The 16PF Competency Report: An Initial Psychometric Study

Scott Bedwell, Ph.D. Caroline Fris, M.A. Ralph Mortensen, Ph.D.

This paper summarizes the findings from analysis of seven archival validation studies (N=2,494) and the 16PF U.S. normative database (N=10,261) to estimate the psychometric properties of the 16PF Competency Report. The analysis demonstrated satisfactory reliabilities for each of the 20 individual competencies, ranging from 0.68 to 0.92, with a mean of 0.79. Additionally, in spite of sample limitations, a number of significant criterion-related validities (ranging from -0.44 to 0.45+) for diverse performance measures were found for available samples of leaders (N=368), protective services personnel (N=326) and sales roles (N=1,594). Limitations and general directions for future psychometric research are indicated. When considering any assessment, it is important to consider the reliability and validity of its scales. This supplement provides information on the reliability estimates and criterion-related validity evidence for the competencies in the 16PF Competency Report. The discussion included in this supplement is intended as a summary of the available evidence. Full details for the reliability and validity of the competencies can be found in the tables of this supplement. Validation research is ongoing and the interested reader is encouraged to contact IPAT for additional information.

interest to the organization. The 16PF Questionnaire can be scored to generate competency scores as described in the 2008 Technical Support Document for the 16PF Competency Report. Overall, there were 2,494 participants in the validation study dataset. Means and standard deviations for each of three job categories are presented in Table 1 (Appendix A). In general, observed mean scores clustered around the theoretical competency mean of 3.0. Standard deviation findings indicated some restriction of range. The calculated values were smaller than an expected value of 1.0 based on the construction of competencies from 16PF Primary Factor scores. Due to restricted range on several competencies in the current dataset, the reliability analysis was conducted on data used to create the 2002 norms (N=10,261). Using the formula for the reliability of a linear combination (Nunnally, 1978), reliabilities for those competencies are presented in Table 2 (Appendix B). Overall, the 16PF Competency Report demonstrates moderate to high reliability (range= 0.68-0.92, mean=0.79). High correlations among some competencies, e.g., between Strategic Vision and Innovation, resulted from the use of some 16PF Primary Factors in multiple competency definitions. These findings illustrate the importance of carefully choosing competencies for a particular application to measure the largest number of distinct attributes and to minimize redundancy.

Validity Analysis Procedure

Data from the seven organizations was first split into three groups based on the functional role of the sample. By doing so, the results are presented in a more meaningful way that is not overwhelming. Ease of interpretation was important as there are more than 50 criterion variables. When these are crossed by the 20 competencies, the sheer volume of the results can quickly become unmanageable. Data from four sources (577 individuals) were combined into a Leadership/Management category because all the individuals were in leadership roles within

Sample, Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Findings

The entire dataset consists of information from seven different organizations grouped into 3 job categories. Each of these organizations administered the 16PF Questionnaire to their employees in addition to other measures of

their organization. Additionally, many of the criterion measures gathered from these organizations dealt exclusively with leadership behaviors. Only a smaller number of cases (386) with criteria having clear conceptual links to the 16PF competency model were analyzed for validity. Three different organizations (326 individuals) were combined to create a Protective Services category. Included in this category were two police departments and one fire department. For these organizations, criterion variables included aspects of job knowledge as well as other important aspects, such as safety. The final source of data (1,594 individuals) contains information gathered on a group of salespeople and is considered Sales Personnel. Examples of these criterion variables include problem solving and emotional control. After the data were grouped into categories determined by the job role of the samples, the criterion measures were grouped based on similarities for interpretation purposes. Since there was a large number of criterion variables for each organization, grouping them into like categories reduced the number of criteria for each source of data to make the results more manageable. For example, all of the criterion variables assessing job knowledge or cognitive ability were grouped into one category. Doing so allowed trends in the 16PF Competency Report to become more evident, and more easily interpreted. In the relevant tables, all criterion variables are presented, but are organized according to the groupings of the variables. The criterion variable groupings are outlined below for each organizational category. To assess validity, correlations were calculated between organizational-specific criterion variables and the 20 dimensions of the 16PF Competency Report. A summary of results is outlined below. It is important to note that the relationships presented in the summary text below do not constitute the entirety of the results. Tables 3-5 contain the complete results of the analyses. A statistical significance threshold of p<.10 was used because this research was exploratory.

Caution: Readers should bear in mind that all validity analyses were conducted against criteria that happened to be available in these samples. Both the variety of these 50+ diverse criteria and the sample sizes for each were variable enough to potentially limit the size of the observed correlation coefficients. As previously stated in describing the procedure for calculating reliabilities, the range of competency scores was restricted enough to require using a different sample. Future research will include analyses against criterion measures explicitly related to the 20 IPAT competencies contained in our dictionary and care to secure a sufficiently large and diverse sample.

Leadership and Management

Measures
Most of the data gathered for one sample came from dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ is a 360-degree measure of leadership style that gathers responses from the peers, supervisors and subordinates of the person being evaluated. Many MLQ dimensions represented attributes less relevant to the 16PF competency model, e.g., idealized behaviors and laissez faire management style, and had to be omitted from the analysis. Instead, the satisfaction dimension of the MLQ was combined with five assessments of satisfaction from the Job Diagnostic Inventory (JDI). The different types of satisfaction were collapsed into one criterion variable because the different satisfaction components tended to be highly correlated with each other. Satisfactionsatisfaction with a number of different aspects about their job, like their supervisor or their pay

Some criterion variables were created by utilizing factor analysis. Within this organizations dataset, there were a large number of criteria that seemed to overlap with each other. A statistical analysis reduced the number of criterion variables into three overarching concepts that best fit the ideas represented. Those three overarching factors

were: problem solving, interpersonal skill.

managerial

skill

and

Problem solving behaviorsthinking conceptually, synthesizing data, and being open to change Managerial skillseffective delegation and conflict management, as well as selecting high quality employees and managing performance obstacles Interpersonal skillslistening and communicating well with others, working effectively with a team and using feedback constructively.

organized behaviors and being self-critical, received higher ratings on leadership competency, communication, teamwork and other variables and were rated lower on problem solving. Similarly, high scores on coping with pressure related to high ratings on: satisfaction, problem solving and managerial skills. In contrast, higher flexibility scores, signifying spontaneity and lower regard for procedures, were tied to lower ratings on develops crews, builds teamwork and leadership competency. All of these relationships are in the desirable direction. Competencies with few noteworthy relationships, e.g., analytical problem solving, must be studied further with new and more diverse samples.

Some criteria could not be grouped with other measures of workplace activities. These are described below. Shift manager ratinga composite score from other objective ratings made internally in the organization Leadership competency ratinginternal assessment by the employing organization of the leadership ability of each rate Overall performanceoverall midyear performance evaluation, based on an internal assessment, rather than a combination of other variables.

Protective Services
Measures
The same method of criterion as outlined Protective Services. measures were grouped of data. grouping organizational above was used for The following criterion from at least two sources

Rehirelikelihood a supervisor would suggest this person be rehired if they left the organization on good terms Dependabilityhow trustworthy and reliable the person is seen to be Cognitivejob knowledge, decision making skills, and judgment skills Appearance to othersmanner in which the individual portrays themselves to the community at large Safetyaspects of both physical safety on the job and safe use of job-related equipment Stress and healthlevel of stress you experience in your job and health related issues, such as illness Communicationability to effectively communicate with others

The remaining criterion measures were not grouped with other measures either, but are self explanatory. They are: communicates effectively and honestly, develops crew and managers, builds teamwork, and influences by example.

Results
From the 16PF Competency Report, Table 3 illustrates that drive for excellence, flexibility, coping with pressure, initiative, customer focus, management of others and teamwork generated the largest number of significant correlations with the organizational criterion variables. For example, managers that scored high on drive for excellent results, which measures deliberate and

Teamworkability to work with others in a group setting Adaptationadjusts behaviors and opinions as needed and considers alternate solutions, especially in dynamic situations.

related to those high ratings on appearance to others, cognitive skills, safety, and stress/health. High ratings on appearance to others, cognitive skills, and stress/health were related to high scores on coping with pressure and management of others, but related to low scores on continuous learning. The criterion variable of safety generated mixed results for its relationship to continued learning, coping with pressure, and management of others. These mixed results indicate that future investigation into these relationships would be beneficial.

The remaining criteria were not grouped, as there was only one measure of each type of outcome. Initiativeperforms duties without direct supervision and makes suggestions for improvement Use of force/aggressionuses diplomacy and tact, and uses the appropriate level of force for the situation Assertiveness/personal demeanorperforms duties confidently and is self assertive without being belligerent Observation frequencyhow frequently the individual was observed by a superior Emotional controlkeeps emotional responses under control, especially in high stress situations Firefighting skillobjective measure of skill at task related to firefighting Ordersable and willing to follow the orders of others Customer serviceprovides friendly and efficient service to customers.

Sales Personnel
Measures
For this source, the criterion data were not appropriate to combine, unlike the data for Leadership/Management and Protective Services. The Sales Personnel data were not retrieved from multiple sources for a type of criterion measure. Initiative and drivedegree to which an individual seeks out new endeavors and works through organizational obstacles Problem solvingthinking on ones feet and providing customer needed information Interpersonal skillsgreeting customers by name as well as being courteous and polite Emotional controlone remains even tempered and manages self professionally Follow throughsees problems through to the solution using effective organizational skills Conscientiousnessself motivation and commitment to the job Teamworkbuilds and maintains strong interdepartmental relationships.

Results
For Protective Services, innovation, written communication, continuous learning, coping with pressure, decision making, and management of others all had four significant correlations with the grouped criterion measures (Table 4). High scores on innovation related to low ratings on appearance to others, cognitive skills, safety, and stress/health. Conversely, high scores on written communication and planning and organizing

Results
Since data on criterion measures were only available from one source for Sales Personnel, it is important to note that these findings (Table 5) are preliminary, and further research is warranted. However, with the current data, innovation and commercial awareness stand out as being important factors. Both of these competencies are negatively related to the criterion measures of problem solving, interpersonal skills, and emotional control, meaning high levels of innovation and commercial awareness are related to lower ratings of problem solving, interpersonal skills, and emotional control.

1.

Future studies of larger samples and of a more diverse range of jobs and organizations would allow IPAT to further investigate the reports validity and its generalizability to the universe of jobs. Analysis of those samples variability would provide estimates of the likely standard deviation of competency scores. Investigation of fewer criterion measures that are more closely matched to the IPAT competency dictionary would allow a more complete evaluation of the validities of individual competencies and a more comprehensive test of their predictive power. Because the report is based solely on personality measures, an evaluation of its incremental validity when compared to measures such as reasoning skills would be worthwhile. While recent research reviews indicate that personality measures are unlikely to demonstrate adverse impact (Hough and Oswald, 1998), a study of mean competency scores by legally protected class would advance our understanding of this potential issue. IPAT studies of the mean 16PF Primary Factor scores by race, age and gender indicate only small differences among groups (IPAT, 2009).

2.

3.

Summary and Next Research Steps

This initial, archival study provides promising support for the psychometric soundness of the 16PF Competency Report. Both the reports estimated reliability (mean=0.79) and criterionrelated validity (range=-0.44 to 0.45+) appear to meet recognized technical standards for a useful and effective measure. Because the study was limited by the available samples and measures, though, several shortcomings are apparent: The samples fell into only 3 job categories and are restricted to 7 organizations. They varied substantially in size from 65 to 1,594. The overall sample of almost 2,500 people appears to be somewhat restricted in competency score range, which constrains IPATs ability to fully evaluate the tools psychometric properties. The breadth and diversity of criterion measures could not always be matched closely to the 16PF competency model. The result may be low validity coefficients for some competency predictors and criteria.

4.

5.

The following key directions are important for future research:

References
Hough, L.M. & Oswald, F.L. (1998). Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: Reflections, progress and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272-290. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (2009). 16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire manual. Champaign, IL: IPAT, Inc. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Copyright 2012 IPAT, Inc. 16PF is a registered trademark of the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc. (IPAT). IPAT is a wholly owned subsidiary of OPP Ltd. OPP is a registered trademark of OPP Ltd.

Appendix A Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for 16PF Competencies

Leadership/Management Mean Analytical Problem Solving Innovation Strategic Vision Commercial Awareness Written Communication Technical Orientation Drive for Excellence Customer Focus Continuous Learning Coping with Pressure Initiative Flexibility Decision Making Planning and Organizing Reliability Teamwork Influencing Oral Communication Management of Others Integrity N 2.86 2.66 2.66 2.76 2.91 2.76 2.89 2.81 2.80 2.75 2.73 2.67 2.85 2.86 2.82 2.78 2.71 2.74 2.77 2.83 577 Standard Deviation 0.46 0.39 0.65 0.78 0.58 0.83 0.50 0.57 0.41 0.64 0.41 0.43 0.38 0.69 0.48 0.58 0.41 0.58 0.51 0.57 Protective Services and Safety Mean 2.90 2.59 2.36 2.68 3.30 2.39 2.64 2.72 2.57 3.07 2.77 2.65 3.02 3.06 2.98 2.84 2.87 2.83 2.84 2.98 326 Standard Deviation 0.43 0.37 0.60 0.75 0.56 0.71 0.48 0.51 0.42 0.69 0.40 0.41 0.38 0.71 0.51 0.60 0.41 0.59 0.53 0.54 Sales Personnel Mean 2.67 2.95 2.84 3.08 2.84 2.93 2.45 2.84 2.57 3.07 2.95 2.96 2.96 2.68 2.59 3.05 2.99 3.11 3.01 2.63 1,594 Standard Deviation 0.42 0.39 0.65 0.77 0.56 0.80 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.62 0.41 0.45 0.35 0.74 0.56 0.52 0.39 0.56 0.47 0.59

Appendix B Table 2: Reliability and Correlations for 16PF Competencies

A Analytical Innovation Strategic Vision Commercial Awareness Written Communication Technical Orientation Drive for Excellence Customer Focus Continued Learning Coping with Pressure Initiative Flexibility Decision Making Planning & Organizing Reliability Teamwork Influencing Oral Communication Management of Others Integrity 0.7 -0.16 0.23 -0.17 0.13 -0.07 0.38 -0.37 0.16 -0.33 -0.28 -0.3 -0.05 -0.13 -0.03 -0.44 -0.12 -0.27 -0.42 0.02 0.88 0.76 0.27 -0.3 0.65 -0.33 0.03 0.17 0.12 0.39 0.64 -0.08 -0.28 -0.4 0.13 0.25 0.46 0.16 -0.32 0.81 0.14 -0.42 0.81 -0.21 -0.19 0.23 -0.07 0.27 0.54 -0.29 -0.38 -0.42 -0.02 0.1 0.39 -0.02 -0.36 0.68 0.14 0.25 -0.24 0.1 -0.14 0.38 0.72 0.26 0.64 0.1 -0.43 0.17 0.67 0.42 0.54 0.03 0.78 -0.24 0.42 0.43 0.2 0.2 0.07 -0.59 0.46 0.89 0.73 0.1 0.14 -0.02 0.17 0.79 0.68 -0.22 0.06 0.26 0.18 0.5 0.59 -0.03 -0.18 -0.3 0.21 0.16 0.62 0.25 -0.22 0.78 0.16 0.72 -0.56 -0.51 -0.79 -0.12 0.52 0.59 -0.4 -0.37 -0.59 -0.5 0.55 0.73 0.11 0.34 0.21 -0.16 0.13 0.56 0.46 0.68 -0.17 0.25 0.6 0.32 0.86 -0.65 -0.4 -0.34 -0.34 0.33 0.37 -0.42 -0.4 -0.47 -0.54 0.38 0.92 0.81 0.41 0.54 0.14 -0.07 0.66 0.56 0.83 0.9 -0.01 0.68 0.55 0.6 0.02 -0.35 0.44 0.68 0.86 0.81 -0.1 0.82 0.02 -0.67 -0.74 0.32 0.25 0.58 0.41 -0.68 0.77 0.25 -0.1 0.15 0.6 0.42 0.52 0.18 0.83 0.86 0.13 0.07 -0.05 0.16 0.87 0.78 0.03 -0.28 -0.26 -0.14 0.78 0.89 0.08 0.62 0.81 -0.12 0.8 0.57 0.43 0.2 0.85 0.78 -0.19 0.89 -0.05 0.82 B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

Note: A=Analytical, B=Innovation, C=Strategic Vision, D=Commercial Awareness, E=Written Communication, F=Technical Orientation, G=Drive for Excellence, H=Customer Focus, I=Continuous Learning, J=Coping with Pressure, K=Initiative, L=Flexibility, M=Decision Making, N=Planning and Organizing, O=Reliability, P=Teamwork, Q=Influencing, R=Oral Communication, S=Management of Others, T=Integrity Reliabilities for each factor are provided in italics on the diagonal. Significant correlations (p<.10) are in bold font. N=10,261.

Appendix C Table 3: Correlations between Leadership/Management Criterion Variables and the 16PF Competency Report
A MLQ Satisfaction1 Problem Solving Skill subordinate2 Problem Solving Skillpeer2 Interpersonal Skill subordinate2 Interpersonal Skillpeer2 Managerial Skill subordinate2 Managerial Skill peer2 Communicates effectively and honestly3 Develops crew and managers3 Builds Teamwork3 Shift Mgr Rating3 Influences by example3 Overall Performance3 Leadership Competency Rating3 -0.02 -0.15 -0.13 -0.16 -0.17 -0.14 -0.19 0.04 0.01 0.06 -0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.02 B 0.08 0.05 0.16 -0.20 0.04 -0.06 -0.01 -0.16 -0.12 -0.18 -0.23 -0.06 -0.11 -0.20 C 0.08 0.10 0.29 -0.20 0.17 -0.08 0.06 -0.14 -0.08 -0.15 -0.20 -0.06 -0.10 -0.18 D -0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.08 -0.18 0.14 0.10 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 0.07 -0.01 0.12 -0.02 E 0.01 0.05 -0.24 0.22 -0.20 0.22 -0.10 0.10 0.04 -0.06 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.06 F 0.15 0.21 0.37 -0.03 0.33 0.00 0.17 -0.11 -0.08 -0.18 -0.07 -0.09 -0.04 -0.18 G -0.12 -0.06 -0.27 -0.01 -0.10 0.00 -0.18 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.16 H 0.32 0.30 0.20 0.38 0.23 0.30 0.23 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.07 I -0.07 -0.04 -0.07 -0.13 0.10 -0.07 -0.09 -0.04 0.08 -0.01 0.05 0.08 0.07 -0.05 J 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.04 0.24 0.22 0.01 -0.12 -0.08 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05 0.01 K 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.07 0.02 0.22 0.23 -0.07 -0.15 -0.16 -0.04 -0.12 -0.01 -0.07 L 0.21 0.02 0.32 -0.15 0.19 -0.12 0.19 -0.23 -0.22 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18 -0.26 M -0.03 0.06 -0.13 0.14 -0.21 0.16 -0.06 -0.04 -0.12 -0.06 0.05 -0.07 0.07 0.00 N -0.02 0.18 -0.13 0.29 -0.06 0.31 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.12 O 0.00 0.16 -0.13 0.30 0.04 0.21 -0.05 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.13 P 0.35 0.21 0.25 0.36 0.23 0.22 0.29 0.13 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 Q -0.12 0.03 -0.05 -0.02 -0.14 0.12 0.00 -0.08 -0.22 -0.18 -0.10 -0.09 -0.08 -0.08 R 0.21 0.30 0.35 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.00 -0.10 -0.13 -0.08 -0.08 -0.05 -0.04 S 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.15 0.31 0.32 0.03 -0.04 -0.05 0.01 -0.04 0.05 0.02 T -0.11 0.12 -0.14 0.21 -0.06 0.24 -0.03 0.05 0.05 -0.04 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.04

Note: A=Analytical, B=Innovation, C=Strategic Vision, D=Commercial Awareness, E=Written Communication, F=Technical Orientation, G=Drive for Excellence, H=Customer Focus, I=Continuous Learning, J=Coping with Pressure, K=Initiative, L=Flexibility, M=Decision Making, N=Planning and Organizing, O=Reliability, P=Teamwork, Q=Influencing, R=Oral Communication, S=Management of Others, T=Integrity Superscripts indicate data source. 1: N=174-184, 2: N=65-75, 3:N=117-127. Significant correlations appear in bold print (p<.10).

Appendix D Table 4: Correlations between Protective Services Criterion Variables and the 16PF Competency Report
A Professional Attitude1 Public Relations1 Rehire1 Rehire2 Overall Performance2 Overall Performance1 Dependability2 Dependabilitly1 Judgment/ Decision Making1 Job Knowledge1 Equipment Use/Safety1 Safety2 Stress Tolerance1 Health concerns1 Communication1 Initiative1 Flexibility/ receptiveness1 Teamwork1 Use of force/ aggression1 Assertiveness/ Personal Demeanor1 Observation Frequency2 Communication2 Emotional Control2 Adaptability2 Firefighting skill2 Orders2 Customer Service2 Teamwork2 -0.29 -0.21 -0.26 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.05 0.00 -0.23 -0.31 -0.19 0.08 -0.21 -0.26 -0.06 -0.17 -0.43 -0.44 -0.19 -0.19 -0.09 -0.06 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.05 B -0.30 -0.20 -0.11 0.12 0.01 0.14 -0.03 -0.12 -0.28 -0.25 -0.24 -0.17 -0.27 -0.23 -0.03 -0.33 -0.21 0.13 -0.19 -0.28 0.06 0.07 -0.01 0.04 0.08 -0.01 -0.10 -0.02 C -0.44 -0.36 -0.27 0.07 0.00 0.26 -0.01 -0.15 -0.41 -0.38 -0.22 -0.10 -0.41 -0.40 -0.11 -0.42 -0.39 -0.02 -0.39 -0.42 -0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.07 -0.01 -0.06 -0.03 D 0.22 0.11 0.36 0.02 -0.01 -0.44 0.02 0.05 0.25 -0.02 0.11 0.06 0.32 0.15 0.03 0.19 0.32 0.17 0.32 0.17 -0.15 -0.02 -0.13 0.00 0.06 -0.06 0.04 0.03 E 0.30 0.31 0.38 0.03 0.05 -0.38 0.12 0.16 0.30 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.30 0.25 0.08 0.23 0.37 0.10 0.25 0.31 -0.18 -0.01 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.08 F -0.19 -0.18 -0.03 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.16 -0.24 -0.04 0.02 -0.13 -0.13 -0.01 -0.22 -0.04 0.21 -0.17 -0.15 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.00 -0.02 G -0.16 -0.22 -0.14 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.16 0.11 -0.09 -0.08 -0.03 0.26 -0.21 -0.11 0.00 -0.13 -0.27 -0.40 -0.25 -0.05 -0.15 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.16 0.00 H 0.29 0.38 0.16 0.01 -0.01 -0.11 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.25 0.13 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.24 0.45 0.68 0.28 0.23 -0.06 0.02 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.03 I -0.37 -0.41 -0.07 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.24 0.05 -0.30 -0.23 -0.16 0.23 -0.37 -0.27 0.00 -0.43 -0.37 -0.42 -0.43 -0.24 -0.06 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.02 J 0.46 0.46 0.35 0.00 -0.03 -0.28 -0.13 0.05 0.40 0.24 0.24 -0.12 0.45 0.36 0.08 0.46 0.54 0.66 0.46 0.36 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 0.01 -0.04 0.04 K 0.31 0.29 0.37 0.03 -0.01 -0.34 -0.05 0.05 0.30 0.09 0.17 -0.06 0.35 0.23 0.07 0.32 0.42 0.44 0.37 0.25 -0.09 0.00 -0.06 0.00 0.03 -0.02 0.00 0.03 L -0.06 -0.03 0.09 0.09 -0.01 -0.05 -0.10 -0.10 -0.09 -0.12 -0.11 -0.23 0.00 -0.03 0.03 -0.09 0.06 0.32 0.07 -0.09 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.14 0.01 M 0.37 0.31 0.41 0.03 0.05 -0.38 0.02 0.16 0.34 0.15 0.16 0.09 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.35 0.40 0.15 0.44 0.29 -0.08 0.04 -0.04 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.07 N 0.32 0.29 0.32 -0.01 0.04 -0.35 0.11 0.14 0.31 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.04 0.24 0.39 0.13 0.16 0.29 -0.21 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.04 O 0.18 0.20 0.12 -0.02 0.04 -0.11 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.05 0.15 0.02 0.11 0.19 0.03 -0.03 0.18 -0.13 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.03 P 0.34 0.41 0.14 -0.03 -0.12 -0.11 -0.16 -0.04 0.28 0.20 0.14 -0.19 0.35 0.32 -0.01 0.29 0.52 0.43 0.36 0.26 0.06 -0.04 -0.14 -0.08 -0.14 -0.06 -0.10 -0.03 Q 0.19 0.13 0.27 -0.01 -0.01 -0.37 -0.09 -0.06 0.23 0.02 0.09 -0.02 0.17 0.10 -0.03 0.25 0.14 0.08 0.25 0.17 -0.06 -0.02 0.01 -0.04 0.03 0.00 -0.05 -0.03 R 0.30 0.34 0.16 0.00 -0.03 -0.09 -0.11 -0.03 0.26 0.12 0.17 -0.12 0.31 0.24 0.03 0.31 0.42 0.61 0.34 0.21 0.00 0.02 -0.06 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.03 S 0.42 0.43 0.33 0.00 -0.05 -0.29 -0.09 0.05 0.36 0.22 0.20 -0.12 0.44 0.33 0.06 0.40 0.55 0.38 0.45 0.31 -0.05 -0.01 -0.09 -0.03 -0.06 -0.04 -0.03 0.04 T 0.19 0.15 0.31 0.00 0.10 -0.38 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.16 -0.12 0.03 0.22 -0.19 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.05

Note: A=Analytical, B=Innovation, C=Strategic Vision, D=Commercial Awareness, E=Written Communication, F=Technical Orientation, G=Drive for Excellence, H=Customer Focus, I=Continuous Learning, J=Coping with Pressure, K=Initiative, L=Flexibility, M=Decision Making, N=Planning and Organizing, O=Reliability, P=Teamwork, Q=Influencing, R=Oral Communication, S=Management of Others, T=Integrity Superscripts indicate data source. 1: N=70-124, 2: N=200-203. Significant correlations appear in bold print (p<.10).

10

Appendix E Table 5 Correlations between Sales Personnel Criterion Variables and the 16PF Competency Report
A
Initiative/ Drive Conscientiousness Follow Through Problem Solving Teamwork Interpersonal Skills Emotional Control -0.01 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.08

B
0.00 0.01 -0.09 -0.23 -0.13 -0.23 -0.32

C
0.12 0.03 -0.04 -0.17 -0.09 -0.19 -0.27

D
-0.05 0.04 -0.06 -0.17 -0.11 -0.32 -0.26

E
-0.18 0.11 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 0.08 0.01

F
0.14 0.05 0.02 -0.17 -0.06 -0.23 -0.30

G
-0.16 0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 -0.02

H
-0.14 0.10 0.07 -0.06 0.06 0.15 0.04

I
-0.07 0.02 0.06 0.03 -0.05 -0.10 -0.17

J
0.00 0.06 -0.02 -0.15 0.06 0.05 0.09

K
0.04 0.08 -0.04 -0.20 -0.02 -0.13 -0.12

L
0.21 0.01 0.07 -0.07 0.01 -0.15 -0.12

M
0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.11 0.07 -0.18 -0.14

N
-0.19 0.08 -0.01 -0.06 0.02 0.12 0.01

O
-0.14 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.27 0.14

P
-0.09 0.06 0.05 -0.11 0.05 0.10 0.04

Q
-0.02 -0.01 -0.13 -0.23 -0.10 -0.26 -0.16

R
0.06 0.05 -0.08 -0.23 -0.03 -0.10 -0.12

S
-0.02 0.09 0.03 -0.13 0.06 0.04 0.04

T
-0.14 0.07 0.02 -0.04 -0.03 0.06 0.06

Note: A=Analytical, B=Innovation, C=Strategic Vision, D=Commercial Awareness, E=Written Communication, F=Technical Orientation, G=Drive for Excellence, H=Customer Focus, I=Continuous Learning, J=Coping with Pressure, K=Initiative, L=Flexibility, M=Decision Making, N=Planning and Organizing, O=Reliability, P=Teamwork, Q=Influencing, R=Oral Communication, S=Management of Others, T=Integrity N=1,594. Significant correlations appear in bold print (p<.10).

11