The validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: a comprehensive meta-analysis
View/ Open
Anderson_JOOP.pdf (542.2Kb)
Download
Publication date
2015-12Rights
© 2014 The British Psychological Society. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Salgado JF, Anderson N and Tauriz G (2015) The validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 88(4): 797-934, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12098. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.Peer-Reviewed
YesOpen Access status
openAccess
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
A comprehensive meta‐analysis of two types of forced‐choice (FC) personality inventories (ipsative and quasi‐ipsative) across nine occupational groups (Clerical, Customer Service, Health Care, Managerial, Military, Police, Sales, Skilled Manual, and Supervisory) is reported. Quasi‐ipsative measures showed substantially higher operational validity coefficients and validity generalization across all occupations than ipsative measures. Results also showed that, compared with the findings of previous meta‐analyses, quasi‐ipsative personality inventories are better predictors of job performance than previously thought and that operational validities for ipsative measures are notably congruent with past findings. We conclude that quasi‐ipsative scale formats are superior for predicting job performance for all occupational groups. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for personnel selection are discussed in 4.4.Version
Accepted manuscriptCitation
Salgado JF, Anderson N and Tauriz G (2015) The validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 88(4): 797-934.Link to Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12098Type
Articleae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12098