Personality Questionnaires

Reliability and validity are terms frequently used in any conversation that involves the selection and use of "psychometric tests", by which we mean personality questionnaires, ability tests, etc. In our experience the assessment industry does a very fine job of blinding users with science, resulting in string of numbers and technical jargon that means little, even to Level A and B trained users. This page is intended to clarify the terms and provide some insight into the research and development process used in the creation of our personality questionnaires.

What do we Mean by "Reliability & Validity"?

The assessment industry use a range of complex methods to explain both of these concepts (and even more complex statistics), but in simple terms it is important to understand if the questionnaires are working. As an example:

Say you use a set of bathroom scales to weigh yourself. Every day you get on and they say you weigh 65 kilos; it never changes always the same 65 kilo. We would say that this is a reliable measuring tool. In other words it consistently measures what it should measure.

However, if you actually weigh 80 kilos then the scales, despite being reliable, do not provide you with an accurate (valid) result.

A set of scales needs to be consistent (reliable) and provide an accurate (valid) result. The same is true of a personality questionnaire, ability test and any other form of assessment you might use.

You will notice that there are 16 scales (descriptions of personality) in the report. We realise that you may be more familiar with questionnaires providing more detailed scale breakdowns, it is important to note that composite scores (for example The Big Five profile we provide) have been proven to have higher validity.

Putting our Personality Questionnaires into Context

They have been developed by a group of former SHL test developers (they have also developed tests for other major test publishers and organisations since leaving SHL). The same best practice approaches have been employed in the creation of this questionnaire as any other on the market. The reliability and validity studies are showing that the questionnaire is delivering results that are as good as any on the market.

Availability of Reliability & Validity Data

We have technical manuals that provide full details on the questionnaire's reliability and the validity of the Big 5 model around which the questionnaire is constructed. Please contact us for a copy. As with any validity data (from all test publishers), validation studies in technical manuals demonstrate that the questionnaire has been proven to work in lots of different situations which is great, but this does not automatically mean that any questionnaire will provide you with a valid (accurate) result in your context. We are absolutely committed to providing a fantastic service supported by scientific evidence to support the application of our questionnaires in your organisation. To back these words with action, we would be delighted to run a free validation study for you to give you the confidence that the questionnaire is accurate in your environment.

Even if you think a free validation study sounds like a good idea we realise that you might be concerned about the amount of time and work involved - it really isn't that painful, please contact us to talk through the details.

The assessment of personality variables continues to have a wide appeal to organisations. Personality constructs have been demonstrated to be useful for explaining and predicting attitudes, behaviours, performance and outcomes in a range of work settings (Ones, Dilchert et al, 2007). Starting with the work of Barrick & Mount (1991), Barrick, Mount & Judge (2001), and Ones, Viswesvaran & Dilchert (2005), there is considerable evidence to suggest that personality is important in predicting the accomplishment of a wide range of work tasks. Additionally, job analyses of the components considered important in predicting overall job success are typically of a personality, as well as a cognitively, based nature (Hough & Ones, 2001).

The Personality Questionnaires are fifteen scale work personality questionnaires structured around the widely accepted "Big Five" model of personality. According to this model, the diverse array of human personality traits can be effectively summarised by the five broadly independent domains that are generally labelled as Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability (or "Resilience"). The model itself originated from the findings of lexical studies of personality structure, in which self, or peer ratings on a comprehensive set of personality-descriptive adjectives or phrases were factor analysed. In nearly all cases the "Big Five" emerged as the most efficient and effective model (factor analytical solution). Much of the credit for this work belongs to Goldberg, who was the first person to use the phrase "Big Five" and who subsequently went on to refine and operationalise the "Big Five" model both at the trait and facet level. (See Goldberg 1990, 1993 and 1999). Subsequent to the work of Goldberg, Costa and McCrae (1992) developed a specific Big Five personality inventory, known as the "NEO-PI-R".

The Personality Questionnaires owes much of its of inspiration to the work of Goldberg, and Costa and McCrae, particularly in the sense of retaining the Big Five model at the trait or domain level, but also of having lower level facets which feed into each of the five traits. Although there has sometimes been some debate about which particular facets fit into which particular trait or domain, the Personality Questionnaires has included those facets which are most recognisable to a user, and which are most likely to be relevant for workplace assessment. Note that in this sense, the domain of "Extraversion" is limited to the arena of "Sociability" and does not include facets such as "Activity" and "Excitement-Seeking", (Costa and MacCrae (1992)).

Ipsative derives from Latin, and means of the self. It refers to a type of psychological questionnaire in which respondents compare two or more desirable options (three in the case of FindingPotential Personality Ipsative) and pick the one which is most preferred (often called a forced choice scale). This contrasts with normative measures that use “Likert” scales, in which respondents choose the score (e.g. 1 to 5) which best represents the degree to which they agree with a given statement.

While mean scores from normative questionnaires can be compared across individuals, scores from an ipsative measure cannot.

In our ipsative version, individuals choose which of three statements is most like them and which of the three is least like them. This means that a constant number of points are distributed between the different scales. The resulting profile indicates the individual's preferred ways of behaving, with each trait having relative (not absolute) meaning. Comparisons cannot be made with another individual's score. Comparisons can only be made among the scales within an individual. Thus the meaning of ipsative: comparison with the self.

Ipsative tests make sense in a development programme where you want to see relative strengths and weaknesses, or change over time. They should not be used in a selection situation to make direct comparisons between individuals, although they often are. However, ipsative questionnaires are often used in selection for their ability to minimise faking. However, the FindingPotential Personality normative version has a social desirability scale to balance this.

The Leadership and Management Styles Expert Report has been created to provide leaders with a practical, tangible insight into their preferred leadership and management style. The output will add value to a range of initiatives including executive coaching, inducting new senior managers, as part of leadership development programmes or career planning conversations.

What it Measures

1. Execution Focus

Execution Focus is based on four core principles – People, Strategic, Operational and Tactical Focus - that are essential in creating effective performance execution. Increasing a leader’s awareness of their different preferences can help an individual explore the potential strengths and gaps in their approach to performance execution.

People
Someone with a strong people focus will be keen to understand and inspire their people, believing the key to success is to win their hearts and minds. They are keen to understand how people think and feel, making time to understand what drives and motivates them.

Strategic
Someone with a strong preference in this area will be interested in developing the future vision and focus for the business. They are more interested in delivering long-term results for the business, emphasising future opportunities rather than day-to-day matters.

Operational
An operational preference is likely to result in a focus on translating strategic objectives into a series of operational plans (normally at a departmental/functional level) to ensure that the business’ goals and targets are delivered. They prefer thinking about tangible, short to medium term issues.

Tactical
Someone whose preference is tactical is likely to focus on day-to-day performance and executing tangible objectives. They are comfortable instructing others, ensuring quality is maintained and deadlines are met.

2. Transactional & Transformational Styles

In simple terms, transactional leaders focus on management and Doing it right, whilst transformational leaders are more concerned with leadership and Doing the right thing.

Both styles can bring different strengths and attributes to an individual’s approach to managing and leading, and as such one should not be considered as better than the other style. Instead, they can be explored in terms of the potential strengths and gaps in an individual’s approach.

Management (Transactional) Style
A transactional approach is most likely to add value in an environment where there is a high degree of control and a need for adherence to define structures and processes, a need for problem solving and delivering within the existing status quo. When done well, a transactional preference will help stretch an organisation’s performance capability by delivering increased organisational efficiency.

Leadership (Transformational) Style
A transformational approach is most likely to add value in environments where change is required or is already the norm, and where operating within uncertainty and a high degree of risk is needed if goals are to be achieved. When done well, a transformational preference will help increase an organisation’s performance by fundamentally changing aspects of how it operates and potentially even what it does, i.e. delivering increased organisational effectiveness.

Managing Self
Competencies relating to how an individual drives their own performance, takes accountability for their behaviour, handles pressure and has a thirst for development.

Managing Relations with Others
Competencies focusing on how an individual interacts with, builds relationships with and leads others.

Managing the Business
Competencies focused on decision making and execution, understanding the wider business context and leading in change.

Accessing the Report

To generate a Leadership and Management Styles Report the candidate will need to complete one of our personality questionnaires