VALIDITY OF PERSONALITY MEASURES IN

PERSONNEL SELECTION
ROBERT M. GUION

Bowling Green State University

and
RICHARD F. GOTTIER

Findlay CoUege

WHENGhiselli and Barthol (1953) surveyed the validities of

personality tests for industrial use, they noted that such measures did less well in occupational groups where traits of temperament seemed especially important than in occupational
groups where, intuitively, such traits seemed less important. In
all, that survey suggested many reasons for caution in the use
of such tests in any occupational group; even where average
validities seemed substantial, numerous cases of low and even
negative validities were uncovered.
There was, of course, the distinct possibility that the wide
variation in validities could be attributed to differences in the
tests used; that is, some tests might be quite valid within an
occupational group, and other tests decidedly invalid. An
average could hardly be expected to be impressive. With such
an argument, it was quite simple to ignore many of the implications of the Ghiselli and Barthol survey while looking for the
ideal test.
The past decade or two has seen such a bewildering proliferation of new personality meaaures that Dunnette (1962) was
moved to urge a moratorium on construction of new tests until
those already available are better utilieed. There have been
factorial inventories, forced-choice inventories, new forms of
projective measurement, and others. Each new test has been
greeted with an enthusiasm that gradually weakened as eviAt the University of California, 1963-64.

135

136

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

dence accumulated that it had not lived up to its earlier promise.

One test that has been subjected to particularly close scrutiny is the Activity Vector Analysis (AVA), reviewed by
Locke and Hulin (1962). The conclusions of that review can
be briefly stated:
(1) The research on the AVA has often been faulty. For example, group comparisons have often been made without
concern for the degree of overlap.
(2) The essential importance of the distinction between
concurrent and predictive validity has often been ignored in
the design of AVA research.
(3) AVA studies have rarely been cross-validated.
(4)Therefore, the research on the AVA has failed to demonstrate any practical utility as a selection device in industry
(Locke & Hulin, 1962, p. 41 ; italics theirs).
Without entering a brief for the AVA (being in complete
agreement with the Locke and Hulin conclusions), the present
authors wonder whether the conclusions would have been
markedly different had a similar survey been made of the research on any other personality measure. This article attempts
to report in summary form the nature of and results of a
sampling of research studies featuring other personality measures. It is not intended to be a thorough survey of each test in
the manner of the Locke and Hulin (1962) article dealing with
the Activity Vector Analysis. Rather, it simply tries to summarize the literature in two major sources of published research
reports: the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel
Psychology. Twelve volumes of each of these journals were
examined, from 1952-1963.

Scope of the Review

With several restrictions, articles from this period were abstracted for presentation in a tabular summary. The following
restrictive considerations determined the selection of articles
to be included in this summary:
(1) It had to appear within the 12-year period studied and
be published in either of the two journals studied. There has, of

GUION AND GOTTIER

137

course, been much pertinent research within this period that

has either been unpublished or published in other sources; the
manuals of the tests would also report much validity information not included within this sample. All such data have been
ignored in the preparation of this summary.
(2) To be included, a study had to deal explicitly with
civilian employment problems. It had to result in some sort of
statement relating test data to some measure of success in a
civilian employment situation. Moreover, only studies related
to selection, as opposed to placement or classification, were
considered.
(3) Only articles reporting validation of a test that could also
be found in a t least two other studies within these restrictions
were included. An exception to this restriction was made for
some of the home-made measures and projectives. I n general, however, this means that, if there were not three studies
of a test within the 12-year sample, it was omitted regardless
of its promise or available information in other sources or at
other times.
(4) The AVA, having been thoroughly surveyed by Locke
and H u h , has been omitted.
( 5 ) The classification of personality measure has been
broadened to include measures of interest. The point of view
here is that interest and temperament measures are used for a
common role: the measurement of variables presumed to be
be associated with motivation. The distinction between interest variables and variables measured in the more conventionally named personality tests is one which is very difficult
to make either at an empirical or at a theoretical level.
I n the interest of brevity and simplicity, the summary entries for individual articles represent very gross classifications.
I n some pertinent respects, they may be distortions of the
original studies; it would be most unwise to substitute the
brief information given here about a specific article for a reading of the article itself. For example, whenever the criterion
was some sort of subjective judgment, it has been listed as a
rating without effort to classify according to the type of rating
system used or the variables on which ratings were made.

138

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(There are a very few exceptions to this general statement

in which the presentation of results required an identification
of a specific kind or trait of ratings.)
The method of research employed is likewise classified very
grossly. If the results were expressed in terms of any kind of
correlation estimate, be it product-moment, biserial, or tetrachoric, the method of research is given simply as correlation.
In general, therefore, the methods used in virtually all of these
studies are identified either as correlation or as group comparisons. Studies using biserial correlation could, of course,
have as easily been classified as systems of group comparison.
The results are given in the most abbreviated fashion. Correlation coefficients are usually given where they are significant
at the 5 per cent level of confidence or better, but no significance statement is presented with them. Care should be taken
to note the Bize of the N in conjunction with large TS. Probability statements are given for values of t since these are dependent upon data not included in the table. Where there are
large numbers of correlations or t tests to be reported within a
single study, a simple statement of the number of significant
correlations or t values is given along with the total number of
significance tests made.
In the columns dealing with the kind of validity and with
the question of cross-validation, guesses were often necessary
when the specific information was not given in the report itself. It was usually assumed that a study reported concurrent
validity unless statements were given to indicate clearly that
an appreciable time lag existed between the administration of
tests and subsequent gathering of criterion data. A study is
listed as reporting predictive validity if such a time lag can
be reasonably assumed from information given, even where
it is not explicitly mentioned.
Another liberty in classification is in the column headed
CV, containing Yes or (NO entries to indicate whether
cross-validation of special keys, new scales, or tests in batteries
had occurred or whether, for specific measures, the research
reported was a replication of an earlier study. The concepts of
cross-validation and replication, although different in operation and purpose, are alike in that they represent a second

GUION AND GOTTIER

139

check on an observed relationship. The Yes classification

means simply that the report seems to deal with a second
check study. This involved considerable stretching of the
meaning of the terms 5eplication and cross-validation.
Strict use of the term replication describes observations
wherein an experiment is exactly repeated in all essentials. The
classification used here, however, has treated as replication any
study which is generally similar to a previous one. Generally
similar means that populations or criteria may change so
long as the differences are not great.
There is obviousIy much subjectivity in these classifications.
The question of reliability of judgment is therefore relevant.
Each of the authors made these judgments, separated in geographical location and in time. Subsequently, a first-year
graduate student without training in personnel testing was
asked to make the same judgments? Of 133 cells in each column
in these tables, the authors agreed on the entries for 101 (76%)
validity classifications and 120 cross-validation or replication
classifications (90%). Unanimity of three judgments occurred
for 52% and 75% of the cells for the two categories, respecti~ely.~
Type of validity and the question of verification through
repeated observation are really rather crucial matters. What
is noteworthy here is that reliabilities of judgment or classification are appreciably below the 100% level of agreement; such
matters, it would seem, are important enough to deserve explicit mention in a research report so that a reader is not
forced to draw his own inferences.
Finally, it should be noted in examining this summary that
the contribution of a particular test to multiple prediction has
been totally overlooked. Each test is being considered as potentially standing on its own as a predictor. Each one of these
a We are indebted to Mr. Fred Lee, who read all the articles and made the
required judgment8 without special instruction or coaching. It should be
mentioned that the differencesbetween his judgments and those of the authors
were primarily on those studies using personal history data.
The senior author assumed the prerogative of tipping the scales in favor
of his own judgments. Therefore, although disagreements were usually discussed and resolved, the actual entries must be the responsibility of the
wnior author.

140

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

tests might fail completely to have any predictive validity of

its own, yet be a very useful device for employment purposes,
either in multiple correlations as a further variable or in subgrouping analysis.
Discussion
Examination of this tabular summary is somewhat discouraging. It cannot be said that any of the conventional
personality measures have demonstrated really general usefulness as selection tools in employment practice. Among the
inventories alone, only slightly over one-third (37 per cent)
of the studies cited could be considered studies of predictive
validity, and this is an overestimate. The indication of predictive validity is in the strict technical sense; i.e., the sense in
which a time lag was stated or could clearly be assumed to
have existed between the administration of the test and the
subsequent gathering of the criterion data. The unique value of
predictive. validity for employment purposes is only obtained
when the tests are administered prior to the decision to hire
(or a t least prior to the reported decision to hire). I n many of
the studies cited here, the administration of the test preceded
the gathering of criterion data, but was done with people who
had already been hired.
Predictive studies among the specially-constructed inventories and personal history data are generally cross-validated ;
it seems rare, however, to find cross-validation or situational
replication among the standard inventories and projectives.
Of thirty predictive studies in these categories, only seven
represented second tries for the situation studied and five
of these were cross-validations of new keys.
Regardless of test classification, the number of predictive
validities significantly better than zero is much smaller than
one might wish. For inventories, the value is 10 per cent. I n
Table 2, the corresponding figure is 100 per cent, but it is based
on only six correlations, all for the same instrument. For Tables
3 and 4, the corresponding percentages are 56 and 42, respectively.
There is a great, but totally unwarranted, temptation to
treat these as raw data and make significance tests as a founda-

GUION AND GOTTIER

141

tion for suggesting that one sort of measure has a better batting
average than another. The writers do in fact accept the idea
that the custom-built devices of the last two tables have shown
a better predictive validity on the average than have the
inventories, but the conviction is based on more than these
tables. The data in the various tables, and within them as well,
simply are not comparable data. Table 1, for example, contains
many examples of broadside research-studies in which
every available measure seems to have been correlated with
available criteria; in such studies, investigators do not seriously expect all variables to be related to their criteria. Greater
deliberation seems to have been involved in the studies of the
other tables. Too, there may well have been more selectivity
in the reports. Among the inventories, some of the forcedchoice formats, such as in the Study of Values, may operate
so that validity of one scale serves to inhibit validity in another.
Certainly the reports on personal history are not all alike, some
reporting on individual items and others on final scales.
What can be said of these percentage statements is that they
demonstrate that personality measures have had predictive
validity more often than can be accounted for simply by chance.
It should be clear that no blanket indictment is justified or
sensible. Since all predictive reports (combining data from all
tables) yielded only 12 per cent significantly different from
zero, or included 88 per cent where the null hypothesis could
not be rejected, it is equally clear that no case has been established for any generalized predictive validity of such instruments-or
even any good odds for predictive validity in
specific situations.
It would, therefore, be instructive to examine the tables
carefully for any hints they may yield about the kinds of
criteria or the kinds of jobs or the specific tests where the
odds might be improved. Unfortunately, such comparisons
are even more tenuous than those between tables. The type
of criterion information given in most reports defies reliable
classification much beyond that already given here; most studies report ratings but give so little information that one often
is not entirely sure even what the investigators hoped for, let
alone what the raters actually gave them. Job descriptions

ule (15 s c a b )

Edwards Personal
Freferenca Bched-

CPI special scale

(14 scales)

California Psychological Inventory

B e m u t e r Personality Inventory

Teat

56

foremen

70

50

industrial ealesmen

retail saleamen

603

managers &supervisors

332

37

33

psychiatric aidea

engineers

production supervisors

100-538

21

petroleum salesmen

salea manaBers

06

foremen

Job

ratings

ratings

ratings

ratings

ings

(a) tenure; (b) rat-

(a) rating; (b) ranking

ratings

admin. action

(a) salea quota; (b)

field rev.; (0) ratings

tenlUT

(a) 2-way adm. sction; (b) 3-way

adm. action; (c)

criterion
-

corr.

cow.

con.

con.

group comp.

cow.

group comp. (4 or
6 scales?)

corr. (5 seta of rs
for 6 scalea)

cow. (3 scales)

Method

(b) N.S.

Nur, -.32;
End, 27. (3 of 15 rs
signif. at 5%)
~ U C ,-.32;

iom: 29, +2 other

signif.

dom: .32

[a) N.S.,

(a) To, .55; St, .44;

Int. Eff., .39; Sr,
.40.(b) N.S. (4 of
28 rs signif. a t 5%
level)

3elf?euff.,BOC. signid.
a t 5% level

5 of 30 rs signif. a t
5% level

(a) all 4 signif. a t 1%

level; (b) N.S.;(c)
N.S.

(a) N.S.; (b) N.S.;

(c) Neuroticism -3

Results*
P

No

No

No

No

Yea

No
No

No
C

No

--

--

--

--

--

--

1960

YscKinney & Woline,

Reference

Robbins & King, 1981

Bromer, Johnson, &

Sevransky, 1962

~~~~

Duxmette & Kirchner,

1960

1980

Dunnette & Iiirohner,

1963

Goodatein & Schrader,

~~

Cuadra & Reed, 1957

1966
&:Aylwsrd,
Dunnette.

Poe & Berg, 1952

Harrell, 1960

--

TABLE 1
Summary of Validation Studies for Personality and Interest Inventoriee
.
I

Guilford-Martin2 ,F
Pers. Inv. (3 s c d e

No

N.S.
corr.

(a) ratings; @) e 5 ciency ratio

30

aaaemblers

No

N.S.
group comp.

ratings

typist

No

.
Mrr

ratings

typist

No

No

co, .22

corr.

21

ratings

foremen

N.S.

No
N.S.

wrr.

ratings

18

~~

foremen

No

N.S.

corr.

ratings

28

budget clerks

Co, .30

corr.

51

budget clerks

ratings

33

production supervi.
uors

Fitspatrick & Mccarty, 1955

Westberg, Pitzpatrick,
L McCarty, 1954b

Westberg, Fitrpatrick
& McC&y, l9Ma

McCarty, Westberg,
& Fitzpatrick, 1954

McCarty, 1954

Grant, 19541,

Grant, 1954s

Poe L Berg, 1952

Guilford, Joan S., 1952

No

No

Wright, Sisler, L
Chylinski, 1963

Campell, el al., 1962

Campbell, Otis, Lieke,

& Prien, 1962

No

No

N.S.

(i) Co, .15; (i) Co,

.18; 0 t = 3.66 (1%);
Ag t = 2.20 (5%);
Co t = 6.54 (1%)

(a) ord, .38;dom,

-.29; (b) ord, .41.
(3 of 30 rs signif. a t
5%)

No

group comp.

group wmp.

wrr.

(a) aff, -.21; (b) aff,

-.27; ach, .30. (3
of 30 rs signif. a t
5%)

ratiis

(a) ratings; (b) job

level

(i) 208
(ii) 143

(i) executives
(E) supervisors

ratings (of Arctic

adjustment)

ratings: (a) social

skills; (b) over-all

skills; (b) over-all

ratings: (a) social

197

50

93

electronic tacbnicians

sales

varied (non-sales)

Guilford-Zimmerman
Temp. Survey

Inventories GAMIN
and STDCR

Inventory of GAMIN

51

244
100

69
72

varied

engineers

life ins. salesmen

secretaries

secretaries

109

67

(i) 208
(ii) 143

(i) executives
(ii) supervisora

assemblers

21

maint. mechanics

rankings

salary grade

sales & survival

ratings

ratings (5 kinda)

ratings; (b) efficiency ratio

(a)

(a) ratings; (b) job

level

ratings

ratings

Method

wrr.

corr.

means; (b) group

comp.-variance

(a) group comp.-

corr.

corr.

corr.

(a) corr.; (b) group

vs. ii)
comp. (i

corr.

group comp.

corr.

(a) admin. action; (b)

66

tenure

wrr.

ratings

Criterion

50

33

Job

product. supvrs.

Guilford-Martin Pers. foremen

Inv. (3 scaled
(continued)
foremen

Test

TABLE 1-(Continued)

2 8 ; (b) N.S.

G, .24;E, .34

N.S.

N.S.; (b) 1 signif.

(not identified) a t
5% level
(a)

N.S.

14 of 50 signif. a t 5%
level

M, -.35 mdea; N.S.

for females (1 of 20
signif. at 5% level)

(i) S, -.M;M, .18; I,

.15.(ii) C, -.19; N,
.18 (5 of 20 signif. at
5% el)
(b)
.all
signif. at 1% level
except T and M

N.S.

N.S.

(a) Co,

N.S.

Results"

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

c v=

McCarty, 1957b

McCarty, 1957a

Hedberg & Baxter,

1957

Kirkpatrick, 1956

Hilton, et ol., 1955

Fitzpatrick & McCarty, 1955

Guilford, Joan S., 1952

Huebner, Joanne, 1954

Foe & Berg, 1952

MacKinney & Wolins,

1960

McCarty & Fitspatrick, 1956

Reference

Kuder, Vocational

Kuder, Personal (6
scales)

50

93

salesmen

varied (non-sales)

104

487

truck drivers

hourly paid men

150

executives

44

49

policemen

aupervisore

125

wmm. equip. salesmen

150

executives

4 group8
34-76

66

salesmen

foremen

05Ce

tenure

group wmp. (9

(a) accident rate; (b)

accidents vs. no accidents

group comp. (specially-developed

key)

Scales?)

corr. (9 scales)

wrr.

ratings

peer ratings

wrr.

ratings

signif. at 1% level

(a) mech, 5%; art,

1%;lit, 1%; (b) lit,
5%; art, 1%

artistic, .42

fam. sitns, -230;

ideas, -.177; others, ,204

N.S.

N.S.

0, 28; F, 21; M, .21

for effectiveness rat.
ing. (3 of 20 rs signif. at 5% level)

corr.

ratings (two traits)

wrr.

A, - 2 7 on social
skills ratings. (1 of
20 signif. a t 5%
level)

corr.

ratings (two traits)

% of sales in district

N.S.

wrr.

A & S signif. for

both. (4 of 30 T B
signif. a t 5% level)

(a) admin. action; (b) wrr.

tenure
ratings

R signif. in all;T sig

nif.in two; F signif. in one. (7 of 40
7s signif. at 5%
level)

corr.

ratings

1
No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

--

--

No

--

--

--

--

--

~~

~~

~~

T i 5 n & Phelan, 1953

Parker, 1953

Carter, 1952

Wagner, 1960

Sterne, 1960

1954

Taylor & Schneider,

~~~

Campbell, d al., 1982

Campbell, Otis, Liske.

& Prien, 1962

Wagner, 1960

MacKiney & Wolina,

1960

Wilaon, 1959

cn

aZ
t0

Test

26

11
4

draftamen

foremen

draftamen trainees

~~

20

draftamen

ratings

ratings

grades

ratings

(a) ratings; (b)e 5 ciency ratio

30

rating8

assemblers

PO

typists

ratings

ratings

(a) work rework ratio; @) acceptance

rate; (c) prod. in
std. hrs.

a2

foremen

227

18

foremen

ratings

aircraft production
supervisors

28

budget clerks

ratings

ratings

61

budget clerks

Criterion
ratings

~~

typists

11

elec. appl. saleamcn

N.S.

N.S.

N.S.

WrS, .39; lit, -.41

comp, .33; lit, .33

mua, .80 (6%)

Resultsm

wrr. (10 scales)

wrr. (10 scales)

wrr. (10 acalea)

wrr. (10 scales)

wrr. (10 scales)

.'lo; mech, .6a

N.S.

N.S.

meoh, 4 4

art,

(a) sci. .3B; mus,

--.36;(b) N.S.

rank wrr. by dept., mecb, -.42

aver. swreawithin
dept. (N = 29) (9
scalee)

Scaled)

group wmp. (10

wrr. (10 scales)

wrr. (10 scales)

wrr. (10 scales)

wrr. (9 scales)

wrr. (9 scales)

wrr. (10 sosles)

Method

TABLE 1-(Continued)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

~~

Fitapatrick & McCarty, 1955

Comrey & High, 10.56

Weatberg, Fitspatrick,
& McCarty, 1964b

Weatberg, Fitrpatrick,
& McCarty, 19%

McCarty, W e a t k g , &
Fitzpatrick, 1964

McCarty, 1954

Grant, 1964b

Grant, l9Ma

Bruce,1954

Reference

No

McCarty & Fitrpatrick, 1966

Perrine, 19.56

C
No
Perrine, 196.5
P
No
Perrine, 1955
-

--

C
-

CVC

Gordon Personal
Profile

Gordon Personal
Inventory

c _

No

37
22

A: IM
B: 161

insurance salesmen

(a) policemen; (b)

deputy sheritls

41

41

71

computer programmers

0 5 c s workers

managere

ratings; peer rat-

(a) turnover; (b)

Pmd (total); (c)
prod (active)

ratings

ratings

ratings: (a) over-all;

(b) energy & vigor;
( 0 ) pera. relns

N.S.; (b) R, .60

(A,a): N.S.; (A,b):

N.S.; (A,c): P,
-.27; (B,a): 0,
-21; (B,b): N.S.;
(3,~): N.S.; (2 of
24 r0 signif. a t 6%)

corr. (4scorea)

(a)

orig, .43

era N.S. when total

partialed out)

total EWIW 47. (0th-

(a) N.S.; (b) V, .31;

(c) N.S.

ierv, -.188

con. (4 scores)

corr. (5 scorea)

No

10 of 45 rs signif. a t
5% level or better

corr. (5 sets ofts

for 9 s d e a )

admin. action

87

typewriter aaleamen
100-538

N.S.

corr. (I0 scales)

ratings

sales managers

No

800

corr. (Qscalea)

ratings

160

No

No

No

No

Yea

No

--

--

--

--

--

--

-P
No
--

--

executives

-.lo

(a) s u , -.15; (b) out.

-.12; pers, .20; art,
-.12; lit, .11; cler,

corr. (10 scsles)

ratings: (a) perf.; (b)

potential

No

420

--

managera

(a) .14; (b) 2 4

.40

(a) lit, -28; (b) sci,

corr. (special scale)

corr. (10 s d w )

rat*:
(a) perf.; (b)
potential

(a) job satisfaction;

(b)ratings

420

61

managers

farmers

Bass, Karstendiek,
McCullough, &
Fhitt, 1964

Vincsnt & Dugan,

1962

McNamsra & Hughes.

1961

Kreidt & Dawson, 1961

Dugan, 1961

Robbins & King, 1961

Aah, 19130

Wagner,

Miner, 1980

Miner, 1980

Brayfield & Marnh,

1957

MMPI

41

130

office workers

data promsing
equipment salesmen

ratings

newspaper writers

psychiatric aiden
156

tenure

group comp. (14

ncalea?)

N.S.

N.S.

(a) L, .37;K, 3 5 ; D,

ings

con. (13 scalea)

(a) Ma (5%); (b) Ha

(5%) ; Mf (5%); P t
(1%). (4 of 28 tests
signif. a t 5% level)

A, 3 3

A. 3 4

--.33; Si, -28; (b)

(a) job satisfaction;

81

larmers

scales)

group comp. (14

corr. (4 scales)

wrr. (4 scales)

@) instructor rat-

(a) high v8. Iow accident rate; (b) accidents vs. no accidents

104

truck drivers

45

rankmg

41

I: normative scarI. N.S. 11. (a) 6,

ing: (a) corr. (b)
- 3 4 ; (b) S (5%) (2
group wmp. 11:
of 16 testa signif. a t
ipsative swring:
5% level)
(a) corr. (b) group
wmp. (4scales;
thus 16 tests of
signif.)

(a) sales; (b) admin.

action sales

E, 3 3 , 3 2 , C 3 9 (3 of
25 8 s signif.)

wrr. (5 scores)

ratings (5 scales)

N.S.

E signif. a t 5% level
in 2 samples; 2 of
24 rs signif.

WIT.

(5 swres)

wrr. (4 scales, 6
samples)

Resultsa

ratings

ratings

Method

TABLE l-(Coontinued)
Criterion

computer programmers

87

typewriter salesmer

28-66

Gordon Personal
ProfileAeontinucd

foodstuffs salesmen

Test

No

cvc

No

No

No

No

Reference

Parker, 1653

Maher, 1963a

1961

McNamara & Hughes,

1961

Hughes & Dodd,

Campbell, Prien, &

Brailey, 1960

Ash, 1960

Bass. 1957

Butterfield & Warren, 1962

1967

Brayfield & Marsh,

--

--

--

-C
No
--

vb

--

Strong Vocational
Interest Blank

ratings (of Arctic

adjustment)

survival

358

220

data processing
equipment salesmen

electric trpewriter
salesmen

(a) ratings; (b) rankings

37

engineers

61

ratings on (a) soeiahility; (b) org. ability; (e) drive; (d)

job suceesa; (e) potential

72

varied

retail salesmen

(a) academy grades

(2); (b) marksmanship; (c) achievement test; (d) ratings

129

policemen

ratings

survival

ratings

33

7
1
tenure

197

production supervisors

psycbiatrie aides

electronic technicians

corr.

chi sq. (special key)

chi sq. (special key)

eorr. (48 scales)

corr. (11 scales using group scores)

eorr. (3 scales)

group comp. (42

scales)

group comp. (4
scales only)

group eomp. (14

scales?)

8 of 48 scales signif. at
5% level

signif. at 2% level

signif. at 1% level

Two of 96 ~ signif.
8
at 5% level

(a) N.S.; (b) Group

V & X ; (c) Group
I, 11, IV, VI, IX,
X; (d) Group X;
(e) Group 11, V,
X (12 of 55 rs, up
to .33, signif. at 5%
level or better)

(a) N.S.; (b) N.S.;

(e) police, - 2 4 , 01
.30 (2 of 15 r8 signif. at 5% level or
better)

Aviator, Mf at 5%
level (2 of 42 tests
signif. at 5% level)

Ma, Pd, K: all at 1%

level; L, N.S.

K, Ee, HE,Pd, Pt,

So, Ma: all at 5%
level
No

No
No

No

No

No

I I

Yes

Yes
C

No

--

--

--

-_-

--

--

--

--

1960

Dunnette & Kirchner,

1958

Hughes & McNamara,

1958

Hughes & McNamara,

1956

Dunnette & A y l w s d ,

Hilton, et al., 1955

DuBois &Watson, 1954

Pce & Berg, 1952

1963

Butterfield &Warren,

Wright, Sisler, & Chylinski, 1963

pol, .35
rel, -.33

.
mrr

wrr.

ratings
ratings

45
44

newpaper writers

advertiiing space
salesmen

N.S. = Not significant, or, if more than one, none significant at the 5% level.

dollarsales

aesth, .42; pol, .45;

rel, -.31

N.S.; (0) econ, .26;

( 4 theor, -.24; (e)
N.S.

corr,

(a) aesth, 2 5 ; @)

N.S.

118

group m a p .

life inauranca salesmen

ratings

4 scales signif; 2 s d e a
N.S.

6 of 48 s d w signif.
at 6% level

con.
ratings on: (a) sociability; (b) org. ability; (c) drive; (d)
job success; (e) POtential

37

steel production
supervisors

I turnover

admin. action, tenure, use of s u m tion system

group wmp. (special keys)

mrr. (14 scalw, 16

ta for each)

8 criteria, incl ratings,

field review; (c)

ratings

group mmp. (sales

m a . scale only)

mrr.

Method

(a) salea quota; @)

Criterion

79

70

engineers

Varies

43-06

21

foremen

petroleum saleamen

industrial saleamen

Job

b validity; p = predictive validity and C = concurrent validity.

Cross-validation or replication, yes or no.

scales)

Study of V a l ~ w(6

(continued)

strong Vocational
Intereat Blank

-~

Tat

TABLE l - ( C ~ t i n ~ d )

Yea
No

No

Hilton, et al., 1955

Poe & Berg, 1952

Boyd, 1961

MacKinney & Wolina,

l9eo

Harrell, 1960

No

No

IClNo

--

Maher, 1963b

Maher, 1963s

Van Leeuwen, 1056

--

l l

--

--

Dunnetta & Kirchner,

1960

Reference

GUION AND GOTTIER

151

have usually been very sketchy. And, except for the Kuder
Vocational, no single test was used in enough independent
studies to provide reliable percentages.
Any conclusions reached, therefore, are necessarily quite
subjective; readers are urged to examine these tables in the
light of what familiarity they may have with individual
studies.
Conclusions and Implications

Spriegel and Dale (1953) surveyed 628 companies and asked

each what type of employee selection program it conducted.
Of this number, 248 (or 39.5 per cent) indicated that they
used some type of personality or interest test. Nor does their
survey stand alone; there are many indications that personality
tests are widely used in industry. The reason seems clear: there
seems to be a genuine need to predict the kinds of behavior
influenced by personality-the will do as opposed to the
can do aspects of behavior on the job. The fact that personality tests often fail to be able to predict in no way lessens the
need.
There is evidence of the apparent need. There is no corresponding evidence in the survey that companies responding
to the need have similarly recognized the need to validate the
instruments chosen for their own specific situations. I n the
light of the disenchanting results surveyed herein for tests that
have been validated, the authors wish to note three conclusions
or recommendations :
(1) Research designs are, by and large, consistently inadequate. Concurrent validation is done more often than predictive; if there are circumstances where concurrent validity may
be accepted as a reasonable substitute for predictive validity,
those circumstances most assuredly are not those in which
personality measures are used in the role of predictors! The
criterion measures are typically inappropriate, suggesting that
personality measures have often been used where no serious
hypothesizing has been done ; since personality measures are
motivational, they should predict motivational aspects of work
-approach behavior or avoidance behavior. Turnover and absenteeism are perhaps reasonably good measures of avoidance

Sentence Completion

deputy sheriffs

dept. store
floor mgrs.

policemen

Rosenzweig P-F
(6 scales)

/11

53

129

(a) peer ratings corr. (60 rs)

(3); (b) supervisory ratings
(3)

76

supervisors

peer ratings

(a) rating; (b)

tenure

.58

- .60

(a) extpun, -.31;

intpun, .28; ego
def, -.48; need
pers, .38; (b)
impun, .39

N.S.
corr.

conf, -.17; (c)

ego-def, -.17;

(a) imp, 2%; (b)

11 of 60 rs signif. a t 5% level

N.S.

T =

~ ~ ~ i t s 5

corr.

corr. (6 scales
(2);
(b) ach. test;
conformity
(c) marksmanrating; 35 rs)
ship; (d) ratings

(4 m d e s

corr.

ratings

244

corr. (total
score)

Method

engineers

sales data

Criterion

65

dealer salesmen

Job

Rorschach (S-0)
(10 measures)

~~

Picture Arr. Test

Test

TABLE 2
Summary of Validities of Projective Measures

No

Hicks & Stone,

1962

No
C

Sinaiko, 1954

No

No

Bass, et al., 1951

DuBois & Watson, 1954

No

--

--

Kirkpatrick, 1956

No

Miner, 1962

Reference

--

VJ cvc
--

P
0

P
T

v)

~~

53

inside salesmen

factory workers

66

(0)

(b)

production

corr. (weighted
wording key)

corr. (2 categories on PH
vs. criterion)
(c)

.61

.a

(a) .66
(b) .65

Ip

Ic

No

No

Peck t Parsons,
1956

Peck & Parsons,

1956

Worbois & Kanous, 1954

No

(a) group comp. ; N.S.

(b) corr.

(a) promotion;
(b) ratings

Spencer &Worthington, 1952

No

(a) .34
@) .31

cow. (2 categories on PH vs.

criterion)

sales

(a) tenure; (b)

factory workers (a) 2! production data

129

salesmen

Davids & Mahoney, 1957

No

aff syn., -.73;

C
alienation: N. S.;
neg empl attitude, .70

corr.

accidents

N.S. = Not significant, or, if more than one, none significant a t the 5% level.
b Validity; P = predictive validity and C = concurrent validity.
* Cross-validation or replication, yes or no.

Worthington Personal History

34

industrial
workers

Test

45

foremen

auto salesmen

100

foremen

Personal Inventory

358

office workers

749

358

97

IBM operators

office workers

67

54

taxicab drivers

taxicab drivers

Job

Job Preference
Inventory

Interest Inventory

gross earnings

turnover: (a)
3 mos.; (b)
12 mos.

ranked

job level

turnover: (a)
3 mos.; (b)
12 mos.

(a) job satisfaction; (b)

ratings

accidents

sales

% of total

Criterion

corr.

corr.

con.

corr.

corr.

corr.

scales)

corr. (4

con.

Method

.44

.26

(a) .19
(b) .19

(b) N.S.

(4

N.S.

N.S.

.31

ResultP

Summary of Validities of Special Inventories

-

TABLE 3

Ghiselli &Brown,
1952

Kreidt & Gadel,

1953
Yes Kennedy, 1958

No

Yes Cuomo t Meyer,

1955

Yes Cuomo, 1955

3n

ifP

Yes Kreidt & Gadel,

1953

_
.

Yes Gadel & Kreidt,

1952

No

-_

Reference

Yes Brown & Ghiselli,

1953

CVC

cn

cera

(a) ratings;
(b) creativity checklist
(c) patent
disclosures

49

I (a). 60

corr.
I1 (a) .38
(b)
I11 (a) N.S.
'3) 3 6

(b) -49

(a) .613
(b) .521
(c) .517

corr.

promotion rate group comp. self potency (1%)

(3 scales)
(other 2 scales
N.S.)

I. 89 (a) ratings;
11.58
(b) tenure

100

N.S. = Not significant, or, if more than one, none significant at the 5% level.
Validity; P = predictive validity and C = concurrent validity.
Cross-validation or replication, yes or no.

I foreign serv. 06-

foreign serv. clerical workers

gineers

I scientists Q: en-

Yes Walther, 1962

Yes Walther, 1961

Yes Smith, Albright,

Glennon,
&
Owens, 1961

%Q

signif. a t 1% level;
maintained significance in second
cross-validation and
in generalization to
3 other plants

group comp.

turnover

significant, both
groups
.21 or .26, depending
on how weighted
.47

chi square

corr.
corr.

ratings and administrative action

salary increase

ratings

Overseas jobs, two

classifications

Various

Service station
dealers

.83

corr.

turnover

Bakery route salesmen

No

Soar, 1956

Yes Scollay, 1956

Yes Mandell, Duckworth, Leonard,

& Lehr, 1956

Yes Livingstone, 1955

Yes Dunnette &

Maetzold, 1955

No

Kerr & Martin,

1954

.35

corr.

ratings

244

Mfg. employees

Yes Kreidt & Gadel,

1953

(a) .37
(b) .29

corr.

Office workers

Turnover: (a) 3
mos.; (b) 12mos.

Reference

358

100

Cannery workers,
seasonal

cP
_
.

Yes Mosel, 1952

Results"

CR = 5.69 (1%)

Method

group comp.

Criterion

selling cost

Sales clerks

Job

TABLE 4
Summary of Validities Using Personal History Data

turnover

group comp. (males

and females studied separately)

signif., both groups,

a t 1% level

old key, N.S.; new

key, .57

2 of 26 r's signif. a t
5% level

corr., 13 items
treated separately
corr.

no. dependents .42;2

other items N.S. in
cross-validation

1 .32
I .51

corr.

1 corr.

= not significant.
Validity; P = predictive validity and C = concurrent validity.
8 Cross-validation or replication, yes or no.

* N.S.

188

50-208 turnover

Office workers

Office workers

48-68 (a) ratings; (b)

promotion dichotomy

Furnace operators

absenteeism

220

110

turnover

116

Managers
Office workers
-

Office workers

ratings

30
con.

N.S.

corr.

5 of 19 items signif. a t
5% level

corr.

ratings

ratings

(a) signif. a t 1%
(b) .42

corr.

(a) group comp.; (b)

turnover

Secretaries

59

Salesmen

85

Office workers
No

McCarty, 1957c

No

Lewis, MacKinney,
& Wolins, 1960

Shott, Albright, &

Glennon, 1963

Yes Wernimont, 1962

--

1959

P Yes Naylor & Vincent,

_
.
-

~~

I P I Yes I Scollay, 1957

I P I Yes I Minor, 1958

P Yes McCarty, 1957d

--

158

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

behavior, but where in this summary is a direct measure

of approach behavior used as the criterion?* In this sample
not only are clearly thought-out relationships between predictors and criterion uncommon, and not only are such hypotheses as do exist tested only by the expedient hurry-up
method, but also there has been little evidence of a desire to
check on the convenient and expedient through systematic
replication and follow-up research.
Even without these flaws nearly every study may be criticized as following the traditional paradigm of testing for a
relationship between the test and a criterion. Certainly, more
imaginative designs might well reflect the undoubtedly complex relationship between motivational variables, situational
variables, ability variables, and behavior. A growing body of
literature suggests that motivational variables may serve
better in the role of moderator variables than as predictors
(Guion, 1965) ; attention, too, should be given to ipsative scoring models (Hughes & Dodd, 1961) or to the comparison of
variance as well as of means (Hedberg & Baxter, 1957).
(2) The rawest form of situational empiricism, despite growing unrest with it, still seems to result in better prediction than
more sophisticated psychological theory. Tests based upon
personality theories-e.g., the Guilford series, the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule, or the Study of Values-have
not shown predictive validity with the regularity of the
weighted application blanks. This might be because the
personality theories represented are not specifically relevant to
the work situation; if so, the implication is that such a theory
should be advanced. It must be admitted that industrial
psychology lacks a general theory of work; it lacks a more
specific theory of the relationship of motivational constructs
to the behavior of an individual at his job; and it lacks even
a substantial body of research explicitly aimed toward the
development of such theories. In this vacuum, it is no wonder
that raw empiricism is still an essential ingredient of practical
personnel research. If the problem lies in the lack of relevance
'Perhaps the answer is Dugan (1961) whose ratings included one on energy
and vigor.

GUION AND GOTTIER

159

of existing theories, then the solution must surely lie in the

design of research that will lead to a relevant theory.
It might be due simply to the carelessness of research design.
It seems likely that the specially-developed keys for existing
inventories or for application blanks or personal history inventories developed within specific settings represent desperation efforts to solve specific problems. If so, these studies may
have been more carefully designed and executed, with the obvious implication being that all such personnel research should
be competently done in accordance with well conceived designs.
Or it might lie simply in the traditional choice of criteria.
The developers of weighted application blanks more commonly validate against behavioral criteria (turnover or absenteeism) while test users more commonly validate against
ratings of proficiency (essentially the economic consequence of
behavior).
Whatever the reason, the point still remains: a home-made
personality or interest measure, carefully and competently
developed for a specific situation, is a better bet for prediction
than is a standard personality measure with a standard system
of scoring. This observation will surprise no one who has done
both kinds of validation; it is a commonplace observation
among those well-trained and experienced in psychometrics
in employment practice. But it raises an often-ignored question: is this state of affairs inherent in the nature of the relationship between personality and work, or is it possible that
serious, concerted effort might yield more generalized systems
of prediction using personality measures. The present writers
lean toward the latter possibility.
(3) Of greatest importance, it must be concluded that,
taken as a whole, there is no generalizable evidence that personality measures can be recommended as good or practical
tools for employee selection. The number of significance tests
resulting in acceptable statements of validity is greater than
might be expected by pure chance-but not much. The best
that can be said is that in some situations, for some purposes,
some personality measures can offer helpful predictions. But
there is nothing in this summary to indicate in advance which

160

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

measure should be used in which situation or for which purpose.

I n short, it must be concluded (as always) that the validity
of any personality measure must be specifically and competently determined for the specific situation in which it is
to be used and for the specific purpose or criterion within
that situation.
The same, of course, can be said of any sort of test or
predictor. The writers, however, suspect that the matter is
a more serious problem with personality tests than with others.
If the test specialist is wrong about an aptitude test and uses
it anyway, the worst that is likely to happen is that it will be
invalid. With a personality test, however, negative validities
may well exist and be unknown. For example, is it probable
that Campbell, Otis, Liske, and Prien (1962) expected the
needs for affiliation or dominance to be negatively related to
the ratings on social skills?
I n brief, it is difficult in the face of this summary to advocate, with a clear conscience, the use of personality measures
in most situations as a basis for making employment decisions
about people. It seems clear that the only acceptable reason for
using personality measures as instruments of decision is found
only after doing considerable research with the measure in
the specific situation and for the specific purpose for which
it is to be used. Sometimes, unvalidated personality measures
are used as instruments of decision because of clinical insight
or of gullibility or superstition or of evidence accumulated in
some other setting. All of these may be equally condemned unless specific situational data can be gathered that the insight,
superstition, or borrowed validity is in fact predictive.
References
ASH, P. Validity Information Exchange, No. 13-05. Personnel Psychology,
XI11 (1960), 454.
BASS,B. M. Validity Information Exchange, No. 10-25. Personnel Psychology,
X (1957), 343-344.
BASS, B. M., KARSTENDIEK,
BARBARA,
MCCULLOUGH,
G., AND PRUITT,R. C.
Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-024. Personnel Psychology, VII
(1954), 159-160.
BOYD,J. B. Interests of Engineers Related to Turnover, Selection, and
Management. Journat of AppZied Psychology, XLV (1960, 143-149.
BRAYFIELD,
A. H. AND MARSH,MARYM. Aptitudes, Interest, and Personality

GUION AND GOTTIER

161

Characteristics of Farmers. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (19571,

98-103.

BROMER,
J. A., JOHNSON,
J. M., AND SEVRANSKY,
P. Validity Information Exchange, No. 15-02. Personnel Psychology, XV (1962), 107-109.
BROWN,
C. W. AND GHISELLI,E. E. The Prediction of Proficiency of Taxicab
Drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 437-439.
BRUCE,M. M. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-079. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 425-426.
BUTTERFIELD,
E. C. AND WARREN,
SUEA. The Use of the MMPI in the Selection of Hospital Aides. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI (1962),
34-40.

BUTTERFIELD,
E. C. AND WARREN,
SUE A. Prediction of Attendant Tenure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVII (19631, 101-103.
CAMPBELL,
J. T., OTIS, J. L., LISKE,R. E., AND PRIEN,
E. P. Assessments of
Higher Level Personnel : 11. Validity of the Over-all Assessment Process.
Personnel Psychology, XV (1962), 63-74.
CAMPBELL,
J. T., PRIEN,E. P., AND BRAILEY,
L. G. Predicting Performance
Evaluations. Personnel Psychology, XI11 (1960), 435-440.
CARTER,
G. C. Measurement of Supervisory Behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, XXXVI (19521,393-395.
COMREY,
A. L. AND HIGH,W. S. Validity of Some Ability and Interest Scores.
Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIX (1955), 247-248.
CUADRA,
C. A. AND REED,C. F. Prediction of Psychiatric Aide Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (19571,195-197.
CUOMO,
SYLVIA.
Validity Information Exchange, No. 8-17. Personnel Psychology, VIII (1955), 268.
CUOMO,
SYLVIA
AND MEYER,
H. H. Validity Information Exchange, No. 8-16.
Personnel Psychology, VIII (1955), 267.
DAVIDS,
A. AND MAHONEY,
J. T. Personality Dynamics and Accident Proneness in an Industrial Setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (1957),
303-306.

DUBOIS,P. H. AND WATSON,

R. I. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-75.
Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 414-416.
DUGAN,
R. D. Validity Information Exchange, No. 14-41. Personnel Psychology, XIV (1961), 213-216.
DUNNETTE,
M. D. Personnel Management. Annual Review of Psychology,
XI11 (1962), 285-314.
DUNNETTE,
M. D. AND AYLWARD,
M. S. Validity Information Exchange, No. 921. Personnel Psychology, I X (1956), 245-247.
DUNNETTE,
M. D. AND KIRCHNER,
W. K. Psychological Test Differences Between Industrial Salesmen and Retail Salesmen. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIV (1960), 121-125.
DUNNETTE,
M. D. AND MAETZOLD,
J. Use of a Weighted Application Blank in
Hiring Seasonal Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIX
(1955), 308-310.

FITZPATRICK,
E. D.

AND

MCCARTY,
J. J. Validity Information Exchange, No.

8-35. Personnel Psychology, VIII (1955),501-504.

GADEL,
MARGUERITE
S. AND KRIEDT,
P. 11. Relationships of Aptitude, Interest,
Performance, and Job Satisfaction of IBM Operators. Personnel Psychology, V (1952), 207-212.

162

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

GHISELLI,E. E. AND BARTHOL,

R. P. The Validity of Personality Inventories
in the Selection of Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVIII
(1953),18aO.
GHISELLI,E. E. AND BROWN,
C. W. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-078.
Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 422-424.
GOODSTEIN,
L. D. AND SCHRADER,
W. J. An Empirically-Devised Managerial
Key for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, XLVII (1963),42-45.
GRANT,
D. L. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-085. Personnel Psychology,
VII (1954), 557-558. (a)
GRANT,
D.L. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-086. Personnel Psychology,
VII (1954), 559-560. (b)
GUILFORD,
JOAN
S. Temperament Traits of Executives and Supervisors Measured by the Guilford Personality Inventories. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (19521,228-233.
GUION,R. M. Personnel Testing. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.
HARRELL,
T. W.The Relation of Test Scores to Sales Criteria. Personnel
Psychology, XI11 (1960), 65-69.
EIEDBERQ,
R. AND BAXTER,B. A Second Look at Personality Test Validation.
Personnel Psychology, X (1957), 157-160.
HICKS,J. A. AND STONE,
J. B. The Identification of Traits Related to Managerial Success. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI (19621,428-432.
HILTON,A. C., BOLIN,S. F., PARKER,
J. W., Jr., TAYLOR,
E. K., AND WALKER,
W. B. The Validity of Personnel Asseamnents by Professional Psychologists. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIX (1955), 287-293.
HUEBNER,
JOANNE.
Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-089. Personnel Psychology, VII (1955), 565-566.
HUGHES,J. L. AND DODD,W. E. Validity versus Stereotype: Predicting Sales
Performance by Ipsative Scoring of a Personality Test. Personnel Psychology, XIV (1961),343-355.
HUGHES,
J. L. AND MCNAMARA,
W. J. Limitations on the Use of Strong Sales
Keys for Selection and Counseling. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLII
(1958), 93-96.
KENNEDY,
J. E. A General Device versus More Specific Devices for Selecting
Car Salesmen. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLII (1958), 206-209.
KERR,W.A. AND MABTIN,H. L. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-069.
Personnel Psychology, VII (1954),403-404.
KIRCHNER,
W. K. AND DUNNETTE,
M. D. Applying the Weighted Application
Blank Technique to a Variety of Office Jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (1957),206-208.
KIRKPATRICK,
J. J. Validation of a Test Battery for the Selection and Placement of Engineers. Personnel Psychology, I X (1956), 211-227.
KRIEDT,
P. H. AND DAWSON,
R. I. Response Set and the Prediction of Clerical
Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLV (19611, 175-178.
KRIEDT,
P. H. AND GADEL,
MARGUERITE
S. Prediction of Turnover among Clerical Workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 338-340.
LEWIS, E. C., MACKINNEY,
A. C., AND WOLINS,L. Validity Information Exchange, No. 15-03. Personnel Psychology, XI11 (19601, 449-450.
LIVINQBTONE,
D. G. Validity Information Exchange, No. 8-27. Personnel Psychology, VIII (19551,383.
LOCKE,E. A. AND HULIN,C. L. A Review and Evaluation of the Validity

GUlON AND GOTTIER

163

Studies of Activity Vector Analysis. Personnel Psychology, XV (1962),

25-42.
MACKINNFX,
A. C. AND WOLINS,L. Validity Information Exchange, No. 13-01.
Personnel Psychology, XI11 (1960),443-447.
MCCARTY,
J. J. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-077. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954),42C-421.
MCCARTY,
J. J. Validity Information Exchange, No. 10-14. Personnel Psychology, X (1957),202-203. (a)
MCCARTY,
J. J. Validity Information Exchange, No. 10-15. Personnel Psychology, X (1957),204-205. (b)
J. J. Validity Information Exchange, No. 10-17. Personnel PsyMCCARTY,
chology, X (19571,207.(c)
MCCABTY,J. J. Validity Information Exchange, No. 10-24. Personnel Psychology, X (1957), 341-342. (d)
MCCARTY,
J. J. AND FITZPATRICK,
E. D. Validity Information Exchange, No.
9-26. Personnel Psychology, I X (19561,253-254.
MCCARTY,
J. J., WESTBERO,
W. C., AND FITZPATRICK,
E. D. Validity Information
Exchange, No. 7-091. Personnel Psychology, VII (19541, 568-569.
MCNAMARA,
W. J. AND HUGHES,
J. L. A Review of the Research on the Seleetion of Computer Programmers., Personnel Psychology, XIV (19611, 3951.
MAHER,H.Validity Information Exchange, No. 16-01. Personnel Psychology,
XVI (1963), 71-73. (a)
MAHER,H.Validity Information Exchange, No. 16-02. Personnel Psychology,
XVI (19631,7477.(b)
PAULINE,
LEONARD,
GRACEC., AND LEHR,ELAINE.
MANDELL,
M., DUCKWORTH,
Validity Information Exchange, No. 4-41. Personnel Psychology, I X
(1956), 517.
MINER,J. B. The Kuder Preference Record in Management Appraisal.
Personnel Psychology, XI11 (1960), 187-196.
MINER,J. B. Personality and Ability Factors in Sales Performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, XLVI (1962),6-13.
MINOR,F. J. The Prediction of Turnover of Clerical Employees. Personnel
Psychology, X I (1958),393-402.
MOSEL,J. N. Prediction of Department Stores Sales Performance from
Personal Data. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (1952), 8-10.
NAYLOR,
J. C. AND VINCENT,N. L. Predicting Female Absenteeism. Personnel
Psychology, XI1 (1959),81-84.
PARKER,
J. W., JR.Psychological and Personal History Data Related to Accident Records of Commercial Truck Drivers. Journul of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 317-320.
PECK,
R. F. AND PARSONS,
J. W. Personality Factors in Work Output: Four
Studies of Factory Workers. Personnel Psychology, I X (1956), 49-79.
PERRINE,
M. W. The Selection of Drafting Trainees. J m m l of Applied
Psychology, XXXIX (1955), 57-61.
POE,W. A. AND BERQ,I. A. Psychological Test Performance of Steel Industw
Production Supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (1952),
234237.
ROBBINS,J. E. AND KINO,
D. C. Validity Information Exchange, No. 14-02,
Personnel Psychology, XIV (1961),217-219.

164

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

SCOLLAY,
R. W. Validation of Personal History Items Against a Salary Increase Criterion. Personnel Psychology, I X (1956), 325-336.
SCOLLAY,
R. W. Personal History Data as a Predictor of Success. Personnel
Psychology, X (1957),23-26.
SHOTT,G. L., ALBRIGHT,
L. E., AND GLENNON,
J. R. Predicting Turnover in an
Automated Office Situation. Personnel Psychology, XVI (1963), 213-219.
SINAIPO,H. W. Validity Information Exchange, No. 7-071. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 407-408.
SMITH,W. J., ALBRIGHT,
L. E., GLENNON,
J. R., AND OWENS,W. A. The Prediction of Research Competence and Creativity from Personal History.
Journal of Applied Psychology, XLV (1961), 59-62.
SOAR,
R. W. Personal History Data as a Predictor of Success in Service Station Management. Journal of Applied Psychology, XL (1956), 383-385.
SPENCER,
G. J. AND WORTHINGTON,
R. Validity of a Projective Technique in
Predicting Sales Effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, V (1952), 125-144.
SPRIEGEL,
W. R. AND DALE,A. G. Trends in Personnel Selection and Induction. Personnel, XXX (1953), 169-175.
STERNE,
D. M. Use of the Kuder Preference Record-Personal with Police
Officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIV (1960), 323-324.
TAYLOR,
E. K. AND SCHNEIDER,
DOROTHY
E. Validity Information Exchange, No.
7-023. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 158.
TIFFIN,J. AND PHELAN,
R. F. Use of the Kuder Preference Record to Predict
Turnover in an Industrial Plant. Personnel Psychology, VI (19531, 195204.
VAN LEEUWEN,
E. Validity Information Exchange, No. 9-36. Personnel Psychology, I X (1956), 381-382.
VINCENT,
N. L. AND DUGAN,
R. D. Validity Information Exchange, No. 15-03.
Personnel Psychology, XV (1962), 22S225.
WAGNER,
E. E. Predicting Success for Young Executives from Objective Test
Scores and Personal Data. Personnel Psychology, XI11 (1960), 181-186.
WALTHER,
R. EL. Self-Description as a Predictor of Success or Failure in
Foreign Service Clerical Jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLV
(19611, 1621.
WALTHER,
R. H. Self-Description as a Predictor of Rate of Promotion of
Junior Foreign Service Officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI
(1962), 314-316.
WERNIMONT,
P. F. Re-evaluation of a Weighted Application Blank for Office
Personnel. J o u m l of Applied Psychology, XLVI (1962), 417-419.
WESTBERG,
W. C., FITZPATRICP,
E. D., AND MCCARTY,
J. J. Validity Information
Exchange, No. 7-073. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 411412. (a)
E. D., AND MCCARTY,
J. J. Validity Information
WESTBERG,
W. C., FITZPATRICP,
Exchange, No. 7-087. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 561-562. (b)
WILSON,J. E. Evaluating a Four Year Sales-Selection Program. Personnel
Psychology, XI1 (1959), 97-104.
WORBOIS,
G. M. AND KANOUS,
L. E. The Validity of the Worthington Personal
History for a Sales Job. Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 209-217.
WRIGHT,M. W., SISLER,G. C., AND CHYLINSKI,
JOANNE.
Personality Factors
in the Selection of Civilians for Isolated Northern Stations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, XLVII (19631,2629.