PPRF Complete Research Report PDF

Personality-Related 1
Running head: PERSONALITY-RELATED POSITION REQUIREMENTS

Development of an Instrument to Identify
Personality-Related Position Requirements
Patrick H. Raymark
The Ohio State University - Newark
Mark J. Schmit
Department of Management
University of Florida
Robert M. Guion
Bowling Green State University
Author Notes
The authors, in addition to Pilar Delaney, Michelle Brodke, Bob Hayes, Sandra Martens, Karen
Mattimore, Laura Mattimore, and Murray Weaver were the members of the team that developed
the instrument we describe in this article; though their tenures in the group varied widely, all of
them made significant contributions. Gracious thanks are extended to all the many individuals
who contributed their time, effort, opinions, or comments on the project. Mark J. Schmit is now
with Personnel Decisions Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Requests for reprints should be sent to Patrick
H. Raymark, Department of Psychology, Clemson University, 418 Brackett Hall, Clemson, SC,
29634-1355 (email: praymar@clemson.edu).

Abstract
The development of the Personality-Related Position Requirements Form (PPRF), a job analysis
form to be used in making hypotheses about personality predictors of job performance, is
described. The Big Five personality factors provided an organizing framework for the PPRF.
Subsequent development resulted in identifying specific sets of items for facets of each of the
Big Five, 12 such sets in all. A study was conducted by gathering job descriptions on 260
different jobs to determine if the PPRF could reliably differentiate jobs; such evidence was
found. The PPRF is offered to both researchers and practitioners for use, refinement, and further
testing of its technical merits and intended purposes.


Development of an Instrument to Identify
Personality-Related Position Requirements
Renewed interest in personality variables as predictors of job performance has been
expressed by many personnel selection researchers. Recent meta-analytic work has encouraged
the use of these rediscovered variables in selection (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992; Tett,
Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). New methods and approaches for measuring personality variables
related to specific sorts of work (e.g., Gough, 1985; J. Hogan, R. Hogan, & C. M. Busch, 1984)
and to work in general (Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995) have shown encouraging
results in selection research (Guion, 1987, 1991).
Prior to this recent resurgence, however, the use of personality constructs in employee
selection was considered ineffective. Frequently cited as providing support for this view were
Guion and Gottier (1965), who reviewed research on personality predictors in personnel
selection. In the sentences immediately preceding their often-cited paragraph saying that no
generalizable evidence of the validity of personality measures was found, they suggested "that
serious, concerted effort might yield more generalizable systems of prediction using personality
measures" (Guion & Gottier, 1965, p. 159). They blamed the lack of work-related personality
theory and inadequate research designs for the lack of supporting evidence. These problems still
exist, though recent work on both the predictor and criterion sides of the issue suggest a positive
trend (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, Ford, Rumsey,
Pulakos, Borman, Felker, de Vera, & Riegelhaupt, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager,
1993; Hough, 1992; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; McHenry, Hough,

Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; Tett et al., 1991).
Ideas for selection procedures may come from hunch, other psychologists, or test
catalogs, but modern literature urges the development of testable hypotheses about predictor and
criterion construct variables and the choice of valid instruments for measuring them (Binning &
Barrett, 1989; Landy, 1986). Selection hypotheses generally emerge from an understanding of
jobs based on job analysis; if the job analysis method emphasizes only cognitive or psychomotor
aspects of jobs, it is likely that only cognitive or psychomotor predictors will be hypothesized.
Douglas Jackson, in his Presidential Address to the Division of Evaluation and
Measurement of the American Psychological Association (Jackson, 1990), said that the dormancy
in the use of personality variables for personnel selection can be laid to job analytic procedures
that do not encourage their consideration. Although some job analysis forms appear to identify
some aspects of personality-related position requirements (e.g., Position Analysis Questionnaire,
PAQ; McCormick, Mecham, & Jeanneret, 1977), our review of existing job analysis forms and
the job analysis literature (e.g., Gael, 1988) led us to agree with Jackson. The development of the
Personality-Related Position Requirements Form: An Inventory of General Position
Requirements (PPRF) described in this article represents an effort to address this problem.
Although the PPRF has been designed to assist in the development of hypotheses about
predictor-criterion relationships, it is clear that different users may infer different hypotheses. In
developing the PAQ, for example, 76 personal attributes were rated by experts for their relevance
to each of 187 job elements (Marquardt & McCormick, 1972). Median ratings in a 76 x 187
matrix give a PAQ user some guidance in inferring hypotheses about potential predictors for

virtually any job. Of the 76 attributes, 49 were designated aptitudes and 27 were of an interest
or temperament nature. These, however, left a further need for inferring the interest or
temperament variable that would be a useful predictor. For example, attribute 45 was
Processes/machines/techniques: situations which are nonsocial in nature... From this, one
expert might infer introversion as a useful personality characteristic and a different person might
infer some form of ego-strength or independence and still another mechanical interests. One of
these may prove, if all are tested, to be a better hypothesis than another; a job analysis instrument
does not necessarily demonstrate the usefulness of the variables suggested by it, but it can make
the inferential process simpler and more systematic.
Most job analysis inventories are quite clear in providing help for hypothesizing ability or
aptitude variables that might make good predictors but are less clear for those traits more closely
associated with personality variables. We felt that an approach to job analysis explicitly directed
to generating hypotheses about relevant personality variables would be helpful. The
development of such an approach, the Personality-Related Position Requirements Form: An
Inventory of General Position Requirements (PPRF), is described here. Our goal was to produce
an instrument to identify aspects of work potentially related to individual differences in
personality. If personality traits are relevant to some aspects of job performance, and if they are
not identified and measured, they will be overlooked for selection. We present the development
efforts here and offer the instrument to the scientific community for testing, refinement, and use
in forming hypotheses in validation research.
Development of the PPRF

Generation of Personality-Related Task Statements
We reviewed several job analysis forms, personality measures, and job analysis reviews
(Gael, 1988, Harvey, 1991) to choose an item format. The final form used a common stem for all
items: "Effective performance in this position requires the person to..." Individual items began
with a transitive verb and included direct objects, and in some cases a restrictive modifier, to
form with the stem a complete sentence. Items were to be written to reflect behaviors that might
be required for successful performance on a job. They were to be broad enough in scope to apply
potentially to several jobs or job families. The focus of the items was to be on the job and not the
person. Finally, a governing rule was to avoid placing valuative components or causal
attributions in the items. (Of course, the wording of the total stem and item combination was
necessarily causal.) Members of our research team (a senior industrial-organizational psychology
professor, a post-doctoral fellow, and 8 industrial-organizational psychology graduate students)
independently generated statements that might be used in the analysis of jobs and lead to the
formation of hypotheses about personality variables as predictors of job performance. This early
stage of item generation was conducted without the aid of a theoretical framework for personality
variables on the grounds that it was not known whether the description of personality-related
position requirements would correspond directly to an existing personality framework, and we
did not want to predispose this possibility by providing the item writers with a potentially
inappropriate personality framework. Approximately 250 items were generated under the
development guidelines. Clearly redundant items were dropped, and group editing further
reduced the list and improved remaining items. After cuts were made, 200 items were retained.

These items were shown to 12 colleagues (6 Ph.D. faculty and 6 advanced graduate
students) for review. They evaluated items in terms of: (a) appropriateness of the stem, (b)
quality of the item (e.g., adherence to the rules noted above, especially the job-focus content
rule), and ( c) whether the item content reflected personality requirements rather than knowledge,
skills, or abilities. Items were further edited on the basis of the comments received; some were
completely reworded, others modified slightly, and others dropped. This step cut the list to 185
items.
Linking Items to Traits
Each item was intended to be related to a personality trait, but to what trait? Preliminary
efforts to see a work-related structure emerge from the tasks, simply by sorting the position
requirement items were agonizing, fruitless, and unreliable, so we considered existing
taxonomies, not restricted to work settings, to choose an organizing theoretical position (Browne
& Howarth, 1977; French, 1973; Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963; Wiggins, 1980).
The position that seemed to fit the position requirements best and has received the most
attention of late, both in personality and industrial-organization psychology, was that tagged as
the "Big Five." The Big-Five taxonomy is based on the persistent recurrence of five principal
factors in most factor analytic investigations of adjectives (and brief statements) describing
personalities (see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & John,
1992). Different titles of the factors are used by different researchers; for our purposes, among
the many choices of labels for the Big Five (Digman, 1990), we chose Surgency, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellectance. We opted for Cattell's (1947)

Surgency label for our first dimension because our item content suggested that a form of social
predominance (e.g., leadership, visibility, or activity) was present in many work-related activities
that seemed to fit better under this label, than the alternative label, Extroversion. Many of our
items also seemed to be more related to Borgatta's (1964) definition of Intellectance or Digman
and Takemoto-Chock's (1981) Intellect, than to Costa and McCraes (1992) Openness to
Experience. As noted by John (1989), the labels used for the Big Five are not as important as the
eventual definitions. Accordingly, our initial labels are better defined, and perhaps better
justified, by our final product. At this point, we sought only a theoretical frame of reference
relevant to the successful performance of work-related activities across most jobs.
Research group members, working individually or in groups of two or three, sorted the
185 items into five separate stacks to represent the five dimensions; six independent sorts were
made. Items not readily placed in any of these categories were placed in a sixth labeled "Other."
Only those items placed in the same major dimension in 80% or more of the sorts were retained,
reducing the number of items to 92.
Despite the agreement on the allocation of these items, items within the five groups
seemed to suggest a variety of personality characteristics. The five factors seemed too broad to
describe work-related employee characteristics, a problem noted by others (e.g., Costa &
McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1981, 1990; R. Hogan, 1987; Hough, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1985;
Norman, 1963). Accordingly, we attempted to subdivide the major factor groupings by having
research group members resort items within each major dimension into logical subgroups defined
by the individual or group doing the sorting. Fifty-four item subgroups resulted.

Elementary linkage analysis (McQuitty, 1957) provided a guide to judgment in dividing
the major factors into a reasonable number of facets.
1
Items were given values of "1" if at least
three of the six sorting individuals or groups agreed on a subgroup assignment or "0" if not. A
92x92 phi coefficient matrix was prepared; the elementary linkage analysis suggested 12 clusters.
Each of these clusters was then named on the basis of the items contributing to it and on the
factor (among the five) to which it had been assigned. Some clusters had very few items, so new
items were written to ensure that we had adequately captured the content domain of the cluster;
the goal was 12 content representative items for each of the 12 clusters. For some of the clusters
the goal could not be achieved without undue redundancy, so the final item count was only 136
(up 44 items from the 92 base items). The taxonomy was hierarchical; each cluster was treated
as a dimension fitting under one of the five major dimensions, and each was defined following
the lead of the Fleishman group in identifying differences between the cluster at hand and others
with which it might be confused (see Peterson & Bownas, 1982, p. 89 for an easily available
description). The 12 subdimensions and the Big-Five dimension to which they were assigned are
presented in Table 1; the definitions of each are presented in Appendix A.

Insert Table 1 about here

Expert Judgments of Item-Dimension Appropriateness
Expert judgments were sought as a check on our initial connections. Forty-four

psychologists with extensive knowledge of psychological aspects of work, personality theory, or
both were asked to participate. Asking for judgments for all 136 items on 12 subdimensions
would have imposed unreasonable time demands on judges. To keep the task manageable, each
expert judged items from only 3 of the 12 subdimensions. They were asked to read the
definitions of these subdimensions and then to judge, for each item, whether it was relevant to
any of the three subdimensions. Responses were received from 41 of the 44 judges. Items
allocated to the same dimension by at least 80% of the judges were retained; accordingly, 24
items were dropped, and 112 remained.
Item Scaling
Some position requirements might be far better indicators of the relevance of a certain
trait than others assigned to the same trait. In a final job analysis form, should these better
indicators be given special weight, or should all items be unit weighted? With large numbers of
items, differential weighting makes virtually no difference (Guilford & Fruchter, 1973). With
few items it does, or can. We had more than "a few" but much less than "a large number" of
items, so the answer in our case was not clear. We decided to have the position requirements
scaled for their relevance to the personality dimensions they were intended to reflect.
A new questionnaire was developed for scaling. Each set of position requirements was
formed into a paired-comparison questionnaire (i.e., one set of paired items was developed for
each of the 12 dimensions, using each pair once). The sequencing and positioning of item pairs
was done using the tables prepared for paired-comparison ratings as reprinted in Lawshe and
Balma (1966, Appendix B-7).

Questionnaires were sent to 145 psychologists, including the original 44. Completed
questionnaires were returned by 100 psychologists. Responses were analyzed using Thurstone's
Case V (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981). As is conventional, negative scale values (z-
scores) were eliminated by assigning a value of 0.00 as the scale value of the item lowest on the
scale. In each of five of the dimensions, the scale value of one item was substantially lower than
that of any of the remaining items. When these items were assigned values of 0.00 in their
respective dimensions, the scale value of the next lowest item in each case was at least .50 -- a
substantial gap. These 5 questionable items were dropped from further analyses and the
remaining items in these dimensions were rescaled. The resultant scale values for the remaining
107 items are shown in Table 2. Scale values clearly varied, but not at all dramatically.
Arbitrarily, we set weights of 2 for items with a scale value of .80 or greater and 1 for items with
lower scale values. The .80 value was chosen, though tentatively, because it is a value which
gave no within-scale close calls. A list of the item numbers with suggested weights of 2 is
provided in Appendix C.


The final form of the job analysis questionnaire (see Appendix B) was studied in an initial
test of the usefulness of the form for describing and differentiating various jobs on personality-
related dimensions. Reliable differentiation of jobs is a requirement for an effective approach to
job analysis. Accordingly, we wanted evidence that (a) the 12 dimensions were not redundant

and (b) jobs could be described reliably.
Method
Sample
A sample of positions was obtained through various recruitment efforts. Each member of
the research team sent forms to friends, relatives, and acquaintances; a call for participants was
made at an annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology; and
several reliable senior-level undergraduate and graduate students were recruited to distribute
forms to friends and relatives. Data collectors were instructed to recruit participants who had
held their current position in an organization for over six months and worked at least 20 hours
per week. In a few cases, consultants, whose contracts with clients had included extensive job
analysis, completed forms from the results of their analyses, using information they had obtained
in consensus meetings with job incumbents.
This unusual approach to job sampling was deliberate. Alternative approaches might
have included administering the PPRF for jobs within one or a few organizations, or perhaps a
mailing asking for a sample of jobs within a national survey of organizations. The first of these
options seemed poor because it could exacerbate organizational idiosyncracies in job definitions;
organizational characteristics would be seriously confounded with job characteristics. Although
some such confounding is realistic, too much of it could spuriously reduce the independence of
the dimensions. A sample by mail for a preliminary pilot study seemed questionable partly
because of expense and even more because of the absence of any real control over the care
exerted in completing the descriptions. The procedure we used was expected to provide a

substantial variety of jobs described by people who, either because of personal involvement or
professional standards, could be expected to take the task seriously.
Job descriptions were obtained for 260 different jobs from a total of 283 completed
forms. For eight of these jobs, more than one incumbent in a single organization completed the
inventory for the same job; their responses were consolidated into a single consensus form. That
is, an item by item comparison was made across forms and a final rating was based on majority
agreement on the item; where there was no clear majority, we favored the higher rating (i.e., the
rating leaning toward "essential"). The 260 jobs were in fact demonstrably different, but not as
diverse as desired. They were assigned six-digit occupational codes from the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). Two members of the research group
assigned a code number, based, if possible, on the job title given by the incumbent and/or on
personal knowledge of the incumbents job. Where the job title was vague or could not be
matched in the DOT, a code deemed appropriate by both researchers was assigned, and
consensus was sought from a second pair of coders for a final decision. We were unable to code
six of the job titles.
The first digit of the code identifies one of ten primary occupational categories; tallying
these categories shows the danger of the sampling method used. About four jobs in ten were
managerial, more than a quarter of them were in the clerical or sales classifications, and nearly
that many were professional or technical jobs. Very few of what are typically called blue-collar
jobs were in this sample. Specifically, the tally was: 0 - Professional and technical occupations
(21.5%); 1 - Managerial occupations (38.8%); 2 - Clerical and sales occupations (27.7%); 3 -

Service occupations (7.3%); 4 - Agriculture, fishery, forestry, and related (0%); 5 - Processing
occupations (0.8%); 6 - Machine trade occupations (0%); 7 - Benchwork occupations (0.8%); 8 -
Structural work occupations (0.8%); 9 - Miscellaneous occupations (2.3%).
As might be expected from this distribution, the data-people-things part of the
classification code indicated that many of these jobs were fairly highly concerned with data or
with people, but most were quite low in responsibility for things. Insofar as personality variables
are concerned with interpersonal relationships, and many of them are, this skewing of the
distribution may not pose a serious problem. The paucity of jobs emphasizing things, however,
means that we have not had as much opportunity as we might have in a more representative
sample to tap some of the 12 dimensions.
Results
Differentiation
The 12 set scores were determined for each of the 260 job descriptions using the weighted
items (see Appendix C). The correlations among the set scores were then calculated to determine
if there was a useful level of scale independence. Table 3 presents the correlations among the 12
sets and the internal consistency reliability (i.e., alpha) of each set. All but one subset (i.e, Set 8,
Adherence to a Work Ethic) had alpha coefficients higher than .70, indicating a satisfactory
degree of internal consistency within subsets. Further, the pattern of correlations suggested that
an acceptable degree of scale independence had been achieved; the mix of correlations was
substantial, all positive but many were low.



To demonstrate that the 12 subsets were useful in differentiating among jobs, we
constructed several sample job description profiles for different types of jobs. Because our
sample was composed of many different jobs described by one person, we grouped jobs into
occupational groups. The first three digits of the DOT code assigned to each of the 260 jobs
represented the occupational group to which the jobs belonged, the first digit indicating the
broadest category. We selected the 3-digit occupational groups with more than one job in them
for each of the nine 1-digit (i.e., broadest) DOT categories, providing 12 profiles; these are
presented in Table 4. All of the mean set scores are in a range of 0 to 2, consistent with the 0 =
Not Required, 1 = Helpful, and 2 = Essential scale format.


An examination of Table 4 suggests that the 12 sets differentiate among the occupational
groups in expected ways. For example, the janitorial and materials handling groups (DOT #s 382
and 922) had the fewest number of sets with mean scores greater than 1.0; this is consistent with
the low interpersonal contact typically associated with these types of jobs. Conversely, the jobs
in the occupational categories where the most interpersonal contact might be expected, service
industry jobs and personnel administration occupations, had the largest number of sets with mean
scores greater than 1.0. General leadership scores were highest in management and education

occupation categories. Friendly disposition scores were highest in the sales clerk occupation
group. Thoroughness and attentiveness to details scores were highest in the accounting
occupation group. General trustworthiness scores were highest for cashiers and tellers. These
are just a few examples of expected relationships between the PPRF set scores and the job duties
of the represented occupational groups; more can be gleaned by close examination of Table 4.
Also noteworthy is the lack of differentiation for some dimensions across occupation
groups. Consistent with the finding that conscientiousness is important across many jobs
(Barrick & Mount, 1991), at least two of the three conscientiousness dimensions (i.e., subsets 7,
8 and 9) had scores greater than 1 for each of the occupation groups.
Each of the 12 profiles represented a group of jobs, rather than one particular job. Thus,
it is important to estimate the reliability of the means of the ratings across groups within each
occupational category. Thus, an intraclass correlation of an average (Guilford & Fruchter, 1973;
Mean Square between set rating minus Mean Square for residuals divided by Mean Square for
residuals) was calculated using each set score as a rating. For example, in the DOT #032 group,
a 12 x 8 matrix of dimensions by raters was analyzed. The average ratings had adequate
reliabilities ranging from .66 to .92 (see Table 4). These reliabilities represent the expected
correlations of the averaged set scores with averaged set scores from a similar sized group of
raters drawn from the same population.
Reliability
The responses across raters of the same job in the same organization can be used to
further determine how reliable the PPRF is in describing jobs. We had data for four positions for

which PPRFs were completed independently by incumbents in the same organization: Brewery
Supervisor -- 7; Production-line Manager -- 5 incumbents; Sales Associate -- 5 incumbents;
Computer Programmer -- 4 incumbents. An intraclass correlation of the average ratings was
computed for each of the 12 sets for each job. An overall intraclass correlation was then derived
for each job by calculating the mean of these 12 reliability coefficients. For example, for Set 1
(i.e., 9 items) ratings by the Brewery Supervisors, a 9 x 7 matrix of items by raters was analyzed.
The same was done for Sets 2-12; these 12 reliabilities were then summed and divided by 12.
The average intraclass correlation reliabilities were .97 for the Brewery Supervisor job, .89 for
the Production-line Manager, .90 for the Sales Associate job, and .85 for the Computer
Programmer job.
The James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) index of rater agreement, r
wg
, was also calculated
for the four positions. A normal null distribution was assumed for the 3-point scale. The average
r
wg
across the 12 scales for the 4 positions were .99 for the Brewery Supervisor job, .96 for the
Production-line Manager, .97 for the Sales Associate job, and .93 for the Computer Programmer
job. These findings suggest that incumbents can consistently agree on the importance of the
PPRF's behavior clusters for a job, and that a statistical combination of rating forms might yield
reliable job information relevant to the personality domain.

Discussion
The PPRF has now gone through several rounds of revision and field testing. A large
number of people have been able to use it to describe a variety of jobs. We believe the

instrument is likely to prove useful in the development of hypotheses about the relationships
between personality predictors and performance criteria. The PPRF has dimensions of important
work behaviors that were found to be internally consistent and not redundant. The 12 sets
appeared to be effective in the differentiation of occupational categories. Finally, the intrarater
reliability of the 12 sets was demonstrated in several ways. Indeed, the use of 4 or 5 raters to
describe a job with the PPRF was found to result in very good reliability estimates.
The major research question left to be answered is whether the PPRF actually does assist
researchers in identifying valid personality predictors of job performance. This is likely to be a
difficult research endeavor, given the current technology for the measurement of personality
traits. For now, users must infer, on the basis of limited information about personality measures,
which instrument might fit our scales. To illustrate, we made an initial attempt at mapping the
PPRF scales to subscales of an existing personality measure.
Using our dimension definitions (see Appendix A), and construct definitions for the facet
scales of the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), a measure that includes traits scores for the
Big-Five traits and 30 more narrow facet traits of the Big-Five, we generated a tentative
hypothesis table (see Figure 1). That is, we made a map of the expected primary and secondary
predictors of job performance when the job analysis subdimension is rated by incumbents or
supervisors as, at least, helpful for successful performance on the job. As should be expected, the
primary facet scale predictors connected to the PPRF dimensions come from the same Big-Five
constructs, while secondary predictors generally come from outside the primary Big-Five
construct. This hypothesis table is not meant to be definitive (a good bit of subjective decision-

making was used), but rather is presented as a demonstration of how an existing set of
personality measures might be mapped onto the PPRF; we believe that users can make their own
informed connections of this type for their preferred instruments. A future study might also be
useful in which experts are asked to make connections between various personality measures and
the PPRF.

Insert Figure 1 about here

Traditional, atheoretical criterion-related validation evaluates the predictive usefulness of
scores on specific instruments with little concern for identifying or understanding underlying
traits. The PPRF is not likely to be especially useful for such validation research. It has been
intended for a more modern approach to predictor choice and validation (e.g., Binning & Barrett,
1989; Landy, 1986). This approach requires conceptual hypothesis formation. For arguably
logical or theoretical reasons, criterion and predictor constructs are hypothesized to be related
(note that these may be either positive or negative relationships, Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, &
Reddon, 1994); the predictor instrument is then evaluated for its construct validity. This
approach provides a better evaluation of the use of the chosen instrument than does a single
validity coefficient (Guion, 1991).
The PPRF is intended to help in hypothesis development, but it is not a substitute for a
users professional judgment. If one or two of the 12 item sets dominate the description of a job,
the user may infer both personality traits and criterion constructs appropriate to those sets (or to

the most descriptive items in them), but neither trait nor criterion constructs are discrete
categories. As Hofstee, de Raad, and Goldberg (1992) pointed out, different uses of a
personality trait may emphasize different aspects of the trait (or item set). Different instruments
may differ in how well they match different aspects of a trait, that is, have different construct
validities for the different specifics of trait definition.
Nevertheless, evidence should be accumulated to show whether hypotheses developed
with the help of the PPRF tend to be supported in practical use. So far, one study has been
conducted that used the PPRF to form hypotheses about the relationship between personality test
scores and both training and job performance. Valid predictions were made by matching scale
content definitions of scales from the Millon Index of Personality Styles (Millon, 1994) with
definitions of PPRF dimensions judged by subject matter experts to be essential for successful
performance (pp. 103-106). This approach was similar to the approach we used to map the NEO
PI-R facets to the PPRF sets. Clearly, much more research is needed before the scores on the
PPRF scales can be assumed to provide solid evidence that related predictors will be valid. For
example, the predictor map we developed for the NEO PI-R needs to be tested to see if the
hypothesized predictors result in higher validities than others not hypothesized to be related to
job performance for a particular job. This process will have to be conducted for many different
types of jobs.
The criterion space also must be considered in validation efforts. The PPRF should assist
the researcher in the development of criterion measures related to the assumed underlying
personality predictor traits. The behavioral statements on the PPRF are very general in nature, so

that they can be used with any job. These general statements can be linked to specific tasks of
incumbents that lead to successful performance. Performance ratings for these specific tasks, or
outcomes associated with the tasks, may be useful for building either specific or global job
performance criterion measures.
Certainly, use of the PPRF is likely to be an improvement over the uninformed use of
personality predictors in personnel selection. Some deficiencies in the current research, however,
make the results tentative. First, we have limited information about its use in describing blue
collar jobs. Second, many subjective decisions were made throughout the development process.
While we feel that most were well informed decisions, some were relatively more arbitrary (e.g.,
scaling cut-point decision). Third, we began with the Big Five as our organizing taxonomy. We
came to think, as other researchers have suggested, that this taxonomy may be incomplete in its
coverage of work-related traits (cf. Hough, 1992). Future refinements of the PPRF should
consider additional dimensions. Referring to work styles rather than to personality, Borman,
McKee, and Schneider (1995) provided a similar taxonomy of seven (not five) higher order
constructs divided further into a total of 17 lower order constructs; their taxonomy may offer
additions to the twelve dimensions now in the PPRF. Despite the limitations of the PPRF
development process, we feel a good start has been made in an attempt to develop a job analysis
instrument specifically aimed at personality-related position requirements. It is our intention to
make the PPRF available to researchers and practitioners through this article so that
improvements, refinements, and additional tests of the efficacy of the instrument in generating
hypotheses can be conducted on a broad front.

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Binning, J. F., & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A conceptual
analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 478-494.
Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9,
8-17.
Borman, W. C., McKee, A. S., & Schneider, R. J. (1995). Work styles. In N. G. Peterson,
M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.) Development of a
prototype Occupational Information Network (O*NET) content model (Vols. 1-2). Salt Lake
City, UT: Utah Department of Employment Security.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmit & W. C. Borman (Eds.) Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Browne, J. A., & Howarth, E. (1977). A comprehensive factor analysis of personality
questionnaire items: A test of 20 positive factor hypotheses. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
12, 399-427.
Campbell, C. H., Ford, P., Rumsey, M. G., Pulakos, E. D., Borman, W. C., Felker, D. B.,
de Vera, M. V., & Riegelhaupt, B. J. (1990). Development of multiple job performance measures
in a representative sample of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 277-300.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of

performance. In N. Schmit & W. C. Borman (Eds.) Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-
70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors.
Psychometrica, 12, 197-220.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of
personality: Re-analysis and comparison of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
16, 149-170.
French, J. W. (1973). Toward the establishment of noncognitive factors through literature
search and interpretation. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Gael, S. (Ed.). (1988). The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government
(Vols. 1 & 2). New York: Wiley.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral
sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Gough, H. G. (1985). A work orientation scale for the California Psychological Inventory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 505-513.
Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1973). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education
(5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guion, R. M. (1987). Changing views for personnel selection research. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 199-213.
Guion, R. M. (1991). Personnel assessment, selection, and placement. In M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 327-397). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel
selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Harvey, R. J (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71-163). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and
circumplex taxonomies of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146-163.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. M. (1984). How to measure service orientation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 167-173.
Hogan, R. (1987). Personality psychology: Back to basics. In J. Aronoff, A. I. Rabin, & R.
A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 141-188). New York: Springer.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables - construct confusion:
Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
Jackson, D. N. (1990, August). Quantitative perspectives on the personality-job
performance relationship. Presidential address to the Division of Evaluation, Measurement, and
Statistics at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
John, O. P. (1989). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and
research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.
Landy, F. J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing.
American Psychologist, 41, 1183-1192.
Lawshe, C. H., & Balma, M. J. (1966). Principles of personnel testing (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Marquardt, L. D., & McCormick, E. J. (1972) Attribute ratings and profiles of the job

elements of the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Report No. 1, June, 1972. West
Lafayette, IN: Occupational Research Center, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue
University.
McCormick, E. J., Mecham, R. C., & Jeanneret, P. R. (1977). Technical manual for the
Position analysis questionnaire (PAQ) (System 2). West Layfayette, IN: University Book Store.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy":
Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990).
Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel
Psychology, 43, 335-354.
McQuitty, L. L. (1957). Elementary linkage analysis for isolating orthogonal and oblique
types and typal relevancies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17, 207-229.
Millon, T. (1994). Millon Index of Personality Styles: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.

Peterson, N. G., & Bownas, D. A. (1982). Skill, task structure, and performance

acquisition. In M. D. Dunnette & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), Human performance and productivity:
Vol 1. Human capability assessment (pp. 49-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure
in applicant and non-applicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974.
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference
effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology
80, 607-620.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1987). Principles for the validation
and use of personnel selection procedures (3rd ed.). College Park, MD: Author.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of
job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1994). Meta-analysis of
personality-job performance relations: A reply to Ones, Mount, Barrick, and Hunter (1994).
Personnel Psychology, 47, 157-172.
Wiggins, J. S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 265-294). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (Vols. 1 & 2).
Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

Footnotes


1
Elementary linkage analysis is a paper-and-pencil approach to inferences about
underlying dimensions accounting for correlations in a matrix. The highest coefficient in each
row of the matrix is identified (e.g., circled). The highest coefficient in the matrix provides two
variables as a cluster core; circled coefficients in the columns for those variables add to that core.
The procedure is indeed elementary but provides a guide to dimensional inference when the
number of correlated variables is large. With a matrix that is factorially clean, it is remarkably
prescient in predicting results of a more formal factor analysis. In an unclean matrix like this
one, it suggests major factors but is likely to overlook or confuse some that might account for
some of the variance.

Table 1

Dimensions and Subdimensions for the PPRF

I. Surgency

1. General Leadership
2. Interest in Negotiation
3. Ambition

II. Agreeableness

4. Friendly Disposition
5. Sensitivity to Interest of Others
6. Cooperative or Collaborative Work Tendency

III. Conscientiousness

7. General Trustworthiness
8. Adherence to a Work Ethic
9. Thoroughness and Attentiveness to Details

IV. Emotional Stability

10. Emotional Stability

V. Intellectance

11. Desire to Generate Ideas
12. Tendency to Think Things Through


Table 2

Item Scale Values for 12 Subdimensions of the PPRF

1. General Leadership .89 .86 .72 .64 .61 .40 .31 .02 .00

2. Interest in Negotiation 1.23 1.17 .95 .79 .69 .67 .59 .58 .30 .25 .00

3. Ambition 1.00 .91 .84 .66 .65 .60 .45 .00

4. Friendly Disposition .88 .86 .56 .23 .13 .04 .00

5. Sensitivity to Interest of Others .88 .82 .65 .61 .30 .11 .09 .00

6. Cooperative or Collaborative
Work Tendency 1.06 .88 .86 .64 .50 .42 .30 .27 .00

7. General Trustworthiness .64 .62 .56 .41 .36 .33 .33 .20 .02 .00

8. Adherence to a Work Ethic 1.62 1.53 1.47 .88 .40 .21 .20 .12 .00

9. Thoroughness and Attentiveness
to Details .77 .76 .60 .43 .25 .21 .12 .02 .01 .00

10. Emotional Stability 1.59 1.45 1.34 1.04 .97 .86 .54 .28 .00

11. Desire to Generate Ideas 1.12 .96 .95 .95 .92 .85 .65 .58 .29 .00

12. Tendency to Think Things
Through .88 .78 .70 .70 .25 .11 .00


Table 3

Correlations and Internal Consistency Reliabilities of the 12 Subsets of the PPRF (N = 260)

Sets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

# of (9) (11) (8) (7) (8) (9) (10) (9) (10) (9) (10) (7)
items

1 (.85)

2 .65 (.84)

3 .29 .37 (.83)

4 .24 .42 .25 (.72)

5 .48 .52 .18 .38 (.76)

6 .28 .33 .41 .13 .36 (.78)

7 .22 .32 .25 .46 .35 .19 (.72)

8 .24 .29 .44 .19 .21 .38 .33 (.60)

9 .23 .37 .58 .14 .20 .36 .24 .49 (.92)

10 .34 .38 .19 .38 .56 .26 .41 .32 .17 (.78)

11 .45 .54 .56 .29 .33 .39 .21 ..40 .50 .24 (.90)

12 .39 .53 .59 .26 .32 .39 .22 .43 .70 .29 .68 (.88)

Note: Numbers on the diagonal are alpha coefficients; all correlations are significant at p < .05.

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations of PPRF Set Scores for Several Job Categories

Job Category

Occupations in Computer Occupations in Preschool, Accountants, Auditors, Personnel Admimistration Service Industry Miscellaneous Managers
Systems User Support Primary School, and and Related Occupations Occupations Managers and Officials and Officials
DOT #032 Kindergarten Education DOT #160 DOT #166 DOT #187 DOT #189
N = 8 DOT #092 N = 8 N = 10 N = 8 N = 22
N = 6

PPRF Dimensions M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Set 1 - General Leadership .94 .60 1.42 .28 1.10 .49 1.12 .41 1.65 .24 1.25 .50

Set 2 - Interest in Negociation .58 .25 .69 .34 .81 .39 1.09 .42 1.30 .44 1.08 .44

Set 3 - Ambition 1.01 .50 1.18 .58 1.36 .41 1.63 .35 1.10 .41 1.51 .46

Set 4 - Friendly Disposition 1.19 .45 .80 .52 .69 .30 1.17 .24 1.24 .37 1.19 .48

Set 5 - Sensitivity to Interests
of Others .75 .23 1.17 .38 .73 .64 1.25 .38 1.09 .35 .87 .42

Set 6 - Cooperative or Collaborative
Work Tendency 1.11 .39 1.04 .28 1.41 .43 1.65 .30 1.46 .48 1.35 .46

Set 7 - General Trustworthiness 1.50 .27 .92 .34 1.18 .19 1.26 .12 1.56 .32 1.23 .43

Set 8 - Adherence to a Work Ethic 1.26 .34 1.31 .33 1.45 .32 1.58 .25 1.48 .44 1.52 .20

Set 9 - Thoroughness and
Attentiveness to Details .93 .38 1.03 .68 1.48 .41 1.66 .36 1.00 .65 1.54 .44

Set 10 - Emotional Stability 1.53 .36 1.53 .38 1.11 .51 1.43 .35 1.27 .37 1.21 .35

Set 11 - Desire to Generate Ideas .84 .42 .90 .43 1.12 .49 1.24 .29 .98 .44 1.18 .47

Set 12 - Tendency to Think Things
Through 1.01 .38 .83 .58 1.41 .43 1.60 .37 1.06 .65 1.40 .48

Rater Agreement .83 .66 .77 .81 .73 .86

Table 4 (cont.)

Job Category

Cashiers and Tellers Information and Message Sales Clerks Firefighters, Fire Janitors Occupations in Moving and
DOT #211 Distribution Occupations DOT #290 Department DOT #382 Storing Materials and Products
N = 9 DOT #239 N = 7 DOT #373 N = 3 DOT #922
N = 4 N = 4 N = 2

PPRF Dimensions M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Set 1 - General Leadership .63 .24 .52 .31 .95 .34 1.68 .05 .33 .23 .68 .58

Set 2 - Interest in Negociation .61 .51 .50 .25 .83 .38 .88 .42 .26 .25 .39 .35

Set 3 - Ambition 1.30 .44 1.25 .40 1.48 .43 1.09 .55 1.39 .81 1.09 .39

Set 4 - Friendly Disposition 1.35 .39 .81 .61 1.48 .15 .89 .55 .52 .06 .67 .63

Set 5 - Sensitivity to Interests
of Others .87 .43 .93 .67 .81 .33 1.20 .64 .50 .35 .35 .21

Set 6 - Cooperative or Collaborative
Work Tendency 1.00 .40 1.21 .28 1.32 .31 1.48 .27 1.25 1.08 .79 .77

Set 7 - General Trustworthiness 1.71 .39 .90 .35 1.43 .35 1.40 .49 1.23 .47 .60 .42

Set 8 - Adherence to a Work Ethic 1.21 .20 1.37 .17 1.44 .39 1.58 .32 1.69 .27 1.19 .27

Set 9 - Thoroughness and
Attentiveness to Details 1.24 .49 1.20 .75 .94 .32 1.08 .38 1.13 .70 1.10 .85

Set 10 - Emotional Stability 1.38 .26 1.30 .45 1.48 .11 1.87 .27 .96 .54 .70 .42

Set 11 - Desire to Generate Ideas .47 .43 .50 .42 .93 .43 .77 .39 .96 .72 .47 .57

Set 12 - Tendency to Think Things
Through .83 .17 .88 .67 .84 .31 1.20 .65 .90 .85 .55 .64

Rater Agreement .92 .74 .85 .82 .81 .76

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure Caption

Figure 1. Hypothetical relationships between PPRF subdimensions with NEO PI-R facet scales.

E
1

E
2

E
3

E
4

E
5

E
6

A
1

A
2

A
3

A
4

A
5

A
6

C
1

C
2

C
3

C
4

C
5

C
6

N
1

N
2

N
3

N
4

N
5

N
6

O
1

O
2

O
3

O
4

O
5

O
6

1. General Leadership

2. Interest in Negotiation

3. Ambition

4. Friendly Disposition

5. Sensitivity to Interests of Others

6. Cooperative or Collaborative
Work Tendency

7. General Trustworthiness

8. Adherence to a Work Ethic

9. Thoroughness and
Attentiveness to Details

10. Emotional Stability

11. Desire to Generate Ideas

12. Tendency to Think Things
Through

Note: Primary predictors are reflected by and seconday predictors are reflected by . E1: Warmth, E2: Gregariousness, E3: Assertiveness, E4: Activity, E5: Excitement Seeking, E6: Positive Emotions, A1: Trust, A2: Straightforwardness, A3: Altruism, A4:
Compliance, A5: Modesty, A6:Tender-Mindedness, C1: Competence, C2: Order, C3: Dutifulness, C4: Achievement Striving, C5: Self-Discipline, C6: Deliberation, N1: Anxiety, N2: Angry Hostility, N3: Depression, N4: Self-Consciousness, N5: Impulsiveness,
N6: Vulnerability, O1: Fantasy, O2: Aesthetics, O3: Feelings, O4: Actions, O5: Ideas, O6: Values.

Appendix A

Personality-Related Position Requirements Form

Dimensions and Scales

Dimension I-A: General Leadership (Set 1)

A pattern of visibility and dominance relative to others; the tendency to initiate action, to take charge
of situations or groups, to influence or motivate behavior or thinking of other persons or groups of
people to bring about or maintain work effectiveness.

Dimension I-A, "General Leadership," is different from Dimension I-B, "Interest in Negotiation."
Although both involve roles of great visibility and of taking charge, the focus of Interest in
Negotiation is on influence through flexibility, negotiation, and compromise; in General Leadership,
the focus is on influence through power, authority, or charisma. Interest in Negotiation is based on
interest in harmony and compromise; General Leadership is based on promoting work-related
agendas or ideas and on working toward task completion.

Dimension I-A, "General Leadership," also differs from Dimension I-C, "Ambition." Although both
involve achievement, the emphasis of Ambition is on one's own efforts to achieve through diligent
effort, to compete with others or with one's own history. In General Leadership, the emphasis is on
the person's influence over others.

Dimension I-B: Interest in Negotiation (Set 2)

An interest in bringing together contesting parties through mediation or arbitration of disputes or
differences in view or as a contesting party, deal or bargain with others to reach agreement,
synthesis, or compromise; a style of leadership characterized by an ability and willingness to see
and understand differing points of view; having a sense of when making peace and achieving
workable levels of harmony is appropriate and when a more assertive approach is needed.

Dimension I-B, "Interest in Negotiation," is different from Dimension I-A, "General Leadership,"
Although both involve roles of being visible and in charge, in General Leadership, the focus is on
influence through some form of power; in Interest in Negotiation, the focus is on influence
through flexibility, negotiation, and compromise. General Leadership involves getting something
done; Interest in Negotiation involves achieving agreement among persons with conflicting
interests or points of view.

Dimensions I-B, "Interest in Negotiation," also differs from Dimension II-B, "Sensitivity to
Interests of Others." Although both involve awareness of the feelings and concerns of others,
Sensitivity emphasizes caring, sympathy, empathy, and friendliness; Interest in Negotiation
emphasized achievement of agreement among persons who, at least initially, were more
concerned with their own positions than with being sensitive to the views of the others.

Dimension I-C: Ambition (Set 3)

A strong ambition and desire to achieve; in competition with others, a desire to win and a
continuing tendency to exert effort and energy to win or to do better than others; in competition
with one's self, a desire to exert effort to advance, to do better than one's own prior achievement
in specific activities; a tendency to try to excel relative to others or to a personal standard; to go
beyond what is expected and required in an attempt to become the "best" not to accept
"satisfactory" or good enough" but to strive for "excellent."

Dimension I-C, "Ambition" is different from Dimension III-B, "Adherence to a work Ethic."
Although both are concerned with the accomplishment of work-related objectives, Adherence to
a Work Ethic emphasizes compliance and willingness to work hard; Ambition emphasizes the
outcome of the work relative to the achievements of others or to some standard.

Dimension II-A: Friendly Disposition (Sets 4)

A tendency to be outgoing in association with other people, to seek and enjoy the company of
others; to be gregarious, to interact easily and well with others, to be likeable and warmly
approachable.

Dimension II-A, "Friendly Disposition," is different from Dimension II-B, "Sensitivity to
Interests of Others." Although both involve social skills, Sensitivity implies a more caring
approach to others. Friendly Disposition implies enjoying the company of others rather than
concern for their interests.

Dimension II-A, "Friendly Disposition," is also different from Dimension II-C, "Cooperative or
Collaborative Work Tendency." Although both imply getting along well with others.
Collaborative Work Tendency concerns relationships in the performance of tasks; Friendly
Disposition implies sociability whether work is involved or not.

Dimension II-B: Sensitivity to Interests of Others (Set 5)

A tendency to be a caring person in relation to other people, to be considerate, understanding,
and even empathic and to have genuine concern for others and their well being.

Dimension II-B, "Sensitivity to Interests of Others," is different from Dimension II-A, "Friendly
Disposition." Although both involve positive social relationships, Friendly Disposition implies
simple affability and pleasantness; Sensitivity implies caring and concern for others and
awareness of their feelings and interests.

Dimension II-C: Cooperative or Collaborative Work Tendency (Set 6)

A desire or willingness to work with others to achieve a common purpose and to be part of a
group, a willingness and interest in assisting clients and customers as a regular function of the
person's work, or assisting coworkers as needed to meet deadlines or achieve work goals.

Dimension II-C, "Cooperative or Collaborative Work Tendency," is different from Dimension II-
A, "Friendly Disposition." Although both involve social interaction, Friendly Disposition refers
to being comfortable and friendly in virtually any sort of situation involving others; Cooperative
or Collaborative Work Tendency focuses on working, either as part of a group or in the service of
others.

Dimension III-A: General Trustworthiness (Set 7)

A pattern of behavior that leads one to be trusted by other people with property, money, or
confidential information; a pattern of honoring the property rights of others and general concepts
of honesty, truthfulness, and fairness; a deserved reputation for following through on promises,
commitments, or other agreements -- in short, a pattern of behavior that leads people to say
approvingly, "This person can be counted on."

Dimension III-A, "General Trustworthiness," is different from Dimension III-B, "Adherence to a
work Ethic." Although both involve dependability or conscientiousness, Adherence to a Work
Ethic is more specifically related to conscientious performance of tasks and to industriousness;
General Trustworthiness is associated more with a general pattern of integrity than with task
performance.

Dimension III-B: Adherence to a Work Ethic (Set 8)

A generalized tendency to work hard and to be loyal, to give a full day's work each day and to do
one's best to perform well -- following instructions and accepting company goals, policies, and
rules -- even with little or no supervision, an approach to work characterized by industriousness,
purposiveness, persistence, consistency, and punctuality.

Dimension III-B, "Adherence to a Work Ethic," is different from Dimension I-C, "Ambition."
Although both imply working hard, Ambition implies a personal desire to excel in competing
either with others or with one's own prior performance; Adherence to a Work Ethic implies a
responsibility to the employing organization to work diligently and to put organizational goals
high on one's list of personally accepted goals.

Dimension III-C: Thoroughness and Attentiveness to Details (Set 9)

A tendency to carry out tasks with attention to every aspect, including attention to details that
others might overlook or perform perfunctorily; a meticulous approach to one's own task
performance or the work of others, including careful inspection or analysis of objects, printed
material, proposals, or plans.

Dimension III-C, "Thoroughness and Attentiveness to Details," is different from Dimension I-C,
"Ambition." Although both imply working to a standard, the standard in Ambition is based on
the desire to get ahead; the standard for Thoroughness and Attentiveness to Detail is based on
conscientiousness, an effort to be sure that nothing has been overlooked.

Dimension III-C, "Thoroughness" is also different from Dimension III-B, "Adherence to a Work
Ethic." Although both imply conscientiousness and diligence, Work Ethic has a greater
implication of persistence, tirelessness, and organizational commitment; Thoroughness, at its
extreme, may imply nit-picking.

Dimension IV: Emotional Stability (Set 10)

A calm, relaxed approach to situations, events, or people; emotionally controlled responses to
changes in the work environment or to emergency situations; an emotionally mature approach to
potentially stressful situations with tolerance, optimism, and a general sense of challenge rather
than of crisis, maturity in considering advice or criticism from others.

Dimension V-A: Desire to Generate Ideas (Set 11)

A preference for situations in which one can develop new things, ideas, or solutions to problems
through creativity or insight, or try new or innovative approaches to tasks or situations; to prefer
original or unique ways of thinking about things.

Dimension V-A, "Desire to Generate Ideas," is different from Dimension V-B, "Tendency to
Think Things Through." Although both involve preference for situations calling for thinking.
Tendency to Think Things Through is concerned with carefulness and diligence in planning and
evaluating prospective courses of action; Desire to Generate Ideas is concerned with newness,
originality, or creativity.

Dimension V-B: Tendency to Think Things Through (Set 12)

A habit of thinking, of mentally going through procedures or a sequence of probable events before
actually taking actions; a tendency to seek information, to evaluate it, and to consider the consequences
or effects of alternative courses of action.

Dimension V-B, "Tendency to Think Things Through," is different from Dimension V-A, "Desire to
Generate Ideas". Although both may involve thinking about problems, Generating Ideas implies
creativity or originality or solving problems through insight; a Tendency to Think Things Through
implies deliberation, analysis, planning, and evaluation.

Appendix B

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

PERSONALITY-RELATED POSITION REQUIREMENTS
FORM: AN INVENTORY OF GENERAL POSITION
REQUIREMENTS

Job or position: ______________________________ Date: _________________

Was this form completed by the incumbent whose position is described, by the incumbent's supervisor, or
by a panel of incumbents? [check and give name(s)]:

(Supervisor) _________________________

(Incumbent) _________________________

(Panel) _________________________ __________________________

_________________________ __________________________

_________________________ __________________________

This inventory is a list of statements used to describe jobs or individual positions. It is intended to be a
supplement to more detailed and specific job analysis. It is an inventory of "general" position
requirements. These position requirements are general in that they are things most people can do; most of
them can be done without special training or unique abilities. Even so, some of them are things that can, if
done well, add to success or effectiveness in the position or job. Some of them may be things that should
be left for others to do - not part of this position's requirements.

Each item in this inventory begins with the words, "Effective performance in this position requires the
person in it to..." Each item is one way to finish the sentence. The finished sentences describe things some
people, on some jobs, should do. An item may be true for the position or job being described, or it may
not be.

There are 19 sets of items. The items included in a set are intended to describe somewhat similar position
requirements.

For each item, decide which of these statements best describes the accuracy of the item for the position
being analyzed:

Doing this is not a requirement for this position (Not Required)

Doing this helps one perform successfully in this position (Helpful)

Doing this is essential for successful performance in this position (Essential)

Show which of these describes the importance of the statement for your position by placing a check mark
in the box under "Not Required," "Helpful," or "Essential."

_____________________________________________________________________________
EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE IN THIS POSITION Not
REQUIRES THIS PERSON TO: Required Helpful Essential
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

Set 1

1. lead group activities through exercise of power or authority.

2. take control in group situations.

3. initiate change within the person's work group or areas to
enhance productivity or performance.

4. motivate people to accept change.

5. motivate others to perform effectively.

6. persuade co-workers or subordinates to take actions (that at
first they may not want to take) to maintain work effectiveness.

7. take charge in unusual or emergency situations.

8. delegate to others the authority to get something done.

9. make decisions when needed.

Set 2

10. negotiate on behalf of the work unit for a fair share of
organizational resources.

11. help people in work groups settle interpersonal conflicts that
interfere with group functioning.

12. help settle work-related problems, complaints, or disputes
among employees or organizational units.

13. mediate and resolve disputed at individual, group, or
organizational levels.

14. negotiate with people within the organization to achieve a
consensus on a proposed action.

15. mediate conflict situations without taking sides.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

16. compromise to achieve organizational goals, even at a cost of
personal or work unit advantage.

17. settle disputes among subordinates or coworkers through
negotiations and compromise.

18. work with dissatisfied customers or clients to achieve a
mutually agreeable solution.

19. negotiate with people outside the organization to gain something
of value to the organization.

20. negotiate with people outside the organization to settle conflict
on behalf of the organization through agreement, synthesis, or
compromise.

Set 3

21. work beyond established or ordinary work period to perfect
services or products.

22. work to excel rather than work to perform assigned tasks.

23. try always to do the best possible work, not settling for work
that is merely "good enough"

24. find ways to excel by improving the way work is done.

25. improve one's performance beyond that of the competition by
analyzing prior mistakes or problems.

26. persevere in the pursuit of his or her own work goals even
when unsuccessful.

27. establish and meet challenging personal deadlines for reports
or other work products.

28. seek challenging tasks.

Set 4

29. interact with others in social situations where the person is
representing the organization.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

30. represent and promote the organization in social contacts away
from work.

31. arrange and host work-related social activities.

32. attract new clients or customers through friendly interactions.

33. interact with clients, customers, or other employees.

34. start conversations with strangers easily.

35. interact with others in a courteous, friendly manner.

Set 5

36. listen attentively to the work-related problems of others.

37. give constructive criticisms tactfully.

38. deal gently with the feelings of others

39. work with dissatisfied customers or clients.

40. help, advise, and encourage people who are new to the
organization or to a particular position in it.

41. be considerate when duties lead to physical or emotional pain
or discomfort of others (e.g., during physical therapy, giving
shots, giving notice of termination, etc.).

42. listen attentively to the family or emotional problems of
people seen in the course of one's work (e.g., clients,
institutional residents, etc.).

43. take the time needed to provide tender loving care for
children, nursing home residents, or others who cannot help
themselves.

Set 6

44. work in pairs or small groups where each person's work is
dependent on or influenced by the work of others.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

45. work as part of an interacting work group.

46. work with one or more co-workers to complete assigned tasks.

47. collaborate with other employees to achieve goals as a group.

48. help co-workers solve work-related problems or reach common
goals.

49. provide assistance to clients or customers throughout the work
day.

50. assist others when needed, even when some personal sacrifice
is involved.

51. help find solutions for the work-related problems of other
employees or clients.

52. voluntarily assist co-workers with their work when the person's
own workload permits.

Set 7

53. avoid temptations inherent in the job for behavior that
breaches ethical standards of the organization and/or industry.

54. refuse to share or release confidential information.

55. make commitments and follow through on them.

56. keep one's word about doing things, even when it is
inconvenient or unpleasant to do so.

57. have access to confidential information.

58. deal honestly with customers, patients, clients, etc.

59. inventory, store, or otherwise safeguard the property of
others.

60. manage large sums of money on behalf of the organization.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

61. have access to merchandise in storeroom or warehouse.

62. receive or disburse funds in cash or by check.

Set 8

63. see things that need to be done and do them without waiting
for instructions.

64. work until task is done rather than stopping at quitting time.

65. meet specified deadlines.

66. arrive at appointment on time or ahead of time.

67. work effectively and consistently, with little or no
supervision.

68. follow instructions or orders even when disagreeing with them.

69. work in personal isolation for long periods of time.

70. follow established work schedules and procedures.

71. work under conditions that may be physically uncomfortable.

Set 9

72. examine all aspects of written reports to be sure that nothing
has been omitted.

73. inspect his or her own work (or the work of coworkers or
subordinates) carefully and in detail.

74. be a stickler for detail in graphics, proofreading, planning,
or other job activities.

75. remain attentive to details over extended periods of time.

76. attend to details in working, or in planning work, to minimize
glitches.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Go to next page)

77. study all detailed aspects of projects to understand them
fully.

78. pay close attention to detailed specifications.

79. attend to all aspects of projects to be sure they are
completed.

80. review all relevant information about previous projects to be
sure that planning for new ones considers important prior
experiences.

81. give close attention to every facet of duties of the position.

Set 10

82. adapt easily to changes in work procedures.

83. keep cool when confronted with conflicts.

84. accept unplanned changes to work schedules or priorities.

85. work in potentially stressful situations without feeling
stressed.

86. remain calm when questioned, criticized, or confronted by
clients, customers, coworkers, or others in the organization.

87. work under conditions that are potentially emotionally
stressful.

88. stay cool in responding to potentially dangerous situations.

89. work in environments where people are capable of violence,
when even violent deaths may be anticipated.

90. remain calm in a crisis situation.

Set 11

91. present unconventional ways to do things that decrease costs
or improve work effectiveness.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

92. help find solutions for the work problems of other employees
or clients.

93. develop innovative approaches to old everyday problems.

94. suggest alternative conclusions when presented with results
that seem to suggest only one possible conclusion.

95. develop unusual or unique approaches to working with others.

96. develop new ideas.

97. suggest new areas of expansion of the organization's products
or services.

98. suggest new products, product lines, or new types of services.

99. find new ways to improve the way work is done.

100. suggest creative or original ideas.

Set 12

101. solve complex problems one step at a time.

102. analyze past mistakes when faced with similar problems.

103. critically evaluate information presented to support a
proposed decision or course of action.

104. identify and evaluate options before taking action.

105. solicit and consider differing options or points of view
before making a decision.

106. make decisions or take actions only after considering their
long term implications.
107. base decisions on facts, logic, experience, and/or intuition.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Appendix C

Scoring Instructions for the PPRF

1. Code Not Required = 0; Helpful = 1; Essential =2.

2. For items 1, 2, 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 25, 32, 34, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 63, 64, 67, 68, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90,
91, 93, 94, 96, 98, 100, and 104 multiply the item code score by 2.

3. Add scores within the 12 sets and divide by the number of items (counting double-weighted items as
two items) in the set.

4. Set a cut score of, say, anything greater than 1.0 as a way to include dimensions of importance in the
selection content. Another approach might be to limit dimensions to those significantly greater than .99
or not significantly different from 2.0

PPRF Complete Research Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PPRF Complete Research Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personality-Related 1

Running head: PERSONALITY-RELATED POSITION REQUIREMENTS

You might also like