Page 60 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

incremental predictive validity 39
investigating the incremental predictive validity of personality variables and alternative,
non-ability predictor measures beyond that provided by measures of general cognitive
ability.
As discussed by Kanfer et al. (1995), the question of whether a measure provides
incremental predictive validity over another measure depends critically upon the extent to
which the two measures exhibit shared variance. For example, if the association between
general cognitive ability and personality is zero, then an association between personality
andjobperformancecanbeexpectedtoresultinincrementalpredictivevalidity.However,
if the two constructs are associated, then the demonstration of incremental predictive
validity will depend upon the extent to which their non-shared variance in the personality
measure relates to the criterion.
Evidence on the relationship between general cognitive ability and personality rela-
tionsisprovidedbyAckermanandHeggestad(1997)inarecentlarge-scalemeta-analytic
review of ability–personality relations. They found that agreeableness was unrelated to
general cognitive ability (r = .01) and that conscientiousness and extroversion were only
weakly related to general cognitive ability (r = .02 and .08, respectively). In contrast,
openness to experience was positively related to general cognitive ability (r = .33), and
neuroticism (operationalized as test anxiety) was negatively related to general cognitive
ability (r =−.33).
From an incremental predictive validity perspective, the Ackerman and Heggestad
(1997)findingssuggestthatpersonalitymeasuresassessingopennesstoexperience,intel-
lectualcuriosity,andneuroticism(thatsharesvariancewithgeneralcognitiveability)may
be less likely to show incremental predictive validity beyond that of cognitive ability mea-
sures. In contrast, the weaker associations between general cognitive ability and the FFM
dimensions of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extroversion suggest greater poten-
tial for these dimensions to provide incremental predictive validity for job performance.
Several studies provide empirical evidence for the joint or incremental validity of per-
sonality traits for job performance beyond that of general cognitive ability (e.g., Mount
et al., 2000; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Salgado, 1998). Although the variables and meth-
ods used in each study preclude direct comparison of results, the findings obtained across
studies suggest that select FFM dimensions, and in particular the conscientiousness di-
mension, provide incremental predictive validity for job performance (beyond that of
general cognitive ability). Salgado (1998), for example, found that conscientiousness and
neuroticism, when examined separately, contributed a similar amount of incremental pre-
dictive validity to job performance (11% for conscientiousness and 10% for neuroticism)
beyond that accounted for by general cognitive ability. In an empirical examination of
skills, ability, and personality determinants of team performance, Neuman and Wright
(1999) found that conscientiousness and agreeableness together contributed an addi-
tional 8% to variance accounted for in peer ratings, beyond that of cognitive ability and
skills. In an empirical study of person predictors of clerical job performance, Mount et al.
(2000) found that the FFM personality dimensions (taken together) contributed between
5 and 13% to variance accounted for in clerical job performance, beyond that accounted
for by tenure and general cognitive ability.
Tworecentstudieshavealsoexaminedtheincrementalpredictivevalidityofinterviews
and biodata predictors beyond that of general cognitive ability and personality (Cortina
et al., 2000; Mount et al., 2000). Results obtained by Cortina et al. (2000) indicated
that structured interviews provide incremental predictive validity of about 17% variance