Premium
Using personality tests in leadership development: Test format effects and the mitigating impact of explanations and feedback
Author(s) -
Harland Lynn K.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
human resource development quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.756
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1532-1096
pISSN - 1044-8004
DOI - 10.1002/hrdq.1067
Subject(s) - two alternative forced choice , normative , psychology , test (biology) , likert scale , social psychology , perception , personality , applied psychology , cognitive psychology , developmental psychology , paleontology , philosophy , epistemology , neuroscience , biology
Organizations using personality tests in management development programs must choose from an array ofpersonality tests and formats. The most common formats are normative (for example, Likert type) andforced choice. Although there are some potential advantages to using the forced‐choice format fordevelopment, it is possible that participants may view the forced‐choice format more negatively than thenormative format. Hypothesis 1 proposed that participants would initially view the forced‐choice format asless accurate, less respectful, less useful, and providing less test taker control. Hypothesis 2 proposed that anexplanation of forced‐choice format benefits would mitigate initial negative reactions. Finally, hypothesis3 proposed that receiving test feedback would mitigate negative perceptions of forced‐choice formataccuracy and usefulness. The participants, 255 part‐time M.B.A. students in a leadership developmentcourse, were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: normative, forced choice with an explanation, andforced choice with no explanation.