Big Five Domains and Facets Contextualized to the Work Domain Outperform Noncontextualized Ones

Daniel Danner, Clemens M. Lechner
{"title":"Big Five Domains and Facets Contextualized to the Work Domain Outperform Noncontextualized Ones","authors":"Daniel Danner, Clemens M. Lechner","doi":"10.1027/1614-0001/a000421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: It is well-established that personality predicts a broad range of outcomes across life domains. However, the criterion validity of personality assessments is often limited. One strategy to increase criterion validity is to move from global, noncontextualized personality assessments toward contextualized personality assessments with reference to a specific context. We investigated whether a Big Five assessment contextualized to the work domain allows for better predictions of work-related outcomes than a noncontextualized Big Five assessment. Two hundred ninety respondents completed both the standard Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and a work-specific variant thereof. In addition, they provided information on a broad range of work-related outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behavior, burnout risk, and occupational commitment), as well as on global health, a not strictly work-related outcome. Results showed that the contextualized personality assessment generally outperformed the noncontextualized one in terms of criterion validity for all outcomes, with the exception of global health. This applied to both the five broad personality domains and the 15 narrow personality facets. We conclude that if maximizing criterion validity in the work domain is the goal, contextualized personality assessments are preferable to noncontextualized ones.","PeriodicalId":510276,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Differences","volume":"20 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: It is well-established that personality predicts a broad range of outcomes across life domains. However, the criterion validity of personality assessments is often limited. One strategy to increase criterion validity is to move from global, noncontextualized personality assessments toward contextualized personality assessments with reference to a specific context. We investigated whether a Big Five assessment contextualized to the work domain allows for better predictions of work-related outcomes than a noncontextualized Big Five assessment. Two hundred ninety respondents completed both the standard Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and a work-specific variant thereof. In addition, they provided information on a broad range of work-related outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behavior, burnout risk, and occupational commitment), as well as on global health, a not strictly work-related outcome. Results showed that the contextualized personality assessment generally outperformed the noncontextualized one in terms of criterion validity for all outcomes, with the exception of global health. This applied to both the five broad personality domains and the 15 narrow personality facets. We conclude that if maximizing criterion validity in the work domain is the goal, contextualized personality assessments are preferable to noncontextualized ones.
与工作领域相关联的 "大五 "领域和面相优于非相关联的领域和面相
摘要:人格可预测生活各领域的广泛结果,这一点已得到公认。然而,人格评估的标准效度往往有限。提高标准效度的策略之一是从全局性的、非情境化的人格评估转向情境化的、参考特定情境的人格评估。我们研究了与非情境化的大五人格测评相比,工作领域情境化的大五人格测评是否能更好地预测与工作相关的结果。290 名受访者完成了标准的大五量表-2(BFI-2)及其工作特定变体。此外,他们还提供了一系列与工作相关的结果(工作满意度、离职意向、组织公民行为、职业倦怠风险和职业承诺)以及与工作无关的全球健康方面的信息。结果显示,就所有结果的标准效度而言,情境化人格测评普遍优于非情境化人格测评,但全球健康除外。这既适用于五大人格领域,也适用于 15 个狭义人格方面。我们的结论是,如果工作领域的标准效度最大化是我们的目标,那么情境化人格测评要优于非情境化人格测评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信