Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:13:44.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Practitioner’s View of Personality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Practical and Legal Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Gerald V. Barrett
Gerald V. Barrett*
Affiliation:
Barrett & Associates, Inc.
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Barrett & Associates, Inc., 1772 State Road, Cuyahoga Fall, OH 44223
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. 299 - 302
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.)

References

Barrett, G. V. (1992). Clarifying construct validity: Definitions, processes and models. Human Performance, 5, 13–58.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V. (1997). An historical perspective on the Nassau County Police entrance examination: Arnold v. Ballard (1975) revisited. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 35(2), 42–50.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V., Miguel, R. F., Hurd, J. M., Lueke, S. B., & Tan, J. A. (2003). Practical issues in the use of personality tests in police selection. Public Personnel Management, 32, 497–517.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V., Phillips, J. S., & Alexander, R. A. (1981). Concurrent and predictive validity designs: A critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 1–6.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 9–30.Google Scholar
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25–36.Google Scholar
Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 616–627.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Racially gerrymandering the content of police tests to satisfy the U.S. Justice Department: A case study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 418–446.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 272–290.Google Scholar
Kriska, S. D. (2001, April). The validity-adverse impact trade-off: Real data and mathematical model estimates. In Wiesen, J. P. (Chair), Symposium for the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Miller, C. E., & Barrett, G. V. (in press). The coachability and fakeability of personality-based selection tests used for police selection. Public Personnel Management.Google Scholar
Miner, J. B. (1962). Personality and ability factors in sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 6–13.Google 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.Google Scholar
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.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
Telenson, P. A., Alexander, R. A., & Barrett, G. V. (1983). Scoring the biographical information blank: A comparison of three weighting techniques. Applied Psychological Measure, 7, 73–80.Google Scholar
Tullar, W. L., & Barrett, G. V. (1976). The future autobiography as a predictor of sales success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 371–373.Google Scholar
U.S. v. City of Garland, Civil Action No. 3:98-CV-0307-L, Order (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2004).Google Scholar