Response Distortion on the NEO PI-R among Candidates Taking the Entrance Examination to the National School of Civil Aviation (ENAC-France) — Oak Academic Publishing
Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Response Distortion on the NEO PI-R among Candidates Taking the Entrance Examination to the National School of Civil Aviation (ENAC-France)
Centre de Recherche en Psychologie, Cognition et Communication, Université Européenne de Bretagne-Rennes2, Rennes, France
,
Centre de Recherche en Psychologie, Cognition et Communication, Université Européenne de Bretagne-Rennes2, Rennes, France
,
Ecole Nationale d’Aviation Civile, Toulouse, France
1 Centre de Recherche en Psychologie, Cognition et Communication, Université Européenne de Bretagne-Rennes2, Rennes, France
2 Centre de Recherche en Psychologie, Cognition et Communication, Université Européenne de Bretagne-Rennes2, Rennes, France
3 Ecole Nationale d’Aviation Civile, Toulouse, France
This study examined the effect of a selection context on the responses to a five factor personality questionnaire (Revised NEO Personality Inventory) of 974 candidates taking the entrance examination to the ENAC (National School of Civil Aviation, France). A response distortion index was calculated using Schinka, Kinder and Kremer (1997)’s method. The results indicate: 1) lower neuroticism scores but higher conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion scores compared to standard conditions; 2) a high estimated effect of the response distortion index on all dimensions of the NEO PI-R except for Openness to experience; 3) substantial stability of scores at a one-year interval (N = 117). The paper discusses the conceptual and practical value of this response distortion index for measuring the dimensions of the NEO PI-R in candidates taking the entrance examination to the ENAC.
KeywordsFive Factor Model of PersonalityPresentation ManagementSocial DesirabilitySelection for Training
Bagby, R. M., & Marshall, M. B. (2003). Positive Impression Management and its influence on the NEO PI-R: A comparison of analog and differential prevalence group designs. Psychological Assessment, 15, 333-339. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.333
Ballenger, J. F., Caldwell-Andrews, A., & Baer, R. A. (2001). Effects of positive impression management on the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised in a clinical population. Psychological Assessment, 13, 254-260. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.254
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Bernard, L. C., & Walsh, R. P. (2004). Socially desirable and non- purposeful responding on the NEO PI-R. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1, 4-16.
Berry, D. T. R., Bagby, R. M., Smerz, J., Rinaldo, J. C., Caldwell-Andrews, A., & Baer, R. A. (2001). Effectiveness of NEO PI-R research validity scales for discriminating analog malingering and genuine psychopathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 496-516. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7603_10
Caldwell-Andrews, A., Baer, R. A., & Berry, D. T. R. (2000). Effects of response sets on NEO-PI R scores and their relation to external criteria. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 472-488. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7403_10
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. (version francaise, ECPA, 1998, 2003).
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality assessment: The NEO personality inventory in the year 2000. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 86-94. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6801_7
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Rolland, J. P. (1998-2004). Manuel de l'inventaire de personnalité NEO PI-R. Paris: ECPA.
Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.122
Griffin, B., Hesketh, B., & Grayson, D. (2004). Applicants faking good: evidence of item bias in the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1545-1558. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.004
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 873-919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New wine for old whiners. Human Performance, 18, 331-341. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_1
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270-1285. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Robert, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.5.469
Hogan, R., De Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J.-P. (2006). Validité et intérêt des méthodes d’évaluation de la personnalité à des fins de sélection: une perspective de psychologie appliquée aux problématiques des entreprises. Psychologie Fran?aise, 51, 245-264. doi:10.1016/j.psfr.2005.12.007
Judge, T. J., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
Maassen, G. H. (2004). The standard error in the Jacobson and truax reliable change index: The classical approach to the assessment of reliable change. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 888-893. doi:10.1017/S1355617704106097
Marshall, M. B., De Fruyt, F., Rolland, J.-P., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Socially desirable responding and the factorial stability of the NEO PI-R. Psychological Assessment, 17, 379-384. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.379
McFarland, L. A. (2003). Warning against faking on a personality test: Effects on applicant reactions and personality test scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 265-276. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00250.x
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across non-cognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
McFarland, L. A., Wiechmann, D. & Chandler, C. W. (2001). Using appropriateness fit to identify faking on a personality test. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference, April 2001, San Diego, CA.
Morey, L. C., Quigley, B. D., Sanislow, C. A., Skodol, A. E., McGlashan, T. H., Shea, M. T., Stout, R. L., Zanarini, M. C., & Gunderson, J. G. (2002). Substance or style? An investigation of the NEO-PI-R validity scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 583-599. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7903_11
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “big five” article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51, 849-858. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00743.x
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Personality predictors of performance in jobs involving interaction with others. Human Performance, 11, 145-166. doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1987, 2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables (Version 6.12) [Computer software]. Los Angeles: Author.
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, 660-679. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., Dilchert, C., & Deller, J. (2006) (Eds.). Special issue: Considering response distortion in personality measurement for industrial, work and organizational psychology research and practice. Psychology Science, 48, 207-297.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598- 609. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, J. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measure of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-317. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
Paulhus, D. L., Bruce, M. N., & Trapnell, P. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100-108. doi:10.1177/0146167295212001
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.582
Reid-Seiser, H. L., & Fritzsche, B. A. (2001). The usefulness of the NEO PI-R positive presentation management scale for detecting response distortion in employment contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 639-650. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00168-9
Rolland, J.-P., Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A psychometric examination of the French translations of the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 7, 269-291. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_13
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Levin, R. A., & Miller, J. L. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.634
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30
Sandal, G. M., Musson, D., Helmreich, R. L., & Gravdal, L. (2005). Social desirability bias in personality testing: Implications for astronaut selection. Acta Astronautica, 57, 634-641.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.03.011
Schinka, J. A., Kinder, B. N., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the NEO PI-R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127-138. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6801_10
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non applicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.966
Topping, G. D., & O’Gorman, J. G. (1997). Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 117-124. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00006-8
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210. doi:10.1177/00131649921969802
Wiggens, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response measures from objective personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 551-562. doi:10.1177/001316446402400310
Young, M. S., & Schinka, J. A. (2001). Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Additional evidence for reliability and validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 412-420. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7603_04