Personality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Reflections, Progress, and Prospects

By L. M. Hough, F. Oswald. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2008

184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/98584037b7bddd884f2b833e8fe69c160d23f52f

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 Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Understanding Faking Behavior Through the Lens of Motivation: An Application of VIE Theory (2011, background): “Although references to motivation are common in the faking literature (e.g., Ellingson, Sackett, & Connelly, 2007; Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Hough & Oswald, 2008; Snell, Sydell, & Lueke, 1999), including a few specific references to VIE theory (Bott, Snell, Dahling, & Smith, 2010; McFarland & Ryan,…”
The Magnitude and Extent of Cheating and Response Distortion Effects on Unproctored Internet-Based Tests of Cognitive Ability and Personality (2010, background): “…magnitude, and effect of response distortion (e.g., see, Edens & Arthur, 2000; Ellingson, Sackett, & Connelly, 2007; Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007; Hough & Oswald, 2008; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999), the conceptual expectation is that malfeasant responding results in elevated scores on desirable…”
A Review and Synthesis of Situational Strength in the Organizational Sciences (2010, background): ““situational strength” is among the most important situational forces to consider (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hough & Oswald, 2008; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005).”
A meta‐analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness–performance relationship (2009, background): “…this dissensus, however, many have argued that one of the most important characteristics to consider is situational strength (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008a; Snyder & Ickes, 1985), especially as a moderator of personality–outcome relationships (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005).”
BEYOND PERSONALITY TRAITS: A STUDY OF PERSONALITY STATES AND SITUATIONAL CONTINGENCIES IN CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS (2011, background): “In applying personality tests to predict job performance, psychologists have begun to take the interactionist approach to advance the understanding of situational influences on the effects of personality at work (e.g., Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hough & Oswald, 2008).”
Personality traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing (2011, background): “2005 for recent thorough reviews; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran and Judge 2007 ; Hough and Oswald 2008 ).”
Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes (2010, background): “Similarly, researchers have recently discussed the importance of broadening investigations of personality to narrow traits as well as broad ones (Hough & Oswald, 2008).”
Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance (2013, background): “Such contextualized measures have been found to have higher criterion-related validity and are more accepted by test takers, compared with non-contextualized measures (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Heggestad & Gordon, 2008).”
The Failure of Social Desirability Measures to Capture Applicant Faking Behavior (2008, background): “Indeed, in the focal article, Hough and Oswald (2008) state that response bias (or faking), as measured by these scales, does not affect the validity of personality measures.”
Hidden in Plain Sight: The Active Ingredients of Executive Coaching (2009, background): “We know how to precisely define such criteria (cf. Hough & Oswald, 2008 ).”
Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions (2020, background): “Broad versus narrow personality traits A number of researchers (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 2012; Hough & Oswald, 2008; Paunonen & Jackson, 2000) have suggested that lower-level facets may provide more predictive power than the Five Factor Model (FFM) or Big 6 factors.”
Future employment selection methods: evaluating social networking web sites (2009, background): “, 2007; Tett and Christiansen, 2007) and Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Hough and Oswald, 2008; Griffith and Peterson, 2008) have focused on the limited criterion validity of self-reported personality measures as well as the complex issue of social desirability and faking of self-reported”