Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Validity Of Personality Measures In Personnel Selection

Validity Of Personality Measures In Personnel Selection and RICHARD F. GOTTIER Findlay CoUege WHENGhiselli and Barthol (1953) surveyed the validities of personality tests for industrial use, they noted that such measures did less well in occupational groups where traits of temperament seemed especially important than in occupational groups where, intuitively, such traits seemed less important. In all, that survey suggested many reasons for caution in the use of such tests in any occupational group; even where average validities seemed substantial, numerous cases of low and even negative validities were uncovered. There was, of course, the distinct possibility that the wide variation in validities could be attributed to differences in the tests used; that is, some tests might be quite valid within an occupational group, and other tests decidedly invalid. An average could hardly be expected to be impressive. With such an argument, it was quite simple to ignore many of the implications of the Ghiselli and Barthol survey while looking for the “ideal test.” The past decade or two has seen such a bewildering proliferation of new personality meaaures that Dunnette (1962) was moved to urge a moratorium on construction of new tests until those already available are better utilieed. There have been factorial inventories, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Personnel Psychology Wiley

Validity Of Personality Measures In Personnel Selection

Personnel Psychology , Volume 18 (2) – Jun 1, 1965

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/validity-of-personality-measures-in-personnel-selection-RVKQCpsRv0

References (60)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0031-5826
eISSN
1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00273.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

and RICHARD F. GOTTIER Findlay CoUege WHENGhiselli and Barthol (1953) surveyed the validities of personality tests for industrial use, they noted that such measures did less well in occupational groups where traits of temperament seemed especially important than in occupational groups where, intuitively, such traits seemed less important. In all, that survey suggested many reasons for caution in the use of such tests in any occupational group; even where average validities seemed substantial, numerous cases of low and even negative validities were uncovered. There was, of course, the distinct possibility that the wide variation in validities could be attributed to differences in the tests used; that is, some tests might be quite valid within an occupational group, and other tests decidedly invalid. An average could hardly be expected to be impressive. With such an argument, it was quite simple to ignore many of the implications of the Ghiselli and Barthol survey while looking for the “ideal test.” The past decade or two has seen such a bewildering proliferation of new personality meaaures that Dunnette (1962) was moved to urge a moratorium on construction of new tests until those already available are better utilieed. There have been factorial inventories,

Journal

Personnel PsychologyWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1965

There are no references for this article.