Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APPLICATIONS
A Dissertation
by
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2004
APPLICATIONS
A Dissertation
by
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
_________________________ _______________________
Daniel Brossart Winfred Arthur, Jr.
(Chair of Committee) (Member)
_________________________ _______________________
Michael Duffy Cecil Reynolds
(Member) (Member)
_________________________
Victor L. Willson
(Head of Department)
August 2004
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
support.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
and I truly appreciate all that you have done for me. I
your own career path to get to where you are today are
inspirational.
this project. Thank you for investing such time and energy
vii
and help. Thanks to Dr. Michael Duffy for the support and
that I learned from you on a daily basis and you have been
support.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
DEDICATION v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions 5
III METHOD 37
Participants 37
Instruments 39
Job Performance 42
Procedure 44
Data Analysis 45
ix
CHAPTER Page
IV RESULTS 52
REFERENCES 114
APPENDIX A 122
APPENDIX B 123
APPENDIX C 124
APPENDIX D 125
APPENDIX E 126
APPENDIX F 127
APPENDIX G 128
APPENDIX H 129
APPENDIX I 130
APPENDIX J 131
APPENDIX K 132
x
Page
APPENDIX L 133
APPENDIX M 134
APPENDIX N 135
APPENDIX O 136
VITA 137
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
TABLE Page
17 R2 and Adjusted-R2 74
TABLE Page
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
selection.
__________________
p. 612).
3
Research Questions
selection?
questions, effective?
6
CHAPTER II
the time (p < .001) and that the IPI could accurately
Furthermore, they found that the IPI and MMPI could also be
and High Anxiety vs. Low Anxiety (AX) were all predictive
the EPI.
the job.
quite likely that what Norman (1963) offered many years ago
Table 1
2. Agreeableness 2. Agreeableness
4. Conscientiousness 4. Conscientiousness
the Big Five and job performance criteria (Barrick & Mount,
than conscientiousness.
procedure itself.
personnel selection.
the control variables and the Big Five traits accounted for
drug and alcohol use). Salgado also found that the lack of
agreeableness with rho = .22. The data suggest that the FFM
productivity.
related tasks.
analysis.
use the argument that test manuals indicate that the Big
not formally part of the job and working with others within
.41. This evidence lends support to the idea that task and
performance.
.15 - .18) and the same was found for emotional stability
RIASEC Theory
impact on performance.
Situational Constraints
thought.
Score Correcting
purposes.
traits.
Legal Issues
settings but differ from the MMPI in that they are less
stated:
Statement of Problem
profile matching.
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Participants
in Table 2.
39
Table 2.
Instruments
settings.
length. Items were also reviewed for gender and racial bias
ranged from .64 to .85 with a mean .74. The standard error
the 16PF were developed long before the advent of the Big
Job Performance
was thriving during the period of time when the data were
involuntarily terminated.
Procedure
ensured. The only data that were collected were the gender
groups. Data analysis was conducted using the SPSS and SAS
statistical packages.
Data Analysis
1986; von Eye 1990). Some measures call for the aggregation
1. Hired Applicants
2. Non-Hired Applicants
3. Hired Assistant Press Operator Applicants
4. Non-Hired Assistant Press Operator Applicants
5. Current Employees
6. Involuntarily Terminated Employees
7. Current Assistant Press Operators
8. Involuntarily Terminated Assistant Press
Operators
calculating the effect size (d) for the scores from the two
Table 3
effective.
Hired Successful
Applicants Employees
Similar Different
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Table 4
that the overall shape of the two profiles were again found
Table 5
Table 6
that the overall shape of the two profiles was again found
Table 7
were again met. A test of the full model with all sixteen
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Additional Analysis
Table 11
the two profiles should be low and the effect sizes should
(2001) were again met. A test of the full model with five
67
Table 12
The odds ratio for Factors H and L (2.19 and 2.38) indicate
Table 13
the two profiles should be low and the effect size should
|d|= 0.47).
Table 14
(2001) were again met. A test of the full model with five
predicted success at the p < .05 level. The odds ratios for
particular category.
Table 15
Questions
the five narrow factors which were the best predictors from
Table 16
Job-Specific (APO)
16 Factors ** *** ** 0.37 0.92
*5 Narrow Factors 19.51 (p=0.0015) 85.1% H, L, and Q4 0.57 0.96
5 Broad Factors 10.66 (p=0.0584) *** None 0.50 0.94
Company-Wide
16 Factors 32.52 (p=0.0085) 86.1% H, L, and Q4 0.31 0.93
*5 Narrow Factors 23.15 (p=0.0003) 80.7% H, L, and Q2 0.47 0.98
5 Broad Factors 8.45 (p=0.1331) *** None 0.30 0.99
* Five strongest predictors from the 16 narrow factors.
** Model did not converge.
*** Model as a whole is not statistically significant at the p<.05 level.
the two profiles were similar (in the .092 to 0.99 range),
adjusted-R2:
(n 1)
R 2 = 1 (1 R 2 )
(n k 1)
Table 17
R2 and Adjusted-R2
Groups R2 Adjusted-R2 Corrected for k
Job-Specific (APO)
16 Factors 0.459 0.149
*5 Narrow Factors 0.353 0.270 0.000
5 Broad Factors 0.219 0.119
Company-Wide
16 Factors 0.334 0.156
*5 Narrow Factors 0.257 0.205 0.059**
5 Broad Factors 0.108 0.045
* Five best factors from the 16 narrow factors.
**k = 16 instead of 5 in the adjusted-R2 formula.
company-wide comparisons.
question:
level.
the two profiles is very similar and the means are highly
|d|= 0.12).
77
Table 18
Descriptive Analysis: Hired vs. Successful (16)
95% Confidence Cor-
Range Interval for d rected
Variable Mean SD Lower Upper d Lower Upper d r
A -0.13 -0.46 0.20 -0.16 -0.06
Hired 5.26 1.77 1 9
Successful 5.50 1.95 1 9
B -0.27 -0.60 0.06 -0.31 -0.12
Hired 4.62 2.03 1 10
Successful 5.18 2.15 2 10
C -0.16 -0.49 0.16 -0.18 -0.07
Hired 7.40 1.36 4 9
Successful 7.62 1.32 5 9
E 0.10 -0.23 0.42 0.12 0.04
Hired 5.95 1.95 1 10
Successful 5.76 2.07 2 10
F -0.02 -0.35 0.31 -0.02 -0.01
Hired 6.07 1.55 2 9
Successful 6.10 1.37 4 9
G 0.12 -0.21 0.44 0.14 0.05
Hired 7.28 1.52 4 9
Successful 7.10 1.57 4 9
H 0.05 -0.27 0.38 0.05 0.03
Hired 6.95 1.66 3 9
Successful 6.86 1.82 3 9
I 0.04 -0.29 0.37 0.05 0.02
Hired 3.79 1.75 1 10
Successful 3.72 1.70 1 10
L 0.17 -0.16 0.50 0.20 0.08
Hired 5.18 1.78 2 9
Successful 4.88 1.71 2 9
M 0.03 0.29 0.36 0.03 0.01
Hired 4.21 1.57 2 8
Successful 4.16 1.57 2 7
N 0.19 -0.13 0.52 0.22 -0.09
Hired 4.88 1.62 1 9
Successful 4.56 1.70 1 9
O -0.03 -0.35 0.30 -0.03 -0.01
Hired 4.14 1.66 1 9
Successful 4.18 1.38 1 7
Q1 0.01 -0.31 0.34 0.01 0.01
Hired 5.30 1.67 2 10
Successful 5.28 1.65 2 9
Q2 0.07 -0.25 0.40 0.08 0.03
Hired 3.88 1.60 1 9
Successful 3.76 1.67 1 9
Q3 -0.01 -0.34 0.31 -0.01 -0.01
Hired 7.10 1.37 2 9
Successful 7.12 1.37 4 9
Q4 0.24 -0.09 0.56 0.28 0.11
Hired 3.01 1.52 1 8
Successful 2.66 1.35 1 6
78
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
that the overall shape of the two profiles was again found
unsuccessful.
83
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
that the overall shape of the two profiles was again found
Table 28
Table 29
that the overall shape of the two profiles was again found
Table 30
Table 31
Table 32
Table 33
Table 34
unsuccessful employees.
100
CHAPTER V
the company-wide level. This was despite the fact that the
environment.
made using the five best predictors from the 16PF (the
personnel selection.
wide level.
Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). The fact that none of the five
stronger predictors.
106
presented in Figure 2.
Ideal Results
Similar Different
to be supported.
Limitations
employment status.
the factors from the 16PF could have been even more
found.
in this manner.
REFERENCES
Walsh, W.B. & Betz, N.E. (1995). Tests and assessment (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
122
APPENDIX A
VITA
Matthew L. Shelton
EDUCATION
1997-present Doctor of Philosophy (Expected: Aug. 2004)
Counseling Psychology
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
APA Accredited Program
DOCTORAL INTERSHIP
2000-2001 Houston VA Medical Center
Houston, TX
POST-DOCTRAL FELLOWSHIP
2004-2005 Harris County MHMRA (expected)
In Juvenile Forensic Psychology