Essay title - The Society For Industrial and Organization Psychology of America
Industrial or organizational psychology is one of the specialty areas of psychology. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) was in the Division 14 of the American Psychological Association. The members of the SIOP increased as years pass, and the numbers continuously grow as the SIOP developed their website – www.siop.org. Although only about 4% of all psychologists work in this area, the field is starting to become popular, especially nowadays, when more companies and organizations demand for professional help. I/O psychologists help companies in six major fields: selection and placement, training and development, quality of work life, performance appraisal, organization development, and ergonomics. Of the fields mentioned, selection and placement may be considered as the most in demand service in the discipline (Muchinsky, 2007).
Selection and placement involves the development of assessment methods for the selection, placement, and promotion of employees by I/O psychologists. They also study and analyze jobs in order to determine just how much a test can predict performance in those specific positions. Specialists in the field use many tests not only to assess personalities of the candidates for the job, but more importantly to predict employee’s performance (Muchinsky, 2007).
Psychological Testing
The most frequently used “predictors” that I/O psychologists use are psychological tests and inventories. Psychological tests had long been used in the field of psychology. These tests can be grouped by their content or by their administration (Muchinsky, 2007).
By administration:
Speed and Power Tests – Speed tests are tests composed of a large number of very easy questions. This test is timed, and the total score would be the number of items answered. The score of an individual in a speed test will reflect the individual’s speed of work. Power tests, on the other hand, are composed of fairly difficult questions. This kind of test is not under time pressure, and the total score would be the number of items that were correctly answered.
Individual and Group Tests – Individual tests are administered to a single person at a time. This kind of test is not usually administered because of the amount of time needed to administer it to all participants. Group tests, on the other hand, are administered to several people simultaneously. This according to Muchinsky (2007) is considered the most common type of test.
Paper-and-pencil and performance tests – The most common type of test used in industrial and educational organizations is the paper-and-pencil test. This kind of test does not involve manipulation of objects or pieces of equipment (Muchinsky, 2007). The questions usually asked required answers in the form of an essay or multiple-choice type. However, the test taker’s physical ability to handle a pencil should not affect his score on that test. The pencil only served as a writing tool. This test is an assessment method where the responses are analyzed in terms of their correctness. Performance tests involve the individual’s manipulation of an object or a piece of equipment. The individual’s score is the measure of his ability to perform the said manipulation.
By content:
Intelligence Tests – The most researched construct in all areas of psychology is intelligence. Ironically, although the interest in the assessment of cognitive ability started more than a century ago, there exists no unique or standard means to measure it. Furthermore, according to Muchinsky (2007), recent researches suggest that intelligence is actually far more complex than we thought.
Intelligence had been conceptualized as having single, and fundamental basis, or what is called the “general mental ability” (g). by assessing the g, an understanding of an individual’s general level of cognitive ability may be determined. These have been tests that measure g that have been found to the predictive of work performance in a wide variety of occupations.
Other tests – Psychologists also administer mechanical aptitude tests, sensory/motor ability tests among others.
The current study will focus on objective personality tests, projective tests, general intelligence testing and assessment centers. The following review of the literature was done in order to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the methods mentioned and how it will affect employee selection.
Personality Inventories
Personality inventories have no correct and incorrect answers, which primarily distinguish it from the other tests that were discussed earlier. The items in these tests are usually in statement-form and the test-taker usually responds according to his/her level of agreement with a particular statement. The statements usually make-up a particular scale which is usually a personality factor. A pre-determined scoring key will be the basis for scoring every test-taker in such a way that a higher score will mean higher level of being introvert, consentious, etc. The scores are then analyzed and used to predict job performance. It has been assumed that a particular job require an individual that scores high in a specific personality structure. This is one of the more popular bases for employee selection (Muchinsky, 2007).
THE MMPI – 2
In 1972, Dahlstrom et al. made an emphasis on the “intentional ambiguity” of the development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI. According to them, such an ambiguity was important in order to have “differential interpretations” by clients who would usually facilitate what they call “dependable personoligical interpretations” (Dahlstrom et al., 1972). However, items in the MMPI could not be considered irrelevant, because if indeed it is, then the clients might doubt the validity of the test itself. Because of this, a different form of keying was applied by Hathaway and Mckinley (1940) in the MMPI scale development. In their method, items in the scale that are “common to general distress or nonspecific to clinical conditions were often chosen:” (Rogers et al 2004). Because of that, the resulting MMPI scales have overlaps in its items, thus, limiting their discriminability between clinical conditions.
MMPI item-contents has been interpreted in so many ways, and such temptation to interpret is not easy to resist (Graham, 1987), even though the items are ambiguous. Early studies by Marks, Seeman, and Haller (1974) strongly disagree with the attempt to relate the content of the MMPI items with clinical conditions. According to Marks and colleagues (1974), items in MMPI cannot be made as substitutes for observed behavior at ones. It is for the reason that the content of the items are unbelievable because one, many interpreters lack knowledge about their behavior and another, those who take the test may hide their true attitude and experiences. In this case, we may consider the MMPI as a test not really suitable as a criterion for employee selection.
When Butcher, Williams, and others published MMPI-2 in 1989, the application of the test in the clinical setting was confirmed. Criticisms have also surrounded MMPI-2 {e.g. Tellegen et. al, (2003) Simms, (2006) Rogers et. al, (2006)} but none of them discussed how fitting might the test be in the industrial/organizational setting. Thus we may conclude, that the MMPI and MMPI-2 are not made for I/O psychologists but for clinical psychologists who are much interested in simple behaviors and not performance prediction.
THE 16PF
The 16PF Personal Career Development Program Profile (PCDP) is a “computer-generated, interpretive report based on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire- Fifth Edition (16PF Questionnaire” (Walter, 2000a). Coming from the studies of strong, (1939), Porter (1976), Cattell (1973), and Campbell, Hyne, and Wilsen (1992), the report is actually a summary of an individual’s career strength based on his/her personality. The PCDP also matches a test-taker to a specific career in which most people having the same personality traits as the test-taker have been employed. According to Olson and Matlock (1994), the PCDP was made in order to make the assessment more enhanced in terms of the individual’s overall effectiveness. It is also a pat of the career counseling wherein an appraisal of interests and abilities, an evaluation of work history, and an analysis of knowledge about jobs are included. In the Test Review of the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Inc., (2000), a variety of PCDP uses have been reported including career counseling, management training, employee training and development, employee selection and career transition coaching.
The PCDP report requires a result of the 16PF5 Questionnaire. As was known, the 16PF5 Questionnaire was made in order to correctly identify the key personality factors and is used to predict behaviors. The test is not under time pressure and may be administered individually or in groups. It is in paper-and-pencil format and usually takes 30 minutes to be completed (Russel and Karol, 1994).
Personality data from the 16PF5 Questionnaire is translated by the PCDP into career and behavioral interest patterns. The pattern includes the following:
- Emotional adjustment
- Creative potential
- Effective leadership
- Elected leadership
- Leadership preferences
- Structured situation preference
- Formal academic interest
- Work-pattern preference
- Learning situation preference
- Risk-taking / adventure
The PCDP report discusses the test-taker’s usual pattern behavior as well as that individual’s strengths. The report has “problem-solving resources”, “interpersonal interaction styles”, “career activity interests”, “patterns for coping with stressful conditions”, “organizational role and work setting preferences” and “personal career lifestyle effectiveness considerations” as sub-sections. Aside from that, the PCDP summary also includes some practical advice on achieving greater performance at work (Walter, 2000c). According to the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.;
“The PCDP report is generally upbeat and reports on the test-taker’s personality attributes
in a positive way… The PSDP is intended to assist the test-taker in more self-directed
activities by outlining the more self – directed activities by outlining the more predictable
career questions…” (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., 2006).
In terms of the accuracy of test, the institute posts the reliability and validity of the 16PF5. according to them, the internal consistency reliabilities are having values from 0.66 to 0.86, and having a median of 0.75 on two general population samples and a sample of college students. The test had also been subjected to series of test – retest reliabilities and the results were not far from the first one. Several researches were also done to find out if the criterion reference validity of the PCDP when it is compared vis – a – vis the similar factors in other personality tests. (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., 2006).
At first glance, it may seem that the 16PF5 Questionnaire and the PCDP is the perfect choice when it comes to assessing and predicting the performance of potential employees. However, there are also some issues regarding the tests that make it not suitable for the entire mass of industries and organizations. Wallis and Birt (2003) pointed out the possibility of having a difficulty in finding the equivalent of some English words; if ever the test is administered to a non-English speaking group of people. It maybe hard to reconcile. Another research done by Reid (2005) found out that there are several items in the test that require the sense of sight in selecting the answer. Therefore, the questionnaire and the report were inappropriate for use with individuals who are visually impaired.
The MBTI, NEO – PI, And HOGAN Personality Inventory
Another popular type of assessment is the Myers – Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI. Sixteen personality types predicate this test, each being based on an individuals status on four dimensions namely, Judgment – Perception, Thinking – Feeling, Sensing – Intuition and Extraversion – Intraversion. In this test, questions are posed in such a way that the test – taker will state his/her personal preference in terms of using or directing their energies, processing specific scoring, the MBTI will yield an individual profile in terms of the previously mentioned bipolar dimensions. The combination of the ends of the dimensions to which the status of the test – taker is nearer is then classified as a personality type (Muchinsky, 2007).
“According to the Myers – Briggs theory of personality, each of 16 personality types can be characterized in terms of job or role preferences that best match their personality. Among the strengths of the MBTI are its ease of understanding, high face validity, and appeal among a wide population of users” (Muchinsky, 2007). MBTI, however, did not escape the eyes of the critics. It has been questioned in terms of its being useful in analyzing or conceptualizing personality into specific “types”. Its dimensions had been questioned in terms of its validity, and the lack of differentiation in interpreting a high score and a low score was also pointed out. Despite such issues, however, the test remains to be one of the most widely used in the I/O field.
The MBTI’s underlying theory, the Five – Factor model of Personality, gad gained more support than the test itself. More popularly known as the Big 5 Theory of Personality, the theory distinguishes five major personality dimensions wherein a person may have a high or a low status on. These dimensions are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. There had been numerous studies about the validity of the theory. Some of which were done by McCrae and Costa (1987) and R.T. Hogan (1991). This Big Five Theory of Personality also gave birth to the NEO – PI (P.T. Costa, 1996) and the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan and Hogan, 1992). Since the mentioned tests had the Big 5 Theory as a back up, numerous studies supporting the theories also reflect support for these tests:
In a meta-analysis that they have performed in 1991, Barrick and Mount suggested that extraversion is indeed a valid predictor of job performance, especially those that require social interactions. In 1998, Tokar, Fisher and Subich found out that there is a link between many aspects of work – related behavior including career progression, vocational interests and job performance. Salgado (1997) found out that the consistency of the correlation of conscientiousness with job performance is cross – cultural. Hurtz and Donovan made a major meta-analysis of the Big 5 Theory and suggested that the validity coefficients for correctly predicting job performance criteria were not that high, only about 0.20. A report by Collins and Gleaves (1998) stated that the Big 5 Theory was applicable for both Black and White job applicants and also for Blue and White collar job seekers. Having reviewed the literature, it would be safe to assume that the theory underlying the MBTI, the NEO – PI and the Hogan Personality Inventory is a durable framework for taking into consideration the differences across nations. McCral and Costa (1997) have even stated that their pattern of interrelationships may be considered universal. Furthermore, these personality tests give a predictive validity that is “incremental” beyond intelligence tests (Judge, et al., 1999).
One major issue concerning the use and administration of personality tests for employee selection is that there is a possibility that the test-takers may fake their responses, socially desirable responses may be chosen instead of the truthful ones. This issue was addressed by ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss (1996) through their meta-analysis of various researches. They have come u with a conclusion that is supportive of the tests: social desirability biases do not have a significant effect on the validity of personality measures for employee selection. According to them, an individual who fakes a test is most likely to fake his/her performance on the job (Onrs, Viswesvaran, and Reiss, 1996). A study by Rosses and colleagues found out, however, that faking of the responses was indeed great among job applicants. Due to their desire to create a good impression in the assessment, the test-takers would most likely to fake their answers than the job incumbents. Such findings suggest that a faking and social desirability bias in personality assessment is a matter that needs more attention.
One possible way to resolve the faking issue is to use the mentioned personality tests alongside other tests. Combining the results of a specific personality test with other information (e.g. technical and medical skills, ability to learn and previous job experience) may give a cross-check (Hogan, Hogan and Roberts, 1996). Interests and abilities develop with personality and according to Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) “ability level and personality dispositions determine the probability of success in a particular task domain, and interests determine the motivation to attempt the task. Therefore, results of personality tests may not be relied on solely, but it is also cannot be neglected in assessing and predicting job performance.
Projective Personality Tests
The Rorschach Test (RIM)
The Rorschach Inkblot Method had long been used and is still being used by I/O psychologists as a means of gathering information regarding the emotional, cognitive and social functioning of a job seeker 43% of the total population of clinical psychologists use the RIM. However, it had been found that only 24% of school psychologists actually utilize the test (Stinnett, Havey, and Oehler-Stinnett, 1994) which may mean that RIM is more suitable in the work place setting. However, there had been many criticism regarding the nature, the use, and interpretation of the RIM. The following is a list of criticisms against the RIM and the responses of supportive studies on such criticisms:
Critism I: Administering the RIM requires too much time. It had long been pointed out that the administration of the RIM may actually require a lot of time. However, according to Gacono, DeCato, Brabender and Goertzel (1997), it is actually the skill level of the administrator, rather than the test itself that determines the administration and scoring duration. The response wanted to point out that if the administrator is skilled and knows how to administer the test efficiently, then the time duration will be small. But if the administrator is faulty, then the test will take a longer time.
Criticism II: The RIM is not cost-effective. It is considered expensive in terms of time-to-benefit atio. “A psychologist must, however, carefully weigh the importance of RIM data when deciding on this cost-benefit issue” (Hughes, Gacono, and Owen, 2007). The value of the Rorschach is considerable if it is administered as a part of a multi-method strategy (Hughes, Gacono, and Owen, 2007). Although a single method may be enough for data collection, and will require lesser time and money, in the long run, it may also give a limited, shallow, and narrow understanding of the test-taker’s responses (Meyer, et al., 2001; Myers and Winters, 2002), for which subsequent expanded and more expensive data collections may be needed (Meyer et al., 2001). According to Hughes, Gacono, and Owen (2007), the data provided by the RIM is more useful for comprehending unconscious processes as well as other dimensions of functioning.
Criticism III: Psychodynamic orientation is a prerequisite to effective and efficient RIM interpretation. This criticism was regarded by RIM supporters as absolutely false. The Rorschach had been embraced by the psychodynamic field of psychology when it was first introduced in the United States. However, such acceptance did not necessarily mean that the RIM is based on a psychodynamic view (Constantino, Flanagan and Malady, 1995).
Several supporters of the RIM expressed positive descriptions of the method based on substantial empirical evidences (Ganellen, 1996; Viglione, 1999; Viglione and Hilsenroth, 2001; Weiner et al., 2002). There are five scoring systems: Klopfer, Beck, Hertz, Piotrowski, and Rapoport-Schaefer and it is from the most empirically supported features of these systems (together with numerous review of over two decades of empirical studies regarding the test) which led to the revision of the Comprehensive System.
Studies on test validity also show support for the RIM. There exists meta-analyses which thoroughly elaborated on the effectiveness of the method (Atkinson, 1988; Atkinson, Quarrington, Alp and Cyr, 1986; Bornstein, 1996; Hiller, Bornstein, Rosenthal, Berry end Brunell-Neulib, 1999; Parker, Hunsley and Hansen, 1988). After correcting several problems that were not addressed by the previous meta-analyses, Hiller and colleagues (199) have found that the Rorschach test’s indices have “unweighted” mean effect size of .29. Thus, if compared alongside the indices of the MMPI, the RIM had been found to have larger validity coefficients when used in studies with objective criterion variables (Exner, 2003). The Rorschach test had also been found to be suitable for both clinical and research areas (Piotrowski, 1996; Piotrowski and Keller, 1989; Piotrowski, Shevey and Keller, 1985).
Finally, Hughes, Gacono, and Owen (2007) gave three distinct advantages of the RIM:
- The variables included in the RIM provide a clear context for understanding the data that are obtained from self-report measures.
- RIM assessment may provide a better way of collecting a standardized behavior sample aside from the self-report or interview. That is, the behavior of the job seeker maybe observed while the test is being conducted.
- Since the RIM images are ambiguous, responses are expected to vary greatly, and thus may provide a better performance prediction. The variables of the RIM are resistant to the test-taker’s efforts to hide difficulties or to inaccurately present themselves in the hopes of establishing good impression (bornstein, Rossner, Hill and Stepanian, 1994; Brems and Johnson, 1991; Ganellen, 1994; Harder, 1984; Shedler, Mayman and Manis, 1993). Unlike the objective personality tests which were previously discussed, the RIM minimizes the test-taker’s chances of faking a response.
- The data gathered from the RIM aids the psychologists in targeting specific interventions.
The RIM’s contribution to the proper understanding of a potential employee’s traits, skills, difficulties, and conflicts is very important in the selection of employees (Hughes, Gacono, and Owen, 2007).
Current Issues in Testing
Assessment tests undergo a lot of revisions, most of which deal with the format of the test questions. According to Haladyna (1999), test questions have to be phrased in such a way that there would only be one correct answer. However, it doesn’t usually happen in the real-life setting. More often than not, an array of responses is possible—it’s just that some answers are more appropriate than others. Such problems led to the growing interest in designing assessment tests.
These past few years, the biggest change that happened in the area of psychological testing is in its administration and scoring. Advances have been made to computerize the tests. Thompson and colleagues (2003) said that such advance affects the phases of assessments in a positive way, since it is easier to administer. Naglieri and others (2004) agreed and suggested that the Internet offers a faster and more cost-effective way to test job seekers. Test updating will also be easier because there will be lesser paper works. However feasible it may seem, computer-based assessment also have potential problems. One problem pertains to test security and the other pertains to proctoring. Internet-based testing may result to loss of important data due to technical problems.
Assessment Centers
An assessment center is defined as “ a method of assessing job candidates via a series of structured, group-oriented exercises that are evaluated by raters” (Muchinsky, 2007). These centers give services that are related to job candidate evaluation. These specialized centers were pioneered by the researchers who work at AT&T who wre then studying the lives of managers over the span of their managerial career. Thus, it may be reflected that assessment centers typically evaluate and analyze jobs at the managerial-level.
Given different tests, the job seeker provides important information about his or her performance. The center’s raters then evaluate the job seeker’s on a series of performance dimensions that were viewed as essential for the job desired. The dimensions include practical judgment, leadership, decision-making and interpersonal relation skills—most typically associated with managerial jobs. The raters will then prepare a report include a feedback section which reflects important notes on the job seeker. The raters will then forward their recommendations for the organization to review and consider (Muchinsky, 2007)
Assessment senters can identify who among a batch of test takers have a potential for success in management. These centers have been successful in their aim of selecting the right people for the right job. However, ratings that were from the assessment of these centers seem to be better predictors of advancement or edge, than of performance. A study by Jansen and Stoop (2001) found that there is a .39 correlation between the assessment center ratings and career advancement over a seven-year period.
Evaluations coming from assessment centers are particularly prone to criterion contamination (Muchinsky, 2007). A possible source of such contamination is when the overall judgments of performance are based on several evaluation methods such as test, interviews, and others. Different methods having different validities may affect the overall evaluation. But since the incremental value of the mentioned methods are only implied in the general judgment, it may be arguable how much the center’s ratings actually contribute to predicting the future job performance beyond the district methods that were also used. Kleinmann (1993) suggested that there is evidence that the test-takers actually have an idea on how to impress their raters. They “fashion” their behaviors according to the dimension that is being assessed.
Another source of contamination is subtler. Klimoski and Strickland (1977) stated that the evaluations made by the assessment center and predictive because the stereotypes of both the raters and the supervisors of the company of what an “effective employee” is are congruent. The center’s raters tend to give higher evaluations to jib seekers who fit into the “good management talent” stereotype while the supervisors tend to give higher evaluations to applicants who fit into the “good company people” stereotype. Such stereotypes produce biases on both evaluations. The danger is that, companies may hire and eventually promote those job seekers who fit into the “successful employee” stereotype. (Muchinsky, 2007). Lievens and Klimoski (2001) made a similar statement:
“Assesors do not judge assesses exclusively on the basis of the prescribed dimensions but also take into account the fit of the applicants into the culture of the organization” (p. 259)
This would be in the long run, result into employee homogeneity within the organization. Klmoski and Brickner (1987) concluded that the evaluations made by the assessment centers are not questionable in terms of its validity, and this is an issue that has not been addressed in I/O psychology at that time. The authors then give five possible explanations to this phenomenon:
- Actual criterion contamination-assessment evaluations by assessment centers had been used by different companies to help them make decision on raises, promotions, and rated job performance. There is then confusion between the criteria.
- Subtle criterion contamination – as was mentioned earlier, biased assessment evaluations have a relationship with biased performance evaluations.
- Self-fulfilling prophecy – companies request their “potential” employees to attend assessment centers, then after the evaluation; those same individuals are actually the ones who get ahead ion the company.
- Performance consistency – individuals who usually succeed in work-related activities also succeed in different areas such as in assessment centers, in training, on the actual job, and so on. They are inherently good performers. Thus, success in the evaluation done by assessment centers may also mean success on the job.
- Managerial intelligence – the knowledge, skills, and abilities that were required in order to be successful in assessment centers and on the job have so much in common. Talents such as analytic reasoning, verbal skills, and well-developed plans of action are more often than not, acquired by people who are more intellectually capable. Klimoski and Strickland (1977) refer to such construct “managerial intelligence”.
Assessment centers have been the subject of recent researches. Previous researches addressed whether assessment evaluations were predictive of job success and found that indeed, they were. More recent studies tackled the limitations of this method of assessment and the possible reasons why they are predictive (Muchinsky, 2007).
Of the tests that were discussed, none seemed to have considered the value of employee engagement. The mentioned tests focused on personality and intelligence as predictors of job performance, but not of employee engegment. Employee engagement's definition is vague in both researchers and I/O psychologists (Macey and Schneider, 2008). The term may be used to refer to psychological state engagement, behavioral engagement and trait engagement. According to Macey and Schneider (2008), having engaged employees may be an advantage to a company, especially if engagement “produces effects at levels of analysis of concern to management”. Furthermore, an engaged workforce is an edge that would be hard for other companies to imitate.
As we can see, employee engagement is as important as employee's job performance, and it would be worthy to notice that such factor wasn't considered in existing tests. One characteristic of tests is that these are designed in such a way that selection would but effective, but employee retention is not as necessary. It might be worthy to study how the prediction of employee engagement might help in the selection of employees.
Legal Issues On Selection
Current issues on selection not only deals with the reliability and validity of the predictors that are being used. Some concerns on the legal environment for selection have also been of interest to researchers. An extensive study done by Myors et al (2008) grouped the existing perspectives of 22 countries on the aspects of the legal environment for employee selection into four groups: issues on disadvantaged groups, discrimination laws, minority preference, and specific I/O tools and impact on I/O.
The first group of perspectives is centered on disadvantaged groups. According to Myors et al (2008), disadvantaged groups may be divided into four subgroups: foreigners, religious groups, ethnic minorities, and language group minorities. It has been found in the study that in many European and Asian nations, the disadvantaged groups are composed largely of foreign workers. In the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan, however, a large percent of the disadvantaged groups is composed of ethnic minorities. It has also been found that very few nations considered having studies that would focus on the mean differences of cognitive ability, personality, and job performance and that in terms of cognitive ability, results usually favor men—who happen to belong to the advantaged group (Myors et al , 2008).
Now, what does this tell us? It simply shows that tests used in employee selection does not cut across cultural diffrences. Thus, in a company accepting applicants from different parts of the country and administering a single test, that company is most likely to hire members of the advantaged group (that is why they are called such). And members of the advantaged group do not necessarily have all the talents that would make them fit for the job. The only difference is that they fully comprehend the test and may even have a hint on what the test is trying to measure, as opposed to applicants who, let's say, do not fully understand the language of the test, or cannot fully relate to the situations simulated .
The second group of perspectives collected by Myors et al (2008) tackled the discrimination laws. The researchers have found that in many countries, only a few actual cases of discrimination were actually filed or brought to court. This is not because the victims accept that discrimination did not really occur, but because a large number of the workers do not know or understand their rights, do not know how to protect such rights, or do not see any gain in bringing the matter to the court. If ever a case is brought to trial, punishment is usually light. Much of this is because there is no clear definition of what a discriminative act is and what kind of evidence is required to prove it. Furthermore, it was found that many countries do not make use of important workforce comparisons as their basis for discrimination (Myors et al , 2008).
According to the research, most countries do not require validity evidence, and that the empirical validity of tests that were used for selection is implicitly assumed (Myors et al , 2008). However, if the test was done by only a single person from the HR department, without an I/O psychology training, there is a risk of creating an invalid test that is based on in-group biases. Such tests may cause subtle discrimination, eliminating members of the disadvantaged groups at once.
The third group of perspectives is called the minority preference. Explicit banning of preferential treatment is rare (Myors et al , 2008). It has also been found that private-sector companies do not engage in preferential treatment.
This can be viewed positively or negatively. If by minority, we mean, a group of exceptionally talented individuals then the disadvantaged group remains on the lower job positions. But if we mean, racial minority, women, or the handicapped, then opportunities are given to those who are previously disadvantaged. The question is, do we use the same test? Or should there be a study done beforehand to effectively create a test that would measure what it wants to measure given a specific group of respondents? This is an issue that has not been settled in the field of psychological testing.
The last group of perspectives determined by Myors et al (2008) discusses the specific I/O tools and their impact on Industrial/Organizational psychology. The field is young, but is growing rapidly. It is not surpsing why the tools of the I/O psychology field are not yet referenced explicitly in local laws or in common legal practices. Large companies seem to set the trend in terms of what tests should be used, since they seem to be more knowledgable of the “social and business pressures for effective selection” (Myors et al , 2008).
What then, would be a universal standard in terms of choosing a test or a predictor? The answer is yet to be finalized. As studies replicate, new information about the validity, reliability, and accuracy of tests are being found. It is therefore recommended that more studies be done on the applicability of tests in both the advantaged and disadvantaged groups. This study will be focusing on the accuracy of the tests that were discussed in terms of “pinpointing” who among a batch of applicats is fit for the job.
References
Ackerman, P.L., & Heggested, E.D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence of overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.
Atkinson. L., (1988). The comparative validities of the Rorschach and MMPI. Canadian Psychology, 27. 238-347.
Atkinson, L., Quarrington, B., Alp. I.E. & Cyr. J.J. (1986). Rorschach validity: An empirical approach to the literature. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42. 360-362.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and the job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Brems. C., & Johnson. M.E. (1991). Subtle-obvious scales of the MMPI: Indicators of profile validity in psychiatric population Journal of Personality Assessment. 56. 536-544.
Bornstein. R.F. Rossner. S.C. Hill E.L. & Stepanian, M.I. (1994). Face validity and take ability of objective and projective measures of dependency: Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363-386.
Butcher, J. N., dahlstrom, W. G., Graham , J. R., Tellegen. A., & Kaemmer. B. (1989). MMPI-2:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, D., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Campbell interest and skill survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personalityand mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Collins, J.M., & Gleaves, D.H. (1998). Race , job applicants, and the five factor model of personality: Implications for black psyvchology, Industrial/Organizational psychology, and the five factor theory. Journal of Applied Psyhology, 83, 531-544.
Constantino, G.I-Ianagan, R., & Malgady R. (1995). The history of the Rorschach: Overcoming bias in multicultural projective assessment. In 1B. Weiner (Ed). Rorschachiana Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber
Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L. E., (1972). An MMPI handbook: Volume 1.Clinical interpretation (Rev. ed.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Exner. J.E. (1993). The Rorschach A comprhensive system Basic foundations and principles of interpretation (Vol. 1. 3rd ed.) New York Wiley.
Fussel, M. T., & Karol, D.L. (1994). 16PF – Fifth Edition: Administrator’s manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Gacono, C., DeCato. C., Brabender. V. & Goertzel, T. (1997) Vitamin C or Pure C: The Roschach of Lions Painting. In J.R. Meloy M. Acklin. C.B. Gacano. C. Peterson, & J.
Murray (Eds) Contemporary Rorschach interpretation Mahwah. NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ganellen. R.J. (1994). Attempting to conceal psychological disturbance. MMPI defensive sets and the Rorschach Journal of Personality Assessment. 63. 423-437.
Ganellen. R.J (1996). Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of the MMPI, MCMI-II, and Rorschach Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 219-243.
Graham. J.R. (2000) The MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Harder, D.W. (1984). Character style of the defensively high self-esteem man. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 26-35.
Hathaway, S.R., & Mckinley, J.C., (1976) MMPI manual (Rev. ed.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hiller, J.B. Rosenthal. R., Bornstein, R.F., Berry. D.T. & Brunell-Neuleib. S. (1999). A comparative meta- analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity, Psychological Assessment, 11, 278-296
Hogan, R.T., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory. Tulsa, Ok: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R. T., & Hogan, J., & Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.
Hughes, T.L., Gacano, C.B., & Owen, P.F. (2007). Current status of Rorschach Assessment: Implications for the school psychologist. Psychology in the Schools. 44 (3). 281-291.
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., & Cable, D.M> (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 383-406.
Kehoe J.F. (2000). Research and practice in selection. In J.F. Kehoe (Ed.) Managing selection in changing organizations ( pp. 397-437). San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Kleinmann, M. (1993). Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 988-993.
Klimoski, R.J., & Strickland, W.J. (1977). Assessment centers—valid or merely prescient? Personnel Psychology, 30, 353-361.
Lievens, F., & Klimoski, R.J., (2001). Understanding the assessment center process: Where are we now? In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.) International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 245-286).
Macey W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1 (2008). 3-30.
Marks. P.A., Seeman. W., & Haller, D.L. (1974). The actuarial use of the MMPi with adolescents and adults. New York Oxford University Press.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 586-516.
Meyer, G.J., & Archer, R.P. (2001). The hard science of Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go? Psychological Assessment, 13, 486-502.
Myers, K., & Winters N.C. (2002). Ten –year review of rating scales: 1. Overview of scale functioning, psychometric properties, and selection. Journal of American Academic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 114-122.
Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schoallert, E. et al (2008). International perspectives on the legal environment for selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1 (2008) 206-246.
Naglieri, J.A., Drasgow, F., Schmit, M., Handler, L., Prifiteria, A., margolis, A., K. Velasquez, R. (2004). Psychological testing on the Internet; New problems, old issues. American Psychologist. 59, 150-162.
Olson, G.T., & Matlock, S.G. (1994). Review of the Sixteen PF Personal Career Development Profile (PCDP). In J.T. Kapes, M> M> Mastie, & E>A> Whitfield (EDS.), A counselor’s guide to career assessment instruments (3rd ed., pp. 302-305). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Associates.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: the red herring. Journal of applied Psychology, 81,660-679.
Parker, K.C., Hanson, R.K. & Hunsley, J. (1988). MMPI. Rorschach, and WAIS: A meta analytic comparison of reliability, stability and validity. Psychological Bulletin., 103, 367-373.
Porter, E. H. (1976). On the development of relationship awareness theory: A personal note. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 302-309
Piotrowski. C. (1996). The status of Exner’s Comprehensive System in Contemporary research. Perceptual and Motor skills. 82, 1341-1342.
Piotrowski, C., Sherry, D., & Keller J.W. (1985). Psychodiagnostic test usage: A survey of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment. 49, 115-119.
Piotrowski, C., Sherry. D., & Keller. J.W. (1989). Use of assessment in mental health clinics and services Psychological Reports. 64, 1298.
Reid, J. (2000). Iatial evaluations of mainstream personality tests for use with visually impaired adults in vocational assessment and guidance. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94(4), 229-232.
Rogers, R., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., & Jordan, M.J. (2006) The MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales: a paradigmatic shift in scale development. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2) 139-147.
Shedler, J., Mayman, M. & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American Psychologist, 48, 1117-1131.
Simms, L.J. (2006). Bridging the divide: comments on the restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2), 211-216.
Stinnett. T.A., Havey, J.M., & Ochler-Stinnett. J. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists. A national survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 12, 331.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1939). Strong vocational interest blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tellegen. A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi. P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B.(2003). The MMPI-2 restructred clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Viglione, D.J., (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach Psychological Assessment. 11. 251-265.
Viglione. D., & Hilsenroth, M. (2001). The Rorschach Facts, fictions, and future. Psychological Assessment, 13, 452-471.
Wallis, T.K., & Birt, M. (2003). A comparison of native and non-native English-speaking groups: Understanding of the vocabulary contained within the 16PF (SA92). South African Journal of Psychology. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Sielkunde, 33(3), 182-190.
Walter, V. (2000a). 16PF personal career development profile: Information and product pricing guide. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from www.ipat.com.
Walter, V. (2000b). 16Pf personal career development profile: Technical and interpretive manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Walter, V. (2000c). 16PF --- Fifth Edition: Personal career development profile. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Werner. I.B., Spielberger, C.D., & Abeles, N. (2002). Scientific psychology and the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Clinical Psychologists, 55, 7-12.
