Search

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) are criterion valid low fidelity measures that have gained much popularity as predictors of job performance. A broad variety of SJTs have been studied, but SJTs measuring personality are still rare. Personality traits such as Conscientiousness are valid predictors of many educational, work and life-related outcomes and SJTs are less prone to faking than classical self-report measurements. We developed an SJT measure of Dependability, a core facet of Conscientiousness, by gathering critical incidents in semi-structured interviews using the construct definition of Dependability as a prompt. We examined the psychometric properties of the newly developed SJTs across two studies (N = 546 general population; N = 440 sales professionals). The internal validity of the SJTs was examined by correlating the SJT scores with related self-report measures of Dependability and Conscientiousness, as well as testing the unidimensionality of the measure with CFA. Additionally, we specified a bi-factor model of SJT, self-report and behavioral checklist measures of Dependability accounting for common and specific measurement variance. External validity was examined by correlating the SJT scale and specific factor with work-related outcomes. The results show that the Dependability SJTs with an expert based scoring procedure were psychometrically sound and correlated moderately to highly with traditional self-report measures of Dependability and Conscientiousness. However, a large proportion of SJT variance cannot be accounted for by personality alone. This supports the notion that SJTs measure general domain knowledge about the effectiveness of personality-related behaviors. We conclude that SJT measures of personality can be a promising addition to classical self-report assessments and can be used in a wide variety of applications beyond measurement and selection, for instance as formative assessments of personality., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Instructors are under pressure to produce excellent outcomes in students. Although the contribution of student personality on student outcomes is well established, the contribution of instructor personality to student outcomes is largely unknown., Aim: This study examined the influence of instructor personality (as reported by both students and instructors themselves) on student educational outcomes at university., Sample and Method: Mathematics and psychology university students (N = 515) and their instructors (n = 45) reported their personality under the Big Five framework., Results: Multilevel regressions were conducted to predict each outcome from instructor personality, taking into account the effects of student gender, age, cognitive ability, and personality, as well as instructor gender and age. Student-reports of instructor personality predicted student evaluations of teaching but not performance self-efficacy or academic achievement. Instructor self-reports did not predict any of the outcomes. Stronger associations between student-reports and the outcomes than instructor self-reports could be explained by students providing information on both the predictor and the outcome variables, as well as a greater number of raters providing information on instructor personality. Different domains of the instructor Big Five were important for different element of student evaluations of teaching., Conclusions: The study highlights the importance of studying instructor personality, especially through other-reports, to understand students' educational experiences. This has implications for how tertiary institutions should use and interpret student evaluations., (© 2017 The British Psychological Society.)

The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive and moderating effects of HEXACO personality factors, in addition to theory of planned behavior (TPB) variables, on fruit and vegetable consumption. American college students (N = 1036) from 24 institutions were administered the TPB, HEXACO and a self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption measure. The TPB predicted 11-17% of variance in fruit and vegetable consumption, with greater variance accounted for in healthy weight compared to overweight individuals. Personality did not significantly improve the prediction of behavior above TPB constructs; however, conscientiousness was a significant incremental predictor of intention in both healthy weight and overweight/obese groups. While support was found for the TPB as an important predictor of fruit and vegetable consumption in students, little support was found for personality factors. Such findings have implications for interventions designed to target students at risk of chronic disease.

Objectives: To explore whether HEXACO personality domains could incrementally increase the prediction of exercise behavior above Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) variables, and whether personality moderated the intention-behavior gap., Methods: US College students (N = 1017) completed demographic, TPB, HEXACO domain and exercise behavior measures., Results: The TPB predicted physical activity, accounting for 45% and 39% of variance in intention and behavior, respectively. Regarding personality domains, lower emotionality significantly predicted intention, and lower honesty-humility significantly predicted behavior, but these were small effects. Personality did not moderate the intention-behavior gap., Conclusions: Personality has a limited direct role in predicting exercise intention and behavior beyond the TPB. The prediction of exercise behavior from honesty-humility highlights the importance of considering the HEXACO personality model.

Research has suggested that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) might represent a real and meaningful higher-order factor in the personality hierarchy. However, there are psychometric shortcomings in many of the studies used to support this argument, as well as convincing empirical evidence for alternative explanations of the GFP as methodological rather than meaningful. The current article re-examines the research supporting a substantive GFP by considering and evaluating the evidence presented in a recent volume (Just, 2011). It is concluded that covariation among first-order personality factors is more likely a statistical or methodological artefact than a theoretically meaningful higher-order construct.