JobFitAssessments JobFitManual

Technical and Administrative Manual for
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment
Ken Lahti, M.S.

Rose Mueller-Hanson, Ph.D.
Eric D. Heggestad, Ph.D.
Kimberly Hastey, M.S.
ADP Screening and Selection Services

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
Chapter 2: Development of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment 7
Chapter 3: Testing and Scoring Procedures 9
Chapter 4: Interpreting Test Scores 10
Chapter 5: Reliability Evidence 22
Chapter 6: Validity Evidence 24
Chapter 7: Applications 34
References 38
Appendix A: Job Fit Items 41
Appendix B: Norms and Percentile Scores 43
Appendix C: Occupational Category Descriptions for Standard 45
Benchmarks
ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 2 of 45

Chapter 1: Introduction
General Overview
Businesses and industries of all sizes function today in a highly competitive environment. To
survive and succeed, companies must fully capitalize on their biggest asset – their employees.
Effective personnel selection or screening processes are an important first step toward ensuring
that the people an organization hires are likely to be successful in their jobs and remain with the
company as valuable contributors. In general, personnel selection attempts to match important
characteristics of people to the particular demands of jobs – that is, to maximize “job fit” among
new hires – by choosing candidates whose personal characteristics make them best suited for
the available positions.
Personality tests are one kind of personnel selection tool for accomplishing the goal of improved
job fit. Personality tests measure personality traits – characteristics of people that reflect their
attitudes, beliefs, and typical behavior patterns. Traits such as extroversion and assertiveness,
for example, can be used to describe meaningful and relatively stable characteristics of people
– characteristics that are potentially important in the workplace. To the extent that people are in
jobs that require them to engage in behaviors that are consistent with their general patterns of
behaving and responding (i.e., good job fit), they can be expected to perform better, be more
satisfied with their job, and be less likely to turnover. Thus, personality tests are useful because
they can be combined with information about job requirements to help determine which job
candidates may be more comfortable and more successful in a given position. Interestingly,
prior research has shown that people’s levels of various personality traits are largely
independent of their skill or ability levels (e.g., Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ackerman,
Kanfer, & Goff, 1995; Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1994; Ones, Schmidt, & Viswesvaran, 1993).
Thus, personality assessments have the additional benefit that they can provide unique and
valuable information about job candidates in addition to information about their skill or ability
levels, further improving the potential for good job fit among new hires (e.g., Murphy & Shiarella,
1997; Ones, Schmidt, & Viswesvaran, 1993).
To assist organizations in the process of improving job fit for their new hires, ADP Screening
and Selection Services offers ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is a
personality test that measures five personality traits: Achievement Striving, Assertiveness,
Dependability, Extroversion, and Stress Tolerance. These traits are included because they have
been shown to be important across a variety of jobs, organizations, and industries; large-scale
research studies have demonstrated that personality traits such as these are related to a variety
of important workplace outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992; Tett, Jackson, &
Rothstein, 1991). In addition, empirical research (Hastey, Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Lahti,
2001) has shown ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is a reliable and valid measure of these five traits.
This evidence is reviewed in Chapters 5 and 6 of this manual. Together, these results suggest
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is a useful tool for helping organizations make personnel selection
decisions.
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is unique among personnel selection tests as a targeted measure of
work-related facets of personality. While there are other tests available that measure personality
characteristics, most do not contain item content that is explicitly work-related. Rather, items
from these tests usually ask respondents about their behavior in general, rather than specifically
at work. The generality of such items could cause adverse reactions from test takers, in a pre-
employment setting, who may not see these tests as relevant or fair screening procedures for
the job for which they are applying (Rynes & Connerly, 1993). In addition, since the goal of

personality testing in organizational settings is to predict the future work behavior of candidates
(job fit), the fact that the items ask about behavior in general may reduce their predictive power
relative to items that are more precisely tailored to the work context. Therefore, to make the test
seem relevant to job candidates and to maximize the predictive potential of the personality traits
being assessed, items for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment have been written to be work-related
whenever possible.
Another advantage of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment over other commercially available personality
tests is the speed with which job candidates can be assessed. The entire assessment consists
of only 60 items (five scales consisting of 12 items each) to which candidates respond with a
simple 0 to 4 rating scale. Total time required for the assessment is approximately 10 to 15
minutes.
Theoretical Foundations
Five personality traits were chosen for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment based on prior research on
personality and job performance: Achievement Striving, Assertiveness, Dependability,
Extroversion, and Stress Tolerance. These traits were chosen from among the dimensions and
sub-dimensions of the most widely accepted current model of personality – the “Big Five.” The
Big Five, also known as the Five Factor Model of personality, characterizes personality
according to five basic dimensions or traits (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae &
Costa, 1997). The traits measured by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment were chosen because they
have been found in previous research to be important for job performance for a variety of jobs.
Research supporting the use of the Big Five dimensions to predict workplace outcomes is
reviewed in Chapter 6 of this manual.
The following are the Big Five personality traits as usually defined (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Smith, Hanges & Dickson, 2001):
Agreeableness is the degree to which an individual is likeable, cooperative, good-

natured, forgiving, ready to accommodate others, caring, trusting, and tolerant.
Individuals low in agreeableness are seen as intolerant, unpleasant, critical, and cynical.
People high on this dimension tend to be altruistic, cooperative, popular, and
sympathetic to others. People low on this dimension are competitive, skeptical of others’
intentions, and tend to be egocentric. Descriptions of people high in agreeableness
might include: easy to get along with, caring, sensitive, likes people, cooperative,
forgiving, tolerant, courteous, altruistic, and not quarrelsome or argumentative.
Conscientiousness is the degree to which a person is organized, planful, meticulous,

responsible, careful, hard working, persevering, achievement-oriented, and thorough.
Highly conscientious people have a well-developed sense of ethics and integrity; they
are able to develop realistic action plans that are sensitive to time constraints and
resource availability. At extreme levels, conscientious people can be experienced as
strong-willed, zealous people who are driven, and serious, especially about work. At low
levels of conscientiousness are carefree and casual individuals who tend to live in the
‘here and now.’ People high on this dimension are purposeful, determined, strong-
willed, and controlled. People low on this dimension are more impulsive, lackadaisical in
pursuing their goals, and hedonistic. Descriptions of people high in conscientiousness
might include: virtuous, moralistic, mastery-oriented, self-disciplined, achievement
striving, thorough, perseverant, ethical, and lacking impulsivity.

Emotional Stability refers to how an individual responds to stress. Emotionally stable
people are able to deal with stressful situations, such as interpersonal conflict,
hazardous conditions, personal rejection, hostility, and time pressures, in a calm and
relaxed manner. People low on this dimension tend to experience negative affectivity
and tend to have a difficult time coping with stress. Descriptions of people high in
emotional stability might include: well adjusted, no depression, no guilt, not anxious, self-
confident, no insecurity, and strong ego. This trait is sometimes called Neuroticism,
where higher scores would indicate more neuroticism and less emotional stability.
Extroversion is the degree to which a person is energized by others, is active,

gregarious, sociable, talkative, and dominant. At the low end of the scale, introversion,
we find people who prefer solitude to the company of others, tend to be reserved, are
reluctant to engage others, and are quiet. People high on this dimension are outgoing,
active, assertive, and talkative. They are also energetic and optimistic. People low on
this dimension tend to be independent, reserved, and prefer being alone rather than
being with large groups of people. Descriptions of people high in extroversion might
include: likes parties, experience seeking, entertaining, likes crowds, warm, gregarious,
not inhibited socially, outgoing, and sociable.
Openness to experience describes people who are curious, interested in new things,
broad-minded, creative, original, and have a high tolerance for ambiguity. At the
opposite end of the scale, we find people who are dogmatic in their thinking,
unimaginative, concrete, set in their ways, narrow-minded, overly realistic, and closed.
People high on this dimension tend to be imaginative, attentive to their inner feelings,
intellectually curious, unconventional, willing to entertain new ideas, and independent in
their judgments. People low on this dimension tend to prefer conventional behavior and
be conservative in their outlook. Moreover, these individuals prefer familiar, rather than
novel things, and may have somewhat muted emotional responses. Descriptions of
people high in extroversion might include: cultured, intellectual, well-read, well educated,
imaginative, and enjoys knowledge.
The Big Five model is the predominant model of personality today and is intended to be a
comprehensive description of normal personality across a wide range of situations. Several
commercially available measures of the Big Five exist (e.g., the NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992). Rather than developing another measure of the Big Five personality traits, ADP
Screening and Selection Services has chosen to focus its Job Fit Assessment specifically on
those traits and sub-components of traits that are most likely to be useful for pre-employment
screening across a wide variety of jobs and companies. By targeting a somewhat narrower set
of traits than the Big Five, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment allows for a more focused and efficient
measurement of those traits that are most likely to be work-related.
The following are definitions of the personality traits assessed by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment:
Achievement Striving is a component of the basic personality trait of

conscientiousness. This dimension reflects a tendency to work hard, a willingness to
delay personal gratification to meet work goals, and an intrinsic desire to improve one’s
work-related skills.

Assertiveness is a component of the basic personality trait of extroversion.
Assertiveness reflects a preference for dealing with others in a direct manner,
expressing opinions openly, and taking initiative in work situations.
Dependability is a component of the basic personality trait of conscientiousness.

Dependability refers to the tendency to be punctual, reliable, and responsible at work.
Extroversion, as measured by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment, is more narrowly defined

than the Big Five Extraversion. Extroversion (for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment) can best be
described as a preference for working with others rather than alone. This dimension also
refers to the extent to which an individual enjoys situations in which he or she can
interact with others, such as company gatherings, meetings, etc.
Stress Tolerance is a component of the basic personality trait of emotional stability and
refers to how an individual handles stress at work. This dimension reflects an individual’s
resiliency in the face of demanding or difficult situations, events, or people at work.
Candidness is not one of the basic personality traits, but instead indicates the extent to
which a person’s responses on ADP’s Job Fit Assessment may have been influenced by
a desire to present a favorable impression. Because the assessment relies on
candidates to describe themselves by responding to various statements, there is a
possibility that some candidates’ responses could be influenced or biased by their desire
to appear “better” than they really are. Thus, in addition to scores on the five personality
traits, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment also includes the Candidness scale to determine the
extent to which a person responded to the assessment in a frank and candid manner.
The Candidness scale is computed from items already on the other scales, so there is
no additional time required for this valuable check on the accuracy of the assessment.
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment allows companies to rapidly and reliably measure potential
employees on five important personality traits, as well as to gauge the candidness with which
they responded to the assessment items. Scores for each trait are easily interpreted through the
use of normative information, allowing candidates to be easily compared to each other and to
the population in general. Taken together, the constellation of traits measured by ADP’s Job Fit
Assessment can paint a compelling picture of job candidates and can serve as an invaluable
component of pre-employment screening systems.
It is important to note that although personality tests such as ADP’s Job Fit Assessment can
indeed provide useful information about job candidates, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment was
designed to be used in conjunction with other screening devices (e.g., interviews, background
checks, reference checks, ability tests, etc.) when making selection decisions. No single source
of information about candidates is 100% accurate or complete, and no single score or statement
from an assessment report should be used to make recommendations or decisions in the hiring
process. In addition, the decision to assess particular personality traits such as those measured
by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment should be based on a thorough and systematic analysis of the job
requirements to ensure that the traits are relevant for performance on the job.

Chapter 2: Development of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment
Stages of Development – Overview
Originally developed under the name CheckStart in the 1970s, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment has
gone through several revisions. A substantial revision of the test was undertaken in the second
half of 2001 (Lahti, Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Hastey, 2001). The current version of the
test measures different traits than the previous versions and contains all new items; therefore,
only the development of the current version will be discussed in this manual. The new Job Fit
Assessment items were developed following a “construct-oriented” scale development
approach, and represent a substantial improvement over the previous assessment. This
development approach is discussed in detail below.
Using the construct-oriented approach to scale development, the critical first step was defining
the constructs (or traits) to be measured. Five personality traits were chosen for ADP’s Job Fit
Assessment based on prior research on personality and job performance. These traits were
defined to be work-related, consistent with the Big Five framework, and explicit enough to guide
item writing. Detailed definitions of the traits were written (see Chapter 4 for definitions) and
reviewed by a team of psychologists and experts in the area of psychological measurement.
Based on these construct definitions, the second step was item development. Item writers were
instructed to write as many short, descriptive, work-related statements as they could for each of
the five traits. This item writing procedure resulted in the development of a pool of items for
each trait.
The final step in development of the scales for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment involved an initial
evaluation of these items. The newly generated items as well as the items from the original Job
Fit Assessment were reviewed and re-classified according to the five traits, and items that could
not be consistently classified were eliminated from the item pool. After collecting pilot data from
a research sample of 102 participants, the remaining items were statistically analyzed. Of these
items, 12 items were selected for each scale to simultaneously maximize internal consistency
reliability and to measure a broad range of behaviors associated with each personality trait.
Alpha reliability coefficients for the new scales in this research sample ranged from .77 to .86.
Development of the Candidness Index

Personality tests such as ADP’s revised Job Fit Assessment are “self-report” inventories, which
means that respondents describe themselves by indicating how much they agree or disagree
with the statements/items included on the test. When using these tests for decision making
regarding potential job fit or success, an implicit assumption is that the respondents describe
themselves accurately. However, it has been well documented that some people will inflate their
self-ratings to present a more favorable impression (Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998).
These persons’ “true” standings on the personality traits may be considerably lower than the
scores they obtain. Accordingly, in the development of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment it was
important to include some method for identifying respondents who may have exaggerated their
characteristics (additional information regarding response distortion is presented in Chapter 7).
The Candidness index was developed to measure the extent to which a person may be
distorting his or her responses to present a more favorable impression. This Candidness index
is comprised of 15 existing items on ADP’s Job Fit Assessment – three items from each of the
five scales. The specific items were chosen based on research (Lahti, et al., 2001) indicating

that these items were perceived as the most desirable to employers and thus more likely to be
distorted by respondents.
The rationale behind this index as a measure of Candidness is based on probability. In

particular, it would be very unlikely for an individual to have a high standing on all of the traits
measured. Thus, if respondents rate themselves high across the five personality traits,
particularly on those items highest in desirability, they may be trying to present a positive
impression. Assessments of job candidates with high scores on the Candidness scale are
flagged, and their scores should be interpreted with appropriate caution.
Appendix A contains a list of all the items, and candidness items are marked with an *.

Chapter 3: Testing and Scoring Procedures
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment can be administered online. In the online format, scoring is
accomplished automatically and results are immediately available. Each question has five
response options (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) from which the
respondent must choose.
Online Administration Instructions

Individuals taking the test online are given step-by-step instructions for completing the
assessment. The instructions are as follows:
Read each statement carefully. Select the response that most closely matches your
feelings, attitudes, or actions. There are no right or wrong answers and your first impulse
is usually the most accurate. Work quickly without stopping to analyze each response.
This exercise will take about fifteen minutes. The results will assist your prospective
employer in determining the type of position(s) that might offer you the best opportunity
for employment success.
Warning! It is very important that you respond to this assessment honestly and
accurately. This assessment contains a scale especially designed to detect individuals
who try to “beat the test” by faking their responses. Any attempt at distorting your
responses may result in you being eliminated from further employment consideration.
While there is no time limit for the test, individuals typically take between 10 and 15 minutes to
complete the assessment. If the individual skips any questions, he or she is prompted to go
back and answer them before the test is submitted. Once the test taker has answered all of the
questions and submits the data, his or her scores are calculated automatically.
A particular challenge in the online format is ensuring standardization of testing conditions. Test
takers should be in a comfortable, well-lit location that is free from excessive noise, extreme
temperatures, and other distractions. Moreover, the test taker should be completing the
assessment without help from others. If the test is given as part of a pre-employment screening,
the applicant will ideally take the test at the employer’s place of business.
Scoring
Scoring for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is accomplished automatically. Raw scores for each
scale are converted into percentile ranks. Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of people
that the individual has scored higher than or equal to. For example, if a person’s score places
him or her at the 85th percentile, he or she has scored as high or higher than 85% of the people
in the normative group (the characteristics of the normative group are described in detail in the
next chapter).

Chapter 4: Interpreting Test Scores
Normative Information
As noted in the previous chapter, raw scores are transformed into percentile rank scores during
the scoring procedure. Percentile rank scores are particularly useful because they reveal how a
person’s score compares to other people’s scores. For instance, knowing that an applicant
received a raw score of 30 may not be all that useful, but knowing that a score of 30 means that
this applicant scored as high or higher than 54% of other people who took the test may be
particularly informative.
To transform raw scores to percentile ranks we need to have substantial information regarding
how other people have scored on the instrument – these are known as normative samples. The
normative sample consists of 146,736 job applicants and employees (note: individuals who
were identified as distorting their responses by the candidness index were not included in the
normative sample). Approximately 45% of these individuals were male, and ethnic data are
reported in Table 1. Individuals in the norm group came from across the United States and
either worked in or had applied for a wide variety of jobs, ranging from entry-level to
management positions. The industries represented in the normative group also varied widely
and included individuals in technical, service, manufacturing, retail, and sales settings.
Table 1: Ethnic Identities of the Normative Sample
Group Frequency Percent
White/Caucasian 90,198 61.5%

Native American 1,963 1.3%
Hispanic/Latino 13,504 9.2%
Black/African American 32,203 21.9%
Asian 3,984 2.7%
Other/ Not Identified 4,884 3.3%
Appendix B includes the percentile ranks associated with each possible score on each of the
five scales. Using this appendix, one can determine (for each score on the assessment) the
percentage of people that would be expected to receive the same or lower score. For example,
the data presented in the appendix suggest that people who obtain a raw score of 38 on the trait
of achievement striving have scored as high or higher than 50% of the norm group.
Interpreting an Individual’s Scores

While certainly more useful than raw scores, percentile ranks can still be difficult to interpret
without a useful frame of reference. To aid interpretation of scores from ADP’s Job Fit
Assessment, a set of general expectations for individuals with high, average, and low percentile
scores is provided. The paragraphs that follow will certainly not provide a perfect description of
any particular individual. Rather, the description is meant to illustrate features common among
individuals who score within a particular range.
Achievement Striving is a component of the basic personality trait of conscientiousness. This

dimension reflects a tendency to work hard, a willingness to delay personal gratification to meet
work goals, and an intrinsic desire to improve one’s work-related skills.

Very High Scorers (80% to 100%): Compared to the typical working adult, this individual
reports being very driven and goal-oriented. People who score in this range are likely to set
challenging professional goals and put in long hours to achieve these goals, delaying personal
gratification if necessary. They are constantly looking for ways to improve their performance
and learn new skills. Typically, they have very high expectations for themselves and others and
have a tremendous amount of pride in their work. These individuals thrive in situations that
allow them to excel and be recognized for their efforts by others. Because their work goals are
so important, they may have a tendency to put their work life over their personal life. They
typically identify heavily with their careers and would likely be very frustrated in a position where
external constraints prevented them from doing their best or where their efforts were not
appreciated or rewarded. To be satisfied in their work, they need to see the results of their
efforts.
High Scorers (60% to 79%): Compared to the typical working adult, this individual reports
being more driven and achievement-oriented than average. Individuals who score in this range
likely prefer goal-oriented environments that allow them to improve their skills and performance,
and they strive to advance in their careers. They are generally willing to put in long hours when
necessary and enjoy being challenged at work, preferring to be too busy rather than bored.
They typically thrive in environments with challenging work goals, where positive results are
recognized and rewarded. They may have difficulty balancing their personal and professional
obligations. Moreover, they would find it difficult to work in a situation where they were not
sufficiently challenged at work or where there was little opportunity for career advancement. If
they feel there are limited possibilities for growth and development, they may become frustrated.
Average Scorers (40% to 59%): Compared to the typical working adult, this individual reports
being just as driven and goal-oriented as the average person. People who score in this range
generally value a balance between work and personal responsibilities. They can typically be
expected to work hard toward organizational or team goals and will appreciate being rewarded
for individual accomplishments. Settings in which they can work towards moderately
challenging goals may be the best match for their preferences. They may find organizations
where there are strong expectations to work long hours and constantly put professional
responsibilities above personal responsibilities too intense. If others around them are extremely
driven, they may feel out of place.
Low Scorers (20% to 39%): Compared to the typical working adult, this individual reports being
slightly more relaxed about work goals than the average person. People who score in this
range can generally be expected to work toward organizational objectives, and will appreciate
being recognized for their efforts. However, they are generally not so concerned with individual
achievement that constant career advancement is necessary for their job satisfaction. They
may be reluctant to put work obligations above their personal lives on a regular basis. Though
they generally work hard, they may not be interested in continually improving their skills, and
may be satisfied with average performance ratings. They are likely to work toward goals that
others have set, but will not usually set challenging goals for themselves.
Very Low Scorers (1% to 19%): Compared to the typical working adult, this individual reports
being more relaxed about work goals than the average person. People who score in this range
generally value their personal lives, and they typically do not need to advance in their careers to
be satisfied in their work. Work situations that entail clear expectations and objectives will likely
be the best match for their level of motivation. Though they may be willing to follow
organizational work goals, they may have difficulty with setting personal career goals. They

may dislike a role that requires long hours or where it is expected that professional obligations
will take priority over personal obligations. They may prefer to put in the minimum required
effort, but nothing more. Therefore, expectations for quality and quantity of work need to be
very explicit.
Assertiveness is a component of the basic personality trait of extraversion. Assertiveness

reflects a preference for dealing with others in a direct manner, expressing opinions openly, and
taking initiative in work situations.
Very High Scorers (80% to 100%): This person can be characterized as highly assertive.
Individuals who score in this range generally are willing to challenge the ideas of others and
offer their own opinions, even when these opinions are unpopular. They can be very persuasive
and are usually very comfortable making decisions and taking initiative. A leadership or sales
role will likely be appealing to them, and they can give criticism or negative feedback when
necessary. Because of their strong personality, others may hesitate to challenge their opinions,
even when necessary. They may appear forceful and opinionated, and it can be difficult for
them to be in a subordinate role and take direction from others.
High Scorers (60% to 79%): This person can be characterized as more assertive than
average. Individuals who score in this range generally prefer to deal directly with others and
express their opinions openly. However, they are generally able to do so with tact and
consideration. They can be persuasive and are not easily swayed to others' perspectives
without strong evidence. Situations that allow them to take initiative are likely to be appealing,
and they will often emerge as a leader in work groups. They may be viewed as too forceful in
some situations. By striving to have their own ideas accepted, they might stifle other potential
ideas offered by their less assertive colleagues. Moreover, their willingness to state their
opinions may be counterproductive in some situations.
Average Scorers (40% to 59%): This person can be characterized as moderately assertive.
Individuals who score in this range tend to be open and direct with others, but their opinions are
usually presented tactfully. They can deal with a moderate level of confrontation, although they
strive not to offend others. They may enjoy being in a leadership role, but not so much that they
would have difficulty in a subordinate role. They can be persuasive and firm when the situation
calls for it, but this is not their usual approach to dealing with others. They may have difficulty
working with people who are highly assertive and confrontational because they prefer a more
cooperative approach and may be reluctant to compete with others. Although they probably can
give negative feedback to others when needed, they may feel uncomfortable doing so on a
regular basis.
Low Scorers (20% to 39%): This person can be characterized as slightly less assertive than
average. Individuals who score in this range are often seen as supportive, agreeable, and
uncritical. They are less likely to challenge coworkers or customers and may go along with
others' ideas rather than cause a conflict. Because they are mindful of other people's feelings,
they typically hesitate to say anything that might be offensive to others. They may have dislike
being in a leadership position or in a position that requires them to be persuasive. Because of
their hesitance to challenge the ideas of others, they may miss opportunities to present their
own ideas, even when doing so would be beneficial.
Very Low Scorers (1% to 19%): This person can be characterized as more passive and
compliant than average. Individuals who score in this range are often seen by others as

pleasant, cooperative, and non-confrontational. They usually don't challenge others' opinions or
ideas, which may be very adaptive in situations where these challenges would be inappropriate.
Situations that require one to be supportive, friendly, and non-competitive would likely be the
best match for their preferences. They would probably dislike a role where they were required to
persuade or lead others, and their reluctance to state their own opinions may make it easy for
others to take advantage of them. It is likely that they would not enjoy a situation that entailed
leadership, sales, fundraising, or advocacy.
Dependability is a component of the basic personality trait of conscientiousness. Dependability

refers to the tendency to be punctual, reliable, and responsible at work.
Very High Scorers (80% to 100%): In comparison with others, this individual reports a very
high level of dependability. People who score in this range are usually highly punctual and
reliable. They are likely to arrive early for work and meetings, rarely miss work, and can be
counted on to follow through on work commitments. They typically follow organizational policies
and procedures to the letter, and when given a set of steps to do to complete a task, they
generally follow these steps exactly. Time management is likely one of their strengths, and they
would fit well in environments with structured hours and procedures. They may become
frustrated if others are not as reliable or as dependable as they are. They may have a tendency
to be obsessive about timeliness and may get upset if they either have to miss or be late for
work. Because they always follow the rules, they may doggedly follow policies and procedures
even when they are counterproductive. It may be difficult for them to adjust to an organizational
culture where deadlines and rules are very relaxed.
High Scorers (60% to 79%): In comparison with others, this individual reports a high level of
dependability. People who score in this range are generally very punctual and reliable. They
are usually on time to work and meetings, manage their time well, and can be counted on to
finish what they start. They typically adhere to workplace rules and regulations, and
organizations that recognize and reward timeliness and responsibility would likely be a good fit
for their preferences. They may become frustrated with others who are not as conscientious as
they are. Moreover, they may dislike a position with no established rules or structure.
Average Scorers (40% to 59%): People who score in this range tend to be punctual and
reliable, and they generally adhere to established policies and procedures. They can usually be
counted on to follow through on their commitments, and will generally do well in structured
environments. Environments with very few established policies or procedures might be
frustrating for them, as might individuals who are too relaxed about timeliness or following the
rules.
Low Scorers (20% to 39%): In comparison with others, this individual reports being slightly
more flexible and less rule-oriented than the average adult. People who score in this range
generally can be expected to follow established policies and procedures though they are able to
work around rules that are too cumbersome. They will usually meet deadlines though they may
prefer to have more control over their own schedules. They may dislike highly structured
environments where timelines are not flexible and where exceptions to established rules and
regulations are rare.
Very Low Scorers (1% to 19%): In comparison with others, this person reports being more
flexible and less rule oriented than the average working adult. People who score in this range
generally like to work in a setting that offers a flexible schedule and where deadlines are

negotiable rather than fixed. They can generally work around workplace rules and regulations
when needed and prefer settings that are relatively unstructured. They may have some
difficulty with time management, which can cause them to be late or accidentally schedule two
things for the same time. Situations that are highly structured and that require strict adherence
to timelines and procedures may be frustrating for them. Moreover, they are likely to have
difficulty with deadlines that are not flexible.
Extroversion reflects aspects of two of the five basic personality traits: extraversion and
agreeableness. Extroversion can best be described as a preference for working with others
rather than alone. This dimension also refers to the extent to which an individual enjoys
situations in which he or she can interact with others, such as company gatherings, meetings,
etc.
Very High Scorers (80% to 100%): This person demonstrates a very high level of extroversion
in comparison with the average working adult. Individuals who score in this range are usually
energized by working with others. They tend to be outgoing, gregarious, talkative, and social -
even with people they don't know very well, and they prefer working in teams or groups where
opportunities to interact with coworkers are plentiful. These individuals can be expected to enjoy
company parties and gatherings and find it easy to develop friendships with coworkers. A work
environment that allows for a high degree of contact with others is likely the best match for their
preferences. They may have a tendency to spend too much time socializing at the expense of
time spent working and may become too involved in the personal lives of their coworkers. It is
likely that they would struggle in a position that required working exclusively alone or with
minimal interpersonal interaction.
High Scorers (60% to 79%): This person demonstrates a higher level of extroversion than the
average working adult. Individuals who score in this range are outgoing, talkative, and social.
They enjoy working with others though they are able to work alone when needed. These
individuals are likely to enjoy company get-togethers and easily form friendships with coworkers.
A work environment that allows for a fairly high amount of contact with others is likely the best
match for their preferences. They are likely to struggle in a position that requires working alone
the majority of time. Moreover, their interest in socializing with others may interfere with some
work activities.
Average Scorers (40% to 59%): This person demonstrates an average level extroversion in
comparison with other working adults. Individuals who score in this range tend to prefer working
in situations that allow for a balance of working both independently and with others. They are
generally able to socialize with coworkers and still maintain appropriate boundaries between
their personal and professional relationships. Work settings that offer a combination of team
and individual work are likely to be a good match for their preferences. They might find working
exclusively in groups or alone to be somewhat difficult and may be most comfortable in
situations that allow for a balance between these two extremes.
Low Scorers (20% to 39%): This person demonstrates slightly less extroversion than the
average adult. Individuals who score in this range may prefer to work alone, though they will
work with others when needed. They typically will be friendly with coworkers but will not spend
excessive time socializing. Maintaining appropriate boundaries between their personal and
professional lives is usually a strength for these individuals. An environment that provides
adequate time to work alone would likely be the best match for their preferences. They tend to
be somewhat quiet and may avoid work-related social gatherings. Because of their reserved

demeanor, others might view them as somewhat aloof or uninterested. They would likely have
difficulty in a situation where they were not given enough time to work independently.
Very Low Scorers (1% to 19%): This person displays a higher level of introversion than the
average working adult. Individuals who score in this range prefer to do much of their work alone
and believe they are more productive when they can work independently. They generally like
jobs with a small amount interpersonal contact, and will not waste time socializing or chatting
with coworkers. Moreover, they usually keep their personal and professional lives separate and
rarely develop personal friendships with coworkers, which may be appropriate are situations
where these relationships would interfere with getting the job done. They tend to be shy and
reserved and may be reluctant speak to people they don't know or attend work-related social
gatherings. Because of their quiet demeanor, they may have a difficult time communicating with
coworkers, and would dislike a position that required talking with others most of the time.
Stress Tolerance is a component of the basic personality trait of emotional stability and refers to
how an individual handles stress at work. This dimension reflects an individual’s resiliency in the
face of demanding or difficult situations, events, or people at work.
Very High Scorers (80% to 100%): This person exhibits a very high level of stress tolerance.
Individuals who score in this range generally adapt easily to change, demonstrate flexibility, and
effectively deal with stressful situations. Others may see them as having the ability to keep a
cool head during a crisis or conflict situation. They tend to handle criticism well, taking it in
stride and not internalizing it. Fast-paced or high stress environments are generally easy for
them to handle, as are difficult customers or coworkers. They may have a tendency to be too
relaxed in a crisis, and others may interpret this to mean that they are not responding
appropriately to concerns and problems. If they take criticism too lightly, they may not take
constructive feedback seriously, even when this feedback may be helpful in improving their
performance.
High Scorers (60% to 79%): This person exhibits a high level of stress tolerance. Individuals
who score in this range generally handle stressful situations very well. They can be a calming
influence in a crisis and usually do not lose focus when under pressure. Rapid changes in
priorities and work situations will be taken in stride, and they generally are not bothered by
overly difficult or critical people. They may be particularly suited for working in situations that
are stressful and ever changing. Because of their laid-back approach, some may view them as
being unconcerned about problems in the work environment. Sometimes a little stress can
motivate people into action, and if these individuals rarely feel stressed or anxious, it may be
difficult for them to react quickly in a crisis.
Average Scorers (40% to 59%): This person exhibits an average level stress tolerance.
Individuals who score in this range are likely to handle moderately stressful situations well.
However, they are not so laid back that they would appear unconcerned in a crisis. They can
adapt to new situations fairly well and can change priorities when needed. Generally, they can
be expected to do well in environments with a moderate level of stress and change. Extreme
levels of change or very stressful situations may be difficult for them. Furthermore, they may
take harsh criticism personally, making it hard for them to work with or work for extremely critical
people. When major changes occur, they will need time to adapt.
Low Scorers (20% to 39%): This person exhibits a slightly greater sensitivity to stress than the
average individual. People who score in this range tend to prefer environments with a relatively
low amount of stress and change. In a crisis situation, they can generally be expected to react

quickly and with concern for the situation. Highly stressful situations where there is a significant
amount of change are likely to be upsetting to them. Additionally, they would likely struggle to
maintain a calm demeanor in a crisis. They generally would dislike working with or for
individuals who tend to be harsh or critical.
Very Low Scorers (1% to 19%): This person displays greater than average sensitivity to
stress. Individuals who score in this range are likely to prefer low-stress environments where
there are few changes. In a crisis situation, they can be expected to react with a sense of
urgency, which may be appropriate when an immediate reaction is needed. Often times, they
will be able to detect when others are feeling anxious or stressed and may demonstrate greater
understanding of individuals in this situation. Situations that are highly stressful or where there
is a significant amount of change are likely to be difficult for them. In such an environment, they
may become easily upset and will take longer than average to adapt to the changes. Advance
notice of changes in the work environment may make the transition easier for them.
Candidness is an index that is designed to identify individuals who are attempting to “beat the
test” by giving responses that are overly positive. In general, individuals who score low on this
index have likely responded to the items without intentional efforts to appear better than they
really are. People who score high on this scale, however, are likely to have distorted their
responses, giving an overly positive impression of themselves. Thus, their scores may not be a
true indication of their personality, and their scores should be interpreted with caution.
Individuals who score above the cut-off (a raw score of 53) will receive the following text on their
narrative reports:
This person's desire to present a positive impression may have affected the way this
individual responded to the questions. The results of this report should be interpreted
with caution.
Individuals who score below the cut-off will receive the following text on their narrative reports:
Responses to this questionnaire do not appear to be purposely distorted in order to

create an overly positive impression.
Each organization must decide how to handle individuals who are identified as potentially
distorting their responses. If these individuals are allowed to continue on in the hiring process, it
is recommended that the organization screen these individuals with additional, more faking
resistant measures such as reference checks, background checks, structured interviews, ability
tests, and skill tests. It should be noted that no type of candidness index or lie scale can reliably
discern who is distorting their responses 100% of the time and that no single selection device
should be used as the sole basis for making hiring decisions.
Group Differences
A concern in any testing program is the extent to which there are systematic differences in test
scores for members of various groups. If group differences do exist, the result could be adverse
impact against women or minority group members. Consistent with the research literature,
results for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment demonstrate that the few differences that do exist are
small.

Gender Differences
Table 2 presents the scale means and standard deviations for the total sample and for each
sex. The standardized mean difference effect size statistic, d, is also presented in the table.
This statistic describes the size of the difference in scale means between males and females in
terms of standard deviation units, with 1.00 being a full standard deviation. Thus, an effect size
of .5 indicates that the size of the difference is equal to one half of a standard deviation. A d of
.20 is considered a small difference, .50 is considered a medium difference, and .80 is
considered large (Cohen, 1992). This comparison allows the size of the sex-based differences
to be compared across scales, while taking into account differences in the variability of scores
on the different scales.
In general, scores on the five Job Fit scales showed small differences between men and
women. Women reported being slightly more achievement striving than men, and men reported
being more assertive and slightly more stress tolerant than women. None of these differences is
very large, however. Because ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is used in a benchmarking capacity
(discussed more fully in Chapter 7) higher scores may or may not make a person a better fit to
the job. Rather, the person who scores as a “good fit” will have characteristics that are similar
to those that are required for a particular job.
Table 2a: Comparison of Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Sex
Total Sample Men Women

Scale (N =146,736) (N = 66,561) (N = 80,175)
M SD M SD M SD d
Achievement 37.36 4.94 37.15 5.07 37.53 4.83 -.08

Assertiveness 28.33 5.59 29.15 5.59 27.65 5.49 .27
Dependability 39.44 4.43 39.37 4.53 39.51 4.35 -.03
Extroversion 30.22 4.93 30.23 4.98 30.21 4.88 .00
Stress
Tolerance 35.46 5.20 35.60 5.33 35.34 5.09 .05
Candidness 48.24 5.42 48.42 5.63 48.09 5.24 .06
Note: A negative effect size indicates that women scored higher than men.
A major concern in using tests to make hiring decisions is that they are fair and do not lead to
discrimination against minority groups. While examining mean differences on the scales is
important, more sensitive information is necessary to evaluate the potential for discrimination.
Adverse impact is a concept that is related to the fairness of tests. A test (or selection system) is
said to have adverse impact if members of a minority group (or protected class) are less likely to
be hired than non-minorities on the basis of scores on the test. There are many ways that have
been argued for evaluating adverse impact, but perhaps the most familiar is the 80% or 4/5ths
rule. Based on this rule, a test is said to have adverse impact if the percentage of minority
applicants passing a cutoff score divided by the percentage of non-minority applicants passing
the cutoff score is less than .80.
Analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential of scores on the Job Fit scale to result in
adverse impact. Those results are presented in Table 2b below. To conduct these analyses,
four cutoff scores were established on the basis of the overall scores distribution for each scale.
These cutoff scores were chosen to represent the highest 10% of scorers, the highest 25% of
scorers, the highest 50% of scorers, and the highest 75% of scorers (i.e., these cutoff scores

can be thought of as selection ratios of 10%, 25%, 50% and 75%). The 10% cutoff score is
representative of using the scores in more of top-down selection manner, while the 75% cutoff
score is more representative of using the scores in a select out manner. (Note that adverse
impact analyses were not conducted on the Candidness scale as this scale is not meant to be
used as a predictor).
Table 2b: Adverse Impact Ratios (Sex) for Various Cutoff Scores on Each Job Fit Scale
Raw Male /
Score Female
Achievement
Striving
10%tile Cutoff score 44 1.05
Assertiveness
Dependability
Extroversion
Stress Tolerance
Note: “Native” refers to the Native American / Alaskan Native group. Values which indicate adverse
impact are presented in boldface.
As shown in the table, only 2 cases of adverse impact were identified. Adverse impact against
women was indicated in the analysis of the 10%tile and 25%tile cutoff scores on the
Assertiveness scale. This finding suggests that if high cutoff scores are set for the
Assertiveness scale, then the proportion of women who pass the cutoff score may be notably
lower than the proportion of males who pass the cutoff score. It is important to note, however,
that setting a high cutoff score on the Assertiveness scale would not necessarily be an illegal
practice. That is, if a test has adverse impact its use would not be considered an illegal practice

if it can be shown through job analysis that the construct is job relevant and/or that the scores
from the test are predictive of performance, and equally so for both minority and non-minority
individuals.
While the results of the adverse impact analyses for women suggest that adverse impact should
not be a general concern when the Job Fit is used in a selection context, it is important to note
that all organizations should maintain detailed records and conduct adverse impact analyses
among applicants to their positions. This tracking may be done automatically though ADP’s
affirmative action reporting service.
Ethnic Differences
Little research has been done to examine ethnic differences on personality test scores (Sackett
& Wilk, 1994), but what research has been conducted suggests that the differences tend to be
small. Findings for the Job Fit are consistent with that literature. The Table below presents the
mean and standard deviations for each Job For scale by each ethnic group category. The table
also shows effect sizes comparing the minority category scale means to the scale mean from
the White group. As shown, the differences between the ethic groups tend to be quite small.
Table 3a: Comparison of Scale Means, Standard Deviations and Effect Sizes by Ethnic Group
Overall White Black Hispanic Asian Native
Sample Size 146,73

6 90,198 32,203 13,504 3,984 1,963
Achievement
Striving
Mean 37.36 37.36 37.57 37.23 36.73 36.86
Standard Deviation 4.94 4.84 5.03 5.01 5.39 5.31
Effect Size -- -- -.04 .03 .13 .10
Assertiveness
Mean 28.33 28.36 28.31 28.07 28.46 27.61
Effect Size -- -- .01 .05 -.02 .13
Dependability
Mean 39.44 39.57 39.47 39.10 38.71 38.78
Effect Size -- -- .02 .11 .20 .18
Extroversion
Mean 30.22 30.40 29.62 30.40 30.91 30.08
Effect Size -- -- .16 .00 -.10 .06
Stress Tolerance
Mean 35.46 35.41 35.72 35.56 34.55 35.38
Effect Size -- -- -.06 -.03 .17 .00

Candidness
Mean 48.24 48.42 47.98 48.03 48.11 47.66
Effect Size -- -- .08 .07 .06 .14
Note: Effect sizes, in standard deviation units (d), are in comparison to the White sample, negative
numbers indicate whites scored lower, positive numbers indicate whites scored higher than the
comparison group. “Native” refers to the Native American / Alaskan Native group. Negative values
indicate the minority group scored higher.
Analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential of scores on the Job Fit scale to result in
adverse impact against ethnic groups. Those results are presented in Table 3b. To conduct
these analyses, four cutoff scores were established on the basis of the overall scores
distribution for each scale. These cutoff scores were chosen to represent the highest 10% of
scorers, the highest 25% of scorers, the highest 50% of scorers, and the highest 75% of
scorers. (Note that adverse impact analyses were not conducted on the Candidness scale as
this scale is not meant to be used as a predictor).
Table 3b: Adverse Impact Ratios (Ethnicity) for Various Cutoff Scores on Each Job Fit Scale
Raw White / White / White / White /

Score Black Hispanic Asian Native
Achievement
Striving
10%tile Cutoff score 44 1.17 0.99 1.00 1.02
Assertiveness
Dependability
Extroversion
Stress Tolerance

Note: “Native” refers to the Native American / Alaskan Native group. Values which indicate adverse
impact are presented in boldface.
As shown in the table, only 2 cases of adverse impact were identified. Adverse impact against
Blacks was indicated in the analysis of the 10%tile and 25%tile cutoff scores on the
Extroversion scale. This finding suggests that if high cutoff scores are set for the Extroversion
scale, then the proportion of Blacks who pass the cutoff score may be notably lower than the
proportion of Whites who pass the cutoff score. It is important to note, however, that setting a
high cutoff score on the Extroversion scale would not necessarily be an illegal practice. That is,
if a test has adverse impact its use would not be considered an illegal practice if it can be shown
through job analysis that the construct is job relevant and/or that the scores from the test are
predictive of performance, and equally so for both minority and non-minority individuals.
While the results of the adverse impact analyses by ethnicity suggest that adverse impact
should not be a general concern when the Job Fit is used in a selection context, it is important
to note that all organizations should maintain detailed records and conduct adverse impact
analyses among applicants to their positions. This tracking may be done automatically though
ADP’s affirmative action capabilities.

Chapter 5: Reliability Evidence
If one were to give ADP’s Job Fit Assessment, or any assessment for that matter, to a group of
applicants, one would want to be reasonably assured that the scores the individuals received
would be similar to the scores they would receive if they took the assessment again. This
consistency of test scores is known as reliability.
More formally, the reliability of a test is related to the amount of error the test contains. The
more reliable a test, the less error there will be in an individual’s scores, and the more likely the
individual would receive a similar score (relative to others) if he or she were to take the test
again under similar circumstances. The reliability of a test is affected by several factors
including length (longer tests are more reliable) and homogeneity of the items (if items are
similar to each other, the test will be more reliable). Thus, one would expect a test with 500
highly similar questions to be much more reliable than a test with 5 very different questions.
The reliability of a test is represented by the reliability coefficient. The reliability coefficient is a
number that ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with higher numbers indicating greater reliability. A
reliability coefficient of 0.0 would indicate that the test is completely unreliable – there would be
no relationship between people’s scores at time 1 and their scores at time 2. In contrast, a
reliability coefficient of 1.0 would indicate that the test is 100% reliable. In this case, an
individual’s score (relative to others who took the test) would be exactly the same each time he
or she took the test, assuming no increase or decrease in actual ability level.
In practice, tests are never perfectly reliable or unreliable. Reliability coefficients of .60 to .90
are common for commercially available tests of personality. Although there is no absolute
requirement for how reliable a test must be, a reliability coefficient of at least .70 is considered
adequate (U. S. Department of Labor, 1999). Somewhat lower levels of reliability may be
acceptable under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is when the test is to be used
to make preliminary, “screen out” selection decisions. In this case, test scores are used merely
to identify the most unqualified people (e.g., the bottom 25%) rather than the most qualified
people (e.g., the top 25%). Additional selection procedures, such as interviews and background
checks, are then used to make final hiring decisions.
A variety of methods can be used to determine the reliability coefficient of a test. Two of these
methods were used to gather reliability evidence for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. The first
method is internal consistency. This method evaluates the extent to which the items on a scale
or test all measure the same underlying construct. The second method, test-retest, evaluates
whether people’s scores remain relatively consistent over time. Because the scales of ADP’s
Job Fit Assessment were developed to measure different traits, and because people receive
separate scores for each of the five scales, reliability was examined for each of the scales
separately.
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency was assessed using coefficient alpha (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Coefficient alpha is based on the average correlations among items within a scale, such that
scales made up of items that are more similar to each other (i.e., more highly correlated) will
have higher values for alpha, all other things being equal. In other words, coefficient alpha
indicates the extent to which all the items on a scale measure the same underlying construct.
Alpha coefficients were computed for several samples and are listed in Table 4.

Stability
In addition to knowing if a scale has questions that are internally consistent, it is also important
to know whether scores will remain stable over time. To assess a scale’s stability, a sample of
individuals completes the test at two separate times, and then scores from both times are
correlated. The resulting correlation is used as an estimate of a test’s stability.
The stability of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment was measured by having 126 college students who
took the test in the aforementioned study (Hastey, et al., 2001) take the test again after a period
of between six and eight weeks. Examinees’ scores from their first assessment were then
correlated with their scores from the second assessment. The resultant correlation for each
scale is presented below in Table 4. The test-retest reliability coefficients for all of the scales
were similar, ranging from .75 to .80. These correlations indicate that the personality scale
scores obtained by the examinees at the first assessment were similar to the scale scores
obtained at the second assessment.
Table 4: Reliability Coefficients for the Job Fit Scales
Coefficient Alpha Coefficient Alpha Test-Retest

Reliability Reliability Reliability
Scale (N = 292)a (N = 3969)b (N = 126)c
Achievement .74 .76
Striving .80
Assertiveness .84 .75 .79
Dependability .72 .70 .75
Extroversion .76 .69 .80
Stress Tolerance .75 .77 .77
Notes: a College student sample as described by Hastey et al., 2001
b
Job Applicant/Employee sample
c
College student sample as described by Hastey et al., 2001

Chapter 6: Validity Evidence
The Concept of Validity
Validity is the extent to which a test measures what it purports to measure, and the extent to
which decisions made using the test are accurate or justified. The validity of a test is affected by
several factors, including the usefulness of the characteristics being measured, the content of
the test, and the reliability of measurement. For example, a personality test would be a valid
method of making pre-employment decisions if: 1) having the right personality traits are
important for successful performance of the job; 2) the personality traits are well represented by
the content of the test; and 3) the test is a reliable or consistent measure of personality.
Unlike reliability, a single number or coefficient cannot summarize the validity of a test. Rather,
validity is demonstrated by accumulating a potentially wide-range of evidence that supports the
use of the test for particular purposes (e.g., as a measure of work-related personality traits).
Essentially, validation of a test is simply the “scientific inquiry into test score meaning” (Messick,
1989). The process of validating a test consists of gathering empirical or rational evidence to
support the use of test scores for making particular inferences about people (e.g., future job fit).
Such evidence could include relationships between test scores and other similar measures or
important outcomes, evidence regarding the measurement properties (e.g., internal
consistency) of the test, or even expert judgments about test content. The validation process
may continue indefinitely as more evidence is accumulated supporting the usefulness of a test
for various purposes.
There are three common methods of establishing a test’s validity: content, criterion-related, and
construct. To date, preliminary evidence for the validity for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment has been
provided using each of these types of validity.
Content Validity Evidence

Content validity evidence is gathered by reviewing the items of the test to ensure that they are
accurate representations of the characteristic the test intends to measure. As discussed in
Chapter 2, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment was developed using a construct-oriented approach. That
is, the development process included creating detailed definitions for each of the traits and
writing items directly based on these definitions. Moreover, items were subjected to a rigorous
sorting process in which a panel of four experts attempted to match each item back to the
original trait for which it was written. Only items that were matched correctly by 100% of the
panel were retained. As such, the development process ensured content validity.
Face Validity
Face validity is a concept that is related to content validity. Face validity is the extent to which a
test is perceived to be relevant and acceptable by the test taker. Tests that are perceived as
job-related are generally more acceptable to applicants. Face validity, like content validity, is
established through judgments and not statistical tests. Interviews with several test takers have
revealed that ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is perceived an appropriate assessment of work-
related personality traits by test takers. Moreover, most of the items are situated in a work
context (e.g., “I speak my mind at work.”), further enhancing the work-related nature of the
assessment.
Construct Validity
Establishing construct validity is the process of accumulating evidence that shows that a test
actually measures what it purports to measure. For example, a test claiming to measure Stress

Tolerance should be shown to, in fact, measure one’s tolerance to stress, and not some other
trait like hostility. Usually construct validity is demonstrated by examining the relationships
between the test/trait(s) in question and other measures/traits.
Two forms of construct validity can be distinguished: convergent and discriminant validity.
Convergent validity is the idea that different tests that measure the same trait or conceptually
similar traits should be related. For example, if we observed that scores on ADP’s Job Fit
Assessment scale of Assertiveness were related to scores on another commercially available
test of “assertiveness” or “self-confidence,” then we would have convergent validity evidence
and increased confidence that the Assertiveness scale is indeed measuring assertiveness (i.e.,
construct validity). Discriminant validity, in contrast, is the idea that tests that measure
conceptually different traits should be unrelated to one another. For example, we would not
expect scores on Assertiveness to be related to scores on Dependability, because these two
traits are conceptually distinct – there is no reason to expect that people who are more assertive
and forthright would be consistently more or less dependable.
Ultimately, a combination of both convergent and discriminant validity is important in

establishing the construct validity of a test. In general, there is no hard and fast rule about the
number or size of relationships that must be observed; rather, it is the pattern of relationships
observed and the extent to which they conform to the underlying theory and construct definitions
that must be considered.
Correlations between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Scales

Most validity evidence is generally presented in the form of a correlation coefficient. A
correlation coefficient is a number that can range from –1.0 to +1.0. A correlation coefficient of 0
means that there is no relationship between two variables. For example, the correlation between
personality traits and cognitive ability is generally near 0, meaning that one’s level of cognitive
ability is completely unrelated to his or her personality. A negative correlation (e.g. -.5) indicates
a negative relationship between two variables. For example, Assertiveness generally shows a
negative relationship with Agreeableness – the more forthright and assertive one is, the less she
or he is seen as friendly and agreeable. A positive correlation (e.g., .5) indicates a positive
relationship between two variables. For example Dependability generally shows a positive
relationship with job performance – the higher a person’s score on Dependability, the better he
or she is likely to perform on the job. The size of the correlation coefficient (how far away it is
from zero in either the positive or negative direction) indicates how strong the relationship is.
According to Cohen (1988), a correlation coefficient of ±.25 or less is considered small, a
correlation of ±.25 to ±.5 is considered medium, and a correlation of over ±.5 is considered
large. Because ADP’s Job Fit Assessment and the NEO PI-R are both self-report measures that
were taken concurrently, we would expect there to be small correlations among most of the
scales. Therefore, we need to look more closely at the size of the observed correlations and
determine which we would consider to be notable or “meaningful” correlations. A review of the
published research literature on personality testing suggests that, as a general guideline,
correlations of .30 or greater might be considered “meaningful” and worthy of more careful
examination.
Table 5 presents the correlations between the scale scores from ADP’s Job Fit Assessment and
those from the NEO PI-R. To demonstrate convergent validity, scales that are similar in content
on each of the assessments should be highly correlated. The NEO PI-R has already been
established as a robust measure of the “Big 5” personality traits. Thus, a correlation between a
Job Fit scale and a theoretically similar scale on the NEO PI-R would provide convergent
validity evidence for the Job Fit scale.

As can be seen in Table 5, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment demonstrates considerable convergent
validity with the NEO PI-R. Specifically, strong correlations were observed between ADP’s Job
Fit Assessment and the NEO PI-R were demonstrated in predicted directions: Job Fit
Extroversion and NEO Extraversion (r = .72), Job Fit Stress Tolerance and NEO Neuroticism (r
= -.62), Job Fit Dependability and NEO Conscientiousness (r = .57,), Job Fit Achievement-
Striving and NEO Conscientiousness (r = .53), and Job Fit Assertiveness and NEO Extraversion
(r = .41).
Table 5 also provides evidence of discriminant validity in that each job fit scale shows the
largest relationship with the appropriate NEO PI-R scale while the other correlations are much
smaller. For example, the Job Fit scale of Achievement Striving correlates most highly with the
NEO PI-R scale of Conscientiousness, but much lower with the other NEO PI-R scales. Thus,
the Job Fit scales generally do not relate to the NEO PI-R scales to which they are theoretically
unrelated.
Table 5: Correlations between the Job Fit scale scores and the NEO PI-R scale scores
Job Fit Scales
Achievement- Stress
NEO PI-R Scales Striving Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Tolerance
Neuroticism -.25 -.28 -.13 -.25 -.62
Extraversion .25 .41 .14 .72 .27
Openness .20 .22 -.03 .24 .19
Agreeableness .25 -.32 .35 .19 .12
Conscientiousness .53 .19 .57 .14 .28
Note: Correlations of .16 and above are significant at an alpha level of .01 (two-tailed).
Correlations between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Facets

The next series of tables provide additional evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. Tables 6 through 10 show the correlations between the Job Fit
scales and the more narrowly defined facet scales of the NEO PI-R.
The correlations among the Job Fit scales and the NEO Conscientiousness facets are
presented in Table 6. As predicted, the Job Fit scales of Achievement Striving and
Dependability were highly related to all of the NEO Conscientiousness facets, demonstrating
convergent validity. Especially noteworthy are the correlations between the Job Fit Achievement
Striving and NEO Achievement Striving scales (r = .62) and between the Job Fit Dependability
and NEO Dutifulness scales (r = .60).
Table 6: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R
Conscientiousness Facets
Job Fit Scales

NEO PI-R
Conscientiousness Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Stress
Facets Striving Tolerance
Competence .42 .36 .30 .26 .39
Order .20 .05 .40 -.05 .08

Dutifulness .47 .07 .60 .10 .27
Achievement Striving .62 .24 .42 .23 .19
Self-Discipline .49 .24 .50 .13 .28
Deliberation .17 -.12 .31 -.04 .07
Table 7 presents the correlations between the Job Fit scales and the NEO Extraversion facets.
The high correlations between Job Fit Extroversion and all of the Extraversion facets from the
NEO assessment provide evidence for the convergent validity of the Job Fit Extroversion scale.
The highest correlations here are between the Job Fit Extroversion scale and the Warmth (r =
.61) and Gregariousness (r = .72) facets, indicating that the Job Fit Extroversion scale mostly
taps a sociability factor of worker behavior. These correlations also provide convergent validity
evidence for the Job Fit Assertiveness scale. Specifically, this scale was highly related to the
NEO Assertiveness facet (r = .64).
Table 7: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Extraversion
Facets
Job Fit Scales

NEO PI-R
Extraversion Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Stress
Warmth .28 .23 .24 .61 .24
Gregariousness .03 .26 .01 .72 .12
Assertiveness .22 .64 .10 .48 .27
Activity .29 .26 .15 .34 .16
Excitement-
Seeking .12 .27 .04 .51 .16
Positive Emotions .19 .16 .13 .50 .25
Table 8 presents the correlations between the Job Fit scales and the NEO Neuroticism facets
These results provide convergent validity evidence for the Job Fit Stress Tolerance scale,
because the scale had strong negative correlations with all of the NEO Neuroticism facets. For
example, people who scored high on the Job Fit Stress Tolerance scale were found to be low
on the NEO Vulnerability (r = -.58), Anxiety (r = -.54), and Self-Consciousness (r = -.53) facets.
This table also provides evidence of convergent validity for the Job Fit Assertiveness scale. A
strong negative correlation was found between this scale and the NEO Self-Consciousness
facet (r = -.40). The trait of assertiveness on ADP’s Job Fit Assessment was defined to be “a
preference for dealing with others directly and expressing opinions openly.” It therefore makes
sense that this construct would have a negative relationship with the construct of self-
consciousness.
Table 8: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Neuroticism
Facets
Job Fit Scales

NEO PI-R
Neuroticism Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Stress
Anxiety -.09 -.29 .03 -.16 -.54

Angry Hostility -.20 .06 -.19 -.18 -.41
Depression -.20 -.27 -.06 -.27 -.46
Self-
Consciousness -.19 -.40 -.08 -.27 -.53
Impulsiveness -.16 .03 -.19 -.03 -.26
Vulnerability -.30 -.35 -.14 -.19 -.58
Table 9 presents the correlations between the Job Fit scales and the NEO Agreeableness
facets. These results demonstrate some convergent validity evidence for the Job Fit
Assertiveness scale. Specifically, Job Fit Assertiveness was found to be negatively related to
the NEO Compliance (r = -.46) and Modesty (r = -.34) facets. This is consistent with the
definition of assertiveness, such that people who are assertive (as measured by ADP’s Job Fit
Assessment) are not generally conforming or modest (as measured by the NEO PI-R). Also, a
negative relationship was observed between Job Fit Assertiveness and the NEO
Straightforwardness facet. Although at first this may seem counterintuitive, Straightforwardness
and Assertiveness, as measured by the NEO PI-R, show a similar negative relationship (r = -
.20). Straightforwardness is defined as the tendency to be frank, sincere, and ingenuous, and
low scores on Straightforwardness indicate a willingness to manipulate others through flattery or
craftiness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Therefore, while assertive individuals are likely to have the
ability to state their opinions directly, they are also likely to use manipulation to persuade others.
Table 9: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R
Agreeableness Facets
Job Fit Scales

NEO PI-R
Agreeableness Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Stress
Trust .26 -.02 .25 .29 .21
Straightforwardness .30 -.34 .36 .11 .07
Altruism .28 -.01 .33 .30 .19
Compliance .07 -.46 .22 .05 .08
Modesty -.01 -.34 .13 -.07 -.10
Tender-Mindedness .19 -.14 .22 .17 .08
Table 10 presents the correlations between the Job Fit scales and the NEO Openness facets.
This table demonstrates primarily discriminant validity evidence for ADP’s Job Fit Assessment.
Openness was not a personality trait targeted by this assessment, so low correlations with the
Openness facets from the NEO PI-R were expected. All of the correlations in this table are fairly
small, with none above .35.
Table 10: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Openness
Facets
Job Fit Scales

NEO PI-R Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Stress
Openness Facets Striving Tolerance
Fantasy -.16 .05 -.15 .07 .01
Aesthetics .20 .08 -.01 .17 .10
Feelings .18 .14 .07 .35 -.02

Actions .12 .20 -.08 .19 .33
Ideas .22 .29 -.02 .10 .23
Values .22 .06 .08 .06 .10
Correlations Among ADP’s Job Fit Assessment Scales

Correlations among ADP’s Job Fit Assessment scales are presented in Table 11. Overall, there
are many significant intercorrelations, indicating that people who tended to score high on one
scale tended to score high on others. However, these relationships are not so large as to make
the scales redundant.
We can infer additional support for the construct validity of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment by
examining the size of the correlations observed among the scales. The strongest relationship
observed among the trait scales is between Achievement Striving and Dependability (r = .49),
which makes sense from a convergent validity perspective given that both are components of
the same basic trait of conscientiousness. In terms of discriminant validity, scales purporting to
measure constructs that should not be strongly related are not, in fact, strongly related.
Dependability and Assertiveness scales had essentially no relationship (nor should they), and
the Dependability and Extroversion scales had only a relatively small positive relationship.
Table 11: Intercorrelations of the Scales
Stress
Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Tolerance
Achievement –
Assertiveness .27 –
Dependability .49 .04 –
Extroversion .26 .23 .13 –
Stress –
Tolerance .41 .22 .38 .18
Note: N = 3123. All correlations are significant at an alpha level of .01 (two-tailed).
Criterion-related Validity
Criterion-related validity refers to the notion that there should be a meaningful relationship (i.e.,
positive correlation) between an individual’s scores on a test and their standing on some
outcome the test is supposed to predict. Therefore, another form of validity evidence consists of
looking at the statistical relationships between personality traits and important work outcomes.
Evidence from Previous Research

A review of previous research on the validity personality tests was conducted to gather
information regarding the general validity of these tests in employment settings. Published
literature that provides information about the relationship of personality constructs (similar to
constructs measured by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment) to job performance, turnover, and other
relevant criteria was reviewed.
Tables 12 and 13 present criterion-related validity information derived from three integrative,
quantitative reviews of the literature on job performance and personality traits (Barrick & Mount,
1991; Hough, 1992; Tett, et al., 1991). As can be seen, the results and exact predictive power of
the traits varies by study and by the specific outcome studied. However, overall the evidence

strongly suggests that these traits can be useful predictors of important organizational
outcomes.
Table 12: Validity Coefficients Across all Occupations
Perf. Job Training Training Personnel General Jo

Ratings* Proficiency*** Proficiency* Success*** Data* Performan
Extroversion .10 .00 .26 -- .11 .16

(measured as
Extroversion*/**,
Affiliation***)
Dependability .23 .08 .23 .11 .20 .18
(measured as
Conscientiousness*/**,
Dependability***)
Assertiveness .10 .10 .26 .07 .11 .16
(measured as
Extroversion*/**,
Potency***)
Achievement Striving .23 .15 .23 .21 .20 .18
(measured as
Conscientiousness*/**,
Achievement***)
Stress Tolerance .07 .09 .07 .12 .09 .23
(measured as
Emotional Stability*,
Neuroticism**,
Adjustment***)
* Barrick and Mount (1991). Notes: Validity coefficients reported as estimated true score correlations.
Significant relationships reported in bold.
**Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991). Notes: Corrected for both predictor and criterion unreliability.
Significant relationships reported in bold.
***Hough (1992). Notes: Reported correlations are not corrected for unreliability. Significant relationships
reported in bold.

Table 13: Validity Coefficients using a Criterion Composite: Job Proficiency, Training Proficiency, Personnel Data
Barrick and Mount (1991) Hough (1992)
Skilled/Semi- Professional** Managers*** Sales**** Police***** Managers Healthcare

Skilled* and Workers
Executives
Extroversion (measured .01 -.09 .18 .15 .09 -- .00
as Extroversion+,
Affiliation++)
Dependability (measured .21 .20 .22 .22 .22 -.03 .24
as Conscientiousness+,
Dependability++)
Assertiveness .01 -.09 .18 .15 .09 .18 .05
(measured as
Extroversion+,
Potency++)
Achievement Striving .21 .20 .22 .22 .22 .18 -.24
(measured as
Conscientiousness+,
Achievement++)
Stress Tolerance .12 -.13 .08 .07 .10 .11 .08
(measured as Emotional
Stability+, Adjustment++)
+Barrick and Mount (1991) Notes: Validity coefficients reported as estimated true score correlations. Significant relationships reported in bold.
++Hough (1992) Notes: Correlations are not corrected for unreliability or restrictions in range. Significant correlations reported in bold.
*Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance, Construction and Extraction, Food Preparation and Serving Related, Installation, Maintenance
and Repair,
Office and Administrative Support, Production, Transportation and Material Moving.
**Business and Financial Operations, Community and Social Services, Computer and Mathematical, Healthcare Practitioners and Technical.
***Management
****Sales and Related
*****Protective Service

The criterion-related validity evidence presented in these tables should be interpreted cautiously
for a number of reasons. First, each of the studies reviewed measures the personality traits in a
slightly different way, and slightly differently from ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. Therefore, there
may be some differences between these results and the results that would be obtained with
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. A second reason for caution is that these studies do not account for
the possibility that personality traits actually have a curvilinear relationship with job performance.
For example, assertiveness did not relate to job performance for police officers in the Barrick
and Mount (1991) meta-analysis. However, the optimal level of assertiveness for a police officer
might be medium-high. In this case, the correlation coefficient, which is based on a linear-
relationship between two variables, would not be an appropriate way to examine this
relationship. To date, this hypothesis remains untested; however, the unique use of ADP's
system in a benchmarking capacity (discussed further in Chapter 7) may provide the means of
exploring this hypothesis further.
Lastly, the studies reviewed above represent averages. They evaluate whether personality traits
predict performance on average across many organizations in several different industries.
However, organizations have unique circumstances and cultures. Therefore, even though
extroversion may not be thought of as an important trait for the average custodial worker, it may
be vitally important in a culture that highly values teamwork and participation from every
employee. As always, the best course of action is for an organization to conduct a job analysis
for the relevant positions and then use this information to make decisions about which traits are
important and in what amount.
Concurrent Field Studies

Gathering criterion-related validity evidence with a concurrent design requires collecting test
scores and criterion scores at the same point in time. For example, a test may be given to a
group of employees and then their supervisors might simultaneously provide performance
ratings. A correlation between scores on the test and the criterion would provide evidence for
the validity of the test.
A concurrent validity study was conducted with ADP’s Job Fit Assessment in an organizational
setting. Seventy-six supervisory employees (including store managers and assistant managers)
at a national convenience store chain completed ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. The supervisors of
these individuals then rated their performance in six major areas: overall quality and quantity of
work, reliability and dependability, work effort, assertiveness and leadership, interpersonal skills,
and stress tolerance. In addition, an overall rating of performance was obtained by aggregating
ratings across each of the six dimensions. The results of this study are presented in Table 14.
Table 14
Job Fit Scales

Supervisory Ratings: Achievement Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Stress
Striving Tolerance
Overall Quality of
work .15 .21* .04 .03 .02
Effort .19* .30* .05 .16 .09
Assertiveness .10 .33* 00 .19 .13
Reliability .19* .24* .19* .12 .13
Interpersonal Skills 00 .21* .04 .27* .09
Stress Tolerance .06 .29* .02 .21* .20*
Aggregated Rating .12 .29* .07 .20* .13

Note: * p < .05
In general, the relationships between the Job Fit Scales and supervisory ratings are highest for
traits and dimensions of performance that are similar. For example, self-reports of dependability
relate moderately with supervisory ratings of reliability but not with supervisory ratings of other
dimensions. This finding is expected given that overall job performance is multidimensional and
several personality characteristics can contribute to overall behavior on the job. An exception is
the trait of assertiveness, which appears to influence all dimensions of performance for
supervisors in this organization. The strength of the relationships observed in this study is
similar to the relationship between personality and job performance observed elsewhere in the
literature (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).
Predictive Validation Evidence

Gathering criterion-related validity evidence with a predictive design requires that the test be
given to a group of individuals at one point in time, and then the assessment of the criterion of
interest (in this case job performance) occurs at some point in the future. Evidence for the
validity of the test to predict future performance is provided if there is a correlation between test
scores assessed at time 1 and criterion scores assessed at time 2. While predictive validity
evidence is powerful, it is often difficult to gather. Currently, several studies are underway to
assess the predictive criterion-related validity of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment.
Validity of the Candidness Index

The ability of the candidness index to detect conscious efforts at response distortion was
evaluated in a laboratory setting. Four hundred eighty nine university students completed
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment in two conditions: an “honest” condition and a “simulated applicant”
condition. In the honest condition, students were asked to simply complete the assessment
honestly. In the simulated applicant condition, the students were asked to imagine that they
were applying for their “dream job” and had to “pass” the personality test in order to get the job.
Response distortion was measured by subtracting the honest scores from the simulated
applicant scores. The candidness score had a strong positive relationship with these difference
scores (r = .57, p < .001), indicating that individuals who changed their scores were more likely
to get a higher score on the candidness index (Mueller-Hanson, 2002).

Chapter 7: Applications
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment can be a valuable tool in a variety of organizational and educational
applications. As with any other assessment device, no single test or procedure should be used
to make important decisions about individuals; it is important to use a variety of methods to gain
an understanding of the whole individual. The use of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment as part of a
larger assessment system is discussed in three main applications: personnel assessment and
selection, career guidance, and research.
Personnel Assessment/Selection
In a personnel selection setting, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment can be used to help organizations
determine which applicants might be a good fit for a particular job. For example, an organization
might wish to hire new sales people who are highly extroverted, assertive, and achievement
striving, and moderately dependable and stress tolerant. Applicants would be assessed on all
these traits and a fit rating for each applicant would be generated: those who closely matched
the job requirements would be labeled as a “good fit;” those who matched some but not all of
the requirements would be labeled as a “manageable fit;” and those who did not match the job
requirements would be labeled as a “questionable fit.” Determining what level of a given trait is
desirable for a particular job is accomplished through the process of benchmarking.
Benchmarking is a unique method of comparing the needs of an organization with the

characteristics of job applicants. With most personality assessment systems, higher levels of a
given personality trait are believed to be “better.” In other words, applicants take an assessment
and then are rank ordered according to how high they score on each trait. Organizations are
then encouraged to consider applicants from the “top down,” with the people at the top of the list
being the most conscientious, achievement oriented, dependable, stress tolerant and
extroverted. However, there are two major difficulties with this approach:
1. Applicants who reach the top of the list may have gotten there by faking their responses
on the test. Research has demonstrated that the people who fake their responses on
personality tests generally get some of the highest scores (Rosse et al., 1998; Weiner
and Gibson & 2000).
2. The “top down” approach does not allow for the fact that different jobs may require
different levels of a trait. For example, a customer service representative needs to be
somewhat tolerant of stress so that he or she does not fall apart when faced with an irate
customer. However, an individual who was extremely stress tolerant may be too laid
back to respond appropriately to customer concerns. Therefore, the optimal level of
stress tolerance for customer service representatives may fall in the medium range.
The process of benchmarking overcomes these difficulties by determining the optimal levels of
each characteristic that an individual would need to be successful in a given position. These
optimal levels are the benchmarks. Benchmarks may be set using one of two methods:
1. The organization may use standard benchmarks. Standard benchmarks are available for
7 major occupational categories (see Appendix C for descriptions of the categories).
These benchmarks were developed via a combination of expert judgments, relevant
literature reviews, and existing customer data.
2. The organization may directly modify the benchmarks by editing the deviation and range.
The sliding scale benchmark device will provide a visual representation of how your
applications will score. There are descriptions on the two ends of the spectrum and
color representations of each range.

Regardless of which option is chosen, the organization has the flexibility to modify the
benchmarks at any time. Each benchmark is presented as a range (generally 20 percentage
points) such that any person who scores within the benchmark range will be labeled a good fit.
For example, if the benchmark for Stress Tolerance were 50, anyone who scored between 40
and 60 would be considered a “good fit,” anyone who scored between 30 and 40 or 60 and 70
would be considered a “manageable fit,” and anyone who scored less than 30 or higher than 70
would be considered a “questionable fit.”
It is recommended that the organization pursue individuals labeled as a “good fit” first. Follow up
screenings should include one or more additional assessments such as a structured interview, a
background check, reference checks, and skill testing. If no suitable candidates can be found
from this pool, the organization may wish to pursue further assessment with people who were
identified as a “manageable fit.” However, it is not recommended that individuals who scored as
a “questionable fit” be pursued unless there are unusual or mitigating circumstances.
Response Distortion
As mentioned in Chapter 2, with any self-assessment of personality there is always the concern
that people will attempt to distort their responses to present a positive impression – this form of
distortion is commonly known as faking. This concern is especially acute in a personnel
selection setting where candidates are naturally motivated, and even instructed or coached to
put their best foot forward. At first glance, it would appear that the Job Fit items are highly
susceptible to faking. After all, who would say they disagree with the statement, “My boss would
consider me to be reliable?” However, though it seems counterintuitive, obvious statements,
such as the one provided in the example, are actually more valid and job related than subtle
statements (Becker & Colquitt, 1992; Dwight & Alliger, 1997; Worthington & Schlottmann, 1986).
Moreover, a surprising number of people actually do admit to possessing seemingly negative
characteristics, even when they are motivated to fake good (Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, &
Thornton, 2001).
The above evidence notwithstanding, faking is still a concern when personality tests are used in
personnel selection. The following steps have been taken to mitigate the effects of faking in the
use of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment for employment testing:
• Before completing the test, job applicants are warned to respond honestly. This warning
states that examinees are expected to respond to the items honestly and that there are
systems built into the assessment to detect potentially dishonest responding (the
Candidness scale). Research has indicated that merely warning people not to fake itself
mitigates faking (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Shaw, 1974; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, &
McCloy, 1990; Kluger & Colella, 1993; Lautenschlager, 1994; McFarland & Ryan, 2001).
• The recommended retesting policy only allows applicants to take ADP’s Job Fit
Assessment again after a waiting period of six months since their first assessment. This
policy prevents applicants who receive unfavorable feedback or hiring decisions based,
in part, on their scores on ADP’s Job Fit Assessment scales from simply retaking the test
and attempting to “adjust” their scores by changing their response patterns.
• The candidness index has been designed to identify individuals who attempt to distort
their responses on the assessment. Assessments for individuals who score above the
cutoff are flagged, and the hiring organization is urged to interpret their results with
caution.
• The use of benchmarking discourages faking by matching the needs of the job to the
characteristics of the individual. While it is true that individuals can fake to match a
particular job profile (Burnhrant, 2001; Furnham, 1990; Krahe, 1989; Martin, Bowen, &

Hunt, 2001; Scandell & Wlazelek, 1996) this is more difficult than faking to achieve the
highest possible score on each trait (Mahar, Cologon, & Duck, 1995). To fake to match a
profile, one must know the profile that is desired for a particular job and how to respond
to the assessment in order to match the profile.
• The assessment overall is intended to be used as a “screen-out” (a quick and
inexpensive way to screen out candidates who are obviously “questionable fits”) rather
than as a “screen-in” device (a means of selecting the top 2-3 candidates for a position).
By screening out the most unqualified candidates, the organization saves time and
money by evaluating only those individuals who are potential good fits with more
extensive (and faking resistant) assessments such as background checks and skill tests.
In general, screen-out procedures reduce the effects of faking and “coaching to the test,”
while screen-in procedures accentuate those effects (Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, &
Thornton, 2001). Thus, using ADP’s Job Fit Assessment as a screen-out tool can serve
to minimize the effects that faking can have on decisions regarding job applicants.
It is important to note that, although personality tests such as ADP’s Job Fit Assessment can
indeed provide useful information about job candidates, ADP’s Job Fit Assessment was
designed to be used in conjunction with other screening devices (e.g., interviews, background
checks, reference checks, ability tests, etc.) when making selection decisions. No single source
of information about candidates is 100% accurate or complete, and no single score or statement
from an assessment report should be used to make recommendations or decisions in the hiring
process. In addition, the decision to assess particular personality traits such as those measured
by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment should be based on a thorough and systematic analysis of the job
requirements to ensure that the traits are relevant for performance on the job.
Career Guidance
The degree of “fit” between individuals and the environments in which they work has long been
held to influence employee perceptions and performance. In fact, the notion of person-job fit is
the fundamental tenet underlying most contemporary theorizing in the area of vocational interest
assessment. The general framework suggests that congruence between an individual’s
vocational interests and the environment in which he or she works will lead to greater career
satisfaction.
There is evidence that personality also has a substantial influence on vocational choices. For
example, highly assertive and extroverted individuals are more likely to gravitate toward sales
and management positions while very passive and shy individuals are likely to avoid these types
of jobs.
ADP’s Job Fit Assessment can be used to help people identify their general personality styles,
which can assist in career planning or in diagnosing why a current career may not be fully
satisfying. However, other assessments, such as vocational interest inventories, should be used
in conjunction with ADP’s Job Fit Assessment to give the individual a complete picture of his or
her abilities, personality, and vocational interests.
Research
Because ADP’s Job Fit Assessment is a very brief measure that can be administered online or
in a paper-and-pencil format, it is ideal for research applications. Moreover, the work-related
nature of the questions makes this a unique measure of personality in a work-related setting.
Free use of the assessment is offered to researchers upon approval. Details on this program
may be obtained by contacting ADP Screening and Selection Services.

References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests:
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.
Ackerman, P.L, Kanfer, R., Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants
and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1,
270-304.
Becker, T. E., & Colquitt, A. L. (1992). Potential versus actual faking of a biodata form:
An analysis along several dimensions of item type. Personnel Psychology, 45, 389-406.
Burnkrant, S. R. (2001, April). Faking Personality Profiles: Job-Desirability of Social

Desirability? Paper presented at the 2001 meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Strauss, J.P. (1994). Antecedents of involuntary turnover
due to a reduction in force. Personnel Psychology, 47, 515-535.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice:
The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Dwight, S. A. & Alliger, G. M (1997). Using response latencies to identify overt integrity
test dissimulation. Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial
Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Shaw, L. (1974). The modification of personality
and lie scale scores by special ‘honesty’ instructions. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 13, 41-50.
Furnham, A. (1990). Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for

different purposes. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9, 46-55.
Hastey, K. Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Lahti, K., (2001, December). Phase
3: Large scale reliability and construct validity study. Fort Collins, CO: Avert, Inc.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on
those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.

Hough, L.M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables – construct confusion:
Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
Kluger, A. N., & Colella, A. (1993). Beyond the mean bias: The effect of warning against
faking on biodata item variances. Personnel Psychology, 46, 763-780.
Krahe, B. (1989). Faking personality profiles on a standard personality inventory.

Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 437-443.
Lahti, K., Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Hastey, K. (2001, October). Phase
1B: Development and initial evaluation of ADP’s Job Fit Assessment. Fort Collins, CO: Avert,
Inc.
Lautenschlager, G. J. (1994). Accuracy and faking of background data. In G. S. Stokes,

M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds.) Biodata Handbook (pp. 391-419). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mahar, D., Cologon, J., & Duck, J. (1995). Response strategies when faking personality
questionnaires in a vocational selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 605-
609.
Martin, B. A., Bowen, C. C., & Hunt, S. T. (2001, April). How effective are people at
faking on personality questionnaires? Paper presented at the 2001 conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
McCrae, R.R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint factor analyses of the
NEO-PI with other instruments. In D.M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology:
Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 246-260). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structures as a human universal.

American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2001, April). Toward an integrated model of applicant
faking behavior. Paper presented at the 2001 conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of
assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
Muller-Hanson, R. A., Heggestad E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III (in-press). Faking and
Faking and Selection: Considering the Use of Personality from Select-in and Select-out
Perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Mueller-Hanson, R.A. (2002). Impression management strategy and faking behavior in

the self-report measurement of personality. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Colorado State
University.

Murphy, K.R. & Davidshofer, C.O. (2001). Psychological Testing: Principles and
Applications (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Murphy, K.R. & Shiarella, A.H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job
performance for the validity of selection tests: multivariate frameworks for studying test validity.
Personnel Psychology, 50, 823-854.
Ones, D.S., Schmidt, F.L., & Viswesvaran, C. (1993). Integrity and ability: Implications
for incremental validity and adverse impact. Presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response
distortion of pre-employment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied
Rynes, S. L., & Connerley, M. L. (1993). Applicant reactions to alternative selection

procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 261-277.
Sackett, P. R., & Wilk, S. L. (1994). Within-group norming and other forms of score
adjustment in pre-employment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929-954.
Scandell, D. J., & Wlazelek, B. G. (1996). Self-presentation strategies on the NEO-Five

Factor Inventory: Implications for detecting faking. Psychological Reports, 79, 1115-1121.
Smith, D. B., Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Personnel selection and the Five-
Factor Model: Reexamining the effects of applicant’s frame of reference. Journal of Applied
Tett, R.P, Jackson, D.N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of
job performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-745.
Weiner, J. A. & Gibson, W. M. (2000, April). Practical effects of faking on job applicant
attitude test scores. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Worthington, D. L. & Schlottmann, R. S. (1986). The predictive validity of subtle and

obvious empirically derived psychology test items under faking conditions. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 50, 171-181.

Appendix A: Job Fit Items
Achievement Striving Items

1 My personal life is much more important than my work life.
4 I would prefer a simple job where I wouldn't have to work very hard.
12 I would be satisfied if my job performance was rated "average."
24 I regularly seek out extra training so I can do better at work.
26 I do the work that is required of me and nothing more.
30 Others have told me I work too hard.
35 *I would rather be bored at work than be too busy.
41 My main reason for working is to earn a paycheck.
51 *I like to be challenged at work.
54 I set challenging work goals for myself.
55 Moving ahead in my career is very important to me.
59 *I have high expectations for myself at work.
Assertiveness Items
8 I speak my mind at work.
10 If a coworker angers me, I let him or her know it.
11 I will push to have my idea accepted in a meeting.
14 I would feel uncomfortable disagreeing with my coworkers.
15 My coworkers do not know my real opinions.
34 *At work, I hesitate to challenge other people's ideas.
37 It is difficult for me to criticize the work of others.
42 *I usually emerge as the leader of groups that I work in.
45 *I can be persuasive with others.
47 It would be difficult for me to ask my boss for a raise.
53 I give coworkers my honest opinions, even if it may offend them.
56 I would have trouble giving negative feedback to an employee.
Dependability Items
2 When I'm given a set of steps to do to complete a task at work, I make sure to follow them
exactly.
5 *I always seem to run a few minutes late.
18 Workplace rules and regulations are often too cumbersome.
22 *The people I work with can count on me to finish what I start.
25 I often find that I have accidentally scheduled two things for one time.
36 I would dislike a job where I had to come in at the same time every day.
40 *My boss would consider me to be reliable.
43 I like to arrive at work early
48 I am comfortable pushing back timelines when I am unable to complete a project.
49 I get upset when I am late for appointments.

50 I hate to miss work.
58 I regularly come into meetings after they have started.
Extroversion Items
3 I am most productive when I work alone.
7 I would hate a job that required me to work alone most of the time
9 I rarely interact with my coworkers outside of the job.
16 At work I tend to be shy with people I don't know very well
17 *I consider many of my coworkers to be friends.
19 *I dislike work-related social functions.
21 I would not enjoy a job that involved talking with people all day.
27 I would not like a job that provided few opportunities to interact with others.
28 I am more outgoing than most people at work.
31 *Working with others energizes me.
39 I enjoy company parties
52 I seem to enjoy my work more when I work in a group.
Stress Tolerance Items

6 I get anxious easily at work.
13 *I am able to easily change my priorities as needed at work.
20 I feel defensive when I receive negative feedback at work.
23 *I can adapt easily to most work situations in which I find myself.
29 I rarely get "stressed-out" about things at work.
32 *I can deal with just about anything that comes my way at work.
33 I lose focus if there is a lot of pressure on me at work.
38 I take it personally when people criticize my work
44 I'm not bothered by stressful situations at work.
46 Conflicts with coworkers or customers do not bother me.
57 Few things upset me at work.
60 I become uncomfortable when big changes are made at my work.
Note: Items in boldface type are reverse scored. Items used to calculate the candidness index are
marked with an *.

Appendix B: Norms and Percentile Scores (N = 146,736)
Percentiles
Achievement Stress
Raw Score Striving Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Tolerance
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 1 0 0 0
14 0 1 0 0 0
15 0 1 0 0 0
16 0 2 0 1 0
17 0 3 0 1 0
18 0 4 0 1 0
19 0 6 0 2 0
20 0 8 0 3 0
21 0 11 0 4 1
22 0 15 0 6 1
23 1 19 0 8 1
24 1 24 1 12 2
25 1 30 1 16 3
26 2 36 1 21 5
27 3 43 1 28 6
28 4 50 1 35 9
29 6 57 2 44 12
30 8 64 2 53 16
31 11 71 4 61 20
32 16 77 5 69 27
33 21 83 8 76 34
34 28 87 12 82 42
35 35 91 18 86 50
36 43 94 25 90 60
37 50 96 33 93 67
38 58 97 41 95 74
39 65 98 49 97 79
40 72 99 58 98 84

Percentiles
Achievement Stress
Raw Score Striving Assertiveness Dependability Extroversion Tolerance
41 78 99 66 99 87
42 84 99 74 99 91
43 89 100 81 100 93
44 93 100 87 100 96
45 96 100 92 100 97
46 98 100 95 100 98
47 99 100 98 100 99
48 100 100 100 100 100

Appendix C: Occupational Category Descriptions
for Standard Benchmarks
Administrative/Support
Typically, individuals in these occupations are responsible for providing support for either
management or operations in the creation of products and the delivery of service. These
individuals may interact with customers to provide information in response to inquiries about
products and services, and handle and resolve complaints. These individuals may also provide
administrative support by conducting research, preparing statistical reports, handling information
requests, and performing clerical functions such as preparing correspondence, receiving
visitors, arranging conference calls, and scheduling meetings. Typical occupations in this
category include executive assistant, receptionist, billing clerk, administrative assistant,
computer operator, data entry clerk, and human resource assistant.
Construction
Typically, individuals in these occupations are responsible for building and construction, often
involving physical labor. Jobs in this category include construction laborer, brick mason,
electrician, drywall and ceiling tile installer, highway maintenance worker, painter, plumber, and
roofer.
Customer Service
Typically, individuals in these occupations are responsible for providing direct services to
customers either in-person or over the phone. Individuals in these occupations may answer
questions, resolve problems, or take customer orders. Jobs in this category include customer
service representative, help desk worker, retail sales clerk, courtesy clerk, and cashier.
Healthcare (professional)
Typically, individuals in these occupations are responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of
medical and healthcare concerns. Jobs in this category include medical doctor, dentist, nurse
practitioner, paramedic, physician’s assistant, chiropractor, and physical therapist.
Management
Typically, individuals in these occupations are responsible for the supervision and management
of others. These individuals will often determine and formulate policies, plan and direct
operational activities, and provide direction of private and public sector organizations. Typical
occupations in this category include sales manager, marketing manager, chief executive,
construction manager, and financial manager.
Manufacturing and Production

Typically, individuals in these occupations are involved in the general production of products
and services. Typical occupations include baker, laundry and dry-cleaning worker, butcher and
meat cutter, assembler and fabricator, inspector, tester, sorter, sampler, power plant operator,
sewing machine operator, water and liquid waste treatment plant and system operator, welder,
cutter, solderer and brazer.
Sales and Marketing

Typically, individuals in these occupations are involved in the selling, advertising, and marketing
of products and services. Typical occupations marketing associate, advertising sales agent, real
estate agent, insurance salesperson, telemarketer, and sales professional.

JobFitAssessments JobFitManual

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

JobFitAssessments JobFitManual

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Technical and Administrative Manual for

ADP’s Job Fit Assessment

Ken Lahti, M.S.

ADP Screening and Selection Services

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 2 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 3 of 45

Agreeableness is the degree to which an individual is likeable, cooperative, good-

Conscientiousness is the degree to which a person is organized, planful, meticulous,

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 4 of 45

Extroversion is the degree to which a person is energized by others, is active,

Achievement Striving is a component of the basic personality trait of

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 5 of 45

Dependability is a component of the basic personality trait of conscientiousness.

Extroversion, as measured by ADP’s Job Fit Assessment, is more narrowly defined

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 6 of 45

Development of the Candidness Index

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 7 of 45

The rationale behind this index as a measure of Candidness is based on probability. In

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 8 of 45

Online Administration Instructions

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 9 of 45

Table 1: Ethnic Identities of the Normative Sample

Group Frequency Percent

White/Caucasian 90,198 61.5%

Interpreting an Individual’s Scores

Achievement Striving is a component of the basic personality trait of conscientiousness. This

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 10 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 11 of 45

Assertiveness is a component of the basic personality trait of extraversion. Assertiveness

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 12 of 45

Dependability is a component of the basic personality trait of conscientiousness. Dependability

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 13 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 14 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 15 of 45

Responses to this questionnaire do not appear to be purposely distorted in order to

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 16 of 45

Table 2a: Comparison of Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Sex

Total Sample Men Women

Achievement 37.36 4.94 37.15 5.07 37.53 4.83 -.08

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 17 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 18 of 45

Overall White Black Hispanic Asian Native

Sample Size 146,73

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 19 of 45

Raw White / White / White / White /

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 20 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 21 of 45

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 22 of 45

Table 4: Reliability Coefficients for the Job Fit Scales

Coefficient Alpha Coefficient Alpha Test-Retest

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 23 of 45

Content Validity Evidence

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 24 of 45

Ultimately, a combination of both convergent and discriminant validity is important in

Correlations between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Scales

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 25 of 45

Job Fit Scales

Correlations between Job Fit Scales and NEO PI-R Facets

Job Fit Scales

ADP Screening and Selection Services’ Job Fit Manual Page 26 of 45

Job Fit Scales

Job Fit Scales

Skilled/Semi- Professional Managers* Sales Police* Managers Healthcare