New Frontiers in Psychometrics 2017 Frontiers 2017 presentations.pdfNew Frontiers in Psychometrics 2017 List of Speakers (In order of presenting) Dr Hugh McCredie CPsychol Vice-chair

New Frontiers in Psychometrics

2017

New Frontiers in Psychometrics Seminar Tuesday 28th November 2017

The Naval Club, 38 Hill Street, Mayfair, London W1J 5NS

This popular annual event aims to look at new concept psychometrics, new applications, new insights, new alternative models of personality, ability and competence, new methods of test administration and comparative validation studies. The programme for this year’s event will be: 10.00 Coffee & conversation

10.30 Introductions Dr Hugh McCredie, Vice‐chair The Psychometrics Forum

10.45 The Big Five and dysfunctionality Hugh McCredie

Based on Hugh’s article ‘Connecting normal and dysfunctional personality characteristics in Assessment & Development Matters, Summer, 2016. A ‘warm‐up’ to the next item

11.30 Person * Environment = Behaviour (Adaptive & Maladaptive)

Dr Rainer Kurz, Managing Consultant, Cubiks Group

Based on Rainer’s presentation, on personality and work behaviour, to the 2016 Coaching Psychology Conference and an earlier presentation on the effect of trauma on IQ 12.30 Lunch

14.00 New insights into team development Dr Nigel Guenole, Goldsmiths, University of London

Nigel will present new research on the structure of team personality, showing that individual personality models are unlikely to be appropriate descriptions of teams. He will discuss implications for team composition, assessment and development. Tea/Coffee will be taken when convenient

15.00 Relating implicit and explicit personality measures

Hugh McCredie

An introduction to the next session 15.15 Values‐based recruitment: Considerations

and consequences James Bywater, Director of Product & Innovation. Korn Ferry

Based on James’ co‐authored article (with Szandra Pankasz)‘Values‐based recruitment and assessment: A reflection’ in Assessment & Development Matters, Winter, 2016.

16.15 Close

New Frontiers in Psychometrics 2017 List of Speakers

(In order of presenting)

Dr Hugh McCredie CPsychol Vice-chair The Psychometrics Forum

A retired corporate HR executive and management assessment and development consultant, Hugh is an independent researcher and writer on personality and individual differences. His book Improving Managerial Talent: Practical Psychology for Human Resourcing and Learning & Development Professionals is due for publication by Routledge in December

Dr Rainer Kurz, CPsychol Managing Consultant, Cubiks Group

Rainer is a former director of Saville Consulting, where he was associated with the development of the Analysis Aptitude Assessment Range and Wave Professional Styles. He is a distinguished and widely published psychometrician and was the lead researcher credited with the identification of the ‘Great Eight Competencies’ and their psychometric underpinnings.

Dr Nigel Guenole, CPsychol Director of Research, Institute of Management, Goldsmiths,

University of London Specialising in talent management and applied statistics, Nigel’s work has appeared in leading scientific journals including Industrial Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice and Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology & Measurement, as well as in the popular press including the Sunday Times.

James Bywater, CPsychol Director of Product & Innovation, Korn Ferry Hay Group

James’s Linkedin entry describes his specialities as ‘Thought leader in Global Talent Acquisition and Management. Innovator in using technology.’ He is a frequent contributor to the BPS periodical Assessment & Development Matters where his most recent (co-authored) article was entitled ‘Predicting leadership derailment through alternative means’

29/11/2017

1

The Big Five and dysfunctionality

Hugh McCredie

PhD CPsychol FBPsS Chartered FCIPD

Hans Eysenck

…neither neurotics nor psychotics are qualitatively different from normal people; instead, we have been able to show a ‘neuroticism’ continuum linking normalswith neurotics, and a ‘psychoticism’* continuum, linking normals with psychotics.’ (1952, p. 222)*Associated with low Big Five Agreeableness (A) and low Conscientiousness (C) (Goldberg & Rosalack, 1994)

In the same year…

The American Psychiatric Association published the first edition of the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM‐I, 1952)

DSM‐I Personality Disorders (PDs)

• a list of lesser dysfunctionalities

• defined by consensus ‐ without rigorous empirical support

• included ‘inadequate personality’, ‘sexual deviation’ and ‘addiction’, dropped from later editions.

DSM‐III (1980)

•List of PDs coalesced near to the current

DSM‐5 (2013) Personality Disorder Clusters

•Cluster A (odd)

•Cluster B (dramatic, emotional or erratic)

•Cluster C (anxious or fearful)

29/11/2017

2

•DSM‐5 PDs: Cluster A (odd)

Paranoid irrational suspicion and mistrust of others, interpreting motivations as malevolent.

Schizoid lack of interest and detachment from social relationships, apathy and restricted emotional expression.

Schizotypal extreme social discomfort, distorted cognitions and perceptions.

Cluster B (dramatic, emotional or erratic)

Antisocial disregard for and violation of the rights of others, lack of empathy, bloated self‐image, manipulative and impulsive behaviour.

Borderline instability in relationships, self‐image, identity, behaviour and affects often leading to self‐harm and impulsivity.

Histrionic attention‐seeking behaviour and excessive emotions

Narcissistic grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy

•DSM‐5 PDs: Cluster C (anxious or fearful)

Avoidant feelings of social inhibition and inadequacy, extreme sensitivity to negative evaluation.

Dependent pervasive psychological need to be cared for by other people.

Compulsive Rigid conformity to rules, perfectionism and control.

Assessing personality disorders

• Initially, via a structured interview.

• Morey et al. (1985) developed an instrument based on the items in the MMPI• found that many items proved common to two or more scales due to the ‘considerable degree of overlap among the DSM‐III criteria’

Links between PDs and the Big Five factors

• Wiggins & Pincus (1989), using MMPI PD scales, located six PDs (Schizoid, Antisocial, Histrionic, Narcissistic, Avoidant and Dependent) within the Extraversion (E) and Agreeableness (A) circumplex

• Neuroticism (N) and Conscientiousness (C) were needed to account for the remainder.

• Costa & McCrae (1990) correlated MMPI PD scales and NEO PI

MMPI PD scales and NEO PI correlationsDisorder N E O A C

Paranoid .36 ‐.31

Schizoid ‐.62

Schizotypal .46 ‐.48

Antisocial ‐.35 ‐.42

Borderline .47 ‐.46

Histrionic .65 ‐.38

Narcissistic .56

Avoidant .52 ‐.54

Dependent .50 ‐.30

Compulsive .50

Passive‐Aggressive .39 ‐.33

29/11/2017

3

Further PD:Big Five correlations

• Schroeder et al. (1992) correlated the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP‐BQ) with NEO‐PI.

• Found a five‐factor solution accounting for 70.6 per cent of the total variance.

• Large proportion of PDs related to N

• Openness to experience played a relatively minor role in PD

CAUTION!

‘It is only when personality traits are inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant functional impairment or subjective distress that they constitute Personality Disorders.’ (APA, 1987, p.335).

Personality disorders and the ‘Dark Side’

• Robert and Joyce Hogan popularisedthe PD taxonomy for the work context. (Hogan & Hogan, 1997)

• Saw PDs:• half‐way between measures of normal and abnormal personality

• with detrimental effects on interpersonal and career effectiveness


• Believed that the Big Five factors arose from the evolutionary needs of a social species.

• However, early individual inadequacy can result in the development of ‘dark side’ dispositions

• Published Hogan Development Scale (HDS)


Karen Horney (1950)

Summarised such dispositions as:(1) Moving toward people: managing insecurities by building alliances

(2) Moving away from people: managing feeling of inadequacy by avoiding contact

(3) Moving against people: managing self‐doubts by dominating and intimidating others

Correlating HDS and MMPI‐PD

DSM‐IV PDs HDS Scales r

Moving away or intimidationBorderline Excitable 67

Paranoid Sceptical 62

Avoidant Cautious 60

Schizoid Reserved 47

Passive‐aggressive Leisurely 46

29/11/2017

4



Moving against or flirtation and seductionNarcissistic Bold 55

Antisocial Mischievous 49

Histrionic Colourful 53

Schizotypal Imaginitive 49



Moving towards or ingratiationDependent Dutiful negligible

Compulsive Diligent not significant

Correlating HDS and the Big Five

• The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) has scales approximating to the Big Five factors although Extraversion is sub‐divided:• Ea=Extraversion‐ambition

• Es=Extraversion‐sociability

Correlating HDS and HPI scales

HDS Scales r with HPIMoving away or intimidation

Excitable N76; C‐66; Ea‐63; A‐60

Sceptical N60; C‐60; A‐52; Ea‐51

Cautious Ea‐70; N60; A‐41; Es‐37; C‐34

Reserved A‐67: C‐55; Ea‐53; N45; Es‐32

Leisurely C‐33


HDS Scales r with HPIMoving against or flirtation and seductionBold Es34

Mischievous Es48; C‐35; O31

Colourful Es67; Ea44; O35

Imaginitive C‐37; O32; Es31


HDS Scales r with HPIMoving towards or ingratiation

Dutiful C33

Diligent C36

29/11/2017

5

An interesting comment

• Geoff Trickey, PCL, a distributor and user of HDS, suggested:The eleven dispositions that would generally be considered desirable attributes flip into destructive mode if not managed well typically becoming apparent during novel or stressful periods, or when the individual feels relaxed or invulnerable.’ (Trickey & Hyde, 2009, p.3)

A further distinction

Moscoso & Salgado (2004, p.357) ‘dysfunctional personality styles’ between the normal and pathological, measured by CEP Scale:

a. normal, adjusted people, who show functional tendencies of thinking, feeling, and behaviour

b. normal people who present dysfunctional tendencies in one or more areas of thinking, feeling, and behaviour, and consequently show problems of interpersonal relationships at work

c. people with maladaptive personality tendencies that are conceptualised as personality disorders in the psychiatric taxonomies.’

A possible continuum of of dysfunctionality

Normal Dysfunctional Disordered Pathological

NEO CEP Scale MMPI‐PDHDS

MMPI

Personality dysfunctions: categories or dimensions?

• Skodol et al. (2011) proposed diagnosis of PDs based on the Big Five model of personality.

• Widiger & Costa (2012) ‘personality disorders are better understood as variants of normal personality than as categorical disease entities’.

• However DSM5 (2013) retained the original 10 categories whilst including the dimensional approach for ‘further study’

• The issue of whether categorical PDs are a blind alley and dimensionally‐based ones a clear landmark is not yet decided.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd Rev. Edn). Washington, DC

Costa, P. T, & McCrae, R.R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five‐factor model of personality. Journal of Personality

Disorders, 4, 362–371.

Eysenck, H.J., (1952). The scientific study of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Goldberg, L.R. & Rosalack, T.K. (1994). The big‐five factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s P‐E‐N model. In C.F. Halverson, G.A. Kohnstamm& R.P. Martin (eds). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp.7–35). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey Manual. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Morey, L.C., Waugh, M.H., & Blashfield, R.K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSM‐III personality disorders: Their derivation and

correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245–251.

Moscoso, S. & Salgado, J.F. (2004). ‘Dark side’ personality styles as predictors of task, contextual, and job performance.

International Journal of Selection of Assessment, 12, 356–362.

References

Schroeder, M.L., Wormworth, J.A. & Livesley, W.J. (1992). Dimensions of Personality Disorder and Their relationships to the

Big Five Dimensions of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 47–53

Skodol A.E., Clark L.A., Bender D.S., et al. (2011). Proposed changes in personality and personality disorder assessment and

diagnosis for DSM‐5. Part I Description and rationale. Personal Disord. 2011; 2:4–22.

Trickey, G. & Hyde, G.(2009) A decade of the dark side: Fighting our demons at work. London: Psychological Consultancy Ltd.

Widiger, T.A. (1993). The DSM‐III‐R categorical personality disorder diagnoses: A critique and an alternative. Psychological Inquiry, 4(2), 75–90.

Widiger, T.A. & Costa, P.T. (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: The five‐factor model. Journal of Personality, 80(6), 1471–1506.

Wiggins, J.S, & Pincus, A.L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 305–316.

Dr Rainer KurzManaging Consultant, Cubiks

Work: [email protected]: [email protected]

Person * Environment = Behaviour(Adaptive & Maladaptive)

The Psychometric Forum

28th November 2017

See Kurz & Bartram (2002) for an earlier Version

The World of Work model (Kurz, 1998; Kurz & Bartram, 2002; Kurz, 2008) is a topographical Person-Environment Assessment model that features three radial domains, from Disposition at the centre, through Performance-Affect to the Organisation at the periphery.

All behaviour and affect is a function of person-environment interaction.

Competency & Satisfaction at Work

Expertise

BehaviourOutcome

Ability

Individual

Organisation

Competence & Happiness in Life

Environment

Person

WISC Results (aged 7)

WAIS III (aged 23)

WAIS III (aged 25)

Intelligence Tests

Profile of Case (aged 30)

Tests Used : WRIT, WRAT, CTOPP*, WRAMAL 2, DASH

Well Below

or VeryLow

BelowAverage

LowAverage

Mid Average

High Average

Above Average

High -

Very High

Underlying Abilities(Wide Ranging Intelligence Test -WRAT)

Non-verbal –

WRITMatrices(Abstract

Reasoning)

Verbal

Non-verbal –

WRIT Diamonds(Spatial

Reasoning - Verbally mediated)

Performance SWRWritingSpeedMaths

Spelling

Cognitive* skills(CTOPP)

Phono-memory & Working Memory

Rapid Naming

PhonoAwareness

Spadafore

Listening Comprehension

Spadafore

Silent ReadingCompreh.

MCMI-III

Base Rate cut-offs:60 Median75 Significance85 Prominence

‘General Factor of Demoralisation’ (MMPI2) low as indicated by the orange vertical line

Low scores on Schizoid, Depressive, Histrionic, Borderline, Anxiety, Somatoform, Thought Disorder

Abuse Survivor

Stalking

Crime Report

Misdiagnosis

Most healthy adults appear ‘Narcissistic’‘

‘Inter-generational

abuse’ &

‘stalking’ victimsappear

‘Paranoid’ & ‘Delusional’

Crossover of Occupational & Clinical Psychology: Opportunities and Risks’ ABP Conference 2014 Panel Discussion© Cubiks Intellectual Property Limited 2016

Factors and Aspects of Personality

10 Aspects of Personality (DeYoung, Quilty & Peterson, 2007)

Big 5 Personality Factors (e.g. Norman, 1963; Digman, 1990; Barrick & Mount, 1991)

Alpha & Beta Higher-order Factors (Digman, 1997)

General Factor of Competency (Kurz, 2005) and Personality (Musek, 2007)

General Factor

Kurz (2005). Convivence of Personality, Motivation, Interest and Ability Theories in Competency. Presentation at the EAWOP Congress in Istanbul.

Kurz (2014). MEASURING THE GENERAL FACTOR OF PERSONALITY: FIRST UNROTATED PRINCIPAL COMPONENT VS. GREAT 8 TOTAL. Poster at the EPA Congress in Munich.

© Cubiks Intellectual Property Limited 2016

Ten Aspects of the Big Five in the Personality Inventory for DSM–5

DeYoung, Colin G.; Carey, Bridget E.; Krueger, Robert F.; Ross, Scott R.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, Vol 7(2), Apr 2016, 113-123.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5) includes a dimensional model of personality pathology, operationalized in the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5), with 25 facets grouped into 5 higher order factors resembling the Big Five personality dimensions. The present study tested how well these 25 facets could be integrated with the 10-factor structure of traits within the Big Five that is operationalized by the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS). In 2 healthy adult samples, 10-factor solutions largely confirmed our hypothesis that each of the 10 BFAS would be the highest loading BFAS on 1 and only 1 factor. Varying numbers of PID-5 scales were additional markers of each factor, and the overall factor structure in the first sample was well replicated in the second. Our results allow Cybernetic Big Five Theory (CB5T) to be brought to bear on manifestations of personality disorder, because CB5T offers mechanistic explanations of the 10 factors measured by the BFAS. Future research, therefore, may begin to test hypotheses derived from CB5T regarding the mechanisms that are dysfunctional in specific personality disorders.

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000170.supp


Psychoticism?

- -

• Psychosis: – First Known Use: 1847

– a very serious mental illness that makes you behave strangely or believe things that are not true

– Psychotic: ‘of, relating to, marked by, or affected with psychosis’

• Eysenck: – Extraversion & Neuroticism (1947, 1952)

– Psychoticism (1966) – low Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness, high Openness

• DeYoung, Carey, Krueger & Ross (2016):

‘The Personality Inventory for the DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) was not intentionally developed to be congruent with the Big Five. Rather, its 25 scales were developed to operationalize experts’ understandings of the important symptoms or manifestations of personality disorders as represented in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edi., text rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2002), without attempting to constrain them to any particular higher order structure. Nonetheless, when the PID-5 scales have been factor-analyzed, they show a five factor structure that has clear resemblance to the Big Five, though emphasizing the opposite poles of the extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness dimensions (Krueger et al., 2012; Krueger & Markon, 2014). The five factors have been labelled detachment, negative affectivity, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism.’


DeYoung, Carey, Krueger & Ross (2016): Table 4


Thimm, Jordan and Bach (2016, p. 6) found significant correlations based on the 220 item DSM-5 (PID-5) and

the 44 item “Big Five Inventory” (BFI)

PID-5 Big Five Correlation

• Negative affectivity Neuroticism with r = .77 • Detachment Extraversion with r = -.69 • Antagonism Agreeableness with r = -.48 • Disinhibition Conscientiousness with r = -.41

• Psychoticism correlated across all five factors as follows:

- Openness with r = .26- Conscientiousness with r = -.41- Extraversion with r = -.33- Agreeableness with r = -.43- Neuroticism with r = .35

Norwegian StudyDSM-5 (PID-5) vs. BFI (N=503)


Personality, Success & Derailment Risk

ClinicalPersonalityAssessment

e.g. MMPI;MCMI;

PROFILE (Jones, 1988)

TypePersonalityAssessment

e.g. MBTI;TDI;

Quintax; Golden

Derailment Risk Questionnaires

Hogan Development

Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 1997)

Derailment Risk Reports from Work Personality

Questionnaires

e.g.TalentQ Dimensions;

Saville Wave;OPQ;

Cubiks PAPI

HybridAssessments

e.g. Hogan Configure;

Lumina Spark;DeYoung et al


HDS & DSM

Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Sub-clinical

Scale Themes and DSM Axis 2

Personality Disorders

Horney (1950):

Moving away

Moving against

Moving towards

Psychometric Dark Side

Kurz (2011). Superheroes & Cartoon Villains – The Prediction of Positive and Negative Performance at Work

Guenole, N. (2014). Focal article: Maladaptive Personality at Work: Exploring the Darkness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice

Guenole, N. (2014). The Hierarchical structure of work related maladaptive personality traits. European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Hogan Assessment Systems is publisher of the ‘Hogan Insights’ series of trait assessment tools:

Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) covers the Big 5 personality Factors through 7 ‘Bright Side’ scales

Hogan Development Survey (HDS) features 11 potential ‘Dark Side’ derailers

Hogan Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) features 10 ‘Inside’ scales

6 factor solution across HPI, HDS & MVPI (N=1041) in HDS Manual (1997) Table 3.8 shows convergence

I Surgency / Extraversion

II Affiliation/ / Agreeableness

III Conscientiousness

IV Emotional Stability

VI Low Need for Achievement ?

V Openness

Bright Side, Dark Side & Inside

Great STORMTopography based on r matrix (N=308) of NEO Big 5 Domain & 7 Personality Questionnaire Great 8 Scores

Kurz (2013) EAWOP Munster

Imaginative

Moving Away

Bet

a

Alph

a

People Task

Adaptive & Maladaptive Traits Plotting the Dark Side (N=149)

Excit

able

Skep

tical

Cauti

ous

Rese

rved

Leisu

rely

Bold

Misc

hievo

us

Color

ful

Imag

inativ

e

Dilig

ent

Dutifu

l

HPI Adjustment -.77 -.65 -.34 -.29 -.44 -.11 -.09 .14 -.03 -.14 -.07HPI Ambition -.49 -.37 -.77 -.31 -.41 .35 .30 .50 .30 -.07 -.36

HPI Sociability -.16 -.14 -.43 -.40 -.19 .41 .62 .70 .39 -.26 -.13HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity -.60 -.59 -.20 -.61 -.30 -.07 .10 .27 .14 -.25 .05

HPI Prudence -.29 -.25 .25 -.10 -.07 -.15 -.58 -.38 -.40 .48 .37HPI Inquisitive .01 -.08 -.18 .04 -.13 .28 .36 .26 .55 -.03 -.20

HPI Learning Approach .00 -.09 -.16 .00 -.03 .08 -.01 .10 .11 .15 -.25HPI Validity -.48 -.32 -.29 -.18 -.36 .21 -.03 .08 .08 .25 .12

HDS Excitable 1.00 .69 .31 .41 .50 .11 .04 -.18 -.04 .17 .00HDS Sceptical .69 1.00 .30 .45 .55 .11 .06 -.17 -.09 .20 .02HDS Cautious .31 .30 1.00 .23 .46 -.25 -.40 -.51 -.32 .18 .47HDS Reserved .41 .45 .23 1.00 .38 .04 -.09 -.39 -.08 .25 -.11HDS Leisurely .50 .55 .46 .38 1.00 .02 -.09 -.11 -.06 .17 .14

HDS Bold .11 .11 -.25 .04 .02 1.00 .40 .33 .36 .15 -.03HDS Mischievous .04 .06 -.40 -.09 -.09 .40 1.00 .64 .56 -.32 -.23

HDS Colourful -.18 -.17 -.51 -.39 -.11 .33 .64 1.00 .51 -.37 -.23HDS Imaginative -.04 -.09 -.32 -.08 -.06 .36 .56 .51 1.00 -.18 -.20

HDS Diligent .17 .20 .18 .25 .17 .15 -.32 -.37 -.18 1.00 .31HDS Dutiful .00 .02 .47 -.11 .14 -.03 -.23 -.23 -.20 .31 1.00

MVPI Recognition .17 .18 -.12 -.16 .09 .55 .35 .45 .18 -.09 .07MVPI Power .12 .17 -.32 -.01 .08 .59 .41 .40 .23 .07 -.11

MVPI Hedonism .30 .35 .12 .12 .29 .18 .29 .16 .03 -.05 .05MVPI Altruistic -.11 -.17 .03 -.28 .03 .07 .11 .16 .07 .02 .15MVPI Affiliation -.39 -.35 -.37 -.72 -.35 .16 .33 .56 .20 -.31 -.08MVPI Tradition -.04 .10 .08 .00 .18 .08 -.11 -.05 -.15 .33 .08MVPI Security .18 .31 .48 .31 .40 -.05 -.52 -.49 -.34 .55 .39

MVPI Commerce .12 .15 -.12 .00 .05 .22 .22 .08 .05 .07 .08MVPI Aesthetic .04 .01 -.07 -.13 -.09 .17 .35 .25 .28 -.15 -.05MVPI Science .20 .12 .07 .19 .09 .17 .01 -.03 .18 .08 -.01

PAPI A Need to achieve .04 .14 -.24 -.04 .01 .40 .26 .26 .11 .19 -.03PAPI V Persistence -.12 -.09 -.24 -.14 -.09 .17 .23 .17 .23 .21 -.06

PAPI P Need to influence .07 .10 -.32 .00 .03 .39 .32 .38 .15 .00 -.17PAPI L Leadership role -.16 -.17 -.49 -.15 -.12 .33 .35 .47 .33 -.04 -.32

PAPI X Need to be noticed -.07 -.12 -.34 -.36 -.17 .36 .45 .69 .34 -.25 -.16PAPI C Need to be organised .07 .12 .19 .13 .07 .06 -.34 -.39 -.24 .67 .36

PAPI H Planner -.08 .05 .03 .08 -.01 .08 -.22 -.23 -.03 .58 .19PAPI D Attention to detail .20 .21 .09 .21 .09 .13 -.27 -.25 -.11 .63 .17

PAPI W Need for rules and guidelines .02 .06 .34 -.05 .05 -.04 -.42 -.36 -.33 .46 .48PAPI N Need to finish a task .12 .20 .08 .13 .11 .20 -.15 -.19 -.03 .55 .16PAPI R Conceptual thinker -.02 -.07 -.22 -.02 -.07 .20 .42 .37 .62 -.20 -.27PAPI Z Need for change .02 -.02 -.30 -.05 -.18 .19 .45 .40 .46 -.18 -.25

PAPI B Need to belong to groups -.35 -.32 -.20 -.64 -.27 .03 .13 .35 .05 -.29 .10PAPI S Social harmoniser -.29 -.32 -.08 -.37 -.17 .05 .16 .26 .18 -.16 .18

PAPI O Need to relate closely -.28 -.32 -.01 -.56 -.25 .01 .08 .29 .10 -.28 .15PAPI Q Need to connect -.29 -.18 -.45 -.54 -.23 .25 .44 .63 .27 -.21 -.07

PAPI I Ease in decision making -.14 -.04 -.51 .09 -.12 .30 .42 .37 .23 -.05 -.31PAPI T Work tempo -.07 .05 -.25 .00 -.08 .25 .21 .26 .19 .07 -.16

PAPI K Need to be direct .06 -.01 -.51 .02 -.14 .28 .31 .34 .25 -.04 -.44PAPI E Emotional restraint -.12 .00 .26 .25 .19 -.15 -.18 -.27 -.06 .08 .22

PAPI J Optimism -.45 -.39 -.19 -.13 -.17 .14 .21 .20 .15 -.10 .17PAPI Y Core composure -.39 -.28 -.42 .13 -.18 .13 .25 .18 .27 -.10 -.24

PAPI U Resilience -.48 -.46 -.42 .02 -.42 .13 .20 .21 .27 -.05 -.17PAPI M Motivational inspirator -.25 -.28 -.30 -.41 -.07 .15 .35 .48 .37 -.18 -.07

PAPI F Need to be upwardly supportive -.27 -.25 .11 -.19 -.10 .04 -.12 .04 -.10 .22 .46PAPI G Work focus -.34 -.34 -.23 -.23 -.20 .21 .03 .26 .27 .07 .03

PAPI SD Social desirability -.10 -.05 .00 .07 -.02 .02 -.12 -.15 -.03 .21 .02

PAPI 3

Personality and

Preferences Inventory

Logiks General (Advanced) Hogan’s Guide

to Inside

Hogan’s Guide

to Bright Side

Hogan’s Guide

to Dark Side

Visual Estimation

https://lonehorseblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/body-centric-healing-of-extreme-trauma/

https://twitter.com/Lone_Horse

11/29/2017

1

Psychometrics and Human Capital:It’s time for a broader focus

Dr Nigel Guenole Psychometrics Forum, Mayfair Naval ClubLondon, 28 November 2017

Follow me:Nigel Guenole

@guenolen

Nigel Guenole, PhD

@guenolen

💻 [email protected]

Power of People Contributors!

Note: Vignettes are short stories that emphasize key points in workforce analytics. They are taken from interviews with experts who work for or who worked at these organizations. The use of logos does not mean that any of these organizations endorse The Power of People book. They are being used for illustrative purposes only.

How we’ll use the time

• Discuss levels of analysis as an ignored but important topic in psychometrics for HR

– See work by Robert Ployhart and colleagues

• Ask where should we should be focusing as applied users of psychometrics?

• Discuss the implications of for one area ‐ the use of personality assessments in business

– Issues of Isomorphism and Homology

Propositions for the Room

• Very few cases were a single hire influences firm success.

• These are when you’re hiring the CEO, or other senior worker,

• When you’re fortunate enough to hire a productivity star,

• When you hire someone who makes an egregious mistake.

Implications of the propositions

• It is aggregated capabilities that predict firm success, in terms of accounting, market, and hybrid measures

• Human capital resources are unit level resource that is created from the emergence of KSAOs.

• So we should also focus on the stock of aggregates of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs)

• And we should focus on the way aggregated KSAOs predict team, business unit, and firm level outcomes.

11/29/2017

2

But this does not seem to occur much

• We know about the individual level KSAOs of those we hire, e.g. from personnel selection

• We know how KSAOs relate to individual level job performance, e.g. from validation studies

• We do not know much about aggregated levels of KSAOs of teams, units, and divisions

– Issue of Isomorphism

• We do not know enough about how these aggregated KSAOs affect firm performance.

– Homology

The Micro Approach…

• Based on, HR, OB, IO, drawn from psychology and individual differences, covers broad and general KSAO range

• Focuses on predicting person level performance outcomes like job performance, career growth, leadership effectiveness

• Measures attributes with relatively high precision using standardized questionnaires (e.g. ability, personality)

• Fails to describe how the work environment amplifies individual KSAOs so that group KSAOs emerge.

• Fails to describe how individual level KSAOs aggregate to form human capital resources and predict firm performance

The Macro Approach…

• Emphasizes context dependent skills, such as industry experience, tenure, education

• Focuses on organizational level outcomes, firm performance, accounting outcomes, market outcomes, hybrids

• Focuses on a narrow range of KSAOs, typically manager estimates of unit education and experience

• Originated in economics with Becker, was originally micro but generalized to macro

• Ignores the origin of firm level human capital resources in the individual KSAOs and interaction processes of workers.

Some further propositions for the room – where should we, as psychometrics experts and users, focus?

HR / IO/ OB� Economics Strategy

FocusIndividual outcomes e.g. job performance

Firm performance, accounting, market, hybrids

Aggregated team and firm level outcomes

KSAO range

Broad, all of individual differences psychology

Narrow, Firm education, experience

Limited, e.g. power, environments

Level Micro focusMacro focus (was micro)

Macro‐focus

Measured with

Psychometric tests

Proxies e.g. average tenure

Manager estimates of teams and unit depth

The Multilevel Approach

• Describes human capital resources as aggregated KSAOs available and relevant to achieve business outcomes

• Includes individual KSAO links to job performance AND human capital resource to firm performance outcomes

• Describes emergence enabling processes that lead to unique unit level resources that cannot be easily imitated

• Is a comprehensive model of the way individuals create to firm performance that does not assume Isomorphism

• Leveraging these ideas in business is heavily dependent on psychometrics, but we need better instruments.

11/29/2017

3

Implications of all this for Personality

• Discuss a few examples of team personality relationships to group performance

• Overview theories explaining how group level personality emerges and discuss the need for composition models

• Emphasize that existing work assumes similar conceptual meaning of personality at the individual and team level

• Present an empirical study where the assumption appears improbable.

Personality and Group Performance

• Ployhart, Weekley, Ramsay (2009) showed unit level customer service orientation predicts unit level performance

• Bell (2007) Meta‐analysis on ‘deep level’ composition variables found associations with group performance in field studies.

• Oh, Kim, & Van Iddekinge (2015) found organizational Ex, Cons, and Em. stability related to firm performance.

Theories of Group Personality

• Attraction, Selection, Attrition (ASA) theory posits that groups become more homogenous over time (Schneider, 1983)

• Stewart (2003) proposed individual traits contribute to team personality in the way genes impact individual personality.

• Hoffman & Jones (2005) proposed individual personalities coalesce into ‘behavioral regularities’ due to shared expectations

Need for Composition Models

• Group personality requires a clear mapping between observed personality responses and team personality factors

• Researchers should clearly conceptualize the nature of the higher‐level construct using composition models

• Models for doing so are well‐developed and include frameworks from Klein & Kozlowski (2000) Chan (1998).

A Fly in the Ointment?

• Researchers typically assume individual personality traits have group trait analogs

– Also referred to as Isomorphism (Guenole, 2016)

• Isomorphism brings benefits

– Individuals equivalent to units,

– No worry about anthropomorphizing teams,

– Team level explanations using individual level theories,

– Pre‐requisite homology

• Isomorphism may or may not hold, but nobody seems to have checked yet

Consequences of Misspecification

• Best case

– Biased estimates of relationships if configural isomorphism holds, metric isomorphism violated

• Worst case

– Theories focus on empirically undetectable constructs according to modern measurement methods

• Multilevel confirmatory item factor analysis best check

– Level 1 corrected for measurement error, Level 2 corrected for sampling error

– Ludtke, Marsh, et al. (2011) coined the phrase ‘Doubly Latent’

11/29/2017

4

Participants and Measures

• Participants were 1,760 people nested in 163 stores in a North American retailer

• Average cluster size was

• Personality measure has 220 items, described in Ployhart, Weekly, & Baughman (2006)

• The setting was a job selection context, personality was one part of a wider assessment process

Analyses

• 10 items per FFM with target loadings, largest ICCs

– Level 2 too often a victim of level‐1 choices!

• Fitted within level model only

– Adjusting for the clustering with sandwich estimator,

– Target rotation to aid interpretation, FFM emerges

– X2= 2113.82, df=985, RMSEA=.026, CFI=.952, TLI=.940,

• Fitted between level model only, saturating within

– One through six factors fitted,

– Scree, Fit statistics, do the within factors coalesce?

– X2 = 1104.828, df=1226, RMSEA=0.00, CFI=1.00, TLI=1.00.

Results

• Within level model is clearly big five

• Between level model is a two factor model

– Factor 1 Openness, Tough‐Minded

– Factor 2 Extraverted, Emotionally Stable, Conscientious

– Majority of items for within factors load on same between factor

– Temporary labels, Gamma and Delta

• Factors predict team leader ratings of team performance

No. factors E A C N O2 f1 10 4 9 10 4

f2 0 6 1 0 63 f1 0 2 0 0 4

f2 6 8 10 8 4f3 4 0 0 2 2

4 f1 6 7 10 7 2f2 0 2 0 0 4f3 3 0 0 2 1f4 1 1 0 1 3

5 f1 6 7 10 7 2f2 0 2 0 0 2f3 3 0 0 2 0f4 1 0 0 1 2f5 0 1 0 0 4

6 f1 0 2 0 0 1f2 6 8 10 6 2f3 3 0 0 4 0f4 1 0 0 0 3f5 0 0 0 0 3f6 0 0 0 0 1

Outstanding Issues

• We seem to be getting coherent results with non‐measurement‐model based approaches, what’s going on?

• A need for replication using different measures, different samples, different analytic approaches

• What team level constructs constitute the nomological network of these factors?

11/29/2017

5

25@guenolen26

THANK YOU!

Nigel Guenole @guenolen

[email protected]

29/11/2017

1

Relating implicit and explicit personality measures

Hugh McCredie

PhD CPsychol FBPsS Chartered FCIPD

TPF Focus of interest

• Mainly self‐report measures

• Traditional implicit projective measures e.g TAT, Rorschach required interpretation and had low reliability

• Implicit Association Tests, based upon Response Latency, show more promise

An interesting new book

Conditional Reasoning (CR) is based on a ‘cover’ task in the form of an inductive reasoning problem with options which reveal reasoning biases

Illustrative CR problem: Motive Strength

Studies of heart attacks led to the identification of a Type A persons motivated to achieve, involved in their jobs, competitive, aggressive, impatient. These same characteristics are often used to describe successful persons. This association logically suggests:

a. Striving for success increases the likelihood of heart attacks

b. Most successful people are prone to violence

c. Few non‐ambitious people have heart attacks

d. People often mistake enthusiasm and drive for aggressiveness/impatience

Hypothesis

• Respondents will select the option that best defends their implicit motives or values

Illustrative CR problem: Motive Strength

a. Striving for success increases the likelihood of heart attacks

a. Fear of Failure

b. Most successful people are prone to violence

b. Red herring

c. Few non‐ambitious people have heart attacks

c. Red Herring

d. People often mistake enthusiasm and drive for aggressiveness/ impatience

d. Need for Achievement

29/11/2017

2

David McClelland

data can be reasonably interpreted to support the generalization that implicit motives are acquired earlier in life on the basis of important nonverbal affective experiences, whereas the self‐attributed motives are acquired later, after the development of languageMcClelland et al. (1989)

Can implicit measures add value to self‐report trait measures?

Extraversion and Affiliation Motive (nAff)

TraitMotive Introversion Extraversion

High nAff

Wants affection and friendship but uneasy in interpersonal situations

Unconflicted in pursuit of wide‐ranging interpersonal situations

Low nAff

Comfortable when working alone; unconcerned about what others think

Adept at interpersonal relations but not dependent on them

Adapted from James & Mazerolle (2002) and empirically supported by Winter et al. (1998)

Conclusion

“traits channel the ways in which motives are expressed in behaviour and life outcomes”

Values‐based recruitment and assessment

• Appears to be a criterion‐validated implicit measure, exploring in similar psychological territory to Conditional Reasoning

• It will be interesting to discover its nature and reflect on how it might add value to self‐report trait psychometrics

References

James, L. R. & LeBreton, J. M (2012) Assessing the implicit personality through Conditional Reasoning, Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationJames, L. R. & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002) Personality in work organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsMcClelland, D. C. et al. (1989)How Do Self‐Attributed and Implicit Motives Differ? Psychological Review, 96, 4, 690‐702Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C. & Duncan, L. E.(1998) Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research, Psychological Review, 105, p.245

29/11/2017

© 2016 Korn Ferry. All rights reserved 1

Vales Based Recruitment –Considerations And Consequences

James BywaterSzandra Pankasz

November 2017


Objectives

To consider what Values Based Recruitment/ Assessment is/means.1

To explore the drivers for this in the public sector and the private sector.2

To consider its advantages and pitfalls based upon Coventry & Warwick NHS Trust.3

1What Values Based Assessment (VBR) is/means


Where it comes from

Strategic theory – mission, vision, values, KPIs.

A desire for “integrated HR”.

A tiredness with multiple competency models and sense that jobs “change” quickly.

An alternative, newer “glue”.

Some high profile case studies: JesperKunde Corporate Religion etc…

Private Sector

Public Sector drive to align their recruitment with values because of high profile failures (Francis Report).

Lack of clarity about how to do this – but SJTs and interviews expressly mentioned as possible methods.

A deadline of including values in recruitment processes by March 2015.

Public Sector


Jesper Kunde – Corporate Religion

Private Sector business need to have consistent values inside and outside the organisation.

Brands and products should differentiate on quantitative criteria (awareness, price, performance) and qualitative (appeal, political correctness, green etc).

These cultural values should be: credible, desirable, unique.

Quantitative benefits

Qua

litat

ive

bene

fits

Product

Concept brand

Corporate concept

Brand culture

Religion 2Drivers for VBR in the public sector

29/11/2017



VBR in the public sector

Values based recruitment (VBR) is a core objective in the mandate from Government to HEE (April 2013 to March 2015) and is also recognised as a key priority for our organisation.


If you get it wrong

Inefficient?

Frustration?Incompetent but aligned

Incompetent misfits

Top aligned talent

Competent misfits

Don’t do things “the right way”

Heart is not in it Engaged? Stay?


Definition of (personal) values

Themes from the literature Rokeach (1973)

Enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct is personally or sociable preferable to an opposite mode.

Super (1980)

An objective (either a psychological state, a relationship or a material condition that one seeks to attain.

Hofstede

Broad tendency to prefer a certain states of affairs over others.

Schwartz (1992)

Desirable states, objects, goals, or behaviours that transcend specific situations and are applied as normative standards to judge and choose among alternatives.

Values are enduring.

They are about wants or “oughts”.

Always positive (unlike attitudes).

Individual (but may be shared within larger communities).

Values seen to influence attitudes/goals –they are a source of motivation.

Limited agreement on a generic model of values – lots of sets!

Value congruence thought to reduce conflict and increase cooperation.

May not predict job success but may predict greater satisfaction and lower staff turnover.


The Values and Environment is Important

Up to 30% of variance in financial results – execution – can be

explained by differences in climate

ResultsAligned andmotivatedemployees

Climate/ Environment

The feel of the place’.

The source of discretionary energy.

Your opportunity to create ‘star’ performers.


How are values measured historically?

Not measured

“Too hard”

Informally

“Hoped for”

“Suffused” into competencies

Built into the recruitment spec

Face to face interview

Too late/cost/ accuracy

21 3 4

3How and when to implement VBR at different stages in the selection process

29/11/2017



Options

Interview/assessment centre

Motivation questionnaire e.g. Drives

Personality questionnaire e.g. Dimensions

SJTRJP/RCP

Customisable

Reduces early staff turnover

Fakeable

Customisable

Predicts performance

Fakeable

Designed with behaviours in mind

Predicts performance

“Misses some deep values”

Designed with values in mind

Predicts engagement

“Customers” or “Patients”?

Easy to fit in, but:

Too late?

Inaccurate?

Expensive


Issues in Values Based Assessment

Issues in Values Based Assessment

Are they real? vs. espoused

values?

What about sub cultures?

EO Legislation is based around jobs

not Values

Assessment will be less

Specific to a particular role

e.g. SJT

Are they really different to

competencies?

Values are public – usually

on website!

Fakable?

What about “weird“ values

e.g. B&O


When to measure Values

Care Workers

Sweet Spot

PAIN Medical Specialists

Ease of finding Talent with right Values

H

H

L

L

Ease of Finding Competent Talent


When to measure Values

Care Workers –Measure Values Earlier

Sweet Spot

PAINMedical

Specialists – Measure

Values Later

Ease of finding Talent with right Values

H

H

L

L

Ease of Finding Competent Talent

4Advantages and pitfalls of VBR based upon Coventry & Warwick NHS Trust


Values based SJT model

Desired performance

outcome

“Doing the right thing”

Are the values in my place of work?

Are they visibly present?

Are they personally important to me?

Manager ratings

Are the performing?

Are they engaged?

Are they a strong values fit?

Engagement

Self Rating –do I feel engaged?

Talent Q Values SJT

Performance domain

29/11/2017



Candidate interface design


Interim results

Outcome measure Correlation with the SJT (n=159)

Performance .226**

Engagement .285**

Values 235**

Line manager perception (combined) .270**


Summary of TQ position

Shared corporate values are an important mechanism for defining, aligning organisations and their people.

They are traditionally assessed quite informally or badly.

A strong match between the employee and the organisation is likely to predict contextual performance (engagement and commitment.) It may not always predict task performance.

Organisations should thus not assess values to the exclusion of competence.

The best way to build these into your assessment process will depend upon the labourmarket conditions for an organisation (ease of finding talent).

There is some evidence emerging that high quality assessment techniques (RJP, SJT, self report questionnaires) can be used to assess values. We need to continue to prove this link.

Employment legislation focuses on “jobs” not “organisations” and this is untested in any court to the best of our knowledge. Clients must safeguard themselves against this risk. normal best practice should thus be maintained – audit trail showing what is being assessed and why remains important.


A cautionary tale – Do all your employees truly have to be team players?

Many organisations are seeking to emphasise the importance of teams. They perceive that a successful team will usually outperform a similar group of people acting individually, and this has been built into the way that the work is structured in many organisational settings. It would not be unusual in this setting to define both values and competencies that reflect the importance of teamwork. This can give rise to the temptation to make a blanket statement that “all jobs in this organisation require this teamwork value/competency”. It thus becomes an absolute job requirement across the board.

Disability Discrimination Act

If this requirement – expressed in the organisation’s teamwork competency – were applied to a more isolated, back-room, analytical role (say, a stock controller), the natural assumption would be that a job applicant suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome (a modified form of autism) may not be suited to the job. Their typical high degree of concentration on the details of the task to be performed rather than social niceties would count against them when being assessed by recruiters for this core organisational competency.

Key question – is this value or behaviour really key for success in the job?

About Korn Ferry Hay Group

Korn Ferry Hay Group is the preeminent global people and organizational advisory firm. We help leaders, organizations, and societies succeed by releasing the full power and potential of people.

Our nearly 7,000 colleagues deliver services through our Executive Search, Hay Group and Futurestep divisions.

Visit kornferry.com for more information.


Worked Example – Public SectorSTF ValuesAccountabilityWe take personal responsibility for using our resources efficiently, achieving measurable results, and being accountable to supporters, partners and, most of all, children.AmbitionWe are demanding of ourselves and our colleagues, set high goals and are committed to improving the quality of everything we do for children.CollaborationWe respect and value each other, thrive on our diversity, and work with partners to leverage our global strength in making a difference for children.CreativityWe are open to new ideas, embrace change, and take disciplined risks to develop sustainable solutions for and with children.IntegrityWe aspire to live to the highest standards of personal honesty and behaviour; we never compromise our reputation and always act in the best interests of children

The Programme Manager (PM) is a member of the SCI Iraq team, and will be responsible for ensuring high-quality programme delivery.

The Programme Manager will work with the respective team to oversee programme implementation and support the management of the teams. They will be responsible for all project cycle management - involved primarily in programme implementation, but also ensuring programme reporting and participating in programme planning and design with support from the relevant Technical Advisors..

Essential:•Expertise in project management and of managing programmes in an NGO for at least 5 years.•Knowledge and experience of having worked in one of the following sectors: Education, Child Protection and WASH.•Leadership qualities, motivational skills, mentoring ability; proven experience overseeing and developing a team•Experience of programme cycle management, and experience in a complex and matrix-managed organisation•Knowledge of effective financial and budgetary controls; proven ability to manage budgets•Solid experience writing comprehensive, high-quality narrative reports for donors and other external constituencies; experience supporting national staff colleagues to engage in reporting by systematically collecting and compiling correct, meaningful information/data, etc.•Excellent interpersonal, communication and presentation skills•Fluency in written and spoken English required•Experience living and working in a complex, high risk (dangerous) environment; demonstrated ability to live/work and maintain personal wellness and productivity in such an environment•Ability and readiness to work as part of surge team during an emergency (required); commitment to humanitarian response principles and accountability frameworks, especially in working with very vulnerable populations•Self-motivated with the ability to work autonomously in a highly stressful and challenging environment.•Proven knowledge of MS office applications and IT literacy and capacity to learn and use other packages.•Commitment to the aims and principles of Save the Children. In particular, a good understanding of the Save the Children mandate and child focus and an ability to ensure this continues to underpin all aspects of the job. Commitment to Save the Children Child Safeguarding policy.

CBHA core competency•Understanding humanitarian contexts and application of humanitarian principlesAchieving results effectivelyDeveloping and maintaining collaborative relationshipsOperating safely and securelyManaging yourself in a pressurised and changing environmentLeadership in a humanitarian response

Issues:3 Lists – 20 “things” - which to prioritise?Some Overlap (Collaboration)Is Ambition or Creativity a Value or a Competency?When to measure these?

29/11/2017



Cautionary Tale 2 – Incremental Validity

The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years

Person-Organization Fit Measures

“Person-Organization Fit measures assess the degree of match between characteristics of

the applicants (such as values, goals, desires, and interests) and the values, purposes, and goals of the organization as a whole. Measures of Person-Organization Fit have recently become popular in business and industry. For the prediction of job performance they have a low average validity (.13) and produce an incremental validity increase of only 4%. Both these figures are disappointing to the advocates of these measures.”

Documents

New Frontiers in Psychometrics 2017 Frontiers 2017 presentations.pdfNew Frontiers in Psychometrics 2017 List of Speakers (In order of presenting) Dr Hugh McCredie CPsychol Vice-chair