Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:49:03.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lessons Learned in Transitioning Personality Measures From Research to Operational Settings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Leonard A. White ,
Mark C. Young ,
Arwen E. Hunter  and
Michael G. Rumsey
Leonard A. White*
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Mark C. Young
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Arwen E. Hunter
Affiliation:
The George Washington University
Michael G. Rumsey
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3926
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 291 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

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.)

Footnotes

*

All statements expressed in this commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the U.S. Army Research Institute or the Department of the Army

References

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. L., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.xGoogle Scholar
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2005). An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: The multi-dimensional pairwise preference model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 184–201.10.1177/0146621604273988Google Scholar
White, L. A., Hunter, A. E., & Young, M. C. (2006, May). Social desirability effects on the predictive validity of personality constructs. In Griffith, R. & Yoshita, Y. (Chairs), Deceptively clear: Applicant faking behavior and the prediction of job performance. Symposium conducted at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
White, L. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (1998, April). How socially desirable responding affects the criterion-related validity of self-report measures of personality. In McDaniel, M. (Chair), Applicant faking with non-cognitive tests: Problems and solutions. Symposium presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
White, L. A., & Moss, M. C. (1995, April). Factors influencing the concurrent versus predictive validities of personality constructs. In Schmidt, F. (Chair), Response distortion and social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection. Symposium presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
White, L. A., Young, M. C., Heggestad, E. D., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Piskator, G. (2004). Development of a non-high school diploma graduate pre-enlistment screening model to enhance the Future Force. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
White, L. A., Young, M. C., & Rumsey, M. G. (2001). ABLE implementation issues and related research. In Campbell, J. P. & Knapp, D. J. (Eds.), Exploring the limits in personnel selection and classification (pp. 525–558). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Young, M. C., & White, L. A. (2006, November). Preliminary operational findings from the Army’s Tier Two Attrition Screen (TTAS) measure. Paper presented at the 25th Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Young, M. C., White, L. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Barnes, J. D. (2004, July). Operational validation of the Army’s new pre-enlistment screening measure. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar