-behaviors of individuals, in
the current level of our understanding it also cannot be able to explain quite a lot of
variance in the criteria that is used both in human resources and in work and
organizational psychology. One of the reasons may be the fact that individuals and
their relatively stable attibutes and behavioral consistencies are not in isolation.
1.5 Effects of Situations and Situational Strength
Situational strength, as aptly named, is related to the qualities of the environment or
situations referring to the extent the situations signal expectations about what is
appropriate behavior. Traces of the concept can be found in the interactionist tradition,
and the term “situational strength” as used by Meyer, Dalal, and Hermida (2010) was
first coined by Walter Mischel (1977). In terms of the development of the concept,
much of the theoretical and empirical work was done by Meyer in a series of recent
articles (Meyer & Dalal, 2009; Meyer et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2010; Meyer et al.,
2014). . Meyer et al., (2010) defined it formally as “implicit or explicit cues provided
by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” (p. 122).
21
Literature that is related to the use of personality in personnel selection includes traces
of support for the use of situational strength. For instance, in their review, Barrick and
Mount (2012) gave theoretical support for taking account of situational strength when
assessing for personality in selection contexts. As a result of their meta-analytic study
on the associations between personality and behavioral outcomes, they commented
that:
these meta-analyses revealed stronger relationships between
personality and behavior when performance is more discretionary and
volitional (e.g., citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior,
and personal development or training success) than with behavior that
is more closely monitored and structured (e.g., task performance or
even overall job performance) (Barrick & Mount, 2012, p. 233)
Situational strength not only interacts with the personality-job performance
relationship, it was also mentioned in the context of ability and motivation expression
in work settings. Peters and O’Connor (1980) hypothesized about the influences of
situational constraints, and indicated that situational factors may be working as a
ceiling factor to high ability and/or high motivation individuals. A worker due to
her/his higher motivation or ability can be expected to perform better, may perform on
a level that is determined by situational constraints. Likewise, an organization member
that has lower expectations regarding his performance may not be affected by
performance inhibiting situational constraints.
According to Meyer and Dalal (2009) there are a lot of ad hoc conceptualizations that
researchers use from time to time to describe, conceptualize, and measure situational
characteristics. For instance, researchers used concepts such as climate strength,
accountability, situational ambiguity, stability, autonomy, and feedback in order to
describe innate qualities of working environments. Meyer and Dalal (2009) tried to
integrate these different conceptualizations by using a four-factor structure to describe
and include the entire conceptual domain of situations. These four factors are clarity,
consistency, constraints, and consequences. High levels of clarity, consistency, and
constraints, and a high possibility of severe consequences reflect strong situations in
22
which variance in behavioral expressions across individuals at the workplace is
constrained.
The definition of clarity was given by Meyer et al. (2010) as “the extent to which cues
regarding work-related responsibilities or requirements are available and easy to
understand” (p. 125). Clarity can be achieved by unambiguous information flow
concerning the expected behaviors from employees. Qualities of various information
sources within an organization determine the clarity of the work environment. Salient
norms, well-established procedures, clear instructions from supervisors (e.g., feedback
quantity and quality) can lead to an organizational environment high in clarity.
Consistency was defined as “the extent to which cues regarding work-related
responsibilities or requirements are compatible with each other” (p. 126, Meyer, Dalal,
& Hermida, 2010). Even though, consistency is related to clarity, it is different
conceptually. When different sources of information (e.g., regulatory legislations vs.
organizational policies, supervisor instructions vs. organizational norms) convey
different cues on the appropriateness of behaviors, it leads to inconsistent situations.
In such situations, personality differences are posited to influence behavior to a greater
extent than in situations where there are a lot of cues regarding which behaviors are
more appropriate.
The third factor, constraints, was defined as “the extent to which an individual’s
freedom of decision and action is limited by forces outside his or her control” (p.126,
Meyer et al., 2010). This concept is quite related to discretionary behaviors in work.
To the extent that a worker is able to decide which tasks to perform, and how and when
to perform them, level of constraints decreases. And finally, the factor of consequences
was defined as “the extent to which decisions or actions have important positive or
negative implications for any relevant person or entity” (p. 127, Meyer, Dalal, &
Hermida, 2010). For instance, work environments which have the quality of being
extremely dangerous, may have serious negative consequences for any employee.
Within this kind of environments (e.g., high-rise building exterior facet cleaning, jobs
related to nuclear waste management), even employees who are relatively lower on
conscientiousness, or lower on dutifulness (i.e., a facet of conscientiousness) can
23
behave conscientiously. Negative consequences which are inherent qualities of some
jobs lead to uniform behaviors that can attenuate predictive power of personality
differences.
These conceptual definitions of the situational strength were also put to empirical
scrutiny by Meyer et al. (2014). In their research they used two different samples
representing diverse job titles, by selecting heterogeneous samples in terms of jobs.
The results of two separate CFA analyses revealed that the four-factor structure of
situational strength, as opposed to three and two factor structures was a more plausible
conceptual framework.
In their meta-analysis Meyer et al. (2009) found stronger correlations between
conscientiousness and job performance in occupations that were classified as weak by
the help O*NET classification. Particularly, when overall job performance was
considered as a criterion, correlations between conscientiousness and job performance
scattered between the ranges of .09 and .23. Likewise, in an analyses when task
performance was selected as a criterion, conscientiousness performance relationship
ranged from .06 to .18. In all of these correlation ranges, stronger correlations were
noted in occupations that were categorized as weak.
In order to develop a measurement instrument, Meyer et al. (2014) conducted four
sequential studies and created a 28-item questionnaire, which is used to measure
situational strength in this study. In their research, Meyer et al. (2014) also studied the
moderating influence of situational strength on the personality-voluntary work
behavior relationship. As a result of a series of moderation tests, it was found that
situational strength and its four facets (i.e., clarity, consistency, constraints, and
consequences) moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and OCBs (βs
of interaction terms ranged between -.13 to .14).
Also, in this study (Meyer et al., 2014) most of the hypotheses on the moderating
effects of situational strength on the relationship between agreeableness and OCB, and
between conscientiousness and CWBs were also supported. Hierarchical regression
analyses results showed that the relation between agreeableness and OCB was
24
significantly moderated by global situational strength (β = -.08, ΔR2 = .006),
consistency (β = -.10, ΔR2 = .011), constraints (β = -.10, ΔR2 = .011) and consequences
(β = -.07, ΔR2 = .006), but not clarity (β = -.07, ns). Also, the relation between
conscientiousness and CWB was significantly moderated by global situational strength
(β = -.28, ΔR2 = .054), clarity (β = -.18, ΔR2 = .030), consistency (β = -.15, ΔR2 = .024),
constraints (β = -.25, ΔR2 = .070) and consequences (β = -.15, ΔR2 = .026).
As a result of these findings, I hypothesize that situational strength will moderate the
relationship between the compound personality scale and job performance.
Specifically:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between the compound personality scale and job
performance criterion of interest will be higher in weaker situations compared to strong
situations.
1.6 Application of the Item Response Theory
Item Response Theory (IRT), which was also named as latent trait theory by Lord
(1980), was gradually developed during 1960s and 1970s and became the mainstream
paradigm on testing, especially in the area of cognitive and aptitude test applications.
Development of IRT was also related to some of the weaknesses of CTT, which are
lack of invariance of item parameters across different examinee groups, unsuitable
support from CTT to tailored testing (also called as adaptive testing), and also
problems in test equating.
Hambleton, Swaminathan, and Rogers (1991; Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985)
succinctly provided the basic tenets of IRT. First one is that the performance (this is
usually taken as the probability of correct response) of a person when faced with a test
item can be explained by abilities or latent traits of that individual. The second one is
that this relationship between a person’s trait level and performance can be described
by using a monotonically increasing function that is called item characteristic function
(ICF) (aka. item characteristic curve; ICC).
25
In its core, IRT is a series of mathematical models that relate the properties of items
and persons to the probability of correctly responding. The focal attribute of persons
is their latent trait level (θ). The properties of items can be their difficulty levels,
discrimination levels, or guessing. IRT models can estimate all three with larger
samples, or just the difficulty parameter as in the Rasch model, or both the difficulty
and discrimination parameters (2-PL models). Defining an IRT model as a model that
is relating some item and person characteristics to correctly responding does not hold
in personality or attitude research, as personality measurements mostly use
polytomous items, such as Likert-type questions. These types of questions have
multiple response options (e.g. presenting a scale which has ‘strongly disagree’ on one
end, ‘strongly agree’ on the other end) and there are no right and wrong answers, so
responding correctly is not an option in these kinds of items. In the case of personality
or attitude research, another family of IRT models; polytomous IRT models are used,
derived from the original IRT models. These models relate the characteristics of people
and items not to correctly responding but to the probability of selecting a response
category on the Likert-type scale (Emretson & Reise, 2000).
In classical test theory (CTT) properties of items are not taken into explicit
consideration. Rather than explicitly modeling item properties, CTT is more interested
in the aggregate scores of the test takers. As aptly summarized by DeVellis (2003), as
CTT relates itself mostly with composite scores, on the other hand IRT’s primary focus
is on item characteristics. The composite score may mean a sum of correct responses
in an aptitude test, or the sum of Likert-type responses in a personality test. In the
formula of CTT the basic outcome of interest is the observed score. A test score (or
observed score; X) is considered to be composed of true score (T) and error score (E).
This does not mean that there are no indices regarding item properties in CTT. There
are also the indices of item difficulty and discrimination in CTT but these indices are
defined and estimated differently than their counterparts in IRT parameters.
The CTT version of difficulty is defined as “the proportion of examinees that give a
correct response to a test item” (Reckase, 2009). In a sample if the average ability of
participants is higher than the average ability level of the population, item difficulty
26
levels will be higher when computed from that sample. In CTT as the item difficulty
index increases, item difficulty decreases, just the opposite of the interpretation that is
observed with the IRT difficulty parameter. In IRT, difficulty is defined as the required
trait level to pass an item with a fifty per cent probability. As such, higher difficulty
parameters indicate more difficult items. In CTT, item discrimination refers to the
difference between the percentage of high achievers and the percentage of low
achievers who get the item right. Discrimination in CTT is expressed as a correlation
between scores on an item and scores on the total test (i.e. item total correlation). In
IRT, discrimination refers to the slope of the ICC at the point of the difficulty
parameter, and similarly refers to how much an item can differentiate between trait
levels. In polytomous models, item difficulty takes on the name of item location
parameter. A high location parameter means that few examinees are expected to
endorse the higher response categories of the rating scale. Item discrimination
indicates how quickly item scores change as a function of trait level. Item information
function (IIF) provide information as to which items yield the most information and
also provides the trait level where the item is most informative.
On the one hand, as CTT doesn’t explicitly take item properties into account, these
item indices estimated from a sample are heavily dependent on the characteristics of
the sample. Average ability levels and the range of ability scores in a sample have an
impact on the item difficulty and item discrimination indices (Hambleton &
Swaminathan, 1985). On the other hand, this is not the case in IRT, and as it can be
inferred from Figure 1 parameters defining item characteristics are not influenced by
sample characteristics in IRT. In the figure, ability distributions of two different
samples are represented by the curves under the x-axis. But, when a proper model is
fitted to an item, performance on the item that is described by IRT is not influenced by
the characteristics of the sample.
Determining items that function best as indicators of the construct at hand (i.e. latent
trait) is a vital task in psychological measurement. This task, selecting the best items
for a test, is probably at the very core of developing any sound psychological measure.
In CTT, each item is given the same weight. In a cognitive ability measure this means,
27
we are assuming that every item has the same difficulty and discrimination levels as
the others, while this is clearly not the case. In IRT terminology, this means that while
scoring the participants, item characteristics aren’t taken into account. However, in
every testing situation some items are more reflective of the construct being measured
and some items do not reflect the construct being measured as good as the others.
With regard to this issue IRT offers a solution by explicitly taking into account the
characteristics of the items (see Equation 1) into the model estimated. Given below is
the formula of a two-parametric model (aka. two parametric logistic model; 2PL;
Embretson & Reise, 2000, p. 70).
(1)
In this formula, the probability of answering an item correctly (i.e. P(θ)) in a given
ability or trait level (i.e. θ) is modeled based on item discrimination that is denoted by
a, and item difficulty (i.e. also called location when IRT applied in measurement of
personality or aptitude) that is denoted by b. Once these item difficulty and
discrimination parameters are estimated for every item, it can be possible to detect in
which ranges of the trait an item best discriminates among people.
28
Figure 1 Item Response Function (IRT) with differing sample characteristics
(Hambleton et al., 1991, p. 8).
Item response theory has been enjoying popularity and widespread use in measurement
of aptitude, achievement, and proficiency for quite some time, but the approach has
been underutilized in the area of personality measurement. Reise and Henson (2003)
lamented the fact that unlike cognitive ability testing, the personality assessment
development efforts have ignored improvements in measurement theory and thus a lot
of personality measures have been developed without utilizing IRT parameters.
Using IRT and estimated difficulty and discrimination parameters, one can find in
which response ranges an item functions effectively (Weiner & Greene, 2008). For
instance, Gray-Little, Williams, and Hancock (as cited in Reise & Henson, 2003)
analyzed a measure using IRT that is known for its internal consistency reliability, the
29
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Their analysis showed a high internal consistency
estimate, but also showed the poor differentiation potential of the scale among high
self-esteem examinees. If one is going to observe self-esteem change over time or try
to differentiate among high self-esteem individuals, one needs to be aware of this
shortcoming of the scale. As self-esteem scores of participants change in a positive
manner, the probability of finding significant associations with another construct will
probably decrease since true effects size will not be captured as variance at the upper
ends of the scale would be missed.
In another study (Hafsteinsson, Donovan, & Breland, 2007) goal orientation scales
were compared and contrasted based on IRT parameters. Each scale was analyzed and
items with the highest discrimination and information indices were retained. It
appeared that some items were not able to differentiate between goal orientation trait
levels, rendering the use of them questionable.
In this study, an IRT model fitted to the data will be used as a guide to select personality
items more discriminating between latent trait holders, especially at the higher trait
levels. Individuals with higher work discipline trait levels would be better identified
by a personality scale that is refined in terms of its item discrimination and information
parameters. Such a scale may offer higher validities in the prediction of performance.
In order to examine this possibility, IRT-based scale will be used. As a research
question, predictive validities of the IRT-based scale and CTT-based scale will be
compared to delineate differences of validities in predicting task performance.
30
CHAPTER 2
STUDY 1 METHOD
2.1 Overview
The basic aims of Study 1 were to: 1) develop a scale measuring the lower order facets
of FFM factors to predict work performance, 2) collect data in order to refine the scale
according to its psychometric properties based on: a) CTT, and b) IRT procedures.
Items of the facets which formed the conceptual framework of the compound
personality measure were compiled from an internet source; the International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP) web site (Goldberg et al., 2006). This web platform went
online in 1996 and includes over 2000 items regarding different personality
dimensions and from different personality measures and scales with free access to
researchers.
Using the data that was collected in Study 1, the psychometric characteristics of the
measure were first evaluated, and if necessary, modified according to exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and internal consistency reliability analysis. The refined
instrument with 124 items based on CTT was administered to participants in Study 2.
2.2 Participants and Procedure
In order to conduct CTT-based psychometric analyses, determine the factor structure
of the personality measure and also estimate the needed parameters of the IRT analysis,
the first wave of data collection was conducted mostly in Middle East Technical
University (METU). Online questionnaires of the study were disseminated by using
an online questionnaire service provider, surveymonkey.com. In exchange for bonus
points or to participate in a lottery that gives the participants a chance to win a small
tablet computer, students filled out the initial compound personality measure
questionnaire online which took approximately 20 minutes of their time.
A total of 496 participant responded to the online questionnaire. Twenty-six
participants who had missing values more than 10% of the items, 32 of the participants
31
that answered wrong option in keyed questions, and 15 of the participants who have
completed questionnaires in less than 13 minutes were screened out from the analysis.
As a result, responses of 423 people who participated in study one were analyzed.
In terms of gender distribution, 62% of participants were female (N = 261) and 38%
were male (N = 161). Mean age of the participants was 22.2, and age of the participants
ranged from 17 to 68. But, as participants were mainly university students, the data
were skewed in terms of age. Median age was 23 and, 42.5% of participants were
between ages of 20 and 21. Of the participants who shared their education status, 91%
(N = 384) were undergraduate students, 5% (N = 23) were M.S. students, and 2% (N
= 9) were Ph.D. students.
In terms of faculty distribution, 52% (n = 220) of the participants were from the faculty
of arts and sciences, 24.3% (n = 103) were from the faculty of engineering, 12.3% (n
= 52) were from the faculty of economic and administrative sciences, 6.6% (n = 28)
were from the faculty of education, 2.6% (n = 11) were from the faculty of architecture,
and some of the participants (n = 9) did not disclose their faculty.
2.3 Measures
2.3.1 The Big Five Inventory
As a measure of broad Five Factor Model (FFM) dimensions, Turkish adapted version
(Sümer & Sümer, 2002) of the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991)
was used. This measure is composed of 44 questions. Openness to experience scale
consists of 10 items, each of the Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness scales of the
inventory has 9 items, and each of the Extraversion and Neuroticism scales has 8 items.
Participants responded to each item of the inventory on a scale ranging from 1
(disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). Even though the original BFI has a 5-point
scale, in order to avoid central tendency bias, in this study a 6-point Likert-type scale
was used.
Reliability of BFI was widely studied and accepted. Benet-Martinez and John (1998)
developed and tested a Spanish version of BFI on three different samples and reported
32
their reliability estimates across samples. In their English speaking sample estimated
reliability ranged from .73 and .80 with a mean reliability estimate of .78. In their
Spanish speaking sample and across all samples reliability estimates ranged from .69
and .77 with a mean reliability score of .74. Sümer, Lajunen, and Özkan (2005)
reported reliability values ranging from .64 to .77 for a Turkish sample. In a cross-
cultural study that was led by Schmit et al. (2007) the internal reliabilities of the factors
ranged from .70 to .79 on a sample of 17408 participants which represents 56 nations.
All of these reliability estimates reported by various empirical studies indicate high
internal reliability of the BFI.
In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of the BFI ranged from .77
to .86. Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness
to experience scales had reliability scores of .77, .85, .86, .82, and .84, respectively.
2.3.2 Development of the Compound Personality Scale
In order to gather items to form the compound personality scale, relevant IPIP facet
and factor items were examined one by one. As an initial step 621 items were identified
that were thought to reflect the sub-dimensions of selected FFM facets (i.e.
achievement striving, dependability, order, self-discipline, dutifulness, assertiveness,
activity, excitement seeking, trust, altruism, compliance, openness to actions, and
openness to ideas). Secondly, which items to retain in data collection was decided
based on a deductive process as described below.
2.3.2.1 Item Elimination Procedure
Items were eliminated based on the close scrutiny of two industrial/ organizational
psychologists (the author and the supervisor of the study), on grounds related to item
“redundancy,” “ambiguity,” “conceptual equivalence,” “population specificity,” and
“conceptual irrelevance”. At first items that are coming from different scales that were
exactly the same or very similar were eliminated. At the second step, items that are too
vague, ambiguous, and hard to apprehend were eliminated, such as ‘I am always
prepared’, ‘Am ready to do battle for a cause’, or ‘Act according to my conscience’.
At the third step of the screening procedure, items that are not same but conceptually
33
very similar were deleted from the item pool. Items such as ‘Enjoy examining myself
and my life’ and ‘Try to examine myself objectively’ were deemed similar, or ‘Lack
the talent for influencing people’ and ‘Seek to influence others’ were deemed similar.
At the fourth step of the procedure, items that may be irrelevant to the general
population were deleted, such as ‘Know the answers to many questions’, or ‘Am nice
to store clerks’. As a final step, using the facet definitions on Table 2, conceptually
irrelevant items that were not thought to pertain to the definition of the relevant facet
were deleted. A total of 467 items were eliminated this way as they were deemed
redundant.
Remaining items were translated by the author from English to Turkish. Translated
items were later back translated to English by a bilingual speaker. After the back-
translation, original English items and back translated English items were compared
by another bilingual speaker. Items that were evaluated as similar to original item after
the back-translation process were kept, other were rephrased to keep to the original
meaning. A total of 150 items passed previously mentioned item elimination steps and
were disseminated online. These items can be seen in Appendix A.
34
CHAPTER 3
STUDY 1 RESULTS
After the collection of the data, an EFA was conducted first to determine the factor
structure of the initial questionnaire. Following the EFA, a series of IRT analyses were
done to estimate item discrimination and location parameter of the items, and to obtain
the IIF.
3.1 Exploratory Factor Analyses
Determining the number of factors to extract in an EFA is one of the most important
aspects of the factor analysis procedure. There are traditional ways to determine the
number of factors to extract in the analysis, such as the eigenvalues-greater-than-one
rule or the inflection point in the scree plot of eigenvalues. However, since these
decision rules are quite subjective and regarded as problematic and other solutions
were promoted by O’Connor (2000) as giving optimal solutions regarding the number
of factors to extract. These were parallel analysis and Velicer’s minimum average
partial (MAP). Of the two of these method offered, parallel analysis was used to
delineate the number of factors to extract.
In parallel analysis, eigenvalues from random data sets are compared with the
eigenvalues calculated from the actual data set. As a result of this comparison, number
of factors to retain is determined. Computed data sets that are produced by random
number generation algorithm, are similar to the actual one in terms of number of
participants and variables. The researcher doing the analysis determines the number of
random data sets to be calculated, samples sizes between 1000 and 5000 was
considered sufficient (O’Connor, 2000). After the computation of random samples,
95th percentile of distributions of eigenvalues compared with the eigenvalue that is
computed from the actual data. As long as the eigenvalue that is coming from the actual
sample is larger than the 95th percentile of eigenvalue distribution, it is retained as a
factor during the factor analysis procedure.
35
In order to determine the number of factors to retain in the compound personality scale
IBM SPSS syntax of O’Connor (2000) was used. In order to determine number of
factors to extract 500, 1000, and 5000 samples that are completely random and also
that were permutations of the raw study data created by the syntax. Eigenvalues on the
95th percentile of these random samples were compared with the eigenvalues from the
raw data. In all of these comparisons a 14-factor solution was suggested by the parallel
analysis (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 Parallel Analysis Real and Random Data Generated Eigenvalues
Using IBM SPSS 20, Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with direct oblimin rotation was
employed to determine the factor structure of the scale. As the results of the parallel
analyses indicated a 14-factor solution, in the analysis14 factors were extracted.
Results of this analysis did not lead to interpretable results. A 13-factor was also
extracted, leading to more interpretable results. In order to reach an acceptable factor
solution, items with poor factor loadings were deleted. In addition to that, one of the
36
factors formed with only three items without any item that had a loading higher
than .40 was discarded, leading to a 12-factor solution.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of the factor analysis
was .88. And also none of the KMO values of the individual items were below .55.
This is an index of appropriateness of sample size for the analysis, which can take on
values that range from 0 to 1. Values between .80 and .90 are considered good
(Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). KMO value that was obtained as a result of the EFA
indicates that the sample size is adequate to produce a population correlation matrix.
The other index that was used to evaluate the factorability of the data was Bartlett’s
(1950) test of sphericity, which was found to be significant (χ2(11175) = 36719.69, p
< .001), which is indicating that variance the covariance matrix is proportional to the
identity matrix.
In total, factors explained 43.82% of the variance. Names were assigned to factors by
key indicator items of the factors. Factor names, means, standard deviations, and
reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha) of the factors formed are shown in Table 2. The
FA table with items and loadings based on the pattern matrix is given in Appendix J.
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the 12-factor solution of the Compound Personality
Measure
Facet Name Corresponding FFM Factor Mean SD α
1 Self-discipline C 3.89 0.79 .95
2 Excitement seeking E 4.28 0.70 .80
3 Altruism A 4.64 0.63 .85
4 Achievement striving C 4.09 0.72 .73
5 Deliberation C 4.54 0.65 .81
6 Assertiveness E 4.45 0.75 .73
7 Compliance A 3.80 0.93 .72
8 Order C 4.09 1.19 .82
9 Openness to ideas O 4.40 0.71 .81
10 Assertiveness/Exhibition E 3.97 0.82 .82
11 Dutifulness C 4.45 0.75 .77
12 Trust A 3.74 0.89 .78
Note. Scale values ranges between 1 and 6. SD = Standard deviation α = Cronbach’s alpha, C =
Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, O = Openness to Experience, N = Neuroticism.
37
First factor was named as self-discipline facet. Marker items of this factor are ‘I don’t
put my mind on the task at hand’ (Elimdeki işe odaklanmakta zorlanırım), ‘I don’t see
things through’ (Bazı işlerin sonunu getiremem), ‘I quickly lose interest in the tasks I
start’ (Başladığım işlere ilgimi çabuk kaybederim), ‘I stop when work becomes too
difficult’ (İş çok zorlaştığında devam etmem), and ‘I don’t get sidetracked when I
work’ (Çalışırken başka şeylere kaymam) and this facet has thirty four items in it.
These items clearly represent the description written for self-discipline in Judge et al.
(2013) and that was also reproduced in Table 1.
Dimension that formed the second factor was named as excitement seeking and
consists of twelve items. Marker items for this factor are ‘I seek adventure’ (Macera
ararım) and ‘I am willing to try anything once’ (Her şeyi bir kere denemeye
gönüllüyüm). Definition given for this facet in Judge et al. (2013) is “crave for
excitement and stimulation; sensation seeking” (p. 877).
Third factor was named as altruism. Marker items for this dimension are ‘I take no
time for others’ (Diğer insanlar için vakit ayırmam), ‘I can’t be bothered with other’s
needs’ (Başkalarının ihtiyaçlarıyla uğraşamam), ‘I like to be of service to others’
(Diğer insanlara yardımımın dokunmasını severim), and ‘I am indifferent to the
feelings of others’ (Diğer insanların duygularına kayıtsızımdır). The factor included
thirteen items.
Fourth factor was named as achievement striving facet of conscientiousness. Seven
items loaded under this factor. Markers of this factor are ‘I stick to the rules’ (Kurallara
bağlı kalırım), ‘I respect authority’ (Otoriteye saygı duyarım), ‘I want to be the very
best’ (En iyisi olmak isterim), and ‘I try to outdo others’ (Performansımla diğerlerini
geçmeye çalışırım).
Fifth factor was named as deliberation, which is also a facet of conscientiousness factor
of NEO. It had ten items. ‘I act quickly without thinking’ (Düşünmeden aceleyle
harekete geçerim), ‘I am a firm beliver in thinking things through’ (Bir işe başlarken
enine boyuna düşünmenin gerekliliğine inanırım), ‘I make decisions only after I have
all the facts’ (Ancak bütün bilgileri değerlendirdikten sonra bir karar veririm), and ‘I
38
weigh the pros and cons’ (Durumların eksi ve artı yönlerini tartarım) are the marker
items for this factor.
Sixth factor was named as assertiveness, which is a facet of the agreeableness factor
of NEO. There are five items within this factor and ‘I am not afraid of providing
criticism’ (Eleştirilerimi dile getirmekten çekinmem), ‘I say what I think’
(Düşündüğümü söylerim), and ‘I stick up for myself when necessary’ (Gerektiğinde
kendimi savunurum) are the highest loading items of this factor.
Seventh factor was named after the compliance dimension of agreeableness. Five items
were loaded under this facet. Marker items for this dimension are ‘I have a sharp
tongue’ (Sivri bir dilim vardır) and ‘I contradict others’ (Diğer insanlarla zıtlaşırım).
Eighth factor was named as order, as it is parallel to the definition of the NEO factor
conscientiousness facet of order. There are four items within this facet. ‘I am not
bothered by messy people’ (Dağınık insanlar beni rahatsız etmez), and ‘I am not
bothered by disorder’ (Düzensizlik beni rahatsız etmez) are the items which have
highest loadings.
Ninth factor was named as openness to ideas, after the facet with the same name from
the NEO factor of openness. There are twelve items in this factor. Items that have the
highest loadings for this facet are ‘I love to read challenging material’ (Beni zorlayan
metinleri okumayı severim), ‘I avoid philosophical discussions’ (Felsefi tartışmalardan
kaçınırım), ‘I avoid difficult reading material’ (Ağır okumalardan uzak dururum), and
‘I am not interested in abstract ideas’ (Soyut fikirler ilgimi çekmez).
Tenth factor was named as assertiveness/exhibition. This factor has eight items in it. ‘I
am good at making impromptu speeches’ (Doğaçlama konuşmalar yapmakta
iyiyimdir), ‘I can express myself easily’ (Kendimi rahatça ifade edebilirim), ‘I don’t
like to draw attention to myself’ (Dikkati üzerime çekmeyi sevmem), and ‘I find it
difficult to manage others’ (Diğer insanları idare etmek bana zor gelir) are the markers.
39
The name that was given to the eleventh factor is dutifulness. This factor has eight
items. Items with the highest loadings in order are ‘I misrepresent the facts when
necessary’ (Gerektiğinde gerçekleri saptırırım), ‘I cannot imagine lying or cheating’
(Yalan söylemeyi veya hile yapmayı düşünemem bile), ‘I lie to get myself out of
trouble’ (Başımı beladan kurtarmak için yalan söylerim), and ‘I cheat to get ahead’
(Öne geçmek için hile yapabilirim).
The last factor was named after the trust facet of agreeableness. In this factor there are
six items. Highest loaded items within this factor are ‘I believe that others have good
intentions’ (Diğer insanların niyetlerinin iyi olduğuna inanıyorum), ‘Believe that
people are basically moral’ (İnsanların temelde dürüst olduğuna inanıyorum), and ‘I
trust what people say’ (İnsanların söylediklerine güvenirim).
As a result of the PFA, of the total 150 items, 124 items were retained. As mentioned
before three items that loaded under a factor with very low loadings were omitted.
Furthermore, 23 items that did not have loadings higher than .30 or had high cross-
loadings across factors were also omitted from further analyses. The following IRT
analyses are based on the remaining 124 items.
3.2 IRT Analyses
IRT analyses of the data were conducted in order to find category threshold and
discrimination parameters, by a package of R statistical software environment (R Core
Team, 2014) that was named as mirt (an acronym for multidimensional item response
theory) (Chalmers, 2012). Model estimation in the mirt package is done by an
expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. This package, as it was first developed in
2012, can be considered as quite a new software, and it was used in literature to
delineate the latent dimensional structure of a German vocational interest inventory,
the General Interest Structure Test (AIST-R) (Wetzel & Hell, 2014). Feuerstahler and
Waller (2014) also used the mirt package to study the fit of a 4-parameter IRT model
to Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent form.
40
As noted in Embretson and Reise (2000) assumptions of unidimensionality and local
independence are important for estimating sound parameters from IRT models.
Unidimensionality was said to be satisfied when “a single latent trait variable is
sufficient to explain the common variance among item responses” (p. 227). Local
independence is a related concept to unidimensionality. Local independence is said to
be achieved “when the abilities influencing test performance are held constant,
examinees’ responses to any pair of items are statistically independent” (p. 10,
Hambleton et al., 1991). With regard to the aforementioned assumptions, there are no
hard-and-fast rules to determine unidimensionality as it was defined in the IRT context
(Chernyshenko, Stark, Chan, Drasgow, & Williams, 2001). But, as it was indicated by
Drasgow and Parsons, IRT model parameter estimations can withhold small violations
of these assumptions (as cited in Embretson & Reise, 2000). This is especially the case
when the latent trait dimensions are quite correlated (e.g. in personality research) or
the other dimension that is violating the unidimensionality is relatively small. In this
study to assume a certain degree of unidimensionality, factors that were obtained with
the previously mentioned factor analysis were used as separate units of analysis. This
method to assure unidimensionality was also used by Yang and Kao (2014) and also
in Edelen and Reeve (2007).
The Graded Response Model (GRM) was used in order to estimate the item difficulty
and discrimination parameters (Samejima, 1969). In GRM discrimination parameters
vary across items. Furthermore, each item has a set of category threshold parameters.
The formula is given in Equation 2.
Equation 2. Samejima’s Graded Response Model (Samejima, 1969)
Pix(θ) = exp[αi(θ – bi)] / 1 + exp[αi(θ – bi)] (2)
Where:
θ: Latent trait level
Pix(θ): probability of an examinee’s raw item response (x) falling in or above
a given category threshold (i.e. 5 thresholds for a 6-point scale) conditional
on trait level.
41
αi: item discrimination parameter
bi: item location parameter
For each factor of the work discipline category threshold parameters, discrimination
parameters, operating characteristic curves (OCC), and IIF were obtained. Parameters
for each item can be seen in tables. The criteria for selecting items were three-fold: 1)
Attention was paid for the item to have a relatively high level of discrimination index,
2) IIF would make a peak that surpassed the value of 0.5 (Allen, Weissman, Hellwig,
MacCann, & Roberts, 2014), rather than being flat, 3) the ratio of chi-square to degrees
of freedom would be less than 3 (Hafsteinsson et al., 2007). The third criterion was
satisfied for all items, thus item elimination proceeded based on the first two. As an
example, item3 of the self-discipline facet had a discrimination value of 2.05, which
was relatively higher amongst others in the scale and the IIF peaked at 1.25. This item
was retained. On the other hand, item11 of the same scale had a discrimination value
of 0.99, and the IIF was relatively flat, reaching .32.
Similar to this comparison, item 11 (“Macera ararım”) and 8 (“Alışıldık yöntemlere
bağlıyımdır”) of the excitement seeking scale can be examined side-by-side. IIF of the
11th item can be seen on Figure 3 and IIF of the 8th item can be seen on Figure 4. In
both figures the vertical axis of the graph represents the information item gives and
the horizontal axis represent trait level continuum. Eleventh item of the excitement
seeking scale has a discrimination value of 1.57, and in IIF graph its information
approaches to 0.8 (see Figure 3). In comparison to that 8th item of the excitement
seeking scale has a discrimination parameter of .97 and information value that can be
shown by Figure 4 slightly surpasses .25 (see Figure 4). Using these criteria and IFF
graphs, 8th item of the scale of extcitement seeking removed from and 11th item kept
in the IRT-based scale. Using similar comparisons within the scales (i.e., self-
discipline, excitement seeking, etc.) across items, decisions to keep and to remove
items made.
42
Figure 3 IIF of the 11th Item of the Excitement Seeking Scale
In the self-discipline facet items 4, 10, 11, 22, 24, and 33 were removed as their
information curve didn’t reach beyond .50 in their respective IIF plots (see Table 4).
All of the IIF plots of the items that are mentioned here can be found in Appendix I.
In excitement seeking facet items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 were removed (see Table 5). In
altruism facet after examining Table 6 and checking the IFF plots items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
and 13 were eliminated. With regard to achievement striving facet, 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7
were eliminated (see Table 7). In deliberation facets there were ten items. After IRT
analysis, items 4 and 6 were eliminated after examination of the IFFs (see Table 8). In
assertiveness facet items 1 and 3 were removed from IRT compound measure (see
Table 9). In compliance facet items 4 and 5 were removed (see Table 10). In order facet
none of the items were removed, as both of their discrimination parameters and IIF
were above the criterion threshold that were determined before (see Table 11). In
openness to ideas facet, of the initial twelve items five of the items were eliminated
(items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10) (see Table 12). In assertiveness/exhibition facet two
43
items were removed by IRT analysis (items 3 and 5) (see Table 13). Of the eight items
in the dutifulness facet four of the eight items were removed (items 1, 4, 6, and 8) (seet
Table 14). And in the final scale of trust two of the 5 items were removed (see Table
15).
Figure 4 IIF of the 8th Item of the Excitement Seeking Scale
As a result, 28 items were retained in self-discipline, seven in excitement seeking
(which also included items from openness to actions), seven in altruism, two in
achievement striving, eight in deliberateness, three in assertiveness, three in
compliance, all four in order, five in openness to ideas, six in assertiveness/ exhibition,
four in dutifulness, and three in trust. Thus, the CTT-based 124 item measure was
further reduced to 80 items.
44
Table 4 1st Facet Self-Discipline: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Bir işi bitirmeden bırakmam 1.88 5.44 3.39 1.78 -0.04 -2.52 105.09 86 1.22 Kept
2 Zamanımı boşa harcarım 1.64 3.71 1.44 -0.27 -1.62 -3.83 105.99 95 1.12 Kept
3 Sıkı çalışırım 2.05 5.02 2.71 1.11 -1.01 -3.41 118.13 80 1.48 Kept
4 Zorlu görevleri kabul ederim 1.30 4.73 3.48 1.71 0.09 -2.18 93.18 87 1.07 Removed
5 Önümdeki engellere rağmen işleri bitiririm 2.11 8.42 5.02 2.85 0.27 -3.51 59.52 52 1.14 Kept
6 Çalışmaya başlamak için birisinin beni itmesi gerekir 1.71 3.85 2.05 0.42 -1.01 -2.70 130.54 103 1.27 Kept
7 Çalışırken başka şeylere kaymam 1.51 2.83 0.72 -0.75 -2.31 -4.53 103.53 93 1.11 Kept
8 Vermem gereken kararları ertelerim 1.95 4.50 1.77 -0.26 -1.64 -3.97 120.29 86 1.40 Kept
9 Görevlerime bütün kalbimle atılırım 1.64 6.68 3.98 1.98 -0.04 -2.54 85.86 74 1.16 Kept
10 İşleri ağırdan almayı severim 1.23 3.62 1.94 0.52 -1.01 -2.55 128.56 102 1.26 Removed
11 Keyfimi kaçıracak işleri ertelerim 0.99 2.28 0.15 -1.58 -2.82 -4.94 89.79 84 1.07 Removed
12 Benden beklenilenden daha fazlasını yaparım 1.41 5.07 3.41 1.64 -0.39 -3.04 101.73 76 1.34 Kept
13 Planlar yapar ve bunlara bağlı kalırım 1.74 5.13 3.50 1.57 -0.68 -3.15 83.19 71 1.17 Kept
14 İşimde çok titizimdir 1.44 6.34 3.58 1.95 0.16 -2.06 94.32 79 1.19 Kept
15 Başladığım/üstlendiğim işlerin sonunu getiririm 2.22 7.29 5.97 3.74 1.27 -2.29 43.28 47 0.92 Kept
16 Başarılı olmak için motivasyonum yüksek değildir 1.95 4.21 2.34 0.69 -0.98 -3.30 91.37 89 1.03 Kept
17 İş çok zorlaştığında devam etmem 1.79 5.39 3.31 1.35 -0.51 -2.79 101.27 78 1.30 Kept
18 İşlerimden kaytarırım 2.23 6.18 3.81 1.50 -0.42 -2.92 93.97 75 1.25 Kept
19 İşlerime vakit kaybetmeden başlarım 1.67 4.15 1.79 0.25 -1.42 -4.08 98.95 93 1.06 Kept
20 Sorumluluklardan kaçınırım 2.08 5.84 3.67 1.93 0.14 -2.12 76.27 83 0.92 Kept
21 İşleri son dakikada yaparım 1.68 3.14 1.48 -0.09 -1.40 -3.35 111.90 104 1.08 Kept
22 Sıkıldığım anda yapmakta olduğum işi bırakırım 1.07 2.61 0.95 -0.64 -1.69 -3.40 142.80 104 1.37 Removed
45
Table 4 (Continued)
23 Durumu kurtaracak kadar iş yaparım 1.45 4.37 1.97 0.24 -1.16 -3.04 105.29 97 1.09 Kept
24 Hayatımın yavaş bir temposu var 1.11 3.95 1.57 0.32 -0.93 -2.35 127.07 115 1.10 Removed
25 Başladığım işlere ilgimi çabuk kaybederim 1.87 4.05 2.42 0.50 -1.21 -3.32 108.27 86 1.26 Kept
26 Kolayca pes ederim 2.14 5.71 4.07 1.77 -0.06 -2.45 103.72 76 1.36 Kept
27 İşime pek fazla zaman ve çaba harcamam 2.38 7.46 4.68 2.43 0.34 -2.62 78.34 67 1.17 Kept
28 Kolay olan yolu seçerim 1.53 3.93 1.81 0.04 -1.17 -3.13 115.23 98 1.18 Kept
29 İşlerimi bir plana göre yaparım 1.45 4.21 3.09 1.33 -0.52 -3.08 97.66 84 1.16 Kept
30 Elimdeki işe odaklanmakta zorlanırım 2.17 5.33 2.60 0.28 -1.52 -4.10 90.12 75 1.20 Kept
31 Herşey mükemmel olana kadar devam ederim 1.37 4.12 2.62 1.11 -0.74 -2.75 118.92 87 1.37 Kept
32 Bazı işlerin sonunu getiremem 1.97 5.00 2.04 -0.13 -1.74 -4.03 92.22 83 1.11 Kept
33 İşi eğlencenin önüne koyarım 1.09 3.24 1.83 0.26 -1.13 -2.94 117.78 100 1.18 Removed
34 Günlük işlerimi vakit kaybetmeden bitiririm 1.56 4.25 2.26 0.33 -1.38 -3.70 87.72 89 0.99 Kept
Note. a = discrimination parameter, c = category treshold parameters
46
Table 5 2nd Facet Excitement Seeking: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Her zaman hareket halindeyim 0.78 3.99 2.01 0.57 -0.69 -2.56 75.49 81 0.93 Removed
2 Yeni yerleri gezip görmekten keyif alırım 1.21 5.62 4.13 3.06 2.05 0.16 76.76 53 1.45 Removed
3 İlgi duyduğum birçok değişik şey vardır 1.37 6.96 4.11 2.37 0.85 -1.50 72.45 56 1.29 Removed
4 Yeni şeylere başlamaktan keyif alırım 2.27 7.63 5.29 3.74 1.74 -1.45 33.39 44 0.76 Kept
5 Değişikliklerden hoşlanmam 1.23 3.74 2.04 0.67 -0.47 -2.13 77.49 79 0.98 Kept
6 Yeni yemekler denemekten hoşlanmam 0.87 2.91 1.85 1.00 0.16 -1.19 108.14 97 1.11 Removed
7 Asla paraşüt veya bungee jumping yapmaya gitmem 0.93 2.23 1.31 0.87 -0.04 -1.25 86.69 100 0.87 Removed
8 Alışıldık yöntemlere bağlıyımdır 0.95 4.01 1.58 -0.09 -1.69 -3.23 61.41 67 0.92 Removed
9 Çeşitliliği sıradan işlere tercih ederim 1.23 4.90 3.35 2.37 0.78 -1.81 79.80 64 1.25 Kept
10 Her şeyi bir kere denemeye gönüllüyüm 1.48 4.19 2.91 1.54 -0.23 -2.43 77.21 69 1.12 Kept
11 Macera ararım 1.57 3.89 2.64 1.14 -0.48 -2.73 90.45 73 1.24 Kept
12 Risk alırım 1.28 4.44 2.73 1.07 -0.80 -2.99 62.52 67 0.93 Kept
47
Table 6 3rd Facet Altruism: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Rekabetten ziyade işbirliğine değer veririm 0.98 4.86 3.09 2.11 0.67 -1.66 70.52 68 1.04 Removed
2 Diğer insanlarla işbirliği yapabilirim 1.17 5.28 3.17 1.34 -1.75 - 56.06 49 1.14 Removed
3 Memnun edilmesi kolay bir insanım 1.00 3.48 1.90 1.10 -0.03 -2.13 99.90 81 1.23 Removed
4 Diğer insanların görüşlerini göz ardı ederim 1.11 5.02 3.80 2.11 0.48 -1.79 43.51 60 0.73 Removed
5 Kendimden başkalarını da umursarım 2.10 5.96 4.99 4.10 2.35 -1.38 66.08 40 1.65 Kept
6 Eski tanıdıklarımla bağlantımı koparmam 0.93 3.06 1.87 0.67 -0.73 -2.65 84.41 84 1.00 Removed
7 Ortamın huzurunu korumaya çalışırım 1.38 5.26 4.02 3.22 1.25 -1.51 47.97 48 1.00 Kept
8 Diğer insanlara yardımımın dokunmasını severim 2.09 6.60 6.08 5.03 3.01 -0.17 34.58 31 1.12 Kept
9 Başkalarının ihtiyaçlarıyla uğraşamam 2.05 7.70 5.08 3.27 0.96 -1.71 59.25 46 1.29 Kept
10 Diğer insanların duygularına kayıtsızımdır 2.13 7.17 5.29 3.39 1.42 -1.27 54.32 43 1.26 Kept
11 Diğer insanlar için vakit ayırmam 2.29 5.79 3.72 1.61 -1.64 - 45.61 41 1.11 Kept
12 İnsanlara içtenlikle karşılandıklarını hissettiririm 1.69 4.94 4.20 2.85 1.02 -1.95 60.99 53 1.15 Kept
13 Diğer insanların çıkarlarını göz önüne alırım 1.19 4.24 3.00 1.65 -0.66 -3.57 79.15 60 1.32 Removed
48
Table 7 4th Facet Achievement Striving: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Otoriteye saygı duyarım 1.24 3.07 1.96 0.47 -1.04 -3.39 51.50 57 0.90 Removed
2 Kendim ve diğerleri için yüksek standartlar belirlerim 0.80 4.73 3.31 1.93 0.57 -1.64 50.12 50 1.00 Removed
3 İşleri kuralına göre yaparım 1.56 5.54 4.40 2.36 0.18 -2.92 65.25 38 1.72 Kept
4 Kurallara bağlı kalırım 2.07 5.05 3.62 1.80 -0.67 -4.37 49.54 39 1.27 Kept
5 Performansımla diğerlerini geçmeye çalışırım 1.05 3.59 2.16 0.98 -0.43 -2.29 53.77 59 0.91 Removed
6 En iyisi olmak isterim 1.07 3.95 2.86 1.64 0.23 -1.34 52.33 54 0.97 Removed
7 Otoriteye direnirim 0.99 3.11 1.24 -0.48 -2.05 -3.71 65.94 56 1.18 Removed
49
Table 8 5th Facet Deliberation: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Ancak bütün bilgileri değerlendirdikten sonra bir karar veririm 1.37 6.19 3.81 2.25 0.51 -1.94 43.68 49 0.89 Kept
2 Bir işe başlarken enine boyuna düşünmenin gerekliliğine inanırım 1.98 6.26 5.23 3.27 1.42 -1.64 37.90 38 1.00 Kept
3 Kararlarımı verirken farklı olasılıkları düşünmem 1.30 6.13 3.61 2.64 0.89 -1.32 51.46 50 1.03 Kept
4 Herhangi bir konuyu derinlemesine irdelemem 0.99 5.81 3.54 2.07 0.34 -1.69 60.92 54 1.13 Removed
5 Sonradan üzülmektense önceden tedbirimi almak gerektiğine inanırım 1.50 5.23 4.55 2.76 0.90 -1.43 49.12 43 1.14 Kept
6 Acele etmemeye özen gösteririm 0.57 3.39 1.73 0.35 -0.96 -3.19 64.36 68 0.95 Removed
7 Düşünmeden aceleyle harekete geçerim 1.76 5.25 3.22 1.42 -0.55 -2.93 58.08 52 1.12 Kept
8 Yaptığım işleri kontrol ederim 1.48 5.88 3.36 1.15 -1.88 - 43.32 40 1.08 Kept
9 Durumların eksi ve artı yönlerini tartarım 2.03 6.71 5.75 4.25 1.43 -1.84 32.96 31 1.06 Kept
10 Davranışlarımın sonuçlarını düşünmeden hareket ederim 1.56 5.01 3.41 1.70 0.39 -1.78 49.01 52 0.94 Kept
50
Table 9 6th Facet Assertiveness: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Görüşlerimi kendime saklarım 1.21 3.85 1.90 0.25 -1.10 -3.25 23.16 30 0.77 Removed
2 Gerektiğinde kendimi savunurum 1.36 6.27 5.51 3.79 1.84 -0.96 24.62 22 1.12 Kept
3 Bana patronluk taslanmasına ses çıkarmam 0.98 6.47 4.49 2.37 0.75 -0.97 19.68 24 0.82 Removed
4 Eleştirilerimi dile getirmekten çekinmem 3.43 8.18 5.47 3.38 -0.02 -4.25 27.54 19 1.45 Kept
5 Düşündüğümü söylerim 1.81 5.86 3.50 2.46 -0.07 -3.16 19.98 23 0.87 Kept
Table 10 7th Facet Compliance: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 İnsanlarla zıtlaşmaktan hoşlanmam 1.47 4.48 2.72 1.42 -0.03 -2.36 51.04 44 1.16 Kept
2 Sivri bir dilim vardır 1.31 2.96 1.21 -0.07 -1.17 -2.73 54.66 47 1.16 Kept
3 Diğer insanlarla zıtlaşırım 3.28 6.66 4.08 1.31 -0.95 -4.18 30.43 34 0.89 Kept
4 Bana yapılan haksızlıkları kimsenin yanına bırakmam 0.84 2.08 0.56 -0.63 -2.05 -3.48 54.03 49 1.10 Removed
5 İnsanlara bağırırım 1.24 4.07 2.73 0.97 -0.20 -1.61 50.30 47 1.07 Removed
51
Table 11 8th Facet Order: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Düzensizlik beni rahatsız etmez 2.71 5.10 2.63 1.21 -0.14 -2.29 28.93 28 1.03 Kept
2 Dağınık insanlar beni rahatsız etmez 2.96 5.54 2.41 1.00 -0.43 -2.66 21.12 25 0.84 Kept
3 Ortalığı toparlamayı severim 1.84 3.97 2.74 1.64 -0.07 -2.45 35.40 31 1.14 Kept
4 Çoğunlukla eşyaları olması gereken yere geri koymayı unuturum 1.79 4.39 2.39 1.18 -0.15 -2.16 20.81 30 0.69 Kept
Table 12 9th Facet Openness to Ideas: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Derin düşüncelere dalmayı severim 0.69 4.63 3.49 1.99 0.72 -0.93 87.12 71 1.23 Removed
2 Beni düşünmeye sevk eden filmleri severim 1.25 6.03 3.90 2.82 1.46 -0.52 60.84 58 1.05 Removed
3 Bilgi dağarcığımı genişletmek isterim 1.13 6.61 4.77 4.13 2.53 -0.08 39.16 42 0.93 Removed
4 Ağır okumalardan uzak dururum 0.97 2.92 1.33 0.16 -0.83 -2.50 117.28 96 1.22 Removed
5 Karmaşık problemler üzerinde çalışmayı severim 1.01 3.78 2.55 1.22 -0.06 -1.98 101.22 85 1.19 Removed
6 Kuramsal tartışmalar ilgimi çekmez 1.36 3.61 1.93 0.88 -0.49 -2.04 89.08 86 1.04 Kept
7 Detayları nadiren fark ederim 1.06 4.45 3.30 1.73 0.48 -1.50 68.56 68 1.01 Removed
8 Beni zorlayan metinleri okumayı severim 1.43 3.37 1.65 0.43 -0.85 -2.95 88.41 85 1.04 Kept
9 Soyut fikirler ilgimi çekmez 2.44 6.32 4.60 2.95 0.92 -1.55 59.86 58 1.03 Kept
10 Zengin bir kelime haznesine sahibimdir 0.81 3.99 2.53 1.12 -0.39 -2.20 80.36 88 0.91 Removed
11 Soyut fikirleri anlamakta zorlanırım 1.48 5.12 3.49 1.80 0.35 -1.62 56.53 71 0.80 Kept
12 Felsefi tartışmalardan kaçınırım 2.32 5.17 3.52 1.73 0.18 -1.95 81.06 67 1.21 Kept
52
Table 13 10th Facet Assertiveness/Exhibition: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Diğer insanları bir işi yapmaya ikna edebilirim 1.61 5.61 3.99 2.36 0.14 -3.12 42.18 44 0.96 Kept
2 Doğaçlama konuşmalar yapmakta iyiyimdir 1.85 3.97 2.57 0.95 -0.50 -2.79 89.10 60 1.48 Kept
3 Diğer insanları idare etmek bana zor gelir 1.23 3.76 1.70 0.22 -0.96 -3.26 65.28 64 1.02 Removed
4 Diğer insanların öncülük etmesini beklerim 1.62 5.27 2.80 0.80 -0.96 -3.04 69.20 51 1.36 Kept
5 Dikkati üzerime çekmeyi sevmem 1.15 2.58 0.89 -0.38 -1.61 -3.01 69.17 75 0.92 Removed
6 Kendimi kolayca öne çıkartabilirim 1.89 4.20 2.84 0.72 -1.00 -3.61 46.34 58 0.80 Kept
7 Kendimi rahatça ifade edebilirim 1.84 5.80 3.95 2.37 0.32 -2.79 59.95 47 1.28 Kept
8 Kararların alınmasını başkalarına bırakırım 1.49 6.03 3.37 1.36 -0.25 -2.35 46.88 54 0.87 Kept
53
Table 14 11th Facet Dutifulness: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Benim olmayan eşyaları asla almam 0.73 4.06 2.61 1.64 0.77 -0.86 64.42 60 1.07 Removed
2 Öne geçmek için hile yapabilirim 2.45 6.94 5.30 3.20 1.32 -0.85 47.38 36 1.32 Kept
3 Başımı beladan kurtarmak için yalan söylerim 1.96 4.49 2.67 1.00 -0.80 -3.12 35.26 49 0.72 Kept
4 Güvenin temelinin dürüstlük olduğuna inanırım 0.95 6.47 4.64 3.58 2.14 -0.08 28.65 35 0.82 Removed
5 Yalan söylemeyi veya hile yapmayı düşünemem bile 1.69 4.02 2.07 0.99 -0.13 -2.27 67.34 58 1.16 Kept
6 Kendi işlerimi başkalarına yaptırmaya çalışırım 1.27 5.44 4.30 2.68 0.82 -0.86 58.78 43 1.37 Removed
7 Gerektiğinde gerçekleri saptırırım 1.97 6.08 3.87 1.90 0.37 -1.93 43.95 44 1.00 Kept
8 Kuralların etrafından nasıl dolanacağımı bilirim 0.66 3.66 1.35 -0.33 -1.54 -3.35 76.28 51 1.50 Removed
54
Table 15 12th Facet Trust: IRT Item Parameters, Chi-squares, Chi-square/df ratios, and Decisions to Retain
Label a c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 χ2 df χ2/df Decision
1 Başkalarının gizli niyetleri olduğundan şüphelenirim 1.22 3.01 1.04 -0.56 -1.77 -3.42 47.73 56 0.85 Removed
2 Diğer insanların niyetlerinin iyi olduğuna inanıyorum 4.09 7.97 4.79 1.06 -2.70 -7.73 26.23 30 0.87 Kept
3 İnsanların söylediklerine güvenirim 2.75 6.32 3.70 1.64 -1.09 -5.78 36.30 32 1.13 Kept
4 İnsanların temelde dürüst olduğuna inanıyorum 3.07 5.09 2.97 0.62 -1.99 -5.56 48.65 40 1.22 Kept
5 Her şeyin iyi neticeleneceğini düşünüyorum 0.80 3.64 1.78 0.75 -0.90 -2.82 54.56 59 0.92 Removed
6 Kin tutarım 0.73 3.03 1.54 0.44 -0.34 -1.42 86.52 68 1.27 Removed
55
CHAPTER 4
STUDY 2 METHOD and RESULTS
Study 2 was conducted to delineate the criterion-related validity pattern between
personality characteristics and task performance. In addition, the moderating effects
of situational strength on the job performance and personality relationship were
analyzed. In this study data were gathered from the faculties and research assistants
(RAs) which are in a work relationship with these faculties regularly or for the last two
academic semesters. Details regarding the participants and measures are as follows.
4.1 Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from research assistants and faculties of METU, Ankara,
Hacettepe, Atılım, İstanbul Technical University (İTÜ), Ege, Anadolu, Osmangazi,
and Namık Kemal University. All of the RAs were given monetary incentive in order
for them to participate in the study. Faculties that evaluated the job performance of
RAs were not given any incentive to participate. During the initial contact, all RAs
were made aware that they were going to participate in a lottery that gave them a
chance to win a tablet computer. But as data collection continued, this incentive was
proven to be ineffective. So, in addition to a chance to participate in a lottery,
participants (i.e. RAs) were given monetary incentive of 40 TL.
Mean age of RAs that participated in the study was 27.83. On average they are on their
4.49 year of their graduate study. Their departments spanned psychology (21%),
mechanical (9%), electrical and electronical engineering (8%), biosystems engineering
(8%), industrial engineering (5%), computer engineering (5%), metallurgical and
materials engineering (5%), and field crops engineering (5%). Faculty members were
asked about their departments and the period of time they worked with the RA. Mean
of the semesters worked together was 4.75, and median semester of working together
was 4.
56
4.2 Measures
In study 2, RAs’ personality data were collected with the use of the compound
personality measure developed in study 1 and also with the BFI personality inventory.
In addition, RAs filled the Situational Strength at Work (SSW) scale to evaluate their
work environment’s situational strength characteristics. Also, job performance data of
RAs were collected from their immediate supervisors by using the Assistant
Evaluation Form (AEF). Detailed information of these scales can be found below.
4.2.1 Situational Strength at Work Scale
The Situational Strength at Work (SSW) scale developed by Meyer et al., (2014) is
composed of four sub-scales, which are clarity, consistency, constraints, and
consequences. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale, with one referring to
‘does not define my job at all’ and six referring to ‘defines my job completely’. In all
of the items, higher values indicate stronger situations. An example item from clarity
sub-dimension is “Necessary detailed information is provided about how to do work.”
(Bir çalışanın işini düzgün bir şekilde nasıl yapabileceğine dair gereken detaylı bilgi
sağlanır). The Turkish version of the scale, which was translated by the authors and
backtranslated and corrected by bilingual speakers, can be seen in Appendix E.
Meyer et al. (2014) reported Cronbach’s alpha values for clarity, consistency,
constraints, and consequences as .95, .90, .89, and .86, respectively. In this study
Cronbach’s alpha reliability values are .91 for clarity, .85 for consistency, .87 for
constraints, and .78 for consequences (see Table 15).
Table 16 Descriptive Statistics of the Situational Strength Measure
Dimension Mean SD Min Max Skewness # of Items α
Clarity 4.19 0.98 1.60 6.00 -0.50 5.00 0.91
Consistency 3.98 0.96 1.14 5.14 -0.29 5.00 0.85
Constraints 3.34 0.94 1.43 5.14 0.00 7.00 0.87
Consequences 3.42 0.83 1.20 6.00 0.00 7.00 0.78
Note. N = 61.
57
4.2.2 AEF
In order to measure job performance, AEF (Oz, 2003) was used. This scale was
specifically developed for an immediate supervisor (a faculty member) to rate the job
performance of teaching assistants (TA). In the original AEF form observers provide
ratings of performance on a 5-point Likert-type scale. In this study a 6-point Likert-
type scale was used ranging from ‘does not describe at all’ to ‘describes completely’.
There are two dimensions within this scale which are parallel with the job performance
literature. These dimensions are contextual and task performance. Sixteen of the 25
items in the AEF are measuring task performance and the remaining nine items are
measuring contextual performance. Task performance are composed of questions such
as ‘Is not prepared for the tasks as she/he leaves it to the last-minute’ (Son ana bıraktığı
için, kendisinden istenilen hazırlığı tam olarak yapamamak) and ‘Investigates different
sources while carrying out an assignment’ (İşini çeşitli kaynaklardan araştırmalar
yaparak yapmak). Contextual performance marker questions are ‘Volunteers for extra
duties’ (Extra görevler için gönüllü olmak) and ‘Helps a coworker who is short in time
although it is not her/his duty’ (Kendi işi olmadığı halde, çok yoğun olduğu için sıkışan
bir çalışma arkadaşına işlerini yapmasında yardımcı olmak). Oz (2003) reported
reliability coefficients for the task and contextual performance dimensions as .73
and .74, respectively. In this study, observed reliability coefficients of AEF for task,
and contextual were .91, and .67, respectively. Mean, minimum and maximum values,
skewness statistics of the AEF can be found in Table 16.
58
4.3 Results
Results of Study 2 are presented within three sections. In the first section
intercorrelations among the personality facets and BFI factors are given and significant
patterns highlighted. In the following section, results regarding the compound
personality scale and job performance are presented based on both CTT and IRT
approaches. In the final part of the results, analyses regarding the moderating effects
of the situational strength construct are presented.
Data were checked for univariate outliers and no trace of any univariate outlier was
detected. Besides that, missing values within the data set were also examined. In none
of the variables, missing values exceeded 3% of the respective variable. Considering
this low level of missing values, mean replacement was employed.
Means, standard deviations, skewness and reliability values of the scales used in Study
2 can be seen in Table 16. Personality variables were normally distributed with two
exceptions. Deliberation facet had a skewness value higher than one in both CTT and
IRT composite measures, and assertiveness had a skewness value higher than one in
the IRT composite scale. Severe range restriction was observed with the performance
variables as can be seen from Table 16. Even though their skewness values did not
indicate any diversion from normality, minimum values on a 6-point scale for task and
contextual performances were 3.56 and 3.44, respectively. Histograms revealed these
variables to be normally distributed within their range of responses.
Reliability values of the scales were mostly higher than .70. BFI factors’ Cronbach’s
alpha values ranged from .73 to .87. In terms of facet scales that were formed with
CTT methods, achievement striving and assertiveness had the lowest two values, .63
and .66, respectively. Remaning scales’ reliability values ranged from .72 to .96. In
terms of the facet scales that were formed with the use of IRT methods reliability
values ranged from .69 to .95. Altruism facet had the lowest and self-discipline had
the highest reliability values (see Table 16).
59
4.3.1 Interrelations of Compound Scale and BFI Factors
In Table 17 facets that were formed after the CTT analyses were placed on the vertical
axis (i.e. facets listed from top to bottom) and facets that were created by using IRT
methods were placed on the horizontal axis (i.e. from left to right).
Considering the CTT based facets developed for the compound scale, the
conscientiousness facets of self-discipline (r = .86, p < .01), achievement striving (r
= .27, p < .05), deliberation (r =.49, p < .01), and order (r = .51, p < .01) were most
highly correlated with the BFI conscientiousness factor. Highest correlation of
dutifulness was with agreeableness (r = .45, p < .01) but it was also correlated highly
with conscientiousness (r = .41, p < .01). In terms of the IRT based facets, self-
discipline, deliberation, order, and dutifulness had the highest significant correlations
with conscientiousness, and achievement striving both with conscientiousness and
agreeableness.
In the CTT-based facets, the agreeableness facets of altruism, compliance, and trust
were most highly correlated with the BFI agreeableness factor (rs ranged from .57
to .68). Notably, altruism also correlated with conscientiousness as highly as with
agreeableness (both r = .57, p < .01). In terms of IRT facets, altruism correlated with
conscientiousness and agreeableness (rs .54 and .39, respectively). Compliance and
trust had the highest correlations with agreeableness (rs .61 and .65, respectively).
When extraversion facets were taken into consideration, excitement seeking, which
also included items related to openness to actions, most highly correlated with
openness to experience and extraversion (rs .60 and .50, respectively). Assertiveness
was negatively correlated with agreeableness (r = -.30, p < .05) and positively
correlated with extraversion (r = .28, p < .05). Assertiveness/exhibition was highly
correlated with extraversion (r = .59, p < .01) and had an inverse association with
agreeablesness (r = -.23, ns) just like assertiveness. When these facets were examined
in IRT based compound scale, excitement seeking was significantly correlated with
openness to experience and extraversion, by .68 and .53, respectively. Assertiveness
60
and assertiveness/exhibition had the highest correlations with extraversion (rs .40
and .61, respectively), as expected.
Openness to ideas facet was most highly correlated with the openness to experience
factor in both the CTT based (r = .67, p < .01) and IRT based scales (r = .63, p < .01).
Correlations between IRT based facets and their respective CTT based facets, given in
the lower right section of Table 17, were high as expected. Only the correlations of
altruism (r = .87, p < .01) and achievement striving (r = .70, p < .01) were below .90.
61
Table 17 Descriptive Statistics for the CTT and IRT Based Facets, BFI factors, and Performance Dimensions
CTT Based Statistics IRT Based Statistics
Facet Name Mean SD Min. Max. Skewnes
s # of Items α
Mea
n SD Min Max Skewness # of Items α
Co
mp
ou
nd
Sca
le
Self-discipline 4.26 .71 2.74 5.82 -.09 34 .96 4.35 0.73 2.79 5.89 -.15 28 .95
Excitement seeking 4.25 .60 2.92 5.33 -.34 12 .75 4.31 0.66 2.86 5.71 -.24 7 .74
Altruism 4.83 .46 3.77 5.85 -.05 13 .74 5.01 0.53 3.86 6.00 -.17 7 .69
Achievement striving 4.43 .59 3.14 6.00 .29 7 .63 4.70 0.79 2.00 6.00 -.71 2 .80
Deliberation 4.81 .68 2.22 6.00 -1.11 10 .79 4.82 0.69 2.13 6.00 -1.20 8 .86
Assertiveness 4.20 1.15 2.00 5.60 -.22 5 .66 4.55 0.66 2.00 5.67 -1.13 3 .72
Compliance 4.45 .63 2.00 5.80 -.13 5 .76 4.40 1.05 2.00 6.00 -.53 3 .73
Order 4.85 .65 1.75 6.00 -.99 4 .79 4.20 1.15 1.75 6.00 -.22 4 .79
Openness to ideas 4.05 .90 3.08 5.58 -.72 12 .79 4.18 0.95 2.00 5.80 -.12 5 .77
Assertiveness/Exhibition 4.99 .54 2.00 5.50 -.34 8 .72 4.36 0.64 2.33 5.50 -.65 6 .73
Dutifulness 5.08 .63 2.63 5.88 -.64 8 .77 4.92 0.92 2.00 6.00 -.94 4 .81
Trust 4.84 .58 1.60 5.40 -.05 5 .84 4.17 0.96 1.33 5.67 -.85 3 .87
Compound Composite 3.83 .30 3.13 4.50 -.30 88 3.77 .42 2.98 4.81 -.10 59
BF
I
Agreeableness 4.57 .61 3.00 5.56 -.58 9 .73
Conscientiousness 4.37 .70 2.78 5.89 -.09 9 .81
Extraversion 4.02 .86 1.75 5.50 -.34 8 .87
Neuroticism 3.20 .82 1.25 5.25 .24 8 .80
Openness to Experience 4.38 .63 2.80 5.60 -.14 10 .77
BFI Composite 3.63 .36 2.70 4.37 -.42 36
Per
for-
ma
nce
Task Performance 5.08 .63 3.56 6.00 -.64 16 .91
Contextual Performance 4.84 .58 3.44 6.00 -.05 9 .67
Note. SD = Standard deviation. α = Cronbach’s alpha. Standard error of skewness is .306. In the compound composite the facets of excitement seeking, openness to ideas, and
assertiveness/exhibition were reverse scored due to their inverse association with performance. The facets of assertiveness, altruism, order and trust were not included. In the composite
BFI score the factors of extraversion and openness were reverse scored. Neuroticism was not included to BFI composite score.
62
Table 18 Correlations between the BFI Factors and Compound Scale Facets
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Agreeableness .41** .02 .39** .44** .36** -.19 .61** .43** .12 -.20 .42** .65**
2 Conscientiousness .44** .86** .21 .54** .34** .45** .22 .20 .51** .20 .24 .45** .21
3 Extraversion .05 .30* .33** .53** .07 .01 .11 .40** -.23 .12 .11 .61** .11 -.01
4 Neuroticism -.42** -.32* -.01 -.38** -.08 -.16 .08 -.45** -.11 -.42** -.14 -.16 -.09 -.32* -.18
5 Opennesss to
Experience .08 .20 .37** -.07 .28* .68** .28* -.10 .05 .17 -.24 -.01 .63** .39** .16 -.06
6 Self-discipline .40** .86** .36** -.36** .29* 1**
7 Excitement Seeking -.01 .13 .50** -.09 .60** .23 .94**
8 Altruism .57** .57** .17 -.28* .27* .53** .16 .87**
9 Achievement Striving 0.21 .27* .08 .17 .11 .24 -.23 .14 .70**
10 Deliberation .34** .49** .12 -.43** .08 .39** -.09 .40** .11 .99**
11 Assertiveness -.30* .12 .28* -.13 .16 .28* .36** .03 .02 .44** .85**
12 Compliance .66** .15 -.25* -.41** -.22 .11 -.19 .26* .08 .34** -.35** .95**
13 Order .43** .51** .12 -.14 -.01 .42** .03 .32* .20 .09 -.04 .26* 1**
14 Openness to Ideas .09 .22 .20 -.12 .67** .23 .39** .28* -.13 .30* .30* -.19 .04 .93**
15 Assertiveness/Exhibitio
n -.23 .21 .59** -.05 .33** .36** .41** -.00 .18 .11 .46** -.42** -.05 .41** .95**
16 Dutifulness .45** .41** .07 -0.23 .16 .43** .11 .47** .07 .54** 0.22 .33** .26* .20 -.01 .94**
17 Trust .68** .18 -.08 -.30* -.05 .19 -.10 .28* .41** .05 -.41** .50** .20 -.07 -.20 .15 .94**
Note. ** p < .01, * p < .05. Facets that were formed after IRT analyses were presented in the horizontal axis and facets that were the result of CTT analyses were put on the vertical
axis. Figures that was presented in the lower right corner of the table are the correlations between CTT and IRT based compound scales.
63
4.3.2 Compound Personality Scale and Job Performance Relationship
Correlations between task performance, compound scale facets and the BFI factors can
be seen in Table 18. In this sample of 61 participants, the only facets that were
statistically significantly correlated with task performance were the CTT-based
excitement seeking scale (r = -.26, p < .05) and both the CTT and IRT-based openness
to ideas scales (r = -.26 and r = -.32, p < .05). Even though the relationship between
excitement seeking and task performance was in the expected direction as indicated
by the literature, openness to ideas facet’s correlation with task performance was not.
Besides these associations, there were no significant correlations between any of the
compound facets and task performance.
In order to create CTT based and IRT based compound scales, facets that were
correlated with task performance higher than .10 were taken. The deliberation facet’s
correlation with task performance was reduced to .09 after IRT-based elimination,
nonetheless it was still included in the compound scale based on rational grounds.
Given this selection criterion, facets of assertiveness, altruism, trust, order, and
dutifulness were taken out of the compound scale. Of these, altruism did not have any
empirical support in the literature as an associate of task performance. Order and trust
were not replicated across studies. Present study results further justified the exclusion
of these scales from the compound scale. Even though assertiveness and dutifulness
were found to be related to task performance, both CTT and IRT-based scales did not
produce consistent results with each other thus they were also omitted. In addition to
that, facets of excitement seeking, openness to ideas, and assertiveness/exhibition were
reverse coded as they inversely associated with task performance (see Table 18).
To create a BFI composite score, factor scores were aggregated and averaged. As
neuroticism had a nill association with task performance, and also as the compound
scale that was formed with the use of facets did not contain any neuroticism facets, the
neuroticism factor scores were not included in the BFI composite score calculation.
Factors of extraversion and openness to experience were reverse coded as they are
negatively related to task performance.
64
The first hypothesis of the study was that the compound personality scale developed
would perform better in predicting task performance than the broad FFM factors. In
order to test this hypothesis, CTT-based and IRT-based compound scale correlations
with task performance was compared to that of the BFI composite.
Table 19 Compund Facet and BFI Correlations with Task and Contextual
Performance
Task Performance Contextual Performance
CTT based IRT based CTT based IRT based
Self-discipline .21 .21 .03 .02
Excitement seeking -.26* -.23 -.01 .06
Altruism .04 .00 .03 .08
Achievement striving .15 .22 .11 -.02
Deliberation .10 .09 -.08 -.11
Assertiveness -.08 .02 -.05 -.02
Compliance .13 .13 -.07 -.09
Order .02 .02 -.06 -.06
Openness to ideas -.26* -.32* -.05 -.06
Assertiveness/Exhibition -.15 -.12 .10 .14
Dutifulness .06 .08 -.08 -.02
Trust .00 .04 -.19 -.14
Compound Total .36** .36** - -
BFI Conscientiousness .28* - .04 -
BFI Agreeableness -.04 - -.19 -
BFI Extraversion -.09 - .00 -
BFI Neuroticsm .00 - .05 -
BFI Openness -.19 - .07 -
BFI Composite .25 - - -
Note. ** p < .01, * p < .05. N = 61. CTT = Classical Test Theory, IRT = Item Response Theory. In the compound
composite the facets of excitement seeking, openness to ideas, and assertiveness/exhibition were reverse scored
due to their inverse associations with performance. The compound composite was formed with the facets that had
correlations higher than .10 with task performance, excluding the facets of assertiveness, altruism, order,
dutifulness, and trust. In the BFI composite the factors of extraversion and openness were reverse scored.
Neuroticism was not included.
Results of the correlation analysis showed that the compound scale that was created
using facets had a significant moderate correlation with task performance (r = .36, p
< .01). The magnitude of association was the same for both the CTT and IRT-based
compound scales. The correlation of the BFI composite with task performance was
less than moderate and not significant (r = .25, ns). In addition to that, the correlations
between task performance and compound scale composites were higher than the
65
correlation between task performance and the BFI conscientiousness factor (r = .28, p
< .05) (see Table 18). These findings indicated that the first hypothesis of the study
was supported.
In order to test the incremental validity gains that can be acquired by the use of the
compound scale on top of the BFI composite, a hierarchical regression analysis was
conducted. In this analysis, the BFI composite was entered into the regression analysis
in the first step. In the second step the IRT-based compound scale score was entered
into the analysis (see Table 19). The model with the BFI composite (β = .25, p = .05)
in the first step was marginally significant (F(1, 59) = 3.92, p = .05) and explained 6%
of variance in the task performance criterion. The inclusion of the compound scale
score in the second step explained around 7% incremental variance over the BFI
composite (ΔR2 = .065, ΔF(1, 58) = 4.33, p = .04). In this model, the BFI composite
score was not significant (β = -.02, ns) whereas the compound composite score was
significant (β = .37, p < .05). This analysis was conducted to reach a resolution
regarding the second hypothesis of the study, which posited that the compound
personality scale will add incremental variance over the broad Big Five factors. The
second hypothesis of the study was supported.
Even though the compound personality scale was not developed with a focus of
predicting contextual performance, this dimension was also included in the study for
exploratory purposes. Except for achievement striving (r = .11) and trust (r = -.19), no
other facet had an association that exceed .10, thus no composite was formed to
analyze associations with contextual performance.
66
Table 20 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results
Model R2 ΔR2 ΔF(df) p β t p
Step 1 .062 .062 3.92(1, 59) .052
BFI Composite .25 1.98 .052
Step 2 .127 .065 4.33(1, 58) .042
BFI Composite -.02 -0.13 .90
Compound Composite .37 2.08 .04
Note. Compound composite based on the scale with 59 items refined after the IRT analysis. The BFI composite is
based on the four factors except for Neuroticism, with 36 items.
4.4 Moderating Effects of Situational Strength
The third hypothesis of this study was regarding situational strength’s moderation
effect. It was stated that the relationship between the compound personality scale and
task performance would be higher in weaker situations compared to stronger
situations. In order to test this hypothesis a series of moderated regression analyses
were conducted. In these analyses centered scores of the respective situational strength
scale (i.e. clarity, consistency, constraints, and consequences) and IRT-based
compound personality scale were entered in the first step of the regression analysis. In
the second step, an interaction term that was the product of the aforementioned
variables was entered into the regression.
In all of the regression analyses, the models were significant at both steps (see Table
20) being driven by the effect of the IRT based compound personality scale which was
significant (see Table 21). Interaction terms did not add any significant incremental
variance in any of the regressions with the four situational strength moderator factors
(Table 21). Thus, based on statistical grounds with a sample of 61 individuals, the third
hypothesis of this study was not supported.
67
Table 21 Situational Strength Hierarchical Regression ANOVA Results
Moderator Model SS df MS F p
Clarity 1 3.56 2 1.78 5.16 .01
2 3.97 3 1.32 3.85 .01
Consistency 1 3.00 2 1.50 4.23 .02
2 3.37 3 1.12 3.17 .03
Constraints 1 3.11 2 1.55 4.42 .02
2 3.12 3 1.04 2.90 .04
Consequence 1 3.60 2 1.80 5.23 .01
2 3.60 3 1.20 3.43 .02
Note. SS = Sum of squared errors, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean squared errors.
Table 22 Situational Strength Hierarchical Regression Second Step Coefficients
Clarity
Variable β t p
Constant 64.41 .00
Clarity Centered -.16 -1.27 .21
IRT Composite Centered .40 3.19 .00
Interaction Term .13
ΔR2 .02
ΔF(df) 1.20
p .28
Consistency
Variable β t p
Constant 58.47 .00
Consistency Centered .05 0.33 .74
IRT Composite Centered .39 2.75 .01
Interaction Term .15 1.02 .31
ΔR2 .02
ΔF(df) 1.05
p .31
Constraints
Variable β t p
Constant 64.433 .00
Constraints Centered .07 0.510 .61
IRT Composite Centered .37 2.866 .01
Interaction Term .02 0.140 .89
ΔR2 .00
ΔF(df) .02
p .89
Consequences
Variable β t p
Constant 65.18 .00
Consequences Centered -.17 -1.31 .20
IRT Composite Centered .40 3.14 .00
Interaction Term .01 0.10 .92
ΔR2 .00
ΔF(df) .01
p .92
Note. β = Standardized regression coefficients, ΔR2 = R square change, ΔF(df) = F change.
68
Nonetheless, to see the pattern of the correlations on different levels of clarity,
consistency, constraints, and consequences a series of correlation analyses were
conducted. Participants were divided into three groups by using the 33rd and 66th
percentiles in order to roughly equate group sizes. Exact group sizes of each group,
correlations between job performance and the personality composite and significance
levels can be seen in Table 22.
Even though the interaction terms were not significant with a sample of 61, noteworthy
correlational patterns emerged across the low-, medium-, and high-strength groups for
the factors of clarity, consistency, and consequences. For consequences, the highest
personality-performance correlation was observed in the low-strength group (r = .48,
p < .05); correlations were relatively smaller for the medium- (r = .38, ns) and high-
situational strength (r = .32, ns) groups, as expected. As the job context was perceived
to have potentially more critical consequences (stronger situation) personality was less
associated with performance. For clarity, consistency, and constraints contrary to
expectations, the highest personality-performance correlations were observed for the
high-situational strength group (r = .58, p < .01; r = .40, p < .05; r = .43, p < .05,
respectively). For clarity, correlations got smaller as the situation’s strength decreased;
with a moderate correlation for the medium-strength group (r = .38, ns) and a small
correlation in the low-strength group (r = .13, ns). Contrary to expectations, as the
situation got stronger, personality was more associated with performance ratings. In
general as situational strength increased, the correlations between task performance
and personality reached significance. The only exception to this rule was that of the
pattern observed for the consequences dimension. These contrary findings for the most
part didn’t support the third hypothesis of the study.
69
Table 23 Job Performance and IRT Based Scale Correlation at Different Situational
Strength Levels
Clarity Consistency
Group N r p Group N r p
Low 21 .13 .57 Low 20 .35 .13
Medium 17 .38 .14 Medium 16 .36 .17
High 23 .58** .004 High 25 .40* .045
Constraints Consequences
Group N r p Group N r p
Low 22 .35 .11 Low 20 .48* .03
Medium 16 .23 .40 Medium 22 .38 .09
High 23 .43* .04 High 19 .32 .18
Note. N = Number of participants in the group.
4.5 The use of IRT Methodologies
In this study IRT models were used to obtain item discrimination parameters. These
parameters were used to select items that are more discriminating in terms of the trait
of interest. As a research question, criterion related predictive power of the facet scales
that was developed with the use of item discrimination parameters compared with the
facet scales that was developed with CTT-based facet scales. As can be seen from the
Table 19, the correlations of both CTT-based and IRT-based scales with task
performance were the same (rs = .36, p < .05). This indicated that the predictive
validity of the scales was not influenced by the method employed in their development.
Though, the length of the scale that was developed with the use of IRT methods on top
of CTT methods is shorter than the one that was developed with the use of CTT
methods.
70
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this study was to develop a compound personality scale named
as the work discipline scale, by combining the criterion-related FFM facets, and
investigating its predictive validity with task performance as the focal outcome. While
doing so, the study took a rational-empirical approach. Personality facets relevant to
performance were first identified based on the literature. Focal performance outcomes
included operationalizations that would be common to most jobs. These were task
performance and factors that would lead to better task performance such as
demonstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline, taking initiative, job dedication,
work engagement, engaging in self-development, motivation, procrastinating, and
adaptability. Many of these dimensions were based on the model of job performance
by Johnson (2003) others (e.g. procrastination) were included by the researchers.
These are consistent with the dimensions of performance common to all jobs (job
specific task proficiency, maintaining personal discipline, and demonstrating effort) as
proposed by the model of Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager (1993). However,
predicting contextual performance or counterproductive work performance was not
included in the focus of the present study. Similarly, job or position specific factors
such as managerial performance, teamwork performance, creativity were not a focus
of the literature search.
Facets relevant to the aforementioned task and related performance dimensions were
put together by identifying their corresponding constructs in the IPIP. Identification of
the constructs to be utilized constituted the rational approach of developing the
compound scale. As part of the empirical approach, both CTT and IRT methodologies
were utilized for scale refinement at the item level, using a large university student
sample. Moreover, correlations between compound scale facets and task performance
ratings of employed graduate assistants at universities were used to further refine the
compound scale to obtain the best predictive power.
71
Furthermore, in the present study, the strength of the situation as defined by clarity,
consistency, constraint, and consequences were taken into account when analyzing the
work discipline compound scale and task performance relationship as personality-
performance associations have been shown to be moderated by situational strength
(Beaty, Cleveland, & Murphy, 2001; Meyer et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2014). Results
are discussed regarding the use of facets, IRT methodology, and the hypothesized
moderating role of situational strength. A discussion on the practical contributions and
limitations of the study, and and future research suggestions follows.
5.1 The Use of Personality Facets
Several empirical studies suggested the use of compound personality scales in
predicting various performance criteria, such as task performance, CWB, managerial
performance, and team work (e.g., Fine & Klein, 2011; Oh et al., 2008; Ones &
Viswesvaran, 2001; Ones et al., 1993). As emphasized by Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen,
Helmes, and Rothstein (1995) theoretical benefits that are provided by the FFM may
not provide us with the specificity that is needed to predict outcomes in applied
settings. By just focusing on factor level personality constructs of the FFM and
overlooking facets may lead us to miss important real world relationships. As
empirical studies in the literature indicated that facet-preformance level associations
were driving personality performance relationships (De Vries et al., 2011; Dudley et
al., 2006; Hurt & Donovan, 2000; Mussel et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2008) facets were
combined to form the compound scale and to study the scale’s relationship with
performance in this study.
It was hypothesized that the compound personality scale would perform better in
predicting task performance than the broad FFM factors. Correlation analyses were
conducted to compare the predictive validity of the compound scale that was
developed by the use of facets with that developed by the use of factors. While the
compound scale that was formed by FFM factors had a non-significant correlation with
task performance in a sample of 61 participants, the work discipline compound scale
that was developed by the use of facets had a moderate significant correlation with
72
task performance. This finding is consistent with the other empirical findings in the
literature indicating higher performance associations for facets or facet compounds
(e.g., Fein & Klein, 2011; Oh et al., 2008).
Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the compound personality scale will add
incremental variance over the broad FFM factor composite in the prediction of task
performance. Results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that the compound
scale did really add incremental variance on top of the 4-factor BFI compound score.
The variance explained by the BFI compound score was 6% while the incremental
variance that was explained by the compound scale score was 7%. This finding
contributes to the literature indicating that facet-level information adds specificity and
information above broad factors (e.g., De Vries et al., 2011; Dudley et al., 2006;
Mussel et al., 2011). These findings supported the first two hypotheses.
As indicated by Judge et al. (2013) even though there were meta-analyses on the
subject of personality-job performance relationship, studies on which facets were the
best predictors of personality were scattered and not as numerous as studies that
included factor-performance associations. Judge et al. provided a meta-analysis on
such facet-performance associations based on the NEO facets. The most important
contritubion of the present study is that when it comes to prediction of task
performance, facets can be an important tool, more so than factors themselves or factor
composites. Not all reserachers may have access to the NEO-PI-R, nonetheless the
present study offers the potential usefulness of utilizing relevant IPIP facets.
According to the results of the present study, in predicting task performance,
conscientiousness facets of self-discipline, achievement striving, and deliberation;
extraversion facets of excitement seeking and assertiveness/exhibition; the
agreeableness facet of compliance; and the openness to experience facet of openness
to ideas were empirically useful. Two of these facets, however, yielded associations
with task performance that were counter expectations, which are discussed next.
73
5.2 The Nature of Facet-Performance Associations in the Present Study
Results of the study indicated that facets of self-discipline, excitement seeking,
achievement striving, deliberation, compliance, order, and dutifulness were related to
the task performance in the expected direction, even though, with the exeption of the
facet of excitement seeking, these correlations did not reach significance in a sample
of 61 participants. In addition, openness to ideas and assertiveness/exhibition facets’
correlations with task performance were negative and the correlation of openness to
ideas with task performance was found to be significant.
As self-discipline, achievement striving, deliberation, and dutifulness are all under the
factor of conscientiousness, their positive correlations with task performance were in
the expected direction (e.g., Judge et al., 2013; Dudley et al., 2006). As a facet of
agreeableness factor, positive correlation between compliance and task performance
was also in the expected direction (e.g., Judge et al., 2013).
The results of the study also indicated a negative and significant relationship between
openness to ideas and task performance. This correlation can be considered as the most
unexpected one, especially for a study that is studying research assistants and task
performance in the university environment. In addition, the factor of openness to
experience was generally found to be least predictive of the Big Five factors (Griffin
& Hesketh, 2004). Though openness to ideas was found to be positively correlated
with both task and overall performance (Judge et al., 2013; Blake, Potter, & Slimak,
1993; Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000). Moderate negative correlation that
was found is unexpected considering this fact.
Compliance facet’s relationship with task performance is also higher than expected.
Assertiveness/Exhibition dimension’s correlation with task performance was among
the highest ones, but negative just like openness to ideas, even though it was not
significant. These pattern of correlations can be interpreted in the light of the power
distance and uncertainty avoidance dimensions of Hofstede (1980a). He developed a
framework that has four dimensions and was based on the data that was collected from
all 40 countries in the 1960s and 1970s. These dimensions are individualism-
74
collectivism, power distance, uncertainity avoidance, and masculinity-femininity.
Countries were placed along these dimensions to describe their cultural value. These
dimensions have been widely accepted since their introduction. Their influence on the
reseach and understanding of culture is hard to overestimate (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel,
2010).
Power distance dimension is basically related to the distribution of power,
subordination, and independence in interpersonal relationships. It was formally
defined as “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and
organizations is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 45). In a practical and
work related sense, it is related to the extent to which a subordinates’ expression of
disagreement with her/his supervisor is expected. Uncertainty avoidance as defined in
the Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions is related to “the extent to which a society
feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these
situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not
tolerating deviant ideas and behaviors, and believing in absolute truths and the
attainment of expertise” (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 45).
In the dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance Turkey was found to
be standing in the high levels (Daller & Yıldız, 2006; Hofstede, 1980a). In our culture,
a behavioral style that has higher compliance, lower assertiveness/exhibition and
openness to ideas may be viewed as the appropriate way of behaving according to the
superiors that have completed the performance evaluation forms. As emphasized in
the prior paragraph, Hofstede’s power distance dimension is specifically related to the
expession of disagreeament, and in a culture where power distance is high, expression
of disagreeament is not the expected and, probably, accepted way of behaving. This
may lead to the conclusion that conformance is valued more and thus more related to
positive evaluations regarding task performance.
In cultures that are high in uncertainty avoidance, as stated in the definition, there is
not much tolerance to ideas that are deviating from the norms. When an environment
that is characterized by high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance is
75
considered, it is not too unconcievable that a subordinate (i.e. research assistant) who
has higher conformity, and also lower assertiveness/exhibition and openness to ideas
receives higher performance evaluations from a superordinate (i.e. faculties). The
pattern of relationships among conformity, openness to ideas,
assertiveneess/exhibition, and task performance may have emerged as the result of a
cultural environment that has high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance.
Interrelations across these facets are also in line with these patterns of relationships.
Assertiveness/exhibition was found to be significantly and positively correlated with
openness to ideas (r = .41, p < .01), and negatively with compliance (r = -.42, p < .01).
And openness to ideas had a nonsignificant correlation with compliance (r = -19, ns).
Higher compliance seems to be related to lower openness to ideas and
assertiveness/exhibition.
5.3 Using IRT Methods in Personality Scale Refinement
As emphasized by the personality researchers (Chiesi, Galli, Primi, Borgi, & Bonacchi,
2013) the use of IRT models in studying personality is behind that in studying ability,
proficiency, and achievement measurement. The research that was carried out in this
study is also an attempt to encourage researchers to explore the IRT models and to use
them in personality research.
As the item characteristics that were estimated with the use of IRT models are not
sample dependent these parameters can be considered as invariant across different
samples (Sodano & Tracey, 2011). This property is an advantage in situations when
the parameters of the model are wished to be generalized, and in most studies this is
the case.
Studies identified in the literature that used the IRT methods with personality
assessment have done so to evaluate and delineate the psychometric procedures of
existing measures and to produce shorter versions of them (Betancourt, Yang, Bolton,
& Normand, 2014; Hays, Morales, & Reise, 2000). To that end they are examining the
item and test properties by using the parameters that were estimated. While this
76
practice is useful and informative as it gives cues to how to best use scales, this line of
researh is not especially useful for better predicting criteria of importance, such as task
performance. In the previous studies, predictive utilities of IRT methodologies mostly
went unstudied.
In the development of the compound personality scale in the present study IRT
methodologies were used on top of CTT methodologies to improve predictive power.
It was expected that, by identifying the most discriminating items that also provide the
most information, the predictive validity of the compound scale would be enhanced.
As it turns out, while the IRT methodology did not result in any improvement in the
predictive power, it helped shortening the scale length. The compound scale that was
formed with the CTT was composed of 88 items while the IRT-based compound scale
was shortened by one-thirds, leaving 59 items. Thus, the present study contributed to
the scarce literature on IRT applications to shorten scale length. The present study went
further by showing that validity is preserved after shortening the scale by IRT, an
important finding that was not studied previously.
5.4 Situational Strength as the Proposed Moderator of the Personality-
Performance Association
In addition to these research goals of developing a compound scale to predict task
performance and refining the scale with IRT methods, moderating influences of the
environmental variables as conceptualized by situational strength (Meyer et al., 2010)
were also studied. For the most part the hypothesized moderating effects of situational
strength were not supported statistically in the sample of 61 participants. Specifically,
the interaction terms used to test the moderation hypotheses were not significant. As
testing for interaction effects require relatively larger sample sizes especially for small
effects (Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, & Pierce, 2005; Morris, Sherman, & Mansfield, 1986),
a decision was made to follow an approach similar to that taken by Beaty et al. (2001)
in their study of the moderating effect of situational strength on personality-contextual
performance. Since in that study they had 58 participants, in addition to statistically
testing for interaction effects, they divided participants into two groups of situational
77
strength; below average strength (weak situations) and above average strength (strong
situations). Their study did not reveal statistically significant moderating effects either,
however within group analyses indicated that the correlations were higher and
significant in the weak situation group than the strong situation group.
In the present study, groups varying on situational strength were formed based on the
33rd and 66th percentiles. Accordingly, at different levels (low, medium, high) of the
situational strength, the correlations between the compound scale and task
performance were changing from nonsignificance to significance or vice versa. In an
unparallel manner to the study hypothesis, on the sub-dimensions of clarity,
consistency, and constraints, significant correlations between task performance and the
compound scale were observed in the group scoring highest on situational strength. In
other words, in situations evaluated as more clear, or consistent, or constraining; the
relationship between task performance and the compound scale was larger and
significant. The interaction of work discipline compound personality scale with clarity
and consistency had 2% incremental variance, which was comparable to the
incremental variance in other situational strength studies (e.g., Beaty et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, the trend of associations across groups that are counter expectations are
puzzling in light of the literature findings. Specifically, relationships are just the
opposite of what was found in Meyer et al. (2014) in which the relationship between
criterion (i.e. OCB) and personality were significant such that as the strength of the
situation increased the relationship between personality and OCB decreased. Results,
especially for the clarity dimension, indicates a linear trend of increasing associations
as the situations get stronger. The trend for consistency or constraints was not that clear
and could more easily fluctuate as samples get bigger. The trend for consequences was
in the expected direction; the work discipline personality scale was more highly
associated with task performance as employees perceived their environment to have
more important consequences for stakeholders. Thus, especially the trend observed
with clarity is worth discussing.
Clarity refers to the explicitness of expectations, rules and regulations in a work
environment. Items include how clear performance expectations, responsibilities, and
78
regulations as to how to best do tasks are on the job. It could be argued that graduate
assistants who receive more explicit guides about performance expectations would
behave based on their self-concepts. That is, an assistant who has a positive self-
concept with regards to succeeding (e.g., when I work hard I succeed), would be more
expected to set a goal for achieving expectations, and thus would utilize personality
towards achieving the goals, whereas an assistant who has a relatively lower
achievement-related personality would not put effort in clearly identified
“challenging” tasks.
One possible explanation for the emerged pattern of unexpected correlations can be
found in Christiansen and Tett (2008). In this article they are highlighting the influence
of other situational cues with regard to trait activation. They proposed that not just the
cues from the tasks but also cues from social environment and organization level can
influence trait job performance relationship. And, according to their view, by just
studying task level situational variables we cannot solve the puzzle of the trait-job
performance relationship. In addition to their first suggestion of trait activation cues
from different levels of the environment, Christiansen and Tett (2008) also call for the
need of differentiation between trait expressing behaviors in work environments and
performance evaluations of these behaviors. Value system of the judges of
performance (i.e. supervisors) should also be taken into consideration to better
understand the relationship between trait expression and job performance.
In this research, information regarding the properties of the tasks of research assistants
in terms of situational strength were collected with the use of SSAW scale. This scale
basically collected information on the tasks of research asisstants. But, the scale did
not collect any information regarding the social and organizational cues that might
trigger trait behavior or that might effect the judgements of the judges (i.e. faculties)
of job performance. So, there might be other social and organizational variables that
were not accounted for by the situational strength measure of the study which could
have caused the observed pattern of personality and job performance relationship at
different levels of the situational strength.
79
The possible explanation finds support in the achievement motivation literature. When
goals are perceived to be challenging, achievement motivated people go for the goal
whereas people with fear of failure try to avoid the goal (e.g., Dweck, 1986; James &
Mazerolle, 2002). Even though participants in the current study were not asked how
challenging they perceived their duties to be, it could be argued that a graduate
assistant’s job is a transition from being a student with no responsibilities towards
others to being responsible for other students’ or faculties’ work. This possible
explanation could be studied in future research.
Goal seeting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) can also provide some explanation
regarding the results. Besides stating that most difficult goal produce highest levels of
effort, this theory showed that setting specific goals increases performance. When
compared to situations in which workers are expected to do their best, specific and
difficult goals lead to higher performance. Do-your-best kind of expectations have no
clear external reference and this lack of external reference leads to idiosyncracy in
determining goals.
Strong situations in terms of clarity are, in a sense, ones with specific goals. Thus, one
could also argue that, in strong situations people are inclined to working towards the
goal more so than low clarity situations, and what makes a difference in strong
situations could be personality. For instance, the more conscientious and less active a
graduate assistant is, the more effort put toward the specific goal. In situations where
goals are not clear, the even highly conscientious individual may not be sure of what
to do.
Finally, since task performance is based on supervisor ratings in this study, it could be
argued that in a context with clearer expectations, supervisors may be more easily
differentiating between the performances of graduate assistants and this differentiation
would be due to the correct reasons more related to the behaviors (personality)
displayed on the job rather than factors such as likeability or possible halo effects.
80
5.5 Practical Implications
The use of facet level personality constructs that can be extracted from the FFM can
be considered as practically useful. By selecting just the relevant facets from the FFM,
questionnaires can be shortened and made more relevant to the job at hand. On top of
the requirement of completing lots of questions, omnibus scales may include questions
that are very irrelevant to the position that must be filled with an appropriate candidate.
Also, researchers can utilize the IPIP item pool to develop facet scales that can be used
to predict various criteria of interest. The present study offers one such compound scale
to predict task performance.
Besides that, the development of scales using IRT based approaches should be
highlighted. The IRT analyses proved useful for reducing the number of items by
preserving validity. Gaining same magnitudes of predictive power with less questions
should also be considered as a practical a gain.
Testing times can be quite limited in selection contexts of organizations. Especially in
mass selection situations this is quite barely seen. In addition to that, job openings that
must be filled with appropriate candidates in short times necessitates shorter
procedures. Besides, situations that necessitates the elimination of high number of
applicants or situations that necessitates quick action and procedures, a short test is in
itself much more practical and adds quality to the selection procedure itself. As
indicated by the literature (Ashton, 1998) shortening of a test length may allow user
of the test to include other relevant tests at hand, such as cognitive ability, without
spending too much time. This argument also holds for scientific investigations.
In this research, data were collected from different sources. Specifically, predictor
varibles of compound personality scale and BFI scores were collected from research
assistants. Task performance evaluations of the research assistants were collected from
the faculties that worked with these research assistants for at least half-a-year. This can
be considered as a strength of the study, as most of the studies in the literature use the
same participants as the source of both predictor and criterion data.
81
5.6 Limitations
Sample size that was reached in Study 1 was just close to being optimal. In order to
reach results that can represent population correlation matrix, it was generally advised
to use sample sizes higher than 500. That being said, a sample size of 423 is not entirely
inappropriate; especially KMO values and Bartlett’s test indicated this fact. IRT
analysis was also conducted using this data. Other researchers have also applied IRT
analyses to samples under five hundered participants (e.g., Chiesi et al., 2013). So,
sample size should not be considered as too problematic.
A specific limitation of the present investigation is the sample size of Study 2. A power
analysis for the correlation analyses of the study showed that the power was .89.
Results of the analysis also showed that for this correlation, with the classical
significance level of .05, in order to reach a power of .95 a sample size of 78 is
necessary (Cohen, 1988). But, conventionally power of .80 was considered as
statistically powerful (Mazen, Hemmasi, & Lewis, 1987). However, power was
insufficient for testing for the interaction effects. The power for an effect of .15 with a
sample of 61 is .32.
Sample characteristics can also be considered as a limitation of this research. As the
nature of the job, all of the participants in this sample were pursuing a Ph.D. or M.S.
degree. Besides that almost half of the sample consisted of engineers. Sample
participants were highly qualified and this quality of the sample makes it hard to make
generalizations with regard to the results. Replication of the study with different jobs
would be beneficial. Currently, the results of the study could be generalized to graduate
assistants.
After the development of the shortened version of the compound personality scale, in
an independent sample its criterion-related validity was tested. Even though the scale
that was shortened performed well under the criterion-related validation context, its
properties (i.e. item parameter estimated of IRT) should be checked in an independent
sample as advised in the literature (Edelen & Reeve, 2007). As sample size was not
82
sufficient in Study 2, estimated parameters’ volatility should be checked in another
large sample.
Finally, the data to test the hypotheses were collected from Turkey. At this time, the
predictive power of the compound scale developed to predict task performance cannot
be generalized to other cultures. This argument especially holds for the assertiveness
and openness to ideas facets, as discussed earlier.
5.7 Suggestions for Future Research
Although the way IRT methods and parameters were used in this study was beneficial
in terms of shortening the compound personality measure, using the IRT methods are
best suited for the adaptive tests, especially computerized adaptive tests. To harness
the real potential of the IRT methods, real time estimation of the parameters from the
IRT is a must. By using computerized adaptive testing, real benefits can be realized.
Even further shortening of personality scales and improved participant trait estimates
can be obtained by using IRT with the infrastructure that can be afforded by computers.
Even though the main focus of the literature that uses facets is on predicting task
performance, there are organizational outcomes besides task performance. In order to
predict contextual performance and CWBs facet level constructs may be used. As these
constructs are considered as more related to volition than task performance, studying
the relationship between facets and contextual performance and CWB may be more
fruitful than using facets for the prediction of task performance.
83
REFERENCES
Allen, V. D., Weissman, A., Hellwig, S., MacCann, C., Roberts, R. D. (2014).
Development of the situational test of emotional understanding – brief
(STEU-B) using item response theory. Personality and Invidivual
Differences, 65, 3-7. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.051
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow
traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.
Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M. G.
(1995). The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific facet
scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 432-442. doi:
10.1006/jrpe.1995.1025
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in
assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple
regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94-107.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement,
performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 555-564.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2012). Nature and use of personality in selection. In
N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment and selection (pp. 225-
251). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at
the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go
next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
Betancourt, T. S., Yang, F., Bolton, P., & Normand, S. (2014). Developing an African
youth psychosocial assessment: An application of item response theory.
84
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23, 142-160. doi:
10.1002/mpr.1420
Blake, R. J., Potter III, E. H., & Slimak, R. E. (1993). Validation of the structural
scales of the CPI for predicting the performance of junior officers in the U.S.
Coast Guard. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 431-448. doi:
10.1007/BF01013757
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for
the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-29.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic
examination of performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237-250.
doi: 10.1002/per.473
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of
relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual
differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
835– 847. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.835
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting
item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and
insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.
Chiesi, F., Galli, S., Primi, C., Borgi, P. I., & Bonacchi, A. (2013). The accuracy of
the life orientation test-revised (LOT-R) in measuring dispositional optimism:
Evidence from item response theory analyses. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95, 523-529. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.781029
Christiansen, N. D., & Tett, R. P. (2008). Toward a better understanding of the role of
situations in linking personality, work behavior, and job performance.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 312-316.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85
Daller, H., & Yıldız, C. (2006). Power distance at work: The cases of Turkey,
successor states of the formet Soviet Union and Western Europe. Journal of
Politeness Research, 2, 35-53.
Denis, P. L., Morin, D., & Guindon, C. (2010). Exploring the capacity of NEO PI-R
facets to predict job performance in two French-Canadian samples.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 201-207.
Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Luebbert, M. C. (2004). The revised NEO personality
inventory as predictor of police academy performance. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 31, 676-694. doi: 10.1177/0093854804268751
DeVellis, R. F. (2003) Scale development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
De Vries, A., De Vries, R. E., & Born, M. PH. (2011). Broad versus narrow traits:
Conscientious and honesty-humility as predictors of academic criteria.
European Journal of Personality, 25, 336-348. doi: 10.1002/per.795
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic
investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance:
Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory modeling to
questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life
Research, 16, 5-18. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fein, E. C., & Klein, H. C. (2011). Personality predictors of behavioral self-
regulation: Linking behavioral self-regulation to five-factor model factors,
86
facets, and a compound trait. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 19, 132-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00541.x
Feuerstahler, L. M., & Waller, N. G. (2014). Estimation of the 4-parameter model
with marginal maximum likelihood. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49,
285. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.912889
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C.
R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the
future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40, 84-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good
predictor of job performance. International Journal of Selection and
Placement, 12, 243-251. doi: 10.1300/J013v34n01_04
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel
decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel
selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hafsteinsson, L. G., Donovan, J. J., & Breland, B. T. (2007). An item response theory
examination of two popular goal orientation measures. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 67, 719-739. doi: 10.1177/0013164406299101
Hallberg, U. E., Johansson, G., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Type A behavior and work
situation: Associations with burnout and work engagement. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 48, 135-142.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and
applications. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item
response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
87
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and healty
outcomes measurement in the 21th century. Med Care, 38.
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980b). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American
theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual. Tulsa: Ok:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, J. H., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-
performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 100-112. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables – construct confusion:
Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-
organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272-290. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2008.00057.x
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.85.6.869
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist:
Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88
Jenkins, M., & Griffith, R. (2004). Using personality constructs to predict
performance: Narrow or broad bandwidth. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 19, 255-269.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory -
Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley,
Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between
personality and individual job performance. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan
(Eds.) Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in
organizations (pp. 83-120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, J. L., & Bloom, A. M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the five
factors of personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality and
Individual Differences, 18, 127-133. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)00109-6
Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., De Fruyt, F, & De Maesener, J. (2002). Medical students’
personality characteristics and academic performance: A five-factor model
perspective. Medical Education, 36, 1050-1056. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-
2923.2002.01328.x
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57,
705-717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Mazen, A. M. M., Hemmasi, M., & Lewis, M. F. (1987). Assessment of statistical
power in contemporary strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 8,
403-410.
Meyer, R. D., & Dalal, R. S. (2009). Situational strength as a means of
conceptualizing context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 99-102.
doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01114.x
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation into
the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-
89
performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1077-1102.
doi: 10.1002/job.602
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of
situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management,
36, 121-140. doi: 10.1177/0149206309349309
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., José, I. J., Hermida, R., Chen, T. R., Vega, R. P., Brooks,
C. K., & Khare, V. P. (2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and
assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior.
Journal of Management, 40, 1010-1041. doi: 10.1177/0149206311425613
Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Marinova, S., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Beneath the
surface: Uncovering the relationship between extraversion and organizational
citizenship behavior through a facet approach. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 16, 143-154.
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., &
Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personality
selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683-729.
Morris, J. H., Sherman, J. D., & Mansfield, E. R. (1986). Failures to detect
moderating effects with ordinary least squares-moderated multiple regression:
Some reasons and a remedy. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 282-288.
Mussel, P., Winter, C., Gelléri, P., and Schuler, H. (2011). Explicating the openness to
experience construct and its subdimensions and facets in a work setting.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 145-156.
Neal, A., Yeo, G., Koy, A., & Xiao, T. (2012). Predicting the form and direction of
work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33, 175-192.
Oh, I., Toker, Y., Ferreter, J., Whitman, D., McKinniss, T., Casillas, A., & Robbins, S.
(2008, April). Development of the WorkKeys Talent Assessment scales and
indices. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.
90
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of
personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 995-
1027. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other criterion-focused
occupational personality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 31-39.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis
of integrity test validities: Finding and implications for personnel selection
and theories of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
Oz, B. (2003). Dispositional affectivity and job performance: Mediating effects of
job satisfaction. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Orta Doğu Teknik
Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Pincombe, J. L., Luciano, M., Martin, N. G., & Wright, M. J. (2007). Heritability of
NEO PI-R extraversion facets and their relationship with IQ. Twin Research
and Human Genetics, 10, 462-469. doi: 10.1375/twin.10.3.462
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-
project.org/.
Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York, NY:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Reise, S. P., & Henson, J. M. (2003). A discussion of modern versus traditional
psychometrics as applied to personality assessment scales. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 81, 93-103.
Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Stauffer, S. D., Maggiori, C., & Dauwalder, J. (2012). Career
adapt-abilities scale in a French-speaking Swiss sample: Psychometric
properties and relationships to personality and work engagement. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 734-743.
91
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded
scores. Psychometrika, Monograph Supplement No. 17.
Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S. L., & Morris, J. A. (2009). Psychological testing in
personnel selection, part III: The resurgence of personality testing. Public
Personnel Management, 38, 67-77.
Shoss, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Vera, D. (2012). When does adaptive performance lead
to higher task performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 910-924.
Sodano, S. M., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2011). A brief inventory of interpersonal
problems-circumplex using nonparametric item response theory: Introducing
the IIP-C-IRT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 62-75. doi:
10.1080/00223891.2010.528482
Sümer, N, Lajunen, T., & Özkan, T. (2005). Big Five personality traits as the distal
predictors of road accident involvement. In G. Underwood (Ed.) Traffic and
Transportation Psychology (pp. 215-227). Oxford: United Kingdom.
Sümer, N., & Sümer, H. C. (2002). Adaptation of BFI in a Turkish sample.
Unpublished manuscript.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s
Consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hoftede’s
cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405-439. doi:
10.1037/a0018938
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2008). Personality tests at the crossroads: A
response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt
(2007). Personnel Psychology, 2007, 60, 967-993. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2007.00098.x
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2008). Personality assessment in organizations. In
G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 1 – Personality Theories and
Models (pp. 720-742). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
92
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.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1994). Meta-analysis of
personality-job performance relations: A reply to Ones, Mount, Barrick, and
Hunter (1994). Personnel Psychology, 47, 157-172.
Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet level
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149-158.
Weiner, I. B., & Greene, R. L. (2008). Handbook of personality assessment.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Wetzel, E., & Hell, B. (2014). Multidimensional item response theory models in
vocational interest measurement: An illustration using the AIST-R. Journal of
Psychoeducational Measurement, 32, 342-355. doi:
10.1177/0734282913508244
93
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Compound Personality Measure Items of Study 1
Aşağıda sizi kısmen tanımlayan ya da pek tanımlayamayan bir takım özellikler sunulmaktadır. Örneğin,
başkaları ile zaman geçirmekten hoşlanan birisi olduğunuzu düşünüyor musunuz? Lütfen aşağıda
verilen özelliklerin sizi ne oranda yansıttığını ya da yansıtmadığını belirtmek için kendinizi
tanımladığınızı düşündüğünüz sayıyı işaretleyin.
Hiç
Tan
ımla
mıy
or
Tan
ımla
mıy
or
Pek
Tan
ımla
mıy
or
Bir
az
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Doğrudan hedefe yönelirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sıkı çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planlarımı eyleme dönüştürürüm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Görevlerime bütün kalbimle atılırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benden beklenilenden daha fazlasını yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendim ve diğerleri için yüksek standartlar belirlerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başarılı olmak için motivasyonum yüksek değildir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Durumu kurtaracak kadar iş yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşime pek fazla zaman ve çaba harcamam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
En iyisi olmak isterim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Her şey mükemmel olana kadar devam ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Performansımla diğerlerini geçmeye çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşi eğlencenin önüne koyarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşimin hayatımın önemli bir parçası olmadığını
hissediyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kolay olan yolu seçerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çaba göstermeye zahmet etmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İş çok zorlaştığında devam etmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zorlu görevleri kabul ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hayatımın yavaş bir temposu var. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Her zaman yoğunumdur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
94
Her zaman hareket halindeyim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Boş zamanlarımda birçok iş yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Birçok işi aynı anda idare edebilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşleri ağırdan almayı severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acele etmemeye özen gösteririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerin kendi hızında ilerlemesine izin veririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğerlerinin neye ihtiyacı olduğunu öngörürüm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendimden başkalarını da umursarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Herkes için söyleyecek iyi bir söz bulabilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların duygularına kayıtsızımdır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlar için vakit ayırmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanlara içtenlikle karşılandıklarını hissettiririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlara yardımımın dokunmasını severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ortamın huzurunu korumaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başkalarının ihtiyaçlarıyla uğraşamam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların görüşlerini göz ardı ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların çıkarlarını göz önüne alırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eski tanıdıklarımla bağlantımı koparmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sorumluluğun bende olmasını isterim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanları bir işi yapmaya ikna edebilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanları etkileyerek yönlendirmeye çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kontrolü ele almayı severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların öncülük etmesini beklerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dikkati üzerime çekmeyi sevmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Görüşlerimi kendime saklarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendimi kolayca öne çıkartabilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gerektiğimde kendimi savunurum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bana patronluk taslanmasına ses çıkarmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendimi rahatça ifade edebilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kararların alınmasını başkalarına bırakırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Düşündüğümü söylerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eleştirilerimi dile getirmekten çekinmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gerektiğinde sert tedbirler alabilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Doğaçlama konuşmalar yapmakta iyiyimdir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanları idare etmek bana zor gelir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Memnun edilmesi kolay bir insanım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
95
İnsanlarla karşı karşıya gelmekten hoşlanmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Israrcı görünmekten hoşlanmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sivri bir dilim vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlarla zıtlaşırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanlara bağırırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kin tutarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bana yapılan haksızlıkları kimsenin yanına bırakmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rekabetten ziyade işbirliğine değer veririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlarla işbirliği yapabilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kelimelerimi özenle seçerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ani kararlar veririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sık sık son dakika planları yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Düşünmeden aceleyle harekete geçerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yaptığım işleri kontrol ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hataları fark ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Detayları nadiren fark ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Davranışlarımın sonuçlarını düşünmeden hareket
ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planlar yapmaktansa anı yaşamayı tercih ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Durumların eksi ve artı yönlerini tartarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ancak bütün bilgileri değerlendirdikten sonra bir karar
veririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir işe başlarken enine boyuna düşünmenin
gerekliliğine inanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kararlarımı verirken farklı olasılıkları düşünmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sahip olduğumdan daha fazla para harcarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sonradan üzülmektense önceden tedbirimi almak
gerektiğine inanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşimde çok titizimdir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendi işlerimi başkalarına yaptırmaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gerektiğinde gerçekleri saptırırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşleri kuralına göre yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Otoriteye saygı duyarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Otoriteye direnirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kuralların etrafından nasıl dolanacağımı bilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kurallara bağlı kalırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sorumluluklardan kaçınırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benim olmayan eşyaları asla almam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
96
Öne geçmek için hile yapabilirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başımı beladan kurtarmak için yalan söylerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Güvenin temelinin dürüstlük olduğuna inanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sözümü tutacağım konusunda bana güvenilebilir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yalan söylemeyi veya hile yapmayı düşünemem bile. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Asla paraşüt veya bungee jumping yapmaya gitmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Tehlikeli durumlardan sakınırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Her şeyi bir kere denemeye gönüllüyüm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Macera ararım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Risk alırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çeşitliliği sıradan işlere tercih ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeni yerleri gezip görmekten keyif alırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İlgi duyduğum birçok değişik şey vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeni şeylere başlamaktan keyif alırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bildiğim işlere devam etmeyi tercih ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Değişikliklerden hoşlanmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeni yemekler denemekten hoşlanmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alışıldık yöntemlere bağlıyımdır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Karmaşık problemler üzerinde çalışmayı severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beni zorlayan metinleri okumayı severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zengin bir kelime haznesine sahibimdir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Soyut fikirler ilgimi çekmez. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Felsefi tartışmalardan kaçınırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Soyut fikirleri anlamakta zorlanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kuramsal tartışmalar ilgimi çekmez. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ağır okumalardan uzak dururum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Derin düşüncelere dalmayı severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beni düşünmeye sevk eden filmleri severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Herhangi bir konuyu derinlemesine irdelemem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Öğrenmeyi sevmem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bilgi dağarcığımı genişletmek isterim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Durmadan bir şeyleri kaybederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ortalığı toparlamayı severim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerimi bir plana göre yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çoğunlukla eşyaları olması gereken yere geri koymayı
unuturum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dağınık insanlar beni rahatsız etmez. 1 2 3 4 5 6
97
Düzensizlik beni rahatsız etmez. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir işi bitirmeden bırakmam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Önümdeki engellere rağmen işleri bitiririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çalışırken başka şeylere kaymam. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Keyfimi kaçıracak işleri ertelerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planlar yapar ve bunlara bağlı kalırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başladığım/üstlendiğim işlerin sonunu getiririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerimden kaytarırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşleri son dakikada yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sıkıldığım anda yapmakta olduğum işi bırakırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başladığım işlere ilgimi çabuk kaybederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kolayca pes ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elimdeki işe odaklanmakta zorlanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bazı işlerin sonunu getiremem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Günlük işlerimi vakit kaybetmeden bitiririm. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerime vakit kaybetmeden başlarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zamanımı boşa harcarım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çalışmaya başlamak için birisinin beni itmesi gerekir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vermem gereken kararları ertelerim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların niyetlerinin iyi olduğuna inanıyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanların söylediklerine güvenirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanların temelde dürüst olduğuna inanıyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Her şeyin iyi neticeleneceğini düşünüyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başkalarının gizli niyetleri olduğundan şüphelenirim. 1 2 3 4 5 6
98
APPENDIX B: Compound Personality Measure Items of Study 2
Aşağıda sizi kısmen tanımlayan ya da pek tanımlayamayan bir takım özellikler sunulmaktadır.
Örneğin, başkaları ile zaman geçirmekten hoşlanan birisi olduğunuzu düşünüyor musunuz? Lütfen
aşağıda verilen özelliklerin sizi ne oranda yansıttığını ya da yansıtmadığını belirtmek için kendinizi
tanımladığınızı düşündüğünüz sayıyı yuvarlak içerisine alınız.
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıy
or
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
tan
ımlı
yor
Her zaman hareket halindeyim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Doğaçlama konuşmalar yapmakta iyiyimdir 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rekabetten ziyade işbirliğine değer veririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zamanımı boşa harcarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ancak bütün bilgileri değerlendirdikten sonra bir karar veririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanları bir işi yapmaya ikna edebilirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benim olmayan eşyaları asla almam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeni yerleri gezip görmekten keyif alırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Derin düşüncelere dalmayı severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir işi bitirmeden bırakmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başkalarının gizli niyetleri olduğundan şüphelenirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sıkı çalışırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanları idare etmek bana zor gelir 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlarla işbirliği yapabilirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zorlu görevleri kabul ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir işe başlarken enine boyuna düşünmenin gerekliliğine inanırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Öne geçmek için hile yapabilirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
İlgi duyduğum birçok değişik şey vardır 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beni düşünmeye sevk eden filmleri severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Önümdeki engellere rağmen işleri bitiririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Memnun edilmesi kolay bir insanım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kararlarımı verirken farklı olasılıkları düşünmem 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çalışmaya başlamak için birisinin beni itmesi gerekir 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başımı beladan kurtarmak için yalan söylerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeni şeylere başlamaktan keyif alırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
99
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıy
or
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
tan
ımlı
yor
İşleri ağırdan almayı severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Herhangi bir konuyu derinlemesine irdelemem 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların görüşlerini göz ardı ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Görevlerime bütün kalbimle atılırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların öncülük etmesini beklerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanlarla zıtlaşmaktan hoşlanmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vermem gereken kararları ertelerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Güvenin temelinin dürüstlük olduğuna inanırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların niyetlerinin iyi olduğuna inanıyorum 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benden beklenilenden daha fazlasını yaparım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dikkati üzerime çekmeyi sevmem 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sonradan üzülmektense önceden tedbirimi almak gerektiğine inanırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Keyfimi kaçıracak işleri ertelerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Otoriteye saygı duyarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Değişikliklerden hoşlanmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planlar yapar ve bunlara bağlı kalırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanların söylediklerine güvenirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendim ve diğerleri için yüksek standartlar belirlerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acele etmemeye özen gösteririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Görüşlerimi kendime saklarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sivri bir dilim vardır 1 2 3 4 5 6
Düşünmeden aceleyle harekete geçerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşimde çok titizimdir 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yalan söylemeyi veya hile yapmayı düşünemem bile 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeni yemekler denemekten hoşlanmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başladığım/üstlendiğim işlerin sonunu getiririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bilgi dağarcığımı genişletmek isterim 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanların temelde dürüst olduğuna inanıyorum 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başarılı olmak için motivasyonum yüksek değildir 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendimi kolayca öne çıkartabilirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlarla zıtlaşırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Asla paraşüt veya bungee jumping yapmaya gitmem 1 2 3 4 5 6
İş çok zorlaştığında devam etmem 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yaptığım işleri kontrol ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendi işlerimi başkalarına yaptırmaya çalışırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alışıldık yöntemlere bağlıyımdır 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerimden kaytarırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
100
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıy
or
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
tan
ımlı
yor
Her şeyin iyi neticeleneceğini düşünüyorum 1 2 3 4 5 6
Düzensizlik beni rahatsız etmez 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerime vakit kaybetmeden başlarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ağır okumalardan uzak dururum 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çeşitliliği sıradan işlere tercih ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sorumluluklardan kaçınırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Durumların eksi ve artı yönlerini tartarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bana yapılan haksızlıkları kimsenin yanına bırakmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çalışırken başka şeylere kaymam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gerektiğimde kendimi savunurum 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gerektiğinde gerçekleri saptırırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Karmaşık problemler üzerinde çalışmayı severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşleri son dakikada yaparım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ortamın huzurunu korumaya çalışırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanlara bağırırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sıkıldığım anda yapmakta olduğum işi bırakırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dağınık insanlar beni rahatsız etmez 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kuramsal tartışmalar ilgimi çekmez 1 2 3 4 5 6
Her şeyi bir kere denemeye gönüllüyüm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hayatımın yavaş bir temposu var 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşleri kuralına göre yaparım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kin tutarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Durumu kurtaracak kadar iş yaparım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendimden başkalarını da umursarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bana patronluk taslanmasına ses çıkarmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eski tanıdıklarımla bağlantımı koparmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendimi rahatça ifade edebilirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Detayları nadiren fark ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kurallara bağlı kalırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Macera ararım 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşime pek fazla zaman ve çaba harcamam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beni zorlayan metinleri okumayı severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlara yardımımın dokunmasını severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Başladığım işlere ilgimi çabuk kaybederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Soyut fikirler ilgimi çekmez 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ortalığı toparlamayı severim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kolayca pes ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
101
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıy
or
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
tan
ımlı
yor
Başkalarının ihtiyaçlarıyla uğraşamam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kararların alınmasını başkalarına bırakırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eleştirilerimi dile getirmekten çekinmem 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kolay olan yolu seçerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Davranışlarımın sonuçlarını düşünmeden hareket ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zengin bir kelime haznesine sahibimdir 1 2 3 4 5 6
Performansımla diğerlerini geçmeye çalışırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların duygularına kayıtsızımdır 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşlerimi bir plana göre yaparım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Düşündüğümü söylerim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kuralların etrafından nasıl dolanacağımı bilirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elimdeki işe odaklanmakta zorlanırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çoğunlukla eşyaları olması gereken yere geri koymayı unuturum 1 2 3 4 5 6
En iyisi olmak isterim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Soyut fikirleri anlamakta zorlanırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Herşey mükemmel olana kadar devam ederim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanlar için vakit ayırmam 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bazı işlerin sonunu getiremem 1 2 3 4 5 6
Otoriteye direnirim 1 2 3 4 5 6
Felsefi tartışmalardan kaçınırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşi eğlencenin önüne koyarım 1 2 3 4 5 6
İnsanlara içtenlikle karşılandıklarını hissettiririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Risk alırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
Günlük işlerimi vakit kaybetmeden bitiririm 1 2 3 4 5 6
Diğer insanların çıkarlarını göz önüne alırım 1 2 3 4 5 6
102
APPENDIX C: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) Items
Aşağıda sizi kısmen tanımlayan (ya da pek tanımlayamayan) bir takım özellikler sunulmaktadır.
Örneğin, başkaları ile zaman geçirmekten hoşlanan birisi olduğunuzu düşünüyor musunuz? Lütfen
aşağıda verilen özelliklerin sizi ne oranda yansıttığını ya da yansıtmadığını belirtmek için sizi en iyi
tanımlayan rakamı her bir özelliğin yanına yazınız.
Kendimi .................................... biri olarak görüyorum
____ 1. Konuşkan
____ 2. Başkalarında hata arayan
____ 3. İşini tam yapan
____ 4. Bunalımlı, melankolik
____ 5. Orijinal, yeni görüşler ortaya koyan
____ 6. Ketum/vakur
____ 7. Yardımsever ve çıkarcı olmayan
____ 8. Biraz umursamaz
____ 9. Rahat, stresle kolay baş eden
____ 10. Çok değişik konuları merak eden
____ 11. Enerji dolu
____ 12. Başkalarıyla sürekli didişen
____ 13. Güvenilir bir çalışan
____ 14. Gergin olabilen
____ 15. Maharetli, derin düşünen
____ 16. Heyecan yaratabilen
____ 17. Affedici bir yapıya sahip
____ 18. Dağınık olma eğiliminde
____ 19. Çok endişelenen
____ 20. Hayal gücü yüksek
____ 21. Sessiz bir yapıda
____ 22. Genellikle başkalarına güvenen
____ 23. Tembel olma eğiliminde olan
____ 24. Duygusal olarak dengeli, kolayca keyfi kaçmayan
____ 25. Keşfeden, icat eden
____ 26. Atılgan bir kişiliğe sahip
____ 27. Soğuk ve mesafeli olabilen
____ 28. Görevi tamamlanıncaya kadar sebat edebilen
____ 29. Dakikası dakikasına uymayan
____ 30. Sanata ve estetik değerlere önem veren
____ 31. Bazen utangaç, çekingen olan
____ 32. Hemen hemen herkese karşı saygılı ve nazik olan
____ 33. İşleri verimli yapan
103
____ 34. Gergin ortamlarda sakin kalabilen
____ 35. Rutin işleri yapmayı tercih eden
____ 36. Sosyal, girişken
____ 37. Bazen başkalarına kaba davranabilen
____ 38. Planlar yapan ve bunları takip eden
____ 39. Kolayca sinirlenen
____ 40. Düşünmeyi seven, fikirler geliştirebilen
____ 41. Sanata ilgisi çok az olan
____ 42. Başkalarıyla işbirliği yapmayı seven
____ 43. Kolaylıkla dikkati dağılan
____ 44. Sanat, müzik ve edebiyatta çok bilgili
Lütfen kontrol ediniz: Bütün ifadelerin önüne bir rakam yazdınız mı?
104
APPENDIX D: Assistant Evaluation Form
Değerlendirme Formu
Aşağıda, birlikte çalıştığınız bir araştırma görevlisinin iş yerindeki davranışlarını betimleyen cümleler
listelenmiştir. Lütfen listelenen bu davranış veya özelliklerin, araştırma görevlinizin iş yerindeki
davranışlarını ne ölçüde yansıttığını belirtmek için ilgili sayıyı daire içerisine alınız. Aşağıdaki yer alan
bir cümle, değerlendirdiğiniz araştırma görevlisinin davranışı ile birebir örtüşüyorsa “Tamamen
Tanımlıyor” anlamına gelecek şekilde 6 rakamını daire içerisine alınız. Eğer, ilgili cümle araştırma
görevlinizin davranışı ile tamamen ilgisiz ise “Hiç Tanımlamıyor” anlamına gelen 1 rakamını daire
içerisine alınız. Özetle, ilgili cümlenin araştırma görevlisinin davranışını yansıtma derecesine bağlı
olarak 1 ile 6 arasındaki sayılardan bir tanesini işaretleyiniz.
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıy
or
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Çalışılan konu ile ilgili elindeki bilgileri birlikte çalıştığı
arkadaşlarıyla paylaşmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yapması gereken bir işi unutmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşini özenerek ve hevesle yapmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kısa sürede yapabileceği bir işi uzun zamana yaymak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zorunlu olmadığı halde, önemli olabileceğini düşündüğü bir
şeyi/konuyu araştırmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Daha önce kimsenin yapmayı kabul etmediği bir işi kabul etmek 1 2 3 4 5 6
Son ana bıraktığı için, kendisinden istenilen hazırlığı tam olarak
yapamamak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kendi işi olmadığı halde, çok yoğun olduğu için sıkışan bir
çalışma arkadaşına işlerini yapmasında yardımcı olmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ekstra görevler için gönüllü olmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Önceliği kendi işlerine vererek öğretim elemanlarının işlerinin
beklenenden geç bitmesine sebep olmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Aynı anda birden fazla iş aldığı durumlarda bütün işleri
zamanında bitirebilmek 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sevdiğim iş/sevmediğim iş ayrımı yapmadan verilen tüm işleri
özenle yapmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
105
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıy
or
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Kimseye haber vermeden/yerine kimseyi ayarlamadan görevini
yerine getirmemek 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşini yaparken kullanması gereken araçların (laboratuar
malzemesi, video, tepegöz, vb.) nasıl kullanılması gerektiği
hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak ve bunları etkili bir şekilde
kullanabilmek
1 2 3 4 5 6
Düzenlenen ofis saatlerinde ve dersle ilgili faaliyetlere ayrılan
zamanda yerinde olmamak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sınırlarını bilmeyerek diğer çalışma arkadaşlarının sorumluluk
alanlarına girmek 1 2 3 4 5 6
Görev alanında sayılabilecek ama kendisinden talep edilmeyen,
beklenmeyen ve yapmasa da hiçbir şekilde hesabı sorulmayacak
bir işi üstüne almak
1 2 3 4 5 6
Karşılaştığı sorunlara çeşitli çözüm yolları bulmak için çalışmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşini çeşitli kaynaklardan araştırmalar yaparak yapmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Literatürde bulunan bilgileri kendi kendine derleyebilmek,
analiz edebilmek ve analiz sonucunda çözüm üretebilmek 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grup çalışması sırasında fazla hırslı ve iddialı davranmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Öğretim elemanı-öğrenci arasındaki diyaloğun artmasına
yardımcı olmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Birlikte çalıştığı grubun hızına uyum sağlayamayarak işlerin
sürekli aksamasına neden olmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acilen çıkan bir işi, o anda yaptığı diğer işlerini organize ederek
yapmak 1 2 3 4 5 6
İşi ile ilgili aniden çıkan bir karışıklık veya sorunda hangi
değişiklik veya düzenlemelerin hangi yöntemlerle yapılacağına
karar verip, gerekli uygulamaları yapabilmek
1 2 3 4 5 6
106
APPENDIX E: Situational Strength at Work (SSW) Scale
Aşağıda işinizi tanımlayan bir takım ifadeler listelenmiştir. İfadenin işinizin özelliklerini ne
derecede yansıttığını belirlemek için lütfen aşağıdaki ölçeği kullanın. Örneğin, eğer işinizde
‘Sorumluluklarınızın açıkça tanımlandığını’ düşünüyorsanız, bu ifadeye ne ölçüde katıldığınıza bağlı
olarak, bu ifadenin yanında yer alan sayılardan ‘Biraz tanımlıyor’, ‘Tanımlıyor’ veya ‘Tamamen
tanımlıyor’ seçeneğine denk gelenini yuvarlık içine alınız. ‘Sorumluluklarınızın açıkça tanımlandığını’
ifadesine katılmıyorsanız, ne derece katılmadığınıza göre, ‘Hiç tanımlamıyor’, ‘Tanımlamıyor’ veya
‘Pek tanımlamıyor’ şıklarından bir tanesini daire içerisine alınız.
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıyo
r
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
tan
ımlı
yo
r
İş ile ilgili sorumluluklar hakkında detaylı bilgi sağlanır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çalışanların başarılı olmaları için yapmaları gerekenlerle ilgili
net bilgi sağlanır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın işini düzgün bir şekilde nasıl yapabileceğine dair
gereken detaylı bilgi sağlanır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hangi görevlerin tamamlanması gerektiği ile ilgili net bilgi
sağlanır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışana kendisinden ne beklenildiği eksiksiz ve açık olarak
söylenir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
İş ile ilgili farklı bilgi kaynakları her zaman birbirleriyle
tutarlıdır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın sorumlulukları birbiriyle uyumludur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prosedürler/iş süreçleri zaman içerisinde tutarlılık gösterir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Üstlerin (yönetici, amir, süpervizör) talimatları ile kurum
politikaları birbiri ile uyumludur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Resmi olmayan yönlendirmeler genellikle kurum politikaları ile
uyumludur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Denetlenmeden, yönlendirme almadan önemli kararlar alma
imkânı vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın görevlerini, önceliklerini veya hedeflerini
belirleme özgürlüğü vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çok katı teslim tarihlerine/iş bitirme tarihlerine uyma
zorunluluğu vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
107
Hiç
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Pek
Ta
nım
lam
ıyo
r
Bir
az T
anım
lıyo
r
Tan
ımlı
yo
r
Tam
amen
tan
ımlı
yo
r
Bir çalışanın kendi kararlarını vermesi engellenir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kısıtlamalar bir çalışanın görevlerini kendi bildiği yöntemle
yapmasının önüne geçer. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın karar verme özgürlüğü diğerleri tarafından
sınırlandırılır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Uygulanan yöntemler bir çalışanın kendi bildiği gibi
çalışmasına engel olur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Çalışanlar, diğer çalışanların iş sonuçlarından önemli derecede
sorumludur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın görevini kesinlik ve doğruluk ile yapması çok
önemlidir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sıklıkla koruyucu veya güvenlik ekipmanı ile çalışması
gereklidir. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın kararlarının diğer insanlar için son derece önemli
sonuçları vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışanın yapabileceği bir hata diğer insanlar için çok ciddi
sonuçlar doğurur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışan düşük performans gösterdiğinde diğer insanları zarar
görme riskine sokar. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bir çalışan işinde kendisinden beklenileni vermediğinde bunun
olumsuz sonuçları olur. 1 2 3 4 5 6
108
APPENDIX F: Research Assistant Informed Consent
Değerli Katılımcı,
Bu çalışma Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi (ODTÜ) Psikoloji Bölümü’nde yüksek lisans eğitimi
alan Mehmet Gültaş tarafından, Yard. Doç. Dr. Yonca Toker gözetmenliğinde yürütülen yüksek lisans
tezinin bir parçası olarak uygulanmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı kişiliğe ait özellikler ve iş ortamında yer
alan belirli değişkenlerin iş performansı ile ilişkisini incelemektir. Anketimizde doğru/yanlış ya da
iyi/kötü cevap yoktur, vereceğiniz yanıtlardaki samimiyetiniz bilimsel bilginin doğruluğuna, çalışmanın
da geçerli ve güvenilir olmasına katkı sağlayacaktır.
Katılmayı kabul ettiğiniz takdirde, cevaplaması yaklaşık 20 dakika sürecek bir anketi
doldurmanız istenecektir. Ayrıca, beraber çalıştığınız bir öğretim üyesinin iş davranışlarınızı
değerlendirmek üzere 5 dakikalık kısa bir soru formunu cevaplaması istenecektir. Katılımınız
karşılığında 1 tablet bilgisayar kazanmak üzere 150 civarı katılımcının olacağı bir çekilişe katılma hakkı
kazanmış olacaksınız. Bu çekiliş sonuçları en geç 2014 yılı sonunda belirlenecek ve kazanan katılımcı
e-posta ile bilgilendirilecektir. Buna ek olarak, biraz önce bahsedilen her iki anket de doldurulduğunda
katılım ücreti olarak 40 TL banka hesabınıza gönderilecektir.
Anketler genel olarak kişisel rahatsızlık verecek soruları içermemektedir. Ancak, katılım
sırasında sorulardan ya da herhangi başka bir nedenden ötürü kendinizi rahatsız hissederseniz anketi
cevaplamayı yarıda bırakabilirsiniz. Böyle bir durumda çalışmayı uygulayan kişiye, devam etmek
istemediğinizi söylemeniz yeterli olacaktır. Toplanan bütün bilgiler ODTÜ’de güvenli bir şekilde
korunacaktır. Kişisel bilgilerinizin güvenliği, bilgiler saklanırken, bilgilerin isminiz yerine
oluşturacağınız bir rumuz kullanılarak korunacaktır. Katılımınız için teşekkür ederiz.
Çalışma hakkında daha fazla bilgi almak için ODTÜ Psikoloji Bölümü’nden Yard. Doç. Dr.
Yonca Toker (e-posta: [email protected]) veya Arş. Gör. Mehmet Gültaş (e-posta:
[email protected]) ile iletişime geçebilirsiniz.
Bu çalışmaya tamamen gönüllü olarak katılıyorum ve istediğim zaman yarıda kesip
çıkabileceğimi biliyorum. Verdiğim bilgilerin bilimsel amaçlı yayımlarda kullanılmasını kabul
ediyorum.
Adı Soyadı Tarih İmza
....... / ....... / .......
e-posta: ……………………………………………………………………………..
109
APPENDIX G: Faculty Informed Consent
Değerli Katılımcı,
Bu çalışma Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi (ODTÜ) Psikoloji Bölümü’nde yüksek lisans eğitimi
alan Mehmet Gültaş tarafından, Yard. Doç. Dr. Yonca Toker gözetmenliğinde yürütülen yüksek lisans
tezinin bir parçası olarak uygulanmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı kişiliğe ait özellikler ve iş ortamında yer
alan belirli değişkenlerin iş performansı ile ilişkisini incelemektir. Anketimizde doğru/yanlış ya da
iyi/kötü cevap yoktur, vereceğiniz yanıtlardaki samimiyetiniz bilimsel bilginin doğruluğuna, çalışmanın
da geçerli ve güvenilir olmasına katkı sağlayacaktır.
Katılmayı kabul ettiğiniz takdirde, cevaplaması yaklaşık 5 dakika sürecek bir soru formunu
doldurmanız istenecektir. Bu soru formunda sizinle birlikte çalışan bir araştırma görevlisinin iş ile ilgili
davranışlarını değerlendirmeniz istenmektedir. Değerlendirmeleriniz değerlendirdiğiniz kişi ile
paylaşılmayacaktır. Bu nedenle sorulara içtenlikle cevap vermeniz çalışmamızda sağlıklı veriler elde
edilmesi açısından önem taşımaktadır. Verdiğiniz cevapların araştırmacı tarafından araştırma
görevlisinin verdiği cevaplarla eşleştirilebilmesi için araştırma görevlisine ait bir rumuz kullanılacaktır.
Sizin kişisel bilgileriniz istenmemektedir.
Anketler genel olarak kişisel rahatsızlık verecek soruları içermemektedir. Ancak, katılım
sırasında sorulardan ya da herhangi başka bir nedenden ötürü kendinizi rahatsız hissederseniz anketi
cevaplamayı yarıda bırakabilirsiniz. Böyle bir durumda çalışmayı uygulayan kişiye, devam etmek
istemediğinizi söylemeniz yeterli olacaktır. Toplanan bütün bilgiler ODTÜ’de güvenli bir şekilde
korunacaktır.
Çalışma hakkında daha fazla bilgi almak için ODTÜ Psikoloji Bölümü’nden Yard. Doç. Dr.
Yonca Toker (e-posta: [email protected]) veya Arş. Gör. Mehmet Gültaş (e-posta:
[email protected]) ile iletişime geçebilirsiniz.
Bu çalışmaya tamamen gönüllü olarak katılıyorum ve istediğim zaman yarıda kesip
çıkabileceğimi biliyorum. Verdiğim bilgilerin bilimsel amaçlı yayımlarda kullanılmasını kabul
ediyorum.
Adı Soyadı Tarih İmza
....... / ....... / .......
e-posta: ……………………………………………………………………………..
110
APPENDIX H: Debriefing Form
Bu araştırmanın temel amacı iş performansını yordayan bir ölçek oluşturmaktır. Psikoloji
yazınına göre kişiliğin iş performansını yordayıcı gücü (prediction power) bulunmaktadır. Yazında
geçerliliği gösterilmiş olan Beş Faktör Kişilik Modeli’nin bazı alt boyutlarının iş performansını daha
iyi yordayabileceğine dair destek mevcuttur. Araştırma görevlilerinin işlerinin içeriği ve niteliği de
dikkate alınarak Beş Faktör modelindeki kişilik tiplerinin ilgili alt boyutları seçilmiş ve bir ölçek
oluşturulmuştur. Bu çalışma ile bu ölçeğin geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği incelenmektedir. Ayrıca kişilik
ölçeğinin performansı yordama gücünün durumsal kuvveti düşük olan iş ortamlarında, durumsal
kuvveti yüksek olan iş ortamlarına kıyasla daha yüksek olacağı sayıltısı test edilmektedir. Örneğin, bir
çalışanın işlerini kendi istediği biçimde yapabilmesi durumsal kuvveti düşük olan bir iş ortamına,
işlerini yaparken çok kesin ve net yönergeler alması ise durumsal kuvveti yüksek olan bir iş ortamına
örnektir. Yazına göre, durumsal kuvveti düşük olan ortamlarda kişilik ve performans arasındaki ilişki
daha yüksektir. Bu bulgunun yeni oluşturulan kişilik ölçeği ile de tekrar etmesi beklenmektedir.
Çalışma ile ilgili bulguların en geç 2014 Aralık ayında edinilmesi beklenmektedir. Çalışma
hakkında daha fazla bilgi almak için ODTÜ Psikoloji Bölümü’nden Yard. Doç. Dr. Yonca Toker (e-
posta: [email protected]) veya Arş. Gör. Mehmet Gültaş (e-posta: [email protected]) ile iletişime
geçebilirsiniz. Çalışmamıza sağladığınız değerli katkılar için çok teşekkür ederiz.
Arş. Gör. Mehmet Gültaş
111
APPENDIX I: Facet Item Information Function Plots
Self-Discipline Scale IIF Plots
112
Excitement Seeking Scale IIF Plots
113
Altruism Scale IIF Plots
114
Achievement Striving Scale IIF Plots
115
Deliberation Scale IIF Plots
116
Assertiveness Scale IIF Plots
117
Compliance Scale IIF Plots
118
Order Scale IIF Plots
119
Openness to Ideas Scale IIF Plots
120
Assertiveness/Exhibition Scale IIF Plots
121
Dutifulness Scale IIF Plots
122
Trust Scale IIF Plots
123
APPENDIX J: Study 1 Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix
Factors
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
bke147selfdi .67
bke153selfdi .67
bke125selfdi .65
bke72achstr .60
bke34selfdi .60
bke103selfdi .55
bke10selfdi .54
bke130selfdi .54
bke35selfdi .52
bke131achstr .50
bke23selfdi .50
bke71achstr .49
bke13achstr .49
bke132achstr .49
bke111achstr .49
bke81selfdi .48
bke87dutifu .48
bke46selfdi .47
bke24selfdi .47
bke156selfdi .44
bke102selfdi .44 .34
bke18achstr .43
bke58selfdi .42
bke48achstr .42
bke83selfdi .41 .32
bke154achstr .41
bke69selfdi .41
bke14activi .40 -.33
bke37achstr .39
bke11selfdi .36
bke149achstr .35
bke112activi .34
bke38activi .34
bke26activi .34
bke146order .32
bke65dutifu .32
bke109achstr
bke92assert
bke121extsee .64
bke106extsee .55
bke32otoact -.53
bke21otoact -.49
bke56otoact -.44
bke78extsee .42
bke86otoact -.40
bke67otoact -.40
bke158extsee .38
bke8otoact -.38
bke79otoact -.34
bke2activi -.34
bke108delibe .33
124
Factors
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
bke25achstr
bke150altrui .63
bke134altrui .55
bke127altrui .51
bke140altrui .51
bke17compli .49
bke5compli .47
bke113altrui .47
bke155altrui .46
bke28compli .45
bke116altrui .43
bke157altrui .41
bke36altrui .36
bke115altrui .32
bke94altrui
bke44otoact
bke120dutifu .60
bke54dutifu .56
bke148achstr .52
bke139achstr .52
bke151dutifu .45 -.31
bke60achstr .40
bke99extsee .33 .39
bke107dutifu .39
bke93activi
bke133altrui
bke64delibe .63
bke19delibe .63
bke6delibe .58
bke88delibe .56
bke30delibe .48
bke61activi .46
bke137delibe .44
bke53delibe .41
bke41delibe .33 .35
bke52delibe .34
bke33otoide .31
bke76delibe .31
bke29delibe
bke1achstr
bke136assert .69
bke141assert .56
bke95assert .51
bke62assert .45
bke114assert .35
bke63compli -.60
bke75compli -.54
bke40compli -.43
bke89compli -.40
bke96compli -.37
bke104order .76
bke84order .75
bke129order .70
125
Factors
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
bke145order .69
bke124order
bke73activi
bke45otoide
bke91achstr
bke122otoide .70
bke152otoide .67
bke85otoide .60
bke128otoide .58
bke105otoide .53
bke144otoide .46
bke22otoide .44
bke100otoide .38
bke68otoide .34
bke138otoide .33
bke9otoide .33
bke118delibe .32
bke4assert .55
bke117assert .47
bke50assert .46
bke16assert .45
bke74assert .45
bke3assert .40
bke39assert .40
bke135assert .36
bke98dutifu .60
bke66dutifu .59
bke31dutifu .59
bke20dutifu .58
bke77dutifu .38
bke7dutifu .31
bke143dutifu .31
bke43dutifu .31
bke55dutifu
bke42delibe
bke97delibe
bke27assert
bke90assert
bke15assert
bke47trust -.84
bke70trust -.81
bke59trust -.76
bke12trust -.47
bke82trust -.36
bke110compli -.31
bke51compli
Note: Numbers at the header of the table as follows: 1 = self-discipline, 2 = excitement seeking, 3 = altruism, 4 =
achievement striving, 5 = deliberation, 6 = assertiveness, 7 = compliance, 8 = order, 9 = openness to ideas, 10 =
assertiveness/exhibition, 11 = dutifulness, 12 = trust.
126
APPENDIX K: Tukish Summary
Günümüzde, genel yetenek testleri kadar olmasa da, kişilik ölçekleri organizasyonların
seçme süreçlerinde ciddi bir oranda kabul görmektedir (Scroggins, Thomasve Morris,
2009). Ancak, 1980’ler öncesinde durum farklıydı. Guion ve Gottier’in (1965) kişilik
ölçekleri ve iş ile ilgili değişkenler arasında herhangi bir ilişkinin olmadığını iddia
eden makalesi bu durumun nedenlerinden biri olarak gösterilebilir.
Kişilik özelliklerinin son otuz senelik süreçte iş ile ilgili bağımsız değişkenler ile
ilişkilendirilerek yapılan çalışmalarda hızlı bir artış yaşanmıştır (Hough ve Oswald,
2008). Bu hızlı ilgi artışının nedenlerinden biri, kişilik özelliklerini beş farklı boyut
kullanarak sınıflandıran Beş Faktör Modeli’dir (BFM; Costa ve McCrae, 1985). Buna
karşın, Barrick ve Mount’un (2012) da belirttiği gibi alan içerisinde hala
çözümlenmesi gereken yönler vardır. Bunlardan önemli bir tanesi de BFM’de
belirtilmiş olan faktörlerin altında yer alan ve alt boyutlar olarak isimlendirilen kişilik
özellikleri kavramlarının, iş performansını ve diğer kurumsal değişkenleri yordayıcı
gücünün anlaşılmasıdır.
Dışa dönüklük ve gelişime açıklık boyutları eğitim performansını istatistiki olarak
anlamlı bir şekilde yordar (sırasıyla, ρ = .28 and ρ = .33), duygusal denge ve yumuşak
başlılık boyutları takım çalışması ile ilgili anlamlı şekilde yordar (ρ = .22 and ρ = .34).
Öz denetim boyutu ise amirlerin yaptığı iş performansı değerlendirmelerini
yordamakta kullanılabiliyor (ρ = .31) (Barrick ve arkadaşları, 2001). Bu belirtilen
korrelasyon değerlerine uygulanan istatistiksel düzeltmeler hesaba katılmadığında ise,
kişilik özellikleri ve bu belirtilen iş ile ilgili değişkenler arasındaki ilişki .19 ve .23
arasında değişiyor.
Yordayıcı Değişkenlerle Sonuç Değişkenleri Arasında Uyum
Yukarıda da ifade edildiği gibi BFM’nin kabul edilmesi ile elde edilen ortak dil
sayesinde, araştırmacılar iş performansı ve kişilik arasındaki ilişkiye dair daha fazla
işbirliği yapma imkânına kavuştular. Buna karşılık, Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran ve
Judge’ın (2007) araştırmasında da vurguladığı gibi, istatistiki düzeltmeler yapıldıktan
127
sonra kişilik özellikleri ile genel iş performansı (R = .27) ve iş performansına dair
nesnel ölçümler (R = .23) arasındaki ilişkiler çok yüksek değildir.
İş performansının daha yüksek bir korrelasyon ile tahmin edilebilmesi için bazı
araştırmacılar (Jenkins ve Griffith, 2004) yordanan ve yordayan değişkenler arasında
kuramsal bir örtüşme olması gerekliliğine işaret ediyorlar. Hogan ve Holland (2003)
çalışmalarında yordayan kişilik özellikleri ile yordanan iş performansı arasında
kavramsal bir paralelliğin olması gerekliliğini göstermiştir. Araştırma yapılan konu
hakkında uzmanlığı bulunan kişilerden bağımlı değişkenleri Hogan Kişilik
Envanteri’nin yedi boyutundan bir tanesine ataması istenmiştir. Bu çalışma sonucunda
bağımlı değişken olarak uyumluluk kişilik boyutunun altında sınıflandırılan bağımsız
değişken iş performans özellikleri, uyumluluk kişilik özelliği boyutu tarafından
istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir şekilde yordanmıştır ( = .43). Kısacası, yordanan iş
performansı boyutlarının kişilik özellikleri ile ilişkisi incelenirken, seçilen iş
performansı ile kullanılacak kişilik özelliği değişkenlerinin kavramsal olarak ilişkili
olması gerekir.
Alt Boyut Düzeyinde Kestirici Değişkenler Kullanılmasının Mantıksal Temeli
Hurtz ve Donovan (2000) BFM’nin ana boyutlarından ziyade alt boyutlarının
kullanılmasının getireceği faydaları değerlendirmişlerdir. Dikkat çektikleri nokta,
farklı kişilik faktörlerinin, farklı performans boyutları veya farklı işlerle farklı
şekillerde etkileşime girdiği gerçeğidir. Çalışmalarının sonucunda ortaya çıkan netice,
tahmin edilmeye çalışılan performans boyutu ile alakalı kişilik alt boyutlarının
kullanılması gerektiğidir. Moon, Hollenbeck, Marinova, and Humphrey (2008) dışa
dönüklük faktörünün alt boyutlarını kullaranak kurumsal vatandaşlık davranışını
açıklamaya çalıştıkları bir çalışma yapmışlardır. Dışa dönüklük faktörü ve kendi
ürettikleri alt boyutların kurumsal vatandaşlık davranışı ile ilişkilerin incelendi.
Hiyerarşik regresyon analizi kullanarak yaptıkları karşılaştırmalarda, dışa dönüklük
faktörü ile sosyallik alt boyutunun kurumsal vatandaşlık davranışı ile ilişkili
çıkmazken, tepkisellik ve olumlu duygular alt boyutları kurumsal vatandaşlık
davranışı ile ilişkili çıkmıştır. Bu araştırmanın sonuçları da dışa dönüklük faktörü tek
başına alındığında yordama gücünün olmayabileceğini gösteren kanıtlar olarak
128
değerlendirilebilir. Bir bütün olarak ele alındığında, görgül çalışmalar BFM’nin alt
boyutları kullanılarak araştırma yapılmasının görev performansının tahmini açısından
umut vaadeden bir alan olduğuna işaret etmektedir.
İş Disiplini Bütünleşik Kişilik Ölçeği
Çalışmada kullanılacak BFM alt boyutlarının belirlenmesi için yazın içerisinde iş
performansı ve benzer kurumsal bağımlı değişkenlerle ilişki gösteren alt boyutlar
belirlenmiştir. Bu yazın araştırması sırasında Johnson (2003) tarafından kavramsal
olarak çerçevesi çizilen iş performansı boyutları kullanılmıştır. Belirlenen iş
performansı boyutlarını bağımlı değişken olarak kullanan çalışmalar araştırılmış,
böylelikle seçilecek kişilik alt boyutları belirlenmiştir. İş performansı boyutları
belirlenirken kişisel girişkenlik, kişisel çabayı devam ettirebilme veya kişisel gelişime
önem verme gibi kişilik ile daha fazla ilişki göstereceği değerlendirilen iş performansı
boyutları seçilmiştir.
Öz Denetim ve Alt Boyutları
BFM faktörlerinden öz denetim, farklı işler ve farklı mesleklerle en fazla ilişki
gösteren faktör olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır (Barrick ve arkadaşları, 2001). Dolayısıyla,
bu faktör ve alt boyutları iş ile ilgili değişkenlerin tahmin edilmesinde ilk akla gelen
faktördür. Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, and Cortina (2006) öz disiplin faktörü alt
boyutlarından başarı için çabalamak (r = .13 ve r = .20) ve güvenilirlik (r = .09 ve r
= .23) alt boyutlarının görev performansı ve işe adanmışlık ile ilişkili olduklarını
bulmuşlardır. Dudley ve arkadaşları (2006) öz denetim faktörünün belirli alt
boyutlarının kullanılmasını tavsiye etmiştir. Bunlar başarılı için çabalamak, düzen,
tedbirlilik ve güvenilirlik alt boyutlarıdır. Bu alt boyutlara ek olarak yazında
yordayıcılığı gösterilen görev bilinci alt boyutu da çalışmada kullanılacak alt boyutlar
arasına dahil edilmiştir.
Dışa Dönüklük ve Alt Boyutları
Judge ve arkadaşları (2013) araştırmasın dışa dönüklük alt boyutları ile görev
performansı arasında pozitif ilişki buldu. Hareketlilik, heyecan arama ve ısrarcılık
görev performansını yordayan alt boyutlar olarak belirlendi. Bu çalışmada hareketlilik
129
ve heyecan arama alt boyutları görev performansı ile pozitif yönde ilişkili çıkmış
olsalar da, yazında genellikle bu alt boyutlar ve görev performansı arasında negatif
yönlü ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Denis, Morin ve Guindon (2010) heyecan arama ve görev
performansı arasında anlamlı negatif ilişki (r = -.27) rapor etmişlerdir.
Yazın dikkate alındığında ısrarcılık alt boyutunu görev performansı ile olumlu,
hareketlilik ve heyecan arama alt boyutlarının ise iş performansı ile olumsuz bir ilişki
göstermesi beklenmektedir. Bu nedenle bu alt boyutlar oluşturulacak bütünleşik kişilik
ölçeği içerisine dahil edileceklerdir.
Gelişime Açıklık ve Alt Boyutları
Judge ve arkadaşları (2013) tarafından yapılan araştırmanın sonuçları değerlere,
fikirlere ve eylemlere açıklık alt boyutlarının görev performansı ile ilişkili olduğunu
göstermiştir. Mussel ve arkadaşları (2011) fikirlere açıklık alt boyutunun iş
performansı, akademik performans ve iş arkadaşları tarafından yapılan iş yetkinliği
değerlendirmeleri ile ilişkili olduğunu bulmuştur. Bu bulgular ışığında, oluşturulacak
olan bütünleşik kişilik ölçeği içerisine eylemlere ve fikirlere açıklık alt boyutlarının
dahil edilmesine karar verilmiştir.
Uyumluluk ve Alt Boyutları
Judge ve arkadaşları (2013) çalışması, güven ve boyun eğme alt boyutlarının görev
performansı ile en yüksek ilişkisini göstermektedir. Ek olarak yardımseverlik alt
boyutunun da bütünleşik kişilik ölçeği içerisinde yer almasının uygun olacağı
düşünülmüştür. Uyumluluk faktörünün boyun eğme, yardımseverlik ve güven alt
boyutlarının BKÖ’de yer alması gerektiğine karar verilmiştir.
Sonuç olarak, görev performansını yordamak için geliştirilecek BKÖ içerisinde öz
disiplin faktörü içerisinden beş alt boyut (başarı için çabalama, tedbirlilik, görev
bilinci, düzenlilik ve öz disiplin), dışa dönüklük faktörü içerisinden üç alt boyut
(ısrarcılık, heyecan arama, hareketlilik), gelişime açıklık faktörü içerisinden iki alt
boyut (fikirlere ve hareketlere açıklık) ve uyumluluk faktörü içerisinden üç alt boyut
(boyun eğme, yardımseverlik, güven) dahil edilmiştir.
130
Çalışmada geliştirilecek BKÖ’nün ilgili BFM faktörlerinden daha iyi bir yordayıcı
geçerlilik değeri elde edeceği beklenmektedir. Aşağıda belirtilen sayıltılar bu durumu
test etmek için öne sürülmüşlerdir.
Sayıltı 1: Geliştirilecek olan bütünleşik kişilik ölçeği görev performansını, BFM
faktörlerinden daha kuvvetli bir şekilde yordayacaktır.
Sayıltı 2: Geliştirilecek bütünleşik kişilik ölçeği, görev performansında BFM
faktörlerinin açıkladığından daha fazla varyans açıklayacaktır.
Durumların ve Durumsal Sıkılığın Etkileri
Durumsal kuvvet çevrenin veya durumların nitelikleri ile ilgili bir kavramsal
çerçevedir. Çevrenin veya durumların uygun olan davranışlar hakkında ne ölçüde
işaretler verdiğini betimlemek için geliştirilmiştir. Bu kavramın bu çalışmada
kullanıldığı biçimi ile kavramsallaştırılması ve kuramsal bir yapıya kavuşturulması
Meyer, Dalal ve Hermida (2010) tarafından yapılmıştır. Genel olarak, kavramın Meyer
ve arkadaşları tarafından yayımlanan bir seri araştırma raporu ve makale ile kuramsal
ve görgül altyapısı oluşturulmuştur (Meyer ve Dalal, 2009; Meyer, Dalal ve Bonaccio,
2009; Meyer, Dalal ve Hermida, 2010; Meyer ve arkadaşları, 2014).
Meyer ve arkadaşları (2014) durumsal sıkılığı dört alt boyut içerecek şekilde
kavramsallaştırdılar. Bunlar açıklık, tutarlılık, kısıtlamalar ve sonuçlar alt boyutlarıdır.
Açıklık bir iş yerinde iş ile ilgili sorumluluk ve yükümlülüklere dair bilgilerin ne kadar
ulaşılabilir ve anlaşılması kolay olduğu ile alakalıdır. Tutarlılık bir iş yerinde iş ile
ilgili sorumluluk ve yükümlülüklere ilişkin bilgilerin birbiriyle ne düzeyde uyumlu
olduğu ile ilgili bir alt boyuttur. Kısıtlamalar alt boyutu bir iş yerinde çalışanın karar
alma ve harekete geçme serbestliğinin ne ölçüde kendi dışındaki faktörler tarafından
sınırlandırıldığını açıklamak için kullanılmaktadır. Dördüncü alt boyut olan sonuçlar
ise çalışanın davranışlarının veya kararlarının, ilgili herhangi bir kişi veya kurum için
ne ölçüde olumlu veya olumsuz sonuçları olduğuna dair ölçüm yapmak amacıyla
tasarlanmış bir alt boyuttur. Meyer ve arkadaşları (2009) yaptıkları meta-analiz
çalışmasında öz disiplin ve iş performansı arasında O*NET üzerinde durumsal sıkılık
ölçütlerinde zayıf olarak nitelendirilen işlerde anlamlı ilişki buldular. Bu çalışmada, iş
131
performansı bir bağımlı değişken olarak ele alınmıştır ve öz disiplin iş performansı
arasındaki ilişki kuvvetinin .09 ve .23 arasında değişiklik gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Bu
bulgular ışında, durumsal sıkılığın bütünleşik kişilik ölçeği ile etkileşime gireceği ve
iş performansı üzerinde düzenleyici etkisi olacağı düşünülmektedir. Daha açık bir
ifade ile:
Sayıltı 3: Bütünleşik kişilik ölçeği ve iş performansı arasındaki ilişkinin düşük
durumsal sıkılık gösteren ortamlarda daha yüksek çıkacağı beklenmektedir.
Madde Tepki Kuramı Uygulaması
Madde tepki kuramı (MTK) klasik test kuramının (KTK), madde parametrelerinin
veya kişi ölçek puanlarının değişmezliği gibi eksikliklerini gidermek için geliştirilmiş
bir kuram olarak değerlendirilebilir. Temelinde, KTK’dan farklı olarak test
katılımcılarının skorlarının toplamı ile değil de, her bir maddenin katılımcıların
yetenekleri ile ne şekilde ilişkilendirilebileceği ile ilgilenir. Temelinde MTK
maddelerin ve kişilerin özelliklerinin doğru cevap veya istenilen yönde cevap
verilmesi ile ilişkilendirildiği modellerden oluşmuştur. Modellerin, kişilerin cevap
örüntülerine oturtulması işlemi sonrasında, maddeler için zorluk, ayırt edicilik veya
tahmin etme gibi farklı parametreler hesaplanır. Kısacası, KTK’da madde özellikleri
dikkate alınmazken, MTK’da madde özellikleri de model oluşturma sürecinde hesaba
katılır. Madde tepki kuramı kişilik ölçeklerinin geliştirilmesinde sıklıkla kullanılmasa
bile genel yetenek ve başarı testlerinin geliştirilmesinde yoğun bir şekilde
kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada MTK modellerinden elde edilecek ayırt edicilik
parametreleri kullanılarak, ayırt edicilikleri yüksek maddeler havuzu oluşturulacaktır.
Bu yöntemle seçilecek maddelerin oluşturulacak BKÖ’nün yordama gücüne ne ölçüde
katkı yapacağı çalışma sırasında incelenecektir.
ÇALIŞMA 1 YÖNTEM
Çalışma 1’in temel amaçları: 1) iş performansını tahmin etmek için BFM’nin alt
boyutlarını ölçen bir ölçek geliştirmek ve 2) geliştirilen ölçeğin psikometrik
özelliklerini KTK ve MTK yöntemleri kullanarak geliştirmek için veri toplamaktır.
132
Yöntem
Bütünleşik kişilik ölçeğinin kavramsal çerçevesini oluşturan alt boyutların maddeleri
Uluslararası Kişilik Maddeleri Havuzu’ndan (International Personality Item Pool;
IPIP) derlenmiştir. Bu internet platformu 1996 yılında çevrimiçi hizmete girmiştir ve
farklı kişilik boyutlarını kapsayan 2400 civarında maddeye ev sahipliği yapmaktadır.
Çalışma 1 ile toplanan veriler kullanılarak, ölçeğin psikometrik özellikleri
incelenmiştir. Gerekli görüldüğü durumlarda açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve iç
geçerlilik katsayıları kullanılarak bazı maddeler elenmiştir.
Katılımcılar ve Süreç
KTK ile ilişkili analizlerin yapılması için veri toplama işlemi daha çok Orta Doğu
Teknik Üniversitesi (ODTÜ) öğrencileri kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Toplamda 423
katılımcının verileri istatistik analizlerinde kullanılmıştır. Çalışma
katılımcılarının %62’si kadındır. Ortalama yaş 22.2, ortanca yaş 23 olarak
hesaplanmıştır.
Ölçekler
BFM’nin boyutlarını ölçmek için Sümer ve Sümer (2002) tarafından Türkçe’ye
uyarlanan Beş Faktör Envanteri (BFE; Big Five Inventory, BFI) (John, Donahueve
Kentle, 1991) kullanılmıştır. Toplam 44 sorudan oluşan bu envanter dışadönüklük,
yumuşak başlılık, öz denetim, duygusal denge ve gelişime açıklık boyutlarını ölmek
için kullanılmaktadır.
Öncelikle, bütünleşik kişilik ölçeğinin (BKÖ) geliştirilmesi için IPIP üzerinde bulunan
alt boyut ve boyut maddeleri teker teker incelenmiştir. İlk aşamada seçilen BFM alt
boyutlarını (bunlar başarı için çalışma, güvenilirlik, düzen, öz disiplin, görev bilinci,
ısrarcılık, hareketlilik, heyecan arama, güven, yardımseverlik, boyun eğme, harekete
açıklık ve fikirlere açıklıktır) anlamsal olarak yansıttığı düşünülen 621 madde
belirlenmiştir. Seçilen maddeler arasından aşağıda açıklanan indirgeyici bir süreç
sonucunda ölçeği oluşturacak maddeler belirlenmiştir.
Belirtilen maddeler, iki endüstri ve örgüt psikoloğu tarafından ‘tekrar etme’,
‘belirsizlik’, ‘kavramsal eşdeğerlilik’, ‘örnekleme bağlılık’ veya ‘kavramsal
133
alakasızlık’ kıstasları kullanılarak bir eleme sürecinden geçirilmiştir. Bu seçim
kıstasları ışığında 467 madde elenmiştir. Kalan maddeler yazar tarafından
İngilizce’den Türkçe’ye çevrilmiştir. Türkçe’ye çevrilen bu maddeler her iki dili
anadili olarak kullanan biri tarafından İngilizce’ye geri çevrilmiştir. Bu geri çevrilen
maddeler ilk biçimleri ile karşılaştırılmış ve geri çevirme sürecinden sonra anlamının
bozulmadığına karar verilen maddeler seçilerek 150 maddelik ölçek oluşturulmuştur.
Bu 150 madde Ek A’da görülebilir.
ÇALIŞMA 1’İN SONUÇLARI
Veri toplama aşamasından sonra oluşturulan ilk ölçeğin yapısının belirlenmesi için
açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) yapılmıştır. AFA tamamlandıktan sonra da ölçek
üzerinde MTK çözümlemeleri yapılmış her bir madde için madde ayırdedicilik ve
kategori eşik parametreleri elde edilmiştir. Bunlara ek olarak bu parametreler
kullanılarak her maddenin madde bilgi fonksiyonu (MBF) grafiği oluşturulmuştur.
AFA
AFA’nın en önemli yönünü, analiz sonucunda ortaya çıkacak faktör sayısına karar
vermek oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada O’Connor (2000) tarafından öne sürülen
paralel analizi yöntemi kullanılarak ortaya çıkarılması gereken faktör sayısı
belirlenmiştir. Paralel analiz sonuçları, eldeki veriler kullanılarak on dört tane faktörün
oluşturulmasının uygun olacağını işaret etmiştir.
AFA IBM SPSS 22 kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Her ne kadar, analiz ondört faktöre
zorlanmış olsa da, sonuçlar değerlendirildiğinde on iki faktörün ortaya çıktığı
görülmüştür. Faktör analizi sonucunda elde edilen faktörler toplam
varyansın %43.82’sini açıklamıştır. Elde edilen faktörler, faktöre en fazla yüklenen
maddelerin anlamları dikkate alınarak isimlendirilmiştir. Faktör analizi sonucunda
elde edilen yüklemeler Ek J’de yer alan tabloda görülebilir.
Birinci faktör öz disiplin, ikinci faktör heyecan arama, üçüncü faktör yardımseverlik,
dördüncü faktör başarmak için çabalama, beşinci faktör ihtiyatlılık, altıncı faktör
ısrarcılık, yedinci faktör uyumluluk, sekizinci faktör düzenlilik, dokuzuncu faktör
134
fikirlere açıklık, onuncu faktör ısrarcılık/gösterişçilik, on birinci faktör görev bağlılığı
ve on ikinci faktör güven olarak isimlendirilmiştir. Birinci faktörden başlayarak,
isimlendirilen faktörlerin madde sayıları sırasıyla 34, 12, 13, 7, 10, 5, 5, 4, 12, 8, 8 ve
6 olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Toplamda 150 olan maddeden, AFA sonucunda 124 tanesi
elde tutulmuştur. Bu sayıya, analiz sonucunda .30 üzerinde yüklemesi olmayan
maddeler, birden fazla faktöre benzer şekilde yüklenen 23 madde elenerek ve ayrıca,
bir faktöre çok düşük şekilde yüklenen üç madde de analizlerden çıkartılarak
ulaşılmıştır.
MTK Çözümlemeleri
Araştırmanın MTK çözümlemeleri R istatistik ortamı (R Core Team, 2014) için
hazırlanan mirt paketi kullanılarak yapılmıştır (Chalmers, 2012). Maddelerin
parametrelerinin hesaplanmasında Samejima (1969) tarafından geliştirilen aşamalı
tepki modeli (Graded response model; GRM) kullanılmıştır. Bu model ile madde ayırt
edicilikleri, kategori eşik parametreleri hesaplanılabilmekte ve elde edilen bu
parametrelerden madde bilgi fonksiyonlarının grafikleri çizilebilmektedir. Elde edilen
parametreler ve maddeler ile ilgili çeşitli endeksler dikkate alınarak açımlayıcı faktör
analizinden sonra bazı maddeler atılarak yeni bir ölçek oluşturulmuştur. Madde
seçerken maddelerin görece yüksek ayırdedicilik endeksine sahip olması, madde bilgi
fonksiyon grafiğinin 0.5 değerini geçmesi ve chi-kare’nin bağımsızlık derecesine
oranının 3’ü geçmemesi gibi ön kabulleri karşılamasına dikkat edilmiştir. Belirtilen
ölçütler dikkate alınarak, öz disiplin’de yirmi sekiz, heyecan aramada yedi,
yardımseverlikte yedi, başarı için çabalamada iki, ihtiyatlılıkta sekiz, ısrarcılıkta üç,
boyun eğmede üç, düzenlilikte dört, fikirlere açıklıkta beş, ısrarcılık/gösterişçilikte
altı, göreve bağlılıkta dört ve güven alt boyutunda üç madde seçilmiştir. Böylece, KTK
kullanılarak madde sayısı 124’e ve MTK kullanılarak madde sayısı 80’e indirilmiştir.
ÇALIŞMA 2 YÖNTEM VE SONUÇLARI
Çalışma 2’nin amacı BKÖ ile görev performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Buna
ek olarak durumsal sıkılığın görev performansı ve kişilik arasındaki ilişkiyi
135
yönlendirip yönlendirmediği de incelemektir. Bu çalışmada kullanılan yöntem ve
katılımcılar aşağıda detaylı olarak anlatılmaktadır.
Katılımcılar ve Süreç
Bu çalışmada veriler ODTÜ, Ankara, Hacettepe, Atılım, İstanbul Teknik (İTÜ), Ege,
Anadolu, Osmangazi, Bilecik ve Namık Kemal Üniversitesi’nde çalışan araştırma
görevlileri (AG) ve öğretim üyelerinden (ÖÜ) toplanmıştır. Katılan AG’ler çok temel
demografik bilgilere ek larak, Çalışma 1’de geliştirilen BKÖ’yü ve BBE haricinde,
detayları aşağıda verilen İşte Durumsal Sıkılık Ölçeği’ni doldurmuşlardır. AG’lerin en
azından bir dönem birlikte çalıştığı ÖÜ’ler de Araştırma Görevlisi Değerlendirme
Formu’nu doldurmuşlardır. Çalışmaya katılan AG’ler katılımlarının karşılığı olarak,
katılımcılar arasında yapılacak bir çekiliş ile verilecek tablet bilgisayar kazanma şansı
ve 40 TL almışlardır. Veri toplanan AG’lerin ortalama yaşı 27.8’dir ve ortalama olarak
lisansütü öğretimlerinin 4.5’inci senesinde bulunmaktadırlar.
Ölçekler
Çalışma 2’de kişilik özellikleri ile ilgili veriler Çalışma 1’de geliştirilen BKÖ ve BBE
kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bunlara ek olarak AG’ler durumsal sıkılık değerlendirmesi
yapmak için İşte Durumsal Sıkılık Ölçeği’ni doldurmuşlardır.
İşte Durumsul Sıkılık Ölçeği Meyer ve arkadaşlarının (2014) geliştirdiği ve durumsal
sıkılığın dört alt boyutunu (açıklık, tutarlılık, kısıtlamalar ve sonuçlar) ölçen bir
ölçektir. Bu çalışma sırasında 6 maddeli Likert-tipi bir ölçek olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu
ölçek Ek E’de bulunabilir. Bu çalışma sonucunda açıklık, tutarlılık, kısıtlamalar ve
sonuçlar alt ölçekleri için hesaplanan iç geçerlilik katsayıları sırasıyla .91, .85, .87
ve .86 olarak hesaplanmıştır.
Araştırma görevlisi değerlendirme formu Öz (2003) tarafından, araştırma
görevlilerinin iş performansı değerlendirmelerinin yapılması amacıyla
oluşturulmuştur. Bu çalışmada 6 seviyeli ölçek haline getirilip kullanılmıştır. Bu ölçek
oplamda 25 sorudur ve iki alt ölçek içermektedir. Bir alt ölçek bağlamsal performansı,
diğer ölçek ise iş performansını ölçmektedir. Bu çalışmada, bağlamsal ve iş perfomansı
alt ölçeklerinin iç geçerlilik katsayıları .67 ve .91 olarak hesaplanmıştır.
136
Sonuçlar
KTK ile oluşturulan öz disiplin (r = .86, p < .01), başarı için mücadele (r = .27, p
< .05), ihtiyatlılık (r =.49, p < .01) ve düzenlilik (r = .51, p < .01) en yüksek olarak
BFE öz disiplin faktörü ile ilişkili bulunmuştur. Görev bilinci hem uyumluluk (r = .45,
p < .01) hem de öz disiplin (r = .41, p < .01) faktörleri ile istatistiki olarak anlamlı
ilişkiler göstermiştir.
Bu çalışmaya katılan 61 katılımcının verileri kullanılarak yapılan korelasyon analizleri
sonucunda, iş performansı ile istatistiki olarak anlamlı ilişkiye giren alt boyut
ölçekleri, KTK ile hazırlanan heyecan arama (r = -.26, p < .05) ve KTK ve MTK ile
hazırlanan fikirlere açıklık (r = -.26 and r = -.32, p < .05) alt boyut ölçekleridir.
Heyecan arama alt boyutu ile iş performansı arasındaki ilişki beklenildiği gibi ters
yönlü olarak bulunmuştur. Ancak, fikirlere açıklık ve iş performansı arasındaki ilişki
beklenildiği gibi çıkmamış ve ters yönlü olduğu görülmüştür.
KTK ve MTK ile oluşturulmuş BKÖ’leri geliştirmek için alt boyut ölçeklerinden
görev performansı ile ilişkisi .10 üzerinde olanlar seçilmiştir. Bu ölçek puanlarının
ortalaması alınarak bütünleşik ölçek puanları oluşturulmuştur. Bu ölçüt dikkate
alınarak yapılan seçim sonunda ısrarcılık, yardımseverlik, güven, düzen ve görev
bilinci alt ölçekleri BKÖ’nün dışına çıkarılmıştır. Heyecan arama, fikirlere açıklık ve
ısrarcılık/gösterişlilik alt boyutlarının toplam puanları ters çevrilerek ölçeğe
eklenmiştir.
Çalışmanın birinci sayıltısını test etmek için KTK yöntemleri ve MTK yöntemleri ile
hazırlanan BKÖ’lerin görev performansı ile ilişkisi karşılaştırılmıştır. Her iki kuram
temel alınarak oluşturulan bütünleşik ölçeklerin görev performansı ile aynı büyüklükte
ve istatistiki olarak anlamlı ilişki kurduğu görülmüştür (r = .36, p < .01). BBE
faktörleri ile oluşturulan bütünleşik ölçeğin görev performansı ile istatistiki olarak
anlamlı olmayan aynı yönlü ilişkisi gözlemlenmiştir (r = .25). Bunun yanında, BBE
öz disiplin faktörü de görev performansı ile istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir pozitif ilişki
göstermiştir (r = .28, p < .05). Bu sonuçlar çalışmanın birinci sayıltısının
doğrulandığına işaret etmektedir.
137
Araştırmanın ikinci sayıltısını test etmek için hiyerarşik regresyon analizi yapılmıştır.
Bu analizin amacı çalışmada geliştirilen bütünleşik ölçeğinin BBE faktörleri
kullanılarak oluşturulan bütünleşik ölçekten fazla varyans açıklayıp açıklamayacağını
ortaya çıkartmaktır. Analizin birinci adımında BBE bütünleşik ölçeği, ikinci
adımından da MTK kullanılarak geliştirilen BKÖ analize dahil edilmiştir. BBE (β
= .25, p = .05) girilerek oluşturulan modelin (F(1, 59) = 3.92, p = .05) sınırda anlamlığa
sahip olduğu görülmüştür. İkinci adımda MTK ile hazırlanan BKÖ’nün (ΔR2 = .065,
ΔF(1, 58) = 4.33, p = .04) eklendiği modelin anlamlı olduğu ve birinci adıma ek
olarak %7 fazladan varyans açıkladığı görülmüştür. Bu bulgular ışığında, araştırmanın
ikinci sayıltısının desteklendiği kabul edilebilir.
Durumsal Sıkılığın Etkileri
Durumsal sıkılığın, kişilik özellikleri ve görev performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi nasıl
etkilediğini test etmek amacıyla bir dizi regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Bu analizler,
durumsal sıkılık değişkenlerinin kişilik ile görev performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi
istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir şekilde etkilemediğini göstermiştir. Bu analize ek olarak
katılımcılar, durumsal sıkılık alt boyutlarındaki skorları dikkate alınarak, düşük, orta
ve yüksek durumsal sıkılık gruplarına ayrılmış ve bu gruplar içerisinde kişilik
özelliklerinin görev performansı ile ilişkisinin ne yönde olduğu incelenmiştir. Bu
inceleme sonunda, sonuçlar alt boyutunun düşük durumsal sıkılık grubunda kişilik ve
görev performansı arasında anlamlı ve pozitif yönlü bir ilişki bulunduğu görülmüştür
(r = .48, p < .05). Açıklık, tutarlılık ve kısıtlamalar alt boyutlarında ise, beklentinin
aksine, kişilik ile görev performansı arasındaki ilişki yüksek durumsal sıkılık grubu
içerisinde istatistiki olarak anlamlıdır (sırasıyla, r = .58, p < .01; r = .40, p < .05; r
= .43, p < .05).
MTK Yöntemlerinin Kullanılması
Bu çalışmada madde ayırt edicilik parametlerinin hesaplanması için MTK modelleri
kullanılmıştır. Bu parametrelerden, ilgilenilen kişilik özelliklerini en fazla ayırt eden
maddelerin seçimi için yararlanılmıştır. Bir araştırma sorusu olarak, KTK ve MTK
kullanılarak oluşturulan BKÖ’nün tahmin etme kuvvetleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Yapılan
istatistik analizleri göstermiştir ki, her iki yaklaşım kullanılarak oluşturulan bütünleşik
138
ölçek ve sadece KTK kullanılarak oluşturulan BKÖ’nün iş performansı ile olan
korelasyonları aynıdır (r = .36, p < .05).
TARTIŞMA
Kişilik Alt Boyutlarının Kullanılması
Çalışmanın sayıltılarından bir tanesi BKÖ ile görev performansının BFM
faktörlerinden daha iyi bir şekilde tahmin edilebileceğiydi. BFM faktörlerinden
oluşturulan bütünleşik ölçek görev performansını anlamlı bir şekilde yordamazken, bu
çalışma ile oluşturulan BKÖ görev performansını istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir biçimde
yordadı. Ayrıca, yapılan regresyon analizleri çalışmada oluşturulan BKÖ’nün, BFM
faktörlerinden oluşturulan bütünleşik ölçeğin açıkladığı varyanstan da fazla varyans
açıkladığını göstermiştir. Bu da alt boyut seviyesindeki kişilik değişkenlerinin BFM
faktörlerinin açıkladığından daha fazla varyans açıklayabileceğine işaret etmektedir.
Bu çalışmanın en önemli katkısı, görev performansının tahmin edilmesinde alt boyut
seviyesinde kişilik özelliklerinin, faktörlerin kendisinden veya faktörler kullanılarak
oluşturulan bütünleşik ölçeklerden daha faydalı olabileceğini ortaya çıkarmış
olmasıdır. Buna ek olarak, ticari kişilik ölçeklerine erişimi olmayan kişi ve kurumların
da, internet üzerinde sunulan maddeleri kullanarak ölçekler oluşturabileceği ve bunları
seçme süreçlerinde kullanabileceği gösterilmiştir.
Çalışmada Ortaya Çıkan İş Performansı ve Alt Boyutlar Arasındaki İlişki
Örüntüsü
Fikirlere açıklık alt boyutu ile görev performansı arasındaki ilişki yazın ışığında
beklenmeyen bir bulgudur. Boyun eğme alt boyutununda görev performansı ile ilişkisi
beklenilenden yüksektir. Israrcılık/gösteriş alt boyutunun ilişkisi de her ne kadar farklı
yönde olsa ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmasa da beklenmeyen bir bulgudur. Bu
bulgular Hofstede’in (1980a) kültürel değer boyutları ışığında değerlendirilebilir.
Türkiye güç mesafesi ve belirsizlikten kaçınma boyutlarında yüksek seviyelerde yer
almaktadır (Daller ve Yıldız, 2006; Hofstede, 1980a). Türk kültürünün içersinde yer
alan üniversitelerimizde boyun eğen ve çok fazla ısrarcılık göstermeyen ve aynı
zamanda yeni fikirlere açıklık konusunda da fazla istekli olmayan AG’lerin amirleri
139
konumundaki ÖÜ’ler tarafından daha olumlu olarak değerlendirilmiş olma olasılığı
vardır ve bulgular bu şekilde açıklanabilir.
Kişilik Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesinde Madde Tepki Kuramı’nın Kullanımı
MTK modelleri kişilik ölçümünde yeterince yaygın kullanılmamaktadır (Chiesi, Galli,
Primi, Borgive Bonacchi, 2013) ve bu aşartırma bu yönde atılmış bir adım olarak kabul
edilebilir. Hesaplanan MTK model parametreleri örneklemlerden bağımsız olduğu için
oluşturulan ölçeklerin genellenebilirliği açısından fayda sağlayabilirler. MTK
modelleri sadece ölçeklerde kullanılan maddelerin incelenmesi için değil, bu
çalışmada uygulandığı gibi, aynı zamanda incelenen maddeler kullanılarak ölçekler
geliştirilmesi için de fayda sağlayabilir.
Kişilik İş Performansı İlişkisinde Bir Ara Değişken Olarak Durumsal Sıkılık
Bu çalışmada, durumsal sıkılığın kişilik özellikleri ve görev performansı ilişkisine
etkisi regresyon analizleri kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Regresyon analizleri sonucunda
durumsal sıkılığın herhangi bir anlamlı etkisi ortaya çıkartılamamıştır. Bu bulgu elde
edildikten sonra, katılımcılar durumsal sıkılık düzeylerine göre düşük, orta ve yüksek
olarak ayrılmış ve bu grupların içerisinde kişilik özellikleri ve görev performansı
arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Bu inceleme sonucunda, farklı gruplarda aradaki
ilişkinin farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Sonuçlar alt boyutunda ilişki beklenildiği yöndedir.
Bu gruplar incelendiğinde, açıklık alt boyutunun kişilik ve görev performansı ilişkisine
yaptığı etki tartışılmaya değerdir. Özellikle açıklık boyutunda, durumsal sıkılık
arttıkça artan aynı yönlü bir ilişki göze çarpmaktadır. Lock ve Latham (2002)
tarafından geliştirilen hedef belirleme kuramı (HBK) bu duruma bir açıklama
sağlayabilir. Daha açık ortamlar hedeflerin daha belirgin olduğu ortamlar yaratmış
olabilir. Böyle durumlarda kişilik özelliği olarak çalışma eğilimi olan kişiler hedefleri
benimseyerek daha fazla çalışmış ve ÖÜ’ler tarafından daha yüksek performans
gösterdikleri şeklinde değerlendirilmiş olabilirler.
Uygulamaya Yönelik Öneriler
Alt boyut seviyesinde kişilik değişkenlerinin kullanılması, seçme süreçlerinde
kullanılan kişilik ölçeklerinin kısaltılmasına imkân sağlayabilir. Sadece iş ile ilgili
140
kişilik alt boyutları kullanılarak oluşturulacak kişilik ölçekleri doğal olarak bütün
kişilik alt boyutlarını kullanarak geliştirilen envanterlerden daha kısa olabilir. Buna ek
olarak, MTK yöntemlerinin de ölçeklerin kısaltılmasına imkân verebileceği bu
araştırmada gösterilmiştir. Ölçeklerin uygulama süresinin kısa olması, uygulayıcıların
kullanılan ölçekleri benimsemesine ve kişilik ölçeklerinin daha fazla kullanılmasına
yardımcı olabilir.
Çalışmanın Kısıtlılıkları
Çalışma 1 için toplamda 423 kişilik bir örneklem grubu kullanılmıştır. Bu sayı madde
tepki kuramı çözümlemelerinin daha sağlıklı yapılabilmesi için daha fazla olabilirdi.
Çalışma 2’de kullanılan 61 kişilik örneklem grubu da çalışmada elde edilen ilişkilerin
örneklem dışına genellenmesini zora soktuğundan, örneklemdeki katılımcı sayısının
arttırılması araştırma sonuçlarının tekrarlanabilirliği açısından faydalı olacaktır.
Ayrıca, Çalışma 2’de kullanılan AG örnekleminin çok eğitimli olduğu da, sonuçların
değerlendirilmesi sırasında göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.
İleride Yapılacak Araştırmalar için Öneriler
Bu çalışmada MTK yöntemlerinin ve parametrelerinin kullanımı oluşturulan
bütünleşik kişilik ölçeğinin kısaltılması açısından yardımcı olmuştur. Ancak, MTK
yöntemleri ile elde edilen parametrelerin gerçekten verimli olacağı temel alan
bilgisayarlı testlerdir. Bu nedenle kişilik testlerinin bilgisayarlı uyarlanabilen testler
haline getirilerek kullanılması da çalışılması gereken bir diğer araştırma alanıdır.
BFM’nin alt boyutlarının iş performansı dışında kullanım alanları da göz ardı
edilmemelidir. Bağlamsal performans ve üretkenliğe zarar veren davranışların, alt
boyutlar kullanılarak kestirimine dair araştırmalar da kurumlar açısında önemli
faydalar doğuracak ilişkilerin ortaya çıkarılmasına katkı sağlayabilir.
141
APPENDIX L: Tez Fotokopisi İzin Formu
ENSTİTÜ
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü
Enformatik Enstitüsü
Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü
YAZARIN
Soyadı : Gültaş
Adı : Mehmet
Bölümü : Psikoloji
TEZİN ADI (İngilizce) : Work discipline compound personality scale
development with item response theory.
TEZİN TÜRÜ : Yüksek Lisans Doktora
1. Tezimin tamamından kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla fotokopi alınabilir.
2. Tezimin içindekiler sayfası, özet, indeks sayfalarından ve/veya bir
bölümünden kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla fotokopi alınabilir.
3. Tezimden bir bir (1) yıl süreyle fotokopi alınamaz.
TEZİN KÜTÜPHANEYE TESLİM TARİHİ:
x
x
X
x
X
x
![Bachelor Thesis M.S. Jesus Restricted Version [Only available in Dutch]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/58ec054b1a28ab780f8b4631/bachelor-thesis-ms-jesus-restricted-version-only-available-in-dutch.jpg)
