Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:36:03.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personality assessment for work: Legal, I-O, and clinical perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2019

Stephan Dilchert ,
Deniz S. Ones  and
Robert F. Krueger
Stephan Dilchert
Affiliation:
Baruch College, CUNY
Deniz S. Ones*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Robert F. Krueger
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
*Corresponding author. Email: deniz.s.ones-1@tc.umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 143 - 150
Copyright
© Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The third author of this commentary was involved in the DSM-5 development process as a member of the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group and as the workgroup’s text coordinator. His service on the Work Group ended in December 2012; this commentary reflects only the positions and opinions of its three authors as independent scholars.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Google Scholar
Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2007). The Clifton StrengthsFinder® 2.0 technical report. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization.Google Scholar
Barnes v. Cochran, 130 F.3d 443 (Court of Appeals 1997).Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J. N., Front, C. M., & Ones, D. S. (2018). Assessing psychopathology in high-risk occupations. In Butcher, J. N. (Ed.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Psychopathology: Understanding, assessing, and treating adult mental disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 245–272). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0000064-011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrigan, M. (2007). Pre-employment testing—prediction of employee success and legal issues: A revisitation of Griggs v. Duke Power. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5(8), 35–44. doi: 10.19030/jber.v5i8.2567 Google Scholar
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. M. (2014). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 564–586. doi: 10.1037/a0034688 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeYoung, C. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2018). A cybernetic theory of psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 29(3), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., & Krueger, R. F. (2014). Maladaptive personality constructs, measures, and work behaviors: Maladaptive personality constructs, measures, work behaviors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 98–110. doi: 10.1111/iops.12115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). EEOC enforcement guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and psychiatric disabilities: Notice concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html#N_33_ Google Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008). Enforcement guidance: Disability-related inquiries and medical examinations of employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html#N_33_ Google Scholar
Gaddis, B. H., & Foster, J. L. (2015). Meta-analysis of dark side personality characteristics and critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for leadership development and executive coaching. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1), 25–54. doi: 10.1111/apps.12017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100–112. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., … Zimmerman, M. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454–477. doi: 10.1037/abn0000258 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 139–157. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenna v. Fargo , No. 451 F. Supp. 1355 (1978).Google Scholar
Melson-Silimon, A., Harris, A. M., Shoenfelt, E. L., Miller, J. D., & Carter, N. T. (2019). Personality testing and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Cause for concern as normal and abnormal personality models are integrated. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 12(2), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, L. B., Roberts, B. W., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2019). No evidence of a curvilinear relation between conscientiousness and relationship, work, and health outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2):296–312. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000176 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Boyle, Jr. , E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. doi: 10.1037/a0025679 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679–703. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2012). Integrity tests predict counterproductive work behaviors and job performance well: A comment on Van Iddekinge et al. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 537–542.Google Scholar
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Robie, C., & Ryan, A. M. (1999). Effects of nonlinearity and heteroscedasticity on the validity of conscientiousness in predicting overall job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(3), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, D. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1999). Personality testing in employment. Retrieved from https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/personality-testing-in-employment.html Google Scholar
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation, 18 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (1991).Google Scholar
Thompson v. Borg-Warner Protective Servs. Corp., No. C-94-4015 MHP, 1996 W.L. 162990 (1996).Google Scholar
Tyrer, P., Mulder, R., Kim, Y.-R., & Crawford, M. J. (2019). The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: An amalgam of science, pragmatism and politics. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 481–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walmsley, P. T. (2013). Investigating the presence of nonlinear personality–job performance relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Walmsley, P. T., Sackett, P. R., & Nichols, S. B. (2018). A large sample investigation of the presence of nonlinear personality-job performance relationships. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(2–4), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. (2018). ICD-11 beta draft. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/ Google Scholar
Zachar, P., Krueger, R. F., & Kendler, K. S. (2016). Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history. Psychological Medicine, 46(01), 1–10. doi: 10.1017/S0033291715001543 CrossRefGoogle Scholar