PATH Personality Questionnaire - Technical Manual - V2

PATH Personality Questionnaire Technical Manual Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

1.1 About this Manual .....................................................................................................................................3

1.2 About Talegent ..........................................................................................................................................3

1.3 How Talegent Differs ...............................................................................................................................3

Solutions by Industry and Job Family ...........................................................................................4

Screening and Selection Tools .......................................................................................................4

1.4 Introduction to Psychometric Assessment .........................................................................................5

2 PATH Personality

2.1 Introduction to the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire ....................................................9

2.2 Descriptions of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire ................................................. 10

Interpersonal ................................................................................................................................... 11

Temperament ................................................................................................................................. 21

Thinking ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Execution ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Drive ................................................................................................................................................. 37

Self Presentation ............................................................................................................................ 41

2.3 Response Style Indicators ..................................................................................................................... 42

Receptive ......................................................................................................................................... 42

Self-Aware ....................................................................................................................................... 43

Comparison between the PATH Personality Questionnaire and other leading

personality assessments ............................................................................................................ 43

2.4 Talegent Competency Model .............................................................................................................. 45

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 45

Introduction to Competencies ................................................................................................... 46

2.5 Competency Descriptions .................................................................................................................... 48

3 Applications

3.1 Applications of the Talegent PATH Personality Product ............................................................. 55

Selection .......................................................................................................................................... 55

On-Boarding Needs ...................................................................................................................... 55

Training and Development .......................................................................................................... 55

Team Development ...................................................................................................................... 55

Misapplications of the Talegent PATH Personality Product ............................................... 55

Target Users ................................................................................................................................... 56

4 Administration

4.1 The “WHO” of Administration .......................................................................................................... 59

4.2 The “WHAT” of Administration ........................................................................................................ 60

Prior to the administration ......................................................................................................... 61

4.3 Creating Campaigns and Setting up Candidates ............................................................................. 63

4.4 Accessing Reports .................................................................................................................................. 67

4.5 Candidate Experience ........................................................................................................................... 70

4.6 Confidentiality ......................................................................................................................................... 74

4.7 Security of Administration ................................................................................................................... 75

Some of The Security Precautions We Take .......................................................................... 76

4.8 Administration under Special Circumstances .................................................................................. 77

5 Providing Feedback

5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 79

5.2 Ethics ......................................................................................................................................................... 79

5.3 Preparing for Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 80

5.4 Interpreting Results................................................................................................................................ 81

Personality results ......................................................................................................................... 81

5.5 The Feedback Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 81

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 81

Contextual Information ............................................................................................................... 82

Discussion of Results .................................................................................................................... 82

Concluding the Discussion .......................................................................................................... 83

5.6 Essential Qualities to Portray During the Feedback Discussion ................................................. 84

5.7 Linking Scales in the PATH PQ ........................................................................................................... 85

6 Reports

6.1 Talegent’s PATH Reports ..................................................................................................................... 87

6.2 PATH Personality Profile ...................................................................................................................... 87

6.3 PATH Personality Report ..................................................................................................................... 87

Roles and Uses of the PATH Profile and Personality Report ............................................. 88

6.4 PATH Competency Profile .................................................................................................................. 88

6.5 PATH Competency Detail Report ..................................................................................................... 89

Roles and Uses of the PATH Competency Profile and Detail Report ............................. 89

6.6 PATH EQ Report ................................................................................................................................... 89

Roles and Uses of the PATH EQ Report ................................................................................ 89

6.7 PATH Leadership Report ..................................................................................................................... 90

Roles and Uses of the PATH Leadership Report .................................................................. 90

6.8 PATH Personal Feedback Report ....................................................................................................... 90

Roles and Uses of the PATH Personal Feedback Report .................................................... 90

7 Norm Groups

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 93

7.2 Standard Scores ...................................................................................................................................... 93

Z Score ............................................................................................................................................. 93

Sten Score ....................................................................................................................................... 93

Percentile ......................................................................................................................................... 94

Standard Error of the mean ........................................................................................................ 94

7.3 Available Norm Groups ........................................................................................................................ 96

Choosing the appropriate norm ................................................................................................ 96

7.4 Admin Norm (2015) .............................................................................................................................. 97

Description ...................................................................................................................................... 97

Demographic Information ........................................................................................................... 97

Norm Table................................................................................................................................... 101

7.5 Graduate Norm (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 103

Description ................................................................................................................................... 103

Demographic Information ......................................................................................................... 103

Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 108

7.6 Professional Norm (2015) .................................................................................................................. 110

Description ................................................................................................................................... 110


Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 115

7.7 Managerial Norm (2015) .................................................................................................................... 117

Description ................................................................................................................................... 117


Table ............................................................................................................................................... 122

7.8 Executive Norm (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 124

Description ................................................................................................................................... 124


Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 129

7.9 Incumbent Norm (2015) .................................................................................................................... 131

Description ................................................................................................................................... 131


Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 136

8 Development Framework

8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 139

8.2 Development Framework .................................................................................................................. 139

9 Substantive Validity

9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 143

9.2 Early Development ............................................................................................................................... 143

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 143

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 143

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 144

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 144

9.3 Substantive Pilot.................................................................................................................................... 145

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 145

Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 145

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 145

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 145

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 147

9.4 Substantive Validity Summary ............................................................................................................ 147

10 Structural Validity

10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 149

10.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................... 149

10.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Study ................................................................................................... 150

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 150

Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 150

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 150

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 151

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 153

10.4 Reliability ................................................................................................................................................. 153

10.5 Reliability Study ..................................................................................................................................... 154

Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 154

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 154

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 155

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 156

10.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis............................................................................................................ 157

10.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study ................................................................................................ 158

Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 158

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 158

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 159

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 162

10.8 Structural Validity Summary ............................................................................................................... 163

11 External Validity

11.1 External Validity .................................................................................................................................... 165

11.2 Criterion-Related Validity .................................................................................................................. 165

11.3 Predictive Criterion Validity Study ................................................................................................... 165

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 165

Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 165

Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 166

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 168

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 168

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 171

12 Adverse Impact

12.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 175

12.2 Mean Differences between Demographics .................................................................................... 175

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 175

12.3 Adverse Impact Study.......................................................................................................................... 176

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 176

Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 176

Method ........................................................................................................................................... 177

Demographic Groupings ............................................................................................................ 177

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 180

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 193

13 References and Recommended Readings

14 Appendix A

14.1 PATH Personality Profile .................................................................................................................... 201

14.2 PATH Personality Report ................................................................................................................... 202

14.3 PATH Competency Profile ................................................................................................................ 215

14.4 PATH Competency Detail Report ................................................................................................... 216

14.5 Emotional Intelligence Report ........................................................................................................... 228

14.6 Leadership Growth Potential Report .............................................................................................. 239

14.7 Personal Feedback Report ................................................................................................................. 250

15 Appendex B

15.1 Mplus Input Syntax ............................................................................................................................... 265

15.2 Mplus Sample Output .......................................................................................................................... 265

1 Introduction

This manual is intended to provide the users of the Talegent PATH

Personality Questionnaire with technical information about its purpose,

development, reliability and validation.

3All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015

1.1 About this Manual

This manual is intended to provide the users of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire with

technical information about its purpose, development, reliability and validation. The manual also

provides information on the applications and functions of the PATH Personality Questionnaire.

1.2 About Talegent

Talegent was founded by veterans of the world’s largest assessment providers who believed that

online recruitment poses new challenges and opportunities, but that there were not sufficiently

innovative assessment products to take advantage of these possibilities. So from inception, Talegent

set out to create a new kind of assessment product, specifically optimised to meet the unique

environment of hiring in the digital age by harnessing next generation technologies, tools and best

practices. And built its own technology platform from scratch. That’s a major advantage. Having an

architecture based on latest technical capabilities allowed Talegent to quickly and easily customise to

different organisations’ requirements. Further, Talegent’s technology platform allows the

achievement of scalability without issue and with no perceptible outages or downtime. This is

reflected by the fact that historically Talegent’s platform has had over 99.8% uptime.

We also developed was an entirely new suite of pre-employment screening and selection

assessments including a personality questionnaire, cognitive tests and skills assessments. Built to take

advantage of the greater computing power now available, Talegent’s solutions have set new standards

of speed even at immense Internet volumes with no sacrifice in predictive accuracy.

1.3 How Talegent Differs

Talegent is the first talent assessment provider that’s top-to-bottom designed for the new digital

staffing reality.

This new digital era brings a whole new set of challenges and tools to hiring. Talegent was founded

for the specific purpose of helping organisations take advantage of the latest emerging tools to meet

these new challenges.

The online Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire will allow:

1. Management of exponentially larger applicant pools expediently and cost efficiently

2. Integration of job boards, and organisation’s Human Resources Applicant Tracking System

(HR ATS)

3. Engagement of a more informed, media-savvy and distractible generation

4. Differentiation of the candidate experience to win the competition for top talent

Using psychometric measures to objectively and accurately predict performance is the heart of what

Talegent does, in which it is not unique. But, powered by the proprietary Talegent PATH platform

All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 20154

and innovativeness to meet the different organisations’ needs, the process is faster, more efficient,

and with better results.

1. Stacked Rank Results – From the screening stage through full-blown assessments, candidates

are ranked to speed up the selection process.

2. Super-Fast Scoring – All test results are delivered within 24 hours, and most, instantaneously.

3. Shorter, More Engaging Tests – Measures are consolidated in a single short test without

sacrificing accuracy, and employ dynamic 3D simulations, branching video-based situational

judgment tests and other immersive new technologies to keep candidates engaged.

4. Users’ Brand Building – Organisations’ recruitment campaigns are aligned with their

employment value proposition to create a candidate experience that differentiates each

organisation.

5. Plug & Play with any ATS – Rapid integration with each organisation’s Applicant Tracking

System (ATS).

6. Easy Scalability & Upgrade-ability – Talegent’s platform is built with the latest technology,

meaning enhancements are easy to implement.

7. We’ll Build Whatever Easy customisations and new builds – Talegent routinely does

customisations easily and quickly.

8. Comprehensive Local Support – Talegent has local teams that are ready to respond to

organisations’ needs rapidly.

SOLUTIONS BY INDUSTRY AND JOB FAMILY

Talegent offers many off-the-shelf online recruitment solutions using the assessment test platform

already pre-configured for specific industries or hiring applications. These solutions are customised

specific to include competency sets and tests that are continuously updated to ensure relevancy to

latest job requirements. The norm sets are validated from real life job performance data. Fast & easy

customisation to organisations’ specific needs.

SCREENING AND SELECTION TOOLS

Talegent PATH brings together an ensemble of new and innovative personality, cognitive ability and

skills tests under a single powerful and flexible, integrated system that allows test users to easily


configure, administer, and access results and reporting. Those who use it are able to more quickly,

efficiently, and accurately determine the expected performance of an individual within a given role to

improve new hires or internal appointments.

1.4 Introduction to Psychometric Assessment

Occupational assessment refers to the application of psychometric assessment to workplace

decision-making. Information derived from occupational assessment can predict a person’s likely

future performance in the workplace. When this information is mapped to job requirements, it can

be used to inform employment-related decisions such as selection, training and development, and

career planning.

Cattell (1986) defined psychometric tests as:

“a standard, portable stimulus situation, containing a standard instruction and mode of response, in

which a consenting subject is measured on their response in a predefined way, the measure being

designed and used to predict other behaviour elsewhere”.

There are several key attributes of psychometric assessments:

1. They are systematically constructed and employed. This means that they are rigorously designed

for a particular purpose and they are used for this purpose only. As a requirement of their

‘rigorous construction,’ these assessments must be valid and reliable (the qualities of Talegent

PATH Personality Questionnaire are discussed later in the manual).

2. They are standardised. This means that, as far as practically possible, the tests are administered

and scored in exactly the same way each time. This helps to reduce the occurrence of

random error, increasing the reliability and validity of results. Standardisation requires that:

3. Each test taker completes the same questions or activities as everyone else who sits the

same assessment.

4. Everyone is given the same instructions so that no one has an unfair advantage.

5. The test is conducted in the same or a very similar setting for every candidate.


6. Test results are scored and interpreted in the same way every time.

7. They elicit behavioural responses which are measurable. It is these measurable responses which

are used to predict likely future performance on similar tasks to those which are completed

during the assessment.

2 PATH Personality

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire gives employers deep insight

into what motivates and drives individuals, the way they think, how they

relate to others, their preferred work style, and more.


2.1 Introduction to the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire gives employers deep insight into what motivates and

drives individuals, the way they think, how they relate to others, their preferred work style, and

more. These measures can be analysed in relation to the key role competencies exhibited by top

performers for a given role.

The assessment is fast and easy to set up with an intuitive interface where employers can create

profiles specific to their job-roles and organisations.

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire has 202 questions measuring 32 behavioural traits.

There is no time limit for the assessment but it is expected to take most candidates about 20

minutes to complete.

Talegent PATH personality questionnaire has been developed as an international assessment product

based on work competencies. These competencies predict work performance in terms of efficacy of

key behaviours and overall job performance.


2.2 Descriptions of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire

The PATH personality scales are spread across six domain clusters, Interpersonal, Temperament,

Thinking, Execution, Drive, and Self Presentation. The scales were allocated to their cluster

intuitively to help aid in interpretation and understanding. These clusters and the scale mappings are

shown in Table 1. Each scale in described in detail in Table 2 with information about work behaviour

likely to be exhibited by low, moderate and high scoring respondents.

Table 1

Scale mappings to the six intuitive clusters

Interpersonal Temperament Thinking Execution Drive Self

Presentation

Influential Self-Confident Data Driven Compliant Energetic Receptive

Directing Adaptable Intuitive Risk Tolerant Competitive Self Aware

Motivating Composed Analytical Work

Focused

Driven

Amiable Optimistic Strategic Meticulous Decisive

Empathetic Theoretical Reliable

Collaborative Innovative

Sociable Learning

Focus

Socially Aware

Trusting

Accepting


INTERPERSONAL

Table 2

Descriptions of the Talegent PATH Personality Scales

INFLUENTIAL

The tendency to exert influence over the thoughts and actions of others.

LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

DESCRIPTION

Doubts ability to persuade

others.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most to exert

influence over the thoughts and

actions of others.

DESCRIPTION

Confident in powers of

persuasion.

TYPICAL ITEM

I’m not good at changing other

people’s minds.

TYPICAL ITEM

TYPICAL ITEM

I am a natural influencer.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers do not place much

faith in their ability to influence

the thoughts and feelings of

other people. As a result, they

may feel they are less effective

than most other people at

changing people’s opinions or

influencing their behaviour. Low

scorers may feel that people do

not tend to listen to their ideas.

They may be somewhat

reluctant to share their ideas

with other people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers feel that they

are about as good as most at

influencing the thoughts and

feelings of other people. They

are likely to attempt to change

other people’s opinions in areas

that they are most passionate

about. Moderate scorers

generally feel that they are

effective at persuading other

people to see things from their

point of view, and of getting

other people to do what they

want them to do some of the

time.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are highly

confident in their ability to

influence the thoughts and

feelings of other people. They

are likely to find it fairly easy to

communicate with other people

and ask them to support their

ideas in the workplace. High

scorers consider themselves to

be highly effective at persuading

other people to see things from

their point of view, and of

getting people to do what they

want them to do.


DIRECTING

The tendency to take charge of situations and assert one’s perspective.


DESCRIPTION

Prefers to follow the lead of

others.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most to take charge

of situations and assert their

perspectives.

DESCRIPTION

Prefer to take charge and lead.

TYPICAL ITEM

I prefer to let others lead.

TYPICAL ITEM

I prefer to take charge of a

situation rather than let others

direct themselves.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers may prefer not to

lead a group or to take charge

of the situation. They are likely

to come across as being less

assertive than most other

people. They are likely to

prefer to let others lead,

instead taking on more of a

follower role. They may

struggle when required to

direct the behaviour of other

people and may avoid having to

get others to listen to them.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers are likely to

enjoy leading a team or

directing others to a similar

extent as most other people.

They are likely to be

comfortable leading others

when they feel that they are the

best person to do so. Moderate

scorers tend to work well in

either a leadership position or

following the guidance of other

people, depending on the

situation. They may put

themselves in a leadership

position when they are

especially interested in a given

area or when they feel that it is

an area of expertise.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are likely to really

enjoy taking on leadership

opportunities and directing

other people. They are

expected to volunteer for

leadership roles in the

workplace and are likely to feel

comfortable defending their

authority, no matter who

challenge it. High scorers are

likely to come across a highly

assertive and to regularly

express their opinion.


MOTIVATING

The tendency to place importance on being able to motivate others and the belief that they have an

ability to do so through understanding how to influence and drive others’ performance.


DESCRIPTION

Regard themselves as being less

effective at inspiring others.

DESCRIPTION

As confident as most in their

ability to motivate and inspire

others.

DESCRIPTION

Confident in ability to motivate

others.

TYPICAL ITEM

Motivating others is not

enjoyable for me.

TYPICAL ITEM

I think it is important to help

others stay motivated.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers don’t tend to

concern themselves with

understanding what motivates

other people. They are less

likely than most of their peers

to attempt to inspire their

colleagues or subordinates in

their workplace. They may

prefer to let other people drive

their own performance.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


believe that they are about as

good as most people at

motivating others. On occasion

they are likely to attempt to

inspire their colleagues or

subordinates in the workplace.

At other times, they may prefer

to let other people drive their

own performance.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers tend to be


motivate others. They are

expected to dedicate time and

effort into attempting to

motivate those around them.

High scorers are likely to

believe that different people are

motivated by different things

and act to determine what

motivates each person. They

are also expected to enjoy

motivating or inspiring others

to perform at their best.


AMIABLE

The tendency to easily connect with others, and to value how others regard them.


DESCRIPTION

Require more time to form

bonds.

DESCRIPTION

Find it as easy as most in

connecting with others and

being friendly.

DESCRIPTION

Friendly, easily connects with

others, and wants to make a

good impression.

TYPICAL ITEM

It doesn't really bother me if I

don’t make the best first

impression.

TYPICAL ITEM

I like to make sure other

people feel at ease around me.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers may require more

time than others to get to

know new people.

They may not be as concerned

as most others with creating a

strong impression.

They are not expected to

dedicate very much effort into

ensuring that other people feel

at ease around them.

Low scorers should

demonstrate a lesser tendency

than most of their peers to

engage in behaviours that

encourage the formation of

relationships in the workplace.

As a result, they may take

longer than others to build

relationships.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be as sociable and friendly as

most others.

Although they are likely to feel

most comfortable when

maintaining a relationship with

those they are familiar with,

they should require a moderate

amount of time to get to know

new people.

They should be as concerned as

most of their peers with the

first impression they make.

Moderate scorers demonstrate

a fair tendency to engage in

behaviours that encourage the

formation of bonds with other

people, such as by making a

degree of eye contact during

social interactions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are likely to be

more sociable and outgoing

than most other people. They

are expected to be concerned

with creating a strong first

impression, being held in high

regard, and should dedicate a

high level of time and effort

into ensuring that other people

feel at ease around them, such

as by making appropriate eye

contact during social

interactions.

They should be relatively

approachable in the way they

build relationships with staff,

colleagues and key

stakeholders, and show interest

in building a broad network.

High scorers are likely to take

the initiative to introduce

themselves to new people and

put effort into building

relationships.


EMPATHETIC

The tendency to show deep concern with how others feel, and observe behavioural and verbal cues

in order to understand others.


DESCRIPTION

Less observant of others’

behavioural cues, and may show

less concern for others’

feelings.

DESCRIPTION

As receptive as most of others’

behavioural cues, and shows

reasonable interest in how

others feel.

DESCRIPTION

Interested in and observant of

others’ behavioural and verbal

cues, and shows concern for

others’ feelings.

TYPICAL ITEM

Hearing about other people’s

feelings makes me feel

uncomfortable.

TYPICAL ITEM

I care strongly about other's

feelings when I am making

decisions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers don’t tend to


observing others’ non-verbal

cues.

They may not show as much

concern as most others for

people’s thoughts and feelings

in the workplace, placing more

emphasis on task-related

behaviours.

They may feel uncomfortable

when others discuss their

feelings with them.

They aren’t expected to

dedicate much time to

considering how their decisions

might impact upon people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be as interested in the thoughts

and feelings of others as most

of their peers.

They are expected to feel

moderately comfortable when

others discuss their feelings

with them.

Moderate scorers should

dedicate the usual amount of

time towards considering how

their decisions might impact

upon other people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


interested in and observant of

others’ behavioural and verbal

cues.

They are likely to be more

interested than most of their

peers in understanding others’

thoughts and feelings. High

scorers value feeling what

another person is experiencing

from within the other’s frame

of reference.

They are also expected to feel

really comfortable when others

discuss their feelings with them,

and should actively seek out

conversations about feelings

with other people.


COLLABORATIVE

The tendency to co-operate with others and be accommodating.


DESCRIPTION

Prefers to work

independently.

DESCRIPTION

As cooperative and

accommodating as most

DESCRIPTION

Enjoys working closely with

others.

TYPICAL ITEM

If someone asks me to do

something I usually try to find

an excuse so I don’t have to.

TYPICAL ITEM

I always try to find ways of

helping people

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers have a fairly

strong preference for working

alone rather than in team

situations. They may be less

inclined to prioritise the needs

of others ahead of their own

objectives. As a result they

may come across as being less

cooperative than most others.

They may prefer to compete

against others rather than

working collaboratively. They

may feel demotivated when

required to work in team

situations. They are likely to

be most satisfied when

working independently to

achieve a personal goal.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers are

expected to work as well as

most others in team situations.

In a team setting they should

generally prioritise the needs

of a team ahead of their own

objectives. They are likely to

come across as being

cooperative and fairly flexible

in most team situations. They

are expected to be

comfortable working in either

a team situation or

independently, depending on

what is required of them.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are expected to

really enjoy opportunities to

work with a team. In a team

situation, they are expected to

prioritise the needs of the

team ahead of their own

objectives. High scorers are

likely to come across as being

highly cooperative and flexible

when working with others.

They report really enjoying

collaborating with others

towards achieving a group

goal, and to help a team

achieve success.


SOCIABLE

The tendency to enjoy talking to others, participating in social events and exchanges, and be

outgoing.


DESCRIPTION

Prefers less interaction, seems

quiet.

DESCRIPTION

Enjoys some interaction and is

as outgoing as most people.

DESCRIPTION

Enjoys speaking and driving

interactions.

TYPICAL ITEM

I try to avoid social events.

TYPICAL ITEM

I really enjoy situations where I

get to meet lots of new people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers prefer less social

interactions than most. In the

work place, they are likely to

interact with other people in a

professional, rather than

friendly, manner. They may feel

uncomfortable when interacting

with others and may be

reluctant to put forward their

own ideas. They may be more

reticent than many others

about social networking. Low

scorers may experience social

fatigue when they spend a great

deal of time interacting with

others.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers are about as

sociable as most. They are

likely to enjoy some interaction

with others in the workplace

although not to an extent that

is likely to distract them from

work. They are expected to

come across as being about as

friendly and outgoing as most

other people. They may be

slightly uncomfortable

approaching new people or

groups, but should warm up as

they get to know people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers profile as being

highly sociable and come across

as being very outgoing. They

are expected to really enjoy

opportunities to interact with

other people at work and be

motivated by opportunities for

interaction. They are likely to

feel confident in most social

situations and are expected to

feel comfortable initiating

conversations with strangers or

speaking during meetings. High

scorers are expected to be

effective networkers. They may

feel lonely if they do not

receive a high level of social

interaction.


SOCIALLY AWARE

The tendency to be interested in understanding the behaviour of others and have confidence in

one’s ability to adapt their actions to suit different situations or people.


DESCRIPTION

Consistent style across

situations

DESCRIPTION

As interested in understanding

others’ behaviours as most, and

adapting one’s own to suit.

DESCRIPTION

Adapts behaviour to suit the

situation

TYPICAL ITEM

I never adapt the way I act to

suit a situation

TYPICAL ITEM

I am really good at

understanding how others are

feeling from their actions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers do not tend to


understanding others

behaviour. When interacting

with others they are likely to

behave in a consistent manner,

rather than adapting their

behaviour to suit the situation

and the person they are

interacting with. They may find

it less preferable than most to

focus on picking up social cues

such as people’s body language

or tone of voice. They are

expected to have a tendency to

take things at face value rather

than considering the underlying

message.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers are expected

to be moderately concerned

with understanding the

behaviour of other people.

When interacting with others

they are likely to adapt their

behaviour slightly to suit the

situation and the person they

are interacting with. Moderate

scorers are expected to

generally pick up on social cues

such as people’s body language

or tone of voice, and to adapt

their own behaviour most of

the time.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are highly

interested in understanding the

behaviour of others. When

interacting with people, they

are expected to readily change

their behaviour on the basis of

the situation and who they are

interacting with. There are

expected to consistently focus

on social cues such as people’s

body language or tone of voice,

and adapt their behaviour

accordingly. They tend to be

very confident in their ability to

understand why people behave

in the ways that they do.


TRUSTING

The tendency to believe that others will be honest and to trust the intentions of other people.


DESCRIPTION

Sceptical – questions others’

intentions

DESCRIPTION

As trusting of others as most

people.

DESCRIPTION

Believes others are essentially

honest.

TYPICAL ITEM

I often worry that people are

not being honest with me.

TYPICAL ITEM

I place a lot of faith in the

honesty of others.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers may be less

trusting than most people.

They may require other

people to prove that they are

trustworthy before they will

put trust in them. They may

take longer than most to trust

others. As a result of their

tendency to be cautious of

others they are unlikely to be

taken advantage of by other

people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be as trusting as most other

people. They are likely to

believe that the majority of

people are generally honest

and trustworthy, whilst also

being aware that people can

be dishonest. When someone

proves themselves to be

dishonest, they are expected

to be less likely to trust them

in the future. Moderate

scorers are expected to trust

that other people have good

intentions, unless they have

proved themselves to be

untrustworthy.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


more trusting than most other

people. They are likely to put

trust in other people more

quickly than most other

people do. They are likely to

believe that most people are

inherently good and that they

aren’t attempting to deceive

them. As a result of this highly

trusting nature, high scorers

may be at risk of being

deceived or taken for granted

by other people.


ACCEPTING

The tendency to appreciate other people’s personal views, beliefs and lifestyles.


DESCRIPTION

Prefers people similar to self.

DESCRIPTION

As open and appreciative of the

views, beliefs and lifestyles of

others as most.

DESCRIPTION

Appreciates and embraces

diversity.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don’t enjoy spending time

with people who are very

different from me.

TYPICAL ITEM

Every culture has good things

about it.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are not very open

to the views, beliefs and

lifestyles of other people. They

are likely to prefer to interact

with people who are similar to

themselves in terms of values

and background. They may find

it difficult to establish common

ground with people who are

quite different to themselves.

Low scorers are likely to hold

on to their personal beliefs

strongly and not be open to

considering a number of

different beliefs and ideas.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be similar to most in how open

they are to the views, beliefs

and lifestyles of other people.

Although they are expected to

get along best with those who

are quite similar to themselves,

they are likely to generally

enjoy interacting with people

with different ideas and

perspectives. Moderate scorers

are likely to be prefer to

establish common ground with

people who differ from

themselves. They are likely to

hold on to certain personal

beliefs reasonably strongly but

be open to considering a

number of different beliefs and

ideas.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are highly open to

and appreciative of the views,

beliefs and lifestyles of other

people. They are likely to really

enjoy interacting with people

from different backgrounds and

cultures. They are expected to

easily establish common ground

with people who are different

to themselves. High scorers are

expected to get along well with

those with different beliefs to

their own.


TEMPERAMENT

SELF-CONFIDENT

The tendency to be self-assured and to have a strong belief in one’s abilities and judgements.


DESCRIPTION

Underestimates self and

capabilities

DESCRIPTION

As self-assured and confident

in their own abilities and

judgements as most other

people.

DESCRIPTION

Strongly believes in own

capabilities.

TYPICAL ITEM

I sometimes find it difficult to

overcome obstacles.

TYPICAL ITEM

I can complete most tasks

well.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers may be very

humble or quick to highlight

their weaknesses when

evaluating challenges. They are

likely to prefer not to attempt

new things without clear

guidance or direction from

others and they may prefer a

few practices before being

required to try something new

on their own. Low scorers

may require substantial

encouragement to step

outside of their “comfort

zone”.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


expected to approach new

things with a similar level of

self-confidence as that of their

peers. They may highlight their

inexperience with regard to

new challenges. However, they

are likely to be more self-

assured when faced with

situations that they have

previously experienced

success in or that they are

excited about. Moderate

scorers may require some



zone”.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


approach new things with

greater confidence than their

peers. They may come across

as being highly assured of their

abilities even when facing

novel challenges. They are

unlikely to experience self-

doubt and should not be put

off by the prospect of a new

challenge. High scorers are

expected to need little



zone”.


COMPOSED

The tendency to remain calm and composed when dealing with stressful situations or negative

events.


DESCRIPTION

More affected by stress than

others.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most to remain

calm and composed when

faced with stressful situations

or negative events.

DESCRIPTION

Calm and relaxed in the face

of stress.

TYPICAL ITEM

I get flustered when I am

under pressure.

TYPICAL ITEM

I can stay calm under great

amounts of pressure.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are more inclined

than their peers to find it

difficult to maintain

composure during stressful

situations. They are expected

to openly demonstrate an

emotional response to

situations. Low scorers are

more likely than their peers to

be affected by the stressors in

their life and they may be

reluctant to persevere through

stressful situations.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers tend to find

it as challenging as most to

maintain composure during

difficult situations. They are

expected to maintain some

poise in stressful situations but

may look to others for

support. Moderate scorers are

as likely as their peers to be

affected by the stressors in

their life. They may attempt to

persevere through stressful

situations but may need

encouragement from others at

times.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


able to maintain composure

during difficult situations. They

are expected to conceal

emotion in response to

difficult situations. High

scorers are less likely than

most to be affected by the

stressors in their life and they

are likely to prefer to

persevere through stressful

situations.


ADAPTABLE

The tendency to be receptive to changes in routine, environments and processes.


DESCRIPTION

Resist change – prefer routine.

DESCRIPTION

As flexible towards changes in

routine, environment and

processes as most.

DESCRIPTION

Embraces change, adapts

quickly.

TYPICAL ITEM

I dislike having to change my

routine.

TYPICAL ITEM

When things change in my life it

helps me grow as a person.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are likely to be

inflexible to changes in their life

and are likely to crave

consistency. They are expected

to be reluctant to accept

imposed changes in their work

environment. Low scorers are

more likely than most of their

peers to highlight the reasons

against change and they are

unlikely to initiate change in the

workplace.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be open to changes in life but

may prefer that these are well

justified. They are expected to

accept imposed changes in their

work environment. Moderate

scorers are as likely as their

peers to see the potential

problems with change but

should be able to see past these

and not impede improvements.

They may occasionally initiate

change in the workplace.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


readily accept imposed changes

in their work environment.

High scorers are less likely than

their peers to see the potential

problems with change and are

more inclined to highlight the

positives that will arise. They

may frequently initiate change

in the workplace.


OPTIMISTIC

The tendency to express positive statements and experience events positively.


DESCRIPTION

Tend to be critical and to focus

on the negatives.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as their peers to

express positive statements and

experience events positively.

DESCRIPTION

Have a positive outlook and

focus on the upside.

TYPICAL ITEM

I tend to focus on the negative

things in my life.

TYPICAL ITEM

I always seek out positive things

in my life.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


less optimistic than most of

their peers. They may have a

tendency to be cautious about

the future. Low scorers are

expected to be excellent at

identifying the potential risks in

situations, but may be less

effective at pointing out the

potential benefits. They may be

less inclined to express a

positive outlook than most

other people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be about as optimistic as most

of their peers. They are likely

to take a balanced approach

between unflagging optimism

and being overly cautious about

situations. Moderate scorers

are likely to consider both the

negatives and positives of

situations and they are likely to

be fairly pragmatic in their

evaluations of the future. They

are expected to come across as

being about as positive and

enthusiastic as most other

people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


significantly more optimistic

than most of their peers. They

are expected to be very

positive about the future and

are expected to highlight the

potential benefits of any

situation, potentially at the

expense of considering the

potential risks. High scorers are

likely to come across as being

really positive and enthusiastic,

a tendency that is likely to help

boost the morale of those they

work with.


THINKING

DATA DRIVEN

The tendency to employ empirical analysis when making decisions and look to numerical data to

inform them of the best option.


DESCRIPTION

Dislike utilising numbers and

statistics.

DESCRIPTION

About as likely as most other

people to employ empirical

analysis and utilise numerical

information when making

decisions.

DESCRIPTION

Prefer to solve problems using

metrics.

TYPICAL ITEM

You can still make good

decisions without analysing all

the facts first.

TYPICAL ITEM

I put a great deal of emphasis

on the hard data when making

decisions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are less interested

than most other people in

working with numbers and

figures. They are not expected

to feel comfortable or enjoy

using empirical information to

solve problems. Low scorers

may have a tendency to avoid

situations where they would be

expected to work with facts

and figures. They may struggle

to make effective decisions due

to their reluctance to consider

using empirical information.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be similar to most other people

in terms of how much they

enjoy working with numbers

and figures. They are expected

to generally be comfortable

dealing with empirical data in

the workplace. Moderate

scorers are not expected to

avoid situations where they

would be expected to work

with facts and figures and they

are unlikely to be concerned if

required to solve problems

using numerical information as

part of their role.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


highly interested in working

with numbers. They are

expected to really enjoy using

empirical information to solve

problems. High scorers are

likely to prefer to make

decisions based on factual data

including numerical information.

They may struggle to make

effective decisions if they do

not have access to empirical

information.


INTUITIVE

The tendency to employ one’s intuition when making decisions.


DESCRIPTION

Need facts and data to be

convinced.

DESCRIPTION

About as likely as their peers to

utilise intuition when making

decisions.

DESCRIPTION

Trust gut instinct and

experience.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don’t trust my instincts when

making decisions.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am a very intuitive person.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are less inclined

than most other people to use

personal intuition when making

decisions. They are not

expected to trust in their “gut

feelings”, instead preferring to

rely on tangible information.

Low scorers are likely to work

through problems in a careful,

systematic manner. They may

have a tendency to hold

subjective information in low

esteem when making decisions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Similar to most others,

moderate scorers are likely to

take intuition into account

some of the time when making

decisions. They are expected to

utilise a balance of intuition and

other factors when solving

problems. During the decision-

making process, moderate

scorers are likely to take “gut

feelings” into account, but are

expected to also consider the

relevant facts and figures.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


strongly trust in their personal

insight and intuition. They are

expected to utilise their

intuition and instinct when

making decisions. High scorers

may have a tendency to think

that empirical data doesn’t hold

all the answers by itself, when

solving problems, and that

personal insight plays a part

too.


LEARNING FOCUSED

The tendency to be motivated by learning new things, and belief in one’s ability to learn quickly.


DESCRIPTION

Satisfied with current

knowledge.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most to enjoy

learning new skills and ideas.

DESCRIPTION

Driven to develop skills and

knowledge.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am not an intellectually

curious person.

TYPICAL ITEM

I have a strong desire for

knowledge.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


less motivated than most to

learn new information related

to their job and/or skills, and

are unlikely to spend time

learning new information in the

workplace. They are likely to

prefer roles that don’t involve

continually developing

knowledge or staying up to

date with industry trends and

developments. Low scorers are

not likely to place much

importance on being

knowledgeable about new

trends.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers are about as

motivated as most of their

peers to learn new information

and/or skills related to their

job. They are likely to enjoy

learning new things in the

workplace, particularly relating

to areas that they are most

interested in. Although they are

not expected to regularly seek

out new information to add to

their knowledge, they are likely

to be open to learning new

information some of the time.

May dedicate some of their free

time to learning in areas that

they find interesting.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


more motivated than most of

their peers to learn new job-

related information and/or

skills. They may tend to seek

out jobs that involve continually

developing their knowledge and

learning new things. High

scorers are likely to dedicate

time and energy into keeping

up to date with industry trends

and developments. They are

likely to place a great deal of

importance on being

knowledgeable in their area of

work.


ANALYTICAL

The tendency to critically evaluate information or decisions to assess both the strengths and

limitations of arguments or decisions.


DESCRIPTION

Accept data at face value.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most other people

to critically evaluate

information.

DESCRIPTION

Evaluate information critically.

TYPICAL ITEM

I usually accept what people tell

me as the truth.

TYPICAL ITEM

I often critically analyse

information before I believe it.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

not to rely on doing a critical

analysis when making decisions.

As they are not expected to

spend much time probing data,

they are unlikely to hold up the

decision making process.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


have a similar level of interest

in critically evaluating

information as the majority of

their peer group. They are

likely to accept data at face

value when pressed for time,

but given sufficient time and

resources, may dedicate more

time into investigating the

underlying factors. Moderate

scorers are expected to utilise

a balance of surmise and careful

analysis when making decisions

or solving problems. They are

likely to dedicate an

appropriate amount of time to

analysing data, given the time.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are significantly

more likely than most others to

enjoy evaluating arguments or

decisions. They are likely to

analyse issues with care and

take the time to investigate the

underlying factors. High scorers

are expected to take a highly

critical perspective when

making decisions and are likely

to be excellent at highlighting

potential sources of risk when

planning. In less contentious

situations, their highly analytical

approach may mean that they

hinder agile decision making.


STRATEGIC

The tendency to be focused on the long term outcome of decisions.


DESCRIPTION

Short-term, immediate focus.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most to take a long-

term, strategic approach.

DESCRIPTION

Focus on big picture, long-term

impact.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am less interested in

developing strategies than

others.

TYPICAL ITEM

Developing long-term strategies

is enjoyable.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers tend to take a

shorter-term perspective than

most other people, and are

likely to be less concerned with

planning for the future. They

are more likely to be most

interested in maximising short-

term outcomes rather than

long-term outcomes; and they

may relinquish long-term

outcomes to maximise

immediate pay-offs.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


to be about as concerned with

long-term outcomes as most

other people. They are likely to

balance maximising short-term

outcomes and long-term

outcomes as much as possible.

In contentious situations,

moderate scorers may be more

concerned with the short-term

implications of their decisions.

They are likely to put as much

effort into preparing for future

events as most people.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers tend to take a

longer-term and wider bird’s-

eye perspective than most


be most interested in

maximising long-term

outcomes, and dedicate more

time than most others to

planning for future events. High

scorers may have a tendency to

relinquish immediate pay-offs to

maximise long-term outcomes.


THEORETICAL

The tendency to enjoy working with abstract theoretical concepts over more practical and concrete

issues.


DESCRIPTION

Prefer dealing with tangible

issues.

DESCRIPTION

Enjoy working with abstract

and theoretical concepts about

as much as most other people.

DESCRIPTION

Enjoy applying abstract

concepts.

TYPICAL ITEM

I like working with real-world

things rather than thinking

about theories.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am interested in the theory

behind why things happen.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are expected to

be less interested than most

others in working with abstract

ideas. They prefer to work

using practical ideas and

tangible things rather than

dealing in the intangible. Low

scorers may prefer to avoid

intellectual debates about

abstract concepts, in

preference to taking a

practical, matter-of-fact

approach.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be similar to most others in

terms of how much they enjoy

working with theoretical

information. They are expected

to generally be comfortable

dealing with theoretical

information in the workplace,

and may occasionally generate

or apply theories to explain

information. But at other times

moderate scorers may be less

interested in doing so. They are

expected to prefer taking a

theoretical approach as much

as a practical approach,

depending on what is most

relevant for the circumstance.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are likely to really

enjoy working with abstract

theoretical concepts. They are

expected to be motivated by

opportunities where they are

required to learn about the

underlying principles and

theories in a given subject area.


intellectually curious, and are

expected to really enjoy

generating and applying

theories to explain phenomena,

as well as building on others’

theories.


INNOVATIVE

The tendency to enjoy generating new and innovative approaches to solving problems.


DESCRIPTION

Prefer existing, proven

solutions.

DESCRIPTION

Enjoy generating new and

innovative approaches to

solving problems as much as

most other people.

DESCRIPTION

Seeks new and creative

solutions.

TYPICAL ITEM

I tend to rely on other people’s

solutions rather than create my

own.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am good at coming up with

lots of ways to solve a problem.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


view themselves as less creative


are likely to prefer to stick with

tried-and-tested ways of doing

things rather than generating

new methods. They do not

expect themselves to come up

with many new or innovative

ideas in the workplace. Low

scorers may require more

evidence of misfit between

existing solutions and

requirements before they think

about an innovative approach.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


to be about as creative as most


suggest some innovative ideas

for change in the workplace,

particularly in areas in which

they are most interested. The

ideas that moderate scorers

generate are likely to be

balanced between being highly

innovative and being practical

and potentially implementable.

They are likely to consider

existing solutions before

suggesting innovative or

untested options.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


view themselves as being

significantly more creative than

most other people. They are

likely to really enjoy coming up

with new, innovative ideas and

approaches for getting things

done and are expected to

generate a number of ideas in

the workplace. High scorers

are likely to favour creating

new approaches to solving

problems, sometimes at the

expense of proven, existing

solutions.


EXECUTION

COMPLIANT

The tendency to follow rules and guidelines.


DESCRIPTION

Challenges rules, poses

alternatives.

DESCRIPTION


to enjoy following rules and

guidelines.

DESCRIPTION

Follows rules, guidelines and

consensus.

TYPICAL ITEM

I prefer to do work my own

way rather than follow

standard procedures.

TYPICAL ITEM

Rules make work better.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers may be less likely

than other people to follow

rules closely. They may have a

tendency to challenge the

value and importance of

existing rules and regulations,

and are likely to look for

alternative methods of getting

things done rather than

following existing guidelines.

They are expected to prefer

to work without strict

guidelines.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


expected to follow rules and

guidelines to a similar degree

to most of their peers. While

they are expected to generally

be accepting of most rules,

they may sometimes challenge

the value and importance of

regulations that seem to be

unnecessarily restrictive. They

are likely to consistently

follow the rules that they

consider to be the most

important. Moderate scorers

are not expected to be

concerned with working to

guidelines.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


enjoy following rules and

guidelines more than most

other people, and very unlikely

to challenge the value of

existing rules and regulations.

They are expected to follow

rules and regulations closely,

and to take care to ensure

that they are up-to-date on all

details of regulations. They are

expected to prefer to work

with guidelines in place to

guide their behaviour.


RISK TOLERANT

The tendency to be comfortable with taking calculated risks.


DESCRIPTION

Cautious – seek safety and

certainty.

DESCRIPTION

As comfortable as most others

when taking calculated risks.

DESCRIPTION

Takes risks – at ease with

uncertainty.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don’t like taking risks.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don’t mind taking risks if

there is a possible benefit.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers tend to be less

comfortable than most other

people with taking calculated

risks in the workplace, and are

likely to back the option

involving the least uncertainty.

They may be unwilling to take

risks, even when the expected

payoff is likely to be high. They

are expected to support the

least risky option when

planning.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be about as comfortable as

most other people with taking

calculated risks in the


weigh up the pros and cons of

their decisions, and are

expected to be willing to take

small to moderate risks when

they expect the benefits to

outweigh the potential costs.

They are expected to be

moderately comfortable with

some uncertainty in their

decisions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


significantly more comfortable

than most other people with

taking calculated risks in the


enjoy taking the risky decision

options, and are expected to

take risks readily, even when

the expected pay-off is not

likely to be especially great.

They are likely to feel

comfortable with uncertainty

in their decisions.


WORK FOCUSED

The tendency to be engaged with work, to focus on work tasks and not be distracted from work.


DESCRIPTION

Do not get engrossed in work

tasks.

DESCRIPTION


to be focused on their tasks.

DESCRIPTION

Highly engaged in work tasks.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don’t usually find my work

very engaging.

TYPICAL ITEM

Nothing can distract me from

my work.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


focused on their work than

many other people. They may

have a tendency to get

distracted from tasks, and may

work best when their

performance is being

monitored. They are expected

to get less engrossed in their

work than most other people

do, particularly when tasks are

mundane or repetitive.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be as focused on work as most

people. They may have a

tendency to get distracted

when completing mundane or

routine tasks, but should

generally be prefer to keep on

track, even with minimal

supervision. Moderate scorers

are likely to get engrossed

when working on tasks relating

to areas that they are most

interested in.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers tend to be more

focused on their work than


likely to become highly

engrossed in work tasks and

not be easily distracted from

tasks. High scorers are likely to

work well without supervision,

even on mundane tasks, but

they may find it difficult to stop

working and take a break.


METICULOUS

The tendency to be interested in the details of problems and tasks, enjoy focusing on minute details

and be meticulous.


DESCRIPTION

Holistic approach, avoids

details.

DESCRIPTION

As interested in working with

details as most other people.

DESCRIPTION

Methodical, organised and

detail-focused.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don’t like doing work which

requires me to keep track of

lots of small details.

TYPICAL ITEM

I like everything to be perfect.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


generally take a bigger picture

approach rather than being

interested in working with the

finer details of a task. They may

be more likely than other

people to overlook details and

may miss errors in their work.

Low scorers may not be

engaged by tasks that require

them to focus on minute

details, and may prefer to

delegate detail-focused tasks.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be similar to most other people

in terms of their detail-focus.

They are expected to balance a

bigger-picture approach with a

detail-oriented approach.


be enjoy working at a fairly high

level of attention to detail,

particularly when directed to

do so. They are expected to

focus on completing work with

few errors the majority of the

time.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


enjoy working with the finer

details of tasks, and are likely to

be better than most other at

working with details. They are

likely to produce high-quality

work with few errors, even if

this takes slightly longer than

other people to complete tasks,

as they are ensuring that they

do an excellent job.


RELIABLE

The tendency to follow through with agreed actions, be reliable and dependable.


DESCRIPTION

Treats deadlines and promises

as flexible.

DESCRIPTION

Follow through with agreed

actions and can be depended

on to the same extent as most

other people.

DESCRIPTION

Makes fulfilling promises a

priority.

TYPICAL ITEM

It doesn’t bother me if I let

people down.

TYPICAL ITEM

When I say that I will do

something I always follow

through.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


view themselves as being less

reliable than most of their

peers. They are likely to view

promises and deadlines as being

flexible, and may be more

relaxed than many other people

about following through on

agreed actions. Low scorers

may sometimes find it difficult

to fulfil all of their

commitments, and may require

a higher degree of

accountability in order to

ensure that they deliver on

their commitments.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


to be similar to most other

people in terms of their

reliability levels. They are

expected to generally follow

through on promises, although

when their schedule is

especially busy, they may not

deliver. Moderate scorers

consider it fairly important to

meet deadlines and are likely to

deliver work as promised the

majority of the time.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


view themselves as being more

reliable than most of their

peers. They are likely to place a

high level of importance on

fulfilling promises, and are

expected to put in additional

effort to ensure that they

consistently meet deadlines.

High scorers are unlikely to

make promises that they do not

feel that they will be able to

complete.


DRIVE

ENERGETIC

The tendency to be self-assured and to have a strong belief in one’s abilities and judgments.


DESCRIPTION

Prefers a relaxed, unpressured

pace.

DESCRIPTION

About as energetic as most

other people

DESCRIPTION

Thrive on a fast pace and full

workload.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am not an energetic person.

TYPICAL ITEM

I enjoy a fast paced life.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


energetic than most other

people. They are expected to

be most comfortable working

at a reasonably slow and steady

pace. Low scorers are likely to

enjoy a relaxed work

environment where they are

not expected to rush to

complete tasks. They may be

slower at completing tasks than

their peers.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be about as energetic as most


expected to be comfortable

working at most paces of work,

and are likely to adjust the

amount of energy they expend

on the basis of what is required

of them. Moderate scorers are

likely to be okay with working

on high pressure tasks some of

the time, but are likely to be

most content working at a

moderate pace. They are

expected to complete tasks

with a reasonable degree of

energy.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


significantly more energetic


are likely to thrive when

working at a fast pace. High

scorers are expected to really

enjoy completing tasks that are

urgent and working towards

tight deadlines. They may have

a tendency to become bored

when things are less busy in the

workplace and they are likely

to present as a high-energy

individual.


COMPETITIVE

The tendency to enjoy competing with others, having one’s performance compared to that of others

and striving to outperform peers.


DESCRIPTION

Avoid comparison with others.

DESCRIPTION

As likely as most others to

enjoy competing and winning.

DESCRIPTION

Likes to compete, loves to win.

TYPICAL ITEM

Competing with other people

makes me feel uncomfortable.

TYPICAL ITEM

I get a thrill from competing

with others.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


less competitive than most


prefer to work in collaboration

with other people, rather than

in competition with them. Low

scorers may feel uncomfortable

when required to compare

their performance against the

performance of others. They

are not expected to try and

outdo the others’

achievements.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be about as competitive as


expected to be comfortable

competing against others or

working in collaboration with

them, depending on what is

required. Moderate scorers

may sometimes wish to

compare their performance

against the performance of

others especially in areas that

they feel are their strengths.

Similarly, they are likely to

occasionally attempt to outdo

the performance of other

people in areas that they are

most passionate about.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


significantly more competitive


are expected to really enjoy

competing against other people

and find competitions highly

exciting. High scorers are

expected to consistently

compare their performance

against the performance of

others. Similarly, they are likely

to attempt to outperform

other people in the workplace.


DRIVEN

The tendency to strive to achieve goals and persist in the face of obstacles.


DESCRIPTION

Sets modest goals for self.

DESCRIPTION


to strive to achieve goals and

persist in the face of obstacles.

DESCRIPTION

Highly motivated to achieve.

TYPICAL ITEM

If a goal is too difficult I

sometimes just give up.

TYPICAL ITEM

I have a relentless drive to

achieve goals.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are not especially

driven to achieve goals. When

setting goals for themselves,

they are likely to set modest

goals that they feel they can

achieve without too much

difficulty. Low scorers may

benefit from encouragement to

really push themselves to get

the most out of them. They

may seek out support when

faced with obstacles in the

workplace.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


be about as driven as most


expected to set reasonably

challenging goals for

themselves. Although moderate

scorers are expected to push

themselves reasonably hard in

the workplace, they may still

benefit from encouragement to

really challenge themselves

some of the time. They should

prefer to face most workplace

obstacles without requiring

additional support.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


highly driven to achieve success

in the workplace. When setting

goals for themselves, they are

likely to set challenging ones

and to strive to achieve them.

High scorers are unlikely to

require encouragement to push

themselves harder. Instead, the

concern may be that they are in

danger of burnout or

overworking themselves. They

are expected to be prefer to

face workplace obstacles

without requiring additional

support.


DECISIVE

The tendency to make decisions quickly and with conviction.


DESCRIPTION

Uncertain decisions, seek

guidance.

DESCRIPTION

About as comfortable making

quick decisions as most other

people.

DESCRIPTION

Make decisions quickly and with

confidence.

TYPICAL ITEM

Sometimes I doubt my

decisions.

TYPICAL ITEM

I am a very good decision

maker.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

and form opinions. They may

prefer to leave important

decisions to other people, and

may have less confidence than

most in their ability to make

good decisions. The opinions

that low scorers hold are likely

to be fairly malleable.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


to take about as long as most

people to make decisions. They

should generally feel

comfortable making decisions in

the workplace, although they

may seek guidance when

making especially important

decisions. Generally, moderate

scorers are likely to be fairly


make good decisions. They are

likely to be prefer to form

opinions reasonably quickly,

and these should be moderately

malleable.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are likely to make

decisions and form opinions at

a significantly faster pace than


likely to be highly confident in

the decisions that they make,

and are expected to feel

comfortable making important

decisions on their own. High

scorers are also likely to have

an almost unwavering

conviction for their

perspectives.


SELF PRESENTATION

RECEPTIVE

The tendency to seek out and be open to feedback from others.


DESCRIPTION

Lower tendency to seek out

feedback or discuss their

developmental needs.

DESCRIPTION


to respond positively to

feedback and critiques.

DESCRIPTION

Highly motivated to listen to

and respond positively to

feedback and critiques.

TYPICAL ITEM

If people know about my

weaknesses they might think

less of me.

TYPICAL ITEM

I like it when other people give

me development suggestions.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers may be

significantly less interested than

their peers in discussing their

developmental needs.

They are likely to avoid having

others critique their

approaches to dealing with

situations and people.

They may respond defensively

to feedback on their

performance, such as by quickly

providing excuses and

explanations.

They may be unlikely to realise

the developmental potential

afforded by feedback

opportunities, viewing these as

personal rather than a source

of helpful information.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Moderate scorers are as likely

as most of their peers to

discuss their developmental

needs, and may sometimes

encourage others to offer

constructive criticism or

feedback regarding their

approach at work.

Moderate scorers will likely

respond positively towards

feedback on their performance,

provided it is presented in a

constructive way.

They are likely to recognise the

developmental value of

feedback, particularly when it

pertains to aspects of their

performance which they are

interested in improving.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are likely to enjoy

hearing other people’s appraisal

and to be very open to

criticism.

Profiling as being highly

interested in self-improvement,

high scorers are likely to be

very receptive to feedback and

developmental suggestions.

They will usually seek out

feedback on their performance,

to frequently ask for more

information, and are very likely

to realise the developmental

potential afforded by feedback

opportunities.


SELF-AWARE

The tendency to understand one’s own strengths and weaknesses, and to consider the influence of

their own values, perspectives and motivations on their actions.


DESCRIPTION

Less likely to understand their

own strengths and weaknesses.

DESCRIPTION

Moderately open to

understanding their own

strengths and weaknesses.

DESCRIPTION

A strong awareness of their

strengths and limitations.

TYPICAL ITEM

I don't like to admit that I have

flaws.

TYPICAL ITEM

Everyone has ways in which

they could improve.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

Low scorers are less likely to

admit their strengths and

limitations, than most other

people.

They may not have a strong

understanding of their values,

motivations and perspectives,

or to consider how these may

impact upon their actions and

choices.

They may not be aware of the

majority of their strengths and

weaknesses, although they may

be less likely to disclose

negative traits when they wish

to impress.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR


to have a reasonable level of

awareness concerning their


They should have a moderate

understanding of their values,

motivations and perspectives,

and to consider how these may

influence their actions and

choices.

They are likely to be aware of

the majority of their strengths

and weaknesses, although they

may be less likely to disclose

negative traits when they wish

to impress.

TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR

High scorers are likely to have

a very keen awareness of their


They are likely to possess a

strong understanding of their

values, motivations and

perspectives, and to consider

how these might shape their

actions and choices.

They are expected to

understand and be open about

their weaknesses and

limitations.

2.3 Response Style Indicators

RECEPTIVE

The Receptive scale reflects the degree to which test takers seek out and are open are receptive to

feedback. Low scorers on this scale may tend to resist developmental suggestions, avoid seeking

input on their approach to situations and may be more defensive when faced with feedback on their

performance or criticism. Low scorers may also be more likely to distort their responses in a

defensive manner than high scorers.

High scoring individuals are likely to seek out feedback on their performance, be receptive to

development suggestions and encourage others to criticise their approach to situations.


SELF-AWARE

The Self-Aware scale assesses the degree to which test takers are aware of their own strengths and

limitations, and to consider the influence of their values, perspectives and motivations on their

actions. Low scorers on this scale are more likely to have a limited understanding of their own

strengths and limitations, while being less likely to consider how their actions might be influenced by

their values, drivers and viewpoints. Therefore, their responses may be unintentionally distorted and

may not accurately reflect the respondent’s true nature.

This is the tendency to be aware of one’s own strengths and limitations. High scoring individuals are

likely to maintain an accurate understanding of their own strengths and limitations while actively

considering how their actions might be influenced by their values, motivations and perspective. Low

scoring individuals are likely to be less aware of their own strengths and limitations.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PATH PERSONALITY

QUESTIONNAIRE AND OTHER LEADING PERSONALITY

ASSESSMENTS

In developing their personality assessment, Talegent included coverage of existing personality

constructs from literature, while also developing scales that weren’t covered by other personality

scale that could be beneficial for organisations. The purpose of the questionnaire was to ensure

coverage of the constructs and to ensure that gaps didn’t occur. For a comparison of the PATH

personality questionnaire to other commercially available personality questionnaires please see Table

3.

Table 3

Comparison of the Talegent PATH Personality Assessment Against Other Comparative Personality

Assessments

Talegent PATH Saville Wave OPQ GPI

Interpersonal

Influential Convincing Persuasive, Outspoken Influence

Directing Directing, Challenging Controlling Taking charge

Motivating Empowering

Amiable Outgoing

Empathetic Attentive Empathy

Collaborative Involving Affiliative, Democratic Consideration,

Interdependence

Sociable Interactive Socially Confident Sociability

Socially Aware Behavioural, Adaptable Social Astuteness

Trusting Trusting Trust

Accepting Accepting Caring Openness



Engaging, Articulate Modest (-ve),

Independent Minded

Debilitating Leadership

Temperament

Self-Confident

Self-assured Self confidence

Adaptable Change Oriented,

Receptive

Adaptable, Variety

Seeking

Adaptability

Composed Composed Relaxed, Worrying (-

ve), Emotionally

Controlled

Emotional Control,

Stress Tolerance

Optimistic Positive

Optimistic

Negative Affectivity (-

ve), Optimism

Resolving, Dynamic

Tough Minded

Initiative

Thinking

Data Driven

Factual Data Rational

Intuitive

Rational Data Rational

Analytical

Analytical Evaluative Thought Focus

Strategic

Strategic Forward Planning Vision

Theoretical Abstract

Practically Minded (-ve)

Conceptual

Innovative

Insightful, Inventive Innovative Innovativeness,

Creativity

Learning Focused

Learning Oriented Thought Agility

Execution

Compliant Conforming Conventional, Rule

Following

Dutifulness

Risk Tolerant

Risk Taking



Work Focused

Work Focus

Meticulous

Meticulous, Organised Detail Conscious Attention to Detail

Reliable Reliable

Conscientious Responsibility

Principled

Drive

Energetic

Activity Oriented Vigorous Energy Level

Competitive

Enterprising Competitive Competitiveness

Driven

Striving Achieving Desire for

Achievement

Decisive

Purposeful Decisive Independence

Self Presentation

Receptive

Accepting Adaptable

Self-Aware

Self-Promoting (-ve) Impressing

2.4 Talegent Competency Model

INTRODUCTION

The Talegent competency model underlies all of Talegent’s industry specific assessments. The model

informs the output reports of the assessments, providing a logical, practical, and consistent approach

to describing candidates’ results and effectively summarising the types of behaviours candidates are

likely to display in the workplace. To do this, each competency is made up of specifically selected

scales from the PATH personality questionnaire that have been grouped together in a meaningful way

to translate candidates’ results into a series of more meaningful and relevant statements. For

example, an individual’s scores on the PATH personality scales of Compliant, Reliable and Meticulous

can be grouped together to give an overall picture of their Adherence, one of the PATH

competencies. In doing so, the PATH Competency Framework can offer an advantageous indication

of whether an individual is likely to succeed in a particular role. The PATH competency model


comprehensively covers a wide range of job relevant competencies including those from Talegent’s

previous models, models previously developed for organisations, and other existing models.

INTRODUCTION TO COMPETENCIES

It is generally accepted that competencies are reflected in observable behaviours (Leigh et al, 2007)

which, when measured with tools such as the PATH personality questionnaire, can distinguish

between high and low performers in the workplace (Rodriguez, Patel, Bright, Gregory &Gowing,

2002).

Competencies relate to how a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and abilities, along with personal

attributes and tendencies, are used in role performance and how they are broadly applied in the

context of a particular set of job requirements (Figure 1).

In contrast, knowledge, skills, and abilities are generally specific learned capabilities that are acquired

through practice or training and relate to carrying out a task well.

Figure 1 Competency make-up

Talegent describes competencies as underlying measurable characteristics of an individual that are

evident in observable behaviours and actions, which in turn drive successful performance in the

workplace.

The Talegent PATH competency model comprises a comprehensive collection of 25 competencies,

grouped into 5 clusters (Table 4). It is an integrative model that can be applied across all levels and

areas of any organisation and all aspects of measurement in the employee lifecycle.The competency


model brings together particular knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are well known to relate to

individual performance and organisational success, and translates them into competencies which are

clearly relevant and meaningful for organisations. Use of the model allows senior management to

openly communicate which organisational behaviours are important, and can be used to link work

behaviours to the strategic directions and goals of the business.

Table 4

Overview of Talegent’s Competency Model

Leading Relating Solving Organisation Being

Supervision Interpersonal

Sensitivity

Critical Thinking Implementation Resilience

Command Skills Teamwork Numerically

Minded

Adherence Flexibility

Negotiation Customer Focus Business Acumen Achievement Self-Insight

Strategic Agility Building

Relationships

Judgement Mental Power

Communication Ingenuity Sales Focus

Competencies are helpful because they allow senior management to openly communicate which

behaviours are important, they help to differentiate the performance of individuals, they can be used

to link behaviours to the strategic directions and goals of the business, and they can provide an

integrative model that is relevant across many positions and situations.

There are a number of benefits and applications for using the Talegent PATH Competency model.

The model:

1. Is cost and time effective

2. Produces a more consistent and high quality product for organisations.

3. Can be easily and effectively tailored to provide bespoke competency models for

organisations with specific briefs, such as for particular job families, levels, and industries.

4. Is useful for all aspects of the employee lifecycle including selection, self- development,

professional development, performance appraisals, and succession planning processes.

5. Can help HR professionals to summarise a range of useful leadership behaviours which can

then be used in selecting or developing new leaders.


2.5 Competency Descriptions

The scales of the PATH Personality Questionnaire feed into 25 competencies to form Talegent’s

Competency Model. The competencies are defined in Table 5

Table 5

Competency Definitions for Talegent’s Competency Model

Cluster Competency Competency Descriptors

LEADING Supervision

PATH Scales:

Influential

Motivating

Self-Confident

Provides guidance, development opportunities

and feedback to direct reports. Manages conflicts

within the team quickly and efficiently.

Command Skills

PATH Scales:

Directing

Motivating

Driven

Trusting

Is confident in giving direction and willing to

accept responsibility for the decisions and actions

of the team. Drives action and progress through

motivating team members and delegating

appropriately.

Negotiation

PATH Scales:

Influential

Sociable

Self-Confident

Is effective in influencing the thoughts and actions

of others. Successfully negotiates and persuades

others to align with their goals.

Strategic Agility

PATH Scales:

Logical Reasoning

Strategic

Meticulous (-ve)

Risk Tolerant

Innovative

Takes a big-picture, long-term view when

planning and anticipating potential impacts on the

business. Weighs up options and implications,

identifies strategies and plans, and is comfortable

with managed risk.

RELATING Interpersonal Sensitivity

PATH Scales:

Accepting

Empathetic

Socially Aware

Is sensitive to the needs and emotions of others.

Practices perceptive listening, understands non-

verbal cues and responds appropriately.



Teamwork

PATH Scales:

Collaborative

Competitive (-ve)

Accepting

Empathetic

Reliable

Supports and collaborates with team members to

achieve targets. Appreciates the benefits of

diversity and works well with a variety of people.

Customer Focus

PATH Scales:

Reliable

Accepting

Socially Aware

Driven

Amiable

Empathetic

Is motivated by exceeding customer expectations

and fulfilling obligations to others. Interacts with

customers in a friendly, considerate manner,

responding to social cues appropriately. Treats all

customers equally.

Emotional Intelligence

PATH Scales:

Self-Aware

Receptive

Socially Aware

Empathetic

Composed

Adaptable

Collaborative

Accepting

Influential

Motivating

Perceives and manages emotions in self and

others. Relates well to others, and has strong

interpersonal skills.

Building Relationships

PATH Scales:

Sociable

Amiable

Accepting

Socially Aware

Trusting

Initiates and maintains relationships with

colleagues, is socially confident and quick to build

rapport. Tends to create a positive first

impression and affiliate well with individuals at all

levels, both internal and external to the

organisation.

Communication

PATH Scales:

Verbal Reasoning

Influential

Socially Aware

Self-Confident

Communicates in a clear, confident and articulate

manner. Is effective at influencing others to see

things a given way. Adapts communication style

to be appropriate to the audience or group they

are presenting to.



SOLVING Critical Thinking

PATH Scales:

Logical Reasoning

Analytical

Data Driven

Critically analyses and evaluates information in a

logical way when solving complex problems.

Breaks down problems into smaller components

and seeks to identify underlying causes.

Numerically Minded

PATH Scales:

Numerical Reasoning

Analytical

Data Driven

Is comfortable with interpreting numerical

information and using this to aid in problem

solving. Has a preference for using numbers and

hard data when solving problems.

Business Acumen

PATH Scales:

Verbal Reasoning

Numerical Reasoning

Logical Reasoning

Analytical

Strategic

Learning Focused

Risk Tolerant

Adaptable

Understands the wider business context and

seeks to maximise returns in a business

environment. Is future-orientated and strategic,

and seeks areas for business improvement.

Judgement

PATH Scales:

Logical Reasoning

Data Driven

Decisive

Intuitive

Risk Tolerant

Is confident making judgements based on the

information available, even if it is not complete,

or the situation is ambiguous.

Ingenuity

PATH Scales:

Strategic

Innovative

Learning Focused

Risk Tolerant

Generates and implements new and innovative

solutions, ideas, and approaches to problems. Is

strategically minded, future-orientated and

anticipates issues before they arise. Takes a broad

perspective and is open to taking calculated risks.



DOING Organisation

PATH Scales:

Driven

Analytical

Meticulous

Reliable

Strategic

Is organised and tends to take a structured

approach to tasks/ goals. Plans effectively and

manages resources and execution appropriately

to ensure projects are delivered on time.

Implementation

PATH Scales:

Work Focused

Reliable

Meticulous

Compliant

Is reliable, detail-focused and meticulous. Follows

through on plans to ensure they are carried out

accordingly.

Adherence

PATH Scales:

Compliant

Reliable

Meticulous

Adaptable (-ve)

Values rules, guidelines and set procedures, and

adheres to these closely. Consistently follows

through with deliverables in a timely manner.

Achievement

PATH Scales:

Driven

Competitive

Energetic

Work Focused

Demonstrates a strong focus on high

performance standards and personal

achievement. Sets self-stretch goals and works

persistently to achieve them. Displays high work

focus, high levels of energy, and goes above and

beyond to exceed expectations. Is ambitious and

constantly seeks to advance their career.

Mental Power

PATH Scales:

Logical Reasoning

Learning Focused

Theoretical

Analytical

Has a desire to learn more and is able to learn

new information and skills quickly. Is able to apply

learnt information to new problems. Quick to

pick up technical concepts.

Sales Focus

PATH Scales:

Driven

Energetic

Self-Confident

Sociable

Influential

Is persuasive, energetic, and engaging while

guiding customers toward sales. Puts effort into

meeting and exceeding sales targets and is

motivated, not daunted by challenging goals.



BEING Resilience

PATH Scales:

Driven

Self-Confident

Optimistic

Adaptable

Composed

Remains calm, composed, and optimistic in

stressful or high pressure situations. Perseveres in

the face of obstacles or setbacks and carries on

with the task at hand. Strong drive to finish tasks,

will actively seek to overcome potential hurdles.

Flexibility

PATH Scales:

Adaptable

Composed

Highly open and adaptable to change. Responds

to change in an enthusiastic manner and adjusts

quickly, with little disruption to workload in the

process.

Self-Insight

PATH Scales:

Self-Aware

Receptive

Learning Focused

Is aware of own strengths and weaknesses and

actively seeks out opportunities for new learning

and growth. Strives to keep abreast of the latest

industry trends and technologies.

3 Applications

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire in selection can help make the

process more effective and fair. The assessment can also identify likely

preferred learning-styles and the best approach to on-boarding.


3.1 Applications of the Talegent PATH Personality Product

The following section outlines some key applications of the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire.

SELECTION

Using psychometric tools such as the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire in selection can help

make the process more effective and fair (Spector, 2006). Information generated by the tool can be

used to validate information obtained from other sources during selection. If the assessments are

administered prior to interviews, the selection process can be made more efficient because an

employer can choose to spend time interviewing only those whose assessment results indicate a

desirable person-job fit. Furthermore, the results can make the interview process more objective and

effective by identifying key areas to probe during a structured interview (Smith & Smith, 2005).

ON-BOARDING NEEDS

Information from the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire can inform potential on-boarding

needs which could be addressed during induction for successful candidates. The assessment can also

identify likely preferred learning-styles and the best approach to on-boarding. The personal insight

that test takers can gain from the assessment process can act as a motivator and improve willingness

to engage in on-boarding activities.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire can also support training and development by

providing insight into potential development areas. If training needs are identified, the assessment can

also pin point preferred learning styles and motivations, which can guide the structure and approach

to training so as to increase its efficacy. Furthermore, the results of this tool can provide personal

insight which can motivate individuals to engage in self-improvement and development.

TEAM DEVELOPMENT

The PATH personality questionnaire can be used to assist team development. It can provide valuable

information about the likely interactions between different team members and how they can best

work together to get the most out of the team structure.

MISAPPLICATIONS OF THE TALEGENT PATH PERSONALITY

PRODUCT

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire is not intended for use among certain populations or

for certain purposes. These include:

Clinical Diagnosis

The PATH personality questionnaire is not appropriate for use in a clinical setting. The personality

questionnaire has not been developed with the intention of assisting the diagnosis of mental health

disorders and should not be used for such purpose.


Forensics

The assessments are not intended for use in a forensic capacity. Results derived from the Talegent

PATH personality questionnaire should not be used as forensic evidence.

Scholastic Assessment

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire is intended for use among managers and professionals

(18 years and over) in a workplace context. It is not suitable for use with children or adolescents in a

scholastic context. It should not be used for purposes such as determining eligibility for entrance into

particular schools or classrooms.

Turnover Decisions

The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire should never be used to assist turnover decisions such

as terminating problem employees or making redundancies. Use of the Talegent PATH personality

questionnaire under these circumstances is likely to result in poor business decisions because they

have not been designed for this purpose.

In Isolation

Information derived from Talegent PATH personality questionnaire should not be used as the sole

basis of any decision. Results should be considered in the context of other relevant information, not

in isolation (New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011).

Non-Work Settings

The PATH personality questionnaire is used to measure preferences in a work setting, and not to

assess personality or attitudes or motivations in non-work settings.

TARGET USERS

Target users include: admin / entry-level staff, graduates, professionals, managers, executives and

incumbents. Please see Table 7on page 96for a list of available norm groups and brief descriptions.

4 Administration

The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire is administered online.

Follow step-by-step procedures to administer the PATH Personality

Questionnaire.


4.1 The “WHO” of Administration

Psychometric assessments should be administered only by qualified, competent persons who are fully

aware of the limitations of these assessments (International Test Commission, 2000; New Zealand

Psychologists Board, 2011). The Talegent PATH suite of products will be made available for

administration and interpretation only to those who have completed accreditation with Talegent.

Competent users will recognise when their skills need to be refreshed and will act on this skill

deficiency by enrolling in additional training programs. Upcoming training dates and registration will

be available at www.talegent.com

In addition to ensuring that they use the Talegent PATH suite of products ethically, trained users are

responsible for guaranteeing that the assessment materials are kept secure and are not made

available to unqualified persons (Australian Psychological Society, 2004; British Psychological Society,

2011; New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011). If too much detail regarding the assessment is

publically revealed, this can impair the effectiveness and integrity of the assessment. To maintain

security of the materials, administrators should prevent test respondents from retaining the test

materials once they have sat the assessment, and ensure that no assessment materials are sent via

post or other publically accessible means (International Test Commission, 2000).

http://www.talegent.com/


4.2 The “WHAT” of Administration

The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire is administered online. Figure 2 demonstrates the

step-by-step procedure to administer the PATH Personality Questionnaire.

Figure 2 - How to administer the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire

Preparing candidates

When interacting with test takers, administrators should not be overly formal nor overly familiar in

their approach. Maintain professionalism whilst showing empathy and doing as much as feasible to

control any test taker’s anxieties.

All instructions should be given to candidates in a standardised way. While it is important to give test

takers the opportunity to ask questions, do not answer these in any way that will give them an unfair

advantage over others, e.g. don’t answer item or specific test-related questions.


PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATION

For ALL tests:

1. Inform the test taker of the purpose of the assessment and how the results will be used to

advise employment decisions. Here, reiterate that the results are only one part of the

selection criteria when it comes to making employment decisions. Also remind them that

personality assessments are intended to identify behavioural preferences not behavioural

ability, and that no response is good or bad; what matters is the fit between behavioural

preferences and job requirements.

2. Inform test takers of the confidentiality of their test responses and results.

3. Ensure that test takers consent to completing the assessments.

4. Provide test takers with practice assessments. These can be accessed at www.talegent.com

5. Provide potential test takers with an opportunity to disclose any disabilities or special

requirements early on so that the administrator has a chance to seek expert advice on how

to ensure this person is treated fairly in the testing process and to organise any modifications

or alternate forms of assessment as required (British Psychological Society, 2007). For more

information see the below section: Testing under special circumstances.

For personality assessments:

Encourage test takers to answer honestly. Advise test takers that this particular assessment

has measures in place to detect distortion of results.

Inform test takers that there will be an opportunity for feedback once they have completed

the assessments. This may have the effect of reducing the likelihood of distortion (Smith &

Smith, 2005).

Let them know that there is no time limit for the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire,

but encourage them to answer the questions quickly to maximise the accuracy of their

results.

As an administrator of Talegent PATH assessments, it is likely that you will most often interact with

test takers via email. See an exemplar email below for guidance.

http://www.talegent.com/


Example Email

Hi Name of Candidate,

Congratulations on your recent job application with Company Name.

As part of their recruitment process you have now been asked to complete the following psychometric assessment online:

Personality Profiling

Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire: this looks at your preferred working style, and will take approximately 30 minutes (untimed).

It would be great if you could complete the assessments within the next few days but please let me know if this is not possible.

If you have any disabilities or special requirements that you think may affect your performance on the assessments, please disclose them before you sit the assessments. This is to ensure each person is treated fairly and allows time for any modifications to the testing process.

After you have completed your assessments, I will give you verbal feedback on your results. Please email me with a good time to do this.

Some tips for completing these assessments from home include:

The personality questionnaire is untimed, but please try to go through it as quickly as you can – your first reaction is usually the best answer and please think about a work context when answering the questions

Ensure you eat/ drink something beforehand

Ensure you will not be distracted by people or telephones whilst completing the assessments for optimal concentration.

How to complete the online assessments:

Before you start your assessments you may want to do some practice assessments. You can find those here: enter link

Once you have completed the practice questions, please click on the following link to access your online assessments: enter link

Follow the online instructions on how to complete your online assessments.

Please try to do the best you can and remember to work in an area that is free from distraction.

If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to call me on enter contact number here.

Please note:

By completing this psychometric testing you are consenting to the subsequent use of this information to inform selection and development decisions. Your results will be confidential and only accessible to those involved in the decision-making process.

Thank you for participating in this process.

Kind Regards,


4.3 Creating Campaigns and Setting up Candidates

1. Log in to the system

2. Click ‘Campaign’ and click ‘Create New’


3. Enter a name for your campaign

4. Select the PATH PQ and any other components for the assessment


5. Optional step:

You can add prospects at this stage. Alternatively, you can add prospects later on, or use a multi-use

link which doesn’t require setting up candidates.

6. Confirm your selections and click ‘Submit’


7. Setting up Candidates

You can schedule candidates to go through the assessment. To do this, click ‘Scheduled’, then click

‘Add’ along the top of the screen.

8. Fill in the candidates details


9. Alternatively, you can email candidates a multi-use link to go through the campaign

4.4 Accessing Reports

1. Log in to the system.


2. Click on the campaign that you wish to review the results of

This will take you into the campaign.

3. Hover your mouse over ‘Reports’, and youwill see the last few types of report you have chosen

for the campaign.

You can simply click one of these, or click on ‘Reports…” to be taken to the report wizard.

The report wizard shows you all the available report options, with a description of the report and a

sample image. On the report wizard screen, you can also choose the comparison group.


4. Run Report

Clicking OK will generate the report in a new window.


4.5 Candidate Experience

1. The candidate logins in to the assessment, entering their details. Note: If they have been

scheduled to complete the assessment, they will not have to complete this step.


2. They are presented with the terms of the assessment, which they must agree to in order to

complete the assessment.


3. They are taken to a screen outlining the assessment components for them to sit. The candidate

can complete the assessments in any order that they wish.


4. The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire


5. Candidates respond on a six-point Likert scale.

4.6 Confidentiality

Assessment results, like all personal information, must be treated with confidentiality and only

disclosed to persons whom it is reasonable to do so given the specific purpose of the assessment.

Determining whom it is ‘reasonable’ to divulge results to will depend on the particular circumstances

in which the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire is being used.

In any case, the disclosure of results to third parties must be consistent with what has been

communicated to the test taker before they completed the assessment, and relevant consent must

be obtained before releasing information (International Test Commission, 2000; New Zealand

Psychologists Board, 2011). Importantly, regardless of consent, raw results should not be disclosed to

persons who are not trained in the interpretation of these. Always communicate results in an

interpreted form to such persons (New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011).

To help ensure confidentiality, users of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire should have

strict policies about the storage of results. Results should not be stored in files that are accessible by

untrained persons (New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011). If results are to be stored, users must

obtain permission to do so, and remember that results have a limited “shelf-life”. Talegent

recommends that results are not used for decision-making purposes more than 6-12 months after

testing was completed.

Furthermore, if a person’s employment role has changed since the time of assessment, it is not

advisable to use the assessment results for any subsequent decisions regardless of the amount of


time that has passed since the assessment was administered. Any results which have been archived

for research purposes should be stored without personal identifiers such as names (International

Test Commission, 2000; New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011).

4.7 Security of Administration

The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire has been constructed as an online form of personality

assessment. As such, two modes of administration are available for the PATH Personality

Questionnaire: individual online assessment, supervised assessment.

Our hosting and service delivery infrastructure ensures the highest level of security. This is

supported by a world-class network, data and physical security environment. Security is an ongoing

process, not a singular event - we continuously evaluate and reinforce our security policy and

practices.


SOME OF THE SECURITY PRECAUTIONS WE TAKE

Hosting

Talegent’s assessment platform is hosted by Amazon.

Backups

Backups are held securely in Amazon’s S3 cloud storage. As a secondary measure the databases are

backed up daily to servers located on premise at Talegent.

Administrative Access

Administrative access to our hosted servers and data is restricted to key employees – who can

access the environment only from Talegent offices using a sophisticated two-phase authentication

process.

Firewall

The Amazon EC2 firewall is used to protect the Talegent virtual servers from unauthorised external

access. Internet access through the firewall is restricted to website access only.

Disaster Recovery

The Talegent assessment platform takes advantage of the global reach of Amazon Web Services for

disaster recovery.

Logging & monitoring

Access at the system level is logged using "read only" and tamper-proof logs, whilst application level

access is logged in the database. Logs are checked on a regular basis.

Change control

Routine, emergency, and configuration changes to the Talegent assessment platform are authorised,

logged, tested, approved, and documented in accordance with industry norms for similar systems.

Updates to the Amazon hosting infrastructure are done to minimise any impact on the customer and

their use of the services.

Intrusion Detection/ Prevention

Amazon’s monitoring tools are used to detect unusual or unauthorized activities and conditions at

ingress and egress communication points. These tools monitor server and network usage, port

scanning activities, application usage, and unauthorized intrusion attempts.

In addition to monitoring, regular vulnerability scans are performed on the host operating system,

web application, and databases in the environment using a variety of tools.

Virus Protection

Anti-virus solutions are installed and maintained on all Talegent systems. Direct connection between

the Amazon hosted environment and Talegent’s operational computing environment is strictly

controlled.


4.8 Administration under Special Circumstances

There are some exceptional circumstances in which the assessment process may need to be

modified in order to ensure that certain test takers are not disadvantaged (British Psychological

Society, 2007). Potential examples include testing persons with a disability and testing individuals in a

language other than their primary language.

It is important to remember that the effectiveness of psychometric assessments relies on them being

administered in a standardised way. Any modifications have the potential to jeopardise their

effectiveness so it is critical to proceed with caution under these special circumstances (British

Psychological Society, 2010). Talegent recommends that you seek advice, either from a Talegent

Account manager or from an independent expert, each and every time that you are faced with

potential exceptional circumstances.

5 Providing Feedback

This chapter outlines best practice for providing feedback to test takers.

Feedback sessions are two-way conversations. Test administrators share

their interpretation of the results with a test taker and allow the test taker

to provide insight and clarity with regard to the meaning of their results in

terms of typical workplace behaviour.


5.1 Overview

This chapter outlines best practice for providing feedback to test takers. Feedback sessions are two-

way conversations. Test administrators share their interpretation of the results with a test taker and

allow the test taker to provide insight and clarity with regard to the meaning of their results in terms

of typical workplace behaviour. Ideally feedback should be provided in a face to face setting, however

in the interest of time and practicality it may be provided via telephone.

In any case, all test takers should be provided with the opportunity to receive timely feedback,

because:

1 It promotes transparency and fairness. If the results of the Talegent PATH Personality

Questionnaire are to be used to inform employment decisions it is only fair that test takers

have some insight into what the results suggest about their typical workplace behaviour.

2 It allows test takers to gain insight into their own behavioural tendencies and this can prompt

personal or professional development.

3 The discussions had with test takers during feedback sessions can help to improve test

administrators’ interpretation skills and their general understanding of human behaviour in

the workplace.

4 It is a good Public Relations strategy. Many people are perturbed by psychometric testing and

its use in employment contexts. Their anxiety can often be calmed through the feedback

process.

It is advisable to inform test takers prior to sitting the assessment that there will be an opportunity to

discuss results during a feedback session. Knowing beforehand that the results will be discussed can

motivate individuals to take the assessments more seriously than they otherwise might. It can also

discourage intentional distortion of results.

5.2 Ethics

Ethics requires that:

1. Feedback is only ever provided by a qualified Talegent PATH administrator who is fully aware

of the limitations of psychometric assessments.

2. Test administrators treat the feedback process with due sensitivity. The testing process can

be very unsettling for some people and the test taker is in a vulnerable situation. Therefore,

those providing feedback need to do so with empathy and tact.

3. At the beginning of the feedback session test takers are assured of the confidentiality of their

test results and the content of the forthcoming conversation. Subsequently, this confidentially

must be honoured.


5.3 Preparing for Feedback

An essential part of quality feedback is good preparation (Smith & Smith, 2005). To be well prepared

for a feedback session the test administrator must:

1. Have thorough knowledge of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire, including:

1. The meaning of each scale

2. Appropriate interpretation of results on each scale, and how they may manifest as

workplace behaviours

3. The limitations of this assessment tool, and of psychometric assessment in general

2. Have thorough knowledge of the Talegent PATH cognitive assessments including: what they

measure and how to interpret percentiles.

3. Have thorough knowledge of the results scored by the relevant test taker - it is a good idea

for administrators to keep these in front of them.

4. Have an understanding of the relevant job requirements. The administrator should use these

to contextualise and objectively evaluate individual results.

5. Have an idea of some important areas to probe and appropriate questions to ask.

6. Set aside sufficient time so that they can provide feedback without interruptions. As a guide,

feedback should take around 30 minutes although it can change depending on particular

circumstances.

7. Ensure due privacy of the conversation.


5.4 Interpreting Results

PERSONALITY RESULTS

It is important for administrators to be consistent in the way that they provide feedback. Using

particular wording for different scores can help to maintain consistency. The following provides a

guideline of appropriate language:

Sten Comparative language

1-2 or 9-10 Highly likely, Strong tendency, Far more/less

likely

3 or 8 Likely, Show a tendency toward

4 and 7 Slight tendency, Somewhat more/less likely

5 and 6 As likely as most

5.5 The Feedback Discussion

Once fully prepared, the administrator can conduct the feedback discussion at a time agreed upon

with the test taker. The following section outlines the ideal structure of a feedback session and

important considerations along the way.

INTRODUCTION

It is essential that the following things are covered during the introduction:

1. The first thing to do is to ensure that it is still an appropriate time for the test taker and that

they are unlikely to be interrupted. Administrators should also check that the test taker has a

pen and paper available in case they want to take notes.

2. Let them know who you are and why you are qualified to have this conversation with them

(i.e., confirm that you are a registered psychologist, and/or qualified to administer and

interpret the Talegent PATH assessments).

3. Remind the test taker of the purpose of the assessments and how the results will be used to

advise employment decisions. Here, reiterate that the results are only one part of ‘the

selection criteria when it comes to making employment decisions. Also remind them that

psychometric assessments are intended to identify behavioural preferences not behavioural

ability, and that no response is good or bad – what matters is the fit between behavioural

preferences and job requirements.

4. Inform the test taker of the purpose of the feedback session. Let them know that it is

intended to be a two-way conversation in which both parties openly discuss the results and

what they suggest about workplace behaviour. Remind the test taker that personality

assessments are never 100% accurate, and that this is an opportunity to question any results

which they think are inaccurate.


5. Ensure the test taker of the confidentiality of their results and the content of the feedback

discussion.

6. Remind them of the specific test(s) they sat and which ones will be discussed in this feedback

session.

7. Inform the test taker of the norm group with which their results have been compared, and

clarify what this means.

8. With regard to their personality results, explain that Talegent PATH Personality

Questionnaire results are grouped under five key areas – Interpersonal, Temperament,

Thinking, Execution, Drive - and briefly outline what each of them relates to.

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

To help contextualise a test taker’s results, ask them a few questions regarding:

1. Their previous experience with psychometric assessments.

2. How they found these particular assessments. This could reveal distractions, computer

problems, stress/anxiety, and other things which may have had a significant impact on results.

3. Their current employment situation and how this may have influenced their responses.

4. Other personal circumstances or recent events which may have impacted upon testing

performance.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Most administrators will begin by providing brief feedback about their cognitive results then moving

on to discuss their personality results. When providing feedback on personality assessments,

administrators should do so in a systematic fashion. This will help to encourage fairness and hopefully

prevent administrators from skipping over important information. There are several different ways

that an administrator may prefer to present results. These include:

1. Describing scales and asking test takers to estimate where they might fall in a particular scale.

This allows the administrator to gauge a person’s expectations and therefore, how they

should disclose the actual result. It also means that discrepancies between the test taker’s

expectations and the actual results are open for discussion (Smith & Smith, 2005).

2. Discussing results in terms of their implications for relevant job competencies. Do they

represent strengths or potential development areas in the context of a specific job (Smith &

Smith, 2005)?

3. Linking scales to create a more holistic picture.


Other things to remember during this discussion:

1. Avoid jargon. For example, use the term “comparison group” instead of “norm group”

because the latter may be meaningless to some people.

2. Tailor the discussion to a level appropriate to each individual’s level of understanding (British

Psychological Society, 2008).

3. Do not just document the results; discuss their implications as well (British Psychological

Society, 2008).

4. Avoid dominating the conversation (Smith & Smith, 2005). Try and encourage the test taker

to participate. In an ideal situation, the conversation will be dominated by the test taker, not

the administrator.

5. Welcome disagreement. If a test taker indicates that a result does not reflect their typical

workplace behaviour, probe for more information (e.g. ask for examples of how they have

behaved under certain circumstances). Reiterate that results are never 100% accurate so

their insight is valuable.

6. Be objective and contextualise results to relevant job characteristics.

7. Do not refer to numeric sten scores or percentiles. Use the adverbs discussed earlier.

CONCLUDING THE DISCUSSION

At the end of the discussion:

1. Summarise the major themes emerging from their profile and implications for the relevant

job context (Smith & Smith, 2005). Butcher (2009) suggests that it is a good idea to get the

test taker to summarise these key points themselves. This provides an opportunity to gauge

their understanding and acceptance of the results.

2. If the testing has been done for selection purposes:

1. Inform the test taker of the next steps in the selection process (if known).

2. Wish them luck.

3. If the testing has been done for the purpose of training and development:

1. Identify possible development needs: This can include deficits as well as strengths to

nurture possible untapped potential.

2. Agree on some objectives for the training and development process going forward

(an action plan).

4. Where appropriate create tangible records of any action plans that are made during this

discussion so that they can be referred to at a later date.

5. Confirm that the test taker has no outstanding queries.

6. Thank the test taker for taking the time to go through their results.


5.6 Essential Qualities to Portray During the Feedback Discussion

Throughout the feedback discussion administrators should practise these essential interpersonal

skills:

1. Building Rapport. Test takers are likely to be more open and honest in the feedback

discussion if they perceive a positive connection or rapport between themselves and the test

administrator. The more open and honest the conversation, the more effective it is likely to

be for both parties. It is also important to remember that the test respondent is in a

vulnerable position so it is important to put them at ease as much as possible.

2. Active Listening. Test administrators need to actively attend to what the respondent is

saying during the feedback session. This is critical for two reasons. Firstly, it will help the

administrator to get the most information possible out of the discussion. Secondly, it is

important that the test respondent feels as though they are being listened to. Administrators

can demonstrate that they are listening by paraphrasing what the respondent has said, or, if

they are in a face-to-face setting, they can use non-verbal indications such as maintaining eye

contact and nodding.

3. Conveying Empathy. The testing process can be daunting so it is important that

administrators are empathetic in their approach to feedback. Respondents should never feel

that they are being judged by the administrator. Sitting the assessments themselves can help

administrators to relate to the feelings experienced during the testing process.

4. Effective Questioning. In feedback sessions, the test respondent should do the majority of

the talking. To encourage this, test administrators need to be skilled in their use of questions.

Questions should be short and succinct. They should only probe one issue at a time and

should require open responses from the respondent, rather than simple yes/no responses.

5. Objectivity. Remember that there are no right or wrong (good or bad) answers to the

Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire. What matters is the fit between behavioural

preferences and the requirements of a job. It is therefore important that those giving

feedback reserve their own personal, subjective judgement about the results and always

present the results in an objective way, free from value judgements.

6. Sensitivity. Test takers can experience and portray a wide range of emotions in response

to feedback. It is important for the administrator to approach these emotional reactions with

sensitivity, attempting to control, rather than exacerbate the situation. It can help to use the

personality information provided in the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire results to

predict how test takers might respond to certain feedback.

7. Openness. It is important to be open and honest about the results. In turn, this should elicit

openness from the respondent. Being open and honest includes talking about results that

have the potential to provoke a negative emotional response from the test taker. Avoiding

these sensitive topics means that the discussion is not based on full disclosure.


5.7 Linking Scales in the PATH PQ

To gain greater understanding of the personality of the test taker, it is recommended to link relevant

scales to provide a more holistic picture of the test taker.

If cognitive tests are taken, then both personality scales and cognitive results feed into competencies.

Which scales and cognitive scores influence each other depends on the competency that is being

measured as well as on the context of the job.

It may be appropriate to link scales within the same set of scales, e.g. Interpersonal, or between

scales, e.g. Drive and Execution. Some combinations of scales set up natural linkages, e.g. Meticulous

and Reliable/ Strategic and Meticulous / Data Driven and Theoretical; while others though not

obvious, can yield interesting information, e.g. Competitive and Collaborative.

6 Reports

Talegent has a number of Off-The-Shelf reports utilising its cognitive

numerical, verbal and logical test reasoning tests and the PATH Personality

Questionnaire. Some reports are succinct while others are detailed to suit

the purpose for which the assessment report is being utilised.


6.1 Talegent’s PATH Reports

Talegent has a number of Off-The-Shelf reports utilising its cognitive numerical, verbal and logical test

reasoning tests and the PATH Personality Questionnaire. Some reports are succinct while others

are detailed to suit the purpose for which the assessment report is being utilised.

The different reports available are many and varied, but the following represents the mainly utilised

assessment reports.

PATH Personality Profile

PATH Personality Report

PATH Competency Report

PATH Competency Detail Report

PATH EQ Report

PATH Leadership Report

PATH Personal Feedback Report

6.2 PATH Personality Profile

The PATH Personality Profile provides at-a-glance understanding of a candidate’s personality to help

the hirer/ manager make faster, better-informed talent decisions. The one-page summary graphically

displays a candidate’s scores on each of 30 key personality measures and 2 response scales, clearly

explaining what scales and high and low measures mean for a candidate in a job role.See the sample

report on Page 201in Appendix A.14.1

6.3 PATH Personality Report

This is the most popular report for trained PATH users.

The PATH Personality Report provides in-depth descriptions of a candidate’s score on each of the

30 key personality measures and 2 response scales. The candidate’s results are interpreted, with the

report outlining in a clear and jargon-free manner what each score means and how the candidate is

likely to behave at work. This report includes a PATH Personality Profile. See the sample report on

Page 202 in Appendix A.


ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH PROFILE AND PERSONALITY

REPORT

The PATH Profile and Personality Reports are linked to the PATH Personality Questionnaire scales.

The Profile provides a graphic summary, while the report provides in-depth descriptions of the

scales.

The roles that the PATH Personality Profile and Report can be used for are:

Admin/ Entry Level

Graduates

Professionals

Managers

Executives

Incumbents

6.4 PATH Competency Profile

The PATH Competency Profile enables the hirer/ managerto quickly and objectively assess a

candidate in relation to key role competencies exhibited by top performers. The one-page summary

graphically displays a candidate’s scores on each on the 13 Talegent PATH competencies, clearly

explaining competencies and what high and low measures mean for a candidate in a job role. See the

sample report on Page 215 in Appendix A.

The Talegent PATH personality competencies model,comprising of a comprehensive collection of 23

competencies grouped into 5 clusters, has been previously described. The PATH Competency

Profile and Report can be applied across all levels and areas of any organisation and all aspects of

measurement in the employee lifecycle.


6.5 PATH Competency Detail Report

The Talegent PATH competency detail report is based on the PATH Personality Questionnaire, and

optionally, PATH verbal, numerical, and logical reasoning. This report gives the hirer/ manager deep

insight into the competencies the organisation has chosen as key to the role being selected for. See

the sample report on Page 216 in Appendix A.

ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH COMPETENCY PROFILE AND

DETAIL REPORT

The roles that the PATH Competency Profile and Detail Report aregenerally used for include:

Admin/ Entry Level

Graduates

Professionals

Managers

Executives

Incumbents

6.6 PATH EQ Report

The Talegent EQ Report measures emotional intelligence theability to perceive and manage emotions

in both the self and in others aswell as some of the effective attributes associated with the construct.

This report identifies how individuals score on the key personality characteristics associated with

emotional intelligence. See the sample report on Page 228 in Appendix A

ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH EQ REPORT

The roles that the PATH EQ Report are generally used for include:

Professionals

Managers

Executives

Incumbents


6.7 PATH Leadership Report

The Talegent Leadership (Potential)Report gives the hirer/ managerthe tools to quickly and

effectively identify those people with the cognitive abilities and personality characteristics that best

predict successful performance in a leadership role. See the sample report on Page 239 in Appendix

A

ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH LEADERSHIP REPORT

The roles that the PATH Leadership Report are generally used for include:

Managers

Executives

6.8 PATH Personal Feedback Report

The PATH Personal Feedback Report is designed to be given to test takers to provide them with

feedback and insight into the analysis of their responses on the PATH Personality Questionnaire.

Their results are discussed in the context of the 28 key personality measures. No graphic

representation or numerical interpretation of scores is provided with this report. See the sample

report on Page 239 in Appendix A

ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH PERSONAL FEEDBACK REPORT

The roles that the PATH Personal Feedback Report aregenerally used for include:

Admin/ Entry Level

Graduates

Professionals

Managers

Executives

Incumbents

7 Norm Groups

PATH Personality Scale results are expressed in comparative terms. When

using the Talegent PATH assessments to make employment decisions it is

critical that an appropriate norm group is used so that meaningful results are

elicited.


7.1 Introduction

The usage and understanding of norms is essential in the interpretation of psychological assessments.

Test scores which are expressed as a ‘raw score’ (e.g., the number of correct answers as a

proportion of the total number of questions) are of limited practical value (Smith & Smith, 2005). In

order to make test scores meaningful, it is necessary to know how well a person scored on a test

relative to the scores of others on the same test. This is what the process of norming achieves (Smith

& Smith, 2005). PATH Personality Scale results are expressed in comparative terms, for

example,Person X scored above average on scale Y compared to norm group Z.When using the

Talegent PATH® assessments to make employment decisions it is critical that an appropriate norm

group is used so that meaningful results are elicited.

7.2 Standard Scores

Z SCORE

The simplest standardised score is a z score which describes the distance an applicant’s score is from

the mean in terms of the standard deviation. If the z score is negative the score is less than the mean

and if the z score is positive the applicants score is greater than the mean. The equation to calculate

a z score is shown in Equation 1with the applicant’s score , the sample mean , and the sample

standard deviation .

Equation 1

STEN SCORE

Closely related to a z score another common standardised score is a standard ten score or sten

score which places an applicant’s score on a ten point scale with the centre at 5.5. Sten scores are

commonly used when reporting the results from personality questionnaires. The equation to

calculate a sten score is shown in Equation 2 with the applicant’s score , the sample mean , and the

sample standard deviation .

Equation 2

When interpreting a sten score reported by a personality questionnaire it is worth noting that the

reported sten score actually represents the range of scores that the actual score falls within. For

example, a sten score of 3 could be anywhere in the range of 2.5 to 3.4 and sten scores are actually

ordinal categories given numerical labels for ease of interpretation.


PERCENTILE

Another way of interpreting personality questionnaire scores is through how the applicant has

scored in term of the proportion of the comparison group who scored less than them. This is known

as a percentile score and is often used when interpreting the results of cognitive ability assessments

or competency based assessments. Percentile scores are often easier to interpret then either sten

scores or z scores but harder to calculate. Percentile scores are usually calculated by assessment

systems or read for norm tables. The relationship between z scores, sten scores, percentiles is

shown in Table 6 for a normal distribution.

Table 6

The relationship between z scores, sten scores, and percentiles

Z Score Sten Percentile

-3 to -2 1 1

-2 to -1.5 2 4

-1.5 to -1 3 11

-1 to -0.5 4 23

-0.5 to 0 5 40

0 to 0.5 6 60

0.5 to 1 7 77

1 to 1.5 8 89

1.5 to 2 9 96

2 to 3 10 99

STANDARD ERROR OF THE MEAN

The standard error of the mean (SEMean) is a measure of how close your sample mean is likely to be

to the population or true mean. The true population mean is 95% likely to fall within ±1.96 x SEMean.

The smaller the SEMean the more precise the estimate of the population mean and conversely the

larger the SEMean the less accurate the estimate of the population mean. The equation for calculating

the standard error of the mean is given in Equation 3 with the sample standard deviation , and the

sample size .

Equation 3

The SEMean is closely related to the size of the sample, and as the sample size increases the standard

error of the mean decreases. This is often the argument for larger norm group sample sizes; some

publishers recommend having sample sizes of 10,000 or more. However practically, once the sample

size is larger than 100 or 200, adding additional individuals has a minimal effect on the standard error

of the mean (as can be seen in Figure 3). In general, larger norm groups are certainly better.

However once a norm group has reached an appropriate size, it is often more important that the

norm group shows high representativeness.


Figure 3- Line graph showing the standard error of the mean as a function of sample size for a scale with a

standard deviation of 3.23

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

20

40

60

80

10

0

20

0

30

0

40

0

50

0

60

0

70

0

80

0

90

0

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

00

30

00

50

00

10

00

0

Sta

nd

ard

Err

or

of

the M

ea

n

Sample Size


7.3 Available Norm Groups

CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE NORM

The PATH personality questionnairehas six representative norm groups available which span from

Admin/ Entry level to Managers, and Executives. It is important to choose the norm group which

matches your requirements so that the norm group is representative of your target population.

Please refer to Table 7 to help identify the appropriate norm group to use for your application. In

general, you should choose the norm group whose description closely matches the population that

will be completing the personality questionnaire. To help confirm your selection review the example

role titles under the norm sections below for similarities.

Table 7

Norm group description and sample size of 2015 update

Norm Group Title Description Sample Size (2015)

Admin/ Entry Level Applicants without university

backgrounds, without

management experience or

executive experience.

N=963

Graduates Applicants with a university

degree and less than two years’

experience.

N=4254

Professionals Applicants holding a university

degree, with more than two

years of experience, but less

than two years management

experience.

N=414

Managers Applicants with a university

background, more than two

years of experience, more than

two years management

experience and less than two

years executive experience

N=357

Executives Applicants with more than two

years of executive experience.

N=525

Incumbent Those currently employed and

completing the assessment for

personal interest.

N=944


7.4 Admin Norm (2015)

DESCRIPTION

This sample is comprised of 963 job applicants without university backgrounds, without management

experience or executive experience. The sample is characterised as moderately young (Median age

= between 36 and 40), with limited education but higher levels of experience in current career with

90% having two or more years worth of experience in their current careers.

Example Role Titles

Administrative Assistant

Secretary

Entry level sales representative

Customer Service Representative

Entry level account manager

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Gender

The Admin/Entry Level sample was comprised of 653 Males and 307 Females which is shown

graphically in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Gender breakdown of the admin/entry level sample (N=963)

68%

32%

Male Female


Age

The age of the admin/entry level sample ranged from 20 years of younger to 61 years and older with

a median age of between 36 and 40. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen


Figure 5 - The frequency of applicants falling within age ranges (N =963)

26

58

13

7

17

6

14

8

14

9

12

1

91

32

15

6


Country of Origin

The majority of the admin/entry level sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=612) with a

smaller number being born in New Zealand (N=220), the United Kingdom (N=68), South Africa

(N=48) or other countries (N=48). This can be seen graphically in Figure 6.

Figure 6 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the admin/entry level norm group (N=963)

Ethnicity

The majority of the admin/entry level sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=605) with a

smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=176), British (N =38), New

Zealand Maori (N=33), New Zealand European/Maori (N=19), and a combination of other ethnicities

(N=92).This can be seen graphically in Figure 7.

64%

23%

7%

2%

5%

Australia New Zealand United Kingdom South Africa Other

63%

18%

4%

3%

2% 10%

Australian New Zealand European

British New Zealand Maori

New Zealand European/Maori Other


Figure 7 - Ethnicity breakdown of the admin/entry level sample (N= 963)

Primary Language

The vast majority of the admin/entry level sample reported English as their primary language (N =

947) with only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 16).

This can be seen graphically in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - Primary language breakdown for the admin/entry level sample (N=963)

Highest Qualification Attained

The majority of the admin/entry level sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved

was completing high school (N=521) was a slightly smaller number completing some tertiary study

(N=442). This can be seen graphically in Figure 9.

Figure 9 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the admin/entry level sample (N=963)

98%

2%

English Other

54%

46%

Completed secondary school Some tertiary


Years of Experience in Current Career

The majority of the admin/entry level sample had been working in their current career for ten years

or more (N = 456). A smaller proportion had been working in their current career for between five

and ten years (N=253), between three and five years (N=118), between two and three years (N =

47), between one and two years (N=43), or less than one year (N=46). This can be seen graphically

in Figure 10.

Figure 10 - Amount of experience in current career breakdown for the admin/entry level sample (N=963)

NORM TABLE

The norm information of the admin/entry level sample is presented in Table 8 with the sample mean,

standard deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true

population mean.

Table 8

Norm information for the admin/entry level sample 2015 (N=963)

Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval

Lower Upper

Accepting 30.99 3.40 0.11 30.77 31.20

Adaptable 29.74 3.23 0.10 29.54 29.95

Amiable 31.06 2.75 0.09 30.88 31.23

1% 1%

3% 4%

5%

12%

26%

47%

1%

Less Than Three Months Three to Six Months

Seven Months to One Year One Year to Two Years

Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years

Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More

MISSING


Analytical 26.50 3.25 0.10 26.30 26.71

Collaborative 31.69 2.55 0.08 31.53 31.85

Competitive 26.14 5.60 0.18 25.79 26.50

Compliant 29.08 3.71 0.12 28.84 29.31

Composed 29.85 3.48 0.11 29.63 30.07

Data Driven 20.12 3.57 0.12 19.90 20.35

Decisive 24.44 2.78 0.09 24.27 24.62

Directing 29.68 3.44 0.11 29.46 29.89

Driven 25.07 2.88 0.09 24.89 25.26

Empathic 42.07 4.89 0.16 41.76 42.38

Energetic 24.31 3.02 0.10 24.12 24.50

Influential 21.69 2.80 0.09 21.51 21.87

Innovative 23.63 2.79 0.09 23.45 23.81

Intuitive 20.67 3.05 0.10 20.48 20.86

Learning Focused 25.55 2.69 0.09 25.38 25.72

Meticulous 29.25 3.28 0.11 29.04 29.46

Motivating 26.10 2.50 0.08 25.94 26.26

Optimistic 31.75 3.08 0.10 31.56 31.95

Receptive 25.90 2.36 0.08 25.75 26.05

Reliable 24.70 3.30 0.11 24.49 24.90

Risk Tolerant 18.39 6.58 0.21 17.97 18.80

Self Aware 22.14 3.57 0.11 21.92 22.37

Self Confident 25.20 2.52 0.08 25.04 25.36

Sociable 25.04 2.99 0.10 24.85 25.22

Socially Aware 27.84 3.61 0.12 27.62 28.07

Strategic 24.90 2.72 0.09 24.73 25.07

Theoretical 29.56 3.19 0.10 29.36 29.76

Trusting 24.17 3.64 0.12 23.94 24.40

Work Focus 23.55 3.00 0.10 23.36 23.74


7.5 Graduate Norm (2015)

DESCRIPTION

This sample is comprised of 4,254 applicants for graduate roles. The sample is characterised as

relatively young (Median aged = between 21 and 25), well educated with 92% holding at least a

bachelors degree or diploma. The sample has relatively little experience in their current career with

75% having less than 2 years worth of experience.

Example Role Titles

Graduate

Graduate accountant

Law Intern

Graduate Engineer

Intern Technician

Summer Clark

Cadet/Scholarship Roles


Gender

The graduate sample was comprised of 2167 Males and 1895 Females which is shown graphically in

Figure 11.

Figure 11 - Gender breakdown of the graduate sample (N=4254)

53%

47%

Male Female


Age

The age of the graduate sample ranged from 20 years of younger to 61 years and older with a median

age of between 21 and 25. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in

Figure 5.


24

7

21

59

88

4

40

3

18

2

19

5

52

10

4

26


Country of Origin

Thevast majority of the graduate sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=3636) with a smaller

number being born in New Zealand (N=278), China (N=36) or other countries (N=261). This can be

seen graphically in Figure 13.

Figure 13 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the graduate sample(N=4254)

Ethnicity

The vast majority of the graduate sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=4069) with a

smaller number reporting their ethnicity as Chinese (N=50), New Zealand European (N=27), and a

combination of other ethnicities (N=37). This can be seen graphically in Figure 14.

Figure 14 - Ethnicity breakdown of the graduate sample (N= 4254)

86%

7%

1% 6%

Australia New Zealand China Other

96%

1% 1% 2%

Australian Chinese New Zealand European Other


Primary Language

The vast majority of the graduate sample reported English as their primary language (N = 4170) with

only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 84). This can

be seen graphically in Figure 15.

Figure 15 - The primary language breakdown for the graduate sample (N= 4254)

98%

2%

English Other



The majority of the graduate sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was

completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=2555), a large proportion of the sample reported

to having completed a masters degree (N=906) with smaller numbers completing advanced diploma

(N=257) or doctoral degrees (N=27). A small number of the graduate sample reported completing

secondary school (N= 176) or some tertiary study (N=189) as their highest qualification. This can be


Figure 16 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the graduate sample (N=4254)

4% 4%

60%

3%

6%

21%

1%

Completed secondary school Some tertiary

Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Postgraduate diploma or certificate

Advanced diploma or diploma Masters degree

Doctoral degree



The vast majority of the graduate sample had been working in their current career for less than two

years (N=3201) with 1107 individuals having been in their career for less than three months, 324

individuals for between three months and six months, 689 for between seven months and one year

and 1080 individuals for between one year and two years. A small proportion of the graduate sample

had been working in their current career for between two and three years (N =338), between three

and five years (N =203), between five and ten years (N=297) or for ten years or more (N=216). This

can be seen graphically in Figure 17.

Figure 17 - Amount of experience in current career breakdown for the graduate sample (N=4254)

NORM TABLE

The norm information of the admin/entry level sample is presented in Table 9with the sample mean,


population mean.

Table 9

Norm information for the Graduate sample 2015 (N=4254)


Lower Upper

Accepting 31.14 3.63 0.06 31.03 31.25

Adaptable 31.04 3.31 0.05 30.94 31.14

Amiable 31.48 2.78 0.04 31.39 31.56

26%

8%

16%

25%

8%

5%

7% 5%

Less Than Three Months Three To Six Months

Seven Months To One Year One Year to Two Years




Analytical 28.79 3.17 0.05 28.70 28.89

Collaborative 31.69 2.83 0.04 31.61 31.78

Competitive 27.42 5.14 0.08 27.27 27.58

Compliant 27.38 3.71 0.06 27.27 27.49

Composed 29.55 3.98 0.06 29.43 29.67

Data Driven 21.74 3.40 0.05 21.64 21.84

Decisive 23.45 3.24 0.05 23.35 23.55

Directing 30.32 3.49 0.05 30.21 30.42

Driven 26.00 2.78 0.04 25.91 26.08

Empathic 43.93 5.40 0.08 43.76 44.09

Energetic 25.17 3.30 0.05 25.07 25.27

Influential 22.36 3.15 0.05 22.26 22.45

Innovative 23.87 3.18 0.05 23.78 23.97

Intuitive 19.16 3.22 0.05 19.07 19.26


Meticulous 30.05 3.26 0.05 29.95 30.14

Motivating 26.46 2.65 0.04 26.38 26.54

Optimistic 31.99 3.19 0.05 31.89 32.08

Receptive 26.99 2.33 0.04 26.92 27.06

Reliable 23.97 3.72 0.06 23.86 24.09

Risk Tolerant 23.20 4.08 0.06 23.07 23.32

Self Aware 21.83 3.70 0.06 21.72 21.95

Self Confident 24.63 2.93 0.04 24.54 24.72

Sociable 25.41 3.38 0.05 25.31 25.51

Socially Aware 29.40 3.66 0.06 29.29 29.51

Strategic 25.87 2.82 0.04 25.79 25.96

Theoretical 30.68 3.22 0.05 30.58 30.78

Trusting 24.09 3.97 0.06 23.97 24.20

Work Focus 23.96 3.17 0.05 23.86 24.05


7.6 Professional Norm (2015)

DESCRIPTION

This sample is comprised of 414 applicants holding a university degree, with more than two years of

experience, but less than two years management experience. This sample is characterised by being

relatively young with a medium age of between 31 and 35, well educated with a 85% having a

bachelors degree , diploma, or postgraduate diploma, and with a moderate to high degree of

experience in their current career with two years or more worth of experience.

Example Role Titles

Accountant/Auditor

Lawyer/Solicitor

Analyst

Engineer/Technician

Professional/Individual Contributor

Consultant

HR Consultant

PR Consultant

Business Analyst


Gender

The professional sample was comprised of 215 Males and 199 Females which is shown graphically in

Figure 18.

Figure 18 - Gender breakdown of the professional sample (N=414)

52%

48%

Male Female


Age

The age of the professional sample ranged from 20 years of younger to 60 years with a median age of

between 31 and 35. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in Figure 19.


Country of Origin

The majority of the professional sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=221) with a smaller

number being born in New Zealand (N=58), The United Kingdom (N=36), India (N = 12), China

(N=11), Singapore (N=11) or other countries (N=65). This can be seen graphically in Figure 20.

Figure 20 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the professional norm group (N=414)

2

57

13

4

97

57

30

21

7

5

4

53%

14%

9%

3%

3%

3%

16%

Australia New Zealand United Kingdom

India China Singapore

Other


Ethnicity

The majority of the professional sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=203) with a smaller

number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=56),Chinese (N=31), British (N=27),

Indian (N=17), New Zealand European/Maori (N=5), South African European (N=5) and a

combination of other ethnicities (N=70). This can be seen graphically in Figure 21.

Figure 21 - Ethnicity breakdown of the professional sample (N= 414)

49%

14%

7%

7%

4%

1%

1% 17%


Chinese British

Indian New Zealand European/Maori

South African European Other


Primary Language

The vast majority of the professional sample reported English as their primary language (N = 374)

with only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 40). This

can be seen graphically in Figure 22.

Figure 22 - Primary language breakdown for professional sample (N=414)

90%

10%

English Other



The majority of the professional sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was

completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=216), with a smaller proportion of the sample

reported to having completed a masters degree (N=54), advanced diploma (N=70) or doctoral

degrees (N=1). This can be seen graphically in Figure 23.

Figure 23 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the professional sample (N=414)


The majority of the professional sample had been working in their current career for five or more

years (72%) with 153 individuals in their career for between five and ten years and 97 individuals

having ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A large proportion of

individuals had between three and five years worth of experience (N=103) with a small portion with

between two and three years worth of experience (N =55). This can be seen graphically in Figure 24.

62%

3%

20%

15%

0%

Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Postgraduate diploma or certificate

Advanced diploma or diploma Masters degree

Doctoral degree


Figure 24 - Experience in current career breakdown for the professional sample (N=414)

NORM TABLE



population mean.

Table 10

Norm information for the Professional sample 2015 (N=414)


Lower Upper

Accepting 30.20 3.57 0.18 29.85 30.54

Adaptable 29.45 3.33 0.16 29.13 29.77

Amiable 30.67 2.79 0.14 30.40 30.94

Analytical 27.58 3.11 0.15 27.28 27.88

Collaborative 31.04 2.56 0.13 30.79 31.28

Competitive 25.54 5.53 0.27 25.00 26.07

Compliant 26.73 3.82 0.19 26.37 27.10

Composed 28.50 3.60 0.18 28.16 28.85

Data Driven 20.65 3.42 0.17 20.33 20.98

Decisive 22.82 2.96 0.15 22.53 23.10

13%

25%

38%

24%




Directing 28.42 3.44 0.17 28.09 28.75

Driven 24.44 2.94 0.14 24.16 24.73

Empathic 42.22 5.05 0.25 41.73 42.71

Energetic 23.77 3.34 0.16 23.45 24.09

Influential 21.55 2.94 0.14 21.26 21.83

Innovative 23.01 3.00 0.15 22.72 23.30

Intuitive 19.49 2.91 0.14 19.21 19.77


Meticulous 28.78 3.33 0.16 28.46 29.10

Motivating 25.53 2.79 0.14 25.26 25.80

Optimistic 31.35 3.13 0.15 31.04 31.65

Receptive 25.90 2.39 0.12 25.67 26.13

Reliable 23.56 3.36 0.17 23.23 23.88

Risk Tolerant 22.18 4.20 0.21 21.78 22.59

Self Aware 21.43 3.35 0.16 21.11 21.76

Self Confident 24.04 2.67 0.13 23.79 24.30

Sociable 24.48 3.50 0.17 24.14 24.81

Socially Aware 28.24 3.59 0.18 27.89 28.58

Strategic 24.44 2.98 0.15 24.15 24.72

Theoretical 29.87 3.16 0.16 29.56 30.17

Trusting 23.95 3.30 0.16 23.63 24.26

Work Focus 22.66 3.00 0.15 22.37 22.95


7.7 Managerial Norm (2015)

DESCRIPTION

This sample is comprised of 357 applicants with a university background, more than two years of

experience, more than two years management experience and less than two years executive

experience. This sample is characterised by being relatively young with a medium age of between 36

and 40, well educated with a 90% having a bachelors degree , diploma, or postgraduate diploma, and

with a moderate to high degree of experience in their current career with 84% having five years or

more worth of experience.

Example Role Titles

Sales Manager

Team Leader/Manager

Senior Consultant

Line Manager


Gender

The managerial sample was comprised of 227 Males and 130 Females which is shown graphically in

Figure 25.

Figure 25 - Gender breakdown of the manager sample (N=357)

Age

The age of the manager sample ranged from between 21 years to 60 years with a median age of


64%

36%

Male Female



Country of Origin

The majority of the manager sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=192) with a smaller

number being born in New Zealand (N=63), The United Kingdom (N=30), India (N = 17), South

Africa (N=12), or other countries (N=43). This can be seen graphically in Figure 27.

Figure 27 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the manager sample (N=357)

0

12

46

65

79

63

43

28

13

2

54%

18%

8%

5%

3%

12%

Australia New Zealand United Kingdom India South Africa Other


Ethnicity

The vast majority of the manager sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=182) with a

smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=60),British (N=19), Indian

(N= 19), South African European (N=11), English (N=9) and a combination of other ethnicities


Figure 28 - Ethnicity breakdown of the manager sample (N= 357)

51%

17%

5%

5%

3%

3%

16%

Australian New Zealand European Indian

British South African European English

Other


Primary Language

The vast majority of the manager sample reported English as their primary language (N = 326) with



Figure 29 - Primary language breakdown for manager sample (N=357)

91%

9%

English Other



The majority of the manager sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was

completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=138), an advanced diploma or diploma (N = 108)

with a smaller proportion of the sample reported to having completed a masters degree (N=33),

postgraduate diploma (N=75) or doctoral degrees (N=3). This can be seen graphically in Figure 30.

Figure 30 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the manager sample (N=357)

39%

30%

21%

9%

1%

Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Advanced diploma or diploma

Postgraduate diploma or certificate Masters degree

Doctoral degree



The majority of the manager sample had been working in their current career for five or more years

(83%) with 109 individuals in their career for between five and ten years and 184 individuals having

ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A smaller proportion of individuals

had between three and five years worth of experience (N=48) with a small portion with between

two and three years worth of experience (N =16). This can be seen graphically in Figure 31.

Figure 31- Experience in current career breakdown for the manager sample (N=357)

TABLE



population mean.

Table 11

Norm information for the manager sample (N=357)


Lower Upper

Accepting 30.66 3.57 0.19 30.29 31.03

Adaptable 29.48 3.27 0.17 29.14 29.82

Amiable 30.67 2.75 0.15 30.38 30.95

Analytical 27.60 3.12 0.17 27.28 27.92

Collaborative 31.26 2.47 0.13 31.01 31.52

Competitive 25.78 5.21 0.28 25.24 26.32

Compliant 27.40 4.05 0.21 26.98 27.82

4%

13%

31%

52%




Composed 29.80 3.28 0.17 29.45 30.14

Data Driven 20.50 3.66 0.19 20.12 20.88

Decisive 24.25 2.48 0.13 24.00 24.51

Directing 30.24 3.01 0.16 29.93 30.55

Driven 24.76 2.68 0.14 24.48 25.04

Empathic 41.78 4.97 0.26 41.27 42.30

Energetic 24.33 3.06 0.16 24.01 24.64

Influential 22.20 2.64 0.14 21.93 22.48

Innovative 23.50 2.90 0.15 23.20 23.81

Intuitive 19.63 3.02 0.16 19.32 19.95


Meticulous 29.00 3.30 0.17 28.66 29.35

Motivating 26.03 2.54 0.13 25.76 26.29

Optimistic 31.71 2.77 0.15 31.42 32.00

Receptive 25.73 2.27 0.12 25.49 25.96

Reliable 24.23 3.37 0.18 23.88 24.58

Risk Tolerant 20.89 5.44 0.29 20.32 21.45

Self Aware 21.80 3.59 0.19 21.43 22.18

Self Confident 24.92 2.38 0.13 24.67 25.17

Sociable 24.40 3.28 0.17 24.06 24.74

Socially Aware 28.09 3.50 0.19 27.73 28.46

Strategic 25.13 2.46 0.13 24.88 25.39

Theoretical 29.60 2.87 0.15 29.30 29.90

Trusting 24.11 3.82 0.20 23.72 24.51

Work Focus 23.24 2.83 0.15 22.95 23.54


7.8 Executive Norm (2015)

DESCRIPTION

This sample is comprised of 525 applicants with a university background, more than two years of

experience, more than two years management experience and more than two years executive

experience. This sample is characterised by being more senior with a medium age of between 41 and

45, well educated with a 40% having a master degree, post graduate diploma, or doctoral degree. The

sample was highly experienced with 75% having been in their current career for ten years or more.

The executive norm has two years or more worth of experience as a strategic leader as a head of

department or c level executive.

Example Role Titles

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Department

Director

Chief Financial Officer

Chief People Officer

Managing Director


Gender

The professional sample was comprised of 358 Males and 164 Females which is shown graphically in

Figure 32.

Figure 32 - Gender breakdown of the executive sample (N=525)

69%

31%

Male Female


Age

The age of the executive sample ranged from between 21 years to 60 years with a median age of


Figure 33 - The frequency of executive applicants falling within age ranges (N =525)

Country of Origin

The majority of the executive sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=290) with a smaller

number being born in New Zealand (N=81), The United Kingdom (N=57), South Africa (N=17), or

other countries (N=33). This can be seen graphically in Figure 34.

Figure 34 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the executive sample (N=525)

0 6

35

58

87

12

0

85

67

40

10

55%

15%

11%

3%

15%

Australia New Zealand United Kingdom

South Africa Other


Ethnicity

The vast majority of the executive sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N= 289) with a

smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=71),British (N=50), South

African European (N=16), and a combination of other ethnicities (N=99). This can be seen


Figure 35 - Ethnicity breakdown of the executive sample (N= 525)

55%

14%

10%

3%

19%


British South African European

Other


Primary Language

The vast majority of the manager sample reported English as their primary language (N = 495) with



Figure 36 - Primary language breakdown for executive sample (N=525)

94%

6%

English Other



The majority of the executive sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was

completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=163), an advanced diploma or diploma (N = 150)

with a smaller proportion of the sample reported to having completed a masters degree (N=105),

postgraduate diploma (N=97) or doctoral degrees (N=10). This can be seen graphically in Figure 37.

Figure 37 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the executive sample (N=525)

31%

29%

20%

18%

2%

Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Advanced diploma or diploma

Masters degree Postgraduate diploma or certificate

Doctoral degree



The majority of the executive sample had been working in their current career for five or more


having ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A smaller proportion of


between two and three years worth of experience (N =12). This can be seen graphically in Figure 38

Figure 38- Experience in current career breakdown for the executive sample (N=525)

NORM TABLE

The norm information of executive sample is presented in Table 12with the sample mean, standard

deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true population mean.

Table 12

Norm information for the executive sample (N=525)


Lower Upper

Accepting 30.69 3.28 0.14 30.41 30.97

Adaptable 29.68 3.03 0.13 29.42 29.94

Amiable 30.51 2.81 0.12 30.27 30.75

Analytical 27.98 2.86 0.12 27.74 28.23

Collaborative 31.00 2.62 0.11 30.77 31.22

Competitive 26.29 5.23 0.23 25.84 26.74

Compliant 26.11 4.38 0.19 25.74 26.49

Composed 30.19 3.32 0.14 29.91 30.48

2%

6%

17%

75%




Data Driven 19.84 3.49 0.15 19.54 20.14

Decisive 24.89 2.51 0.11 24.67 25.10

Directing 31.23 2.77 0.12 30.99 31.47

Driven 25.05 2.61 0.11 24.82 25.27

Empathic 41.87 5.02 0.22 41.44 42.30

Energetic 24.87 2.90 0.13 24.63 25.12

Influential 22.92 2.73 0.12 22.69 23.16

Innovative 24.07 2.72 0.12 23.84 24.31

Intuitive 19.87 2.94 0.13 19.62 20.12


Meticulous 27.94 3.60 0.16 27.64 28.25

Motivating 26.58 2.41 0.11 26.38 26.79

Optimistic 31.69 2.97 0.13 31.43 31.94

Receptive 25.74 2.27 0.10 25.54 25.93

Reliable 24.26 3.01 0.13 24.00 24.52

Risk Tolerant 22.68 4.74 0.21 22.28 23.09

Self Aware 21.92 3.29 0.14 21.64 22.20

Self Confident 25.26 2.41 0.11 25.05 25.46

Sociable 24.86 3.08 0.13 24.59 25.12

Socially Aware 28.83 3.44 0.15 28.53 29.12

Strategic 26.09 2.58 0.11 25.87 26.31

Theoretical 29.85 2.88 0.13 29.60 30.10

Trusting 24.41 3.50 0.15 24.11 24.71

Work Focus 23.44 2.83 0.12 23.20 23.68


7.9 Incumbent Norm (2015)

DESCRIPTION

This sample is comprised of 944 individuals currently employed and completing the assessment for

personal interest or development. This sample is characterised by being relatively young with a

medium age of between 36 and 40, with mixed levels of education. The sample was highly

experienced with 82% having been in their current career for three years or more.


Gender

The incumbent sample was comprised of 581 Males and 357 Females which is shown graphically in

Figure 39.

Figure 39 - Gender breakdown of the incumbent sample (N=944)

Male Female


Age

The age of the incumbent sample’s age ranged from 20 years or younger to 61 yearsor older (Median

= between 36 and 40). The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in Figure

40.

Figure 40 - The frequency of the incumbent sample falling within age ranges (N =944)

Country of Origin

The majority of the incumbent sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=511) with a smaller

number being born in New Zealand (N=127), Indonesia (N=103), The United Kingdom (N=55), India

(N=24), or other countries (N=123). This can be seen graphically in Figure 41.

Figure 41 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the incumbent sample (N=944)

5

81

14

1 1

57

14

6

12

7

12

2

10

2

42

15

6

54%

13%

11%

6%

3% 13%

Australia New Zealand Indonesia United Kingdom India Other


Ethnicity

The vast majority of the incumbent sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N= 494) with a

smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=99),British (N=30), Indian

(N=27), and a combination of other ethnicities (N=48). This can be seen graphically in Figure 21.

Figure 42 - Ethnicity breakdown of the incumbentsample (N= 944)

52%

10%

7%

3%

3%

24%


Indonesian British

Indian Other


Primary Language

The vast majority of the incumbent sample reported English as their primary language (N = 790) with



Figure 43 - Primary language breakdown for Incumbent sample (N=944)

84%

16%

English Other



In general, the incumbent sample showed a wide variety of educational attainment. The majority of

the development sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was completing a

bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=228). Roughly equal proportions of the development sample

reported attaining an advanced diploma or diploma (N=122), postgraduate diploma or certificate

(N=138), and masters degree (N=130). A proportion completed some tertiary study (N=136) with

smaller proportions completing high school (N=127) or leaving prior to completing high school


Figure 44 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the incumbent sample (N=944)

4%

13%

14%

24%

13%

15%

14%

2% 1%

Left prior to completing secondary school Completed secondary school

Some tertiary Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree

Advanced diploma or diploma Postgraduate diploma or certificate

Masters degree Doctoral degree

MISSING



The majority of the incumbent sample had been working in their current career for five or more


having ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A smaller proportion of


between two and three years worth of experience (N =74). The remaining 11% of the development

sample had two years or less worth of experience in their current career. This can be seen


Figure 45- Experience in current career breakdown for the incumbent sample (N=944)

NORM TABLE

The norm information of incumbent sample is presented in Table 13with the sample mean, standard

deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true population mean.

Table 13

Norm information for the incumbent sample (N=944)


Lower Upper

Accepting 28.80 4.57 0.15 28.51 29.09

Adaptable 28.74 3.85 0.13 28.50 28.99

Amiable 29.81 3.32 0.11 29.60 30.02

2% 1%

3% 5%

8%

13%

26%

43%

Less Than Three Months Three to Six Months

Seven Months to One Year One Year to Two Years




Analytical 26.42 3.55 0.12 26.19 26.64

Collaborative 30.19 3.37 0.11 29.98 30.41

Competitive 25.66 6.18 0.20 25.27 26.06

Compliant 26.62 4.58 0.15 26.33 26.91

Composed 28.06 4.60 0.15 27.77 28.36

Data Driven 19.53 3.75 0.12 19.29 19.77

Decisive 23.07 3.58 0.12 22.84 23.29

Directing 29.01 3.90 0.13 28.76 29.26

Driven 23.60 3.56 0.12 23.37 23.83

Empathic 40.70 5.69 0.19 40.34 41.06

Energetic 23.13 4.00 0.13 22.87 23.38

Influential 21.39 3.30 0.11 21.18 21.60

Innovative 22.56 3.41 0.11 22.34 22.77

Intuitive 20.06 3.15 0.10 19.86 20.26


Meticulous 27.24 4.20 0.14 26.97 27.51

Motivating 25.09 3.06 0.10 24.90 25.29

Optimistic 30.49 3.84 0.12 30.25 30.74

Receptive 24.79 2.86 0.09 24.61 24.97

Reliable 22.40 4.16 0.14 22.14 22.67

Risk Tolerant 21.71 5.60 0.18 21.35 22.07

Self Aware 20.50 4.10 0.13 20.24 20.76

Self Confident 23.68 3.20 0.10 23.47 23.88

Sociable 23.33 4.24 0.14 23.06 23.60

Socially Aware 27.77 3.77 0.12 27.53 28.01

Strategic 23.90 3.57 0.12 23.67 24.13

Theoretical 28.55 3.66 0.12 28.32 28.78

Trusting 23.98 3.77 0.12 23.74 24.22

Work Focus 21.55 4.00 0.13 21.30 21.81

8 Development Framework

The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire was designed as a tool for

selection in the population of graduates, managers, professionals, executives

and all other job families. The assessment aims to provide a comprehensive

overview of the personality characteristics that are relevant to performance

in the workplace, and furthermore, to predict the work performance of job

applicants.


8.1 Introduction

The primary goal of the PATH personality questionnaire is to accurately and efficiently predict work

performance. The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire was designed as a tool for selection in

the population of graduates, managers, professionals, executives and all other job families. The

assessment aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the personality characteristics that are

relevant to performance in the workplace, and furthermore, to predict the work performance of job

applicants. In addition to being a reliable and valid tool in the selection process, it was also vital that

the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire be fair, reliable and free of bias. Through its validity,

reliability, and fairness, the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire will be of real usefulness and

value to the organisations that use it. This value will be achieved through increasing performance, job

satisfaction and productivity and decreasing turnover. Other goals were to create a simple, visually-

appealing and technically stable candidate experience, coupled with aesthetically-pleasing, jargon-free

reports.

8.2 Development Framework

In light of the preceding, Simms and Watson (2009) offer an approach to personality scale

construction that follows a robust validation process compromising of three general phases. This

development framework is shown graphically in Figure 46. The framework suggested by Simms and

Watson (2009) is considered an exhaustive process for investigating and demonstrating the

psychometric quality of personality questionnaires. The first phase is centred on developing a clear

conceptualisation of the target construct, and the creation of the initial item pool from which scales

will be extracted. The second phase concerns the psychometric evaluation of items and the

development of an item selection strategy. The third and final phase involves convergent,

discriminant and criterion-related validity analyses to evaluate whether the target construct is

adequately measured and in line with its theoretical foundations. Overall, this method balances

theory and empirical work in the construction of scales as well as an integrative framework for

constructing objective measures under the broad umbrella of construct validity.


Figure 46 - Development framework followed during the development, refinement and validation of the PATH

personality questionnaire.

Following the recommendations of Simms and Watson (2009), the structure of the Talegent PATH

personality questionnaire scales was determined on the basis of a combination of rational and

theoretical justifications, and factor analytic and internal consistency methods.

Simms and Watson (2009) asserted that combining these methods of scale construction is essential

in order to develop sound measures with adequate construct validity.

The development of the PATH Personality Questionnaire involved three key stages with each stage

building on the results of the last phase.

The substantive validity phase is concerned with describing a theoretical model consisting of

the key constructs and their hypothesised relationships with each other and to observable

criteria and building measures of the constructs identified by theory.

The structural validity phase involves investigating the internal structure of the personality

scales created during the substantive validity phase and demonstrative the reliability and

factorial validity of the measures.

The external validity phase involves empirically testing the hypothesised relationships

between the constructs and observable criteria.

9 Substantive Validity

The substantive validity phase of the development process is the starting

point for developing the scales and items of the PATH personality

questionnaire. The substantive validity phase is an exploratory and creative

process focused on the conceptualisation of the personality constructs of

interest and generating items to measure those constructs.


9.1 Introduction

The substantive validity phase of the development process is the starting point for developing the

scales and items of the PATH personality questionnaire. The substantive validity phase is an

exploratory and creative process focused on the conceptualisation of the personality constructs of

interest and generating items to measure those constructs. An important part of conceptualising the

constructs of interest is specifying the work behaviours which should relate to the constructs of

interest. This homological network forms the basis of the external validity phase where these

theoretical relationships between the personality constructs and work behaviour are empirically

tested. The substantive validity phase can be subdivided into four sub phases; conceptualising the

personality constructs of interest, developing personality items to measure the construct of interest,

critically reviewing the item pools against established item writing principals, and finally piloting a

refined item set with a representative population to help identify any problematic items. This can be


Figure 47 - The four components of the substantive validity phase followed during the development of the

PATH personality questionnaire

9.2 Early Development

INTRODUCTION

In this study, the first three parts of the substantive validity phase are undertaken. The starting point

of the development of the PATH personality questionnaire was defining the personality constructs of

interest which are to be measured by the personality questionnaire. Once the personality constructs

are defined and operationalised an initial item pool can be created, reviewed, and refined. Study 1

describes this process and the resulting item pool. The objective of this process is to arrive at a pool

of items which are easy to understand, answer, and demonstrate a high degree of face validity.

METHOD

Defining Construct of Interest

Aware that common method biases in study design threaten the validity of inferences from a

measure, we took several precautions to avoid measurement errors in the creation of our

personality questionnaire. First, we performed an extensive literature review of studies on

occupational personality questionnaires designed for selection purposes. This is important to identify

previous attempts to measure and conceptualise work-relevant personality constructs. Based on the

literature review we assembled a comprehensive list of personality constructs divided across the Big

Five personality dimensions. This list served as our criteria of work-relevant personality constructs.

See Table 2for the list of the personality constructs and their definitions.


Item pool generation

A large pool of items was created for each construct of interest. Items were written to specifically

measure the construct of interest and only that construct. This pool was an over-inclusive sampling

of items that went over and above the personality constructs we identified. This over-inclusive

approach is fundamental to ensure representativeness of the constructs of interest. In writing the

items we deliberately used simple, concise and straightforward language. This is necessary to avoid

item complexity and to facilitate respondents’ comprehension (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003; & Watson, 2009). Similarly, we avoided double-barrelled questions and the use of

technical jargon because this may result in idiosyncratic interpretations, random responding or

systematic response tendencies (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Social desirability bias was also considered by

avoiding writing items that could reflect socially desirable behaviours or perceptions.

Response Scale Selection

In terms of scale values/anchors, each item was a statement followed by a 6-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with no midpoint (neutral) in the response options.

This format leads respondents to provide an answer with a clear direction and less cognitive effort

for the interpretation of values/anchors (Wivagg, 2008). Furthermore, it offers plenty of choice,

without overwhelming respondents or having unnecessary subtle distinctions between options

(Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005).

Expert Review

In order to establish conceptual boundaries and reduce the pool into a more suitable form for

practice applications we organised a team of industrial and organisational psychologists, experts in

psychometrics, and experienced professionals in the use of personality questionnaires, hereafter

referred to as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). This team made decisions about keeping or rejecting

items based on their face validity and clarity. Overall, an over-inclusive initial pool of items and SMEs’

expertise is fundamental in establishing the conceptual and empirical boundaries and determining the

theoretical meaningfulness of a test. These are content-oriented validation strategies that have

important implications in the acceptability of testing, and the transparency of test development and

validation (Murphy, 2009).

RESULTS

The literature review led to the identification of 32 personality constructs spanning the Big Five.

Based on this, an initial sample of 2497 items was created and reviewed by SMEs. Items that showed

conceptual confounds, lack of relevance or lack of clarity, were edited or removed. As a result, the

initial pool was reduced to 897 items, distributed across the 32 scales/constructs including two

response style indicators. All of the remaining items had been independently rated by three subject

matter experts and found to be face valid and likely to measure the construct of interest (and only

the construct of interest).

DISCUSSION

In this study, the personality constructs of interest were defined and operationalised. Following this

an initial item pool designed to measure the constructs was generated and reviewed by a panel of

experts for key criteria including the item quality and the degree that the item demonstrated face

validity or appeared to measure the construct of interests (and only that construct). The resulting

refined item pool consisted of 897 items which demonstrate strong face validity as rated by

independent subject matter experts. This refined item pool will serve as the basis of a pilot in the

next study.


9.3 Substantive Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Having demonstrated the face validity of the refined pool of items during the previous study, in the

substantive pilot, the refined item pool was piloted with a small sample of convenience to help

identify any problematic items. One hundred and seventy three participants completed an early

version of the PATH personality questionnaire online. The item pool was further refined base on the

results of inter-item correlations and reliability analysis. The item pool was reduced from 897 to 197

items which appear to measure the same underlying construct of interest.

SUBJECTS

One hundred seventy-three participants completed an online version of the provisional personality

questionnaire at their convenience. Participants were graduates, professionals, managers and

executives of Australia and New Zealand. The participants were recruited online and provided with

feedback on their personality to help incentivise completion and honest responding.

METHOD

The general statistics package SPSS 20 was utilised for performing the correlations and reliability

analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha as the reliability statistic of choice.

Inter-item correlation

The Pearson’s correlations between items within the same scale were calculated. Items which were

not sufficiently correlated with several items within the same scale (r < .50) or that correlated too

high (r > .9) were eliminated to avoid poor factor loadings and multi ollinearity respectively (Field,

2009). Combinations of positively and negatively keyed items were retained to help reduce response

bias. As a result, the pool was reduced from 897 to 197 items.

Reliability

Reliability analysis was performed on each scale individually with the scale items being entered into

the analysis of their own scales only. The scale mean and standard deviations were taken from the

SPSS output from the reliability statistic. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated

using Equation 6 using the scale variance and reliability coefficient. The SEMean was calculated using

Equation 3.

RESULTS

The results from the reliability analysis of the refined scales is summarised in Table 14. The internal

consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for all of the PATH scales fell between 0.7 and 0.9 with a median

reliability of 0.82. Although reliability is affected by several variables including scale length, breath, as

well as quality, the general consensus is that personality scales should have estimates of reliability

which approximately fall between 0.7 and 0.9.


Table 14

Summary of the Reliability analysis of the refined item pool.

Scale Items M SD SEMean α SEM

Accepting 7 33.63 5.02 0.38 0.83 2.07

Adaptable 6 28.96 3.82 0.29 0.81 1.67

Amiable 6 25.92 2.53 0.08 0.73 1.31

Analytical 6 25.69 3.82 0.29 0.78 1.79

Collaborative 6 30.12 3.59 0.27 0.87 1.29

Competitive 6 24.20 5.91 0.45 0.87 2.13

Compliant 6 26.53 4.15 0.32 0.81 1.81

Composed 6 27.27 4.68 0.36 0.88 1.62

Data Driven 5 19.38 3.47 0.26 0.74 1.77

Decisive 6 26.27 4.23 0.32 0.81 1.84

Directing 6 28.13 4.45 0.34 0.89 1.48

Driven 6 29.24 4.00 0.30 0.82 1.70

Energetic 5 23.51 4.06 0.31 0.86 1.52

Empathic 6 13.63 3.91 0.13 0.80 1.75

Influential 6 26.47 3.74 0.29 0.76 1.83

Intuitive 6 24.95 4.26 0.32 0.76 2.09

Innovative 6 26.72 4.05 0.31 0.82 1.72

Learning Focused

5 24.63 3.73 0.28 0.88 1.29

Meticulous 7 32.62 4.24 0.32 0.78 1.99

Motivating 6 29.73 3.90 0.30 0.86 1.46

Optimistic 6 30.50 4.05 0.31 0.85 1.57

Receptive 6 29.27 3.64 0.28 0.74 1.86

Reliable 6 27.81 4.50 0.34 0.79 2.06

Risk Tolerant 6 27.01 4.38 0.33 0.85 1.70

Self Aware 6 25.25 4.00 0.30 0.72 2.12

Self Confident 6 27.83 3.71 0.28 0.79 1.70

Sociable 6 29.19 4.74 0.36 0.89 1.57

Socially Aware 6 27.53 3.81 0.29 0.79 1.75

Strategic 6 27.82 4.20 0.32 0.87 1.51

Theoretical 7 31.62 4.57 0.35 0.82 1.94

Trusting 7 29.14 4.09 0.31 0.72 2.16


Work Focused 6 27.34 4.06 0.31 0.76 1.99

Mean 6.03 27.12 4.10 0.30 0.81 1.75

Median 6 27.43 4.06 0.31 0.81 1.75

Min 5 13.63 2.53 0.08 0.72 1.29

Max 7 33.63 5.91 0.45 0.89 2.16

DISCUSSION

The objective of this study was to pilot the refined item pool of PATH personality items with a

representative sample to help identify potentially problematic items. It is important that problematic

items are identified early in the development of the PATH personality questionnaire to reduce the

cost to respondents during later stages of development. One hundred seventy-three participants

completed an online version of the provisional personality questionnaire at their convenience. The

inter-item correlations between items within the same scale were analysed to identify problematic

items. These were subsequently removed. The resulting scales demonstrated appropriate levels of

internal consistency suggesting that participants generally understood the items and items should be

measuring the same underlying construct. The results of the pilot build on the findings from the

expert review and together suggest that the PATH personality scales demonstrate a high level of face

validity and appear to measure the construct of interest.

9.4 Substantive Validity Summary

The substantive validity phase of the development process is the starting point for developing the

scales and items of the PATH personality questionnaire. The substantive validity phase involves

defining the constructs of interest and the work behaviours those constructs should theoretically

relate to, followed by generating, reviewing and refining the item pools which measure those

constructs of interest (Figure 47). This process was undertaken through two independent studies. In

the early development, the constructs of interest were defined and operationalised, large over-

inclusive item pools were generated to measure the constructs of interest, and these item pools

were critically reviewed and refined by subject matter experts. In the substantive pilot, the refined

item pools were further refined through a small scale pilot where items which did not appear to

relate to other items within the same scale were removed. The results from study 1 and 2 suggest

that the PATH personality scales should be face valid, measure the construct of interest (and only

the construct of interest), are easily understood by applicants, and do not show content overlap.

During the structural validity phase of the development this is explicitly and rigorously tested

through appropriate statistical methods.

10 Structural Validity

Having established the substantive validity of the scale items, we can

establish that the scale items appear to measure the construct of interest

and only the construct of interest, should be easily understood by the

population of interest, and should not show overlap in item content.


10.1 Introduction

Having established the substantive validity of the scale items, we can establish that the scale items

appear to measure the construct of interest and only the construct of interest, should be easily

understood by the population of interest, and should not show overlap in item content. The next

phase in establishing the construct validity of the PATH personality scales as suggested by the Simms

and Watson (2009) framework is to establish the structural validity of the personality scales (Figure

46). Structural validity refers to the degree that the structural relations between scale items match

the theoretical relations of the model underlying the construct of interest (Simms and Watson,

2009). In personality scale development this means that the scale items should all measure a single

underlying factor (unidimensional), the measure should be relatively free from error (reliable), and

the residual item error should be independent and uncorrelated with the residual error of other

items (conditionally independent).

The general process for demonstrating the structural validity of a personality scale begins with

generating a structural model through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). This is followed by assessing

the degree of reliability of a scale. The strictest test of the structural validity of a personality scale is

to perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). These independent analyses are viewed as

complementary to each other and together provide independent evidence for the structural validity

of the PATH scales. This process can be seen graphically in Figure 48. To demonstrate the structural

validity of the PATH personality questionnaire scales, three independent studies were undertaken

with three large independent samples. The first study generated the factor structure for the PATH

scales and established the unidimensionality of the scales through exploratory factor analysis. The

second study assessed the degree of reliability shown by the PATH personality scales. The final study

confirmed the factor structure generated during the EFA through confirmatory factor analysis with

an independent sample. These studies are presented in this chapter.

Figure 48.Graphical representation of process for demonstrating the structural validity of PATH

personality scales

10.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis is the statistical process of identifying an underlying structural model

which explains the relationships between scale items. Ideally, the structural model will be

substantively meaningful and parsimonious in that it contains the lowest number of factors required

to explain as much of the variance in the item responses as possible. When developing a personality

scale, the aim is to create a scale where the items load strongly on a single factor and have that

factor explain a large proportion of the variance in the item responses. Establishing that a single

underlying factor explains the variance seen in item responses is imperative for interpreting the

results from reliability analyses and should be established before progressing on to that stage of


analysis. The factor structure generated during the exploratory factor analysis is also supplied a priori

during the confirmatory factor analysis stage and its fit with an independent sample explicitly tested.

The results from the factor analysis will be used to inform the understanding of the underlying factor

structure of the scale.

10.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Study

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we investigated the factor structure underlying each PATH scale through exploratory

factor analysis with a large sample (N=1,213) of job applicants who are likely to be representative of

the population of interest for the PATH personality questionnaire. We conducted the exploratory

factor analyses with the intent of extracting a single underlying factor which accounts for a large

proportion of the variance in item responses. This would demonstrate that the PATH scales are

unidimensional and that it is appropriate to create aggregate scale scores to describe where an

individual scores on the underlying factor. Unidimensional scales are an assumption of classical test

theory and a prerequisite for reliability analysis.

SUBJECTS

Twelve hundred and thirteen applicants (1,213) for graduate roles (667 men, 546 women) aged from

20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 21 and 25 years old) from Australasia completed the

full PATH personality questionnaire as part of the recruitment process for employment. The

majority of participants were from Australia (86.14%) with a smaller proportion from New Zealand

(6.59%) or other countries of origin (7.27%). The majority of participants spoke English as their

primary language (72.81%) with a smaller proportion speaking Mandarin (14.74%) or another

language (12.45%) as their primary language.

METHOD

Exploratory factor analysis was performed on each scale individually with the scale items being

entered into the analysis of their own scales only. The general statistics package SPSS 20 was utilised

for performing the exploratory factor analyses with the maximum likelihood method of extraction.

The maximum likelihood extraction was used as it provides the most accurate representation of the

underlying factor structure without over estimating the degree of variance contributed by individual

items. Scree plot analysis was the primary method for determining the number of factors to extract.

The analyst looks for the position on the Scree plot where there is a noticeable reduction in the

variance accounted for by extracting further factors. Kline (1994) proposed that Scree analysis as one

of the best methods for determining the number of factors to extract. The oblique rotation direct

oblimin was applied in the case where multiple factors were extracted to aid in the interpretation of

factor loadings. Oblique rotations such as direct oblimin allow for factors to be correlated which is

often the situation when developing personality scales. Another advantage of an oblique rotation

over orthogonal rotations is that oblique rotations can accommodate situations where the factors

are uncorrelated (orthogonal) but orthogonal rotations can’t accommodate situations where the

factors are correlated.


RESULTS

The results from the exploratory factor analyses are presented in Table 15. To ensure that it was

appropriate to move forward with exploratory factor analysis the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

measure of sampling adequacy was reviewed for each scale. The KMO of the scales ranged from 0.67

to 0.91 (Table 15) with the KMO values being well above the acceptable limit of 0.50 (Kaiser, 1974;

Field 2005). Scree plot analysis found that all scales showed a noticeable reduction in the variance

accounted for after extracting the first factor without noticeable secondary break points, thus

suggesting that a single factor is the most appropriate solution to account for the variance seen in the

items. An example Scree plot is shown in Figure 49.Notice the sharp reduction in the variance in

Eigenvalues accounted for after the first factor with each subsequent factor accounting for a very

small proportion of additional variance. This pattern suggests that a single underlying factor accounts

for a large proportion of the variance in item responses and that items are likely to load strongly on

that factor with minimal loading on other secondary factors (unidimensional).

Figure 49.Example Scree plot from an exploratory factor analysis of PATH personality scale

The variance accounted for by the extracted factor ranged from 40.45% to 66.01% with a median of

50.00% (Table 15).This is in line with what might be considered appropriate by Lee and Ashton

(2007) although no cut-off is specified by the authors. The item factor loadings ranged from 0.11 to

0.86. The vast majority of scales had factor loadings which were all above the generally accepted

minimum cut-off of 0.3. Four scales (Analytical, Amiable, Data Driven, & Self Aware) had items which

loaded weakly on their extracted factors suggesting that these items might only be weakly related to

the other items in the scale and may be contaminating the factor scores with error. This will be

investigated during the reliability analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.


Table 15

Summarised Results from Exploratory Factor Analyses of PATH Personality Scales

Scale Items KMO Median

Communality

Factors VAC Item Factor Loadings

Min Median Max

Accepting 6 0.82 0.33 1 43.60% 0.36 0.58 0.71

Adaptable 6 0.86 0.44 1 52.65% 0.47 0.66 0.81

Analytical 6 0.77 0.33 1 41.61% 0.11 0.58 0.79

Amiable 6 0.80 0.36 1 41.24% 0.18 0.60 0.69

Collaborative 6 0.80 0.38 1 42.07% 0.36 0.53 0.78

Competitive 6 0.91 0.61 1 66.01% 0.69 0.80 0.82

Compliant 6 0.82 0.39 1 46.33% 0.34 0.62 0.75

Composed 6 0.88 0.48 1 57.72% 0.58 0.69 0.85

Data Driven 5 0.75 0.38 1 47.11% 0.28 0.62 0.78

Decisive 5 0.81 0.44 1 53.65% 0.56 0.66 0.72

Directing 6 0.85 0.48 1 52.98% 0.45 0.69 0.73

Driven 5 0.78 0.35 1 47.28% 0.36 0.60 0.72

Empathy 6 0.86 0.48 1 52.14% 0.30 0.69 0.83

Energetic 5 0.83 0.47 1 58.25% 0.55 0.69 0.86

Influential 5 0.75 0.37 1 45.46% 0.41 0.61 0.70

Innovative 5 0.80 0.39 1 55.85% 0.41 0.62 0.85

Intuitive 5 0.67 0.33 1 40.45% 0.37 0.58 0.63

Learning Focused 5 0.81 0.41 1 51.83% 0.50 0.64 0.76

Meticulous 6 0.83 0.37 1 45.34% 0.43 0.61 0.78

Motivating 5 0.81 0.44 1 50.77% 0.45 0.67 0.67

Optimistic 6 0.81 0.42 1 50.79% 0.49 0.65 0.80

Receptive 5 0.77 0.39 1 45.13% 0.36 0.62 0.66

Reliable 5 0.81 0.42 1 54.18% 0.39 0.65 0.82

Risk Tolerant 5 0.82 0.46 1 54.56% 0.55 0.67 0.75

Self Aware 5 0.76 0.41 1 49.22% 0.26 0.64 0.83

Self Confident 5 0.73 0.31 1 45.05% 0.49 0.55 0.61

Sociable 5 0.81 0.44 1 51.86% 0.44 0.58 0.78

Socially Aware 6 0.85 0.55 1 51.78% 0.14 0.74 0.83


Strategic 5 0.84 0.52 1 58.12% 0.47 0.72 0.80

Theoretical 6 0.80 0.28 1 45.42% 0.45 0.53 0.81

Trusting 6 0.81 0.31 1 42.87% 0.32 0.56 0.73

Work Focus 5 0.73 0.37 1 48.78% 0.42 0.61 0.80

Mean 5.47 0.80 0.41 1 49.69% 0.40 0.63 0.76

Median 5 0.81 0.4 1 50.00% 0.42 0.62 0.78

Min 5 0.67 0.28 1 40.45% 0.11 0.53 0.61

Max 6 0.91 0.61 1 66.01% 0.69 0.80 0.86

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the factor structure of the PATH personality scales

using a large sample of job applicants who are likely to be representative of the population of interest

for the PATH personality questionnaire. The scales were independently analysed through

exploratory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimator with an oblique rotation. The

results suggested that each scale was unidimensional and that a single underlying factor explained an

appropriately large proportion of the variance in item responses. The vast majority of scales showed

strong factor loadings across all items suggesting that all items meaningfully contributed to the

underlying factors. A small number of scales showed lower than optimal factor loadings and these

scales will be given closer scrutiny during the subsequent studies.

10.4 Reliability

Reliability reflects the consistency or repeatability of test results. A test or questionnaire is reliable if

it is consistent and precise in its measurements of the underlying factor of interest and reflects the

respondent’s true score. In order for an assessment to be valid, it needs to be reliable, and generally

speaking the reliability of a scale sets the upper bound of its validity. The reliability of personality

questionnaires can be assessed in multiple ways. The most commonly reported measure is the

internal consistency, which measures the degree to which the items that make up a personality scale

measure a single underlying construct and are free from random error. Ideally the reliability of

personality scales should be greater than 0.7 demonstrating that the scale is relatively free of

measurement error and less than 0.90 suggesting that the scale is measuring an adequately broad

factor of interest.

Conceptually a scale score’s variance can be partitioned into two separate portions, the variance

contributed by the true score variance and the error variance. This can be expressed mathematically

in Equation 4 with scale score variance , true score variance

, and error variance . Generally

speaking, an individual’s score on a personality measure is the results of the individual’s true level of

the underlying factor and a degree of random error and those two factors only.

Equation 4


The reliability of a scale is the proportion of the scale score variance which can be contributed to the

true score variance. Or inversely, the degree that the scale score is free of random error. The

equation for calculating the scale reliability can be expressed mathematically in Equation 5 with the

reliability coefficient , scale score variance , true score variance

.

Equation 5

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) describes the degree of accuracy that can be expected

for a given scale with smaller SEM being more precise. Using the SEM we can place confidence

intervals around the scale score which describe the probability that a candidate will score in the

defined range if the test is retaken. For example, with 95% certainty, if a candidate retook the test

they would score within ±1.96 x SEM of the initial scale score. The equation for calculating the SEM

for a personality scale is shown in Equation 6 with reliability coefficient , and scale score variance

.

Equation 6

10.5 Reliability Study

In this study, we build on the findings from the exploratory factor analysis study where we

demonstrated that all scales were unidimensional with one single factor explaining the item

responses. In study 4, we investigate the reliability of the PATH personality scales using a large

independent sample (n =1,252) of job applicants representative of the population of interest for the

PATH personality questionnaire. The reliability of the PATH personality scales provides an estimate

of the proportion of the scale score which is attributable to the underlying factor of interest and the

proportion which is due to random error. Ideally scales should be relatively free of error (high

reliability) providing an accurate estimate of a respondent’s score on the factor of interest.

SUBJECTS

Twelve hundred and fiftytwo applicants (1,252) for graduate roles (638 men, 614 women) aged

between 20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 21 and 25 years old) from Australasia

completed the full PATH questionnaire as part of the recruitment process for employment. The





METHOD

Reliability analysis was performed on each scale individually with the scale items being entered into

the analysis of their own scales only. The general statistics package SPSS 20 was utilised for


performing the reliability analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha as the reliability statistic of choice. The scale

mean and standard deviations were taken from the SPSS output from the reliability statistic. The

standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated using Equation 6 using the scale variance and

reliability coefficient.

RESULTS

The results of the reliability analyses are shown in Table 16. The vast majority of scales have

reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) of between 0.70 and 0.90 with the median reliability of

0.78. Two scales fell outside this range; Intuitive had a slightly lower reliability coefficient of 0.65 and

Competitive which had a slightly higher reliability coefficient of 0.91. The slightly lower than ideal

reliability of the Intuitive scale is somewhat concerning, however the results from the EFA suggest

strong structural validity with acceptable factor loadings across all items. The structural validity of the

Intuitive scale is something to investigate further during the confirmatory factor analysis. The slightly

higher reliability coefficient of the Competitive scale may suggest that items have overlapping content

which is inflating the reliability of the scale. This will be assessed further during the confirmatory

factor analysis.

Table 16

Psychometric Properties of the PATH Personality Scales Including the Number of Items, Mean, Standard

Deviation, Standard Error, and Cronbach's Alpha.

Scale Items M SD α SEM

Accepting 6 31.15 3.56 0.74 1.82

Adaptable 6 31.08 3.31 0.83 1.36

Amiable 6 31.48 2.77 0.71 1.49

Analytical 6 28.86 3.22 0.72 1.70

Collaborative 6 31.81 2.80 0.73 1.45

Competitive 6 27.44 5.16 0.91 1.55

Compliant 6 27.16 3.51 0.75 1.76

Composed 6 29.55 3.99 0.87 1.44

Data Driven 5 21.62 3.42 0.71 1.84

Decisive 5 23.47 3.18 0.78 1.49

Directing 6 30.40 3.50 0.85 1.36

Driven 5 26.07 2.76 0.74 1.41

Energetic 5 25.15 3.31 0.81 1.44

Empathic 6 29.42 3.83 0.83 1.58

Influential 5 22.42 3.19 0.82 1.35

Intuitive 5 19.16 3.21 0.65 1.90

Innovative 5 23.89 3.20 0.82 1.36


Learning Focused 5 27.19 2.44 0.78 1.14

Meticulous 6 29.99 3.21 0.75 1.61

Motivating 5 26.51 2.66 0.79 1.22

Optimistic 6 31.99 3.20 0.83 1.32

Receptive 5 27.03 2.30 0.72 1.22

Reliable 5 24.03 3.60 0.78 1.69

Risk Tolerant 5 23.70 3.37 0.80 1.51

Self Aware 5 21.94 3.59 0.70 1.97

Self Confident 5 24.69 2.93 0.72 1.55

Sociable 5 25.41 3.41 0.80 1.52

Socially Aware 6 29.44 3.71 0.79 1.70

Strategic 5 25.83 2.86 0.84 1.14

Theoretical 6 30.72 3.12 0.76 1.53

Trusting 6 23.99 4.06 0.75 2.03

Work Focused 5 24.00 3.12 0.73 1.62

Mean 5.47 26.77 3.30 0.78 1.53

Median 5 26.77 3.215 0.78 1.52

Min 5 19.16 2.3 0.65 1.14

Max 6 31.99 5.16 0.91 2.03

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of the PATH personality scales using a

large sample of job applicants who are representative of the population of interest for the PATH

personality questionnaire. The vast majority of the PATH personality scales demonstrated

appropriate reliability with the exception of Intuitive which fell slightly below 0.70. The results from

the EFA for this scale suggested a strong factor structure but further analysis was suggested to

identify the potential cause of this lower reliability estimate. These results build on the evidence from

the exploratory factor analysis and in combination suggest that the PATH personality scales are

unidimensional, measuring a single underlying factor, and that the scores are relatively free from

error. The four scales identified as potentially problematic during the exploratory factor analysis

(Analytical, Amiable, Data Driven, & Self Aware) all showed acceptable levels of reliability. This

suggests that the low factor loadings seen with these scales are not affecting their reliability and may

not be of psychometric concern. However, the structural validity of these scales will be analysed

further through confirmatory factor analysis which is considered the strictest analysis of structural

validity.


10.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis is the statistical process of explicitly testing the degree of fit between a

sample of data and a structural model supplied a priori from exploratory factor analysis or

substantive theory. Please see Hoyle (2009), Lee and Ashton (2009) and Byrne (2012) for more

information about confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Generally, a structural model

is generated through exploratory factor analysis with one sample of data and then that model is

explicitly tested through confirmatory factor analysis with an independent sample of data (Hurley et

al, 1997). In confirmatory factor analysis the number of factors and which factor items load on to is

explicitly stated a priori and tested. Confirmatory factor analysis is generally considered a stricter

assessment of the structural validity of a personality scale than exploratory factor analysis (Hurley et

al, 1997). The exploratory factor analyses phase suggested that all of the scales could be well

explained by single factor models (unidimensional). The ideal structure of a personality scale is

unidimensional with conditional independence between items. This is shown graphically in Figure 50

with all items (item1 to itemn) loading on one factor F1 with no covariance between item residuals (r1

- rn).

Figure 50.Graphical representation of a unidimensional factor model without covariance terms between item

residuals

A less ideal but somewhat acceptable factor structure is shown in Figure 51. This structure shows

the situation where the scale is unidimensional but not completely conditionally independent. Not

the covariance term between the residuals of items 2 and 4 (dependency). This suggests that even if

the factor is taken into account there is still systematic variance which should be taken into account

in the residual of these two items. This suggests that the content of these two items has significant

overlap and showing a degree of redundancy. In confirmatory factor analysis this dependency is often

resolved by removing one of the items or parcelling items together. See Little, Cunningham, Shahar &

Widaman (2002) for a full explanation of item parcelling.


Figure 51. Graphical representation of a unidimensional factor model with covariance terms between item

residuals

10.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study

In this study, we build on the results of the exploratory factor analysis and reliability studies which

demonstrated that the scale scores were unidimensional and relatively free from error. In this study,

we confirm the unidimensional factor structures suggested by the exploratory factor analysis by

explicitly testing the degree of fit between this model supplied a priori and a large independent

sample of job applicants (n=1,262). Confirmatory factor analysis also allows the investigation of

sources of misfit with the ideal unidimensional model which will help identify why some scales might

be showing lower factor loadings during the EFA stage or lower reliability. Confirmatory factor

analysis also allows researchers to test the conditional independence of scales by identifying

significant covariance between item residuals.

SUBJECTS

Twelve hundred and sixty two applicants (1,262) for graduate roles (714 men, 548 women) aged

from 20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 21 and 25 years old) from Australasia






METHOD

The structural equation modelling program M-Plus version 6.12 (Muthen & Muthen, 2001) with the

Maximum Likelihood estimator was used to perform all confirmatory factor analyses with items

modelled as continuous indicator variables. The analysis was broken into two distinct phases. The


first phase of the analysis was a strictly confirmatory phase where the structural model generated by

the exploratory factor analysis of the personality constructs was tested using an independent sample

of data. During this phase all items were specified to load onto a single latent factor with no

covariance terms between the residuals of items as described by Figure 50 (see Appendex B for

example input syntax).

The criteria for interpreting the fit of the model are taken from Hu and Bentler (1999) and presented

in Table 17. TheΧ2 and p-value are presented for convention but are rarely interpreted due to the

tendency of the Χ2statistic to be overly sensitive to misfit when sample sizes are large, as is the case

the current study. Generally, the combination of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TFI) are interpreted to establish the

fit of the specified model to the sample data. A model was said to show tenable fit if the combination

of RSMEA, CFI and TFI suggest at least a moderate fit between the specified model and the data.

Table 17

Fit Statistics Commonly Employed to Assess Model Fit During Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Generally

Accepted Criteria for Good, Moderate, and Poorly Fitting Models.

Fit Statistic Good Fit Moderate Fit Poor Fit Notes

Χ2 /df 0.00 - 3.00 3.00 - 5.00 > 5.00 Lower is better

p –value > 0.05 Higher is better

RMSEA 0.00 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.10 > 0.10 Lower is better

CFI 1.00 - 0.95 0.94 - 0.90 0.89 - 0.80 Higher is better

TFI 1.00 – 0.95 0.94 – 0.90 0.89 – 0.80 Higher is better

In the second phase, scales which were showing untenable fit between the a priori model and the

data were systematically re-specified using the modification indices to find a model which provided

adequate fit while not violating any assumptions. Modification indices are provided by analysis

programs (M-Plus) to help identify sources of misfit between the specified model and the sample

data. The fit of a model can be improved by re-specifying the model utilising the modification indices,

this re-specification process is acceptable, however must be undertaken with caution as some

modifications may be unacceptable from a psychometric position. In general, adding covariance terms

between items which load onto the same factor is acceptable but adding cross loadings between

items is unacceptable. This model specification is shown graphically in Figure 51. During the re-

specification phase, the model was modified term by term using the modification indices until at least

a moderate level of fit was achieved.

RESULTS

Strictly Confirmatory Phase

During the strictly confirmatory phase the degree of fit between a single factor model with no

covariance terms between item residuals was explicitly tested. The fit statistics which describe the

degree of fit between a single factor model and the sample data for each scale individually are

summarised in Table 18. Based on the fit statistics and the thresholds provided by Hu and Bentler

(1999) an overall fit interpretation was performed which summarises the RMSEA, CFI and TFI

statistics. Based on the thresholds suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) the majority of scales showed


a good or moderate fit (tenable) with a single dimensional factor model with no covariance terms

between item residuals.

Table 18

Summarised Results From the Strictly Confirmatory Phase of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Each Scale

Scale Χ2 df Χ2/df P-Value RMSEA CFI TFI Interpreted

Overall Fit

Accepting 34.49 9 3.83 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good

Adaptable 20.37 9 2.26 0.02 0.03 0.99 0.99 Good

Analytical 35.93 9 3.99 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good

Amiable 38.81 9 4.31 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.96 Good

Collaborative 34.00 9 3.78 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good

Competitive 33.80 9 3.76 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.99 Good

Compliant 41.12 9 4.57 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good

Composed 40.15 9 4.46 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.98 Good

Data Driven 72.92 5 14.58 0.00 0.11 0.94 0.89 Poor

Decisive 51.66 5 10.33 0.00 0.09 0.97 0.94 Moderate

Directing 65.67 9 7.30 0.00 0.07 0.98 0.97 Moderate

Driven 22.89 5 4.58 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.96 Good

Energetic 4.160 5 0.83 0.53 0.00 1.00 1.00 Good

Empathy 45.13 9 5.01 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.97 Good

Influential 26.21 5 5.24 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.96 Good

Innovative 39.43 5 7.89 0.00 0.08 0.98 0.97 Moderate

Intuitive 120.34 5 24.07 0.00 0.14 0.86 0.72 Poor

Learning Focused 40.56 5 8.11 0.00 0.08 0.97 0.96 Moderate

Meticulous 48.69 9 5.41 0.00 0.06 0.97 0.96 Good

Motivating 29.76 5 5.95 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.96 Good

Optimistic 220.12 9 24.46 0.00 0.14 0.91 0.85 Poor

Receptive 19.62 5 3.92 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.97 Good

Reliable 40.89 5 8.18 0.00 0.08 0.98 0.96 Moderate

Risk Tolerant 61.49 5 12.30 0.00 0.10 0.96 0.93 Moderate

Self Aware 34.96 5 6.99 0.00 0.07 0.98 0.95 Moderate

Self Confident 65.75 5 13.15 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.88 Moderate

Sociable 20.16 5 4.03 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.98 Good


Socially Aware 43.396 9 4.82 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.97 Good

Strategic 30.46 5 6.09 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.98 Good

Theoretical 108.32 9 12.04 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.90 Moderate

Trusting 19.08 9 2.12 0.02 0.03 0.99 0.99 Good

Work Focus 208.04 5 41.61 0.00 0.18 0.87 0.73 Poor

Re-specification Phase

A small number of scales (Data Driven, Intuitive, Optimistic, and Work Focus) showed an untenable

fit with a single factor model with no covariance terms between item residuals. During the re-

specification phase the structural model for these four scales were systematically modified with

terms added as suggested by the modification indices. The number of modifications required to

reach a tenable fit and the resulting fit statistics are presented in Table 19.

The Data Driven, Intuitive, and Work Focus scales required the addition of a single covariance term

between the residuals of two items to reach a tenable level of model fit. The Optimistic scale

required two covariance terms to be added between two separate sets of items to reach an

acceptable level of item fit. When there is strong support for the addition of covariance terms

between the residuals of items it suggests that the item content of these items may be closely related

and this is causing a degree of dependence even when the factor of interest is accounted for. Four of

the scales required one or more covariance terms between item residuals suggesting that these items

may not show conditional independence and may require items to be removed or parcelled to

account for the dependency.


Table 19

Summarised results from the re-specification phase of the confirmatory factor analysis for the scales which

had untenable fit during the strictly confirmatory phase

Scale Χ2 df Χ2/df P-

Value

RMSEA CFI TFI Interpreted

Overall Fit

Modifications

Required

Data Driven 39.86 4 9.97 0.00 0.09 0.97 0.92 Moderate Covariance

between 2nd

and 4th Item

Residuals

Intuitive 12.07 4 3.02 0.02 0.04 0.99 0.98 Good Covariance

between 2nd

and 4th Item

Residuals

Optimistic 64.70 7 9.24 0.00 0.08 0.98 0.95 Moderate Covariance

between 4th

and 6th Item

Residuals,

Covariance

between 1st

and 2nd Item

Residuals,

Work Focus 1.80 4 0.45 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 Good Covariance

between 2nd

and 4th Item

Residuals

DISCUSSION

As the strictest assessment of the structural validity of a personality scale, confirmatory factor

analysis provides a statistical process for explicitly testing the degree of fit between an a priori model

and a data sample. If the confirmatory factor analysis shows an acceptable level of fit between the

specified model and the sample of data then there is strong evidence for the structural validity of the

personality scale. The vast majority of scales in the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire showed

acceptable fit with the model generated during the exploratory factor analysis phase. This

demonstrates that the PATH personality scales are unidimensional and show conditional

independence as required by classical test theory.

Four of the scales required one or more covariance terms between item residuals suggesting that

these items may show a degree of conditional dependence. This conditional dependence is often the

result of items which have similar content creating a sub-factor which is not accounted for by the

factor of interest. Although this conditional dependence is a violation of classical test theory it can be

accommodated by removing items or parcelling the items together to account for the

dependency(See Little, Cunningham, Shahar & Widaman (2002) for a full explanation of item

parcelling).Further analysis is required to confirm the conditional dependence between these items

before removing items or modifying the scales.

Overall the results from the confirmatory factor analyses provide strong support for the structural

validity of the PATH personality scales. The findings from the confirmatory factor analysis study build


on the results from the exploratory factor analysis and reliability study and in combination suggest

that the PATH personality scales demonstrate structural validity.

10.8 Structural Validity Summary

The objective of the structural validity phase is to demonstrate that the structural relations between

scale items match the theoretical relations (Simms & Watson, 2009). For personality scales this

generally requires demonstrating that the scale measures a single underlying factor while being

relatively free of error (reliable) and conditionally independent. The results of these three

independent studies show that the PATH personality scales are unidimensional, measuring one and

only one underlying factor each, are relatively free from error (adequately reliable), and are generally

conditionally independent. With the structural validity of the PATH personality scales established we

will now move onto the third phase of Simms and Watson (2009) framework where we investigate

the external validity of the PATH personality scales.

11 External Validity

Having demonstrated the substantive, and structural validity of the PATH

personality scales, the final element of the construct validation framework is

external validity. External validity is concerned with establishing the

relationships between the PATH personality questionnaire scales and other

constructs of interest.


11.1 External Validity

Having demonstrated the substantive, and structural validity of the PATH personality scales, the final

element of the construct validation framework suggested by Simms and Watson (2009) is the

external validity. External validity is concerned with establishing the relationships between the PATH

personality questionnaire scales and other constructs of interest.

11.2 Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion related validity refers to the degree that scores on a measure relate to or predict non-test

criteria deemed relevant by theory (Simms and Watson, 2009). For example, theory suggests that the

scores for a measure of the personality construct Sociability should predict how outgoing and

gregarious an individual is. For personality questionnaires used for the purpose of recruitment to

have criterion-related validity, scores on the questionnaire should relate to or predict relevant work

performance or other work outcomes. Most researchers distinguish between predictive and

concurrent criterion related validity based on the delay between the individual completing the

assessment and their work performance being measured. A predictive criterion related validity study

measures the individual’s personality, separated by a meaningful period of time, and then measures

their work performance. A concurrent criterion related validity study measures the individual’s

personality and work performance at approximately the same point in time.

11.3 Predictive Criterion Validity Study

INTRODUCTION

In this study, the criterion related validity of the PATH personality questionnaire was investigated

through a predictive validity study. Fifty eight (N=58) applicants for professional and leadership roles

completed the PATH personality questionnaire and, following three months of working for the

partner organisation, their managers rated their comprehensive work performance across twenty

nine areas. The correlation between the PATH scale score and relevant area of work performance

was analysed to investigate the predictive criterion related validity of individual PATH scales and the

PATH questionnaire as a whole. The results from this study build on the findings from the studies

conducted during the substantive and structural validity phases.

SUBJECTS

Fifty eight (N=58) applicants for technical professional and leadership roles were assessed during the

recruitment process with their managers providing ratings of their subsequent work performance

following three months of working for the client organisation. The subjects were comprised of 32

men and 26 women aged from 20 or younger to 61 years or older (Median = between 31 and 35

years old). The majority of the subjects stated that New Zealand was their country of origin (62%)

with the remaining subjects stating that they came from South Africa (6%), The United Kingdom


(6%), a combination of other countries (21%), or did not state a country of origin (5%). The vast

majority of the subjects spoke English as their primary language (82%), with the remaining, either not

providing a primary language (5%) or identified another language as their primary language (13%).

MEASURES

Personality

The applicant’s personality was measured by the PATH personality questionnaire which is a work

styles personality questionnaire designed to measure work relevant personality constructs. The

version of the questionnaire utilised in this study contained 29 scales measuring work relevant

personality at a facet level (the most recent version contains 32). Applicants are presented with

individual statements about themselves in a work context and required to indicate their level of

agreement/disagreement with that statement on a six point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree – Strongly

Agree). The items are scored and aggregated to create the individual’s score on each scale. The

structural validity evidence of the PATH personality questionnaire is presented in Studies 1 through

3. In general the PATH scales are appropriately reliable and structurally sound to act as the predictor

in the current study.

Criterion

The non-test criterion of interest in the current study was the applicant’s work performance as rated

by their manager. Manager ratings of performance are commonly used as the criterion of interest

during validation studies. The applicant’s manager rated the performance of the applicant using a

structured performance rating questionnaire. The performance rating questionnaire consists of 100

items which ask the manager to rate their employee’s ability in a specific work performance area.

The performance rating questionnaire covers 29 personality areas and 3 cognitive ability areas. Each

performance area is measured by a number of items which are aggregated (unit weighting) into an

overall criterion score. Example criterion scales are presented in Table 20. Each item was preceded

by the stem “Compared to the role requirements, how would you rate this employee's ability to”.

Managers were asked to rate their employee’s performance on a six point scale ranging from “Much

Worse than Required” to “Much Better than Required”. The psychometric properties for the 29

performance scales used in the current study are presented in Table 20.

Table 20

Criterion Criterion

Items

Criterion

Mean

Criterion

SD

Criterion

Reliability

Criterion

SEM

Embracing Diversity 3 14.13 2.00 0.93 0.53

Variety Seeking 3 14.29 2.59 0.96 0.52

Evaluating Information 3 13.38 2.41 0.89 0.80

Helping Others 3 14.25 2.12 0.93 0.56

Surpassing Others 3 12.27 2.42 0.96 0.48

Following Rules 3 13.76 2.82 0.94 0.69

Stress Tolerance 3 13.34 3.45 0.98 0.49

Empirically Minded 3 13.27 2.81 0.91 0.84

Confident with Decisions 3 12.64 2.64 0.95 0.59


Taking Control 3 12.78 3.02 0.94 0.74

Achievement Striving 3 12.96 2.40 0.94 0.59

Enthusiasm 3 14.05 2.61 0.90 0.83

Getting Buy-in 3 12.65 2.42 0.94 0.59

Creative Thinking 3 12.96 2.94 0.96 0.59

Enjoys Learning 3 14.47 3.00 0.94 0.73

Attention to Detail 3 14.09 2.72 0.89 0.90

Transformational Leader 3 12.05 2.18 0.94 0.53

Positive Attitude 3 13.67 2.74 0.96 0.55

Handles Feedback 3 13.04 2.78 0.95 0.62

Dependability 3 14.42 2.67 0.91 0.80

Seizes Opportunity 3 12.51 2.36 0.92 0.67

Development Oriented 3 12.70 2.53 0.88 0.88

Assured 3 13.95 2.39 0.90 0.76

Socially Confident 3 13.49 2.67 0.93 0.71

Emotionally Intelligent 3 12.95 2.62 0.95 0.59

Future Focused 3 12.45 2.62 0.94 0.64

Conceptual 3 13.31 2.71 0.91 0.81

Believes in others 3 13.38 2.39 0.97 0.41

Task Orientated 3 13.53 2.80 0.92 0.79

Mean 3 13.34 2.61 0.93 0.66

Median 3 13.34 2.62 0.94 0.64

Min 3 12.05 2.00 0.88 0.41

Max 3 14.47 3.45 0.98 0.90


Example Performance Criterion Scales With Items

Criterion Ability Rating Item

Empirically Minded Make decisions based on the facts and figures

rather than feelings.

Ignore emotional reactions to situations and

make decisions based on data.

Make decisions objectively based on evidence.

Confident with Decisions Make decisions without hesitation.

Be confident in their decisions.

Take responsibility for making tough decisions.

METHOD

All analyses for the study were conducted with the general statistical analysis package SPSS 20 by

IBM. To assess the psychometric properties of the criterion the reliability of the performance

criterion scales was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha. Following this, an aggregate performance

criterion score was constructed by summing the raw ratings from the three items which comprised

each scale. The mean, and standard deviation of the performance criterion scores was produced

through the “Explore Variable” function of SPSS. To investigate the relationship between the PATH

personality scale and the corresponding performance criterion of interest, Pearson’s correlations

were performed between the PATH personality scale score and the performance criterion scale

score and the single tailed significance tested. A singled tailed test for significance was performed as

we had a strong theoretical bases to assume that the relationships between the PATH performance

scales and the corresponding performance criterion scale is likely to be positive if it exists.

RESULTS

The psychometric properties of the performance criterion scales are presented in Table 21. The

performance criterion scales showed strong reliability with reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha)

ranging from 0.88 to 0.98 with a median reliability coefficient of 0.94. This high reliability suggested

that the criterion scales were highly homogenous and may show degree of redundancy in the scale

items. The performance criterion scores showed appropriate levels of variance with standard

deviations ranging from 2.00 to 3.45 with a median standard deviation of 2.62. This suggested that

the performance criterion scales are showing an adequate amount of variance to be predicted by the

personality scores.

Table 21

Psychometric Properties of the Performance Rating Criterion Scales Used In the Validation

Criterion Criterion

Items

Criterion

Mean

Criterion

SD

Criterion

Reliability

Criterion

SEM

Embracing Diversity 3 14.13 2.00 0.93 0.53

Variety Seeking 3 14.29 2.59 0.96 0.52


Evaluating Information 3 13.38 2.41 0.89 0.80

Helping Others 3 14.25 2.12 0.93 0.56

Surpassing Others 3 12.27 2.42 0.96 0.48

Following Rules 3 13.76 2.82 0.94 0.69

Stress Tolerance 3 13.34 3.45 0.98 0.49

Empirically Minded 3 13.27 2.81 0.91 0.84

Confident with Decisions 3 12.64 2.64 0.95 0.59

Taking Control 3 12.78 3.02 0.94 0.74

Achievement Striving 3 12.96 2.40 0.94 0.59

Enthusiasm 3 14.05 2.61 0.90 0.83

Getting Buy-in 3 12.65 2.42 0.94 0.59

Creative Thinking 3 12.96 2.94 0.96 0.59

Enjoys Learning 3 14.47 3.00 0.94 0.73

Attention to Detail 3 14.09 2.72 0.89 0.90

Transformational Leader 3 12.05 2.18 0.94 0.53

Positive Attitude 3 13.67 2.74 0.96 0.55

Handles Feedback 3 13.04 2.78 0.95 0.62

Dependability 3 14.42 2.67 0.91 0.80

Seizes Opportunity 3 12.51 2.36 0.92 0.67

Development Oriented 3 12.70 2.53 0.88 0.88

Assured 3 13.95 2.39 0.90 0.76

Socially Confident 3 13.49 2.67 0.93 0.71

Emotionally Intelligent 3 12.95 2.62 0.95 0.59

Future Focused 3 12.45 2.62 0.94 0.64

Conceptual 3 13.31 2.71 0.91 0.81

Believes in others 3 13.38 2.39 0.97 0.41

Task Orientated 3 13.53 2.80 0.92 0.79

Mean 3 13.34 2.61 0.93 0.66

Median 3 13.34 2.62 0.94 0.64

Min 3 12.05 2.00 0.88 0.41

Max 3 14.47 3.45 0.98 0.90


The result of the analysis for each scale is shown in Table 22 with summary statistics of the average,

min, and max validity coefficients. Overall, the PATH personality questionnaire demonstrated strong

predictive validity with a median uncorrected correlation of 0.27 between personality scores and

relevant workplace performance. The majority of scales (62%) showed significant positive

relationships between the PATH personality scale and the performance criterion of interests at the

0.05 level of significance. This suggested that these scales successfully measure the personality area

that they were designed to measure. Furthermore, these significant positive relationships suggested

that the PATH personality scales can be used in recruitment settings to predict an applicant’s future

performance on the job. A further 10% of scales showed a positive relationship between the PATH

personality scales and the performance criteria of interest at the 0.10 level of significance. This

suggested that these scales are likely to measure the personality constructs of interest and should be

able to be used during recruitment to predict future work performance but further research was

required to provide stronger evidence. The remaining 28% of scales did not show significant positive

relationships between the PATH scales and the performance criterion of interests. This suggested

that for these roles there was unlikely to be a meaningful relationship between the PATH personality

scales and work performance.

Table 22

Validity statistics for the PATH personality scales. Note. rc is the validity coefficient corrected for attenuation

due to measurement error in the criterion only.

PATH

Personality Scale

(Predictor)

Relevant Criterion of Interest Uncorrected

Validity

Coefficient

(r)

P Value of

Uncorrected

Validity

Coefficient

Validity

Coefficient

Corrected for

Criterion

Unreliability

(rc)

Accepting Embracing Diversity -0.03 0.43 -0.03

Adaptable Variety Seeking 0.08 0.28 0.08

Analytical Evaluating Information 0.27 0.02 0.29

Collaborative Helping Others 0.20 0.08 0.21

Competitive Surpassing Others 0.23 0.05 0.24

Compliant Following Rules 0.49 0.00 0.51

Composed Stress Tolerance 0.39 0.02 0.40

Data Driven Empirically Minded 0.28 0.02 0.29

Decisive Confident with Decisions 0.06 0.32 0.06

Directing Taking Control 0.41 0.00 0.42

Driven Achievement Striving 0.35 0.01 0.33

Energetic Enthusiasm 0.04 0.38 0.04

Influential Getting Buy-in 0.22 0.05 0.23


Innovative Creative Thinking 0.35 0.01 0.36

Learning Focused Enjoys Learning 0.00 0.49 0.00

Meticulous Attention to Detail 0.14 0.16 0.15

Motivating Transformational Leader 0.20 0.07 0.22

Optimistic Positive Attitude 0.27 0.03 0.28

Receptive Handles Feedback 0.32 0.01 0.33

Reliable Dependability 0.25 0.04 0.27

Risk Tolerant Seizes Opportunity 0.13 0.17 0.14

Self Aware Development Oriented 0.33 0.01 0.41

Self Confident Assured 0.38 0.00 0.42

Sociable Socially Confident 0.28 0.02 0.31

Socially Aware Emotionally Intelligent -0.05 0.38 -0.05

Strategic Future Focused 0.36 0.01 0.37

Theoretical Conceptual 0.27 0.03 0.28

Trusting Believes in others 0.49 0.00 0.50

Work Focused Task Orientated 0.18 0.09 0.19

Mean 0.24 0.11 0.25

Median 0.27 0.03 0.28

Min -0.03 0.00 -0.05

Max 0.49 0.49 0.51

DISCUSSION

The criterion related validity of the PATH personality scales was investigated through a predictive

study. Fifty eight (N=58) applicants completing the PATH personality assessment during the

recruitment process and their performance rated by their managers following 3 months of working

in professional and leadership roles. The relationship between the PATH personality scale and the

relevant work performance area was analysed with a Pearson’s correlation with a single tailed test

for significance. Overall the PATH personality assessment demonstrated appropriate levels of

criterion related validity with a median correlation of 0.27. The majority of scales (72%) showed

significant positive correlations with their relevant area of work performance at either the 0.05 or

the 0.10 level of significance. The remaining 28% of scales did not show significant relationships with

their corresponding areas of work performance.

There are a number of reasons that the study failed to find significant relationships between the

PATH personality scales and the relevant area of work performance. Firstly, the PATH personality

scale may not be measuring the personality construct of interest. Secondly, the performance rating

questionnaire may not be capturing the performance criterion of interest. Thirdly, the performance

criterion of interest may not be readily observable by managers with the study population


(professionals and managers). Lastly, the small sample size of the current study may be limiting the

power of the analysis to detect a relationship when one does exist. Further research with a larger

sample is required to further investigate the criterion related validity of these scales.

These results build on the findings from the previous studies conducted to demonstrate the

substantive and structural validity of the PATH personality scales. Together, they suggest that the

PATH personality scales are measuring the personality construct they were designed to measure and

are appropriately accurate and precise in doing so. This supports the use of the PATH personality

questionnaire for recruitment.

12 Adverse Impact

Of primary importance when utilising an assessment method for recruitment

or development is that the method doesn’t disadvantage protected

demographics and the assessment is performing equally across the different

demographic groups of interest.


12.1 Introduction

Of primary importance when utilising an assessment method for recruitment or development is that

the method doesn’t disadvantage protected demographics and the assessment is performing equally

across the different demographic groups of interest (Civil Rights Act, 1964;Equality Act, 2010;

Human Rights Act, 1993; Racial Discrimination Act, 1975; Sex Discrimination Act, 1984; Age

Discrimination Act, 2004; Australian Human Rights Commission Act, 1986). For example, the

assessment scores should not be affected by the gender, ethnicity, primary language, or country of

origin of a respondent and no group should be systematically advantaged or disadvantaged. If male

respondents score considerably higher in a measure of sociable then males may be more likely to

endorse items related to the measure of sociable than females regardless of their actual level of the

personality construct. This tendency to endorse items regardless of the true level of an underlying

construct it termed construct irrelevant variance and the higher the degree of construct irrelevant

variance the higher the degree of bias included in the measure. There are a number of methods for

assessing the degree of adverse impact of a selection method ranging in rigour and statistical

complexity.

A simple method is to compare the mean differences in assessment scores across demographic

groups. This will identify if a protected group is scoring considerably lower than the majority group.

Generally, in western cultures, the majority group is considered European, men (Hacker, Helen

Mayer, 1951; Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979),

between the ages of 30 and 40 years old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 1967). If a

protected group is scoring considerably lower than the majority group it may be evidence to suggest

that the protected group could be adversely impacted by the use of the selection or development

method. For example, if women are scoring considerably lower than men on a measure of sociability

then this may be adversely impacting their selection for roles where being outgoing and sociable are

important. Therefore, both the degree of difference between the majority group and the protected

group and the direction of the difference is important when investigating whether the use of the

assessment method could be adversely impacting a protected group.

12.2 Mean Differences between Demographics

INTRODUCTION

The degree of difference between two groups is often measured by Cohen’s d which is the absolute

differences between the means of both groups expressed in terms of the pooled standard deviations

of the two groups. Cohen’s d is expressed mathematically in Equation 7 with the mean of sample 1

, the mean of sample 2 , and the pooled standard deviation calculated through Equation 8.

Equation 7


Equation 8

Although Cohen (1988) generally empathised considering the practical implications of effect sizes he

also provided benchmark thresholds to aid in interpreting the difference between two groups (Table

23). To help understand the practical implication of the differences the percentile standing of each

threshold is included in Table 23. The percentiles standing shows where the average person (50th

percentile) from the “advantaged” group would fall on the “disadvantaged” group’s distribution given

an effect size.

Table 23

Benchmark thresholds for interpreting Cohen's d

Cohen’s d Percentile Standing Effect size threshold

0.2 58th Small

0.5 69th Medium

0.8 78th Large

This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might come

from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the construct

of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of the

personality construct.

12.3 Adverse Impact Study

INTRODUCTION

The adverse impact of using the PATH personality scale was investigated by analysing the mean

differences between protected groups and the majority group. Two thousand seven hundred and

thirteen (N=2713) applicants took part in the study. The difference between the majority group and

protected groups was analysed to identify scales which might disadvantage the protected group

during recruitment.

SUBJECTS

Two thousand seven hundred and thirteen (n = 2713) applicants (1725 men, 988 women) aged

between 20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 31 and 35 years old) from Australasia



(19.42%), the United Kingdom (7.89%) or other countries of origin (14.71%). The majority of

participants spoke English as their primary language (94.32%) with a smaller proportion speaking

another language (5.68%) as their primary language.


METHOD

The applicant sample was partitioned by gender, ethnicity and age according to the applicant’s

responses to optional demographic questions asked prior to completing the assessments.

DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPINGS

Gender

The sample was partitioned based on the applicants’ response to their gender with 988 applicants

identifying with the female gender and 1725 applicants identifying with the male gender. During the

adverse impact analysis the male gender was treated as the majority group and the female gender as

the protected group.

Gender Sample Size

Female 988

Male 1725

Ethnicity

The sample was partitioned based on their response to the ethnicity demographic question and

intuitively grouped into larger demographic clusters (African, African American, Asian, Eastern

European, European, Indian, Middle Eastern, Pacific, South American).The ethnicity clusters of Asian,

European, Indian, and Pacific were included in the adverse impact analysis with makeup of the

clusters presented in Table 24 to Table 27. During the adverse impact analysis the ethnicity cluster

European was considered the majority group and was compared to the other protected groups pair

wise.

Asian

Table 24

The demographic breakdown for the Asian ethnicity cluster

Ethnicity Sample Size

Chinese 62

Indonesian 10

Singaporean Chinese 8

Filipino 7

Vietnamese 5

Korean 3

Malaysian Chinese 3

Papua New Guinean 2

Malay 2

Taiwanese 1


Thai 1

Mauritian 1

Total 105

European

Table 25

The demographic breakdown for the European ethnicity cluster


Australian 1522

New Zealand European 446

British 148

New Zealand European/Maori 44

South African European 44

English 39

Irish 20

Dutch 10

Greek 10

German 8

Scottish 6

Polish 3

United States Creole 2

Welsh 2

Eurasian 2

Total 2306

Indian

Table 26

The demographic breakdown of the Indian ethnicity cluster


Indian 60

Indian Tamil 5


Sri Lankan 4

Bangladeshi 2

Pakistani 2

Sri Lankan Tamil 1

Hong Kong Chinese 1

Cambodian Chinese 1

Anglo Indian 1

Total 77

Pacific

Table 27

The demographic breakdown of the Pacific ethnicity cluster


New Zealand Maori 54

Australian Aboriginal 16

Fijian 12

Samoan 8

Fijian Indian 4

Niuean 3

Tongan 1

Torres Strait Islander 1

Cook Island 1

Rarotongan 1

Tuvaluan 1

Cook Islands Maori 1

Total 103

Age

The sample was partitioned based on the applicants’ responses to the age ranger demographic

question. The demographic breakdown of the sample is presented in Table 28. The Age ranges were

intuitively clustered into four bins of roughly 10 years each. During the adverse impact analysis the

age cluster of Between 31 and 40 was treated as the majority group based on the both the mode and

median age falling in this range (Mode = Between 31 and 35, Median = Between 36 and 40) and was

compared to the other protected age clusters pairwise.


Table 28

The demographic breakdown of the sample based on the age range of the respondent

Age Range Age Range Cluster Sample Size

20 or younger 20 or Younger to 30 36

Between 21 and 25 20 or Younger to 30 224

Between 26 and 30 20 or Younger to 30 441

Between 31 and 35 Between 31 and 40 478




Between 51 and 55 Between 51 and 60+ 212

Between 56 and 60 Between 51 and 60+ 98

61 and Over Between 51 and 60+ 40

RESULTS

Gender

The mean for the male and female samples is shown in Table 29 with Cohen’s d expressing the

difference between the male and female means in terms of their pooled standard deviation. Overall,

the PATH personality scales show minimal differences between the mean of males and females with a

median Cohen’s d of 0.16. The majority of scales (62.5%) showed trivial differences between males

and females with Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful

difference between the male and female samples. Of the 12 scales which showed differences between

the means of the male and female samples, 11 had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small

differences (less than one single sten score), only 1 scale had a Cohen’s d of greater than 0.5

suggesting a moderate difference in the means of males and females (between one and two sten

scores).

While some scales show differences between the male and female samples it is also important to

analyse the direction of the difference to understand whether these differences may disadvantage

women during recruitment or development. Of the 12 scales with meaningful difference between

males and females 5 scales may adversely impact females to a small degree during recruitment. Males

rate themselves as slightly more Analytical, Competitive, Data Driven, Decisive, and Intuitive than

females in general. Females tend to rate themselves as more Accepting, Adaptable, Amiable,

Empathic, Motivating, Risk Tolerant, and Socially Aware. It is important to remember that although

there does appear to be some differences between males and females this difference is small (less

than a single Sten Score) and only likely to disadvantage female applicants in very limited cases.

Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might

come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the

construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of


the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will

be conducted once the sample sizes permit.

Table 29

Scale means for male and female sample with Cohen's d for each scale

Scale Male Female Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.32 31.42 0.32

Adaptable 29.31 30.17 0.26

Amiable 30.38 31.57 0.43

Analytical 27.41 26.71 0.22

Collaborative 31.12 31.61 0.19

Competitive 26.82 24.54 0.43

Compliant 27.90 27.40 0.12

Composed 29.78 29.19 0.17

Data Driven 20.50 19.70 0.23

Decisive 24.42 23.56 0.30

Directing 29.99 29.35 0.19

Driven 24.89 24.88 0.01

Empathic 41.19 43.36 0.43

Energetic 24.26 24.38 0.04

Influential 21.98 21.92 0.02

Innovative 23.72 23.30 0.15

Intuitive 20.40 19.64 0.25

Learning Focused 25.42 25.76 0.13

Meticulous 28.75 29.05 0.09

Motivating 25.81 26.47 0.25

Optimistic 31.44 31.91 0.15

Receptive 25.74 26.00 0.11

Reliable 24.21 24.32 0.04

Risk Tolerant 19.08 22.59 0.61

Self Aware 21.91 21.79 0.03

Self Confident 25.02 24.66 0.14

Sociable 24.59 25.12 0.16


Socially Aware 27.64 28.98 0.37

Strategic 25.22 24.77 0.16

Theoretical 29.71 29.56 0.05

Trusting 24.05 24.26 0.06

Work Focused 23.34 23.26 0.03

Mean 26.45 26.60 0.19

Median 25.58 25.44 0.16

Min 19.08 19.64 0.01

Max 41.19 43.36 0.61

Ethnicity

Pacific

The mean for the European and Pacific samples is shown in Table 30 with Cohen’s d expressing the

difference between the European and Pacific sample means in terms of their pooled standard

deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show minimal differences between the mean of the

European and Pacific samples with a median Cohen’s d of 0.15. The majority of scales (65.6%)

showed only trivial differences between European and Pacific peoples with Cohen’s d of less than 0.2

suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful difference between the European and Pacific

samples. Of the 11 scales which showed differences between the means of the European and Pacific

samples, all had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than a single sten

score). As with the previous adverse impact analysis the direction of the difference is important for

understanding whether the protected group (Pacific) is adversely affected by the difference. Of the 11

samples with small differences all of them were in the direction of the Pacific sample suggesting that

Pacific people are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the use of the PATH scales for recruitment.

In general, Pacific people rate themselves as more Adaptable, Amiable, Compliant, Driven, Intuitive,

Learning Focused, Motivational, Optimistic, Receptive, Self Aware, and Sociable than European

people.






Table 30

Scale means for European and Pacific sample with Cohen's d for each scale

Scale European Pacific Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.76 31.20 0.14

Adaptable 29.54 30.46 0.29

Amiable 30.83 31.46 0.23


Analytical 27.08 26.60 0.15


Competitive 25.98 26.92 0.17

Compliant 27.67 29.31 0.43

Composed 29.57 30.11 0.15

Data Driven 20.01 20.13 0.04

Decisive 24.17 24.18 0.00

Directing 29.82 29.30 0.15

Driven 24.83 25.86 0.37

Empathic 41.81 42.56 0.16

Energetic 24.23 24.66 0.14

Influential 21.99 21.70 0.10

Innovative 23.57 23.44 0.04

Intuitive 20.26 20.88 0.21


Meticulous 28.78 29.08 0.09

Motivational 26.01 26.75 0.29

Optimistic 31.60 32.43 0.28

Receptive 25.77 26.49 0.32

Reliable 24.32 24.16 0.05



Self Aware 21.76 22.62 0.25


Sociable 24.75 25.65 0.29


Strategic 25.05 25.28 0.08

Theoretical 29.71 29.44 0.09

Trusting 24.10 24.32 0.07

Work Focused 23.29 23.69 0.14

Mean 26.48 26.87 0.17

Median 25.60 26.41 0.15

Min 20.01 19.72 0.00

Max 41.81 42.56 0.43

Asian

The mean for the European and Asian samples is shown in Table 31 with Cohen’s d expressing the

difference between the European and Asian means in terms of their pooled standard deviation.

Overall, the PATH personality scales showed small differences between the mean of European and

Asian people with a median Cohen’s d of 0.24. A proportion of scales (43.75%) showed only minor

differences between European and Asian peoples with Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for

these scales there is no meaningful difference between the European and Asian samples. Of the

eighteen scales which showed differences between the means of the European and Asian samples,

fifteen had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than a single sten

score). Only three scales had Cohen d of greater than 0.5 suggesting that European and Asian

people show moderate differences in these scales (between one and two sten scores).

As with previous differences the direction of the difference is important for understanding whether

the protected group (Asian) is adversely affected by the difference. Of the fifteen scales with small

differences twelve of them were in the direction of the European sample suggesting that Asian people

may be adversely impacted by the use of these PATH scales for recruitment. Of particular concern

were the three scales Accepting, Intuitive, and Reliable which showed moderate differences between

the European and Asian samples in the direction of the European sample. This finding suggests that

these three scales may be likely to adversely impact Asian applicants to a moderate degree when

used in recruitment.







Table 31

Scale means for European and Asian sample with Cohen's d for each scale

Scale European Asian Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.76 28.52 0.66

Adaptable 29.54 29.43 0.03

Amiable 30.83 29.65 0.42

Analytical 27.08 28.11 0.33


Competitive 25.98 24.69 0.24

Compliant 27.68 26.70 0.24

Composed 29.57 28.43 0.33

Data Driven 20.01 21.70 0.49

Decisive 24.17 22.70 0.53

Directing 29.81 28.38 0.43

Driven 24.83 24.32 0.18

Empathic 41.81 42.54 0.15

Energetic 24.23 24.01 0.07

Influential 21.98 21.19 0.28

Innovative 23.57 22.90 0.23

Intuitive 20.26 18.77 0.50


Meticulous 28.78 28.99 0.06


Optimistic 31.60 30.44 0.39

Receptive 25.77 25.79 0.01

Reliable 24.32 22.22 0.64


Self Aware 21.76 21.78 0.00


Sociable 24.75 23.45 0.41


Strategic 25.05 24.60 0.16

Theoretical 29.71 29.23 0.16


Trusting 24.10 24.46 0.10

Work Focused 23.29 22.73 0.19

Mean 26.48 26.00 0.27

Median 25.60 25.16 0.24

Min 20.01 18.77 0.00

Max 41.81 42.54 0.66

Indian

The mean for the European and Indian samples is shown Table 32 with Cohen’s d expressing the

difference between the European and Indian sample means in terms of their pooled standard

deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show small differences between the mean of

European and Indian sample with a median Cohen’s d of 0.27.

The majority of scales (62.5%) showed minor differences between the means of the European and

Indian samples with Cohen’s d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than one sten

score). A small proportion for scales (9.38%) showed moderate differences between the means of

the European and Indian sample with Cohen’s d of between 0.5 and 0.8 which would practically

translate into a 1 or 2 sten score difference on average.

As with previous differences the direction of the difference is important for understanding whether

the protected group (Indian) is adversely affected by the difference. Of the 23 scales with meaningful

differences 21 of them were in the direction of the Indian sample suggesting that Indian people are

unlikely to be adversely impacted by the use of the PATH scales for recruitment. The two scales

which had a meaningful difference and were in the direction of the European sample were Intuitive

which showed a moderate difference (between one and two sten scores) and Theoretical which

showed a small difference (less than one sten score). This suggested that Indian applicants may be

disadvantaged by these two scales to some degree.






Table 32

Scale means for European and Indian sample with Cohen's d for each scale

Scale European Indian Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.76 31.09 0.10

Adaptable 29.54 30.99 0.45

Amiable 30.83 31.61 0.28

Analytical 27.08 28.16 0.34


Competitive 25.98 26.77 0.15


Compliant 27.67 28.07 0.10

Composed 29.57 30.46 0.26

Data Driven 20.01 22.69 0.78

Decisive 24.17 24.81 0.23

Directing 29.82 30.80 0.30

Driven 24.83 25.59 0.27

Empathic 41.81 43.76 0.39

Energetic 24.23 25.78 0.51

Influential 21.99 22.51 0.19

Innovative 23.57 24.42 0.30

Intuitive 20.26 18.39 0.62


Meticulous 28.78 30.24 0.43


Optimistic 31.60 32.15 0.18

Receptive 25.77 26.68 0.39

Reliable 24.32 25.03 0.22


Self Aware 21.76 22.70 0.27


Sociable 24.75 25.96 0.38


Strategic 25.05 25.59 0.20

Theoretical 29.71 29.01 0.23

Trusting 24.10 24.77 0.19

Work Focused 23.29 24.16 0.30

Mean 26.48 27.31 0.30

Median 25.60 26.67 0.27

Min 20.01 18.39 0.00

Max 41.81 43.76 0.78


Age

Between 20 or Younger and 30

The mean for the “Between 20 or Younger and 30”and “Between 31 and 40” samples is shown in

Table 33 with Cohen’s d expressing the difference between the male and female means in terms of

their pooled standard deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show trivial differences

between the mean of the age clusters with a median Cohen’s d of 0.10.

The majority of scales (90.63%) showed trivial differences between the two age cluster groups with

Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful difference between

the two samples. Of the 3 scales which showed differences between the means of the two samples,

all had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than one single sten score).

While some scales show differences between the two age group samples it is also important to


younger applicants during recruitment or development. Of the 3 scales with meaningful difference

between the two age group samples only Learning Focused was in the direction of the younger

sample (Between 20 or younger and 30), the two scales Directing, and Decisive both show small

differences in the direction of the older sample (Between 31 and 40) suggesting that younger

applicants may be slightly disadvantaged when apply for roles. The difference is likely to be small and

practically translates into a difference of less than one sten score during interpretation.






Table 33

Scale means for “Between the 20 or Younger and 30”and the “Between 31 and 40” age cluster samples

with Cohen's d for each scale

Scale Between 31 and 40 Between 20 or Younger

and 30

Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.89 30.99 0.03

Adaptable 29.75 30.16 0.12

Amiable 30.94 31.36 0.15

Analytical 27.14 27.20 0.02


Competitive 26.28 26.37 0.02

Compliant 27.97 27.89 0.02

Composed 29.77 29.40 0.11

Data Driven 20.35 20.62 0.07

Decisive 24.32 23.51 0.28

Directing 29.92 29.10 0.24


Driven 25.10 25.41 0.11

Empathic 42.07 42.69 0.12

Energetic 24.50 24.53 0.01

Influential 22.10 21.75 0.12

Innovative 23.80 23.42 0.13

Intuitive 20.19 19.98 0.07


Meticulous 29.10 29.44 0.10


Optimistic 31.60 31.96 0.12

Receptive 25.97 26.43 0.19

Reliable 24.45 24.12 0.10


Self Aware 21.92 21.78 0.04


Sociable 24.81 25.25 0.14


Strategic 25.18 24.91 0.10

Theoretical 29.66 30.01 0.11

Trusting 24.09 23.98 0.03

Work Focused 23.32 23.38 0.02

Mean 26.62 26.67 0.10

Median 25.84 26.17 0.10

Min 20.03 19.98 0.01

Max 42.07 42.69 0.28

Between 41 and 50

The mean for the “Between 31 and 40” and “Between 41 and 50” age group samples is shown in











older applicants (Between 41 and 50) during recruitment or development. Of the 4 scales with

meaningful difference between the two age group samples all were in the direction of the younger

age group (Between 31 and 40) suggesting that older applicants may be slightly disadvantaged when

applying for some roles. The difference is likely to be small and practically translates into a difference

of less than one sten score during interpretation.






Table 34

Scale means for the “Between 31 and 40” and the “Between 41 and 50” age group samples with Cohen's d

for each scale

Scale Between 31 and 40 Between 41 and 50 Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.89 30.50 0.12

Adaptable 29.75 29.16 0.18

Amiable 30.94 30.35 0.21

Analytical 27.14 27.10 0.01


Competitive 26.29 25.65 0.12

Compliant 27.97 27.61 0.09

Composed 29.77 29.70 0.02

Data Driven 20.35 19.74 0.17

Decisive 24.32 24.32 0.00

Directing 29.92 30.04 0.04

Driven 25.10 24.53 0.20

Empathic 42.08 41.34 0.15

Energetic 24.49 24.07 0.14

Influential 22.11 22.06 0.02

Innovative 23.81 23.57 0.08

Intuitive 20.20 20.15 0.01


Meticulous 29.11 28.43 0.20



Optimistic 31.60 31.53 0.03

Receptive 25.97 25.40 0.25

Reliable 24.45 24.25 0.06


Self Aware 21.92 21.87 0.01


Sociable 24.81 24.46 0.11


Strategic 25.18 25.08 0.04

Theoretical 29.66 29.44 0.07

Trusting 24.09 24.23 0.04

Work Focused 23.32 23.39 0.02

Mean 26.63 26.34 0.10

Median 25.84 25.25 0.09

Min 20.04 19.74 0.00

Max 42.08 41.34 0.25

Between 51 and 61+

The mean for the “Between 31 and 40” and “Between 51 and 61+” age group samples is shown in










older applicants (Between 51 and 61+) during recruitment or development. Of the 5 scales with

meaningful difference between the two age group samples all were in the direction of the younger

age group (Between 31 and 40) suggesting that older applicants may be slightly disadvantaged when

applying for some roles. The difference is likely to be small and practically translates into a difference

of less than one sten score during interpretation.







Table 35

Scale means for the “Between 31 and 40” and the “Between 51 and 61+” age group samples with Cohen's

d for each scale

Scale Between 31 and 40 Between 51 and 61+ Cohen’s d

Accepting 30.89 30.22 0.19

Adaptable 29.75 29.25 0.15

Amiable 30.94 30.41 0.19

Analytical 27.14 27.22 0.02


Competitive 26.29 25.51 0.15

Compliant 27.97 27.23 0.17

Composed 29.77 29.28 0.14

Data Driven 20.35 20.14 0.06

Decisive 24.32 24.39 0.03

Directing 29.92 30.13 0.06

Driven 25.10 24.16 0.33

Empathic 42.08 41.59 0.10

Energetic 24.49 23.91 0.19

Influential 22.11 21.92 0.07

Innovative 23.81 23.38 0.15

Intuitive 20.20 20.17 0.01


Meticulous 29.11 28.05 0.31


Optimistic 31.60 31.12 0.15

Receptive 25.97 25.30 0.29

Reliable 24.45 24.05 0.12


Self Aware 21.92 21.96 0.01


Sociable 24.81 24.58 0.07


Strategic 25.18 25.04 0.05


Theoretical 29.66 29.48 0.06

Trusting 24.09 24.18 0.02

Work Focused 23.32 23.13 0.06

Mean 26.63 26.26 0.13

Median 25.84 25.17 0.12

Min 20.04 20.14 0.01

Max 42.08 41.59 0.36

DISCUSSION

The adverse impact of using the PATH personality scale was investigated by analysing the mean

differences between protected groups and the majority group. Two thousand seven hundred and

thirteen (n=2713) applicants took part in the study. The difference between the majority group and

protected groups was analysed to identify scales which might disadvantage the protected group

during recruitment. The analyses found that overall very few differences exist between protected and

majority groups. Any differences which may adversely impact protected groups are small and are

likely to make very small practical difference in the interpretation of the PATH personality scales.

This suggests the PATH personality scales are appropriate for use in recruitment and development

across genders, ethnicity and age groups.

13 References and

Recommended Readings


Age Discrimination in Employment Act (2004). Retrieved from

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00256

American Psychological Association.(2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Australian Psychological Society.(2004). Code of ethics. Melbourne, VIC: Author.

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural Equation Modelling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and

Programming. New York, NY: Routledge

British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Ethics and Conduct: BPS. Retrieved from

http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf

Cattell, R. B., & Johnson, R. C. (1986). Functional Psychological Testing: Principles and Instruments.

New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Chong, E. (2008). Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American and East

Asian managers. Journal of Business Research, 61, 191–200.

Chong, E. (2013). Managerial competencies and career advancement: A comparative study of

managers in two countries. Journal of Business Research, 66, 345-353.

Civil Rights Act (1964). Retrieved from http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-

files/PPL_CivilRightsAct_1964.pdf

Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.

Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.

Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Earlbaum Associates.

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979). Retrieved

from http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/cedaw_en.pdf

Cronbach, L. J., &Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin, 52,

281-302.

Cronbach, L.J. (1971). Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp.

443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domain: 10 aspects of the

Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.

Equality Act (2010) Retrieved from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf

Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex, drugs and rock'n'roll (3rd ed.). London: Sage.


http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_CivilRightsAct_1964.pdf

http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_CivilRightsAct_1964.pdf


Hayton, J.C., & Kelley, D.J. (2006).A competency-based framework for promoting corporate

entrepreneurship.Human Resource Management, 45(3), 407–427.

Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W., &Silzer, R.F. (2006). Theoretical and practitioner letters: Leadership

competency models. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 398–413.

Hoyle, R. H. (2009). Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Personality Research. In R. W.

Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Frueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp.

444-460). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hu, L., &Bentler, P. M. (2009).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria verses new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

Human Rights Act (1993). Retrieved from

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html

Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., &

Williams, L. J. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and

alternatives, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 667-683.

International Test Commission (2010) ITC Guidelines on Test Use: ITC. Retrieved from

http://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_use.pdf

International Test Commission (2001). International Guidelines for Test Use, International Journal of

Testing, 1(2), 93-114.

John. O. P.,& Soto. C. J. (2009). The Importance of Being Valid: Reliablity and the process of

Construct Validation. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Frueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research

Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 461-494). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974).An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36

Kaplan, R. M., &Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005).Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (6th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.

Kline, P. (1994).An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge

Knapp, T. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2010).Reliability and validity of instruments. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O.

Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 337-341). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Laher, S., (2010). Using exploratory factor analysis in personality research: Best-practice

recommendations, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36 (1), 1-7.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2009).Factor Analysis in Personality Research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley,

& R. F. Frueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 424-443). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

http://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_use.pdf


Leigh, I.W., Smith, I.L., Bebeau, M.J., Lichtenberg, J.W., Nelson, P.D., Portnoy, S., Rubin, N.J., Kaslow,

N.J. (2007).Competency Assessment Models.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 463-473.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., &Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to Parcel:

Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.

Loevinger, J. The attenuation paradox in test theory, Psychological Bulletin, Vol 51(5), Sep 1954, 493-

504

Loevinger, J. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.

1957

Markus, L.H., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., &Allpress, K.N. (2005). Confounded by competencies? An

evaluation of the evolution and use of competency models.New Zealand Journal of Psychology,

34(2),117-126.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further Intercultural comparisons. In R. R.

McCrae & J. Alik.(Eds.), The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125). New

York: Kluwer Academic Publisher

Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 453-464. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01173.x

New Zealand Psychologists Board (2011) Code of Ethics: For Psychologists Working in

Aotearoa/New Zealand. Retrieved from

http://www.psychologistsboard.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=235

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., &Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in

behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Putka, D. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Reliability and validity.In J. L. Farr, N. T. Tippins, J. P. Campbell &

F. J. Landy (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 9-49). New York, NY: Routledge.

Racial Discrimination Act (1975) Retrieved from https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00014

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. &Gowing, M. K., Developing Competency Models to

Promote Integrated Human Resource Practices.Human Resource Management, 41(3), 309-324, 2002

Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 65-

88. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124,

262-274.

Sex Discrimination Act (1984). Retrieved from https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00275




Simms, L. J., & Watson, D. (2007).The construct validation approach to personality scale

construction. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in

personality psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Schmitt, N., Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 4, 350-353,

1996.

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). "Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex

differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures". Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 94 (1): 168–182.

Smith, M. C., & Smith, P. (2005) Testing People at Work: Competencies in Psychometric Testing.

New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell

Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annual

Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1-25.

Sireci, S. G., & Sukin, T. (2013). Test validity. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J. Hansen,

N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise & M. C. Rodriguez (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in

psychology, vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. (pp.

61-84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14047-004

Spector, P. E. (2009).Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, 4th ed. New York, NY:

John Wiley.

Wivagg, J. (2008). Forced choice. In P. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of survey research methods (pp.

290-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412963947.n193

14 Appendix A


14.1 PATH Personality Profile


14.2 PATH Personality Report














14.3 PATH Competency Profile


14.4 PATH Competency Detail Report













14.5 Emotional Intelligence Report












14.6 Leadership Growth Potential Report












14.7 Personal Feedback Report













15 Appendex B


15.1 Mplus Input Syntax

TITLE:

Competitive CFA

DATA:

FILE IS "data.dat";

VARIABLE:

NAMES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;

USEVARIABLES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;

ANALYSIS:

ESTIMATOR=ML;

MODEL:

Compete BY Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;

OUTPUT:

MODINDICES (ALL);

PLOT:

TYPE = PLOT3;

15.2 Mplus Sample Output

Mplus VERSION 6.12

MUTHEN & MUTHEN

05/26/2015 2:48 PM

INPUT INSTRUCTIONS

TITLE:

Competitive CFA

DATA:

FILE IS "data.dat";

VARIABLE:

NAMES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;

USEVARIABLES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;

ANALYSIS:

ESTIMATOR=ML;

MODEL:

Compete BY Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;


OUTPUT:

MODINDICES (ALL);

PLOT:

TYPE = PLOT3;

INPUT READING TERMINATED NORMALLY

Competitive CFA

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

Number of groups 1

Number of observations 1205

Number of dependent variables 6

Number of independent variables 0

Number of continuous latent variables 1

Observed dependent variables

Continuous

CPTV02 CPTV10 CPTV14 CPTV15 CPTV16

CPTV18

Continuous latent variables

COMPETE

Estimator ML

Information matrix OBSERVED

Maximum number of iterations 1000

Convergence criterion 0.500D-04

Maximum number of steepest descent iterations 20

Input data file(s)

data.dat

Input data format FREE

THE MODEL ESTIMATION TERMINATED NORMALLY


MODEL FIT INFORMATION

Number of Free Parameters 18

Loglikelihood

H0 Value -8655.940

H1 Value -8639.040

Information Criteria

Akaike (AIC) 17347.879

Bayesian (BIC) 17439.576

Sample-Size Adjusted BIC 17382.400

(n* = (n + 2) / 24)

Chi-Square Test of Model Fit

Value 33.799

Degrees of Freedom 9

P-Value 0.0001

RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation)

Estimate 0.048

90 Percent C.I.0.031 0.066

Probability RMSEA <= .05 0.549

CFI/TLI

CFI 0.993

TLI 0.989

Chi-Square Test of Model Fit for the Baseline Model

Value 3741.813

Degrees of Freedom 15

P-Value 0.0000

SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual)

Value 0.014

MODEL RESULTS

Two-Tailed

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value

COMPETE BY

CPTV02 1.000 0.000 999.000 999.000

CPTV10 1.027 0.044 23.560 0.000

CPTV14 1.204 0.051 23.725 0.000

CPTV15 1.234 0.049 24.946 0.000

CPTV16 1.370 0.052 26.199 0.000


CPTV18 1.311 0.052 25.119 0.000

Intercepts

CPTV02 4.846 0.028 175.875 0.000

CPTV10 4.906 0.027 183.287 0.000

CPTV14 4.526 0.031 146.476 0.000

CPTV15 4.476 0.030 147.849 0.000

CPTV16 4.495 0.032 141.904 0.000

CPTV18 4.553 0.032 141.370 0.000

Variances

COMPETE 0.446 0.033 13.329 0.000

Residual Variances

CPTV02 0.469 0.021 21.844 0.000

CPTV10 0.393 0.019 21.159 0.000

CPTV14 0.504 0.024 20.910 0.000

CPTV15 0.425 0.021 20.025 0.000

CPTV16 0.372 0.021 18.132 0.000

CPTV18 0.483 0.024 19.963 0.000

QUALITY OF NUMERICAL RESULTS

Condition Number for the Information Matrix

0.596E-02

(ratio of smallest to largest eigenvalue)

MODEL MODIFICATION INDICES

Minimum M.I. value for printing the modification index 10.000

M.I.E.P.C.Std E.P.C. StdYX E.P.C.

ON Statements

CPTV02 ON CPTV14 11.935 -0.114 -0.114 -0.128

CPTV02 ON CPTV18 13.426 0.128 0.128 0.149

CPTV14 ON CPTV02 11.934 -0.123 -0.123 -0.109

CPTV18 ON CPTV02 13.427 0.131 0.131 0.112

WITH Statements

CPTV14 WITH CPTV02 11.935 -0.057 -0.057 -0.118

CPTV18 WITH CPTV02 13.425 0.062 0.062 0.130

SAMPLE STATISTICS FOR ESTIMATED FACTOR SCORES

SAMPLE STATISTICS

Means

COMPETE COMPETE_


________ ________

1 0.000 0.213

Covariances

COMPETE COMPETE_

________ ________

COMPETE 0.401

COMPETE_ 0.000 0.000

Correlations

COMPETE COMPETE_

________ ________

COMPETE 1.000

COMPETE_ 999.000 1.000

PLOT INFORMATION

The following plots are available:

Histograms (sample values, estimated factor scores, estimated

values)

Scatterplots (sample values, estimated factor scores, estimated

values)

Beginning Time: 14:48:41

Ending Time: 14:48:42

Elapsed Time: 00:00:01

MUTHEN & MUTHEN

3463 Stoner Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90066

Tel: (310) 391-9971

Fax: (310) 391-8971

Web: www.StatModel.com

Support: [email protected]

Copyright (c) 1998-2011 Muthen&Muthen

Auckland, New Zealand

Level 1, 18 Shortland Street, Auckland City 1010

PO Box 105429 Auckland City 1143

0508 ASSESS (277 377) or (09) 282 4739

Sydney, Australia

Level 3, 3 Spring Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

PO Box 1827, North Sydney, NSW 2059

1800 689 937

Brisbane, Australia

Davidson HR Solutions

Level 8, 344 Queen Street

Brisbane QLD 4000

1 800 689 937

Melbourne, Australia

Level 6, 350 Collins Street

Melbourne, VIC 3000

1 800 689 937

Philippines

OrtigasCenter, Pasig City 1605 Philippines

email [email protected]

tel (+63 2) 949-7003

London

Partners: Talent Innovations

Monaco House

Station Road, Kings Langley WD4 8LQ

T: (+44) 845 3623269

United States

20 Pond Park Road, Suite 109

Hingham, MA 02043

tel +1 781 836 4600

Date post:	14-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cameron-beazley
View:	247 times
Download:	34 times

PATH Personality Questionnaire - Technical Manual - V2

Documents