How to Frame the Frame of Reference: A Comparison of Contextualization Methods

Abstract

Personality measures are popular and useful in employment selection and academic contexts; however, concerns have been voiced regarding the strength of their association with desirable criteria. Contextualization (i.e., modifying measures to reflect the desired frame of reference, like work or school) has emerged as a promising option. Research has demonstrated that contextualizing personality measures increases predictive validity and enhances participants’ perceptions of the assessments. However, few studies have compared contextualization methods to one another and, to date, only one study has compared the two most common forms of contextualization (i.e., instruction and tag contextualization), returning inconsistent findings. In a within-person, multi-wave study using a working sample (N = 399), we compared the relative efficacy of personality measures that are contextualized through manipulating the instructions and those contextualized through the addition of contextual item tags. We specifically contextualized the big five personality factors in order to predict work-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, perpetrated incivility, job performance, creative job performance, and emotional exhaustion). Our study supports the use of tag-level contextualization and provides guidance on how to best implement contextual tags. Best practices, implications, and future research directions are discussed.