Presentation: SIOPSA Conference, Pretoria, 13-14 June 2002

META-ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY

MEASUREMENTS AND JOB PERFORMANCE IN SOUTH AFRICA

H.S. van der Walt

Independent Consultant

D. Meiring
Psychological Services, South African Police Services

S. Rothmann
Programme in Industrial Psychology, Potchefstroom University for CHE

M. R. Barrick
Tippie School of Business, University of Iowa

ABSTRACT
Prior meta-analyses of the relationship between the Big Five constructs of personality
and job criteria were carried out in the United States of America, Canada and Europe.
This study reports on the first meta-analytic research on the same topic with studies
conducted in South Africa. The results indicate that Extraversion, Emotional Stability
and Conscientiousness are valid predictors of job performance. These findings are
consistent with those of Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp and McCloy (1990), Barrick and
Mount (1991), and Salgado (1997). However, it was found in the present study that level
of education was a moderator. All the Big Five constructs rendered better predictions for
samples that required more education (higher than Grade 12). Implications of the results
for future research and practice of personnel selection are suggested.

INTRODUCTION

A superficial review of research findings (e.g. narrative description or counting of number of

“significant” outcomes in relation to “non-significant” outcomes) about the relationship
between social phenomena, e.g. as mentioned in the title of this paper, will reveal many
inconsistencies. This leads to confusion with negative consequences such as inability to guide
policies, loss of confidence in research with further corollaries such as lack of research funds
and discouragement of researchers. An important reason for these “inconsistencies” is the
frequently overlooked fact that the outcome of a single study is inherently probabilistic.
Furthermore sampling error cannot be measured in a single study and statistical power is
typically low due to small sample size.
Resolving the matter and gaining insight does not so much lie in additional primary studies
but rather in a scientific integration of the findings of the numerous existing primary studies
by meta-analysis techniques (Van der Walt, 1987) and carefully planned follow-up research.

Meta-analysis (M-A) is a quantitative technique for accumulating results across studies to

enhance understanding of the phenomenon. Important advantages of M-A are possibilities of
controlling artifactual influences, and identifying moderators and gaps in knowledge for
further research. Matters of critique against M-A like oversimplifying (too strong focus on

1
main effects) and comparing mixed studies (apples and oranges) can be accounted for by
careful planning.

Understanding the relationship of personality to job performance is important to our

discipline. Furthermore professional and legal requirements warrant assessment instruments/
techniques to meet certain criteria (e.g. validity, reliability, unbiasedness) for the specific
application.

Traditionally industrial psychologists have questioned the usefulness of personality measures

in predicting job-related criteria, such as job performance and job satisfaction, because of
pessimistic conclusions of early reviews of the topic (e.g. Guion & Gottier, 1965) and
concerns that most personality measures are faked (Reilly & Warech, 1993). Recent findings
however has suggested that personality measures are valid predictors of diverse job-related
criteria (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001). Unlike
many measures of cognitive ability, personality measures typically do not have an adverse
impact on disadvantaged employees (Hogan, Hogan & Roberts, 1996) and thus can enhance
fairness in personnel decisions. Furthermore intentional faking does not attenuate the
criterion-related validity of personality measures (Ones, Viswesvaran & Reiss, 1996).

Since the mid-1980s research focused on the use of the five-factor model (FFM) or some
variant to classify personality traits (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001). The FFM of personality
represents a structure of traits, developed and elaborated over the last few decades (McCrae
& Costa, 1997). The FFM originated in the works by Fiske (1949) and Norman (1963), who
reproduced a highly stable structure with five factors (John, 1990). Researchers agree that
almost all personality measures could be categorized according to the FFM of personality,
also referred to as the "Big Five" personality dimensions, (Goldberg, 1990; Hogan et al,
1996). The five personality dimensions seem to be relevant to different cultures (McCrae &
Costa, 1997) and have been recovered consistently in factor analyses of peer- and self-ratings
of trait descriptors involving diverse conditions, samples, and factor extraction and rotation
methods (Costa & McCrae, 1988). Research also showed that the five personality factors
have a genetic basis (Digman, 1989) and that they are probably inherited (Jang, Livesley &
Vernon, 1996).

The dimensions of the five-factor model of personality are Neuroticism, Extraversion,

Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1985,
1992). Neuroticism concerns the degree to which the individual is insecure, anxious,
depressed, and emotional as against calm, self-confident and cool. Extraversion concerns the
extent to which individuals are gregarious, sociable, assertive and active, as against reserved,
timid and quiet. Openness to Experience defines individuals who are creative, curious and
cultured as against practical with narrow interests. Agreeableness concerns the degree to
which individuals are cooperative, warm and agreeable as against cold, disagreeable and
antagonistic. Conscientiousness measures the extent to which individuals are hardworking,
organized, dependable and persevering as against lazy, disorganized and unreliable. Although
some authors have labelled the factors differently, factor analysis and content analysis of a
great number of personality questionnaires show that there is general consensus regarding the
meaning of the dimensions and that differences are minor (John, 1990; Mount & Barrick,
1995).

It is necessary to acknowledge that the FFM is not unanimously accepted. According to

Block (1995), factor analysis is not an appropriate and adequate base to decide the theoretical

2
constructs of personality. Other researchers have criticized the model on the basis of the
number of factors (Eysenck, 1992; Tellegen & Waller, 1995). However, Costa and McCrae
(1995) and Barrick (2001) responded to this criticism by stating that the Big Five has been
reproduced a great number of times, through different factor analysis methods, by different
researchers, with different instruments and in different languages. Other factors were found
only in isolated samples. According to Salgado (1997, p. 39), the FFM provides the following
advantages: (a) it is a very parsimonious taxonomy; (b) it is a framework for integrating
results of many studies carried out to investigate the relationships between personality and
work behaviour; and (c) it advances understanding of job performance by offering some
personality dimensions related to all jobs and criteria.

As the FFM is relatively recent, most research on the relation between personality and job
performance was carried out with instruments that were not designed to assess the Big Five
constructs. This could have resulted in difficulty in assessing the validity of the Big Five for
predicting job performance. However, several studies showed that the most well-known
instruments for personality assessment may be assumed to be included in the FFM (Briggs,
1992; Costa, Busch, Zonderman & McCrae, 1986; Noller, Law & Comrey, 1987). This
research has provided a way to integrate the validity coefficients of personality measures by
using the Big Five as a theoretical model.

The results of various studies and meta-analyses (Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp & McCloy,
1990; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Vinchur,
Schippmann, Sweizer & Roth, 1998) showed that various Big Five personality dimensions
are related to job performance. In the United States of America Barrick and Mount (1991)
found that Conscientiousness (ρ = 0.22) is a valid predictor across occupations and across
criteria and that the other personality factors only generalize their validity for some
occupations and some criteria. Barrick and Mount found that Extraversion is a valid predictor
for managers (ρ = 0.18); Emotional Stability is a valid predictor for police (ρ = 0.10); and
Agreeableness is a valid predictor for police and managers (ρ = 0.10, in both cases).
Openness to Experience did not show validity for any occupational group. Extraversion is a
valid predictor of training proficiency (ρ = 0.26), as are Emotional Stability (ρ = 0.07),
Agreeableness (ρ = 0.10) and Openness to Experience (ρ = 0.25). The relative non-validity of
Emotional Stability may have been due to a type of range restriction based on “selecting-out”
process in the applicant pool, where the applicants with a low level of Emotional Stability
were already excluded from the applicant pool (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Hough et al. (1990) were of the opinion that on the one hand the constructs of the FFM are
too broad to be effective predictors of specific job performances and on the other hand that an
overall job performance rating is inadequate to reflect the different job dimensions. Therefore
they used seven construct categories, namely Surgency, Adjustment, Agreeableness, Depend-
ability, Intellectance, Affiliation and Miscellaneous (i.e. achievement, masculinity and locus
of control). For job proficiency, Hough et al. found an observed validity of 0.13 for
Adjustment (Emotional Stability), and Dependability (Conscientiousness). For training
criteria, they found an observed validity of 0.16 for Adjustment, 0.14 for Intellectance
(Openness), 0.11 for Dependability, 0.10 for Agreeableness and 0.08 for Surgency
(Extraversion). If the validities were corrected for measurement errors and range restriction,
the true validity of Adjustment and Dependability would be 0.23 for job proficiency. For
training criteria, the true validities would be 0.28 (Adjustment), 0.25 (Intellectance), 0.19
(Dependability), 0.18 (Agreeableness) and 0.14 (Surgency).

3
Salgado (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of the Big Five dimensions in relation to
performance for three criteria (i.e., supervisory ratings, training ratings and personnel data)
and for five occupational groups using 36 validity studies conducted in Europe. Results
indicated that Conscientiousness (ρ = 0.25) and Emotional Stability (ρ = 0.19) were valid
predictors for all performance criteria and for most occupational groups. Openness to
Experience (ρ = 0.26) and Agreeableness (ρ = 0.31) showed validity for training criteria.
Extraversion generalized validity for managers and police, although the validity for managers
was very low.

De Fruyt and Mervielde (1999), Tokar and Subich (1997), Schneider (1999) and Vinchur et
al. (1998) concluded that extraversion and conscientiousness predict job performance in
various occupations.

Hörmann and Maschke (1996) found that Neuroticism is a predictor of performance in

various occupations. Dunn, Mount, Barrick and Ones (1995) found that emotional stability
(the opposite of neuroticism) is the second most important characteristic that affects the
employability of candidates. In a recent study Judge, Higgins, Thoresen and Barrick (1999)
found that neuroticism is inversely related to job performance. Extraversion seems to be a
valid predictor of performance in jobs characterized by social interaction, such as sales
personnel and managers (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bing & Lounsbury, 2000; Lowery &
Krilowicz, 1994; Vinchur et al. 1998). Johnson (1997) found a positive relationship between
extraversion and job performance of police personnel, and explained this relationship in
terms of the high level of interaction in the police service. Openness is related to success in
consulting (Hamilton, 1988), training (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur et al. (1998) and
adapting to change (Horton, 1992; Raudsepp, 1990).

According to Tett et al. (1991), agreeableness is a significant predictor of job performance.

Salgado (1997) found that agreeableness is related to training success. The co-operative
nature of agreeable individuals may lead to success in occupations where teamwork and
customer service is relevant (Judge et al. 1999). Hough et al. (1990) and Borman, White,
Pulakos and Oppler (1991) found significant correlations between reliability (an aspect of
conscientiousness) and job performance. Various researchers (Barrick & Mount, 1991;
Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1993; Sackett & Wannek, 1996; Ones and Viswesvaran, 1997;
Frink and Ferris, 1999) reported significant correlations between conscientiousness and job
performance. According to Sackett and Wannek (1996), the relationship between
conscientiousness and job performance could be attributed to the conceptual relationship
between conscientiousness and integrity. Furthermore, autonomy and goal setting influence
the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991)

Barrick et al. (2001) quantitatively summarized the results of 15 prior meta-analytic studies.
They found that the validity of Conscientiousness in predicting job performance was the
highest (of the personality traits studied) and that it generalized across all criterion types and
all occupations studied. The validity of Emotional Stability was distinguishable from zero,
but its overall relationship with performance was lower than the effect for Conscientiousness.
Barrick et al. suggested that a reason for the relatively low validity of Emotional Stability is
that it might be a considerably broader construct than previously considered, and that it
should include aspects such as self-esteem, self-efficacy and locus of control. Extraversion,
Agreeableness and Openness to Experience predicted some aspects of performance in some
occupations.

4
Led by the results of their 2001 M-A study Barrick et al. called for a moratorium on M-A
studies based on relationships between the broad FFM constructs and overall job performance
and recommended foci on finer detail. At the recent SIOP conference (May 2002 in Toronto)
Hough reiterated her views on the inadequacies of the broad FFM constructs and a single
measure of job performance for explaining the relationship between personality and job
performance and recommended research to develop more appropriate personality and work
performance taxonomies.

As this is the first M-A study on the relationship between personality measurements and job
performance in SA it was planned to investigate the relationship of the FFM and overall job
performance but also the relationships between a more detailed personality taxonomy and
various job performance dimensions as advocated by Hough.

METHOD

Identification of studies
To obtain studies to be included in the meta-analysis, the following procedures were used.
Firstly, a computer search of databases in South Africa was conducted for the period 1985-
2001 with the following terms: personality, personnel, performance, selection (in both
English and Afrikaans because scientific reporting in this period was done in these two
languages). The databases searched include the Nexus Database (to identify relevant
dissertations and theses) and the Repertoire of South African Journal Articles. Secondly, there
was an article-by-article search through South African behavioural science journals thought
most likely to contain data on the validity of personality measures: South African Journal of
Psychology, Journal of Industrial Psychology, Management Dynamics: Contemporary
Perspectives, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences and South
African Journal of Business Management. Thirdly, distributors of psychology materials in
South Africa were asked for validity studies of personality instruments. Fourthly, appeals to
submit validity studies were made at meetings and conferences of the following associations:
People Assessment in Industry (PAI), Society for Industrial / Organizational Psychology
(South Africa) and Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA). The call for studies was
placed on the web site of PAI and advertised in Psytalk (a newsletter of PsySSA). Finally, the
Psychology and Industrial Psychology departments of all major universities in South Africa
were asked (per letter or via e-mail) for references to both published articles and unpublished
papers on the topic.

The final result of the research included 40 independent studies. Only a disappointingly small
number of 19 were found to be usable for M-A purposes. Sample sizes of the individual
studies ranged from 35 to 420, yielding a total of 3478 cases - the mean being 183 and the
median 140.
The main reasons for losing the studies were:
 No zero-order effect sizes reported, but only multivariate values.
 Only “significant” values of the effect sizes reported.
 Only probabilities were reported, no information on effect sizes or group/subgroup
sizes, means and variances.

In addition to these “fatal” causes, various shortcomings in the information presented in

studies prohibited the optimum use of their data in the M-A (e.g. identifying moderators).
These were:

5
  Incomplete sample description in general (e.g. background, specific job, job levels,
criteria).
 Incomplete sample description i.r.o. important person characteristics (e.g. age, gender,
qualification, cultural group, home language).
 Lack of description of realized sample. Information only on personal characteristics of
planned sample before attrition.
 Lack of information on reliabilities of the dependent variables.
 Incomplete information on reliabilities of independent variables.
 Incomplete information on variance shrinkages due to selection/attrition.
 Incomplete descriptions of scale constructs and direction (meaning) of the higher/
lower scores.

The small number of 19 studies brings the question of “representativeness” (file drawer
problem) to the fore. At this stage of the study it would be inappropriate to claim
representativeness and the results are viewed as exploratory. However, much has already been
learned and sharing of the results is considered important.

Procedure
Taxonomies were developed for classifying personality scales into broader constructs and for
classifying job performance indices into meaningful dimensions. Furthermore personal and
organizational characteristics were identified that could possibly moderate the relationship
between the personality measurements and job performance.
Based on the research of Hough (1992) the following nine categories were created for the
classification of personality scales: Sociability, Potency, Achievement, Dependability,
Agreeableness, Adjustment (neuroticism), Intellectance (openness), Rugged Individualism
(Masculinity/Feminity) and Locus of Control. Categories for job performance were based on
the work of Campbell (1990) and of Borman and Montowidlo (1997), comprising Task
specific performance (Role prescribed) and Contextual performance (Typically
discretionally). Task specific performance included the following sub-categories: Job-specific
task proficiency, Non-job-specific task proficiency, Written and oral communication,
Supervision / Leadership, Management/Administration. and Training. Contextual
performance included the following sub-categories: Demonstrating effort, Facilitating peer
and team performance, Maintenance of personal discipline and General compliance. The
following characteristics were identified as possible moderators: Size of organization, Job
type, Culture group, Gender, Age, Qualification, Job analysis done, Collector type, Research
model, Statistic used, Rating source, Rater training, Study quality.

Schedules were developed for transcribing the data extracted and coded from the single
studies for the purpose of the meta-analysis. Data extracted comprised the study
characteristics, sample size, names of personality scales, reliabilities of the personality scales
and job performance indices, range restriction, criterion split ratio (if dichotomy) and effect
size of the relationships between the personality scales and the job performance indices. The
personality scales were classified into the FFM and also according to the nine category
taxonomy by two of the researchers.

Training was presented to the co-operators 1 to familiarize them with the data extracting-task
and examples were provided. Each researcher recorded the information for each study

1
The input of Ms Tina Joubert of SHL who assisted with the extraction of data from SHL’s studies is
acknowledged.

6
independently. There was a high degree of agreement between researchers, and any
disagreement was resolved by referring to the original study.

It was decided to use in this phase only the FFM taxonomy and an overall job performance
index due to the small number of studies obtained and because only a few studies reported
differentiated job performance evaluations. The first set of analyses was about correcting for
sampling error and the attenuating artifacts across criterion types and occupational groups.
The second set of analyses was aimed at identifying the possible influence of moderators on
the validities. Owing to the small number of studies the moderator analyses could only be
done in respect of level of education and type of research model used.

The meta-analytic procedure used formulae from Hunter and Schmidt (1990) that corrected
the mean and variance of validity coefficients across studies for artifactual variance due to
sampling error and attenuation owing to measurement error in independent and dependent
variables.

As the purpose of this study is to understand the true score correlations between the
personality dimensions and job performance criteria and to assess the presence of moderators,
the focus is on ρ and the corresponding credibility values. The credibility value (CV) which
is centered around the estimated true score correlations (generated from the corrected
standard deviation) can also be used to obtain an indication of the likelihood of moderators.
(The confidence interval which is centered around the sample-size weighted effect sizes mean
(‾r) before being corrected for measurement error or restriction of range, is used to assess the
influence of sampling error on the uncorrected estimate r.)

RESULTS

The results of the meta-analysis are shown in Table 1. There were 19 studies in the meta-
analysis, but the number of validities differed among the five factors. Extraversion was
represented the most in the studies and Conscientiousness the least.

Table 1
The Results of the Meta-analysis

FFM Construct K N rxy  SD 90% CV

Extraversion 18 3378 0.11 0.17 0.06 0.08
Agreeableness 16 2750 -0.01 -0.01 0.05 -0.05
Conscientiousness 15 2454 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.02
Emotional Stability 16 2982 0.13 0.19 0.11 0.05
Open to Experience 16 2750 0.02 0.03 0.08 -0.06
Note. K = number of correlations; rxy =weighted mean observed validity;  = estimated true validity at the
construct level; SD = estimated population standard deviation; CV = credibility value (Lower bound p = 0.1
two-tailed)

The 90% credibility values (CV) in Table 1 show that three FFM constructs could be
distinguished from zero, namely Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability.
However, the ρ-values (i.e. the correlation coefficient corrected for criterion and predictor
unreliability) were relatively low. Emotional Stability ( = 0.19) shows the highest validity,
and is followed by Extraversion ( = 0.17) and Conscientiousness ( = 0.12). The validities
of these three constructs can thus be generalized to all the samples in the study.

7
Moderators were inspected next. Table 2 shows the results when education was included as a
moderator.

Table 2
The Results (Rho) of the Meta-analysis with Education as Moderator

FFM Construct Grade 12 or Lower Higher than Grade 12

Extraversion 0.14 0.26
Agreeableness -0.04 0.12
Conscientiousness 0.11 0.21
Emotional Stability 0.19 0.33
Open to Experience -0.02 0.06

Table 2 shows that all the FFM constructs rendered better predictions if the sample had more
education (higher than Grade 12). The improvement in predictive validity is noticeable for
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. Under these
circumstances, the predictive validity for Conscientiousness is comparable with other meta-
analyses; and for Extraversion it is comparable with other meta-analyses for certain jobs
(sales, management). Emotional Stability is higher than found in the studies reported by
Barrick et al (2001). This finding may be due to a more precise assessment of non-English
mother tongue speakers caused by a better understanding of the items as found in recent
research (Meiring 2002). This research indicated better factor structures and higher
reliabilities for groups with higher scores in an English language test.

The moderator analyses of research design indicate that validities did not differ. They were
comparable in samples of current employees (concurrent designs) as well samples of
applicants (predictive designs).

DISCUSSION

The small number of studies is a limitation and this influenced the analysis possibilities and
the generalisability of the results. The findings of this stage of the study can only be viewed
as preliminary.

The method of grouping the personality measures obtained by instruments that were not
developed using the Big Five into the FFM constructs, could have a suppressing effect on the
size of the validities. The studies included in this database were like those of Barrick and
Mount (1991), Hough et al. (1990), Tett et al. (1991) and Salgado (1997), not originally
intended to assess the Big Five. They were only clustered with the Big Five as conceptual
framework. Specific problems in this regard are that different researchers could classify
personality scales into different FFM constructs. This would result in low convergent validity.
Although these studies support the integration method of the validity coefficients of
personality measures using the Big Five as a theoretical model the validities are rather low.

Research also suggests that the small validity coefficients of personality measures may be due
to the use of global criteria that can mask specific relations. Robertson (1993, 1994) found
that each Big Five factor reflects specific competencies of the jobs they studied and that the

8
magnitude of the validities is greater than that found by Barrick and Mount (1991). Tett et al.
(1991) suggested that criterion specificity might be a relevant moderator of the validity of
personality measures. This concerns the use of overall measures of job performance versus
measures of specific competencies (Warr & Conner, 1992, Hough 1992).
It is clear that the relation between the Big Five, various occupations and work competencies
is an area of continued research for industrial/organizational psychologists in South Africa.

The results of this exploratory M-A study support the relevance of the FFM as a predictor
framework for job performance, especially with individuals with a qualification of Grade 12
or higher. It shows that in South Africa Extraversion, Emotional Stability and
Conscientiousness are valid predictors for various jobs and criteria.

Future research should focus on linking specific FFM facets and specific criterion measures.
For example, the 12 facets of the Personality Characteristics Inventory (Mount, Barrick,
Laffitte & Callans, 1999) or the 30 facets of the NEO Personality Inventory (Revised) (Costa
& McCrae, 1992) could be utilized as specific facets of FFM constructs. Specific criterion
measures, for example the taxonomy used by Viswesvaran, Ones and Schmidt (1996), should
also be researched in relation to FFM facets. The mechanisms through which personality
traits affect job performance should also be researched in future studies.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
This study be continued to increase the number of single studies to open up more
comprehensive analysis possibilities;

Personality questionnaires be presented in a language in which the assessee can understand

the items properly;

Colleagues involved in evaluating primary studies (e.g. journal editors, referees of articles,
study leaders, examiners of theses/ dissertations), be mindful to encourage authors to report
the basic study characteristics and effect sizes adequately to make outcomes useful for meta-
analytic studies.

9
REFERENCES

Barrick, M. R. (2001, June). Personality testing: Controversial no more. Paper presented at

the 4th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial Psychology, Pretoria, South Africa.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millenium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
Block, J. (1995). A contrary view of the five factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-213.
Borman, W C and Motowidlo, S J (1997). Task performance and contextual performance:
The meaning for personnel research. Human Performance 10 (2) 99-109.
Campbell, J P (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M D Dunette and L M Hough (Eds) Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology. Vol 1, 2nd ed.. Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World
Book.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study
of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO-PI Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Five-factor
Model Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five constructs as predictors of
employment status and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701-727.
Eysenck, H.J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 6, 667-673.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of factorial structures of personality ratings form different
sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.
Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment
decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist. 51, 469-477.
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 (Monograph), 75, 581-595.
Hough, L M (1992). The Big Five Personality variables – Construct confusion: Description
versus prediction. Human Performance, 5 (1&2) 139-155.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias
in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications
for research and practice in human resources management. In K. M. Rowland & G. Ferris

10
 (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp. 153-200).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Laffitte, L. J., & Callans, M. C. (1999). Personality
Characteristics Inventory: User’s Manual. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Consulting.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated
factor structure in peer nomination personality rating. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality
testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-
679.
Reilly, R. R., & Warech, M. A. (1993). The validity and fairness of alternatives to cognitive
tests. In C. C. Wing & B. R. Gifford (Eds.), Policy issues in employment testing (pp. 131-
224). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies: The criterion-related
validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 66, 226-244.
Salgado, J. F. (1996). Personality and job competence: A comment on the Robertson and
Kinder study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 373-375.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the
European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.
Schneider, M. H. (1999). The relationship of personality and job settings to job satisfaction.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Science and Engineering, 59, 6103.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). Exploring personality through test construction:
Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M.
Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures, development and evaluation (Vol. 1, pp. 23-42).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1997). Relative contributions of congruence and personality
dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 50, 482-491.
Van der Walt, H S, (1987). Begripvorming en variasie in steekproefresultate. Paper presented
at the Fifth Annual National Psychological Congress. 7-9 September, Cape Town.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review
of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586-
597.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability
of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557-574.
Warr, P., & Conner, M. (1992). Job performance and cognition. In L. Cummings & A. Staub,
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 91-127). New York: JAI Press.

11