KEY FINDINGS
· Job candidates who fail a personality test the first time often change their responses dramatically on the second test—even though adult personality is known to be generally stable and unlikely to change in the short interval (in this study, one year) between tests.
· Internal candidates are more likely than external candidates to retest, a tendency companies themselves may unwittingly encourage by providing test-specific feedback

Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
CAHRS ResearchLink Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS) 
11-2010 
Should Personality Testing Be Part of the Hiring Process? 
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs_researchlink 
 Part of the Human Resources Management Commons 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies 
(CAHRS) at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in CAHRS ResearchLink by an authorized 
administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Should Personality Testing Be Part of the Hiring Process? 
Abstract 
KEY FINDINGS 
· Job candidates who fail a personality test the first time often change their responses dramatically on the 
second test—even though adult personality is known to be generally stable and unlikely to change in the 
short interval (in this study, one year) between tests. 
· Internal candidates are more likely than external candidates to retest, a tendency companies themselves 
may unwittingly encourage by providing test-specific feedback. 
Keywords 
Talent management, Recruitment, Selection, Hiring, Personality tests, Assessment 
Disciplines 
Human Resources Management 
Comments 
Recommended Citation 
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. (2010, November). Should personality testing be part of 
the hiring process? (CAHRS ResearchLink No. 12). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ILR School. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs_researchlink/14 
 SHOULD PERSONALITY 
 TESTING BE PA RT OF THE 
 HIRING PROCESS? 
 Key Findings
 •  Job candidates who fail a personality test the first 
 time often change their responses dramatically on 
 the second test— even though adult personality is 
 known to be generally stable and unlikely to
 change in the short interval (in this study, 
 one year) between tests. 
 •  Internal candidates are more likely than external 
 candidates to retest, a tendency companies
 themselves may unwittingly encourage by 
 providing test-specific feedback.
 193 Ives Hall, Ithaca,  NY 14850 | 607.255.9358 | www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs
 Topic
 Pe rsonality test 
 practice effects 
 for failing and 
 passing candidates
 193 Ives Hall, Ithaca,  NY 14850
 607.255.9358
 www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs
 cahrs@cornell.edu
 Fo r an in-depth discussion of this topic:
 Hausknecht, John P. (2010). Candidate Persistence and Personality Test Practice Effects: 
 Implications for Staffing System Management,  Personnel Psychology, 63 , 299-324.
 Study Questions
 •  After failing a first test, do candidates change their 
 personality profiles to make themselves more 
 attractive to employers?  
 •  Some candidates who pass the first time will re-
 test  in order to remain eligible for promotions. 
 Do these  candidates keep their answers the same 
 the second time around? 
 •  Are individuals who rate themselves as highly 
 motivated  more likely to retest? 
 •  Are the odds of retesting higher for internal or 
 external candidates? 
 Results
 •  Personality profiles for passing candidates 
 remained stable for all dimensions. However, 
 failing candidates changed their  answers to more
 traits and to a greater degree, exhibiting less 
 stability in their personality profiles over time.
 •  In particular, failing candidates who retested 
 significantly changed their answers on six of eight 
 questions that measured personality traits: 
 cautiousness, ascendancy, sociability, original 
 thinking, personal relations, and vigor. 
 •  Internal candidates were nearly 5 times more 
 likely to retest than external candidates. However, 
 candidates who rated themselves as highly 
 responsible or motivated were not shown to have 
 greater odds of retesting  than other candidates.
 Given that some companies use personality tests as part of their hiring processes, this study explor es 
 whether these questionnaires are reliable measures on which to base employment decisions.  Specifica lly, 
 this study looks at the propensity of failing candidates to take the tests over and how scores chang e on 
 second attempts, in an actual workplace setting.  Insight into the profile of retest candidates and  the nature 
 and magnitude of score changes can yield a better understanding of how to best use personality tests , if at all, 
 when making hiring decisions.
 page 2
 Different answers, same personality?
 With so much riding on the outcome of job screening personality tests, it’s probably not 
 surprising that failing candidates who opted to take retake the test would deliberately 
 change their responses, an effect known as response distortion. Since the personality test 
 is a factor in getting hired, candidates who don’t get hired would be unwise to give the 
 same answers a second time. While it’s possible for personalities to genuinely change, 
 experts generally agree that such changes occur gradually, across intervals of at least ten or 
 twenty years (Ardelt, 2000). Instead, retesting usually takes place after a far shorter 
 period—in this study, one year, and not enough time for genuine personality change to 
 take place.
 As noted, internal candidates were much more likely than external candidates to change 
 their responses. This result isn’t too surprising, given that internal candidates often 
 benefit from test-specific feedback as well as “grapevine coaching” —consulting with 
 coworkers on strategies and tips to pass the test on the next try (Sackett et al., 1989). 
 Further, the extent to which promotion decisions are tied to test performance is well-
 known by internal candidates, so they have even more motivation to pass.  
 “No retesting”—a better policy?
 The results of this study present a challenge to organizations that use personality 
 assessment as part of their staffing process—calling into question whether such tests 
 should even be used at all. For organizations that continue to see value in personality 
 tests, the question becomes how to manage the substantial pool of failing candidates who 
 want to retest.
 A “no retesting” policy, however, may be unfair because it ignores an individual’s ability to 
 develop important job skills over time through targeted learning and development. It 
 may also force candidates who fail to choose between a job plateau in the company or 
 looking elsewhere for work. Given that retest candidates make up a sizable portion of an 
 applicant pool, eliminating those candidates could make it harder for companies to fully 
 staff open positions.  
 193 Ives Hall, Ithaca,  NY 14850
 607.255.9358
 www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs
 cahrs@cornell.edu
 page 3
 Researcher
 John P. Hausknecht , assistant professor of human resource studies, 
 ILR School, Cornell University. 
 jph42@cornell.edu
 Takeaway
 •  Organizations should be cautious about using personality testing as part of the hiring process. The 
 study shows that failing candidates  changed their personality scores drastically between tests, eve n 
 though adult personality is generally known to be stable.
 •  Companies that use personality testing should not base decisions solely on these scores; they should 
 gather  evidence from other  sources (e.g., structured interviews).
 •  Companies should review their retesting policies carefully and gather data to understand the extent  to 
 which candidates repeat the process and to clarify whether those who eventually get hired are truly  a 
 good fit for the job.
 Data Source
 The study was done with a large service organization that, over a four-year period, screened more th an 
 15,000 candidates for supervisory positions at various hotel and casino properties.  Candidates 
 completed a personality inventory as part of the company’s assessment process, and offers were based
 partly on these scores.
 The test sample included 357 individuals who reapplied for jobs (on average, one year later) after f ailing 
 to receive an offer based on their initial application. Of this group, 301 were told that their pers onality test 
 scores did not match the job requirements; the remaining 56 were told that they had “passed.”
 page 4
 References
 Ardelt M. (2000). Still stable after all these years? Personality stability theory revisited.  Social Psychology 
 Quarterly, 63, 392–405.
 Costa PT, Jr., McCrae RR. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-re ports and 
 spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 , 853–
 863.
 Ellingson JE, Sackett PR, Connelly BS. (2007). Personality assessment across selection and developme nt 
 contexts: Insights into response distortion. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 92 , 386–395.
 Kelley PL, Jacobs RR, Farr JL. (1994). Effects of multiple administrations of the MMPI for employee 
 screening.  Personnel Psychology ,  47 , 575–591.
 Rosse JG, Stecher MD, Miller JL, Levin RA. (1998). The impact of response distortionon preemployment
 personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.
 Sackett PR, Burris LR, Ryan AM. (1989). Coaching and practice effects in personnel selection. In Coo per 
 CL, Robertson IT (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 145–183). 
 New York: Wiley.
 The Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS) is an international center serving corporate  human 
 resources leaders and their companies by providing critical tools for building and leading high- per forming HR 
 organizations. CAHRS’ mission is to bring together partners and the ILR School’s world-renowned HR S tudies faculty to 
 investigate, translate and apply the latest HR research into practice  excellence
 193 Ives Hall, Ithaca,  NY 14850
 607.255.9358
 www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs
 cahrs@cornell.edu
 page 5


Should Personality Testing Be Part of the Hiring Process?

KEY FINDINGS · Job candidates who fail a personality test the first time often change their responses dramatically on the second test—even though adult personality is known to be generally stable and unlikely to change in the short interval (in this study, one year) between tests. · Internal candidates are more likely than external candidates to retest, a tendency companies themselves may unwittingly encourage by providing test-specific feedback.No12_ResearchLink_Hausknecht_PersonalityTests.pdf: 17996 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons@Cornell

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&amp;context=cahrs_researchlink

Should Personality Testing Be Part of the Hiring Process?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons@Cornell