Question

Explain the conclusions and arguments that Ones et al. (2007) made in response to the Morgeson et al. (2007) criticisms of personality testing. According to the authors, what are the primary arguments in support of using personality tests in selection? use the conclusion and arguments below to answer the question

Ones et al. (2007)

1. Personality variables, as measured by self-reports, have substantial validities, which has been established in several quantitative reviews of hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies. 2. Vote counting and qualitative opinions are scientifically inferior alternatives to quantitative reviews and psychometric meta-analysis. 3. Self reports of personality, in large applicant samples and actual selection setting (where faking is often purported to distort responses),have yielded substantial validities even for externally obtained (e.g., supervisory ratings, detected counter productive behaviors) and/orobjective criteria (e.g., production records). 4. Faking does not ruin the criterion-related or construct validity of personality scores in applied settings. 5. Other noncognitive predictors may derive their validity from capturing relevant personality trait variance. 6. Customized tests are not necessarily superior to traditional standardized personality tests. 7. When feasible, utilizing both self and observer ratings of personality likely produces validities that are comparable to the most valid selection measures. 8. Proposed palliatives(e.g., conditional reasoning, forced choice ipsative measures), when critically reviewed, do not currently offer viable alternatives to traditional self-report personality inventories.

Morgeson et al. (2007)

(a) Faking on self-report personality tests should be expected, and it probably cannot be avoided, although there is some disagreement among the authors on the extent to which faking is problematic. (b) Faking or the ability to fake may not always be bad. In fact, it may be job-related or at least socially adaptive in some situations. (c) Corrections for faking do not appear to improve validity. However, the use of bogus items maybe a potentially useful way of identifying fakers. (d) We must not forget that personality tests have very low validity for predicting overall job performance. Some of the highest reported validities in the literature are potentially inflated due to extensive corrections or methodological weaknesses. (e) Due to the low validity and content of some items, many published self-report personality tests should probably not be used for personnel selection. Some are better than others, of course, and when those better personality tests are combined with cognitive ability tests, in many cases validity is likely to be greater than when either is used separately. (f) If personality tests are used, customized personality measures that are clearly job-related in face valid ways might be more easily explained to both candidates and organizations. (g) Future research might focus on areas of the criterion domain that are likely to be more predictable by personality measures. (h) Personality constructs certainly have value in understanding work behavior, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self report personality measures. There is some disagreement among the authors in terms of the future potential of the alternative approaches to personality assessment currently being pursued.

Answer 1

The above proclamations present the ends drawn from the examination in regards to the quantity of a few potential false notions and issues that are related with the present utilization of character as a pointer of employment execution. The issues being, for instance, faking on self oppressed character tests can never be evaded totally and isn't the principle issue maybe isn't the issue, indeed, the fundamental issue nearby is the extremely low-legitimacy of these character tests for really anticipating the general employment execution. One more issue brought up with the character estimation was simply the utilization of the effectively distributed 'report' Personality Tests(PTs) in the general setting of the determination. One more issue featured is that the character tests however can be utilized as a marker or the reason for worker choice, in any case, some examination ought to be done so as to search for different substitutes that are increasingly proper and substantial instead of oneself managed or oneself - detailed character tests which are exposed to numerous false notions and issues.

So by and large the essential issues with utilizing character quantifies that these creators call attention to are :

• The low legitimacy i.e the quality or the propensity of being a nature of being an intelligently fitting proportion of these self-detailed character tests being utilized for anticipating work execution.
• Making or utilizing the substitutes for self-announced personlity test ought to be accomplished for utilizing it as a reason for representative selction.
• Faking on these self-directed character tests can't be stayed away from.

KINDLY GIVE A THUMBS-UP IF YOU LIKED THE ANSWER, IT WILL BE ENCOURAGING FOR ME TO WRITE MORE. THANK YOU AND ALL THE BEST.