Book contents
- Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
- Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction to Selection and Assessment
- 2 Complex and Sticky Issues in Assessment and Selection
- 3 Traditional and Mainly Discredited Assessment Methods
- 4 Self-Report Tests
- 5 Observer Reports
- 6 Behavioural Tests
- 7 Physiology
- 8 Biography
- 9 Big Data
- 10 The Future of Assessment
- Index
- References
8 - Biography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2021
Book contents
- Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
- Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction to Selection and Assessment
- 2 Complex and Sticky Issues in Assessment and Selection
- 3 Traditional and Mainly Discredited Assessment Methods
- 4 Self-Report Tests
- 5 Observer Reports
- 6 Behavioural Tests
- 7 Physiology
- 8 Biography
- 9 Big Data
- 10 The Future of Assessment
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter deals with how the past influences the present and the future: that is, how the personal history/biography of an individual explains the present and predicts the future. It describes in detail a very specific area in psychology assessment called biodata, which is an attempt to ‘score an application form’. While there are different methods, they all rely on giving weights to past experiences, which have been shown to predict future behaviour. It tests the claim like you can ‘see leaders in the school playground’: meaning there are many early markers of later behaviour. Much of the chapter looks at describing what does and does not constitute real biodata and the evidence for its validity as an assessment technique. The second half of the chapter looks at how psychologists have examined autobiographies, psychobiographies as well as ‘typical’ biographies to look for the clues to the motives and behaviour of individuals. Features such as birth order and the misfortunes of youth are thought to have a powerful impact on individuals. An example of this approach is the analysis done of Mrs Margaret Thatcher.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Twenty Ways to Assess PersonnelDifferent Techniques and their Respective Advantages, pp. 434 - 473Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (2000). Job requirements biodata as a predictor of performance in customer service roles. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(3), 137–147.Google Scholar
Barthel, E., & Schuler, H. (1989). Utility calculation of personnel selection methods using the example of a biographical questionnaire. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 33(2), 73–83.Google Scholar
Becker, T. E., & Colquitt, A. L. (1992). Potential versus actual faking of a biodata form: an analysis along several dimensions of item type. Personnel Psychology, 45(2), 389–406.Google Scholar
Bliesener, T. (1996). Methodological moderators in validating biographical data in personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, K. D., Scullen, S. E., Schmidt, F. L., Rothstein, H., & Erwin, F. (1999). Generalizable biographical data validity can be achieved without multi-organizational development and keying. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 731–755.Google Scholar
Cook, M. (2016). Personnel selection: Adding value through people – A changing picture (6th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucina, J. M., Caputo, P. M., Thibodeaux, H. F., & Maclane, C. N. (2012). Unlocking the key to biodata scoring: a comparison of empirical, rational, and hybrid approaches at different sample sizes. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 385–428.Google Scholar
Dean, M. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). An examination of biodata theory-based constructs in a field context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(2), 139–149.Google Scholar
Dean, M. A., Russell, C. J., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1999). Life experiences and performance prediction: toward a theory of biodata. In Ferris, G. (Ed.), Research in personnel/human resources (pp. 245–281). Westport, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Drakeley, R. J., Herriot, P., & Jones, A. (1988). Biographical data, training success and turnover. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(2), 145–152.Google Scholar
Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, G. W. (1961). Development and use of weighted application banks. Dubuque, IO: Brown Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fine, S. A., & Cronshaw, S. (1994). The role of job analysis in establishing the validity of biodata. In Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds.), Biodata handbook (pp. 39–64). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Gatewood, R., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2015). Human resource selection. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Goldstein, I. L. (1971). The application blank: how honest are the responses? Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 491–492.Google Scholar
Harold, C. M., McFarland, L. A., & Weekley, J. A. (2006). The validity of verifiable and non-verifiable biodata items: an examination across applicants and incumbents. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 336–346.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: the rational approach. In Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds.). Biodata handbook: The use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction (pp. 109−146). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1984). Development and evaluation of the ‘accomplishment record’ method of selecting and promoting professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 135–146.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72–98.Google Scholar
Karas, M., & West, J. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata development for selection to a differentiated performance domain. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, special issue: Background Data and Autobiographical Memory, 7(2), 86–96.Google Scholar
Keating, E., Paterson, D. G., & Stone, C. H. (1950). Validity of work histories obtained by interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34(1), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kőváry, Z. (2011). Psychobiography as a method. The revival of studying lives: new perspectives in personality and creativity research. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 739–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lautenschlager, G. J. (1994). Accuracy and faking of background data. In Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds.), Biodata handbook (pp. 391–419). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2012). Tell me some more: exploring how verbal ability and item verifiability influence responses to biodata questions in a high‐stakes selection context. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 359–383.Google Scholar
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–333.Google Scholar
McManus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L. (1999). Personality measures and biodata: evidence regarding their incremental predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 299–323.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Costanza, D. P., Connelly, M. S., & Johnson, J. F. (1996). Item generation procedures and background data scales: implications for construct and criterion‐related validity. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 361–398.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (1987). Methodology review: principles, procedures, and findings in the application of background data measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Stokes, G. S. (1992). Developmental determinants of individual action: theory and practice in applying background measures. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 61–138). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Mumford, M., Stokes, G. S., & Owens, W. A. (1990). Patterns of life history: The ecology of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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(6), 660–679.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paunonen, S. V. (1984). Optimizing the validity of personality assessments: the importance of aggregation and item content. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(4), 411–431.Google Scholar
Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. R. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35(1), 1–62.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 441–472.Google Scholar
Runyan, W. M. (1981). Why did Van Gogh cut off his ear? The problem of alternative explanations in psychobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(6), 1070–1077.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., & Toney, R. (1999). Can we develop measures of hypothetical constructs? Human Resource Management Review, 9(2), 169–183.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Kunce, C. (2002). The effects of required elaboration of answers to biodata questions. Personnel Psychology, 55(3), 569–587.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Gillespie, M. A., Ramsay, L. J., & Yoo, T.-Y. (2003). Impact of elaboration on socially desirable responding and the validity of biodata measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 979–988.Google Scholar
Schrader, A. D., & Osburn, H. G. (1977). Biodata faking: effects of induced subtlety and position specificity. Personnel Psychology, 30(3), 395–404.Google Scholar
Song, G., Wu, J., & Wang, S. (2019, September). Recent ten years of biodata research: hotspots, progress and prospects [Paper presentation]. In Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (Vol. 94). 4th international conference on Economy, Judicature, Administration and Humanitarian Projects (JAHP 2019), Kaifeng, China (pp. 961–965). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.Google Scholar
Speer, A. B., Siver, S. R., & Christiansen, N. D. (2020). Applying theory to the black box: a model for empirically scoring biodata. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(1), 68–84.Google Scholar
Stokes, G. S., & Searcy, C. A. (1999). Specification of scales in biodata form development: rational vs. empirical and global vs. specific. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, special issue: Background Data and Autobiographical Memory, 7(2), 72–85.Google Scholar
Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds.). (1994). Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Sulastri, A., Handoko, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2015). Grade point average and biographical data in personal resumes: predictors of finding employment. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 20(3), 306–316.Google Scholar
Taylor, J., Furnham, A., & Breeze, J. (2014). Revealed: Using remote personality profiling to influence, negotiate and motivate. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Therivel, R. (1993). Systems of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13(3), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernimont, P. F. (1962). Re-evaluation of a weighted application blank for office personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(6), 417–419.Google Scholar