I thought this article was very well written. I liked how they not only used multiple racial groups (including some not often studied in the diversity literature), but they also included multiple dimensions of personality. I also like their distinction between facet level personality factors and more broad level personality factors. It seems the Big Five is widely used. Could this be evidence that perhaps these Big Five need to be divided into facet level dimensions as to understand the more complex picture of personality as selection predictors?
I like the idea of using personality facets as predictors of job performance. How might applicants react to narrowed, more specific tests of predictors as opposed to more global measures of personality?
Personality facets is similar to notion that Hogan & Holland (2003) made about specific job criteria on personality being better predictors than more general ones. Is this approach for personality testing practical for large organizations with various types of high complex jobs?
I too liked the idea of using facets as opposed to the global measures. The only issue I see with using these is employers may have their preconceived notions of what is important for job performance. For instance, I can see organizations believing that self-esteem (a facet of emotional stability) is important for performance, when there is no data to say whether it is or it isn't.
I really appreciated the use of a meta analysis here and more specifically the use of effect sizes. I just don't think we've seen effect sizes enough in this research given that real life decisions are being made based on this research. So what if there is a difference between Blacks and Whites on general cognitive ability test if we don't actually notice the difference in the real world. Are people in this field starting to use effect sizes more now that APA has suggested it?
What an interesting article/meta-analysis on race differences in personality. One thing I learned is that there is a lot more research needed! I appreciated the caution that using personality measures does not necessarily rule out adverse impact concerns. They stress the importance of carefully considering the job-related trait (as well as the composition of the applicant pool, effect size, and selection ratio). I also appreciated the differences between looking at the facet level and broader factor level of personality analysis. I had never seen the taxonomy by Hough and Ones (2001). There are many instruments! I agree that "studying race differences in personality is socially controversial, scientifically complex, and practically important!"
Do the results of this study seem to indicate that selection professionals should be cautious about using FFM measures unless they adequately measure traits at the facet level within each factor? Does this help to prevent underestimating group differences in validity studies?
Given that there were not very many differences found across groups, and when found, those differences were quite small, how likely are you to use their research findings in practice? Do you have any other practical concerns not addressed in the article?
I thought this article was very well written. I liked how they not only used multiple racial groups (including some not often studied in the diversity literature), but they also included multiple dimensions of personality. I also like their distinction between facet level personality factors and more broad level personality factors. It seems the Big Five is widely used. Could this be evidence that perhaps these Big Five need to be divided into facet level dimensions as to understand the more complex picture of personality as selection predictors?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of using personality facets as predictors of job performance. How might applicants react to narrowed, more specific tests of predictors as opposed to more global measures of personality?
ReplyDeletePersonality facets is similar to notion that Hogan & Holland (2003) made about specific job criteria on personality being better predictors than more general ones. Is this approach for personality testing practical for large organizations with various types of high complex jobs?
ReplyDeleteI too liked the idea of using facets as opposed to the global measures. The only issue I see with using these is employers may have their preconceived notions of what is important for job performance. For instance, I can see organizations believing that self-esteem (a facet of emotional stability) is important for performance, when there is no data to say whether it is or it isn't.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated the use of a meta analysis here and more specifically the use of effect sizes. I just don't think we've seen effect sizes enough in this research given that real life decisions are being made based on this research. So what if there is a difference between Blacks and Whites on general cognitive ability test if we don't actually notice the difference in the real world. Are people in this field starting to use effect sizes more now that APA has suggested it?
What an interesting article/meta-analysis on race differences in personality. One thing I learned is that there is a lot more research needed! I appreciated the caution that using personality measures does not necessarily rule out adverse impact concerns. They stress the importance of carefully considering the job-related trait (as well as the composition of the applicant pool, effect size, and selection ratio). I also appreciated the differences between looking at the facet level and broader factor level of personality analysis. I had never seen the taxonomy by Hough and Ones (2001). There are many instruments!
ReplyDeleteI agree that "studying race differences in personality is socially controversial, scientifically complex, and practically important!"
Do the results of this study seem to indicate that selection professionals should be cautious about using FFM measures unless they adequately measure traits at the facet level within each factor? Does this help to prevent underestimating group differences in validity studies?
ReplyDeleteGiven that there were not very many differences found across groups, and when found, those differences were quite small, how likely are you to use their research findings in practice? Do you have any other practical concerns not addressed in the article?
ReplyDelete