Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rojon, Celine; McDowall, Almuth; Saunders, Mark N. K. (2015)
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
Individual workplace performance is a crucial construct in Work Psychology. However, understanding of its conceptualization remains limited, particularly regarding predictor-criterion linkages. This study examined to what extent operational validities differ when criteria are measured as overall job performance compared to distinct specific dimensions as predicted by ability and personality measures respectively. Building on Bartram’s work on the criterion-domain (2005), systematic review methodology was used to select studies for meta-analytic examination. We found validities for both traditional predictor types to be substantially enhanced when performance was assessed specifically rather than generically. Findings indicate assessment decisions can be facilitated through a thorough mapping and subsequent use of predictor measures using specific performance criteria. We discuss further theoretical and practical implications, referring particularly to the development and operationalization of even more finely grained performance conceptualizations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Academy of Management Review (2013). Reviewer resources: Reviewer guidelines. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management (AOM). Retrieved from http://aom.org/ Publications/AMR/Reviewer-Resources.aspx
    • Alderson, P. & Green, S. (2002). Cochrane Collaboration open learning material for reviewers (version 1.1). Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from The Cochrane Collaboration website: http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/PDF/ Openlearning-full.pdf
    • *Alexander, S. G. (2007). Predicting long term job performance using a cognitive ability test (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
    • *Allworth, E. & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(2), 97-111.
    • Arnold, J., Randall, R., Patterson, F., Silvester, J., Robertson, I., Cooper, C. & Burnes, B. (2010). Work psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the workplace (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.
    • Arvey, R. D. & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
    • Austin, J. T. & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 836-874.
    • 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 millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 9-30.
    • *Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 715-722.
    • *Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L. & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43-51.
    • Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185-1203.
    • Bartram, D., Warr, P. & Brown, A. (2010). Let's focus on two-stage alignment not just on overall performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 335-339.
    • *Bergman, M. E., Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., Overton, R. C. & Henning, J. B. (2008). Test of Motowidlo et al.'s (1997) theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 21, 227-253.
    • Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S. & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410-424.
    • Bertua, C., Anderson, N. & Salgado, J. F. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 387-409.
    • *Bilgiç, R. & Sümer, H. C. (2009). Predicting military performance from specific personality measures: A validity study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(2), 231-238.
    • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to metaanalysis (statistics in practice). Oxford, England: Wiley Blackwell.
    • Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Bormann (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    • Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
    • Brannick, M. T., Yang, L.-Q. & Cafri, G. (2011). Comparison of weights for meta-analysis of r and d under realistic conditions. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 587-607.
    • Briner, R. B., Denyer, D. & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19-32.
    • Briner, R. B. & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I-O Psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(1), 2-11.
    • *Buttigieg, S. (2006). Relationship of a biodata instrument and a Big 5 personality measure with the job performance of entry-level production workers. Applied H.R.M. Research, 11(1), 65-68.
    • *Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67-88.
    • Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    • Campbell, J. P. (2010). Individual occupational performance: The blood supply of our work life. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 245-254). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
    • Campbell, J. P., Houston, M. A. & Oppler, S. H. (2001). Modeling performance in a population of jobs. In J. P. Campbell & D. J. Knapp (Eds.), Exploring the limits of personnel selection and classification (pp. 307-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H. & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    • Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J. & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313-333.
    • Campion, M. A. (1993). Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in Applied Psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46, 705-718.
    • Cascio, W. F. (2006). Global performance management systems. In I. Bjorkman & G. Stahl (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resources management (pp. 176- 196). London, England: Edward Elgar Ltd.
    • Cassell, C. (2011). Criteria for evaluating papers using qualitative research methods. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP), [Online], Retrieved from Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%292044-8325/homepage/qualitative_guidelines.htm
    • Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N. & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140-1166.
    • *Chung-Yan, G. A., Cronshaw, S. F. & Hausdorf, P. A. (2005). Information exchange article: A criterion-related validation study of transit operators. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(2), 172-177.
    • *Conway, J. M. (2000). Managerial performance development constructs and personality correlates. Human Performance, 13(1), 23-46.
    • *Conte, J. M. & Gintoft, J. N. (2005). Polychronicity, Big Five personality dimensions, and sales performance. Human Performance, 18(4), 427-444.
    • *Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D. & Bedford, A. P. (2000). Personality and self-rated work performance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 202-208.
    • *Cortina, J. M., Doherty, M. L., Schmitt, N., Kaufman, G. & Smith, R. G. (1992). The 'Big Five' personality factors in the IPI and MMPI: Predictors of police performance. Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 119-140.
    • Costa Jr., P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1990). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
    • *Côté, S. & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1-28.
    • *Day, D. V. & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 25-36.
    • *Deadrick, D. L. & Gardner, D. G. (2008). Maximal and typical measures of job performance: An analysis of performance variability over time. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 133-145.
    • Denyer, D. (2009). Reviewing the literature systematically. Cranfield, England: Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM). Retrieved from Advanced Institute of Management website: http://aimexpertresearcher.org/
    • Denyer, D. & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3&4), 131- 135.
    • Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671-689). London, England: Sage.
    • Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
    • Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E. & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the
    • *Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G. & Johnston, N. G. (2000). Predicting job performance using personality constructs: Are personality tests created equal? In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes, Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 249-264). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
    • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
    • Green, S. (2005). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Singapore Medical Journal, 46(6), 270- 270.
    • *Hattrup, K., O'Connell, M. S. & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11(4), 305-319.
    • *Hogan, J., Hogan, R. & Murtha, T. (1992). Validation of a personality measure of managerial performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7(2), 225-237.
    • Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance ratings: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112.
    • *Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D. & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterionrelated validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 581-595.
    • Hough, L. M. & Ones, D. O. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Volume 1 Personnel Psychology (pp. 233-277). London, England: Sage.
    • Hunter, J. E. & Hirsh, H. R. (1987). Applications of meta-analysis. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1987 (pp. 321-357). New York, NY: Wiley.
    • Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
    • Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869-879.
    • *Inceoglu, I. & Bartram, D. (2007). Die Validität von Persönlichkeitsfragebögen: Zur Bedeutung des verwendeten Kriteriums. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 6(4), 160-173.
    • *Jenkins, M. & Griffith, R. (2004). Using personality constructs to predict performance: Narrow or broad bandwidth. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 255-269.
    • *Kanfer, R., Wolf, M. B., Kantrowitz, T. M. & Ackerman, P. L. (2010). Ability and trait complex predictors of academic and job performance: A person-situation approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 40-69.
    • Kelly, A., Morris, H., Rowlinson, M. & Harvey, C. (Eds.) (2010). Academic journal quality guide 2009. Version 3. Subject area listing. London, England: The Association of Business Schools. Retrieved from The Association of Business Schools website: http://www.the-abs.org.uk/?id=257
    • *Lance, C. E. & Bennett Jr., W. (2000). Replication and extension of models of supervisory job performance ratings. Human Performance, 13(2), 139-158.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article