A matter of context: A comparison of two types of contextualized personality measures

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 68, Issue , 2014, Pages 234-240

  Holtrop, Djurre ^a,b   Born, Marise Ph ^a,c   de Vries, Anita ^b   de Vries, Reinout E ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b NOA ^*  (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Academic performance; Contextualization; Counterproductive academic behavior; Frame of Reference; Participant reactions; Personality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901452559     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.029     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bing M.N., Whanger J.C., Davidson H.K., VanHook J.B. Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, 89:150-157.
2. Butter R., Born M.Ph. Enhancing criterion-related validity through bottom-up contextualization of personality inventories: The construction of an ecological conscientiousness scale for Ph.D. candidates. Human Performance 2012, 25:303-317.
3. Chamorro-Premuzic T., Furnham A. Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality 2003, 17:237-250.
4. De Vries A., De Vries R.E., Born M.P.H. Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and Honesty-Humility as predictors of academic criteria. European Journal of Personality 2011, 25:336-348.
5. De Vries, R. E., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). De zes belangrijkste persoonlijkheidsdimensies en de HEXACO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst. [The six most important personality dimensions and the HEXACO Personality Inventory.] Gedrag & Organisatie, 22, 232-274.
6. Gilliland S.W. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. The Academy of Management Review 1993, 18:694-734.
7. Hayes A.F., Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 2007, 1:77-89.
8. Holtz B.C., Ployhart R.E., Dominguez A. Testing the rules of justice: The effects of frame-of-reference and pre-test validity information on personality test responses and test perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2005, 13:75-86.
9. Hunthausen J.M., Truxillo D.M., Bauer T.B., Hammer B.L. A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003, 88:545-551.
10. Lee K., Ashton M.C. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2004, 39:329-358.
11. Lievens F., De Corte W., Schollaert E. A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 2008, 93:268-279.
12. Marcus B., Lee K., Ashton M.C. Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big Five, or one in addition?. Personnel Psychology 2007, 60:1-34.
13. Mount M.K., Barrick M.R., Strauss J.P. Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology 1994, 79:272-280.
14. Murtha T.C., Kanfer R., Ackerman P.L. Toward an interactionist taxonomy of personality and situations: An integrative situational-dispositional representation of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 71:193-207.
15. NOA Handleiding Multiculturele Persoonlijkheids Test - Big Six [Manual Multicultural Personality Test - Big Six] 2009, NOA BV, Amsterdam.
16. Pace V.L., Brannick M.T. Improving prediction of work performance through Frame-of Reference consistency: Empirical evidence using openness to experience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2010, 18:230-235.
17. Poropat A.E. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin 2009, 135:323-338.
18. Robie C., Schmit M.J., Ryan A.M., Zickar M.J. Effects of item context specificity on the measurement equivalence of a personality inventory. Organizational Research Methods 2000, 3:348-365.
19. Schmit M.J., Ryan A.M., Stierwalt S.L., Powell A.B. Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 1995, 80:607-620.
20. Shaffer J.A., Postlethwaite B.E. A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and non-contextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology 2012, 65:445-494.
21. Smither J.W., Reilly R.R., Millsap R.E., Pearlman K., Stoffey R.W. Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology 1993, 46:49-76.
22. Ten Berge M.A., De Raad B. Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality 1999, 13:337-360.
23. Van Iddekinge C.H., Taylor M.A., Eidson C.E. Broad versus narrow facets of integrity: Predictive validity and subgroup differences. Human Performance 2005, 18:151-177.
24. Wanous J.P., Reichers A.E. Estimating the reliability of a single item measure. Psychological Reports 1996, 78:631-634.
25. Wiechman D., Ryan A.M. Reactions to computerized testing in selection contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2003, 11:215-229.