ARE WE GETTING FOOLED AGAIN? COMING TO TERMS WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION
Version of Record online: 13 NOV 2007
Volume 60, Issue 4, pages 1029–1049, Winter 2007
How to Cite
MORGESON, F. P., CAMPION, M. A., DIPBOYE, R. L., HOLLENBECK, J. R., MURPHY, K. and SCHMITT, N. (2007), ARE WE GETTING FOOLED AGAIN? COMING TO TERMS WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION. Personnel Psychology, 60: 1029–1049. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x
- Issue online: 13 NOV 2007
- Version of Record online: 13 NOV 2007
We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report personality tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on personality; (2) the observed validities of personality tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using personality tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of personality tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for personality testing research and practice are discussed.