Premium
Testing the Rules of Justice: The Effects of Frame‐of‐Reference and Pre‐Test Validity Information on Personality Test Responses and Test Perceptions
Author(s) -
Holtz Brian C.,
Ployhart Robert E.,
Dominguez Alexandria
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.0965-075x.2005.00301.x
Subject(s) - psychology , test (biology) , social psychology , perception , personality , frame (networking) , personality test , economic justice , criterion validity , test validity , applied psychology , construct validity , psychometrics , clinical psychology , computer science , paleontology , neoclassical economics , neuroscience , economics , biology , telecommunications
The resurgence of personality tests in selection has sparked interest in factors that may increase the utility and acceptability of these tests. Following a justice framework, the present study explores two possible methods for improving the psychometric properties and test‐taker perceptions of a widely used measure of personality, the NEO‐Five Factor Inventory. The first manipulation altered respondents' frame‐of‐reference (FOR) by adding “at‐work” tags to the personality test. The second provided information about the validity and appropriateness of the personality test for selection. Under the controlled setting of a laboratory experiment, participants ( n =345) were randomly assigned to one of the conditions in the following between‐subjects design: 2 (FOR: work specific vs. generic) × 2 (information: validity vs. control). The FOR manipulation produced consistent effects on the personality test responses, but in contrast to recent claims, produced no effect on test perceptions. Alternatively, the information manipulation primarily influenced job‐relatedness perceptions, but had a modest negative effect on the psychometric properties of the personality test. These results show some possibilities, and difficulties, for enhancing perceptions of personality tests. They also have important implications for justice theory because they suggest that interactions among the procedural justice rules may yield unexpected and contradictory effects.