Behavioural Tests

Adrian Furnham

doi:10.1017/9781108953276.007

6 - Behavioural Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2021

Adrian Furnham

Show author details

Adrian Furnham: Affiliation:
University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter covers five very different ways of assessing people by measuring their behaviour and choices. By far the most sensitive issue is the measurement of intelligence. Whilst the academic literature is very clear: intelligence can be easily and accurately measured and is highly predictive of many aspects of daily life (including work productivity), in the ‘practical world’ of Human Resources people are very cautious about using these tests because of established group differences. The chapter also looks at unobtrusive measures sometimes called snooping, which is concerned with how certain features of our life (office/bedroom layout) give a surprising insight into an individual’s personality and values. The chapter also considers situational judgement tests, which describe or show a typical workplace situation and candidates are required to select the best response. Fourth, the chapter looks at the definition and measurement of creativity, which remains something of a backwater in psychometric research, though selectors rate it very highly. Finally, the chapter looks at gamification, which involves the assessment of people by how they play various electronic games.

Keywords

Cognitive ability Cognitive style Content analysis Convergent thinking Creativity Crystallised intelligence Divergent thinking Emotional Intelligence Fluid Intelligence Gamification Garbology General Knowledge Multiple intelligence Non-reactivity Online testing Situational Judgement tests Snooping Unobtrusive measures.

Type: Chapter
Information: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
Different Techniques and their Respective Advantages
, pp. 278 - 395

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, I. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106.Google Scholar

Arthur, W., Glaze, R., Villado, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Unprotected internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 39–45.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1968). A 3 minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.Google Scholar

Barak, A., & English, N. (2002). Prospects and limitations of psychological testing on the internet. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19, 65–89.Google Scholar

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: the role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 60–69.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beglinger, L. J., Gaydos, B., Tangphao-Daniels, O., Duff, K., Kareken, D. A., Crawford, J. F., et al. (2005). Practice effects and the use of alternate forms in serial neuropsychological testing. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 517–529.Google Scholar

Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests. A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 387.Google Scholar

Borman, W., Hanson, M., Oppler, S., Pulakis, E., & White, L. (1993). Role of early supervisory experience in supervisor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 443–449.Google Scholar

Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.Google Scholar

Campbell, P., McHenry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313–333.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cattell, R. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. (2006a). Incremental validity of typical intellectual engagement as predictor of different academic performance measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 261–268.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. (2006b). Ability and personality correlates of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 419–429.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). The relationship between estimated and psychometric personality and intelligence scores Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 505–513.CrossRef Google Scholar

Deary, I. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Deary, I. (2001). Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dilchert, S. (2018). Cognitive ability. In Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Sinangil, H. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 248–276). New York: Sage.Google Scholar

Dragow, F. (2002). Intelligence and the workplace. In Borman, W., Ilgen, D., & Klimozki, R. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 107–130). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and intelligence at work. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (2017). Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right. Differences and consequences of beliefs about your ability. In Sternberg, Robert, Fiske, Susan, & Foss, Don (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: The greatest living behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (2020). The Assessment of General Knowledge Online: Two studies using two platforms examining demographic, self-assessment and internet usage correlates. Paper under review.Google Scholar

Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). Personality, intelligence and general knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 9–90.Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1998). Personality scores and test taking style. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 19–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2013). On-line questionnaire completion time and personality test scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 716–720.Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2015). Personality and value correlates of careless and erratic questionnaire responses. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 64–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Rawles, R., & Iqbal, S. (2006). Personality, intelligence and proof-reading. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1457–1467.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gatewood, R., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2016). Human Resource Selection. Scarborough, ON, Canada: Nelson Education.Google Scholar

Ghiselli, E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Gottfredson, L. (2003). g jobs and kife. In Nyborg, J. (Ed.), The science of mental ability (pp 293–342). Oxford, UK: Pergammon.Google Scholar

Harrell, T., & Harrell, M. (1945). Army general classification test scores for civilian occupations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 229–239.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hough, L., Oswald, F., & Floghart, R. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personal selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.Google Scholar

Hulsheger, U., Maier, G., & Stumpp, T. (2007). Validity of general mental ability for the prediction of job performance and training success in Germany. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 3–18.Google Scholar

Hunter, J. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job performance. Intelligence, 29, 340–362.Google Scholar

Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Jones, G. (1988). Investigation of the efficacy of general ability versus specific abilities as predictors of occupational success. Unpublished thesis. St Mary’s University of Texas.Google Scholar

Kaufman, S. (2019). There is no Nature-Nurture War. Scientific American.Google Scholar

Kline, P. (1996). The new psychometrics. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Irwing, R., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general factor of semantic memory and its components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857–871.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mackintosh, N. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Martinsen, Ø. L., & Furnham, A. (2016). The Assimilator–Explorer styles and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 297–299.Google Scholar

Martinsen, Ø. L., & Kaufmann, G. (2000). The Assimilator–Explorer cognitive styles and their relationship to affective-motivational orientations and cognitive performances. In Riding, R. & Raynor, S. (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences: Vol. 1. New developments in learning/cognitive styles (pp. 3–41). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

McHenry, J., Hough, L., Toquam, J., Hanson, M., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.CrossRef Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promises in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59–74.Google Scholar

Murphy, K. (2002). Can conflicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved? Human Performance, 15, 173–186.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ones, D., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Salgado, J. (2017). Cognitive ability: masurement and validity for employee selection. In Farr, James, & Tippins, Nancy (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 251–276). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 86–89.Google Scholar

Ree, M., & Carretta, T. (1998). General cognitive ability and occupational performance. International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 13, 161–189.Google Scholar

Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance. Human Performance, 15, 187–210.Google Scholar

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 findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173.Google Scholar

Schroeders, U., Wilhelm, O. & Schipolowski, S. (2010). Internet-based ability testing. In Gosling, S. D., & Johnson, J. A. (Eds.), Advanced methods for behavioral research on the Internet (pp. 131–148). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.Google Scholar

Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1960). Stanford–Binet intelligence scale. New York: Houghton Mufflin.Google Scholar

Thorndike, E. L., Henmon, V. A. C., & Buckingham, B. R. (eds.) (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar

Vernon, P. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar

Wechsler, D. (1958). Measurement of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins.Google Scholar

Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the adult intelligence scale (revised). New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar

Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam: User’s manual. Libertyville, IL: Author.Google Scholar

References

Bhardwaj, S., Atrey, P. K., Saini, M. K., & El Saddik, A. (2016). Personality assessment using multiple online social networks. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(21), 13237–13269.Google Scholar

Forgas, J. P. (2003). Affective influences on attitudes and judgments. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Goldsmith, H. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 596–618). New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gosling, S. (2009) Snoop: What your stuff says about you. London, UK: Profile Books Limited.Google Scholar

Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379–398.Google Scholar

Hill, A. D., Kern, D. A., & White, M. A. (2014). Are we overconfident in executive overconfidence research? An examination of the convergent and content validity of extant unobtrusive measures. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1414–1420.Google Scholar

Keep, M., & Amon, K. L. (2017). Follow me: exploring the effect of personality and stranger connections on Instagram use. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 9(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

Ong, E. Y. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C. M., Lim, J. C. Y., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chua, A. Y. K. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion, and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 180–185.CrossRef Google Scholar

Paliszkiewicz, J. & Madra-Sawicka, M. (2016) Impression management in social media: the example of LinkedIn. Management, 11(3), 203–212.Google Scholar

Paramboukis, O., Skues, J., & Wise, L. (2016). An exploratory study of the relationships between narcissism, self-esteem and Instagram use. Social Networking, 5(2), 82–92.Google Scholar

Reid, E., & Novak, P. (1975). Personal space: an unobtrusive measures study. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(3), 265–266.Google Scholar

Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407.Google Scholar

van de Ven, N., Bogaert, A., Serlie, A., Brandt, M. J., & Denissen, J. J. (2017). Personality perception based on LinkedIn profiles. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(6), 418–429.Google Scholar

Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. New York: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar

References

Al Hashmi, W., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). Developing a situational judgement test for admission into initial teacher education in Oman: an exploratory study. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human Performance, 15(3), 233–254.Google Scholar

Cook, M. (2016). Personnel selection: Adding value through people – A changing picture (6th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRef Google Scholar

Corstjens, J., Lievens, F., & Krumm, S. (2017). Situational judgement tests for selection. In Goldstein, H. W., , Pulakos, D. E., Semedo, C., & Passmore, J., (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 226–246). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (1986). Social skills training with adolescents and young adults. In Hollin, C. R., & Trower, P. (Eds.), Handbook of social skills training (pp. 33–57). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Gatewood, R., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2015). Human resource selection (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Kaminski, K., Felfe, J., Schäpers, P., & Krumm, S. (2019). A closer look at response options: is judgment in situational judgment tests a function of the desirability of response options?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(1), 72–82.Google Scholar

Kasten, N., Freund, P. A., & Staufenbiel, T. (2018). ‘Sweet little lies’: an in-depth analysis of faking behavior on Situational Judgment Tests compared to personality questionnaires. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 136–148.Google Scholar

Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: a comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1181–1188.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: a clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 730–740.Google Scholar

Moss, F. A., & Hunt, T. (1926). Ability to get along with others. Industrial Psychology, 1, 170–178.Google Scholar

Northrop, L. C. (1989). The psychometric history of selected ability constructs. Washington, DC: US Office of Personnel Management.Google Scholar

Pangallo, A., Zibarras, L., & Patterson, F. (2016). Measuring resilience in palliative care workers using the situational judgement test methodology. Medical Education, 50(11), 1131–1142.Google Scholar

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Social Intelligence. In Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 337–353). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Stemig, M. S., Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2015). Effects of organizationally endorsed coaching on performance and validity of situational judgment tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(2), 174–181.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (Eds.). (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Wagner, R. K., Horvath, J. A., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1997). Video‐based situational testing. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 25–49.Google Scholar

Whetzel, D. L., Sullivan, T. S., & McCloy, R. A. (2020). Situational judgment tests: an overview of development practices and psychometric characteristics. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. A. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, 396–239, 1–15.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1988). From individual creativity to organizational innovation. In Grønhaug, K., & Kaufmann, G. (Eds.), Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 139–166). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: the social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (Vol. 115, pp. 61–91). New York City, NY: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity: effects of choice in task materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 209–215.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. R., & Fielder, F. E. (1964). The effect of participatory and supervisory leadership on group creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 227–236.CrossRef Google Scholar

Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: an embracing act. Long Range Planning, 36(4), 375–388.Google Scholar

Barbot, B., Hass, R. W., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creativity assessment in psychological research:(Re) setting the standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 233.Google Scholar

Barron, F. (1963). The needs for order and disorder as motives in creative action. In Taylor, C. W., & Barron, F. (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 139–152). New York City, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439–476.Google Scholar

Barron, F., & Welsh, G. S. (1952). Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style: its measurement by a figure preference test. The Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 199–203.CrossRef Google Scholar

Batey, M. ( 2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College, London.Google Scholar

Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: from definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–65.Google Scholar

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429.Google Scholar

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). The relationship between measures of creativity and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 816–821.Google Scholar

Benedek, M., Christensen, A. P., Fink, A., & Beaty, R. E. (2019). Creativity assessment in neuroscience research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 218–226.Google Scholar

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 155–162.Google Scholar

Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159–163.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Datta, L. E. (1964a). Remote associates test as a predictor of creativity in engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(3), 183.Google Scholar

De Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. London, UK: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 99–116.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Creativity and personality: word association, origence, and psychoticism. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 209–216.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity (Vol. 12). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.Google Scholar

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (2018). From fascination to research progress and problems in creativity research. In Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 77–93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (2019). Creativity and psychopathology. In Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, R. S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Crump, J., Batey, M., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality and ability predictors of the ‘Consequences’ Test of divergent thinking in a large non-student sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 536–540.Google Scholar

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Goncalo, J. A. & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction and forecast (pp. 72–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.Google Scholar

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.Google Scholar

Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In Taylor, I. A., & Getzels, J. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37–59). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Haller, C. S., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2010). Personality and thinking style in different creative domains. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(3), 149.Google Scholar

Harrington, D. M. (1972). Effects of instructions to ‘Be creative’ on three tests of divergent thinking abilities (PhD thesis). University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar

Hartley, J., & Beasley, N. (1969). Contrary imaginations at Keele. Higher Education Quarterly, 23(4), 467–471.Google Scholar

Hartley, J., & Greggs, M. A. (1997). Divergent thinking in arts and science students: contrary Imaginations at Keele revisited. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 93–97.Google Scholar

Hayes, J. R. (1978). Cognitive psychology. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In Steinberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 11–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hocevar, D. (1979, April). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED170350).Google Scholar

Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4(1), 25–40.Google Scholar

Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations: A psychological study of the young student. New York City, NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar

Hudson, L. (1973). Originality. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hudson, L. (1980). This week citation classic. Social Citation, 43, 171–172.Google Scholar

Jamison, K. R. (1993). Touched with fire: Manic depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York City, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar

Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1988). Test your observational skills and compare your creative potential with children from eleven different countries. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 13(2), 75–80.Google Scholar

Jones, F. E. (1964). Predictor variables for creativity in industrial science. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(2), 134–136.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: development of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2019). Self-assessments of creativity: not ideal, but better than you think. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 187–192.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative – but not in mathematics!: self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143–155.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Pumaccahua, T. T., & Holt, R. E. (2013). Personality and creativity in realistic, investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising college majors. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(8), 913–917.Google Scholar

Kinsbourne, M. (1968). The contrary imaginations of arts and science students: a critical discussion. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 10(4), 461–464.Google Scholar

Kwapil, T. R., Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2012). The expression of positive and negative schizotypy in daily life: an experience sampling study. Psychological Medicine, 42(12), 2555–2566.Google Scholar

Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(4), 295–308.Google Scholar

Martinsen, Ø. L., Arnulf, J. K., Furnham, A., & Lang-Ree, O. C. (2019). Narcissism and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 166–171.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matthews, G. & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McDermid, C. D. (1965). Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 14–19.Google Scholar

Mednick, M. T., & Andrews, F. M. (1967). Creative thinking and level of intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 428–431.Google Scholar

Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. S. (1967). Examiner’s manual: Remote associates test. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar

Merten, T. & Fischer, I. (1999). Creativity, personality and word association responses: associative behavior in 40 supposedly creative persons. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 933–942.Google Scholar

Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. L., Connelly, M. S., O’Connor, J. A., & Clifton, T. C. (1993). Leadership and destructive acts: individual and situational influences. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(2), 115–147.Google Scholar

O’Reilly, T., Dunbar, R., & Bentall, R. (2001). Schizotypy and creativity: an evolutionary connection?. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1067–1078.Google Scholar

Peretti, F., & Negro, G. (2007). Mixing genres and matching people: a study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, special issue: Paradoxes of Creativity: Managerial and Organizational Challenges in the Cultural Economy, 28(5), 563–586.Google Scholar

Peterson, J. B., & Carson, S. (2000). Latent inhibition and openness to experience in a high-achieving student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 323–332.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103–114.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 55–63.Google Scholar

Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73–93.Google Scholar

Probst, T. M., Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Tierney, B. W. (2007). Productivity, counterproductivity and creativity: the ups and downs of job in security. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 479–497.Google Scholar

Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: a review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144–152.Google Scholar

Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.Google Scholar

Schlesinger, J. (2009). Creative mythconceptions: a closer look at the evidence for the ‘mad genius’ hypothesis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 62–72.Google Scholar

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: a review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 19–34.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G.(1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61(4), 394–403.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, K. L., Michael, W. B., & Hocevar, D. (1990). Performance on creativity measures with examination‐taking instructions intended to induce high or low levels of test anxiety. Creativity Research Journal, 3(4), 265–280.Google Scholar

Smith, W. J., Albright, L. E., & Glennon, J. R. (1961). The prediction of research competence and creativity from personal history. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 59–62.Google Scholar

Snyder, H. T., Hammond, J. A., Grohman, M. G., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). Creativity measurement in undergraduate students from 1984–2013: a systematic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 133–143.Google Scholar

Sprecher, T. B. (1959). A study of engineers’ criteria for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(2), 141–148.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Nonentrenchment in the assessment of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(2), 63–67.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Natural, unnatural, and supernatural concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 451–488.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Gastel, J. (1989). Coping with novelty in human intelligence: an empirical investigation. Intelligence, 13(2), 187–197.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (2000). Intelligence and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 611–630). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1963). Creativity. In Hubbard, F. W. (Ed.), What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: Department of Classroom Teachers American Educational Research Association of the National Education Association.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: national and international extensions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(2), 137–154.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norms-technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn & Company Publishers.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Google Scholar

Tucker, M. F., Cline, V. B., & Schmitt, J. R. (1967). Prediction of creativity and other performance measures from biographical information among pharmaceutical scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2), 131–138.Google Scholar

Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272–280.Google Scholar

Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1995). Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing (TSD-Z). Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.Google Scholar

Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In Mussen, P. (Ed.), Carmichael’s Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 1211–1272). New York City, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativity‐intelligence distinction. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 348–369.Google Scholar

Williamson, P. K. (2011). The creative problem solving skills of arts and science students – the two cultures debate revisited. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 31–43.Google Scholar

Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422.Google Scholar

References

Adams, D. M., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive consequences approach: what is learned from playing a game? In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach (pp. 171–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1), 56–79.Google Scholar

Ángeles Quiroga, M., Escorial, S., Román, F. J., Morillo, D., Jarabo, A., Privado, J., Hernández, M., Gallego, B., & Colom, R. (2015). Can we reliably measure the general factor of intelligence (g) through commercial video games? Yes, we can! Intelligence, 53, 1–7.Google Scholar

Armstrong, M. B., Landers, R. N., & Collmus, A. B. (2015). Gamifying recruitment, selection, training, and performance management: Game-thinking in human resource management. In Davis, D., & Gangadharbatla, H. (Eds.), Emerging research and trends in gamification (pp. 140–165). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: do points affect test performance?. Computers & Education, 83, 57–63.Google Scholar

Boot, W. R. (2015). Video games as tools to achieve insight into cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(3), 1–3.Google Scholar

Collmus, A. B., Armstrong, M. B., & Landers, R. N. (2016). Game-thinking within social media to recruit and select job candidates. In Landers, R. N., & Schmidt, G. B. (Eds.), Social media in employee selection and recruitment: Theory, practice, and current challenges (pp. 103–124). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining ‘gamification’. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic Mindtrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15), Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(9), 1–36.Google Scholar

Entertainment Software Association. (2015). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.Google Scholar

Fetzer, M., McNamara, J., Geimer, J. L., Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., Passmore, J., & Semedo, C. (2017). Gamification, serious games and personnel selection. In Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., , Semedo, C., & Passmore, J. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 293–309). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Fiore, C. A. (2016). Gamification of individual differences. Culminating Projects in Psychology. Paper 4. London: UCL.Google Scholar

Foroughi, C. K., Serraino, C., Parasuraman, R., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2016). Can we create a measure of fluid intelligence using Puzzle Creator within Portal 2?. Intelligence, 56, 58–64.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (2010). Proofreading as an index of crystallised intelligence. Educational Psychology, 30(6), 735–754.Google Scholar

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.Google Scholar

Gnambs, T., & Appel, M. (2017). Is computer gaming associated with cognitive abilities? A population study among German adolescents. Intelligence, 61, 19–28.Google Scholar

Griffiths, M. (1997). Computer game playing in early adolescence. Youth & Society, 29(2), 223–237.Google Scholar

Hansen, W. A., & Goldinger, S. D. (2009). Taboo: working memory and mental control in an interactive task. The American Journal of Psychology, 122(3), 283–291.Google Scholar

Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: a mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 245–270.Google Scholar

Hopko, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Aklin, W. M., Osborne, A., Simmons, B. L., & Strong, D. R. (2006). Construct validity of the balloon analogue risk task (BART): relationship with MDMA use by inner-city drug users in residential treatment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(2), 95–101.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. J., & Shute, V. J. (2015). The interplay of game elements with psychometric qualities, learning, and enjoyment in game-based assessment. Computers & Education, 87, 340–356.Google Scholar

Kircaburun, K., Pontes, H. M., Stavropoulos, V., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). A brief psychological overview of disordered gaming. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 38–43.Google Scholar

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.Google Scholar

Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Jones, H. A., Richards, J. B., Strong, D. R., Kahler, C. W., & Read, J. P. (2003). The balloon analogue risk task (BART) differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(1), 26–33.Google Scholar

Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75–84.Google Scholar

Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 927–940.Google Scholar

Mané, A., & Donchin, E. (1989). The Space Fortress game. Acta Psychologica, 71(1–3), 17–22.Google Scholar

Mavridis, A., & Tsiatsos, T. (2017). Game‐based assessment: investigating the impact on test anxiety and exam performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(2), 137–150.Google Scholar

Mekler, E. D., Bruhlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013). Disassembling gamification: the effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. Mackay, W. E. (Conference Chair), Baudisch, P., & Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (Technical Program Chairs), Proceedings of CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1137–1142). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Mullins, J. K., & Sabherwal, R. (2018, January). Beyond enjoyment: A cognitive-emotional perspective of gamification. Paper presented at the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar

Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research [Editorial]. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 450–454.Google Scholar

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2015). Multipoly: A selection game. Budapest, Hungary: Author.Google Scholar

Rabah, J., Cassidy, R., & Beauchemin, R. (2018). Gamification in education: Real benefits or edutainment? Paper presented at the 17th European Conference on e-Learning, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar

Sajjadi, P., Vlieghe, J., & De Troyer, O. (2017). Exploring the relation between the theory of multiple intelligences and games for the purpose of player-centred game design. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(4), 320–334.Google Scholar

Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31.Google Scholar

Sin, J., & Furnham, A. (2018). Do commercial games tap into cognitive ability? Computer Games Journal, 7, 27–37.Google Scholar

White, T. L., Lejuez, C. W., & de Wit, H. (2008). Test-retest characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(6), 565–570.Google Scholar

Book contents

6 - Behavioural Tests

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive