Respond by Day 6 to at least one of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:
- Ask a probing question.
- Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
- Offer and support an opinion.
- Validate an idea with your own experience.
- Make a suggestion.
- Expand on your colleague’s posting.
Classmate’s Discussion Post:
“Depending on the setting and on the job, there are a multitude of assessments and interview types that can be used to aid in the selection process. Personality assessments have been increasingly used in selection processes since the 1970s (Barrett, Miguel, Hurd, Lueke, & Tan, 2003), and are useful in providing a differing type of information than what you may find on a cognitive measure. Personality testing has proven to be useful in predicting behaviors and attitudes, which can impact performance and outcomes within the job/organization (Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007). Personality tests have also shown to have at least moderate validity (McFarland & Ryan, 2000), and they are potentially able to mitigate adverse impact that can exist when solely cognitive measures are relied upon (Barrett et al., 2003; McFarland & Ryan, 2000). Although there are many potential benefits associated with the use of personality testing, one cost associated with these types of tests is that they are relatively easy to fake.
There has been conflicting findings with regard to faking on personality tests with some research supporting that faking can affect the validity of the test, and other research saying that this is not the case. According to Lautenschlager (1994), if all applicants participate in faking, and there is no variance in the faking, then the validity will not be affected; however, if there is variance in faking, and some applicants fake more than others, then criterion validity will be affected, and it will be more difficult to capture an accurate representation of the results. A second consequence that can be a result of this faking is that, it is possible for applicants to fake their scores up to one full standard deviation (McFarland & Ryan, 2000), and this could potentially alter the rank order of the applicants, which may result in a hiring decision that is made based on this faking of results. If the selected candidate is not a good fit for the position, it could potentially cost the organization the money and other resources that it takes to hire and train this individual, and to subsequently hire and train a replacement, if the individual does not perform well in the job.
Prior to this week, I had not really spent much time considering the ramifications of faking on personality tests, although I have always been aware that it does take place. After reading the resources for the week, it appears that most of the researchers posit that faking does not really alter the criterion validity of the assessment enough to warrant concern. When considering the selection process, most aspects of the process can be faked (aside from the cognitive measures), from resumes to experience, cover letters and even answers given in an interview; personality tests are not the only measures in which persons are dishonest. I think that any time a hiring decision is made, there is the potential that the person is not a good fit, and that they will not perform well, and/or stay with the organization. For this reason, I do not believe that personality test faking is a serious problem. I believe that everyone likely fakes to some extent in an effort to present their best selves, and obtain a job, and the true test of any job candidate will be when they actually begin the work of the job, every hiring decision involves taking a change on the unknown.”