Conscientiousness assessments for people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Measurement properties and potential issues.

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Elisabeth R Silver, Mikki Hebl, Frederick L Oswald
{"title":"Conscientiousness assessments for people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Measurement properties and potential issues.","authors":"Elisabeth R Silver, Mikki Hebl, Frederick L Oswald","doi":"10.1037/apl0001235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Organizations increasingly recognize the importance of including neurodivergent people (e.g., those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], autism, dyslexia) in the workforce. However, research suggests that some selection tools (e.g., measures of conscientiousness) show lower means for those with ADHD, which may carry implications for personnel selection. The three studies reported here address three questions: (1) What is the magnitude of ADHD-based differences in conscientiousness, and are these differences driven by facets with high or low job relevance? (2) Could reframing conscientiousness items within work contexts attenuate group mean differences in conscientiousness? And (3) do work-specific and general conscientiousness measures have different measurement properties for respondents with ADHD? Study 1 surveyed 291 undergraduates, finding those with ADHD scored significantly lower on global conscientiousness and its facets. Study 2 (a mixed-design experiment) had 317 employees complete a work-specific and a decontextualized set of conscientiousness items. Using work-specific conscientiousness items reduced differences in conscientiousness by ADHD status. Study 3 (a between-subjects design, <i>N</i> = 515) experimentally increased the stakes of survey administration to approximate a selection context. Mean differences by ADHD status were present on both work-specific and general items for global conscientiousness and most facets, even under high stakes. However, these results are qualified by findings of measurement noninvariance on general and work-specific conscientiousness facet measures, suggesting scale mean differences by ADHD status may be driven by item content rather than construct-level differences. Together, the findings reinforce a need for ongoing investigation into the implications of using conscientiousness assessments with neurodivergent people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001235","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organizations increasingly recognize the importance of including neurodivergent people (e.g., those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], autism, dyslexia) in the workforce. However, research suggests that some selection tools (e.g., measures of conscientiousness) show lower means for those with ADHD, which may carry implications for personnel selection. The three studies reported here address three questions: (1) What is the magnitude of ADHD-based differences in conscientiousness, and are these differences driven by facets with high or low job relevance? (2) Could reframing conscientiousness items within work contexts attenuate group mean differences in conscientiousness? And (3) do work-specific and general conscientiousness measures have different measurement properties for respondents with ADHD? Study 1 surveyed 291 undergraduates, finding those with ADHD scored significantly lower on global conscientiousness and its facets. Study 2 (a mixed-design experiment) had 317 employees complete a work-specific and a decontextualized set of conscientiousness items. Using work-specific conscientiousness items reduced differences in conscientiousness by ADHD status. Study 3 (a between-subjects design, N = 515) experimentally increased the stakes of survey administration to approximate a selection context. Mean differences by ADHD status were present on both work-specific and general items for global conscientiousness and most facets, even under high stakes. However, these results are qualified by findings of measurement noninvariance on general and work-specific conscientiousness facet measures, suggesting scale mean differences by ADHD status may be driven by item content rather than construct-level differences. Together, the findings reinforce a need for ongoing investigation into the implications of using conscientiousness assessments with neurodivergent people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

针对注意力缺陷/多动障碍患者的自觉性评估:测量特性和潜在问题。
越来越多的组织认识到将神经多变者(如注意力缺陷/多动障碍[ADHD]、自闭症、阅读障碍患者)纳入员工队伍的重要性。然而,研究表明,一些选拔工具(如自觉性测量)显示,ADHD 患者的平均值较低,这可能会对人员选拔产生影响。本文报告的三项研究涉及三个问题:(1) 基于多动症的自觉性差异有多大,这些差异是由工作相关性高还是低的方面造成的?(2) 在工作情境中重构自觉性项目能否减弱自觉性的群体平均差异?(3) 对于患有多动症的受访者来说,工作特定的自觉性测量和一般的自觉性测量是否具有不同的测量特性?研究 1 调查了 291 名本科生,发现患有多动症的人在总体自觉性及其各方面的得分都明显较低。研究 2(一项混合设计实验)让 317 名员工完成了一套针对特定工作的自觉性项目和一套非语境化的自觉性项目。使用特定工作的自觉性项目减少了多动症状态对自觉性的影响。研究 3(主体间设计,N = 515)通过实验增加了调查实施的风险,以接近选择背景。即使在高风险的情况下,ADHD 状态在工作特定和一般项目的总体自觉性和大多数方面都存在平均差异。不过,这些结果也受到了一般和工作特定自觉性方面测量非方差性结果的影响,表明ADHD状态的量表平均差异可能是由项目内容而非结构水平差异造成的。总之,这些研究结果进一步说明,有必要对神经多动症患者使用自觉性评估的意义进行持续调查。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
×
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