Adm winter edition 2013

Assessment&

Development

Mat

ters

Vol. 5 No. 4Winter 2013

ISSN 2040-4069

T +44 (0)1525 720003W uk.psytech.com/training

B www.genesysonline.net/blogE [email protected]

Psytech International:

Training in Psychometric Testing (Occupational: Ability and Personality)

Exceptional value in both cost and quality – our clients tell us so:Excellent presentation, animated and motivational “

“

The course was enjoyable and interactive, hard work, but rewarding“

“

Call for further details, multi-place Discounts, and more client testimonials.

Global Leaders in Local Assessment Solutions

Provides access to 15FQ+, JTI and hundreds more.

We’ve trained nearly 25% of all Level B Cert. holders – making us the No 1 choice.

Call for further details, multi-place Discounts, and more client testimonials.

Verified to EFPA Level 2 standards (Formerly BPS Level A&B)

Great prices which include ALL initial BPS fees. (normally in excess of £200)New revised 5 day course. (plus 1 follow up)

Flexible training options: Assistant Test User (1 Day) Test User Ability (3 Days) Test user Personality (2 Days) Combined Ability & Personality (5 Days)

EditorialJan Bogg

Assessment & Development Matters (ADM) is published by the Psychological

testing Centre. its readership is entrants on the Register of Qualifications in

test Use, holding BPs educational and occupational testing qualifications.

ADM features a wide range of articles on occupational

and educational testing and brings practitioners

the latest news and perspectives on assessment

and development.

if you would like to submit articles, questions

and letters, please view our new submission

guidelines either in the magazine or online at

www.psychtesting.org.uk.

Asse

ssm

ent&

Deve

lopm

ent

Mat

ters

Vol. 4 No. 1Spring 2012

ISSN 2040-4069

Official Publication of The Psychological Testing Centre

Vol. 5 No. 4Winter 2013

ISSN 2040-4069

Assessment & Development Matters Vol. 5 No. 4 Winter 2013 1

In this edition, we have a range of stimulating articles to read. Cichomska,discussesvirtual meetings and provides recommendations for ensuring a quality meeting.Borkenau reviews gender and personality and presents data from two cross-cultural

studies. Mcredie debates personality and management behaviour comparing some of thethe Big 5 measures with those of hofste et al. (1992) categories.

trenier discusses strengths-based performance management and Munro reviews thepredictive stall in selection. Bartram, the convenor of the Board of Assessment of theeuropean Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (eFPA), provides a review of recenteFPA publications. Prescott details a tool for measuring student psychological contractviolation. Litten discusses test-to-speech software and exam access arrangements. hilldebates the work of the BPs group on the medicalisation of childhood.

Jan Boggsenior editor, on behalf of the editorial team

Editor’s notein our Autumn issue the article by Mullaney and Kupryianov was printed with an error inthe table. We would like to apologise for this error and for clarity we have reprinted thecorrected article on the website. the article can be found in the topics of interest sectionof the PtC homepage www.psychtesting.org.uk.

Personality traits: Do men vary more thanwomen?Peter Borkenau

Do men vary more than women in personality? This was investigated in two cross-cultural studies.In self-report studies, the sex of the person being described and the sex of the informant who providesthe descriptions are confounded, so these studies instead relied on descriptions by knowledgeableinformants. The results of the studies suggest that men indeed vary more than women. Someimplications are discussed.

ReseARCh has shown that men vary more than women in general cognitive ability(e.g. Arden & Plomin, 2006), as well as in variables such as birth weight, adultheight, 60-metre dash times, and numerous blood parameters (Lehre et al., 2009).

this suggests that men may also vary more than women in their personality. thisassumption is plausible for evolutionary, genetic and cultural reasons (Borkenau, McCrae,& terracciano, 2013). For example, various social norms may be stricter for women,providing men with more behavioural options, which in turn may give rise to greatervariation in personality.

Self- reports and informant reportsin an observational study by Mehl et al. (2007), men varied more than women inmeasured talkativeness (number of words spoken), whereas manuals of self-reportpersonality inventories do not usually report higher standard deviations for men(Borkenau, hřebíčková et al., 2013). these divergent findings may reflect that menactually vary more, whereas women as informants accentuate personality differences morethan men.

thus, in order to separate possible effects of target and informant sex, we relied oninformant reports in two studies on sex differences in variation in personality. the firststudy (Borkenau, hřebíčková, et al., 2013) included four european cultures and thesecond (Borkenau, McCrae et al., 2013) included 51 cultures on six continents. in bothstudies, the neo Personality inventory-Revised (neo Pi-R; McCrae & Costa, 2010) wasused as the measure of personality. this instrument assesses the personality domains:neuroticism; extraversion; openness to experience; Agreeableness; and Conscientious -ness, each with six facets.

Study 1in this study (Borkenau, hřebíčková et al., 2013) the neo Pi-R was administered for self-reports and informant reports to samples from Belgium, the Czech Republic, estonia, andGermany. the total sample size was 3,046.

to see whether the variances differed between women and men, variance ratios (VRs)were calculated by dividing the variance between male targets by the variance betweenfemale targets. hence VRs > 1.0 indicate more variance in men. these VRs werecomputed separately for each culture, each facet, and for self-reports and informant

2 Assessment & Development Matters Vol. 5 No. 4 Winter 2013

reports, and were subsequently averaged across facets and cultures. As VRs are not distributed normally, they were log transformed before being averaged,

and the averages were then back transformed. table 1 reports the VRs averaged across thesix facets within each personality domain and across the four european cultures.


Table 1: Variance ratios for self-reports and for informant reports, averaged across four Europeancultures (Study 1)

Whereas VRs for self-reports oscillated around 1.0, those for informant reports exceeded1.0 for all personality domains except neuroticism. Using multilevel modelling, theextremity of the informant reports (i.e. their squared deviation from the sample mean)was predicted from the target’s sex and the informant’s sex. descriptions of male targetsvaried more than descriptions of female targets for all personality domains exceptneuroticism, whereas descriptions by female informants varied more than descriptions bymale informants. this pattern of findings may explain why higher variances between menare found in descriptions by knowledgeable informants but not in self-reports.

Study 2study 2 (Borkenau, McCrae et al., 2013) extended these analyses to a larger and morediverse sample of cultures. the data stemmed from a large cross-cultural project onvarious aspects of informant reports of personality (McCrae, terracciano et al., 2005).Altogether, 12,156 college students from 51 cultures participated. these students wereasked to describe an individual from one of four target groups: (a) college-aged men, (b) college-aged women, (c) adult men, or (d) adult women. study 2 included samplesfrom Belgium, the Czech Republic, estonia, and Germany as well, but these samples didnot overlap with those of study 1.

VRs were computed and averaged, just as in study 1. Averaged across facets withindomains and the 51 cultures, the VRs were 0.98 (neuroticism facets), 1.05 (extraversionfacets), 1.09 (openness to experience facets), 1.07 (Agreeableness facets), and 1.12(Conscientiousness facets), thus generally replicating the pattern of findings in study 1.Multilevel analyses confirmed that male targets varied significantly more than femaletargets in all personality domains except neuroticism, and that for all domains descriptionsby female informants varied significantly more than descriptions by male informants.

however, the VRs averaged across 51 cultures were lower than those obtained forinformant reports in study 1. to check whether this discrepancy reflected actual culturaldifferences or inconsistent findings, the VRs in study 2 were also averaged across theBelgian, Czech, estonian and German samples only. the resulting average VRs were 1.01(neuroticism facets), 1.19 (extraversion facets), 1.21 (openness to experience facets),1.23 (Agreeableness facets), and 1.25 (Conscientiousness facets), showing that the highervariances in descriptions of male targets were robust and particularly pronounced ineuropean cultures.

Neuroticismfacets

Extraversionfacets

Openness toExperience facets

Agreeablenessfacets

Conscientiousnessfacets

Self-reports 0.89 1.00 1.06 1.02 0.92

Informantreports

1.01 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.21

to pursue differences between cultures, the VRs were averaged across all 30 neo Pi-R facet scales separately for each culture. these culture-specific averages ranged from0.85 in Japan to 1.34 in south Korea. their distribution is depicted in Figure 1.


Frequency

Culture-specific averaged variance ratio

Figure 1: Distribution of culture-specific variance ratios, averaged across all 30 NEO PI-R facetscales (Study 2).

in most cultures, these VRs either approximated or substantially exceeded 1.0, whereas inonly four cultures they fell short of 0.95.

next, the differences between cultures were predicted from four country-levelvariables: (a) human development index, (b) Gender inequality index, (c) hofstede’sindex of individualism, and (d) hofstede’s index of masculinity. As data quality differedsubstantially between cultures, it was controlled for in these analyses. the only significantculture-level predictor of sex differences in personality variation was individualism: Menvaried more than women on average, but particularly so in more individualistic cultures.

Summary and implicationsthe two studies summarised here suggest that men vary more than women inextraversion, openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but not inneuroticism.

As extreme trait levels tend to be abnormal, this implies that deviant behaviour shouldbe more widespread among men than among women. For example, that more men thanwomen are extremely disagreeable may contribute to males’ overrepresentation amongprison inmates.

But men are also overrepresented at the desirable end of various trait distributions.More men than women show, for example, very high levels of openness to ideas(Borkenau, McCrae et al., 2013) which may be conducive to success in creativeprofessions. Group differences in traits related to occupational success raise issues of test

.80 .90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


fairness, and the present findings suggest that fairness of personality measures may becompromised by sex differences not only in means but also in variances. sometimes,standardising within gender may help.

Whereas men vary more than women in informant-reported personality, women asinformants vary more in their descriptions of personality. these countervailing effects oftarget and informant sex may explain why higher variation between males is not found inself-reports. implications are that in self-reports men appear as less extreme whereaswomen appear as more extreme than they actually are. Moreover, it implies thatdescriptions by male and female informants are not (measurement) equivalent.

Finally, sometimes the decision for using either general or sex-specific norms dependson whether there are actual sex differences. the present findings suggest considering sexdifferences not only in means but also in variances. And as both studies reported herewere questionnaire-based rather than observational, future research on these issuesshould employ behavioural observations.

ReferencesArden, R. & Plomin, R. (2006). sex differences in variance of intelligence across

childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 39–48. Borkenau, P., hřebíčková, M., Kuppens, P., Realo, A. & Allik, J. (2013). sex differences

in variability in personality: A study in four samples. Journal of Personality, 81, 49–60.Borkenau, P., McCrae, R.R. & terracciano, A. (2013). do men vary more than women in

personality? A study in 51 cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 135–144. Lehre, A.C., Lehre, K.P., Laake, P. & danbolt, n.C. (2009). Greater intrasex phenotype

variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differencesin humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51, 198–206.

McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.t., Jnr. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual. odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

McCrae, R.R., terracciano, A. & 78 members of the personality profiles of culturesproject (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’sperspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,547–561.

Mehl, M.R., Vazire, s., Ramirez-esparza, n., slatcher, R.B. & Pennebaker, J.W.(2007).Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317, 82.

The authorPeter Borkenau is professor of psychology at Martin Luther University, halle Wittenbergin Germany.

Personality and manager behaviourHugh McCredie

Alternative models of personalityPrevious AdM articles by the author (2010–13) have explored the relationship of singleBig Five personality factors with competencies and overall managerial effectiveness, andconcluded that the highest performing managers are: highly extraverted; more stable;moderately conscientious; more independent (less agreeable); and not very open-minded. the Big Five model only represents the tightest clusters of narrowband traits,however, leaving other such traits to fall somewhere between pairs of these broad andlargely independent factors. hofstee et al. (1992) explored the positioning ofnarrowband traits which fell into, and between, the tight Big Five clusters in a series ofpairings which they called ‘circumplex’ models of personality (because the two bi-polaraxes of each pairing displayed at right angles to each other reflect the quadrants of acircle). they used self and peer reports based on 587 trait descriptive adjectives. thepairings that we shall consider in this article are some of those between the Big Fivefactors of (1) extraversion and Agreeableness and (2) Agreeableness and openness. thedescriptive traits and their loadings on each of the pairings reported by hofstee et al. areas described in table 1.

Interactive behaviour analysisRackham and Morgan (1977) developed a taxonomy with 11 categories for recordinginterpersonal behaviours. McCredie (1991) used a close variant of this framework torecord the utterances (i.e. Proposing, Building, supporting, disagreeing,defending/Attacking, testing Understanding, summarising, seeking information,Giving information, Bringing in, shutting out) of 232 sMe directors and managers, insets of four, engaged in four-and-a-half hours of discussion on an identical series of topics.of these behavioural categories:

� two were ‘initiating’ behaviours:1. Proposing: a new course of action, e.g. ‘Let’s break for tea now.’2. Building: developing a proposal made by someone else, e.g. ‘Perhaps we could

have some biscuits as well.’

� two involved ‘asking’:1. Seeking information: to elicit facts, opinions or clarification from another person,

e.g. ‘does anyone have any more information on this matter?’2. Testing understanding: to establish whether you have understood an earlier

contribution from another person, e.g. ‘Are you saying that…’

� two involved ‘telling’:1. Proposing: a new course of action, e.g. ‘Let’s break for tea now’2. Giving information: offering facts, opinions or clarification to other people,

e.g. ‘i need to make a phone call’


Personality and behaviourMcCredie (2004, 2010) re-analysed behavioural data for 173 respondents for which 16PFForm A profiles were available. Correlations between the Big Five approximations forextraversion, agreeableness and openness and the behavioural categories referred toabove were as presented in table 2:


High Extraversion with Low AgreeablenessDominant (.52)

Domineering (.52)Forceful (.49)Bossy (.40)

Boastful (.35)Opinionated (.30)Cunning (.27)

V Low Extraversion withHigh Agreeableness

Timid (.68)Unaggressive (.60)Submissive (.44)Modest (.42)Naive (.29)

Compliant (.22)

High Agreeableness with High OpennessGenial (.28)Tactful (.24)

VLow Agreeableness with

Low OpennessUncharitable (.43)Ruthless (.35)Coarse (.35)

Narrow minded (.34)Callous (.33)Tactless (.33)Curt (.31)

Bigoted (.31)Vindictive (.28)

Table 1: Loadings of narrowband descriptive traits around the midpoints of some Big Five pairings

Behaviours Usage per hour Extraversion Openness AgreeablenessMean SD ru rc ru rc ru rc

Proposing 14.8 6.2 .27*** .33(M) .07 -.25*** -.36(M)

Building 1.6 1.2 .16* .20(S) -.04 -.19* -.27(S)

Testingunderstanding

5.6 3.4 .14 .17* .19(S) -.04

Seekinginformation

15.3 8.1 .26*** .32(M) .15* .18(S) .01

GivingInformation

56.4 17.4 .23** .28(S) -.06 -.20** -.29(S)

Table 2: Correlations of Big Five extraversion, agreeableness and openness approximations withbehavioural categories indicative of initiating, telling and asking

significant correlations: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001ru uncorrected correlations; rc correlations corrected for unreliability of criterion(assumed 0.85) and range restriction (smith & Robertson, 1986, p.281)effects: (s) small rc 0.1 to 0.3; (M) Moderate rc 0.3+ to 0.5 (Cohen, 1988)

the key findings are that:1. the high extraversion/low agreeableness pairing is a predictor of the initiating

behaviours, i.e. proposing and building. dominant, bossy, opinionated managers maynot be the most agreeable to work with but they produce and develop the ideas to achieveresults. they are also the ones most likely to be selected/promoted in the first place.

2. the high agreeableness/high openness pairing, associated with geniality and tact,predisposes an ‘asking style’ of relating to others.

3. the low agreeableness/low openness pairing, associated with unconcern andtactlessness, predisposes a ‘telling style’ of relating to others.

4. the use of telling behaviours (71.2ph) exceeded the asking behaviours (20.9ph) by aratio of more than 3:1. Undoubtedly, this was because the average manager in thecurrent sample scored low on both openness and agreeableness. the low agreeablenesswas typical of UK managers (Bartram, 1992) whilst the low openness was likely to be areflection of a male-dominated population in traditional industrial sectors.

When to ask and when to tell?Common sense would suggest that roles involving diplomacy would benefit from greateruse of the ‘asking’ behaviours in contrast with those in a ‘command’ hierarchy. Rackhamand Carlisle (1978) reported that skilled negotiators used testing, understanding andseeking information twice as frequently as did average negotiators. of the role sub-setsstudied by the current author, the highest performing sales managers (n = 52) didsignificantly more testing understanding than their average performing colleagues.

Implicationsevidence suggests that managers are dyed-in-the-wool dominant types and heavily proneto use the telling style. they might benefit from cultivating asking behavioural habits foruse on those occasions requiring persuasion and diplomacy rather than the exercise oforganisational authority.

ReferencesBartram, d. (1992) the personality of UK managers: 16PF norms for short-listed

applicants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 159–72.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. hillsdale, nJ: erlbaum.hofstee, W.K.B., de Raad, B. & Goldberg, L.R. (1992). integration of the Big Five and

circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 146–163.

McCredie, h. (1991). Behaviour analysis revisited: some new perspectives. ManagementEducation and Development, 22(4), 315–22.

McCredie, h. (2004). The essence and varieties of management competence. Unpublished Phdthesis. University of Manchester.

McCredie, h. (2010). Selecting and developing better managers. London: Lulu enterprises. Rackham, n. & Carlisle, J. (1978) the effective negotiator. Part 1: the behaviour of

successful negotiators. Journal of European Industrial Training, 2(6), 6–10.Rackham, n. & Morgan, t. (1977). Behaviour analysis in training. Maidenhead: McGraw-

hill. smith, M. & Robertson i.t. (1986). The theory and practice of systematic staff selection.

Basingtoke: Macmillan Press.

The authorDr Hugh McCredie is a Chartered psychologist, Vice-Chair of the Psychometrics Forumand author of Selecting and Developing Better Managers.



Chairing and attending virtual meetings:The importance of shared experienceKatarzyna Cichomska

The aim of this article is to highlight key study findings related to participation in meetings withvirtual presence and to suggest practical recommendations for overcoming problems and ensuring ahigh quality of experience for everyone involved.1

MeetinGs have always formed an important part of any organisation’s workingpractices and many studies have highlighted factors contributing to theireffectiveness. Whilst good meeting practice guidelines still apply, meetings have

been affected strongly by globalisation and new technology, allowing people to link in tomeetings remotely from any location in the world. in the past, virtual and face-to-facemeetings were often investigated as two separate types (Martins et al., 2004). Morerecently, however, the importance of investigating the amount of, and frequency withwhich, virtual presence co-exists with face-to-face interactions, has been highlighted (e.g.Griffith & neale, 2001).

in line with the above, this research shows that meetings are not necessarily simplyeither face-to-face or virtual. they often combine in-the-room participation with a remoteone, using a variety of media. the nature of such environments is more complex than inmore traditional face-to-face meetings and may be open to a different set of challenges.

Research contextthis study was conducted within a large multinational organisation based in the UK aspart of a three-year research project looking at the effectiveness of work-related socialexchanges, and was part funded by the UK Government technology strategy Board (tsB).

Previous research within the organisation showed that a sample of engineers spent 40per cent of their time in work-related social exchanges. Approximately one third of thattime was spent in pre-arranged meetings (Robinson, 2012). this finding led to a desire toevaluate current meeting practice and to understand the behaviours and experiences ofthose attending as well as chairing meetings, ultimately leading to the development ofgood practice guidelines. these activities formed part of the wider scope of this project.

Methodologythe study began with an evaluation of 51 randomly selected meetings (comprising a range ofdifferent meeting formats, sizes and participation types). in order to gather each attendee’sfeedback, questionnaires were distributed at the end of each meeting. For those attendingvirtually, the questionnaire was sent by email or opened within an online conferencingtool. half of evaluated meetings were also fully attended and observed by the researcher.

1 some of the findings and guidelines on which this paper is based were presented at the division ofoccupational Psychology 2013 Conference (Cichomska, 2013a) and at the 16th Congress of theeuropean Association of Work and organizational Psychology (Cichomska, 2013b).

Altogether, 377 individual responses were collected. this allowed for identification ofthe most and least satisfactory elements of meeting practice, and the most and leastcommonly experienced problems. these findings were then further explored in 10 semi-structured, one-to-one interviews.

Resultsthe study showed that 15 of the 51 meetings included a virtual presence. in those 15meetings, 27 per cent of attendees joined a meeting electronically (via a telephone line,an online conferencing service or both). A small but significant correlation was foundbetween type of participation (in person/virtual) and ratings of meeting facilities (venueand equipment) suggesting that attendees who joined the meeting electronically tendedto rate meeting facilities as less satisfactory than those attending in person (r = -.116, p < .05).

the difference of experience when chairing and/or attending a meeting with virtualpresence was explored in the interviews. A socio-technical approach was used to drive dataanalysis, emphasising the interplay between the social elements of meeting practice(meeting attendees and their roles in a meeting; achievement of meeting goals; meetingculture) and the technical components (meeting venues; equipment). Key reported issuesare presented in Figure 1 using the socio-technical hexagon (Challenger et al., 2010).

Good practice guidelinesthe above investigation highlighted the difference between the meeting experiences ofthose attending in person and those with virtual presence. to bridge this gap, and becauseof the prevalence of ‘mixed format’ meetings, a set of good practice guidelines wasdeveloped. these are based on a wider literature review, internal company documentsand experiences of undertaking the project.


Figure 1: Key issues in virtual participation

Consider meeting contextsome meetings may be better suited for a certain type of participation, or better run if asingle approach is used (everyone attends in person or everyone links in). if a meetingrequires face-to-face participation (e.g. due to a delicate or sensitive nature of a topic) allattendees should be encouraged to come to the venue. if this is not possible and ameeting needs to go ahead, additional consideration should be given to physicalarrangements (i.e. linking in from a desk may not always be appropriate). Attendancetype can be more flexible if the same goals can be achieved by linking in.

Reach out for knowledge and build an effective teamA great advantage of a virtual environment is the ability to share knowledge easily andinstantly. it is important to consider the expertise of people located both locally andglobally, and select the best individuals for the task. When long-term cooperation isrequired, organising an in-person meeting at the start of the project will allow for trustand collaboration to develop more naturally.

Allocate time for introductionseveryone in a meeting should always know who the other attendees are, what their role is withinan organisation and why they have been invited to a meeting. this will allow people to formnew connections and make better judgements about the type of information that should orshould not be disclosed. introducing oneself before speaking will also make it easier for othersto follow the discussions as they may not always be able to recognise a person by their voice.

Keep people involved and informedActively participating in a meeting can be difficult when linking in, and may result indecreased attention and increased multi-tasking. Providing attendees with equalopportunities to contribute, effectively managing interactions and providing regularfeedback on what is happening in the room will keep everyone more involved and betterinformed. those linking in will often not know that among those attending in personsomeone may left or joined the meeting since it began, and they may not be aware ofpeople’s emotional reactions to what is being presented, unless someone tells them.

Prepare yourself for last-minute equipment failuresChecking equipment prior to a meeting is an effective way of avoiding last-minutedifficulties. Whilst high quality of equipment may not be noticed, low quality will oftenlead to frustration and wasted time. speaking clearly and directly to a microphone andmuting the buttons when not contributing are two simple practices that can limitdisruptions and unnecessary noise. it is also vital to make sure the chosen equipment orsoftware is widely available and attendees can use it.

Communication is keyAn effective pre-, in- and post-meeting communication between a chairperson and otherattendees allows for making alternative arrangements and saves valuable time. Knowingwho will be able to attend, whether they will join in person or link in and if they will belate or need to leave early, will allow for better planning and, if needed, rearrangementof agenda items. Providing an agenda and supporting documentation ahead of a meetingis not only an essential element of effective planning, but also allows all attendees to referto these documents if the technology fails during the meeting.


Becoming better aware of the range of issues that virtual attendees may experienceand learning about different strategies for managing such meetings are first steps tobecoming a more considerate chairperson, allowing for a better and more collectiveexperience.

ReferencesChallenger, R., Clegg, C.W. & Robinson, M.A. (2010). Understanding crowd behaviours.Volume 1: Practical guidance and lessons identified. London: the stationery office.

Cichomska, K. (2013a). How to run an effective meeting with virtual participation. Code ofconduct from a socio-technical perspective. Paper presented at the British Psychologicalsociety division of occupational Psychology Annual Conference, Chester, 9–11January.

Cichomska, K. (2013b). Virtual meetings of the future: A socio-technical perspective for theimproved management of meetings. Paper presented at the 16th Congress of theeuropean Association of Work and organizational Psychology, Münster, Germany,22–25 May.

Griffith, t.L & neale, M.A. (2001). information processing in traditional, hybrid, andvirtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 23, 379–421.

Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. & Maynard, M.t. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we knowand where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835.

Robinson, M.A. (2012). how design engineers spend their time: Job content and tasksatisfaction. Design Studies, 33(4), 391–425.

The authorKatarzyna Cichomska is a Researcher in organisational Psychology at the socio-technical Centre (stC) of Leeds University Business school.


News from the Psychological Testing Centre

Maintenance of Competence for BPS Registered Test Usersthe last issue of AdM (autumn) was accompanied by a flyer which outlined thesociety’s Maintenance of Competence Guidelines for those on the Register ofQualifications in test Use. if you have not yet had chance to read this, it can be accessedvia the Psychological testing Centre homepage at www.psychtesting.org.uk.

The Society’s 2014 CPD Directory is now availablethe directory outlines varied and interactive learning workshops to supportcontinuing professional development. there are now 39 e-learning courses available,aimed at professionals wishing to work at their own pace to develop their skills. theseare wide ranging and suitable for practitioners across a range of settings. Why not undertake a free module called strategy and You, from our thinking strategically course. www.bps.org.uk/findcpd.

www.psychtesting.org.uk

Maximising performance through strengths:An illustration of strengths-basedperformance managementEmma Trenier

If delivering performance is the number one objective for all managers, isn’t it about time that we gotit right? This article discusses the benefits and challenges of adopting a strengths-focused approach toperformance management at a global pharmaceutical company.

Is performance management working? Amongst managers, the term ‘performance management’ can conjure up images ofbureaucracy, paperwork and having ‘difficult conversations’. As occupationalpsychologists and hR practitioners, it is not uncommon to work with demoralisedmanagers struggling to complete performance reviews in time for internal deadlines.From experience, managers can believe that they only need to focus on ‘performancemanagement’ through formal structures, and therefore lack the motivation to engage inthe daily tasks of giving feedback, challenge and support. despite these challenges,however, there are reliable benefits for those who get it right. For example, in a survey of5,560 hR and business leaders from 109 countries, those from ‘high performing’companies (as measured by profitability and revenue) ranked performance managementas the second most important hR capability, compared to those from ‘low performing’companies who ranked performance management in ninth position (strack et al., 2010).

Positive performance management When the Corporate Leadership Council surveyed more than 19,000 employees and theirmanagers about the drivers of performance, one of the most significant findings relatedto the focus of the formal performance review (CLC, 2005). When managers focused thereview on exploring performance weaknesses, they saw performance decrease by 27 percent. on the other hand, when they focused on performance strengths, they sawperformance increase by 36 per cent. Although this finding would make ‘common sense’to most managers, it can often be challenging to move from a high level – encouragingconversations about strengths – to a deeper conversation that enables individuals to knowhow they can use their strengths to achieve their goals, compensate for their weaknessesand make their most significant contribution.

Case Study: Strengths-based performance managementContext Capp worked with Boehringer ingelheim to reignite the motivation of regionaloperational managers to manage the performance of the sales force. Boehringeringelheim are a top 20 global pharmaceutical company, family owned and founded in1885, with worldwide sales of €12.6 billion in 2012.

the impetus for engaging managers with a strengths approach to performance came


from a desire to change their company approach to performance management. in particular:� managers found performance management a draining part of their roles;� historically, some had had ‘bad experiences’;� managers needed to become braver in their approaches;� senior leaders wanted to shift the sales force from ‘good to great’; � senior leaders were seeking an approach that addressed underperformance, stretched

the average performer and motivated high performers;� the company collected performance data that was not used effectively in managing

performance.

The approachto develop a framework for performance conversations that was built on the best practiceof the most successful managers, the project began by exploring what performancemanagement was like within the organisation at its best, using a focus group andinterviews with high performing regional and national operational managers. As a result,a performance management checklist was developed which could subsequently beadopted by less experienced managers. this captured company best practice and alsodescribed positive behaviours, such as identifying individual strengths using a strengthsassessment tool (Realise2), regular ‘strengths spotting’ – acknowledgement and namingof when others are both energised and performing well, delegation in line with strengthsand the alignment of strengths to objectives.

Strengths identification of self and othersUsing the strengths-based assessment tool Realise2, all regional operational managersidentified their own Realised strengths, Unrealised strengths, Learned Behaviours andWeaknesses. Using our ‘4M model’, they then identified ways in which their managementapproach could be enhanced through:� Marshalling their Realised strengths, i.e. using them more effectively; � Maximising their Unrealised strengths, i.e. seeking opportunities to use these

strengths more often; � Moderating their Learned Behaviours, i.e. acknowledging the more draining aspects

of their role and seeking to address them in more energising ways; and� Minimising Weaknesses, i.e. where these are not performance critical, seeking to use

strengths to compensate. All sales representatives were then given the opportunity to complete the strengths-basedassessment tool themselves. these strengths profiles provided a rich source of data forboth individuals and their managers.

Delegation on the basis of strengthsWhen managers consider an employee’s strengths when delegating tasks, both in terms ofcapability and enthusiasm, they see people working faster, experiencing a greater sense offlow and more successfully achieving their goals (Linley et al., 2010). in addition, when Cappinterviewed 60 highly engaged employees in four businesses and examined what set themapart from their less engaged colleagues, they found that the strengths use of these employeeswas significantly higher at around 70 per cent of their time at work (Linley et al., 2010).

the delegation of appropriate tasks is the primary way in which managers can ensurethat their teams are working on tasks that allow them to make use of their strengths.Where individuals appear to lack specific strengths that would be useful to their role, it is


the manager’s task to explore alternative ways in which they can use the strengths thatthey do have to reach their objective in a different way.

Regional operational managers were taught principles of strengths-based delegationand given the opportunity to practice, share their experiences and discuss challenges andsolutions. to introduce regional operational managers to the core concepts already discussed,as well as further topics, all took part in a workshop to provide the necessary skills to embeda more positive performance culture within the sales force. Workshop topics within:� identifying your strengths and developing your unique management style; � developing strategies to positively tackle poor performance; � setting motivating goals for others; and� identifying and drawing out the strengths of your sales people. the greatest challenges for the managers came from sustaining the motivation to manageover time, particularly during a time of significant organisational change. some of theways in which this approach has been successfully embedded include: � adopting strengths-based recruitment for both internal restructure and external

recruitment; � making a manager strengths team building toolkit available to all managers; � reviewing role profiles across the business to focus on outputs and include required

strengths;� keeping performance management on the senior management agenda through, for

example, setting senior manager strengths objectives and including strengths andperformance as an agenda item at sales leader team meetings;

� including the space to reflect on strengths use and future alignment with objectives informal appraisal process.

Implicationsthe research underpinning this case study, as well as the case study itself, invites practitionersto explore how they might equip managers to identify, understand and develop the strengthsof their teams in an evidence-based, practical way. As organisations continue to try toestablish positive performance management cultures of feedback, challenge and support,they will find that strengths assessment tools provide a valuable resource for managers.

ReferencesCorporate Leadership Council (2005). From performance management to performance

improvement. Available from www.executiveboard.com/exbd/executive-guidance/index.page.

Linley, P.A., nielson, K.M., Gillett,R., Biswas-diener,R. (2010). Using signature strengthsin pursuit of goals: effects on goal progress, needs satisfaction,and well-being andimplications for coaches. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 6–15.

strack, R., Caye, J-M., Lassen, s., Bhalla, V., Puckett, J., espinosa, e., Francoeur, F., haen,P. (2010) Creating people advantage: how companies can adapt their hR practicesfor volatile times. Boston Consulting Group & World Federation of PeopleManagement Associations.

The authorEmma Trenier is a senior Consultant at CAPP and Co Ltd.

Conflict of interest: CAPP and Co Ltd are the publishers of Realise2.



hogan training from the experts

PCL

Course options

Contact usemailcall

pclt w


The predictive stall in selection: Why –and is there anything we can do about it?Andrew Munro

In the 1980s psychometric testing rediscovered its mojo. The growing evidence base, a combination ofgreater test usage within the work place and the emerging wave of meta-analytical studies (Hunter &Hunter, 1984) reassured us that the systematic application of the psychometric method would delivergreater predictive power in selection. The potential gains were significant, delivering sizeableimprovements in employee productivity and reductions in recruitment costs.Thirty years on, however, it is a puzzle that – despite greater sophistication in test design, access totechnological innovation, and improvements in statistical methodology – predictive power has notimproved. Instead, there is reason to think that in some instances, for example, assessment centres(Thornton, 2009), validity is in decline. So what underpins this predictive stall? This article outlinesseven different arguments to point to the possible causes and goes on to propose options to address the stall.

1. We were wrong in the first placethis position suggests that predictive power was in fact never all that impressive, andpoints to the methodological shortcomings of meta-analytic studies (shercliffe et al.,2009). this argument also looks to retain the conventional definition of predictive validity(‘a comparison of test data at time i with an outcome at time 2’) to highlight theproblem of over-generalising from concurrent studies to assume the conclusions will bereplicated with applicants in a selection scenario. Concurrent studies may point togenuine predictive validity for some types of test, for example general mental ability, butseem problematic for self-report measures of personality and motivation. the lack ofvalidity evidence from genuinely predictive research designs for these tests continues torepresent something of a psychometric embarrassment.

2. Shortcomings in selection practice this position suggests that the stall is a consequence of a lack of sophistication in the useof psychometric data within selection applications. Psychometric testing has madepredictive improvements; unfortunately these potential gains are being washed outthrough falling standards and poor practitioner practice that are failing to optimise testdata in selection decision making.

3. VUCA makes working life less predictable We shouldn’t expect anything other than a predictive stall in what is fashionably knownas Planet VUCA, the world of increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.Psychometric testing may have provided predictive power in the relatively stableorganisational world of well defined roles and clear performance standards. in today’s fastmoving working environments – of shifting structures and changing organisationalcultures – it is difficult to know what is being predicted, never mind how best to predictit. As Michael Maubossin (Mauboussin, 2012) has pointed out, ‘complex adaptive systemseffectively obscure cause and effect. You can’t make predictions in any but the broadestand vaguest terms.’

4. The savvy candidate throws a spanner in the worksthe stall is explained because applicants have shifted from compliant candidates to shrewdgame players. this argument suggests that test publishers are being out-manoeuvred by ageneration of applicants adept in social media to exchange experiences about interviewmethodology, assessment centre protocols or the goldilocks tactics of personality testcompletion. it also points to an escalating ‘arms race’ in which any innovation by the testpublishers is countered quickly by applicants who find stratagems to mitigate their effect.

5. Flawed assumptions of the right stuffthere is a stall because we assumed that prediction in selection applications was arelatively easy project based on the identification of the ‘right stuff’, a handful of stableattributes transferable across many roles and organisations. And whilst it may be true thata robust measure of general mental ability, conscientiousness, open mindedness and theabsence of neuroticism may be a reasonable fall-back position for many roles, it also seemsthat performance is more contextual than we often assume (Groysberg, 2011). theforecast of performance requires a more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics ofwork context (e.g. the relative impact of in-depth expertise and knowledge, or access tonetworks of influence) if we are to improve on current levels of predictive power.

6. The incompetence of competency our validation efforts, often frustrated by a lack of access to objective measures with directorganisational impact, have come to rely on competencies – typically a set of 10-15dimensions of effectiveness – as the criteria of work outcomes. here the convention hasdeveloped that predictive validity is established if reasonable correlations can bedemonstrated between test data and competency evaluations. But as the critics havepointed out (Buckingham & Coffman, 2005; Bolden & Gosling, 2006) it is not clear thatcompetency frameworks do in fact predict meaningful long-term organisational outcomes.

7. Reliance on past achievements.there is a stall because we thought the predictive prize was already won, and little need for thelong-term research programmes established in the 1960–1970s (i.e. Bray, 1964). this is theargument that the psychometric industry is resting on the achievements of a relatively smallnumber of old studies. Longitudinal studies are a challenge and if the response is that theresearch logistics are now too complex we have to revisit the meaning of predictive validitywithin organisational life in the 21st century. no doubt each of these arguments has more orless merit depending on the specific type of test, its application and selection context. Butthere is a growing sense of practitioner unease about the widening gap between the popularityof psychometric testing and the evidence base of demonstrated predictive value in selection.

Responding to the predictive stallProfessional humility about the current limitations of psychometric testing would be agood start. this is not to downplay the genuine achievements made and the contributionof well-targeted tests within selection. But it is to note that many of the marketing claimsmade by the publishers, distributors and psychometric-based consultancies suggest a levelof confidence about the selection benefits not supported by a recent evidence base.secondly, there is a need for better understanding of organisational context and the factorswhich indicate when tests are more, or less, likely to improve selection. this is not simplythe argument for less reliance on the abstractions of validity coefficients from the meta


analyses literature and greater rigour to identify the incremental improvements onselection base rates, within real world applications. it is to propose we need a betterunderstanding of organisational dynamics, and the evaluation of the interplay of strategy,structure and culture (Munro, 2013) that indicate the circumstances when testing can andcan’t be expected to have predictive power in selection. this is to think strategically aboutthe nature of work, the organisational climate, and the impact of change and avoid the‘one size fits all’ application of psychometric testing. thirdly, greater attention should begiven to candidate adaptability and versatility. the focus on identifying the causal attributesof the right predictive stuff largely neglected the impact of the capacity of individuals tochange and develop in response to experience. if the predictive enterprise has toaccommodate greater levels of future organisational change, we need a shrewder insightinto how the dynamics of consequence affect cause, to identify which types of experience,have more or less impact, in shaping the capacity to adapt to new and different challenges.Finally, we should encourage greater use of pilots within selection scenarios. Apart fromproviding an important check that the predictive claims made from concurrent studieshold up in applicant samples over time, pilots allow the experimentation that generateslearning to keep adapting selection systems to optimise the organisational impact.

SummaryPrediction is the goal of the scientific enterprise. From initial ideas to theory testing toexplanations of the dynamics of cause and consequence, prediction makes the forecast offuture outcomes possible. improvements in the accuracy of these predictions are a test ofthe progress a scientific discipline is making. it seems that psychometric testing is stuck andneeds to revisit either its predictive claims or the research programmes it is using to buildevidence of its predictive power in response to the selection challenges of the 21st century.

ReferencesBolden, R. & Gosling, J. (2006). Leadership competencies: time to change the tune?Leadership, 2.

Bray, d. (1964). the management progress study. American Psychologist, 19(6).Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (2005). First break all the rules: What the world’s greatestmanagers do differently. London: Pocket Books.

Groysberg, B. (2011). Chasing stars: The myth of talent and the portability of performance.Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press.

hunter, i.e. & hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of jobperformance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.

Mauboussin, M. (2012). The success equation: Untangling skill and luck in business, sports,and investing. Cambridge, MA: harvard Business Review Press.

Munro, A. (2013). Why best practice in talent management is failinghttp://www.amazureconsulting.com/files/1/21827571/talentManagement-

BestFitBeatsBestPracticesummary.pdf.shercliffe, R.J., stahl, W. & tuttle, M.P. (2009). the use of meta-analysis in psychology: A

superior vintage or the casting of old wine in new bottles? Theory and Psychology,19(3), 413–430.

thornton, G. (2009). Validity of assessment centers for personnel selection. HumanResource Management Review, 19, 169–187.

The authorAndrew Munro MA, C Psychol is a director and founder of AM Azure Consulting.


Recent publications from the EFPA Board of AssessmentDave Bartram, Board Convenor

The european Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (eFPA) has 36 nationalmember associations representing about 300,000 psychologists, includingpractitioners as well as academic and research psychologists. July 2013 saw the

publication by eFPA of updated test user standards, standards covering psychologicalassessment and a revision of the eFPA test review model. All of these can be downloadedfrom the eFPA web site – see below for details.

in 2011, the eFPA Board of Assessment replaced the standing Committee on testsand testing (sCtt), which had a long history of significant developments in the area oftest and test user standards in europe (Muniz & Bartram, 2007; Bartram, 2011). in thetwo years it has been in existence, the new Board has been active in completing its agreedwork plan. in particular, it has: 1. agreed a working definition of ‘assessment’ which is consistent in its scope and form

to that used for the iso 10667 standard for assessment in work and organisationalsettings (though the eFPA definition covers all areas of assessment);

2. produced a substantial revision of the eFPA test review model;3. updated the eFPA test Use standards to cover all three domains of practice (work,

health and education) each at three levels of competence;4. produced a document explaining the eFPA test Use standards and their application;5. produced a set of standards for psychological assessment use covering three levels of

competence and three domains of practice; and6. produced guidance on the coverage of psychological assessment in the basic euroPsy

for consideration by the eFPA european Awarding Committee.

the Board of Assessment is one of the largest of the eFPA Boards and Committees having23 of the 36 eFPA member associations (MAs) represented. these are represented bypeople appointed by their countries’ eFPA member psychological associations. inaddition, the Board has observers representing the itC, eAWoP and eAPA and themembers of the eFPA test User Accreditation Committee (tUAC), which works incollaboration with those MAs who are developing test user qualifications. Most of thework of the Board is carried out by working groups set up to deal with specific projects.

The Board’s definition of ‘assessment’ the Board agreed a definition of assessment as a ‘systematic method or procedure forascertaining the psychological characteristics of an individual or group of individuals, or theperformance of an individual or group of individuals’. We would emphasise that we intenda broad view of ‘psychological characteristics’. indeed, the term is used to differentiatebetween physical and psychological characteristics rather than imply any restriction to trait-like attributes. the definition is based on that developed for the iso 10667 standard onassessment and this makes clear that it covers all types of psychological attribute, assessed atindividual as well as aggregate levels (team, organisation, network, family, social group, etc.).


We would also envisage this covering the measurement of ‘criteria’ in so far as these arerelevant to the ‘performance of an individual or group of individuals’.

Revision to the EFPA test review model the current EFPA Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological Tests wasreleased in 2004 with some minor amendments in 2005 and 2008. testing technologiesand practice have developed rapidly since then, especially with regard to the applicationof iRt in the occupational and educational testing areas. A thorough review and updateof the current documentation was deemed necessary and in 2010 the sCtt set up aworking group under Arne evers to carry out this revision. this group produced asubstantial updated draft of the review model and this was subject to two rounds ofconsultation. it was approved by the General Assembly of eFPA in July 2013 and is nowavailable on the website. the revision is described in more detail in evers et al. (2013).

this review model has attracted international interest from outside europe. We werepleased to be give permission to the Psychometrics Board of the health ProfessionsCouncil of south Africa to make use of the model in their new test registration procedures.

Revision of EFPA Test Use Standards and production of Assessment StandardsPrior to the formation of the Board of Assessment, the sCtt had produced a set of testuse standards contextualised for testing in work, educational and health related settings.A three-level model of competence had been defined, representing differing levels ofexpertise in the practice of test use. the sCtt had developed and approved detailedspecifications for qualifications in occupational test use for all three levels of competenceand outlines for the other two areas of practice.

during 2011–13 the task was to revise the test use standards to ‘fill in the gaps’ so thatthey covered all three levels for all three domains of practice. in addition, we had beenasked to then produce a version that more broadly covered assessment. however, it wasfirst necessary to bring the specifications for testing and assessment in educational andhealth settings up to the same level of detail as those for testing and assessment in workrelated settings. this was completed and the documents describing the testing standardsand the assessment standards were approved by the eFPA General Assembly in 2013.these can be downloaded from the website.

Development of guidance on coverage of assessment in the basic EuroPsycertificateit was necessary to agree this expansion of the original eFPA standard for test Use tocover the broader area of assessment in order to inform the process of developingguidance on the standard of psychological assessment expected of those attaining thebasic euroPsy certificate.

Following revision of the standards, a document was prepared entitled Guidance on thestandard of competence expected in the area of psychological assessment for psychologists eligible forthe basic European Certificate in Psychology (the EuroPsy). this document was developed fromthe euroPsy regulations and their annexes and sets out a specification for how theeducation, training and supervised practice of psychologists could meet the Level 2standard for competence in psychological assessment. Level 2 is the minimum levelexpected of psychologists involved in routine practitioner use of assessment. (Level 3defines the competence expected of specialists in assessment). this was prepared as aninternal advisory document for the eFPA european Awarding Committee to consider.


The work of the Test User Accreditation Committee (TUAC)the tUAC has continued its work under the auspices of the new Board and accreditationof the BPs Level 2 occupational test User qualification was confirmed in 2011. Award ofthe ‘eurotest’ certificates began in the UK in February 2012 since when over 1000registrations have been issued.

Work continues on the accreditation of test user qualifications in sweden, norway,denmark and Poland. A preliminary submission for accreditation has been received fromsweden and is in the process of being revised. A European Standard for Test Use provides a simple explanation of the eFPA test use

standard and its potential use in test user certification. the eFPA eurotest accreditationscheme is also explained. this document can be downloaded from the website.

Other contributionsMembers of the Board continue to be active in producing publications and contributionsto conference that promote the work of eFPA and the Board. during 2012, the report onthe survey carried out by the Board of psychologists’ testing practices was published (everset al., 2012).

As convenor, i am grateful to the many members of the Board and of tUAC who havespent many hours, both in meetings and outside meetings, contributing to the tasks setfor the various working groups. All have ensured we have produced outputs that meet therequirements of the diverse national and cultural conditions that exist across europe.together we have achieved these substantial and substantive outcomes.

i am stepping down as convenor of the Board of Assessment to take up presidency ofthe itC in 2014. however, i hope to remain an active member of the Board of Assessmentand tUAC and continue to contribute to the important work it has been carrying out toenhance standards of practice in testing and assessment in europe and beyond.

ReferencesBartram, d. (2011). Contributions of the eFPA standing Committee on tests and

testing to standards and good practice. European Psychologist, 16(2), 149–159.evers, A., Muniz, J., Bartram, d. et al. (2012). testing practices in the 21st Century:

developments and european psychologists’ opinions. European Psychologist, 17(4),300–319.

evers, A., Muniz, J., hagemeister, C., hostmaelingen, A., Lindley, P., sjoberg, A. &Bartram, d. (2013). Assessing the quality of tests: Revision of the eFPA reviewmodel. Psicothema, 25(3), 283–291.

Muniz, J. & Bartram, d. (2007). improving international tests and testing. EuropeanPsychologist, 12(3), 206–219.

WeblinksAll the public documents referred to in this article can be downloaded from:www.efpa.eu/professional-development/assessment

The authorDave Bartram is Chief Psychologist at CeB’s shL talent Measurement solutions;extraordinary Professor, University of Pretoria, south Africa, and President-elect of theinternational test Commission.



A measure of student psychologicalcontract violationJulie Prescott

The psychological contract is most often associated with the employer/employeecontract. the term psychological contract refers to an individual’s belief regardingthe reciprocal terms and conditions of an agreement (Rousseau, 1989, cited in Pate

et al., 2003). Cavanagh (1996, p.80) describes the psychological contract as a‘sophisticated set of rules, which forms the psychological basis for continuingcommitment of an employee to their employer’. these ‘rules’, ‘obligations’ or ‘beliefs’will often be informal and imprecise (dabos & Rousseau, 2004). some obligations may beviewed as ‘promises’ and others as ‘expectations’. the psychological contract is not a legalcontract but implicitly informs employees of what they are required to do in order to meettheir obligations, and what they can expect from their employer (Chartered institute ofPersonal development, 2004). Greater satisfaction with the psychological contract willresult in employees having increased commitment, which has a positive impact on theorganisation (Guest & Conway, 2002). Psychological contract violation has been definedas a failure of the organisation to fulfil one or more obligations of an individual’spsychological contract (Robinson et al., 1994) and occurs when there is a discrepancybetween what is expected by the employee and what is received.

spies et al. (2010) developed and evaluated an instrument to measure psychologicalcontract violation in pharmacy students. the self-rated measure includes 25 items scoredon a four-point Likert scale (1 = received a lot more than promised and 4 = received a lotless than promised). the higher the score, the more psychological contract violation theindividual experiences. Factor components of the scale revealed seven factors: ‘studentdevelopment’, ‘course and curricular content’, ‘involvement’, ‘learning opportunities’,‘faculty’, ‘facilities’ and ‘futuristic’ (spies et al., 2010). the psychometric properties of thisscale have been reported as satisfactory (spies et al., 2010). the construct validity of thescale was confirmed with pharmacy students in America. the internal consistency wasfound to be satisfactory for the total scale (0.91) and the seven subscales (from weak 0.59to acceptable 0.84) (spies et al., 2010). the measure is a new measure with limited useto date.

Research objectivesthe research objective of the current study is to explore the usefulness of the studentpsychological contract violation measure developed by spies et al. (2010) with UKpharmacy students. A factor analysis was conducted on the measure with a sample of 254undergraduate university students across all four years of study. the main aim is to see ifthe measure with seven subscales developed with an American cohort of students appliesto students in the same discipline in the UK.

Methodologythe student psychological contract violation measure was completed in class by 254pharmacy undergraduate students at the University of Central Lancashire in 2013.


Participants indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement for each of the 25items using a four-point Likert scale (1 = received a lot more than promised, 2 = receivedwhat was promised, 3 = received less than was promised and 4 = received a lot less thanpromised), making the possible range of resulting scores 25–100, with higher scoresindicating greater violation of the psychological contract.

Factor 1 Factor 2

1. enough school members to give students adequate attention .618

2. the potential to interact one-to-one with the school .566

3. interaction with the school at student functions .473

4. A school who are knowledgeable about current developments in their areas of expertise

.630

5. Guidance on various career pathways .588

6. Courses that cover emerging roles in pharmacy profession .665

7. Mentorship for my academic pursuits .567

8. Courses that are responsive to changes in pharmacy practice .632

9. An educational programme that is responsive to technological change

.668

10. Responsiveness to students’ evaluations about the curriculum .660

11. A potential to be heard .708

12. innovative ways and means of delivering courses and course content

.680

13. development of leadership .611

14. Coverage of essential content in courses .692

15. Minimal repetition of concepts and content throughout the curriculum

.630

16. Courses that cover contemporary practice responsibilities .638

17. Coordination of courses throughout curriculum .735

18. Learning opportunities for acquisition of written communication skills

.632

19. Learning opportunities for acquisition of oral communication skills

.664

20. Learning opportunities for developing critical thinking skills .630

21. involvement in extracurricular activities .592

22. Potential to participate in school of Pharmacy committees .590

23. involvement in the affairs of the profession .700

24. Physical facilities that are sufficient in size to accommodate the student body

.570

25. Physical facilities that are adequately equipped for teaching and learning

.597

Table 1: Component matrix

Results and analysisFactor analysis (FA) showed that items loaded onto two main factors, which accounted for45 per cent of the variance. Factor one accounted for 39.31 per cent of the variance, andfactor two 5.66 per cent. these findings are very different from the original findings anddo not lend support for the seven subscales as the original scale proposes (spies et al.,2010).

All of the 25 statements loaded onto factors one or two (see table 1 statements andfactor loadings). of the 25 statements, 23 loaded onto factor one and only two onto factortwo. internal consistency for the total scale was high (.934). spies et al.’s loadings foundjust four statements loaded onto factor one and seven on factor two and the remainingfourteen across the other five factors. therefore, the loadings are quite different for thecurrent sample compared to the loadings of the original scale.

Conclusion the psychological construct is an interesting and viable construct in the psychology ofwork. so far there has been a paucity of research that has considered the psychologicalcontract as relevant in the student/university context. With students in the UK currentlypaying around £9,000 a year to study for a bachelor’s degree, it may be that apsychological contract between educational institution and student is becoming morerelevant. spies et al. have developed a tool specific for pharmacy students. the currentstudy suggests that using this scale with UK pharmacy students provides different resultsto those in the original study. the results did not lend support to the seven factor scale asspies et al. (2010) propose, but instead to a two-factor scale. Rather than focussing thescale on pharmacy students, it may be more viable for a tool to be developed for studentsmore generally. Although the scale did not load in the same way as proposed, the findingssuggest that the student psychological contract violation scale is a useful measure todevelop further. due to the paucity of research in the area of the student psychologicalcontract more research is needed, particularly if development of the scale as proposed byspies et al. in addition, the current study found that the percentage the second factorloading accounts for is quite low and, therefore, more work is needed to identify otherpossible contributing factors. the current study adds to the literature on thepsychological contract and the lesser researched area of psychological contract violationof students. it is suggested that more researchers and educators use the tool in order toassess the psychological contract of students and to further develop the scale and researchin this area. investigating student psychological contract violation could impact onstudent satisfaction and the student learning experience.

References Cavanagh, s.J. (1996). A ‘new’ psychological contract for nurses: some management

implications. Journal of Nursing Management, 4, 79–83.Chartered institute of Personal development. (2004). Managing the psychological contract.

Retrieved 14 April 2011 from http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/psycntrct.dabos, G.e. & Rousseau, d.M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological

contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 52–72.Guest, d. & Conway, n. (2002). Pressure at work: workers verdict. London: Chartered

institute of Personal development. Retrieved 12 April 2010 from www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/ empreltns/pscycntrct/pressureatwork-wrksvrdct.htm 0



Robinson, s.L., Kraatz, M.s. & Rousseau, d.M. (1994). Changing obligations and thepsychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37,137–152.

Pate, J., Martin, G. & McGoldrick, J. (2003). the impact of psychological contractviolation on employee attitudes and behaviour. Employee Relations, 25(6), 557–573.

spies, A.R., Wilkin, n.e., Bentley, J.P., Bouldin, A.s., Wilson, M.C. & holmes, e.R.(2010). instrument to measure psychological contract violation in pharmacystudents. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(6), 1–11.

The authorJulie Prescott is a lecturer in the department of Psychology, University of Bolton.

From the journals to your practiceJan Bogg

Leader personality and team conflictde Jong et al. (2013) in an empirical study of 323 new ventures examine how task andrelationship conflict in the team, mediates the effect of lead founder personality onnew venture perfor mance. the results indicate that openness and agreeablenessincrease task conflict, whereas conscientiousness decreases it. openness, extraversionand conscientiousness decrease relationship conflict, whereas neuroticism increases it.Furthermore, task conflict increases venture performance, whereas relationshipconflict decreases performance and weakens the positive effect of task conflict. inaddition, task and relationship conflict do not mediate the effect of extraversion, andonly partially mediate the effects of openness and neuroticism on new ventureperformance. openness and neuroticism exert a direct impact on new ventureperformance, in addition to their indirect impact through task and relationshipconflict. the authors provide recommendations for team performance.

Referencede Jong, A., song, M. & song, L.Z. (2013). how lead founder personality affects new

venture performance: the mediating role of team conflict. Journal of Management.39(7), 1825–1854.

Watch and learn with a TED talk on education Creativity expert sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we’re educating children andstates. ‘We are educating people out of their creative capacities.’ sir Ken champions aradical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multipletypes of intelligence. Watch for free his classic talk on ‘how schools kill creativity’ (19 minutes); there arethree others in the list to watch, ranging from 11–19 minutes long. if anyone would liketo write an article on their thoughts about sir Ken’s viewpoint, let us know! http://www.ted.com/speakers/sir_ken_robinson.html


The medicalisation of childhoodVivian Hill

The British Psychological society (BPs) division of educational and Child Psychology(deCP) established a working group to investigate the medicalisation of childhoodin 2011. this was in response to mounting concerns from the wider psychological

community about the draft revisions to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (dsM-5), the lowering of thresholds in a number ofbehavioural and mental health conditions, and the introduction of further disorders. themanual instigated unprecedented critique from around the world and, notably, the Usnational institute for Mental health (niMh, 2013), the largest organisation fundingmental health research, which commented:‘It is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each …The weakness is thelack of validity. Unlike our definitions of … heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSMdiagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objectivelaboratory measure … Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis … has been largely replaced in thepast half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choiceof treatment … NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DMS categories”

in the UK the BPs division of Clinical Psychology (2013) also launched a strongly wordedposition statement:‘The current classification system as outlined by DSM and ICD … has significant conceptualand empirical limitations. Consequently, there is a need for a paradigm shift in relation tothe experiences that these diagnoses refer to, towards a conceptual system that is not based ona disease model.’

in June 2013 the MPs John Mcdonnell and Jeremy Corbin sponsored the deCP house ofCommons debate ‘the Medicalisation of Childhood’, a collaboration betweeneducational Psychologists, Clinical Psychologists and Psychiatrists to consider theimplications of dsM–5 on the management of children’s needs in the UK. the deCPmade the case for a change of paradigm to ensure the safeguarding of vulnerablechildren.

Background over the past four decades there has been growing concern within the disciplines of childpsychiatry and child psychology about the proliferation of mental health categories andthe evidence base for them. Much of this growth reflects the influence of the AmericandsM, which was developed to classify different types of illness in order to monitor theirprevalence and enhance reliability by ensuring that clinicians are referring to the samecondition. since the first edition of the manual in 1952, which identified 106 categoriesof mental health disorder, the number of categories has escalated with each revision. in1962 dsM–ii described 182 categories, in 1987 dsM–iii described 265 and by 1994dsM–iV contained 357. the expansion in mental ‘disorders’ has reflected the increasedreliance on the biomedical model, which tends to promote the use of medication to treatidentified difficulties. the philosophical reaction to this approach has been the

development of the critical, anti- and post-psychiatry movements and the emergence ofsocial constructivism in psychology. these alternative perspectives question the way thatpatterns of behaviour have become labelled as indicative of disorders, and consequentlylinked to diagnostic categories; they seek to temper the biological view by the inclusion ofpsychological and social understandings. Furthermore, these perspectives activelychallenge what is considered to be ‘normative behaviour’, recognising the socialsubjectivity of ‘abnormality’ (timimi, 2009).

Understanding children’s behaviourthe term ‘medicalisation’ implies the use of the medical model to describe behaviourand to provide a framework for both management and intervention. inherent in thisapproach is the notion that the problem behaviour is innate and outside of the controlof the young person or the adults working with them, and implies that the interventionalso needs to be biological, usually in the form of medication (Kinderman et al., 2013).the concern is that for many children and young people living in adversity, the failureto make sense of the influence of their contexts will lead to their behaviour beingmisunderstood and pathologised. Furthermore, these children may be prescribedmedication to control their behaviour, whilst they continue to experience stress anddistress in their contexts.

Adopting a broader interactionist psychological perspective, for example the bio-psychosocial model, that considers the interaction of multiple systems and contexts,including the child’s life experiences and other environmental factors, may well leadto the same behaviours being viewed as adaptive and will generate a very differentfocus for intervention. traditionally, applied educational psychologists (ePs) haveembraced an interactionist psychological perspective, recognising the influences ofthe systems and contexts that are part of the child’s ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner,1979), on the child’s development, behaviour and emotional well-being. A corefeature of the delivery of eP services is the assessment of children and young people’sneeds within their contexts, and the consideration of a full range of systemicinfluences on their behaviour. this enables the formulation of interventions that aimto promote change within the relevant systems and avoids pathologising the child’sbehaviour unduly.

The rise of ADHDePs have been increasingly concerned by the number of children being identified withattention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Adhd) and prescribed medication, frequentlywithout sufficient consideration of systemic factors or adequate professional liaison,despite the niCe (2008) guidelines. it is acknowledged that many children living inadversity may demonstrate patterns of behaviour associated with an Adhd profile, butthese behaviours may be a reaction to the stresses in their contexts rather than a reflectionof an underlying biological phenomenon. the niCe guidelines recommend that the firstline of treatment for children displaying these types of behaviour should be apsychological intervention. however, the reality in a time of unprecedented cuts in publicservices is that many children are being placed on a drug treatment programme withoutany form of therapeutic support. Recent evidence from the Care Quality Commission’s(CQC) annual report of controlled drugs (2012) demonstrates a 60 per cent increase inthe prescription of methylphenidate psychostimulant drugs, such as Ritalin, in the periodof 2007 to 2012, with an 11 per cent increase in the previous 12 months. hsia and


Maclennan (2009) noted a 92-fold increase in the rate of psychostimulant medicationbeing prescribed to children under the age of six between 1992 and 2001. this presentsa worrying picture since prescription of psychostimulant drugs to this age group isdiscouraged.

timimi (2009) suggests that we are experiencing an epidemic of Adhd, yet thecondition remains highly controversial as it is based on a purely subjective set ofdiagnostic criteria. there is no biological assessment for the condition and diagnosiscomes from the use of highly subjective checklists of the occurrence of certain types ofbehaviour, with no specification of the prevalence of these behaviours required to achieveaccurate diagnosis. this information is often collected in the absence of wider contextualevidence that would certainly impact on the child’s behaviour and their ability toconcentrate and sustain attention, for example exposure to domestic violence, abuse andneglect, inconsistent parenting, living in overcrowded conditions and poverty. theconcern is that the use of a purely medical model locates the problem within the child,ignores the social context and uses powerful psychotrophic drugs to manage the child’sbehaviour, without changing the context, or the management of the behaviour, whichcould raise safeguarding issues.

in the context of wider social information, the behaviour that is beingcharacterised as Adhd might well be seen as an adaptive and healthy response toadversity rather than as an illness. the CQC (2012) estimate that 2–5 per cent ofschool aged children may present with behaviours characterised as Adhd, but fewerthan half of these will present with the severity of symptoms that might require medicalintervention. When medication is used it should be alongside a psychologicalintervention and time limited.

the American dsM has had a causal influence on the rise of Adhd in the UK.Furthermore, the influence of the pharmacological industry on both research and thedsM-–5 developments has led to a biomedical paradigm dominating our understandingof human behaviour and emotional well-being. in order to protect the interests of ourchildren and our society, and to develop more effective interventions, we need toengage in research based on broader conceptualisations of behaviour and the socialcontext in which it occurs. the deCP is progressing this research agenda with a surveyof member’s experiences. We are promoting the use of the bio-psychosocial paradigm.the working group requests that members ensure that the niCe (2008)recommendations that specify psychological intervention as the first line of treatmentare operationalised and that all children are protected from the inappropriate use ofmedication.

Referencesdivision of Clinical Psychologists (2013). Classification of behaviour and experience inrelation to functional psychiatric diagnoses: Time for paradigm shift. Leicester: BritishPsychological society.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature anddesign. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press.

Care Quality Commission (2012). the safer management of controlled drugs: AnnualReport 2012. Retrieved 18 August 2013 from www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/ documents/cdar_2012.pdf

hsia, Y. & Maclennan, K. (2009). the rise in psychotrophic drug prescribing in childrenand adolescents during 1992–2001: A populations based study in the UK. european


Journal of Epidemiology, 24, 211–216. Kinderman, P., Read, J., Moncrieff, J. & Bentall, R.P. (2013). drop the language of

disorder. Evidence Based Mental Health, 16(1), 2–3. niCe (2008). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management of

Adhd in children, young people and adults: Clinical guidelines 72. Leicester:British Psychological society.

national institute for Mental health (2013). director’s blog (tom insel): transformingdiagnosis. Retrieved 30 April 2013 from www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml.

timimi, s. (2009). A straight talking introduction to children’s mental health problems.hertfordshire: PCCs Books.

The authorVivian Hill is a member of the deCP Medicalisation Working Group and Programmedirector of the doctorate in educational Psychology at the institute of education,University of London.


European Test User Certificate (Level 2): Work and Organisational AssessmentIf you hold all of the following BPS test user qualifications:

� Assistant Test User: Occupational;

� Test User Occupational: Ability; and

� Test User: Occupational, Personality

you are eligible for the award of the European Test User Certificate (Level 2): Work and Organisational Assessment accredited by the European Federationof Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA).

Since its launch in February 2012, more than 1,000 BPS registered test users haveapplied for and been awarded the European Test User Certificate – and morecertificates are issued every week.

For further information and an application form, please visithttp://www.psychtesting.org.uk/apply-packs/euro-test-user-certificate

Test-to-speech software: Failure byschools to implement this exam accessarrangement Malcolm Litten

In sePteMBeR 2012, the Joint Council for Qualification’s (JCQ) ‘pink book’ of accessarrangements introduced an unexpected change. GCse candidates who were assessedas eligible for a reader would now be allowed to employ text-to-speech software to read

the text to them in questions assessing their reading ability. A human reader was still notallowed. the explanation for this change was that ‘it allows the candidate toindependently meet the requirements of the reading standards’ (p.15). As with similararrangements, such as the use of a keyboard, the use of text-to-speech software has to‘reflect his/her normal way of working within the centre’ (p.14).

it is not possible to get an accurate figure from the exam boards of how manycandidates actually used this access arrangement in the June 2013 exams, as they onlyhave figures for the number of requests. My own experience of working with four schoolswhich attempted to provide this access arrangement to eligible candidates was that onlyone of them succeeded. enquiries i made on the senco forum site (1200 members) andto specific specialist schools that might be the most likely to have successfully deliveredthis access arrangement uncovered only six schools. it appears likely that most schoolswhich requested to use this access arrangement eventually did not.

in 2011–12 (the most recent year for which there are figures available) approximately57,000 candidates were granted the use of a reader in GCse exams. this total includestwo distinct groups with quite different reasons for needing the access arrangement:visually impaired candidates and candidates with a literacy disability. Unfortunately, thereare no statistics to indicate the numbers within each of these groups. however, assumingnumbers were similar in 2012–13, it seems reasonable to suppose that tens of thousandsof candidates with literacy problems were denied the text-to-speech access arrangement.Considering the potential value of this access arrangement to such candidates, this is ashocking failure on the part of the vast majority of schools.

the reasons are multiple, as my experience with the four schools demonstrated.Firstly, many schools still fail to provide text-to-speech on their computer network.during 2011, i conducted an investigation into the provision of assistive technology inschools, visiting over 40 in all. in the 16 secondary schools i visited, only 25 per cent hadtext-to-speech available, even though there was a disproportionately high number ofschools providing special support to dyslexic pupils in my sample. one of my fourschools only obtained a site licence for text-to-speech software in the summer term of2013. For the 75 per cent of schools without text-to-speech software, it is not possiblefor their candidates to meet the requirement of its use being their ‘normal way ofworking within the centre’.

secondly, there are a number of aspects to providing this access arrangement thatpose logistical problems on the day of the exam. A school has to provide a computer withtext-to-speech software for each candidate, a suitable working space and arrange to have


a digital version of the exam paper available. this proved too challenging for another ofthe schools i worked with. the quality of it support in schools varies enormously, as myvisits revealed. special needs experts are rarely confident it experts as well and so dependupon others to deliver this access arrangement.

JCQ indicated that schools would have to produce their own digital version of theenglish exam paper in a single hour on the day of the exam. the uncertainty thiscreated persuaded the third school i worked with to avoid what they saw as too great arisk, despite having excellent facilities and it support. in the case of the one successfulschool, this would have involved scanning four papers (a total of 16 separate pages –higher and Foundation levels, both having a reading booklet and a question paper). inpractice, the school was able (very late in the day) to get assurances from the examboard involved that they would be provided with an electronic version of the exampapers to download one hour before the exam. All four exam boards are nowguaranteeing in June 2014 to provide PdF versions of their english exam papers to allschools who request this.

Given the issues i have listed, it is hardly surprising that many schools did not deliver.however, there is a further factor that has to be acknowledged and addressed. i haveencountered very real scepticism, expressed by senCos as well as others, about thejustification for this access arrangement and this needs to be answered. the absence oftext-to-speech software in 75 per cent of secondary schools is clear evidence that the issueof access to text is very often simply ignored, despite the self-evident problems manypupils have with reading school textbooks, set texts and worksheets. Unfortunately – andpuzzlingly – Microsoft fails to include text-to-speech software in its ease of Access toolsin the Windows operating system. if you look at both the training of special needsspecialists and their priorities when in post, assistive technology barely figures in either.While ignorance or lack of availability can partly explain the absence of text-to-speech inmost schools, there also lurks an unacknowledged fear that providing such assistance isan abandonment of the special needs expert’s responsibility to develop every child’sreading skills. edyburn (2006) argues that the use of assistive technology with strugglingreaders is delayed far longer than equivalent assistance to individuals with physicalhandicaps. Furthermore, he challenges the perception that such assistance is likely toundermine an individual’s commitment to learning to read. Parr (2010) introduced text-to-speech software to all students in a mainstream Grade 5 class, intending it to be seenas an option for all when accessing text. As anticipated, most did not choose to continueto use it. however, for those who chose to use it occasionally or regularly, Parr suggestsit provided exposure to text, which is essential if such students’ reading skills are todevelop.

if there is reluctance to use text-to-speech software in learning, in some quartersthere is outright rejection of the idea that it is appropriate in the assessment of reading.however, the logic behind allowing a computer reader but not a human reader is basedon a fundamental difference between the two. Whilst it is almost impossible for ahuman reader to remove all interpretation of the text from their reading, it is equallyimpossible to program a computer reader to introduce any. What a candidate isprovided with by the computer reader is fluent decoding. if that were all that is beingassessed at GCse, then it would, of course, be inappropriate to provide it. But quiteobviously there are many more sophisticated skills being assessed, from understandinggrammar and making meaning, to drawing inferences, appreciating tone and evenunderstanding the effect of genre on a reader’s response. As this is the case, assessment


of a candidate’s reading skill has often been highly inaccurate in the past, missing themany sophisticated skills such readers may possess because they happen to lack the skillof fluent decoding.

it could be argued – and i suspect will be by parents if schools continue to fail toprovide eligible candidates with this access arrangement – that schools have a duty toprovide it. if for a moment we imagine schools refusing to allow eligible candidates accessto a Braille copy of the question paper, access to a keyboard or the provision of a scribeto a candidate with a broken wrist and recognise the obvious injustice that wouldrepresent, then the need for change is urgent and undeniable.

Referencesedyburn, d.L. (2006). Assistive technology and mild disabilities. special education.Technology Practice, 8(4), 18–28.

JCQ (2012). Access arrangements, reasonable adjustments and special consideration. London:JCQ.

Parr, M. (2010). From non-reader to text-reader: Using text-to-speech technology to enhancemotivation, choice, and confidence. Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive technologyAssociation national Conference Proceedings. Retrieved 15 February 2013 fromwww.arata.org.au/arataconf10/index.html#computer.

The author Malcolm Litten is a consultant on dyslexia and member of the British dyslexiaAssociation’s new technologies Committee.


Research DigestBlogging on brain and behaviour

subscribe by Rss or e-mailwww.researchdigext.org.uk/blog

Become a fanwww.facebook.com/researchdigest

Follow the digest editor atwww.twitter.com/researchdigest


Vacancies for Educational Testing Verifiers Vacancies are available on the educational testing Verifiers’ Group, owing to the completion of Verifiers’ terms of office.

the purpose of the society’s standards in test use is to define and maintain standardsof assessment use concerning ability/attainment, personality and related attributes.educational testing Verifiers work to verify the assessment methods of Assessors,ensuring that delegates on subsequent training courses meet the required test usercompetencies.

At this stage expressions of interest are invited from Chartered psychologists who hold the society’s certificates in educational test use at the level test Usereducational: Ability & Attainment (CCet) and who hold a current entry on theonline Register of Qualifications in test Use. in addition applicants should also be a currently Verified Assessor at the level of test User: educational, Ability and Attainment.

Commitment required:� work as part of the Verifiers’ group to monitor the standards of assessment

carried out by Assessors, across the UK ( approximately 4–6 days a year)� to attend Verifiers’ group meetings (4 per annum, one of which is likely

to be a teleconference)� to maintain and develop knowledge relevant to the content and conduct

of the society’s qualifications in psychological testing� to act as a representative of the society when undertaking verification

and quality assurance duties.

The person appointed will:� be involved in training and assessment in educational test use � have a sound understanding of current issues in testing � have good interpersonal skills to facilitate positive and constructive

relationships with colleagues, Assessors and test users� be willing to undertake professional development.

Appointments are for one year initially and a full Verifier’s term is for four years. Verifiers will be financially compensated at rates determined by the society. (Rates are available on request).

To make informal enquiries or request the role profile, terms of reference and a statement of interest form, contact Mala Pancholi at the Psychological

Testing Centre on 0116 252 9536 or email [email protected]


Asse

ssm

ent&

Deve

lopm

ent

Mat

ters

Submission GuidelinesAssessment & Development Matters (ADM) is published by the PsychologicalTesting Centre. Its readership is entrants on the Register of Qualificationsin Test Use, holding BPS Educational and Occupational testingqualifications.The Editorial Team encourage submission of articles with a broad rangeof appeal, aimed at qualified educational and occupational testers, withan interest in professional development and psychological testing,including FAQs, readers’ letters and responses to articles. ADM isparticularly keen to publish articles in which research and practice arepresented to inform and influence the test using community.The Editorial Team aim to give a platform for a range of views that arenot necessarily their own, nor those of the British Psychological Society. Practitioner-focused general articles: must not exceed 1500 wordsincluding references and tables.Research articles: must not exceed 1500 words, including references andtables (maximum of two legible tables/figures).Research articles should conform to a standard template for test researchsubmissions, available from the Coordinating Editor.Brief articles of interest to practitioners: must not exceed 500 words andmust not include tables/figures, i.e. research summaries, updates,conference reports, etc .Length: Please note that any article exceeding the word count willautomatically be returned to the author for revision.Article style: Articles should be written for an educated but varied testingaudience and aim to engage the readership at large. Where appropriate,spelling should be Anglicised. Abbreviations and acronyms should beexplained at least once in the text. Unless relevant to the sample,language should be non-gender specific. The Editorial Team reserve theright to remove any discriminatory language, and to edit articles tomaintain sufficient standards.References: British Psychological Society style, for example:Sparrow, P. (2006). International recruitment, selection and assessment: Research

report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.Van de Vijver, F.J.R. & Hambleton, R.K. (1996). Translating tests: Some

practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.If you require further information, the Society’s Style Guide is available todownload from the publications page of www.bps.org.ukCopyright: for all published articles remains with the British PsychologicalSociety’s Psychological Testing Centre. Authors are required to sign acopyright declaration once their submission has been approved forpublication.2014 Submission deadlines:Spring: 10 January Summer: 21 March Autumn: 23 June Winter: 19 September Submissions to: the Coordinating Editor as an e-mail attachment, saved inMS Word format: [email protected] Team:Senior Editor – Dr Jan BoggConsultant Occupational Editor – Stuart DuffConsultant Educational Editor – Dr Joanna HorneCo-ordinating Editor – Rachel Middleton. Tel: +44 (0)116 252 9524


Asse

ssm

ent&

Deve

lopm

ent

Mat

ters

Practitioner-based Research Studies –Digested Research SummaryPlease place your research into the appropriate sections.

Title: Please select a neutral title for your research piece. Your titleshould not include the name of an instrument or any commerciallysensitive reference or trademarked name.

Practitioner: Your name/s here.

Measure: Name of measure/s used.

Participants: State if national/international sample.

Digested Key Message: Brief summary here of the mainmessage/implications/findings.

Introduction: Literature/background.

Research Objectives: Outline research objectives/aims.

Methodology: Detail method.

Analysis: Detail your analysis.

Discussion: Findings, key points, implications for practice.

References/Sources: Websites, etc. can also be placed here.

Conflict of interest: Please indicate the source of funding for yourresearch. Articles will only be accepted where you can demonstratethat no material conflict of interest exists.

Articles should not exceed 1500 words (including references and amaximum of two legible tables/figures).

Copy which exceeds the word count will automatically be returnedto the author for revision and re-submission. The editors reservethe right to edit articles to maintain sufficient standards andauthors will always be given final approval of their article.

Authors are required to sign a copyright declaration once theirpaper has been agreed for publication. Copyright for all publishedarticles remains with the British Psychological Society’sPsychological Testing Centre.

www.psychtesting.org.uk

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 247 0787 E-mail [email protected]

Website www.bps.org.uk© The British Psychological Society 2013

Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

Contents1 Editorial

Jan Bogg

2 Personality traits: Do men vary more than women? Peter Borkenau

6 Personality and manager behaviour Hugh McCredie

9 Chairing and attending virtual meetings: The importance of shared experienceKatarzyna Cichomska

12 News from the Psychological Testing Centre

13 Maximising performance through strengths: An illustration of strengths-basedperformance management Emma Trenier

17 The predictive stall in selection. Why – and is there anything we can do about it?Andrew Munro

20 Recent publications from the EFPA Board of Assessment Dave Bartram

23 A measure of student psychological contract violation Julie Prescott

26 From the journals to your practiceJan Bogg

27 The medicalisation of childhood Vivian Hill

31 Test-to-speech software: Failure by schools to implement this exam accessarrangement Malcolm Litten

34 Vacancies for Educational Verifiers

35 Guidelines for practitioner-based research studies

36 Submission guidelines

Documents

Adm winter edition 2013