Introduction
Personality tests are a method by which an individual’s proficiency and ability to be integrated within a corporate setting are evaluated based on their inherent personality attributes (Janda, 2001). The popularity of this method has considerably increased as of late due to the way in which it supposedly enables a company to “weed out” individuals who have the possibility of not being able to successfully integrate themselves into the company (Huprich, Pouliot, & Bruner, 2012).
It must be noted though that with the rise of the popularity of personality tests has also come considerable criticisms regarding their use on the grounds of their accuracy and actual ability to sufficiently measure the complexities of an individual’s personality accurately (Huprich, Pouliot, & Bruner, 2012).
Critiques of personality testing point to the fact that it is quite possible for potential employees to fake their responses on a test in order to give a better response, that performance in a company is not necessary dependent on an individual’s personality and the fact that the complexities of individual personalities cannot be succinctly evaluated based on a single test alone which calls into question the accuracy of the entire process (Federmann, Bäckström, & Goldsmith, 2010).
It is based on this that this paper will examine the various aspects of personality tests, determine how they work and evaluate whether they can actually be utilized as effective methods of evaluation. It is my assumption that, personality tests cannot be utilized as effective methods of personality examination due to the potential for biased methods of answering, the possibility of personalities changing over time and the fact that personalities themselves are complex attributes which cannot be sufficiently examined based on a single test alone.
Construction of Personality Tests
First and foremost, what must be understood is that factor analysis is a method utilized in order to describe the inherent variability in the variables for a particular test. In other words it is utilized as a unit of measurement by which the study variables are set against (Howard & Hughes, 2012) (Van Kampen, 2012).
For personality tests in particular factor analysis takes the form of the five factor model which is often utilized to examine the inclination of a particular individual towards one type of personality or another (Howard & Hughes, 2012). This model consists of the following traits: emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness.
Do note that while it may be true that a plethora of personality traits do exist outside of the 5 factors given, most psychologists do agree that most of these can be boiled down to the 5 primary factors lists (Van Kampen, 2012).
Reliability of Personality Tests
Consistency in results is the best measure of reliability when it comes to any form of psychological testing procedure. If an administered test cannot produce consistent results then it cannot be considered reliable in the least since a personality test is meant to examine the enduring behavioral and psychological facets of an individual which often do not change within a short period of time (barring the use of certain types of prescribed and illegal drugs) (Wise, Streiner, & Walfish, 2010).
As such, when it comes to examining the reliability of a personality test the best way of doing so would be to measure it based on the statistical consistency of the produced results. The most popular and enduring testing procedure is the “test-retest” method which involves giving a set of research subjects the same type of test twice (or even thrice in some cases) in order to measure the consistency of the produced results (Wise, Streiner, & Walfish, 2010).
The popularity of this particular approach stems from the fact that it is quite easy to see deviations in consistency when measuring responses from same individual on the same test. Another method often utilized in determining the reliability of personality tests has been the “equivalent measures” method which involves giving two tests which evaluate the same types of psychological domains (but differ slightly in terms of phrasing, questions, means of evaluation etc.) and administering them to the same group (Reddock, Biderman, & Nguyen, 2011).
By comparing the results produced by the research subjects on one test to the ones created on the other test, the end result should show similar scores if both tests are equal in content. The last method that can be utilized in order to measure the reliability of responses is the “internal consistency” method which involves administering one test that is broken up into two parts with the overall level of consistency on both parts examined (Jinyan, Dingguo, Carroll, Lopez, Tian, & Hui, 2012).
Validity of Tests
Content validity of personality tests often takes the form of an examination of how well a particular test is capable of capturing the domain of interest related to what is being examined (Karakurt, 2012).
Validity in this particular case takes the form of how useful a particular test is in capturing the needed data with the method of evaluation usually taking the form of expert managers, subject matter experts in the field or a plethora of other individual’s whose current job roles are concurrent with what is being examined (Reddock, Biderman, & Nguyen, 2011).
Criterion related validity on the other had takes another approach wherein the test given is evaluated in conjunction with an employee’s performance in order to determine the accuracy of not only the test but the results given. Both methods are utilized extensively within corporations in order to determine the qualifications of a potential employee for a particular position within the company.
The case of criterion related validity is actually quite close to that of convergent validity since it examines based on the concept of “similarity” in that the results of the personality test should match that of the employee’s performance.
Similarly discriminant validity is also utilized in this particular case in order to determine whether the results given are unrelated to each other, such as employee performance not reflecting properly on personality tests and vice-versa. It is based on this that the relationship between convergent and discriminant validity tests can be considered almost similar to the concept of “Yin and Yang” where either one is utilized to determine the accuracy of the other.
Personality Tests and Employees
It is interesting to note that personality tests have been gaining a considerable degree of popularity in employee assessments due to their supposed ability to determine an individual’s ability to work effectively in their assigned role.
Various studies have shown that personality tests can be used as an effective measure in examining how well a potential employee can interact with others within a group setting, how well can they empathize with clients as well as an assortment of other types of personality predisposition which can give companies an insight as to how an employee can deal with the various nuances of their position within the company (Bradley-Geist & Landis, 2012).
In fact personality tests have become so ubiquitous within corporations that an individual’s potential promotion within a company is at times based on a combination of their performance and their personality evaluation (Dietricha & Abbott, 2012). One of the inherent problems though that are associated with personality tests is that they can often give static/mechanical responses regarding a particular employee (Tett, Fitzke, Wadlington, Davies, Anderson, & Foster, 2009).
They give the impression that an individual’s personality profile is fixed to a certain range and as a result creates a certain degree of permanence regarding what can be expected from them. In reality an individual’s personality is far from being fixed to a particular approximation, given enough time certain changes do occur which as a result would render the initial evaluation inapplicable (Dietricha & Abbott, 2012).
Not only that, just as the concept of intelligence is hard to define given the myriad of different types of technical skills and abilities that exist, the concept of personality is also hard to measure and assess due to variances that occur in personality development (Tett, Fitzke, Wadlington, Davies, Anderson, & Foster, 2009).
It is based on this that an evaluation of an employee that is based on personality test results cannot be considered 100% accurate especially in the long term when considerable changes to their personality may occur.
Not only that, studies such as those by Tett, Fitzke, Wadlington, Davies, Anderson, & Foster, (2009) have shown that when presented with a personality test employees often answer in a way that portrays them in a favorable light with the responses not necessarily reflecting an accurate representation of that employee’s personality.
In other words the responses are created in such a way that they reflect what the employees think the company would like to see, not necessarily who they are in reality (Tett, Fitzke, Wadlington, Davies, Anderson, & Foster, 2009).
When taking all the data and information presented in this section and evaluating it on the basis of the effectiveness of personality tests being an accurate determiner of employee performance in regards to their assigned role within the company, it can be stated that such tests cannot be considered an accurate method of evaluation given the potential for answer manipulation, personality changes and an assortment of other factors.
Conclusion
Based on all the data and arguments that have been presented within this paper it can be stated that personality tests cannot be utilized as effective methods of personality examination due to the potential for biased methods of answering, the possibility of personalities changing over time and the fact that personalities themselves are complex attributes which cannot be sufficiently examined based on a single test alone.
It must be noted though that personality tests themselves should not be immediately discounted. As this paper has also shown the processes utilized in them can be used as a method of effective personality evaluation, however, the results should not be utilized as a primary method of evaluating an individual’s personality traits, rather, they should be utilized as a secondary method of evaluation with actual performance reviews being the best way of truly evaluating how a person performs.
Reference List
Bradley-Geist, J., & Landis, R. (2012). Homogeneity of Personality in Occupations and Organizations: A Comparison of Alternative Statistical Tests. Journal Of Business & Psychology, 27(2), 149-159.
Dietricha, M., & Abbott, K. (2012). Vocal Function in Introverts and Extraverts During a Psychological Stress Reactivity Protocol. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 55(3), 973-987.
Federmann, R., Bäckström, M., & Goldsmith, R. (2010). The Stress Strategy Test in relation to personality traits and cognitive abilities. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 51(1), 16-22
Howard, S., & Hughes, B. M. (2012). Construct, concurrent and discriminant validity of Type D personality in the general population: Associations with anxiety, depression, stress and cardiac output. Psychology & Health, 27(2), 242-258.
Huprich, S. K., Pouliot, G. S., & Bruner, R. (2012). Self-Other Representations Mediate the Relationship Between Five-Factor Model Depression and Depressive States. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 75(2), 176-189.
Janda, L. H. (2001). The Psychologist’s Book of Personality Tests : 24 Revealing Tests to Identify and Overcome Your Personal Barriers to a Better Life. John Wiley & Sons.
Jinyan, F., Dingguo, G., Carroll, S. A., Lopez, F. J., Tian, T., & Hui, M. (2012). Testing the Efficacy of a New Procedure for Reducing Faking on Personality Tests Within Selection Contexts. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 866-880.
Karakurt, G. (2012). Relationship Stability Through Lenses of Complexity. American Journal Of Family Therapy, 40(2), 126-140.
Reddock, C. M., Biderman, M. D., & Nguyen, N. T. (2011). The Relationship of Reliability and Validity of Personality Tests to Frame-of-Reference Instructions and Within-Person Inconsistency. International Journal Of Selection & Assessment, 19(2), 119-131.
Tett, R. R., Fitzke, J. R., Wadlington, P. L., Davies, S. A., Anderson, M. G., & Foster, J. (2009). The use of personality test norms in work settings: Effects of sample size and relevance. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 639-659.
Van Kampen, D. (2012). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT): Relationships With Two Lexically Based Instruments and the Validation of the Absorption Scale. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 92-101.
Wise, E. A., Streiner, D. L., & Walfish, S. (2010). A Review and Comparison of the Reliabilities of the MMPI-2, MCMI-III, and PAI Presented in Their Respective Test Manuals. Measurement & Evaluation In Counseling & Development (Sage Publications Inc. ), 42(4), 246-254