FAQ

Why haven’t I heard of the Five-Factor Model or the WorkPlace Big Five Profile?

My company has been using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (DISC, etc.) and is satisfied.  Why should we change? 

How do clients use WorkPlace?

What is the validity/reliability of WorkPlace Big Five Profile 4.0?

The Coefficient Alpha for the WorkPlace is .83.  The Coefficient Alpha for the life-at-large Five-Factor Model assessment, NEO PI-R, is .9.  Increasing the WorkPlace Coefficient Alpha to .9 would require many additional questions, thus making the assessment less efficient for the workworld. 

Predictive validity is measured by performing a validity study for a particular job using the instrument which will provide a target profile. That target profile is then used to hire candidates into the job and to study the results of performance for those candidates selected based on the target profile.  The predictive validity of WorkPlace correlates successfully with the industry standard, NEO PI-R. If you are interested, the Center for Applied Cognitive Studies has validity case studies that can be shared.

None of the standard competencies address precisely what we’re looking for. Is there a way to develop our own competencies?

What languages is WorkPlace offered in?

WorkPlace Big Five Profile: Languages in Development

Asian-English
Taiwanese Chinese (Traditional)
Simplified Chinese
French
Japanese

What are the legal implications of using the WorkPlace Big Five Profile for selection?

• A selection test needs good psychometric properties, such as reliability, validity, and principles of test construction. For the WorkPlace Big Five Profile, those properties are described in the Professional Manual.  When developing WorkPlace, The Center for Applied Cognitive Studies consulted with employment attorneys to ensure there were no questions that are illegal in the US to ask for pre-hiring screening.
• U.S. courts have ruled tests measuring personality disorders (such as the MMPI) may not be used for pre-hiring screening. Tests that measure personality traits (such as WorkPlace) are permitted. If a test measures both traits and disorders, it is not permitted. [There are exceptions to this rule, such as the fact that you may look for disorders when hiring persons who will be carrying a gun or working in nuclear power plants.]
• There are only two reasons that courts might find fault with personality trait testing: 1) poor tests, and 2) poor testers. In other words, if a test is poorly constructed then you are liable. Or, if the test administrator administers the test improperly, handles results improperly, or doesn’t understand statistical analysis of test results or interpreting them, then you are liable.

Are we practicing a covert discrimination if we limit a person's duties according to how they score on a personality test? For example, if a person does not fit the ideal "leadership profile," shouldn't we still allow them to take a try at leadership? Otherwise, aren't we creating a "super leader race"?

Certainly, if an individual's profile does not perfectly fit the ideal, and the individual wants to take a whack at leadership, s/he could be permitted to do so. The value of knowing the discrepancy between one's personal profile and the ideal lies in being forewarned before taking on leadership responsibility. For example, a more introverted person who wishes to be a leader can approach leadership responsibility knowing that s/he must take special precautions to insure good communications. Over the long haul, such individuals need to realize the possible costs to their physical and mental health. Ideally, in larger organizations, dual career tracks should be in place to allow a safety net for those who try leadership positions and who, after a while, decide they wish to return to the individual contributor role.

Are reliable Five-Factor Model profiles of any popular personalities available for us to enjoy?

Yes. In the November 1996 issue of the American Psychological Association's Monitor, results of three psychobiographical studies are merged in order to profile American politicians according to the Five-Factor Model. For starters, they described Clinton as mid N, high E, high O, mid A, and low C. Bob Dole was rated as high N, low E, low O, low A, and low C.

In most personality tests, the subject fills in what s/he thinks s/he is like. How can we factor in the degree of self-knowledge (or the lack of it), self-denial, or self-deception?

When an individual completes a personality inventory on him/herself, we say that the resulting report measures the individual's "self-image." When others complete the same inventory on that same individual, we say that the resulting reports measure the individual's "reputation." We refer to these two different uses of a personality inventory as the "self" version and the "rater," or "other," version. It is through examining the relationship between these two views of an individual that we are able to estimate the degree of an individual's self-knowledge, self-denial, or self-deception.

Will profiles change over time? Do you have research to document such change, or the lack thereof?

There is a strong genetic component to personality that is resistant to change. However, part of personality is learned, and that part is changeable. Four kinds of such learned change have been observed:

• Test-Retest reliability for the short term is .9, while long term is .7.
• From age 20 to age 30, a developmental change has been detected in which N, E, and O tend to decrease, while A and C tend to increase. This has often been described as the task of "growing up"--becoming less reactive, less party-minded, less curious, more of a team player, and more ambitious and disciplined.
• Energy level and ambition tend to decrease during one's grey years.
• Cultural emphases can affect personality change. For example, in the United States, traditional female roles have scored high on A, and a variety of "consciousness-raising" experiences tend to bring those A scores down.

The research behind these observations is available in both the professional manuals for the Big Five tests and in The Owner's Manual for Personality at Work.

The Five-Factor Model suggests personality traits and talents are genetic. Does this mean then that we take on similar traits as our parents? If so, how do we explain the differences in traits exhibited by siblings?

Resist thinking in all-or-nothing terms. Personality originates partly (about 60%) from genes, partly from environment. The final result--you and me--is an interaction of the two. Identical twins show remarkably close resemblance in personality traits, and that is because their genetic material is identical. Yet identical twins will be more different from either one of their parents than they are from each other. That is because a child shares only 50% of one parent's genes, and 50% of the other parent's genes. Thus, there is only a 50% chance that a child will inherit any one of one parent's genes. Non-twin siblings are even more different from each other than from their parents, because non-twin siblings share only 25% of the same genetic material. So, for example, my sister may be tone-deaf, while I have an excellent sense of pitch. Both are inherited. However, I probably inherited my sense of pitch from my mother, and my sister probably inherited her tone-deafness from my father.

If all five traits are distributed normally across all kinds of cultures, how do you explain differences in cultures? For example, how do you explain politeness in several Asian cultures? Is Agreeableness/Accommodation really normally distributed there?

Yes, the trait is normally distributed. But how it is expressed can differ from culture to culture. For example, in New York, an A+ might ignore your mistake, while an A- might say something like, "You have really screwed that up!" In Asia, an A+ would still ignore your mistake, but, because of a cultural value placed on courtesy, an A- might say something like: "Most gracious servant thinks honorable associate perhaps was napping while trying to spell this word!" The latter sounds more like A+, but still serves the purpose of confrontation.