In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners

By Robert P. Hogan. 2005

188 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/380e3389a1227c262907f447034e07cbddc98e06

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? (2006, background): “Notwithstanding the research just reviewed, there is also abundant grounds for optimism that the usefulness of personality testing in personnel selection is not neutralized by faking (e.g., Hogan, 2005; Hough, 1998a,b; Hough & Furnham, 2003; Hough & Ones, 2002; Marcus, 2003).”
INTERACTION AND INTERSECTION: THE CONSTELLATION OF EMOTIONAL STABILITY AND EXTRAVERSION IN PREDICTING PERFORMANCE (2007, background): “…of personality, which has provided a useful organizing structure where little consensus previously existed (Barrick & Mount, 2005); and advances in personality research, which has provided a wealth of useful theoretical and methodological information (R. Hogan, 2005; J. Hogan & Holland, 2003).”
The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies (2014, background): “From the practical point of view, the Big Five is a useful taxonomy which is unrivalled at present, although it may not be exhaustive (Hogan, 2005a).”
Personality traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing (2011, background): “2007 ), there are extensive data and analyses corroborating the utility of trait measures (Hogan 2005 ; Ones et al.”
A review of personality and performance: Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions (2011, background): “interactions (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Hogan et al., 1996; John & Srivastava, 1999), few studies have empirically examined the 303 L.M. Penney et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 297–310”
Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self- and observer reports (2008, background): “Numerous primary and meta-analytic studies investigating the role of personality traits in various work-related outcomes have been conducted since the 1990s, when personality re-emerged as an important focus after the ‘dark ages’ of the 1970s (Hogan, 2005).”
Personality and the marginal utility of income: Personality interacts with increases in household income to determine life satisfaction (2011, background): “…(McCrae and Costa, 1990), are related to peer ratings (McCrae and Costa, 1987), predict objective behavior (Epstein, 1979) and occupational success (Hogan, 2005), have biological correlates (Ryff et al., 2006), and prospectively predict changes in objective biological functioning over time…”
How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation (2010, background): “Another seemingly subtle, but possibly substantive difference between scales thought to measure the same construct was mentioned by Hogan (2005). Based on the tests’ construct definitions, other researchers have grouped the NEO Agreeableness scale and the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Likeabilit”
The Bright and Dark Sides of Personality: Implications for Personnel Selection in Individual and Team Contexts (2007, background): “Barrick and Mount (2005: 361) flatly state: ‘Personality traits do matter at work’ and indeed the data appear to support their conclusion (Hogan, 2005).”