Five Factor model (Big Five) OPQ32 report

Transcription

1 Five Factor model (Big Five) OPQ32 report OPQ32 Technical Manual Supplement Authors: Dave Bartram & Anna Brown, December 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 2 Relationship between the Big Five and other approaches to describing personality... 3 OPQ32 Big Five report and equations... 6 Derivation of OPQ32 - Big Five equations... 6 Definitions of the Big Five personality factors adopted in the OPQ32 Big Five Profile report... 7 Extraversion... 7 Openness to Experience... 7 Emotional Stability... 7 Agreeableness... 7 Conscientiousness... 7 Norms, reliability, measurement equivalence and group effects for the OPQ32 derived Big Five scales... 8 Validity of the Big Five as predictors of workplace criteria.. 9 References...12

2 Introduction This is a Technical Supplement to the OPQ32 Technical Manual (2006) and is intended to be read in conjunction with the full manual. The Five Factor Model, also referred to as the Big Five, represents the most widely accepted general model of the structure of personality. Probably the earliest work to identify this five-fold model was that of Tupes and Christal (1961). Subsequently, lexical analyses of the trait descriptors used to describe people s characteristics as well as factor analyses of diverse personality questionnaires have all tended to find the same general structure of five factors. Within the scientific literature, the term Big Five has been associated with the lexical analysis tradition, while FFM is more generally used to refer to the model developed from the factor analysis of questionnaire data. However, there is a tendency these days to use the Big Five as a generic way of referring to the model. Many thousands of research studies have been published supporting this model and have used it as a general framework for exploring the validity of personality in a wide range of different settings and situations (discussed in more detail later). Not only do the Big Five account for most of the variance in trait-based inventories, like the OPQ32, but they have also been shown to account for the major dimensions in personality questionnaires designed around other models, such as Jungian functions or Murray s needs. The Big Five is a robust model developed and refined over the past few decades that has been shown to have well replicated validity across contexts, cultures and languages (De Raad & Perugini, 2002). Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. Frequently the last of these is reversed and labelled as Emotional Stability. While these five factors are generally accepted as providing the primary colours (Trickey & Hogan, 1998) of personality, there is no general agreement on their exact definitions. Each FFM personality inventory represents the five factors with slightly different shades of colour. Some have also argued for dividing one or two of the factors. Although there is a great deal of commonality between researchers descriptions of the Five Factor Model, there are some differences. For instance Goldberg describes Warmth as belonging to Agreeableness whereas Costa and McCrae consider it as part of Extraversion. The OPQ was not developed specifically to fit the FFM model. However, as its scales cover the full range of the personality domain, it is not surprising that it is possible to create scale composites that do measure the FFM. It is most important to make this point in the light of some recent studies. One recently published study (Anderson & Ones, 2003) has suggested that there is little convergent validity among personality questionnaires. This study included data from an OPQ questionnaire (FS4.2). Another study (Salgado, 2003) suggested that questionnaires not based directly on the five-factor model of personality have lesser criterion related validity. OPQ data was categorised among those questionnaires not measuring the fivefactor model. The five factors are generally labelled as Extraversion, Openness to Experience (or just Openness), Agreeableness, Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 02

3 There are some serious methodological weaknesses in these studies (for more detailed discussion of this, see the 2006 OPQ32 Technical Manual). Anderson and Ones (2003) failed to employ correct statistical procedures for computing convergent-divergent correlations (they did not reverse scales that are negatively associated with the factor). They also used an incorrect model of the relationships between OPQ scales and the Big Five. Salgado (2003) averaged correlations with the criterion instead of computing the composite correlation for the study (see Warr et al, 2005). It is becoming clear that the relationships between OPQ models and the Big Five is a significant issue for understanding how OPQ models fit within the domain of personality as currently conceptualised by the scientific community. If we are to avoid the sort of errors noted in the above research, it is important for there to be a well-grounded model of how OPQ32 fits the Big Five model. As there is no internationally accepted standard definition of what the five factors are, the approach we have adopted it to use the most widely used FFM model (the NEO, Costa & McRae, 1992) as providing the best operational criterion for defining the constructs. Relationship between the Big Five and other approaches to describing personality The lexical analysis studies and research on self-report personality measures referred to above have provided evidence for a number of ways of looking at the domain of personality. At the most general level, there is single personality factor which differentiates desirable attributes from undesirable ones (Boies, Lee, Ashton, Pascal & Nicol, 2001; Goldberg & Somer, 2000; Saucier, 1997). To pursue the colour analogy, this is like talking about overall levels of light or dark without distinguishing hues. One can think of this as analogous in the domain of workplace performance to ratings of overall job performance, which typically reflect broad evaluations of how effective or ineffective a person is. Also wellestablished is a two factor solution (Boies et al, 2001; Digman, 1997; Paulhus & John, 1998; Saucier, 1997), which breaks the single factor down into to broad sub factors, where the first relates to positive dynamic attributes and individual ascendancy and the second relates to social propriety and community cohesion. Bakan (1966) described these factors as Agency and Communion; Hogan (Hogan 1983, Hogan and Holland, 2003) has referred to them as Dynamism or Getting Ahead and Social Propriety or Getting Along. They also clearly relate, respectively, to task and contextual performance factors in the workplace performance domain. Factor analyses of the OPQ32 produce five factor solutions that map onto the Big Five. Six and seven factor solutions can also be found that provide a differentiation similar to that of the HPI, and which differentiate achievement from dependability (these tend to be combined as conscientiousness in most Big Five models) and which differentiates sociability from impulsivity (often combined as Extraversion). However, the argument as to whether there are five, six or seven factors is primarily one about the scope of the domain rather than the level of aggregation. Which ever solution one adopts it is then possible to disaggregate these factors into facets or more specific subscales. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 03

4 If the Big Five are so ubiquitous, why should we bother with the OPQ s 32 scales? As de Raad and Perugini (2002) have said, the Big Five factors represent a broad level of personality structure, in which generality is emphasized at the cost of specificity (p. 10). There are two main ways in which different levels of specificity versus generality have been modelled in the scientific literature: hierarchical and circumplex. The circumplex approach views personality as a two-dimensional structure (with agency and communion defining the axes) and then the detailed descriptions of personality are arranged in a circle around the exes. For example, Hofstee et al (1992) describe a fine grain approach with 90 segments being distinguished in the Abridged Big-Five Circumplex. Circumplex approaches tend to be based in the use of multi-dimensional scaling as the main method of analysis. The use of factor analysis, however, naturally supports a hierarchical approach, which considers specific traits as first order factors, the Big Five as second order ones, and factors like agency and communion as third order ones. Most of the well-established comprehensive multi-trait personality inventories cover between 15 and 30 traits. The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McRae, 1992) for example has 30 facet scales, OPQ32 has 32. De Raad and Perugini note three perspectives on the way in which differentiating facets add value to the Big Five model. In terms of theory it is important to help clarify the meaning of each of the five higher order factors; at a structural level it provides a means of stratifying the universe of traits so as to aid the development of instruments that provide a balanced or representative sampling of items form this universe. For example, if one is interested in measurement of a factor at the Big Five level of aggregation, one should not only sample items from one facet of that factor. Finally, and of most direct relevance here, is the issue of prediction. First, it is important that predictors and criteria represent similar levels of aggregation. Thus for gross criteria (such as overall job performance ) it is reasonable to use broad predictors. However, for the prediction of more specific aspects of performance at work, it is necessary to match the level of specificity of the predictor to that of the criterion. While height and weight are both facets of a general factor of size, we would want to assess each separately if we were assessing the impact of changes in diet, and our expectations would be that dietary changes would affect weight rather than height. The same logic applies when we are examining relationships between personality traits and specific aspects of performance. Paunonen and Ashton (2001) have produced evidence that working at the facet level even has advantages for the prediction of general criteria. Their results clearly show a gain in level of prediction with the addition of carefully selected facets to broad factors. This is because the relationships between predictors and criteria may be confined to some subset of the facets. If the relationship is evaluated by aggregating all facets, then this will dilute the overall validity. Saucier and Goldberg (2003) also note that the major benefit of measuring subcomponents pertains to predictive validity. In addition to Paunonen and Ashton (2001), Goldberg (1993) and Mershon and Gorsuch (1988) have also noted that the amalgamation of measures into broad factors leads to a loss of specific variance, which can lead to a lowering of the overall validity of a composite. Saucier and Goldberg (2003) conclude that: an investigator who seeks optimal predictions should use as many specific sources of variance as Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 04

5 statistical power, and thus sample size, will permit. (p15). Thus, where the prime focus is on prediction, there is every reason to make use of multi-trait instruments and to configure specific trait-composites as predictors of specific aspects of work performance. Where the need is for a common frame of reference, however, the FFM provides a useful structure and a practical compromise in terms of the extreme generality of measurement at the level of Agency and Communion and the level of detail provided by examination of the OPQ s 32 trait descriptors. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 05

6 OPQ32 Big Five report and equations Derivation of OPQ32 - Big Five equations 1 The process employed to map the OPQ32 to the FFM and establish the scales weights in the equations is described in detail in the OPQ32 Technical Manual (SHL, 2006). Detailed interpretations of the individual OPQ32 scales can be found in the OPQ32 User Manual (2005). Summary of the mappings for each of the Big Five factors is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of OPQ32 scales measuring the FFM Big Five Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientious Emotional Stability (negative Neuroticism) Openness to Experience OPQ32 scales Outgoing Socially Confident Affiliative Emotionally Controlled (reversed) Persuasive Controlling Caring Democratic Independent Minded (reversed) Trusting Competitive (reversed) Conscientious Detail Conscious Vigorous Forward Thinking Achieving Worrying (reversed) Relaxed Tough Minded Socially Confident Optimistic Innovative Conventional (reversed) Conceptual Variety Seeking Behavioural 1 The Big Five specification equations and scale norm conversions can be made available for use in bona fide research work. Interested parties should contact the SHL Research Department in Thames Ditton for further details. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 06

7 Definitions of the Big Five personality factors adopted in the OPQ32 Big Five Profile report Extraversion Low Formal, reserved and distant in manner. Prefers to do things alone, does not seek social stimulation. Prefers to keep in the background and let others do the talking. Even-paced. Feels little need for thrills and excitement; appears unenthusiastic in attitude. Openness to Experience Low Down-to-earth and realistic, likes to concentrate on the task in hand. Prefers the familiar to the novel, does not like constant change and sticks with tried-and-tested approaches. Tends to accept authority and value tradition. Conventional in behaviour and conservative in outlook. Focuses resources on a limited number of areas. Emotional Stability Low Prone to worry, can easily become nervous, tense and jittery. Can feel sad or hopeless at times and be easily discouraged. Feels uncomfortable around strangers, sensitive to ridicule. Finds it difficult to cope with stress, often panics in emergency situations. Agreeableness Low Reluctant to get involved in the problems of others. Competitive rather than cooperative. In conflict situations is prepared to stand up for own interests and not let people take advantage. Can be sceptical of others intentions. Hard-headed and less moved by appeals to pity. Conscientiousness Low Finds it difficult to get organised, often loses or misplaces things. Casual about obligations and promises made. Does not like checking details, sees deadlines as a general guide only. Gets easily distracted from completing routine or demanding tasks. Easy-going, relaxed about setting targets and working towards goals. High Friendly, affectionate and forms close attachments to others easily. Likes social stimulation; lively and talkative in groups. Assertive, dominant and socially confident. Active and energetic. Likes excitement and stimulation, appears cheerful in disposition. High Curious about everything, believes that imagination contributes to a rich and creative life. Prefers novelty and variety to familiarity and routine. Prepared to question authority, entertains novel ideas and unconventional values. Often has a wide range of interests and experiences. High Calm, relaxed, even-tempered, does not dwell on things that might go wrong. Feels positive about self and is not discouraged easily. Not disturbed by awkward social situations. Able to face stressful situations without becoming upset or anxious. High Has an active concern for others welfare; generous and considerate. Would rather cooperate with others than compete with them. In interpersonal conflict tends to be submissive to others, to forgive and forget. Believes that people are honest and wellintentioned. Moved by others needs and emphasises the human side of issues. High Well-organised, neat and tidy. Strictly adheres to obligations and responsibilities. Thorough, punctual and reliable. Sees tasks through to completion despite boredom or distractions. Has high aspiration levels and sense of direction in life. Purposeful, strong-willed and works hard to achieve goals. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 07

8 Norms, reliability, measurement equivalence and group effects for the OPQ32 derived Big Five scales The Big Five equations work with standardised OPQ32 scores (sten scores). The OPQ32 scores are entered in the five linear equations and the secondary norm is then applied to produce the Big Five sten scores. The OPQ32i Standardisation sample, N=807 (see OPQ User manual for detailed description of this sample), is used to produce the secondary norm. Research shows that this norm can be used for scores derived from both OPQ32i and OPQ32n, because there is very little difference between Standard Deviations of the Big Five scales derived from the different versions of OPQ32. Internal consistency reliabilities of the five scales computed for OPQ32n and OPQ32i data sets are listed in Table 2. The reliabilities are above 0.85 and show quite similar values for both versions of the OPQ. Table 2. Alphas for the Big Five scales derived from OPQ32n and OPQ32i OPQ32n OPQ32i Extraversion Openness Emotional Stability Agreeableness Conscientiousness Analysis of age trends, gender differences and other group effects of the Big Five scores derived from the OPQ32 can be found in the Group Comparison chapter of the OPQ32 Technical Manual (SHL, 2006). Measurement equivalence for the Big Five scores derived from different OPQ32 language versions can be found in the Group Comparison chapter of the OPQ32 Technical Manual (SHL, 2006). More information on the criterion-related validity of the Big Five scores derived from the OPQ32 can be found in the Criterion-related Validity chapter of the OPQ32 Technical Manual (SHL, 2006). Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 08

9 Validity of the Big Five as predictors of workplace criteria The Big Five level of analysis represents the next level of generality down from Agency and Communion, and is the one most often used as the basis for comparing different personality inventories and as the framework for meta-analysis of validity studies. Metaanalytic studies concentrating on the Big Five have shown that Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability have broadly generalisable relationships with overall job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992; Salgado, 1997, 1998). Barrick and Mount (1991) report corrected mean validities of r=0.22 for Conscientiousness and r=0.13 for Extraversion. Tett, Jackson and Rothstein (1991) quote corrected mean validities ranging from r=0.16 for Extraversion to r=0.33 for Agreeableness. Salgado (1997, 1998) replicated Barrick and Mount s results with European data sets, and also found evidence for the validity of Emotional Stability (corrected r=0.19). More recently, Hurtz & Donovan (2000) have reported corrected correlations of r=0.22 for Conscientiousness, r=0.14 for Emotional Stability and r=0.09 for Extraversion. Ones (2005) notes that over 10,000 new articles have been published documenting personality influences in organizations since 1990 alone. The general conclusions from all this work are that: Personality constructs are hierarchically organized (e.g., facets, factors). An individual s personality is best understood as a profile of high and low scores on dimensions and facets, rather than an overall, average score. The Big Five represent only one level of the hierarchy. There are psychologically meaningful higher-order, broader factors than the Big Five, such as the constructs of agency and communion noted above and there are more specific facets of each of the Big Five. There are compound traits capturing variance from multiple Big Five domains that relate to important attributes like integrity, customer service orientation and managerial potential. This mass of new evidence has provided empirical evidence for influences of personality variables on: Career choice Occupational choice Organizational choice Job training Job performance Counterproductive behaviours Interpersonal behaviours Teamwork Work attitudes Motivation & goal setting Job satisfaction Leadership Occupational health Safety Meta-analytic studies provide robust estimate of validity, as they involve averaging across large data sets drawn from different studies, and they also involve making adjustments for differences in the conditions under which data are gathered that are not related to the actual validity of the measures. Ones (2005) summarised a number of recent meta-analyses as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 shows the particular Big Five scales that can be used to form composites that best predict each of a number of different criteria. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 09

10 Table 3. (from Ones, 2005). Big Five composite validities for a range of criteria Type of criterion Traits Source N rho Integrity Customer service Violence-aggression Stress tolerance Drug and alcohol Managerial potential C, A, ES A, ES, C C, A, ES ES, A, C C, ES, A ES, EX, C Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt (1993) Ones and Viswesvaran (2001b) Ones and Viswesvaran (2001a) Ones and Viswesvaran (2001b) Ones and Viswesvaran (2001b) Ones, Hough & Viswesvaran (1998) Where C=Conscientiousness, A=Agreeableness, ES=Emotional Stability and EX=Extraversion. Table 3 summarises the results of regression based predictions of a range of general criteria, using Big Five measures as predictors. Table 4. (from Ones, 2005). Big Five composite validities for workplace behaviours Criterion Reference Validity Overall job performance Barrick, Mount, & Judge (2001).33 Objective performance Barrick, Mount, & Judge (2001).28 Training Performance Barrick, Mount, & Judge (2001).44 Teamwork Barrick, Mount, & Judge (2001).47 Citizenship Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo (2001).43 Getting along Hogan & Holland (2003).32 Getting ahead Hogan & Holland (2003).26 Motivation - goal setting Judge & Ilies (2002).58 Motivation - expectancy Judge & Ilies (2002).41 Job Satisfaction Judge, Heller, & Mount (2002).48 Leadership Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt (2002).57 Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 010

11 Judge (2005) has drawn similar conclusions in his summary of the results of recent metaanalyses, providing the individual Big Five validities as well as aggregated Big Five validities for four main criteria (see Table 4). Table 5. Validity of Big Five scales for four criteria (from Judge, 2005) Overall Job Performance Motivation Job Satisfaction Leadership Emotional Stability.13.24*.29*.24* Extraversion.09.16*.25*.31* Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness * *.20*.26*.28* Multiple R.47*.54*.41*.47* Except for Multiple R, entries are meta-analytic correlations (ρ). * 95% CI excludes 0. Overall, the results of all this research indicate the composite predictors using scales drawn from the Big Five domains have validities in the 0.40 to 0.50 region (these are operational validities, where effects of low criterion reliability and range restriction due to selection effects have been adjusted for). The results of a meta-analysis (Bartram, 2005) of 29 studies involving 4861 people using personality tests from the OPQ family (OPQ, CCSQ and WSQ) has provided similar estimates (R=0.42 to R=0.53) between aggregated predictors and a range of job criteria. OPQ32 based Big Five measures can be expected to have the same generalisable validities indicated in these tables. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 011

12 References Anderson, N., & Ones, D. S The construct validity of three entry level personality inventories used in the UK: Cautionary findings from a multiple-inventory investigation. European Journal of Personality, 17: S39-S66. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon Books. Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. & Judge, T.A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight Competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., Pascal, S., & Nicol, A.A.M. (2001). The structure of the French personality lexicon. European Journal of Personality, 15, Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D., & Motowildo, S.J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R., (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. De Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five factor assessment: Intoruction. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment. Gottingen: Hogrefe & Huber Digman, J.M. (1997). Higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 73, Goldberg, L.R., & Somer, O. (2000). The hierarchical structure of common Turkish persondescriptive adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 14, Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In D.C. Funder, R.D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hofstee, W.K.B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L.R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and Circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M.M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 012

13 Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Hough, L.M. (1992). The Big Five personality variables construct confusion: description versus prediction. Human Performance 5, Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, Judge, T.A. (2005). Personality and Organizational Psychology: Resurrection and Remaining Entanglements. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. May Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, Ones, D.S. (2005). On the usefulness of personality variables: An empirical perspective. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, May Ones, D.S., Hough, L.M., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998, April). Validity and adverse impact of personality-based managerial potential scales. In R. Page (Chair), Personality determinants of managerial potential, performance, progression and ascendancy. Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, Texas. Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, Ones, D.S., & Viswesveran, C. (2001a). Integrity tests and other Criterion-focused Occupational Personality Scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, Ones, D.S., & Viswesveran, C. (2001b). Personality at work: Criterion-focused occupational personality scales used in personnel selection. In B.W. Roberts, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp 63-92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 013

14 Paulhus, D.L., & John, O.P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-descriptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, Salgado, J.F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five personality dimensions and job performance in army and civil occupations: A European perspective. Human Performance, 11, Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-ffm personality measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L.R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M.R. Barrick & A.M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SHL (2006). OPQ32 Technical Manual. Thames Ditton, England: SHL Group plc. SHL (2005). OPQ32 User Manual. Thames Ditton, England: SHL Group plc. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44, Trickey, G., & Hogan, R. (1998). We don't have a choice -personality matters! Selection and Development Review, 14, Tupes, E.C. & Christal, R.E (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Technical Report No 61-97). Lackland Airforce Base, Texas: U.S. Air Force. Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ32 Report/ Page 014