Research Update

This update summarizes and provides links for the following research of interest:

• Can Faking be Reduced by Using Multiple Predictors?


• Job Engagement and the “Disconnect” Between Scientist & Practitioner
  
  
• Evidence for a New Factor of Cognitive Ability


• Should you Hire or Nurture Optimism?
  

Can Faking be Reduced by Using Multiple Predictors?

Converse, Peterson and Griffith (2009) compared faking on non-cognitive selection measures used in isolation with those administered in conjunction with other selection measures. Simulated selection data including 2000 data points was generated and selected in different combinations of variable scores, on conscientiousness and two other predictors as well as on faking and job performance. The outcomes of criterion-related validity, mean performance and selection decision consistency were then examined. Results indicated that faking did affect the criterion-related validity to a considerable extent and hence remains a practical concern for selection research and practice. In addition, the authors observed that faking affected all other outcomes to a lesser degree when multiple selection measures (either cognitive or non-cognitive) are used together as opposed to when the personality measure was administered in isolation. Based on the findings of their research, the authors suggest that it is advisable to use caution and attempt to reduce faking by adding additional predictors if a narrow trait is being used to predict a specific attribute of performance. Future research in the areas of faking and multiple predictors as well as the faking-performance correlation is also warranted based on its considerable practical relevance.

Full article at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204896/abstract

Job Engagement and the “Disconnect” Between Scientist & Practitioner

Wefald and Downey (2009) discuss the obvious discrepancy between organizations and academia in their approach to job engagement. Job engagement is a popular concept with organizations and HR consulting firms. There exist a number of measures, such as the Gallup Q12 approach, which defines job engagement as ‘an individual’s involvement, satisfaction and enthusiasm for work and being connected to others at work’ (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002). Limited external academic validation of popular engagement measures has been carried out due to their proprietary nature. It is apparent, however, that the industry focus remains on outcomes such as retention and performance. On the other hand, academia considers engagement from a psychological state standpoint, defined as ‘a persistent and affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees’ (Schaufeli, 2002). There is limited research on the consequences of job engagement as defined by academia and the generalizability of existing research in the area is questionable. Future research comparing or relating the academic concept with the industry approach would go a long way in bridging the gap between these spheres.

Full article at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121413732/abstract

Evidence for a New Factor of Cognitive Ability

The single factor ‘g’ (Spearman, 1927) has long been associated with cognitive ability and intelligence. However, recent evidence suggests the existence of another additional factor termed ‘process analytic’ by Zysberg (2009). The first study conducted by Zysberg (2009) included 6010 applicants for professional positions that ranged between 18-56 years of age. The participants underwent a battery of classic intelligence tests including a formal series test, a numeric sequence test, an arithmetic knowledge test, a verbal analogies test and a verbal logical test. They also completed two process analytic tests including flowcharts and process tests which showed high reliability coefficients. Factor analysis indicated the presence of three factors accounting for 93% of the total variance underlying the intelligence construct including a quantitative reasoning factor, a verbal logical test and a third factor including the flowcharts and the process tests termed the ‘process analytic’ factor. This factor is defined as ‘one’s ability to perceive and interpret processes, to be able to represent realities in terms of processes and decision making junctions, and identify and rectify errors and flaws in the processes to make it flow most efficiently’ (Zysberg, 2009). The results of this study were replicated in a second study with 1832 job applicants for technical positions. Again, a stable three factor structure which accounted for 81% of the total variance and included the new ‘process analytic’ factor. However, it may be possible that the emergence of this new factor is the result of the novel mode of testing used to tap the process analytic factor rather than a new facet of intelligence.

Full article at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204890/abstract

Should you Hire or Nurture Optimism?

Kluemper, Little and DeGroot (2009) carried out two studies to test the effects of state and trait optimism on various organizational outcomes such as psychological distress symptoms, burnout, affective commitment, job satisfaction, task performance and contextual performance. Trait optimism refers to a stable internal level of optimism whereas state optimism refers to changes in optimism due to situational factors. Kluemper et al (2009) hypothesized that if trait optimism is more predictive of job outcomes, it could be selected for at the time of recruitment whereas if state optimism is a better predictor, individuals could be trained to increase their levels of optimism, as demonstrated by previous research (Seligman, 1998). The first study was conducted on 772 undergraduate students and the second on 106 employees at a treatment facility. In both studies, state optimism significantly predicted additional variance in all outcomes both after controlling for both trait optimism as well as for affect. As well, confirmatory factor analysis in the first study indicated that state optimism was independent from both trait optimism and affect. However, trait optimism did not significantly add to this variance after controlling for state optimism or affect. Hence, the results from both these studies suggest that to encourage positive job outcomes, managers must create a work environment that encourages optimism to rather than hiring optimistic individuals.

Full article at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121669145/abstract