OPQ32 Manual and User’s Guide

This Manual and User’s Guide is designed for users of the SHL OPQ32 personality
questionnaires. The first part is a User’s Guide and provides a summary of the
instruments, describes their different applications and provides guidance on
administration, interpretation and good practice.

The second part is a Technical Manual and describes the development of the
OPQ32 questionnaires and findings relating to their reliability, validity and
standardization.

Summary of Contents

User’s Guide

Chapter 1
The Introduction outlines the OPQ32 model and questionnaires and summarizes
the relationship between the original OPQ Concept Model and the OPQ32
questionnaires.

Chapter 2
The Applications chapter describes some different uses of the questionnaires, and
provides case studies of approaches to the selection and development of people
and teams within organizations using the questionnaires.

Chapter 3
The Scale Descriptions chapter provides descriptions of high, medium and low
scorers on each of the OPQ32 scales. This chapter also gives information on age
and gender trends in personality for a general population sample and highlights the
main relationships between scales.

Chapter 4
The Administration, Scoring and Profiling chapter describes the different options for
administering and scoring OPQ32 questionnaires and outlines important issues in
managing the administration process.

Chapter 5
The Interpretation and Feedback chapter focuses on how the OPQ32 profile can be
used to give a fuller understanding of an individual’s personal style. It provides a
framework for feedback discussions and an interpretation example, as well as a
discussion of the differences between the OPQ32n and OPQ32i versions. It also
discusses danger zone profiles as an example of a more statistical approach to
interpretation.

1
 Chapter 6
The Expert System chapter describes and gives examples of computer generated
expert system reports that are currently available as aids to the application and
interpretation of OPQ32 profiles. It also provides descriptions of additional OPQ32
derived scales, including team types, leadership styles and management
competencies.

Chapter 7
The Best Practice in Questionnaire Use chapter highlights issues in maintaining
professional standards. There is also a discussion of fairness in relation to
questionnaire use, and advice on avoiding potential discrimination in the
workplace.

Technical Manual

Chapter 8
The Development chapter outlines the development and evaluation process for the
different OPQ instruments, from the earliest development of the Concept Model to
the evolution of the OPQ32 questionnaires.

Chapter 9
The Norms chapter gives details of the different comparison groups that are
available for OPQ32 scores as well as some comparison profiles of people from
different occupational groups.

Chapter 10
The Reliability chapter provides information on the accuracy and precision of
measurement of OPQ32 questionnaires.

Chapter 11
The Construct Validity chapter details how the different OPQ32 scales relate to
each other and their factor structure. Correlations between the OPQ32 scale scores
and the original Concept Model can be found here as well as relationships with
other instruments, both within the OPQ series (e.g. Factor, Images) and outside it
(e.g. SHL Motivation Questionnaire, NEO PI-R).

Chapter 12
The Criterion Validity chapter outlines many different validation studies with a
particular focus on the relationship between the OPQ and various measures of
occupational success. These include concurrent and predictive designs as well as
studies from around the world.

Chapter 13
The Group Comparisons chapter provides breakdowns of data for the OPQ32
questionnaires by gender, ethnic group and age as well as profiles of average
scores for various groups.

2
Appendix

The appendix provides additional technical information as well as a list of useful

references.

Appendix A: Abbreviations
Appendix B: Use of specification equations
Appendix C: Team types and leadership styles
Appendix D: The effectiveness of Consistency scores in identifying non-
consistent response patterns in OPQ32i
Appendix E: Item statistics
Appendix F: Construct validity
Appendix G: The OPQ Sponsors
Appendix H: References and further reading

3
 Acknowledgements

Many people were involved in the research and development of the OPQ32
questionnaires and preparing this Manual and User’s Guide.

The main contributors were:

Peter Saville
Gill Nyfield
Rab MacIver
Helen Baron
Elaine Dickson
Justin Morgan
Anthony Miles
Heather Palla

Special thanks are due to Professor Ivan Robertson of the SHL/UMIST Research
Centre in Work and Organizational Psychology, Manchester School of Management,
UMIST for his advice and assistance throughout the project as well as to all those
who laid the foundations with earlier OPQ questionnaire development.

Elaine Dickson, Karen Janman, and Rab MacIver worked extensively on the Expert
System interpretation reports. Elisa Everitt, Elena Jones and Manor Farm Design
were responsible for the design of the materials. Gordon Barker, Michelle Blair,
Arun Dahar, Roy Davis, Mike Dudley, Chris Hartley, Victoria Henderson, Sue
Henley, Simon Hoare, Ed Hurst, Connie James, Sally Lawson, Trudy Mabey, Peter
Quinn, Jane Rutt, Stewart Peebles, Steve Phillips, Allestair Philp, Judy Short, George
Sik, Kevin Swinton, Susan Woollatt and Rex all made significant contributions to
various stages of the project. In addition, thanks go to many other SHL colleagues
in the UK and around the world who contributed their time, energy and ideas.

We would most particularly like to thank the many individual organizations and
companies who participated in the different OPQ32 research stages without whom
the questionnaires could not have been developed.

Last but not least, we are indebted to the original sponsors of the OPQ, who are
listed in the appendix.

Citation

Please use the following form for this document:

SHL (2000) OPQ32 Manual and User’s Guide. Boulder, CO, USA.
SHL USA, INC

4
Useful SHL contacts in the US

SHL Boulder 303.442.5607

Client Services 800.899.7451
Technical Helpdesk 888.522.7736
E-mail info.n-america@shlgroup.com
Internet http://www.shlusa.com

5
 1 Introduction

Introduction
This User’s Guide is designed to give an overview of administration, application
and interpretation of OPQ32 questionnaires. The Technical Manual in the second
part of this binder gives details of the development, reliability, and validity of the
questionnaires as well as normative data and group comparisons.

This chapter provides an overview of the OPQ32 model and questionnaires and
how they relate to the other OPQ models and questionnaires.

The OPQ questionnaires

The OPQ series of personality questionnaires is designed to give information on Other OPQ models
individual styles or preferences at work. They have been designed for use in a include 16 scale
whole range of assessment and development applications:
Factor and 6 scale
Images.
Individual Team Organization
Selection Team Building Succession Planning
Promotion Team Development Management Audit
Career Counseling Training Needs Analysis Research
Individual Development

The applications of
What is OPQ32? the OPQ are
described in more
The OPQ32 model is an occupational model of personality, which describes 32
detail in the
dimensions or scales of people’s preferred or typical style of behavior at work. It is
an updated version of the original OPQ Concept Model, with 30 dimensions. Applications chapter.
OPQ32 is designed to be an international model of personality, reflecting the
changing nature of work at the beginning of the 21st century. It is particularly
appropriate for use with professional and managerial groups, although the content
of the OPQ32 model deals with personality characteristics important to a wide
variety of roles.

1
 1 Introduction

OPQ32 and the OPQ model of personality

The OPQ32 model follows the general OPQ model of personality, which breaks
personality down into three domains: Relationships with People, Thinking Style
and Feelings and Emotions. The three domains are joined by a potential fourth
–the Dynamism domain –composed of scales such as Vigorous, Achieving and
Competitive which relate to sources of energy. The OPQ model of personality
provides OPQ users with a clear and simple framework for OPQ interpretation.

Figure 1: The OPQ model of personality

Relationships Thinking
Domain Domain

Feeling and
Emotions Domain

OPQ development

The development of the OPQ has been guided by five criteria:

See the
Development Designed specifically for the world of work
chapter for a
discussion of the Many personality questionnaires have been developed from a theoretical
origins of the model. perspective influenced by clinical psychology and standardized solely on student
groups. The OPQ development research was designed to make sure that from the
start that the scales would be relevant and acceptable for use in the workplace.
The use of item content which is not related to the world of work (e.g. religious
matters or sexual preferences) has been avoided.

2
 1 Introduction

Avoids clinical or obscure psychological constructs

While not underestimating the complexities of personality, it is the authors’

belief that the area of personality assessment is often confused by an enormous
degree of unnecessary jargon. The OPQ development program has always been
concerned with the direct assessment of what people typically do and has
avoided more obscure psychological traits that have very little direct relationship
with the world of work.

Comprehensive in terms of personality scales measured

Rather than address a relatively small number of scales, the OPQ is designed to
be comprehensive in terms of personality variables covered, even at the risk of
some slight redundancy of measurement. For those who prefer parsimony to
detail, shorter versions of the OPQ have been developed to provide a summary
of an individual’s personality based on factor analytic principles.

For use by Human Resource professionals and psychologists

The OPQ questionnaires are designed for use by appropriately trained Human
Resource practitioners, as well as industrial and organizational psychologists.
See the OPQ Factor
Training requirements in each country conform to International Test Commission
guidelines and standards set by local professional psychological associations. or Images
questionnaire for the
Based on sound psychometric principles more “factorial”
approach to
To ensure that all OPQ questionnaires provide sound information and meet
measuring
expected professional standards, a thorough technical development program was
followed. The international nature of the research effort allows the questionnaire personality.
to be adapted for use in many languages and countries. Particular emphasis has
been given to ensuring that the content of the questionnaires is appropriate for
use with people from different ethnic and gender groups as well as those who
are differently abled. The technical information and the validation evidence
presented in this manual are part of an ongoing process to develop the technical
underpinnings of the questionnaires.

Descriptions of low and high scores for each OPQ32 scale are given in Table 1.
More detailed discussion of the scale content is provided in the Scale
Descriptions chapter.

3
 1 Introduction

Table 1: OPQ32 scale descriptions - summary

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

rarely pressures others to change their Persuasive enjoys selling, comfortable using
views, dislikes selling, less comfortable negotiation, likes to change other
using negotiation people’s views

happy to let others take charge, dislikes Controlling likes to be in charge, takes the lead,
telling people what to do, unlikely to tells others what to do, takes control

INFLUENCE
take the lead

holds back from criticizing others, may Outspoken freely expresses opinions, makes
not express own views, unprepared to disagreement clear, prepared to
put forward own opinions criticize others

accepts majority decisions, prepared to Independent Minded prefers to follow own approach,
follow the consensus prepared to disregard majority
decisions

quiet and reserved in groups, dislikes Outgoing lively and animated in groups, talkative,
being center of attention enjoys attention

SOCIABILITY
comfortable spending time away from Affiliative enjoys others’ company, likes to be
people, values time spent alone, seldom around people, can miss the company
misses the company of others of others

feels more comfortable in less formal Socially Confident feels comfortable when first meeting
situations, can feel awkward when first people, at ease in formal situations
meeting people

makes strengths and achievements Modest dislikes discussing achievements, keeps

known, talks about personal success quiet about personal success

Democratic consults widely, involves others in

EMPATHY

prepared to make decisions without

consultation, prefers to make decisions decision making, less likely to make
alone decisions alone

selective with sympathy and support, Caring sympathetic and considerate towards
remains detached from others’ others, helpful and supportive, gets
personal problems involved in others’ problems

4
 1 Introduction

Table 1: OPQ32 scale descriptions (cont)

THINKING STYLE

prefers dealing with opinions and Data Rational likes working with numbers, enjoys
feelings rather than facts and figures, analyzing statistical information, bases
likely to avoid using statistics decisions on facts and figures

ANALYSIS
does not focus on potential limitations, Evaluative critically evaluates information, looks
dislikes critically analyzing information, for potential limitations, focuses upon
rarely looks for errors or mistakes errors

does not question the reasons for Behavioral tries to understand motives and
people’s behavior, tends not to analyze behavior, enjoys analysing people
people

favors changes to work methods, Conventional prefers well established methods,

prefers new approaches, less favors a more conventional approach
conventional

prefers to deal with practical rather Conceptual interested in theories, enjoys discussing
than theoretical issues, dislikes dealing abstract concepts

CREATIVITY AND CHANGE

with abstract concepts

more likely to build on than generate Innovative generates new ideas, enjoys being
ideas, less inclined to be creative and creative, thinks of original solutions
inventive

prefers routine, is prepared to do Variety Seeking prefers variety, tries out new things,
repetitive work, does not seek variety likes changes to regular routine, can
become bored by repetitive work

behaves consistently across situations, Adaptable changes behavior to suit the situation,
unlikely to behave differently with adapts approach to different people
different people

more likely to focus upon immediate Forward Thinking takes a long-term view, sets goals for
than long-term issues, less likely to take the future, more likely to take a
a strategic perspective strategic perspective

unlikely to become preoccupied with Detail Conscious focuses on detail, likes to be

detail, less organized and systematic, methodical, organized and systematic,
STRUCTURE

dislikes tasks involving detail may become preoccupied with detail

sees deadlines as flexible, prepared to Conscientious focuses on getting things finished,

leave some tasks unfinished persists until the job is done

not restricted by rules and procedures, Rule Following follows rules and regulations, prefers
prepared to break rules, tends to clear guidelines, finds it difficult to
dislike bureaucracy break rules

5
 1 Introduction

Table 1: OPQ32 scale descriptions (cont)

FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

tends to feel tense, finds it difficult to Relaxed finds it easy to relax, rarely feels tense,
relax, can find it hard to unwind after generally calm and untroubled
work

feels calm before important occasions, Worrying feels nervous before important
less affected by key events, free from occasions, worries about things going
worry wrong

sensitive, easily hurt by criticism, upset Tough Minded not easily offended, can ignore insults,
by unfair comments or insults may be insensitive to personal criticism

EMOTION
concerned about the future, expects Optimistic expects things will turn out well, looks
things to go wrong, focuses on negative to the positive aspects of a situation,
aspects of a situation has an optimistic view of the future

wary of others’ intentions, finds it Trusting trusts people, sees others as reliable
difficult to trust others, unlikely to be and honest, believes what others say
fooled by people

openly expresses feelings, finds it Emotionally Controlled can conceal feelings from others, rarely
difficult to conceal feelings, displays displays emotion
emotion clearly

likes to take things at a steady pace, Vigorous thrives on activity, likes to be busy,
dislikes excessive work demands enjoys having a lot to do

dislikes competing with others, feels Competitive has a need to win, enjoys competitive
that taking part is more important than activities, dislikes losing
winning
DYNAMISM

sees career progression as less Achieving ambitious and career-centered, likes to

important, looks for achievable rather work to demanding goals and targets
than highly ambitious targets

tends to be cautious when making Decisive makes fast decisions, reaches

decisions, likes to take time to reach conclusions quickly, less cautious
conclusions

6
 1 Introduction

OPQ32 questionnaires

The OPQ32 model of personality is measured by two questionnaires: OPQ32n, and

OPQ32i

OPQ32n

The first questionnaire, OPQ32n, asks respondents to rate each item (or statement)
on a 1 to 5 scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) through to Strongly Agree (5).
This is a normative format. The questionnaire consists of 230 statements and the
majority of candidates complete the questionnaire in about 35 minutes.

MACHINE SCOREABLE ANSWER SHEET

PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS

Before you start, please print your name in the appropriate space on Side A of your answer sheet. Please also fill in
the circles corresponding to the letters of your name. Now fill in today’s date, and fill in the corresponding circles
below it.

This questionnaire is designed to provide information on your typical behaviour within work and similar situations. The options for
You are asked to rate how strongly you agree with a number of statements. When you have decided, completely fill in
the circle corresponding to your rating (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), in the appropriate space on your answer sheet. Please try to
avoid the middle answer (unsure). administration and
11 22 33 44 55
EXAMPLES scoring are
STRONGLY DISAGREE UNSURE AGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE
ANSWER SHEET
contained in the
1 I enjoy talking to new people 1 1 2 3 5 Administration,
2 2 3 4 5
2 I usually keep things tidy Scoring and Profiling
chapter.
In the examples, the person has agreed with the statement “I enjoy talking to new people” and strongly disagreed
with the statement “I usually keep things tidy”.
Now turn your answer sheet to Side B.
Make sure the correct circle is completely filled in using the soft pencil provided. Fully erase any answer you wish to change.
Please make no stray marks on the answer sheet, and do not mark the booklet.

When completing the questionnaire, please remember the following points:

● Be as discerning and honest as you can. There are no right or wrong answers, so please do not give an answer
because you think it is the right thing to say or it is how you might like to be.
● Please note that certain checks are built into the questionnaire to give us an indication of how frank and honest you
have been in your ratings.
● You may find some of the ratings difficult, but please try your best.
● Please ensure that you respond to all of the 230 statements.
● There is no time limit, but you should work as quickly as you can and not ponder at length over any one
statement. It usually takes approximately 35 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Turn to page 3 and begin 1

OPQ32n can be completed and scored using a PC with the correct software
installed. It can also be completed using a booklet and paper answer sheet, which
can be either scanned or scored by hand (approx 10 mins per answer sheet) or
scanned into a PC for scoring.

7
 1 Introduction

OPQ32i

The second questionnaire, OPQ32i, asks respondents to consider four statements,

and choose the statement that they consider “most” like them and the statement
they consider “least” like them. This is an ipsative format. There are 104 blocks of
4 items to complete and the majority of candidates complete the questionnaire in
less than 50 minutes.

PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS

For advice on
Before you start, please print your name in the appropriate space on Side A of your

choosing between answer sheet. Please also fill in the circles corresponding to the letters of your name.
Now fill in today’s date and fill in the corresponding circles below it.

normative or ipsative This questionnaire is designed to provide information on your typical behaviour within
work and similar situations. You will be presented with blocks of four statements. For
each block, you are asked to choose which of the statements is most true (or typical) of
versions see the you, and which is least true (or typical) of you. You must choose only one most and
one least in each block of four.

Interpretation and M L

Feedback chapter. MOST LEAST

ANSWER SHEET

A I enjoy talking to new people A 1 L

B I rarely keep things tidy B M L

C I like to help others C M L

D I worry about deadlines D M 4

In this example, “I enjoy talking to new people” was chosen as most true (or typical) by the
person completing the questionnaire, and “I worry about deadlines” as least true (or typical).

Now turn your answer sheet to Side B.

When completing the questionnaire, please remember the following points:

● Be as discerning and honest as you can. There are no right or wrong answers, so
please do not give an answer because you think it is the right thing to say or it is how
you might like to be.

● Please note that certain checks are built into the questionnaire to give us an indication
of how frank and honest you have been in your choices.

● You may find some of the choices difficult, but please try your best.

● Make sure the correct circle is completely filled in using the soft pencil provided.
Fully erase any response you wish to change.

● Please make no stray marks on the answer sheet, and do not mark the booklet.

● Please ensure that you respond to all 104 blocks.

● There is no time limit, but you should work as quickly as you can and not ponder at
length over any one block of four. It usually takes approximately 45 minutes to
complete the questionnaire.

Turn to page 2 and begin 1

For more
information on OPQ32i can be administered and scored using PC based software. OPQ32i can
interpreting the also be completed using a booklet and paper answer sheet, although the answer
Social Desirability sheet must be scanned; the scoring is too complex to allow a simple hand scoring
option.
and Consistency
scales of OPQ32
Table 2 gives an overview of the OPQ32 questionnaires. It highlights the estimated
refer to the Scale completion times and the different item formats of the questionnaires.
Descriptions chapter.
The OPQ32n questionnaire includes a Social Desirability response scale. The
OPQ32i questionnaire includes a Consistency scale.

8
 1 Introduction

Table 2: Summary of OPQ32 versions

Questionnaire OPQ32i OPQ32n

Scales 32 + Consistency 32 + Social Desirability

Items 104 (blocks of 4) 230

Items per scale 13 7*

Type of item Forced choice: choose Five option multiple choice

most and least true
from four statements

Average completion time 45 35

* Average no of items per scale. The number of items on each scale varies.

Who can use OPQ32?

The OPQ32 questionnaires use the language of work and are designed for use by
Human Resource, training, management development and personnel specialists as
well as psychologists.

All trained OPQ users are eligible to use OPQ32. OPQ users trained on the older
OPQ Concept Model may use OPQ32 without the need for further training.
Professionals who have not received training from SHL on the OPQ questionnaires
at all will require training, typically through the SHL Testing in the Workplace
course, before OPQ32 materials can be supplied.

9
 1 Introduction

How does OPQ32 differ from the original Concept Model?

The main differences between OPQ32 and the Concept Model are summarized in
Table 3.

Why the differences between OPQ32 and the Concept Model?

The first OPQ models and questionnaires were developed in the United Kingdom
between 1981 and 1984. Since the original launch of the OPQ in 1984, the OPQ
Further information Concept Model has become available in 40 countries and 27 languages around the
world.
regarding training
and eligibility for
Over the years, the world of work has changed and the widespread international
registration can be use of OPQ has created a great deal of information on the use of OPQ in a variety
obtained from SHL of applications. This includes a broad norm base, validation research, as well as
Client Services. relationships with key competencies. For these reasons, combined with input from
OPQ users around the world, SHL embarked on the OPQ32 Development Program
to update the OPQ Concept Model.

Table 3: Differences between OPQ32 and OPQ Concept Model

Three new scales: Two scales have been removed:

Adaptable Practical

Rule Following Artistic

Trusting

The Independent and Critical scales Four scales have been altered to
have become three scales: some degree and renamed:

Independent Minded Traditional becomes Conventional

Outspoken Change Orientated becomes Variety Seeking

Evaluative Forward Planning becomes Forward Thinking

Active becomes Vigorous

10
 1 Introduction

What was the rationale for the changes made?

In each case, different factors motivated the changes, additions or deletions of

scales. A full description of these issues can be found in the Development chapter.

Three new scales

The development of
The Adaptable scale was developed following research on Cross Cultural the OPQ32 model
Sensitivity, which identified that being prepared to change your behavior to suit the and questionnaires is
situation or another person is a useful characteristic for many managers operating described in the
in different environments, countries and cultures.
Development
chapter.
The Rule Following scale relates to the concepts of Integrity and Dependability.
More “dependable people” tend not only to be more Detail Conscious,
Conscientious and Conventional, but are also less inclined to break the rules.

The Trusting scale was developed to give greater insight into important work
relationships, particularly in the areas of trust between members of a team and
between managers and staff. More Trusting people tend to be less Critical but this
new scale is also relevant to such issues as how empowering a manager might be.

The restructured scales

Two of the scales of the Concept Model, Independent and Critical, were identified
as containing a degree of similarity of content and a subsequent factor analysis of
the items identified three factors. These three factors led to the creation of three
scales from the original two. The three scales are:

Outspoken centers on being prepared to speak up and make criticisms openly,

even in the face of direct opposition.

Independent Minded focuses on being determined to do things in one’s own way

rather than follow the group consensus.

Evaluative is based around a tendency to analyze or review work and question

assumptions (whether the criticisms or concerns that are a result of this review are
voiced publicly will depend on the position on the Outspoken scale).

11
 1 Introduction

The scales removed

Two Concept Model scales have been removed. The scales are Artistic and
Practical. Artistic focuses on an interest in fine art, music and culture and Practical
focuses on a preference for using hands to fix and repair things.

Both of these constructs were originally identified as important characteristics to

assess in the initial OPQ development in the early 80s, which proceeded from
formal job analysis of a range of jobs. While Artistic and Practical have been
identified as important predictors in some jobs, effectiveness in the vast majority of
managerial and professional roles is rarely related to these constructs. For economy
of administration and interpretation time, these scales were removed when
developing OPQ32.

The revised scales

The Traditional scale of the OPQ Concept Model has been renamed Conventional
within the OPQ32 model. The change to the name of the scale largely reflects the
specific connotations that “Traditional” can assume in certain cultures e.g. in South
Africa “Traditional” can be interpreted as an eagerness to return to the apartheid
era. The changes are also designed to help users distinguish more easily between
the content of Variety Seeking (formerly known as Change Orientated) and the
Conventional scale.

The Change Orientated scale of the OPQ Concept Model becomes the Variety
Seeking scale within the OPQ32 model. This change is based on changes to the
item content: items relating to travel have been removed; and the new items focus
on a preference for variety, unpredictableness and change as opposed to
maintaining a set routine. The changes also help to distinguish between
Conventional (formerly known as Traditional) and Variety Seeking.

The Forward Planning scale becomes Forward Thinking in OPQ32. This change is
based on changes to the items, which focus less on medium-term planning and
more on a longer-term strategic perspective.

The Active scale’s content in OPQ32 is different from the Concept Model and it is
renamed Vigorous within the OPQ32 model. The changes to this scale largely
represent a move away from an enjoyment of physical activity to a general
enjoyment of being busy and occupied either physically or mentally. This better
reflects the world of work as well as avoiding any tendency to underestimate the
energy levels of those who do not or cannot participate in physical activities.

12
 2 Applications

Applications
Overview

This chapter outlines some examples of how OPQ questionnaires have been used,
including a number of case studies. Although most of these involve managerial and
other professional staff across a variety of industry sectors in both public and
private organizations and government, the Concept Model and OPQ32 have been
successfully used with a wide variety of staff at other levels. However, some users
may prefer to use other questionnaires in the OPQ suite with non-managerial staff,
such as the Customer Contact Questionnaire, the Work Styles Questionnaire and
Images.

Selection

This is the most common application for OPQ questionnaires. Style of behavior is
critical for most jobs, particularly at the managerial and professional level, and
where little is known about external applicants, selectors need to gather as much
relevant information as possible.
Some key references
There is now substantial evidence for the efficacy of personality questionnaires as a for interested
selection aid. Besides the validation studies described in the Criterion Validity
readers are Barrick
chapter, many other eminent researchers have demonstrated their relevance and
supported their use. & Mount (1991),
Hough (1998) and
OPQ profiles are used as one of a number of potential assessment methods in the Salgado (1997).
selection process. Typically, they are used as an aid to an interview. Knowledge of
the candidate’s OPQ profile allows the interviewer to identify areas of strengths
and potential concern. These can be more fully explored and further data gathered.
Also, giving candidates some feedback on their results encourages them to talk
more openly about their behavior. This leads to examples of situations where the
behavior was displayed and discussions of its effectiveness and the reasons behind it.

Effective selection and good use of OPQ scores presume that some job analysis or
profiling work has been done to identify the person attributes or competencies
required to perform well in the role. Some examples of using OPQ32
questionnaires within this kind of structured approach to selection are given below.
Research evidence strongly advocates structured methods as providing more
relevant and correct outcomes to selection decisions.

1
 2 Applications

Competency-based selection

OPQ32 scores typically have strong relationships with many work competencies.
They can be used to profile candidates’ strengths and weaknesses against
competencies, either by a trained user or through computer aided interpretation.

• Trained users identify the OPQ scales which are most likely to predict each of
the competencies prior to interview. For example, the competency of
“creativity” may be usefully predicted by a combination of an individual’s
OPQ32 scores on “Conceptual”, “Innovative” and “Conventional”. For the first
Case Study 4 two scales high scores would be desirable, for the third a low score is
illustrates how issues preferable.
raised from an
OPQ32 profile can • SHL computer based solutions with embedded generic competencies for
particular groups of jobs can generate reports of candidates’ suitability. For
be addressed during
example:
interview.
SHL OPQ Expert system: provides a managerial competency profile from
OPQ32 scores. An example is given in the Expert systems chapter.

SHL DecisionMaker: a job profiling and assessment system, which facilitates

your decision making by matching candidates to job competencies and provides
structured interviewing guides and questions based on the results.

The mapping of OPQ32 onto the competencies should be based on:

• Prior validation research –see the Criterion Validity chapter for information on
links to different competencies.

• Detailed knowledge of the job –the results of good analysis of job content.

• The judgement of an experienced OPQ user.

The results can be used on their own, or for greater value, as the foundation for a
competency based interview. The interviewer can focus on the potential strengths
and weaknesses of the candidate as highlighted by the OPQ score generated
competency profile.

Of course, the effectiveness of the OPQ32 questionnaires in this process will

depend on the quality of definition of the competencies. Structured job profiling is
required to provide sound competencies on which to base selection decisions.

2
 2 Applications

Biographical interviews

While competency based selection and interviewing along with other structured
processes has become very common, some interviewers follow a more
biographical approach. OPQ data can provide valuable input in helping the
interviewer explore candidates’ personality style and how they relate to others,
their thinking style and their feelings, emotions and energies.

Case Study 1, later in this chapter describes an example of OPQ32 used in this
manner.

Screening

While the OPQ profile is generally used in conjunction with an interview or

feedback session to establish the applicant’s suitability for a particular job, there
may be situations where screening applicants on the OPQ32 personality scores is
justified. In these situations, OPQ should not be used alone but, whenever
possible, combined with data available from the application form, other objective
measures, etc. The Interpretation
and Feedback
OPQ32 profiles are best used as part of the screening process when a relatively
chapter of this
large proportion of the applicants are likely to have a profile that is less
appropriate for the job. In order to use the scores in this way, you need to have manual gives some
strong evidence to justify that the OPQ32 scales are relevant to subsequent examples of how the
performance. This would normally involve thorough job analysis or actual OPQ data can be
validation work which demonstrated that the appropriate OPQ scales related to structured in order
how people performed on the job.
to facilitate selection
and decisions.
Promotion

Although promotion involves internal candidates, whom you know a lot more
about than external, there is often still a strong need to gather additional objective
data as:

• Often there is insufficient evidence available on how the candidates would

perform. The new role generally places a different emphasis on competencies
than the present, or importantly, encompasses new ones.

• The candidates might presently report to different managers and do different

jobs, making it difficult to compare their performance records.

In these scenarios, as with external candidates, OPQ data can be extremely useful
in aiding the decision-making process and users are encouraged to follow similar
practices as for external selection.

3
 2 Applications

Selection within organizational change initiatives

Users are directed to the Organizational Change section later in this chapter which
describes a number of applications in relation to restructuring, succession planning,
management audits and mergers and acquisitions.

While OPQ profiles are generally used in conjunction with an interview or

feedback session to establish the applicant’s suitability for a particular job, there
may be situations where screening the applicants on their OPQ personality scores,
as well as other information, is useful.

Assessment and development centers

OPQ is often used as one of the information inputs in an assessment or

development center.

Depending on the competencies to be assessed, a matrix can be built up of which

assessment methods provide information on which competency. The example
assessment matrix in Table 1 shows how OPQ32 can fit into such a process, and
Case Study 4 discusses the use of OPQ32 in a development center context.

Typically, the assessment methods are of two types; exercises which allow the
assessors to observe relevant behavior, for example in-basket and group exercises;
and those which allow the individual to provide the information, for example
OPQ32 questionnaires and ability tests. Ideally, the center is designed so each
competency is assessed by at least one exercise of each type. This supports the
notion of multi-method assessment so that any weaknesses of one assessment
method are counter-balanced by the strengths of another.

Whether the center is designed primarily for assessment or development purposes,

OPQ32 profiles provide a source of information on the participants which can
complement other traditional elements used. The detailed OPQ32 profile can be
related to a broad span of competency areas, and can typically provide input into
In general, the same
many areas to be assessed. While it is less likely to be a primary source of
OPQ32 scale should information for any particular domain, it is very likely to be a good secondary
not be used against source for many areas.
more than one
competency, so
independence of
information is
maintained.

4
 2 Applications

Table 1: An example of an assessment method matrix

Competency
Assessment Oral Planning Teamwork Leadership Persuasion Problem Numeracy
method communication & organizing solving

Group exercise ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

OPQ32 profile ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

In-basket ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔

Interview ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ability tests ✔✔ ✔✔

Presentation ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔

✔✔ = Primary source of evidence

✔ = Secondary source of evidence

In the example given in Table 1, the OPQ32 profile is used as a source of data for
planning and organizing, teamwork, leadership, persuasion and problem solving.
As indicated in the selection section, prior to the assessment, the relevant links
between OPQ scales and competencies need to be defined. These are fed into an
integration session where data from all methods are shared to provide a
comprehensive view of the individual.

Development centers can differ from assessment centers in a number of ways, but
OPQ32 is still a key input. What differs considerably is the emphasis on feedback
of results. This should be an integral part of the development center process
enabling the individual to benefit from knowledge and understanding of the
OPQ32 data as described in the training and development section below.

Training and development

OPQ32 questionnaires not only allow information to be gathered for selection and
promotion decisions but also, very importantly, help in the development of existing
staff. A number of applications are given below.

Individual development

Feedback from OPQ questionnaires can provide an individual with valuable self-
insight and how their personality or style at work can influence their performance
and effectiveness.

5
 2 Applications

The OPQ32 profile can provide a structure around which to discuss the individual’s
strengths and limitations. This can be directly based on the OPQ32 scale scores or
can be built around relevant competencies by relating the scales to the
competencies. Often the candidate is relatively well disposed to accepting the
information because the OPQ profile focuses on work style rather than directly on
ability, and the information from the questionnaire is often seen as less threatening
than a performance appraisal or other direct feedback on achievement.

The analysis is generally based on relating OPQ scores to the core success criteria
for the job to establish the degree of fit between the individual’s profile and the
role. Often a “gap analysis” approach as shown in Figure 1 is helpful. This can
focus the discussion and suggest relevant actions to develop the individual for the
current role and for potential future roles.

Figure 1: Gap analysis

Potential based on Competency Area

See Interpretation
OPQ32 results Not job requirement Job requirement
and Feedback
Strong Unused potential Strength
chapter for an
example of an Weak Not present problem Development need

OPQ32 feedback in
an individual
development 360°
context.
360° assessment is now becoming more common as part of a development
process. 360° assessment involves the individual being assessed against a series of
competencies by themselves and others, typically their boss, subordinates and
peers, to give a rounded picture of their performance at work. While use of 360°
questionnaires can help determine development needs, they are also useful in
other contexts. They can aid understanding of poor working relationships between
the individual and others and help people to manage more effectively the way
they are perceived by others.

Competency based instruments such as SHL’s Perspectives in Management

Competencies (PMC) and Inventory of Management Competencies (IMC) are
commonly used and the results from these can be linked to OPQ32 profiles to help
suggest ways in which issues raised can be addressed.

An alternative approach is to use OPQ scales as a basis for the 360° process. SHL
has developed a 360° version called OPQ Perspectives which provides information
on how the individual sees their own behavior compared to how others perceive
it, based on the OPQ Concept Model profile. For further information, please see
the OPQ Perspectives Manual.

6
 2 Applications

Leadership skills

Leadership skills are critical for any successful organization and ensuring managers
develop appropriate skills is an integral part of many management development
SHL has developed
programs.
a specific OPQ32
OPQ32 questionnaires can be used to help determine managers’ preferred Expert report on
leadership style and this can then be related to their effectiveness within the leadership and
organization’s culture. reporting styles.
See Expert systems
Mentoring and coaching
chapter.
Many managers now take advantage of coaches who are available to help them be
more effective in the work place. In mentoring others, knowledge of their
preferred working style and understanding of which behaviors they can most easily
adopt, leads to more successful discussions. Information from OPQ32 profiles can
help in discussing how problems can be dealt with, how individuals can be
influenced and what is likely to be the best way to achieve agreed actions.

Performance management

Although performance management processes will be primarily based on actual

performance data and achievement of agreed targets, in order to improve future
performance, discussions usually include how the targets were achieved, and
perceived barriers and opportunities to meeting past and future goals.

Use of OPQ32 questionnaires can facilitate these discussions, particularly where

style of behavior is a critical issue, with key issues being picked up in
development discussions and resulting action plans.

Team building

This again is a common use for OPQ32 questionnaires and they can be utilized in
several ways. Although there are a number of taxonomies of team styles, many
organizations use Belbin’s team types and these have been adopted by SHL.
Individual scores on the team types can be derived from OPQ32 profiles by using See Expert system
the appropriate Expert system report (see Administration chapter). These scores, chapter for a
which indicate the ease with which an individual can adopt each of the types, can
description of
be used as the basis for a team building exercise.
Belbin’s team types.

7
 2 Applications

Team development

This is normally conducted with an existing team and the sharing of team types
can help the team understand their strengths and weaknesses and aid the
identification of suitable actions and development needs that would particularly
help overcome their limitations and build on their strengths. The sharing of the
roles also helps the individuals understand how they contribute to the team and
work with their colleagues. This can be particularly useful in identifying potential
for conflict between members so that strategies for dealing with it can be
Case Study 3
developed.
provides an example
of OPQ32 derived Putting a team together
team types being
used for team When putting together a new team or needing to replace some existing members,
emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring relevant skills, knowledge and abilities.
development.
However, as research shows, a good balance of team types is most advantageous
for a team to be effective. When choice of individual allows, it is recommended
that this is made taking account of team types.

Counseling

Counseling was one of the first work related areas in which personality
questionnaires were used. OPQ32 questionnaires are ideally placed for helping
individuals understand their own behavior and its implications in the work place.
Counseling can take many forms and is often initiated when there are issues
related to:

Performance

Personality profiles can help individuals understand some of the underlying

problems with their job performance particularly when there are issues involving
how well they relate to their boss and colleagues. OPQ32 data allow these
discussions to become less personalized and concentrate on conflicts of style or
appropriateness of behaviors in relating to others and for the job, rather than
personal likes and dislikes.

Stress

Stress has become a common issue in the last five years and is unlikely to
disappear. OPQ profiles can aid individuals’ understanding of what is likely to
cause them stress, help them realize effective coping strategies and identify ways of
avoiding or at least reducing potential stressful situations in the future.

8
 2 Applications

Career pathing

OPQ32 questionnaires can be used in the early stages of career counseling to help
identify people’s preferred way of working. They are often used in conjunction
with an Interest Inventory and SHL’s Motivation Questionnaire to explore also what
people like doing and their values and motivators. Potential career paths can be
explored and matched against the individual’s preferences and skill set to
determine likelihood of success and satisfaction. Action plans can also take account
of any development or training needs that could help to minimize the possibility of
failure.

Outplacement

In addition to the type of application described above, OPQ32 information can be

used to help match an individual to the culture of potential employing
organizations.

Organizational change

This area has historically made least use of objective data about individuals but, as
organizations go through a change process, they often find that it is the people
issues that are the most difficult to resolve.

The concept of a “management audit” has grown in popularity. Objective

assessment including OPQ32 questionnaires can provide valuable information,
alongside skills and performance management data, to give a more detailed
understanding of the capabilities and working styles of key employees.

Acquisitions and mergers

In acquiring and merging companies, careful attention is given to the more tangible
assets. However, the people are a significant factor in any organization’s success
and much more could be done by those involved to merge employee cultures!
Conducting management audits, which include use of OPQ32 questionnaires,
provides valuable objective information on the quality of the staff. Even if it does
not affect the actual transaction, the information is key in planning and
implementing a successful take-over or merger and can start to answer questions
such as:

• How similar are the cultures?

• What are the strengths of the management team?
• Where are the gaps?
• Who should be appointed to the key roles in the “new” organization?

9
 2 Applications

Succession planning

This is often linked to identifying high potential staff and development centers
using OPQ32 questionnaires are a useful part of the process. Competency
requirements of key roles can be drawn up against which individuals can be
matched to help identify development needs.

Restructuring

Many organizations now seem to be in a continual phase of change or

restructuring. Again, people issues can be the most difficult to resolve and better
knowledge of the skills, capabilities and styles of the workforce can help indicate:

• What structures are likely to be more effective?

• Where problems are likely to occur?
• Where the greatest resistance to changes is likely to be?
• What actions, e.g. training, development, reassignment, recruitment need to
happen for successful implementation?

Reassignment

One of the effects of organizational change is the need to reassign staff. Increased
knowledge of their competencies from OPQ32 profiles, along with the
requirements of available jobs, allows better matching of people to roles. This
process also provides a clearer profile of their likely strengths and weaknesses in
the new role which could enable them to be effectively managed and developed
for the future.

Research

OPQ questionnaires have formed the basis of a number of research projects

investigating personality at work and differences in personality between
Highlights of the
occupational groups. As a rigorously researched tool, the OPQ32 questionnaires
results from the represent an objective, systematic and reliable method for researching personality
general population attributes. The OPQ Concept and UK OPQ32 general population samples collected
study for OPQ32 in 1990 and 1999, respectively, give a highly comprehensive picture of personality
questionnaires are trends in the UK population, including age trends, gender differences, and patterns
across different ethnic groups.
presented in the
Scale Descriptions
Data on occupational differences are presented in the Norms chapter and data on
chapter. what makes particular people more effective in certain jobs in the Criterion Validity
chapter. At SHL we are committed to further research in this area and encourage
those interested in using OPQ questionnaires in research to contact us.

10
 2 Applications

Case studies in OPQ32 use

Four case studies are now given providing fuller illustration of the use and benefits
of OPQ32 questionnaires:

• Management assessment for selection

• Executive coaching
• Team building
• Development centers

Case Study 1: Management assessment for selection

Selecting effective senior managers is critical for any organization and this case
study illustrates how OPQ32 questionnaires used in conjunction with other
assessment tools helped a company not only select the best candidate but also plan
development for the future.

The role was a Finance Director in an engineering company. Key attributes It is important to
identified as important to success were a high level of professional skills and consider
experience, together with good analytical and problem solving skills and some organizational
ability to think laterally and contribute at a strategic level. culture when making
selection decisions.
The culture of the organization emphasized shared decision making and team
work. The senior management team not only contributed in their functional
specialty but provided a forum for wider business and strategic discussion.
Openness of style and a preparedness to listen to others as well as making their
own contribution, were valued by the Chief Executive.

A final shortlist of three each attended a selection day which included interviews,
a presentation analysis and an in-basket as well as completing the OPQ32i
questionnaire.

James Keller was the preferred candidate in terms of his skills and experience. The
ideas he presented in the group exercise and the presentation analysis were both
original and sound. However, there were some questions about his management
style, particularly as a result of the interview. While he came across as a decisive
person who was geared to getting results, in describing his approach in his
previous job at a smaller organization, he was clearly someone who could also be
rather independent in his style. There was little evidence of team working. He
seemed to have worked very autonomously. It was felt he might not be the team
player this company was looking for.

His OPQ32 profile, as well as Team Types and Leadership Style profiles from the
Expert system were used to provide more information in the discussion about his
suitability (see Figures 2 and 3).

11
 2 Applications

The OPQ32 profile supported much of the other evidence. He had described
himself as being very dynamic with high energy levels, (Vigorous, Competitive and
Achieving). He was analytical in approach (high Data Rational, Conceptual and
Evaluative) and focused on the future (high Forward Thinking). His high Socially
Confident score had been borne out by his smooth performance during the
assessment day.

In relation to his management style his profile shows that he did see himself as
consistent with the behavior he described in his last position. However, along with
his strong interpersonal skills, he saw himself as moderately Democratic, and
willing to consult with others, although not necessarily a natural “salesperson” for
his ideas. His moderately high Behavioral score also suggests someone who will
take other people’s response into account in his actions.

The Leadership style profile (see Figure 3) suggested he was equally comfortable
with a directive and a consultative style. The directive approach may have
dominated in the previous role, but the consultative style would suit the new role
better. James had several strong team styles and while the more directive Shaper
role was one of the strongest, he could also act as a more team oriented
Coordinator. In addition, his strong analytical skills and styles make him able to
contribute as a Plant and a Monitor-Evaluator.

Overall, it was felt that his interactive interpersonal style as well as his desire to
understand and solve problems in order to meet his personal objectives would
make him capable of working within this different culture. He seemed well able to
cope with constructive feedback and open to development suggestions that would
further his career. He was neither too anxious, nor too sensitive to take such things
in his stride, and his determination to achieve his own aim would motivate him to
moderate his natural tendency to act only on his own views and behave in a more
team centered manner.

OPQ32 profiles can The OPQ32 profile allowed detailed specific feedback and a development plan for
help adapt a job to James was agreed which emphasized how interpersonal skills and insight could be
match an outstanding used to enhance and vary his leadership style. The people management
person’s style. requirements of the position were also reviewed with more emphasis being placed
on other aspects of the role and plans for development of a senior manager in the
team to undertake more of the team building aspects. The senior management
team styles were also assessed using OPQ32 Expert system Team Types profiles
with feedback and this helped the team maximize their different styles and offset
potential limitations in the newly appointed manager’s style.

12
 2 Applications

Figure 2: OPQ32i profile for James Keller

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Persuasive • • • • • • • • • •

Controlling • • • • • • • • • •

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken • • • • • • • • • •

Independent Minded • • • • • • • • • •

Outgoing • • • • • • • • • •

Affiliative • • • • • • • • • •

Socially Confident • • • • • • • • • •

Modest • • • • • • • • • •

Democratic • • • • • • • • • •

Caring • • • • • • • • • •

Data Rational • • • • • • • • • •

Evaluative • • • • • • • • • •

Behavioral • • • • • • • • • •

Conventional • • • • • • • • • •

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual • • • • • • • • • •

Innovative • • • • • • • • • •

Variety Seeking • • • • • • • • • •

Adaptable • • • • • • • • • •

Forward Thinking • • • • • • • • • •

Detail Conscious • • • • • • • • • •

Conscientious • • • • • • • • • •

Rule Following • • • • • • • • • •

Relaxed • • • • • • • • • •

Worrying • • • • • • • • • •

Tough Minded • • • • • • • • • •
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic • • • • • • • • • •

Trusting • • • • • • • • • •

Emotionally Controlled • • • • • • • • • •

Vigorous • • • • • • • • • •

Competitive • • • • • • • • • •

Achieving • • • • • • • • • •

Decisive • • • • • • • • • •

Consistency • • • • • • • • • •
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13
 2 Applications

Figure 3: Team types and leadership styles for James Keller

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Team Types
Coordinator Sets the team goals and defines roles. Coordinates team
• • • • • • • • • •
efforts and leads by eliciting respect.
Shaper The task leader who brings competitive drive to the team.
• • • • • • • • • •
Makes things happen but may be thought abrasive.
Plant Imaginative, intelligent and the team’s source of original ideas.
• • • • • • • • • •
Concerned with the fundamentals.
Monitor-Evaluator Offers measured, dispassionate critical analysis.
• • • • • • • • • •
Keeps the team from pursuing misguided objectives.
Resource Investigator Sales person, diplomat, resource seeker. Good
• • • • • • • • • •
improviser with many external contacts. May be easily diverted from
task at hand.
Completer Worries about problems. Personally checks details.
• • • • • • • • • •
Intolerant of the casual and sloppy. Sees projects through.
Team Worker Promotes team harmony. Good listener who builds on
• • • • • • • • • •
the ideas of others. Likeable and unassertive.
Implementer Turns decisions and strategies into manageable tasks.
• • • • • • • • • •
Brings logical, methodical pursuit of objectives to the team.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Leadership Styles
Directive Leader Maintains responsibility for planning and control.
• • • • • • • • • •
Issues instructions in line with own perception of priorities.
Delegative Leader Minimal personal involvement. Believes in
• • • • • • • • • •
delegation of task and responsibility.
Participative Leader Prefers consensus decision making. Prepared to
• • • • • • • • • •
take time over decisions. Ensures involvement of all relevant individuals.
Consultative Leader Pays genuine attention to opinions/feelings of
• • • • • • • • • •
reports but maintains a clear sense of task objectives and makes the
final decisions.
Negotiative Leader Makes “deals” with reports. Influences others by
• • • • • • • • • •
identifying their needs and using these as a basis for negotiation.

14
 2 Applications

Case Study 2: Executive coaching

The background

This is the profile of a 44 year old female Chief Executive of a medium sized
biotechnology organization. She has been with the firm for ten years. She has a
Ph.D. in Genetics and a B.S. in Chemistry and Biology. Prior to entering business,
she spent nearly three years in pharmaceutical research.

This Chief Executive opted to complete the OPQ32 questionnaire for two reasons:

• as a preliminary trial prior to a Board level team building event;

• to gain some self-understanding prior to the event.

However, she was somewhat skeptical about the empirical underpinning of

psychometric tools and generally considered the area of psychology to be a “soft
science.”

Her decision to hold a team building event was prompted by the following factors:

• the resignation of one Board Member and one Senior Project Director;
• a general lack of motivation and “politicking” amongst the senior team;
• a reformulation of the organization’s overall strategy;
• her growing awareness of her lack of focus on people issues.

She is regarded by the Board as being a very dominant individual. If someone does
not immediately know the solution to a problem, she solves the problem herself.
This often proves frustrating and disheartening for various members of the team.
However, her experience and intellect mean that she is very well respected by
people within the company itself and the industry generally.

If the feedback from the OPQ32 profile produced thought provoking insights into
her preferred style, she would go on to profile the entire board (with feedback)
prior to the team meeting. She has said that the profiles might provide useful
insights into the individuals concerned and she would welcome the opportunity to
scrutinize the individual profiles prior to the event.

15
 2 Applications

Figure 4: OPQ32i profile of a Chief Executive Officer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Persuasive • • • • • • • • • •

Controlling • • • • • • • • • •

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken • • • • • • • • • •

Independent Minded • • • • • • • • • •

Outgoing • • • • • • • • • •

Affiliative • • • • • • • • • •

Socially Confident • • • • • • • • • •

Modest • • • • • • • • • •

Democratic • • • • • • • • • •

Caring • • • • • • • • • •

Data Rational • • • • • • • • • •

Evaluative • • • • • • • • • •

Behavioral • • • • • • • • • •

Conventional • • • • • • • • • •

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual • • • • • • • • • •

Innovative • • • • • • • • • •

Variety Seeking • • • • • • • • • •

Adaptable • • • • • • • • • •

Forward Thinking • • • • • • • • • •

Detail Conscious • • • • • • • • • •

Conscientious • • • • • • • • • •

Rule Following • • • • • • • • • •

Relaxed • • • • • • • • • •

Worrying • • • • • • • • • •

Tough Minded • • • • • • • • • •
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic • • • • • • • • • •

Trusting • • • • • • • • • •

Emotionally Controlled • • • • • • • • • •

Vigorous • • • • • • • • • •

Competitive • • • • • • • • • •

Achieving • • • • • • • • • •

Decisive • • • • • • • • • •

Consistency • • • • • • • • • •
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16
 2 Applications

This situation raised issues in managing the whole process.

Dealing with the CEO’s initial skepticism

This is someone whose intellectual training took place in a very rigorous, scientific
environment. She is likely to challenge any general assertions that are made about
her personality and her working style. It is essential, therefore, to carefully manage
this individual’s expectations about the profile itself and the nature of the feedback
process. The profile should be presented during the introduction as a common
language to discuss her preferred behavioral styles, as well as any development
needs that may arise from the ensuing discussion.

Allowing the CEO to see the profiles of other members of the board

Obviously, the results of the OPQ32 questionnaires should remain as confidential

as possible in the interests of encouraging honesty and openness as well as basic
ethical principles of test practice. However, if the top team itself is positive about
the results being shared with the CEO after their own feedback, then of course this
is a viable option. The CEO should ideally also share her profile with the rest of
the team. There are other possibilities that could be considered, e.g. directors each
provide a synopsis of their own profiles during the team building event. In this
way, each person only reveals as much as he or she feels comfortable sharing in
such a context. Part of the role of Development Consultants is to use their
experience to assess the team dynamics and to find the process which fits
optimally with the situation and to facilitate this successfully.

The CEO’s profile

The CEO completed the OPQ32i version. Her profile is shown in Figure 4.

One striking aspect of the profile is the low Achieving score. This may be
considered unusual in someone operating at this sort of level and should be
investigated further. After feedback and discussion it seemed that from an
operational business perspective, the CEO believed she had achieved everything
possible and is unsure about how to develop herself or the organization.

There are a number of key themes that emerge from the profile:

• she has a dominant leadership style which is exacerbated by a low score on the
trusting dimension;
• she is more focused on business and task related issues than people;
• she does not appear to be particularly driven at this point in her career.

17
 2 Applications

Implications of the profile for the CEO’s self-development

She needs to focus on:

• building more open relationships with her team;

• people management as well as task business management;
• empowering others and the behaviors she needs to do this successfully;
• learning how to succession plan and possibly the appointment of a Chief
Operating Officer;
• facilitating and not overtly directing others.

Addressing each of the above areas should give the CEO new goals which will
impact on her own levels of motivation by presenting her with a new challenge.
The implications for the management team of the CEO developing her behavioral
style include:

• becoming more self-sufficient as a group;

• being more open with each other and operating as a team;
• developing new skills and knowledge previously supplied directly by the Chief
Executive.

If the members of the board are to adopt additional responsibilities, this will have
an impact that will cascade throughout the rest of the organization. The CEO’s
explicit focus on a balance between people and business management may have
implications for changing the culture of the organization.

In summary, the CEO’s own profile reveals a dominant personality with a strong
preference for task and business issues rather than people. Surprisingly, she
appears to be quite unambitious. The feedback of the results from the OPQ32
profile motivates her to focus more clearly on people issues, in particular the
empowerment of the board to address issues independently. This entails key
development areas for her in terms of people management and interpersonal skills,
as well as concomitant development interventions for the top team in order that
this goal can be achieved. Ultimately, this change in emphasis and style at the most
senior level has potential consequences for the organizational culture as a whole.

18
 2 Applications

Case Study 3:Team building

A newly formed team of seven managers leading the Business Information Systems
department of a large IT consultancy firm are putting together their first joint
business plan. As part of the formation of the new teams within the business, they
participated in a team development program which had the following stages:

• Agree upon development objectives.

• Run team development and simulation exercises.
• Individual feedback on OPQ32 team type and relate to development exercise
outcomes.
• Share preferred team types.
• Agree upon strengths, weaknesses, key threats and opportunities in relation to
the team meeting its objectives.
• Brainstorm approaches to maximize opportunities and minimize threats.
• Produce and implement action plan.

The team decided to specifically focus on developments related to how effective

they were at:

• Deciding upon strategy.

• Implementing the strategy and completing tasks.
• Keeping the people-side of team interactions harmonious.

Based on the OPQ32n profiles, the preferred team types (i.e. roles team members
were likely to adopt) were displayed on a flipchart (see Figure 5). A preferred team
type was taken to be any team type of Sten 7 or more on a profile.

Figure 5: Number of team members with each team type as a

preferred role

Coordinator 3
Shaper 4
Plant 1
Monitor Evaluator 4
Resource Investigator 3
Completer/Finisher 1
Team Worker 1
Implementer 0

19
 2 Applications

The team identified the following strengths:

• Quick to spot any potential pitfalls in an approach.

• No shortage of leadership.
• No shortage of drive and determination.
• Able to get resources and deal effectively with other parts of the business.

The team identified the following danger areas:

• Several of the team members were inclined to lead the team (Coordinators and
Shapers). This could lead to conflict.
• Danger of people pulling the strategy and plans in different directions.
• Very little focus on implementation and project management issues.
• Only one Plant suggests there might be limited ideas generation within the team
to support strategy development.
• Limited focus on the people-side of the team.

As a result the team agreed that the following actions would be part of their action plan:

• They needed to pick and support a clear leader.

• They needed to spend extra time agreeing to objectives from the start.
• They needed to hold formal brainstorming sessions to help in the strategy
development.
• They needed to avoid rejecting ideas until all the pros and cons of an approach
were fully discussed.
• They should hold regular implementation meetings with project managers.
• They should set aside time to spend together outside meetings.

20
 2 Applications

Case Study 4: Use of OPQ32 questionnaires in

development centers

There are a number of different ways of using the OPQ32 profiles in an assessment
or development center context; for example, as an aid to interviewing or with other
data at the integration stage of the process. Probably the best way to use the data,
however, is to map the OPQ32 scales onto the competency areas to be assessed.
This should be based on validated evidence collected prior to the assessment or
development center. Candidates can be rated against the competency areas using
the OPQ32 data in the same way as for other simulation exercises. Thus, the
OPQ32 questionnaire is fully integrated into the process and can provide highly
valuable insights into someone’s potential across a whole range of competencies.

For example, in a development center to review strengths and development needs

as part of a “high potential” development program in a pharmaceutical company,
the following situation took place:

• Seven competency areas were identified to be assessed.

• Eight young managers took part.
• Participants were evaluated using a range of group and one-to-one simulation
exercises, aptitude tests and the SHL OPQ32n questionnaire.
• Four observers were present at the development center, including two trained
to interpret and provide feedback on OPQ32 profiles.
• The development center lasted two days for the participants with an extra day
for the observers to review and evaluate the data within an integration session.
Full feedback was then provided to the participants after the center took place.
• A matrix showing the exercises being used against the competencies is set out
in Table 2 overleaf. It is worth noting that the OPQ32 profile provides
information for all the competencies.
• Job analysis data had been gathered as part of a competency profiling exercise
in advance of the development center. This was used to establish the mapping
of the OPQ32 scales onto the competency areas (see Table 3).

21
 2 Applications

Table 2: Competency matrix for the development center

Assessment Group In-Basket Presentation OPQ32 Aptitude Competency

Competency method discussion exercise exercise profile tests based
interview

Communication ✔ ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔

Interpersonal
Sensitivity ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Problem solving
and analysis ✔ ✔ ✔✔
Planning and
Organization ✔✔ ✔

Flexibility ✔ ✔

Creativity and
innovation ✔ ✔✔

Resilience ✔ ✔

22
 2 Applications

Table 3: Mapping of OPQ32 scales to development center

competencies

Competency OPQ32 scales Desirable score range

Communication Socially Confident mid-high
Affiliative mid-high
Persuasive mid-high
Interpersonal sensitivity Caring mid-high
Democratic mid-high
Behavioral mid-high
Independent Minded low-mid
Competitive low-mid
Problem solving and analysis Conceptual mid-high
Detail Conscious low-mid
Data Rational mid-high
Evaluative mid-high
Decisive mid
Planning and organizing Forward Thinking mid-high
Conscientious mid-high
Flexibility Rule Following low-mid
Independent Minded low-mid
Adaptable mid-high
Creativity and innovation Innovative mid-high
Evaluative mid-high
Conventional low-mid
Variety Seeking mid-high
Resilience Tough Minded mid-high
Emotionally Controlled mid-high
Optimistic mid-high
Relaxed mid-high

23
 2 Applications

In the case of Mike Blake, an engineer who undertook the full development center
process, some very interesting data appeared from the OPQ32 profile which helped
to explain certain trends appearing in other exercises. Examples of these are
highlighted below:

In terms of oral communication, Mike failed to make any significant contributions

during the group exercise and came across as particularly nervous and rather
verbose during the presentation. When reviewing his OPQ32 profile with him,
s results suggested that he had very low confidence in social situations and that,
although he saw himself as reasonably persuasive when discussing technical data,
he tended to avoid contact with people and preferred to work in isolation from
others. This helped to explain Mike’s issues across this competency area. In terms
of development actions, Mike agreed that he would need to work closely with his
manager and mentor to ensure he networks and communicates more openly in
meeting and business situations.

When reviewing the problem solving and analysis competency area, the in-basket
conflicted slightly with results from ability tests and the OPQ32 profile. The ability
tests showed Mike to have very strong intellectual ability (90th percentile and 95th
percentile scores on verbal and numerical reasoning when compared with a
composite management group) and the OPQ32 profile highlighted a strong
preference for using data in decision making and taking a critical approach when
reviewing issues. During the in-basket, however, Mike did not succeed in
effectively prioritizing critical issues and making decisions for the business. When
discussing this during the integration session, the observers of the process
concluded that, despite strong ability and interest in dealing with data and facts,
Mike’s current responsibilities at work were confined to a very narrow area of the
business. When exposed to issues outside of his own area, his lack of overall
business understanding could lead to errors in analysis and decision making. A key
development need highlighted was, therefore, to extend his area of operation and
ensure he attends meetings and takes part in project teams across other areas of
the business.

In the area of resilience, there was evidence during the interview of a reasonably
tenacious approach to ensure that issues are seen through to completion. However,
Mike appeared rather tense and anxious. He frequently tapped his pen on the table
and a flush appeared when he was handling more probing questions. The
interviewer was not sure whether this was due to interview nerves or whether this
was more representative of Mike’s behavior when under pressure. From the OPQ32
profile there were indications of very high levels of anxiety. During feedback Mike
admitted that despite moderate levels of emotional control, when feeling
apprehensive or stressed, he could become flustered and lose control. He was also
more sensitive than outward appearances would indicate. In a discussion of the full
development center results, Mike admitted that he felt he would need to be careful
to manage his anxiety. He particularly wanted to try to open up more with his
manager if something upsets him, rather than to have emotional outbursts.(Cont. p26)

24
 2 Applications

Figure 6: OPQ32n profile for Mike Blake

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Persuasive • • • • • • • • • •

Controlling • • • • • • • • • •

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken • • • • • • • • • •

Independent Minded • • • • • • • • • •

Outgoing • • • • • • • • • •

Affiliative • • • • • • • • • •

Socially Confident • • • • • • • • • •

Modest • • • • • • • • • •

Democratic • • • • • • • • • •

Caring • • • • • • • • • •

Data Rational • • • • • • • • • •

Evaluative • • • • • • • • • •

Behavioral • • • • • • • • • •

Conventional • • • • • • • • • •

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual • • • • • • • • • •

Innovative • • • • • • • • • •

Variety Seeking • • • • • • • • • •

Adaptable • • • • • • • • • •

Forward Thinking • • • • • • • • • •

Detail Conscious • • • • • • • • • •

Conscientious • • • • • • • • • •

Rule Following • • • • • • • • • •

Relaxed • • • • • • • • • •

Worrying • • • • • • • • • •

Tough Minded • • • • • • • • • •
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic • • • • • • • • • •

Trusting • • • • • • • • • •

Emotionally Controlled • • • • • • • • • •

Vigorous • • • • • • • • • •

Competitive • • • • • • • • • •

Achieving • • • • • • • • • •

Decisive • • • • • • • • • •

Social Desirability • • • • • • • • • •
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

25
 2 Applications

Overall results were discussed with Mike across the competency areas during the
development center feedback session which took place one week after the
development center. As a result of this feedback, Mike deliberated long and hard,
reviewing his performance on the simulation exercises and outcomes from the
personality questionnaire feedback. It was clear to him that, as a priority, he
needed to work most closely on his influencing and communication style, as well
as to manage his tension during stressful work situations. He was also eager to
expand his areas of responsibility. As an ambitious person on the high potential
scheme, he intended to invest time in networking across the business to build
relationships internally. He was to review further feedback on himself within two
years to see if he had made changes to his behavioral style. Results from the
OPQ32 questionnaire had very much influenced his thinking and overall action
planning.

26
 3 Scale Descriptions

Scale Descriptions
Introduction

This chapter presents information on the scale descriptions and data reflecting age
and gender trends for each scale of the OPQ32 model. A description of the layout
of this information and a short discussion on the interpretation of the trends is
given overleaf.

Using the scale descriptions 2

Persuasive 4
Controlling 6
Outspoken 8
Independent Minded 10
Outgoing 12
Affiliative 14
Socially Confident 16
Modest 18
Democratic 20
Caring 22
Data Rational 24
Evaluative 26
Behavioral 28
Conventional 30
Conceptual 32
Innovative 34
Variety Seeking 36
Adaptable 38 More information on
Forward Thinking 40 the General
Detail Conscious 42 Occupational Sample
Conscientious 44
can be found in the
Rule Following 46
Norms chapter.
Relaxed 48
Worrying 50
Tough Minded 52
Optimistic 54
Trusting 56
Emotionally Controlled 58
Vigorous 60
Competitive 62
Achieving 64
Decisive 66
Social Desirability 68
Consistency 70

1
 3 Scale Descriptions

Using the scale descriptions

Layout

First a short description of extreme scores on either end of the scale is presented to
illustrate the general meaning of the scale.

The next section gives examples of positive and negative items from the scale. A
fuller description of the key behaviors associated with high and low scorers on the
scale is then presented, indicating some of the behavior that might be expected
from people scoring at either end of the scale. When scores are less extreme, some
elements of the description may apply but not others, or all the elements may
apply to a lesser extent. A separate section provides alternative descriptions of the
likely behavior that might be expected from moderate scorers on the scale.

The second page for each scale describes its relationship with biographical factors.
Substantial relationships with age, gender, educational level, socio-economic status
and salary are noted. In addition a graphical display of scores broken down by age
and gender is provided, based on the general occupational sample.

Further results of the breakdown of scores for both OPQ32n and OPQ32i
questionnaires can be found in the Group Comparisons chapter.

A table shows the main relationships between the scale and other OPQ32 scales.
These are based on true score correlations for the general occupational sample of
the normative version of the questionnaire. The full intercorrelation matrices for
both OPQ32n and OPQ32i can be found in the Construct Validity chapter.

2
 3 Scale Descriptions

Interpreting trends

Differences in personality between age groups, at any point in time, may be the
result of aging or broader changes in society. For instance, the personalities of
people in their late fifties may have been affected by their experiences growing up
in post-World War 2 society, experiences which are not shared by young people
growing up today. The standardization is only a cross-section of a nation’s
personality, at a particular point in time, and cannot show whether the average
difference between 18 year olds and 55 year olds reflects the change of personality
as a result of maturing or differences between people of different generations.

Mean scores for different age bands for each gender are plotted in relation to the
average score of the whole sample. It is worth emphasizing that the charts tend to
exaggerate the age and gender trends, because only the three middle stens from
the profile chart are displayed rather than the normal ten points. In fact differences
of less than one sten will have little impact on interpretation.

It is important to remember that these graphs show average trends. There is much
more variation within each age or gender group than between different groups.
Within each age and gender combination there are scores across the whole of the
spectrum, from Sten 1 to Sten 10.

Because of the size of the general occupational sample, very small differences
which are insignificant from an interpretation perspective reach statistical
significance. The text only notes effects which are substantial enough to have
potential implications for understanding a profile.

3
 3 Scale Descriptions

Persuasive

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Rarely pressures others to change their views, Enjoys selling, comfortable using negotiation,
dislikes selling, less comfortable using likes to change other people’s views.
negotiation.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

Selling is not one of my strong points - n I enjoy negotiating - n
I enjoy selling ideas to clients - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Dislike using a sales pitch, debate or
negotiation to win people over. They feel
uncomfortable pressuring other people to go
along with their point of view and prefer to
give people space to make up their own mind.
They may also feel uncomfortable in situations
where they are receiving a “hard sell.”
Like selling, debating, and negotiating and
derive pleasure from winning people over to
their point of view. They feel that they can get
people to do things or buy products by
presenting a convincing case. As well as
enjoying selling a product, they believe you can
“sell” ideas to others. They may even
sometimes be seen as more pushy than
others.

MODERATE SCORERS

Like to persuade and negotiate more than sell or vice versa;

Or
Moderately interested in selling, persuading and negotiating;
Or
Like to sell, persuade and negotiate in some situations but not others;
Or
Enjoy negotiation and feel comfortable to some extent when influencing but do not feel that they
are very convincing in their debating or selling skills;

4
 3 Scale Descriptions

Persuasive

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Men describe themselves as more Persuasive than women. Some age differences are
statistically significant but are too small to have any meaningful impact on scale
interpretation. Retail and hospitality industries report being over one sten higher than
most other industries on Persuasive. Sales and customer services respondents report
the highest level of Persuasive, and are more than one sten higher than clerical and
administrative respondents. There is no strong relationship with education, ethnicity
or work experience.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Controlling Worrying

Outgoing
Socially Confident
Innovative

Moderate correlations with Outspoken

Variety Seeking
Competitive
Achieving

5
 3 Scale Descriptions

Controlling

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Happy to let others take charge, dislike telling Like to be in charge, take the lead, tell others
people what to do, unlikely to take the lead. what to do, take control.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I prefer to let others take control of I enjoy taking charge of people - n
situations - n I like to lead the group - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Prepared to let other people take the lead in
controlling events, as they tend to dislike giving
instructions or orders to others.They
generally avoid situations in which they are
likely to be given a leadership role.They feel
much more comfortable leaving others to
make decisions for the group.
Like to manage and direct people. If a group
needs a leader they are likely to try and fill
this role.They may come across as directive
or domineering in some situations, but are
prepared to take the responsibility for
organizing the work of others.

MODERATE SCORERS

Feel able to organize and take the lead but are unlikely to try to assert control or dominate if
others are in this role;
Or
Let others take the lead in some situations;
Or
Like to take the lead and tell others what to do in some situations but not others.

6
 3 Scale Descriptions

Controlling

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

People with more education tend to be more Controlling. Clerical, administrative, and
unskilled respondents report lower Controlling than managerial, professional and
sales respondents do. Ethnicity shows statistically significant differences but is too
small to have any meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no strong
relationships with gender, industry or work experience.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Persuasive

Outspoken
Achieving

Moderate correlations with Innovative Evaluative

Forward Thinking

7
 3 Scale Descriptions

Outspoken

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Holds back from criticizing others, may not Freely expresses opinions, makes disagreement
express own views, unprepared to put clear, prepared to criticize others.
forward own opinions.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I keep my opinions to myself - n I tell people when they are wrong - n
I say exactly what I think - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Prefer to stay quiet rather than voice their
opinion strongly. Prefer not to criticize other
people directly.They tend to feel particularly
uncomfortable when asked to talk about a
contentious issue and generally avoid arguing
with other people. It takes a lot for them to
get passionate or inflamed enough about a
subject to be prepared to directly confront
others.
Put their views across directly and
unashamedly. Prepared to tell other people
that they are wrong or even misguided.Are
willing to deal with contentious issues and
argue a point of view, even in the face of
strong opposition or heated debate.They do
not hold back in voicing criticisms and
concerns, which can make other people feel
uncomfortable or uneasy at times.

MODERATE SCORERS

Value some openness in expression but find a balance between unreserved directness and more
tactful presentation of their views, while not avoiding confrontation altogether;
Or
Express opinions and criticize others in some situations but not others;
Or
Express opinions but less prepared to criticize the opinions of others;
Or
Express criticism rather than an opinion.

8
 3 Scale Descriptions

Outspoken

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Those who have obtained a Ph.D. are significantly more Outspoken than all other
education levels. Gender differences, while statistically significant, are too small to
have any meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There is no strong relationship
with age, ethnicity, work experience, job role and industry differences.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Controlling Emotionally Controlled

Moderate correlations with Persuasive

Independent Minded
Outgoing Evaluative

9
 3 Scale Descriptions

Independent Minded

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Accepts majority decisions, prepared to follow Prefers to follow own approach, prepared to
the consensus. disregard majority decisions.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I go along with what other people want I go it alone if others disagree - n
to do - n I like to do things my own way - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Accept decisions agreed by a team or group
and will make sure things are done according
to the consensus. Less prepared to do things
their own way, but are extremely open to
people’s ideas and suggestions.
Like to do things in their own way rather than
be told what to do.They are less likely to
respond to authority and will only do things
other people’s way when they are convinced it
is the best course of action.They often do not
accept group decisions.

MODERATE SCORERS

Prefer to take a balanced perspective between doing things their own way and accepting the need
for a consensus or team approach;
Or
Prepared to go their own way on some issues or with some groups, but prepared to follow the
group consensus in other situations;
Or
Like to do things their own way, but also like to follow the group consensus;
Or
Dislike following the group consensus or being expected to do things their own way.

10
 3 Scale Descriptions

Independent Minded

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

People with more education tend to be more Independent Minded. Gender

differences, while statistically significant, are too small to have any meaningful impact
on scale interpretation. There are no strong relationships with age, ethnicity, work
experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Outspoken Democratic

Conventional

11
 3 Scale Descriptions

Outgoing

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Quiet and reserved in groups, dislikes being Lively and animated in groups, talkative, enjoys
center of attention. attention.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I am a rather quiet person - n I talk a lot - n
I am usually very outgoing -i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Quiet and reserved, they prefer to blend into
the background on social occasions rather
than become the center of attention.They
may feel uncomfortable when there is a lot of
noise and high energy social activity going on
around them. Generally they prefer quieter,
less hectic social events.
Are talkative and enjoy being the center of
attention.They generally see themselves as
people who are fun to be with.They like to
enjoy themselves and feel that they make
others happy, but they may be seen (especially
by quieter people) as too loud and exuberant
at times.

MODERATE SCORERS

Interact fluently with others without being dominant;

Or
Moderately talkative and animated, like attention without being the center of attention;
Or
Are lively and talkative in some groups and situations but not others.

12
 3 Scale Descriptions

Outgoing

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Younger people describe themselves as more Outgoing than older people, with about
a sten difference between the youngest and oldest respondents. Additionally, those
with very little work experience are about a sten higher on Outgoing than those
respondents who have more than 15 years experience. Those employed in sales or
customer services jobs also describe themselves as more Outgoing. Gender, ethnicity,
education and industry have no strong relationships.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Persuasive Emotionally Controlled

Affiliative
Socially Confident

Moderate correlations with Outspoken

13
 3 Scale Descriptions

Affiliative

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Comfortable spending time away from people, Enjoys others’ company, likes to be around
values time spent alone, seldom misses the people, can miss the company of others.
company of others.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I prefer my own company to that of other I like to have lots of people around me - n
people - n I need the company of other people - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Do not have a strong desire to be with others
or to be very close to people.They can
normally maintain a degree of detachment in
interpersonal relationships and are relatively
happy to work on their own without feeling a
sense of isolation or frustration.
Like to form friendships with others and have
strong attachments to people, which are very
important to them.They enjoy the
companionship of others and like to maintain
a wide circle of friends.They can feel lonely or
isolated when there are fewer of their friends
and companions around them.

MODERATE SCORERS

Balance the need to be with others and the need to spend time away from people;
Or
Like to spend time with some people, but are discerning about their choice of company;
Or
Sometimes like to have people around but at other times need to get away from people.

14
 3 Scale Descriptions

Affiliative

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

As age and experience increases, Affiliative scores decrease, with over two stens
difference between the youngest and oldest, and least and most experienced
respondents. Those respondents not employed full time or in academia are more
Affiliative than respondents in other industries by at least a sten. Gender, ethnicity,
education and job role have no strong relationships.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Outgoing

Moderate correlations with Socially Confident

15
 3 Scale Descriptions

Socially Confident

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Feels more comfortable in less formal Feels comfortable when first meeting people,
situations, can feel awkward when first at ease in formal situations.
meeting people.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I feel awkward meeting new people - n I feel at ease in formal situations - n
I am confident with strangers - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Feel uncomfortable, or even embarrassed,
meeting people for the first time and find
more formal social events create anxiety
rather than a sense of enjoyment. Other less
confident people may empathize with this
unassuming approach.
Feel self-assured and relaxed meeting new
people and are comfortable at formal social
events or functions.Their feeling of ease and
security generally makes people they are with
feel more comfortable and relaxed, although
they also can sometimes be seen as a little
overbearing or smug in their own self-
confidence.

MODERATE SCORERS

Take most formal social events or functions in their stride, but may not feel completely at ease;
Or
Feel moderately comfortable meeting strangers or taking part in more formal social occasions;
Or
Find some social situations much more awkward than others.

16
 3 Scale Descriptions

Socially Confident

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

There are no age and gender differences in scores on the Socially Confident scale and
there are no strong relationships with ethnicity, education, work experience, job role
or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Persuasive Worrying

Outgoing

Moderate correlations with Affiliative

Innovative

17
 3 Scale Descriptions

Modest

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Makes strengths and achievements known, Dislikes discussing achievements, keeps quiet
talks about personal success. about personal success.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I like to tell people when I succeed - n I keep my achievements to myself - n
I keep quiet about my strengths - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

They are happy to talk about their triumphs
and are upfront in talking about themselves
and their abilities.This may be seen as an
openness, which can make them easy to
communicate with, though at times they can
also come across as rather full of themselves
or even self-important.
Do not talk much about their successes or
achievements and tend to show humility
when praised.They are unlikely to be accused
of showing off, but their reserve may at times
make them difficult to get to know.There is
also a danger that their achievements aren’t
fully recognized by others.

MODERATE SCORERS

Are moderately open in discussing their achievements and successes but are careful not to over-
emphasize their triumphs;
Or
Prepared to discuss their triumphs with some people in some situations (e.g. close associates), but
in other situations are more restrained.

18
 3 Scale Descriptions

Modest

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Older respondents are more Modest than younger respondents by about a sten.
Ethnicity differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have any
meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no gender differences, and there
are no strong relationships with education, work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Emotionally Controlled

19
 3 Scale Descriptions

Democratic

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description:
Prepared to make decisions without
consultation, prefers to make decisions alone.
Typical Item:
I make decisions without consultation - n
Key Behavior:
They spend little time finding out what
everyone thinks, and prefer to make the final
decision on their own.They are more
comfortable making decisions alone and feel
no great need to involve other people.This
confidence in taking decisions in relative
isolation can be perceived as autocratic by
others, and it may spring from a distrust or
impatience with the inefficiency of making
decisions by consensus or by committee.
Description:
Consults widely, involves others in decision
making, less likely to make decisions alone.
Typical Items:
I make sure that everybody has a say before
making a decision - n
I seek out others’ views - i
Key Behavior:
They listen to others and seldom make up
their minds without consulting the group.They
encourage group discussion whenever possible
and consult others prior to making decisions,
valuing the contribution of others.They are
likely to be uncomfortable if they have to
make a decision without consulting others,
particularly when the decision is likely to
prove unpopular.

MODERATE SCORERS

Comfortable making decisions without extensive consultation but encourage contributions from
others when feasible;
Or
Feel that it is moderately important to get people’s views before making a decision;
Or
Feel that there are certain issues where it is important to consult and there are other issues
requiring an autocratic decision.

20
 3 Scale Descriptions

Democratic

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

There are no age and gender differences in scores on the Democratic scale and there
are no strong relationships with ethnicity, education, work experience, job role or
industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Caring Independent Minded

Decisive

21
 3 Scale Descriptions

Caring

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description:
Selective with sympathy and support, remains
detached from others’ personal problems.
Typical Item:
I sometimes have little sympathy for people - n
Description:
Sympathetic and considerate towards others,
helpful and supportive, gets involved in others’
problems.
Typical Items:
I am very supportive in times of need - n
I deal kindly with people’s problems - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

They focus less on people’s personal problems
and difficulties.They are more selective in their
sympathies, reserving their help and support
for particularly serious problems.They may be
seen as disinterested in personal problems or
as people who keep a professional distance
from personal problems at work.They are less
likely to make allowances for people’s
individual problems or difficulties when
decision making.
Interested in the welfare of others and always
prepared to make allowances for people at
work with personal problems. May be seen as
sympathetic and tolerant by colleagues and a
good listener in times of crisis. Might find it
difficult to walk away from a situation in which
they have become personally involved, and
tend to take account of the feelings of others
in reaching decisions.

MODERATE SCORERS

Are moderately sympathetic, supportive and tolerant;

Or
Are sympathetic in many situations, but are not always sympathetic to people’s problems, perhaps
feeling that some people are responsible for their own downfall;
Or
Are sympathetic and supportive of others, while sometimes being intolerant or irritated by
people’s behavior;
Or
Are tolerant of other people, but generally feel little need to offer sympathy and support to
others.

22
 3 Scale Descriptions

Caring

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Women tend to be more Caring than men by about a sten. There are no age
differences, and there are no strong relationships with ethnicity, education, work
experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Social Desirability

Moderate correlations with Democratic

Behavioral

23
 3 Scale Descriptions

Data Rational

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Prefers dealing with opinions and feelings Likes working with numbers, enjoys analyzing
rather than facts and figures, likely to avoid statistical information, bases decisions on facts
using statistics. and figures.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I try to avoid working with numerical data - n My decisions are based on facts and figures - n
I enjoy numerical problem solving - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Tend not to enjoy tasks involving numbers and
formulas, with a dislike or discomfort over
graphs, tables and trends. Unlikely to be seen
as a numbers person, though a lack of
preference does not necessarily mean a lack of
ability.
Like working with statistics and mathematical
problems.Work involving measuring,
monitoring and quantifying things has definite
appeal. May be less comfortable working in an
area where hard data or clearly quantifiable
trends are not available. Rational and objective,
they enjoy being able to quantify.

MODERATE SCORERS

Would always wish to have some data, facts and figures but can operate comfortably with less
quantifiable information;
Or
Are moderately interested in dealing with numbers;
Or
Enjoy some tasks involving numbers but not others (e.g. interpreting graphs, but not applying
statistical formulas).

24
 3 Scale Descriptions

Data Rational

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Men describe themselves as more Data Rational than women by about a sten. 18-25
year olds describe themselves as less Data Rational than all other age groups by about
a sten as well. Education and experience appear to be factors, as the more educated
and experienced respondents report higher Data Rational scores. In terms of job role,
managerial and professional respondents are higher than clerical or sales and
customer service, and the employed are higher than those not employed full time.
Only ethnicity has no strong relationship to Data Rational.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Evaluative

Forward Thinking

25
 3 Scale Descriptions

Evaluative

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Does not focus on potential limitations, Critically evaluates information, looks for
dislikes critically analyzing information, rarely potential limitations, focuses upon errors.
looks for errors or mistakes.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I rarely look for mistakes in a piece of I like to critically evaluate a piece of work - n
work - n I see the flaws in an argument - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Are not interested in reviewing work critically
and rarely looks for errors and mistakes in
work, but takes the quality of work for
granted.They leave other people to review
work or give a degree of critical insight into
the potential problems, which may be inherent
in a particular approach or course of action.
Like to look at the potential problems and
pitfalls of a particular approach.They look at
information critically, and are prepared to
focus on errors or assumptions contained in a
piece of work or plan of action.

MODERATE SCORERS

Focus is not primarily on potential problems or flaws but they will not be indiscriminating in their
acceptance of work or proposals;
Or
Moderately willing to cast a critical eye over a piece of work to find potential problems;
Or
Find looking for certain problems or limitations interesting, but probably do not enjoy reviewing
information solely for its own sake.

26
 3 Scale Descriptions

Evaluative

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Evaluative appears to increase with age and education, with about one sten difference
between the youngest and oldest respondents, and two stens difference between the
most and least educated. Ethnic, job role and industry differences, while statistically
significant, are too small to have any meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There
are no gender differences, and no strong relationship with work experience.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Controlling

Outspoken
Data Rational
Behavioral
Conceptual Innovative
Forward Thinking
Achieving

27
 3 Scale Descriptions

Behavioral

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Does not question the reasons for people’s Tries to understand motives and behavior,
behavior, tends not to analyze people. enjoys analyzing people.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

People’s behavior rarely interests me - n I like to understand why people do things - n
I am interested in analyzing people - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Generally disinterested in psychology or
theories of motivation, they take little interest
in why people behave as they do.Thinking
about human behavior is not a major concern,
and they may act without considering the
likely reaction from others involved.
Believe in analyzing the behavior of others and
thinking through what people’s motives and
reactions are likely to be.They look at the
human side of the problem and may make
decisions which take into account their view
of human nature.

MODERATE SCORERS

Value the need to consider the more human side of issues but do not over-emphasize this aspect
of analysis;
Or
Moderately interested, but by no means fascinated in why people behave as they do;
Or
Interested in analyzing some aspects of people’s behavior (or some people) but not others.

28
 3 Scale Descriptions

Behavioral

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Gender, ethnic and education differences, although statistically significant, are too
small to have any meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no age
differences, and no strong relationships with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Caring

Evaluative
Conceptual

29
 3 Scale Descriptions

Conventional

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Prefer changes to work methods, prefer new Prefer well established methods, prefer a more
approaches, less conventional. conventional approach.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I prefer new ways of working - n I prefer established methods - n
I take a traditional approach - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Radical and unorthodox, they may see
themselves as pioneers or mold-breakers,
often taking a flexible or unconventional
approach.They have little respect for
established values and traditions and may
reject a tried-and-tested method in favor of
something new, even when this might be ill-
advised.They are likely to consider talk of
preserving standards as being old-fashioned.
Prefer well-proven methods of doing things,
believing that upholding proper standards and
basic principles is important.They may find it
hard to be flexible or accept unconventional
ideas, and see themselves as more
conservative than radical.The established and
the orthodox may sometimes be too
important to them to allow progress.

MODERATE SCORERS

Will not describe themselves as radical and unorthodox but equally do not consider themselves as
upholding the status quo;
Or
Prefer neither new methods and practices nor more conventional approaches;
Or
Sometimes prefer more conventional approaches and sometimes prefer new methods, depending
on the situation.

30
 3 Scale Descriptions

Conventional

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Women describe themselves as more Conventional than men by about a sten. As

amount of education and experience increases, scores on Conventional decrease, with
about a sten difference between the most and least educated and experienced.
Respondents who work in clerical or semi-skilled positions score higher on
Conventional than other job roles. There are no age or ethnic differences, and no
strong relationship with industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Rule Following Innovative

Variety Seeking

Moderate correlations with Independent Minded

Conceptual
Achieving

31
 3 Scale Descriptions

Conceptual

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Prefers to deal with practical rather than Interested in theories, enjoys discussing
theoretical issues, dislikes dealing with abstract abstract concepts.
concepts.
Typical Item: Typical Items:
I do not enjoy discussing abstract concepts - n Intellectual people are stimulating company - n
I like theoretical discussion - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Are less interested in intellectual abstractions
or hypothetical debate, preferring a down-to-
earth approach.They may be seen as more
easily understood as a result but perhaps
viewed as rejecting theories and concepts in
favor of a more straightforward, common
sense style.
Self-confessed thinkers, they like to ponder on
and talk about the abstract concepts behind
things, are intellectually curious and may enjoy
a mental challenge. Such an approach is often
perceived by others as important for analytical
problem solving, but they may be seen as
having their head in the clouds and thus less
approachable.

MODERATE SCORERS

Are moderately interested in hypothetical debate and theories;

Or
Balance a tendency to get absorbed in the more theoretical concepts with an awareness of the
need to see practical applications;
Or
Find some theories fascinating and other theories dull depending on the topic;
Or
Interested in theory only to the extent it can help solve practical problems.

32
 3 Scale Descriptions

Conceptual

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Respondents with more education see themselves as more Conceptual than those
with less education. Gender, ethnic and job role differences, although statistically
significant, are too small to have any meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There
are no age differences, and no strong relationships with work experience or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Behavioral Conventional

Innovative
Variety Seeking

33
 3 Scale Descriptions
Innovative
LOW SCORERS
Description:
More likely to build on than generate ideas,
less inclined to be creative and inventive.
Typical Item:
I have few original ideas - n
Key Behavior:
In a group, they are more likely to build and
act upon the ideas of others, rather than
generating their own.They are likely to prefer
implementing what others have already
thought of, perhaps with a limited number of
changes. May sometimes be seen as
unimaginative, or have difficulty in seeing things
from original perspectives.
MODERATE SCORERS
Consider they have as much a facility as others for building on ideas and demonstrating some
creativity of thought without this being an outstandingly strong quality;
Or
Feel creative in certain respects, but not others.
34
HIGH SCORERS
Description:
Generates new ideas, enjoys being creative,
thinks of original solutions.
Typical Items:
I find it easy to generate new ideas - n
I am inventive - i
Key Behavior:
See themselves as creative, inventive people,
always generating new ideas.They enjoy
brainstorming and coming up with new ways
of looking at things.The novelty and volume of
such ideas may sometimes surprise or even
overwhelm others, but they are likely to be
the first to be approached when original
solutions are needed.
 3 Scale Descriptions

Innovative

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Men tend to report themselves as more Innovative than women by about a sten. As
education increases, reported Innovative also increases, with the most educated about
two stens higher than the least educated. Experience also affects Innovative, as scores
increase as years of experience increase. Respondents with job roles that are
managerial, professional or sales indicate more Innovative than those in clerical or
semi-skilled professions. Additionally, those who work in academia are at least one
sten higher than all other professions. There are no age or ethnic differences.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Persuasive Conventional

Moderate correlations with Controlling

Socially Confident
Evaluative
Conceptual
Variety Seeking
Forward Thinking
Achieving

35
 3 Scale Descriptions

Variety Seeking

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description:
Prefers routine, is prepared to do repetitive
work, does not seek variety.
Typical Item:
I like repetitive work - n
Description:
Prefers variety, tries out new things, likes
changes to regular routine, can become bored
by repetitive work.
Typical Items:
I enjoy trying out new things - n
I become bored with routine - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Like having set routines and are most at home
in a predictable and relatively unchanging
climate. May become uncomfortable in
constantly changing situations. Unlikely to
experiment, they are probably less interested
in variety as part of their jobs.
Enjoy variety and change on a day-to-day
basis.They find change stimulating and may
become easily bored with routine.They enjoy
moving from task to task and they may change
their routine regularly to prevent boredom.A
predictable environment may lead to very high
scorers becoming restless or easily distracted.

MODERATE SCORERS

Value stability and predictability in their lives but can cope with some new experiences or a
change in routine;
Or
Like some changes to routine, but like to keep certain aspects of their daily routine more constant.

36
 3 Scale Descriptions

Variety Seeking

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Gender differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have any
meaningful impact on scale interpretation. Those with the higher levels of education
indicate more Variety Seeking than those with lower educational attainments.
Respondents with job roles that are managerial, professional or sales indicate more
Variety Seeking than those in clerical or semi-skilled professions. There are no age or
ethnic differences, and no strong relationships with work experience or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Conventional

Moderate correlations with Persuasive Conscientious

Conceptual Innovative
Achieving

37
 3 Scale Descriptions

Adaptable

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Behaves consistently across situations, unlikely Changes behavior to suit the situation, adapts
to behave differently with different people. approach to different people.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I behave the same way with everybody - n
Key Behavior:
Are consistent in their behavior when meeting
different people or in different situations.They
tend to take little account of their audience
when they are talking to others. Other people
may see them as relatively consistent and
predictable in their behavior.There is a danger
that when their style clashes with other
people they are unlikely to soften or modify
their own style to suit their audience.
I change my behavior to fit the situation - n
I behave differently depending on who is with
me - i
Key Behavior:
Vary their behavior according to the situation.
They like to take account of their audience
and treat them appropriately. Other people
can at times find this flexibility of behavior
baffling and may even consider their treatment
of people as inconsistent and unfair.

MODERATE SCORERS

Vary their behavior only when they feel it is particularly important to do so;
Or
Vary their behavior to some extent, but prefer to keep this variation within fairly limited
boundaries.

38
 3 Scale Descriptions

Adaptable

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Educational differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have any
meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no age, gender or ethnic
differences, and no strong relationships with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with

39
 3 Scale Descriptions

Forward Thinking

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
More likely to focus upon immediate than Takes a long-term view, sets goals for the
long-term issues, less likely to take a strategic future, more likely to take a strategic
perspective. perspective.
Typical Item: Typical Items:
I dislike thinking far ahead - n I take a long-term view - n
I enjoy setting long-term goals - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Tend to dislike spending time on making plans.
They prefer to deal with situations as they
arise, being reactive rather than proactive. May
feel that planning inhibits spontaneity, but may
be surprised when unforeseen difficulties arise.
Prefer to operate without having clear plans
or guidelines to follow.
Enjoy doing medium-term scheduling well
ahead, making contingency plans should things
go wrong. They like to set targets so they can
keep tabs on progress. May not be comfortable
in highly reactive situations where plans are
continually being altered or scrapped or
where thinking on one’s feet is necessary.

MODERATE SCORERS

More likely to focus on the medium term, than focus on the short or long term;
Or
Think about the long term from time to time, but return quickly to more immediate issues.

40
 3 Scale Descriptions

Forward Thinking

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Respondents with more education tend to be more Forward Thinking than those with
less education. There are no gender, age or ethnic differences, and no strong
relationships with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Achieving

Moderate correlations with Controlling

Evaluative
Innovative
Conscientious
Optimistic

41
 3 Scale Descriptions
Detail Conscious
LOW SCORERS
Description:
Unlikely to become preoccupied with detail,
less organized and systematic, dislikes tasks
involving detail.
Typical Item:
I often lose or misplace things - n
Key Behavior:
Tend not to like to get immersed in detail,
often preferring to leave the checking of
information to others.They are less likely to
take a consistent, organized systematic
approach to tasks, often tackling first the issue
or job that they find most interesting.This may
give them a greater flexibility, but they may
also be accused of being messy and
disorganized in their approach.
MODERATE SCORERS
Are moderately organized and concerned with detail;
Or
Organization and focus on detail in occasional bursts.
42
HIGH SCORERS
Description:
Focuses on detail, likes to be methodical,
organized and systematic, may become
preoccupied with detail.
Typical Items:
I am organized - n
I take care checking detail - i
Key Behavior:
Like to work in an organized fashion, keeping
paperwork and records in order.They like to
check thoroughly so that slips are not made,
employing an accurate and methodical
approach.They may sometimes be seen as
over-pedantic over detail or of “not seeing the
wood for the trees.”
 3 Scale Descriptions

Detail Conscious

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Women are more Detail Conscious than men by about a sten. There are no age,
ethnic or education differences, and no strong relationship with work experience, job
role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Conscientious

Moderate correlations with Rule Following

43
 3 Scale Descriptions

Conscientious

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Sees deadlines as flexible, prepared to leave Focuses on getting things finished, persists
some tasks unfinished. until the job is done.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I do not always see jobs through to the end - n I stick with tasks until they are completed - n
I make sure I meet deadlines - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Are usually prepared to leave a few loose ends
if the basics of the job have been done well.
They are relatively flexible about the need to
meet deadlines, accepting that some
timeframes will unavoidably slip.They are
more likely to shift their priorities to more
important or interesting tasks than feel the
need to complete unimportant or boring
tasks.
Like to see tasks through to the end even if
the task is routine or relatively unimportant.
They view their perseverance positively,
believing that adhering to deadlines and
sticking to schedules at all costs is important.
They may find it difficult to work on a number
of things at the same time, particularly when
this means that it is not possible to do
everything in time.

MODERATE SCORERS

See the importance of meeting deadlines and the need to shift priorities on to more important
tasks;
Or
Put effort into completing some tasks that are considered important, while leaving less important
tasks unfinished.

44
 3 Scale Descriptions

Conscientious

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Gender differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have a

meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no age, ethnic or education
differences, and no strong relationship with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Detail Conscious

Moderate correlations with Forward Thinking

Rule Following
Vigorous
Achieving

45
 3 Scale Descriptions

Rule Following

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description:
Not restricted by rules and procedures,
prepared to break rules, tends to dislike
bureaucracy.
Typical Item:
I sometimes like to break the rules at work - n
Description:
Follows rules and regulations, prefers clear
guidelines, finds it difficult to break rules.
Typical Items:
I stick closely to rules and regulations - n
I take care to follow procedures - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Rules and regulations are seen as general
guidelines to be followed, rather than clear
instructions which should be adhered to
consistently.They are prepared to break these
guidelines, particularly where they feel the
regulations are needlessly bureaucratic or
inefficient. If they can find a simpler, quicker
alternative to following the rules, they will
happily break or bend the rules.
See rules as an important way of maintaining
standards and consistency and feel bound to
follow them. Even if the rules are overly
complex or cumbersome they will follow
them rather than take a simpler, more
expedient approach.This may lead to some
inflexibility when dealing with unusual issues
or tasks.They may feel the need to have some
structure in the form of rules or guidelines
from their superiors.

MODERATE SCORERS

Usually support adherence to rules and procedures but will break rules or take a non-standard
approach when they think it appropriate;
Or
Moderately prepared to break rules for expediency’s sake;
Or
Prepared to break some of the rules, but not others to get the job done.

46
 3 Scale Descriptions

Rule Following

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

As education and experience increase, Rule Following decreases. Clerical and

semi-skilled job roles are about one sten higher than managers and professionals.
Respondents in technology or academia score significantly lower on Rule Following
than most other industries. Age and gender differences, although statistically
significant, are too small to have a meaningful impact on scale interpretation.
There are no ethnic differences.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Conventional

Moderate correlations with Conscientious Variety Seeking

Detail Conscious
Decisive

47
 3 Scale Descriptions

Relaxed

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Tend to feel tense, find it hard to relax. Can Find it easy to relax, rarely feel tense.
find it hard to unwind after work. Generally calm and untroubled.
Typical Item: Typical Items:
I find it difficult to relax - n I find it easy to unwind - n
I feel calm - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Generally feel tense. Find it hard to stop
worrying about work when not at work.They
are generally less relaxed than others, and
even when they do relax to some extent, they
tend to take longer than other people to feel
calmer.They may consider the tension as a
source of energy or drive that can contribute
to them getting things done quickly. Equally,
they may consider their continual concern and
tension as more of a hindrance to their
effective performance than a help.
Generally relaxed and free from tension on a
day-to-day basis. Rarely feel uptight or need to
switch off from the pressures of work.When
there is a need to relax after work, they find it
relatively easy to calm down.They generally
feel calm, cool and collected in their daily lives,
though colleagues could sometimes see this
laid back style as indicating a lack of
motivation or interest.

MODERATE SCORERS

Have some anxiety and nervous tension but balance this with an overall ability to relax and not
become too uptight about pressures of work;
Or
Generally feel tense, but can relax easily when required;
Or
Are moderately relaxed but have difficulty relaxing more fully.

48
 3 Scale Descriptions

Relaxed

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Gender differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have a

meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no age, ethnic or education
differences, and no strong relationship with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Tough Minded Worrying

Optimistic

49
 3 Scale Descriptions

Worrying

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Feel calm before important occasions, less Feel nervous before important occasions,
affected by key events, free from worry. wory about things going wrong.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I feel calm before big occasions - n
Key Behavior:
Tend not to get nervous before important
events.They feel calm when things go wrong
or when the unexpected happens and are
generally not adversely affected by being under
pressure.
I feel nervous before something important
happens - n
I worry about important occasions - i
Key Behavior:
Tend to get anxious and keyed up before
important events.This can lead to them being
motivated, but it may also lead to excessive
agitation and worry.They may have to try hard
to keep themselves calm in the run up to key
events.

MODERATE SCORERS

Although worrying about big events or occasions they can usually take them in their stride and
manage to maintain feelings of relative calm;
Or
Worry about some important events, but are unconcerned about others.

50
 3 Scale Descriptions

Worrying

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Gender differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have a

meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no age, ethnic or education
differences, and no strong relationship with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Persuasive

Socially Confident
Tough Minded

Moderate correlations with Relaxed

51
 3 Scale Descriptions

Tough Minded

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Sensitive, easily hurt by criticism, upset by Not easily offended, can ignore insults, may be
unfair comments or insults. insensitive to personal criticism.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

My feelings can be easily hurt - n
Key Behavior:
Concerned about how others see them and
affected by adverse criticism, they may become
too emotionally involved in situations where
their own feelings have been hurt.Their
sensitivity may be seen as valuable in some
situations, and fear of criticism may motivate
them to do well.Very low scorers may be
very sensitive to other people’s remarks and
feel insulted or hurt by comments from other
people who had no intention of criticizing
them.
Insults rarely upset me - n
I am difficult to offend - i
Key Behavior:
Tend to be unconcerned with what others
think of them and do not over react to
personal criticism (however unfair). Jibes and
insults leave them fairly unruffled and they feel
they can remain cool headed when things are
getting personal. However, this thick-skinned
attitude may sometimes be seen as
insensitivity.Very high scorers may be difficult
to insult or criticize as they may often not
notice when a criticism or remark is directed
at them.

MODERATE SCORERS

Have some tendency to feel hurt by criticism but overall feel that they are able to deal with it
effectively;
Or
Find unfair remarks and criticism from some people hurtful, but can ignore criticism from other
sources;
Or
Are particularly sensitive to criticism and unfair remarks about one or two issues, but can ignore
the majority of negative comments.

52
 3 Scale Descriptions

Tough Minded

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Men describe themselves as more Tough Minded than women, but the difference is
less than a sten on average. Experience presents an interesting pattern: Tough
Mindedness increases through the first 15 years of experience, but then returns back
to the level it was at about 1-5 years experience. Managers are about a sten higher
than clerical or administrative workers. There are no age, ethnic or education
differences, and no strong relationship with industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Worrying

Moderate correlations with Relaxed

Optimistic

53
 3 Scale Descriptions

Optimistic

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Concerned about the future, expects things to Expects things will turn out well, looks to the
go wrong, focuses on negative aspects of a positive aspects of a situation, has an
situation. optimistic view of the future.
Typical Item: Typical Items:
I am a pessimist - n I tend to look on the bright side - n
I feel positive about the future - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Generally expect things to go wrong, they are
inclined to focus on the negative side of any
issue rather than see it positively. However, by
anticipating the worst, they see themselves as
more realistic and are less likely to be caught
off-guard.There is the possibility that this
negative view of events may rub off onto
others and be demotivating.
Generally look to the positive aspects of a
situation and play down the negative.They
tend to be cheerful and buoyant, they tend to
keep their spirits up despite setbacks.They
don’t become easily downcast when things go
wrong, but may also be seen as unrealistically
positive at times. However, their unrealistic
optimism may help them to overcome difficult
situations, which other people wouldn’t be
prepared to tackle.

MODERATE SCORERS

Usually manage to adopt a balance between an over buoyant optimism and an unrealistic gloom,
promoting a realistic positive outlook;
Or
Feel very optimistic some of the time, but not at other times;
Or
Feel very optimistic about some issues, but are much more pessimistic about other issues.

54
 3 Scale Descriptions

Optimistic

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

There are no age, gender, ethnic or education differences, and no strong relationship
with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Trusting

Moderate correlations with Forward Thinking

Relaxed
Tough Minded

55
 3 Scale Descriptions

Trusting

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Wary of others’ intentions, finds it difficult to Trusts people, sees others as reliable and
trust others, unlikely to be fooled by people. honest, believes what others say.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

It is better to view people with suspicion - n People can be relied upon - n
I trust people - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Distrust other people’s intentions, inclined to
think the worst about people and are
generally wary and suspicious.They are
unlikely to be easily fooled and are rarely
surprised when people turn out to be
unreliable or dishonest. Others may see this
lack of trust purely as cynicism.
Like to look for the best in people and
generally view people as honest, reliable, and
trustworthy. May be easily taken in or
manipulated by the unscrupulous as they do
not expect to be cheated or lied to. Other
people may find this positive view of human
nature as engaging rather than naive.

MODERATE SCORERS

Generally prepared to believe others are reliable and trustworthy, but they are not naive in their
judgement and have enough skepticism not to be easily fooled;
Or
Only trust certain people and friends well known to them; much more wary of strangers.

56
 3 Scale Descriptions

Trusting

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

As age increases, Trusting increases, with almost two stens difference between the
oldest and youngest respondents. Trusting increases with higher levels of education
and experience as well. The ethnic majority see themselves about half a sten higher
than minorities on Trusting. Interestingly, there are significant differences between
industries on trusting. Government workers report the highest levels of trusting, one
and a half stens higher than retail or hospitality workers. Also high on Trusting are
those respondents in the healthcare and academia.There are no gender differences,
and no strong relationship with job role.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Optimistic

Moderate correlations with

57
 3 Scale Descriptions

Emotionally Controlled

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Openly expresses feelings, finds it difficult to Can conceal feelings from others, rarely
conceal feelings, displays emotion clearly. displays emotion.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

People know how I’m feeling - n I rarely display my emotions - n
I dislike talking about my feelings - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Believe it is important for those around them
to know how they feel.They tend to be
upfront and open, letting others know exactly
where they stand with them. Some people
may be uncomfortable with how open they
are with their feelings, although generally
people are likely to find this openness
endearing.
Like to keep their emotions in check and keep
true feelings hidden.They hold back from
showing displeasure with colleagues, but may
also hold back feelings of excitement and
enthusiasm. Colleagues may find them difficult
to read and never really know where they are
with them.

MODERATE SCORERS

Usually appear balanced and mature in their expression of emotions, being neither too open nor
very closed and restrained in expressing their feelings;
Or
Display positive emotion, but try to hide negative emotions from those around them;
Or
Display negative emotions but feel uncomfortable about displaying positive emotion such as
excitement, love and joy;
Or
Feel prepared to display a limited number of emotions to their colleagues, while still sometimes
hiding how they really feel.

58
 3 Scale Descriptions

Emotionally Controlled

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Gender differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have a

meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no age, ethnic or education
differences, and no strong relationship with work experience, job role or industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Outspoken

Outgoing

Moderate correlations with Modest

59
 3 Scale Descriptions

Vigorous

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Likes to take things at a steady pace, dislikes Thrives on activity, likes to be busy, enjoys
excessive work demands. having a lot to do.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I dislike having too much to do - n I like to keep busy - n
I like having lots of things to do - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Like to pace activity and dislike being
overloaded with work. Feel very
uncomfortable when there is a great deal to
do within a short space of time.They find
excessive work demands uncomfortable and
are unlikely to seek more work unless there
has been very little to do for a prolonged
period.
Like to be kept busy and enjoy work most
when there is a great deal to do. Dislike of
prolonged periods of inactivity and are
normally willing to take on extra work. May
tend to overload themselves with too many
commitments and responsibilities.

MODERATE SCORERS

Like to be moderately busy, dislike feeling overworked or periods of inactivity;

Or
Like to work in bursts, enjoy periods of activity and inactivity, but dislike working at a consistent ,
constant rate.

60
 3 Scale Descriptions

Vigorous

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Respondents with less than 6 months work experience report significantly lower
scores on Vigorous than all other ranges of work experience. There are no age,
gender, ethnic or education differences, and no strong relationship with job role or
industry.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Achieving

Moderate correlations with Conscientious

61
 3 Scale Descriptions

Competitive

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Dislikes competing with others, feels that Has a need to win, enjoys competitive
taking part is more important than winning. activities, dislikes losing.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

Taking part is more important than winning - n
Key Behavior:
Don’t feel the need to do better than others
all the time and are often prepared to
concede defeat gracefully.They feel that taking
part in an activity is just as important as
winning and may not be seen as particularly
driven or intense.They may feel particularly
uncomfortable in competitive situations and
generally prefer to promote harmony between
people rather than conflict.This may be
interpreted by some as a tendency to give in
too easily and to lack a bit of edge.
I play to win - n
I enjoy competitive activities - i
Key Behavior:
Play to win and are determined to beat others
in what they do.They are fighters who “never
say die” once a challenge has been accepted.
Because of a need to win at all costs, they may
be seen as ruthless, less effective team players
and poor losers.Their first instinct will be to
do better than others rather than encourage
harmony in a group.Their more driven,
abrasive approach may often cause conflict
between themselves and others.

MODERATE SCORERS

Enjoy some elements of competitive behavior and have a reasonable drive to do better than
others, but they are unlikely to do this by putting other people down or resorting to unfair tactics;
Or
Are competitive with a small number of people they consider their rivals, but are unconcerned
about their performance in relation to most people;
Or
Are competitive only about a limited set of issues; are driven to do better than others on these
issues, but are generally unconcerned about the majority of issues.

62
 3 Scale Descriptions

Competitive

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

Women describe themselves as less Competitive than men by about one sten. As
education increases, Competitive also increases, with one sten difference between the
most and least educated. Clerical and administrative workers describe themselves as
less Competitive than all other job roles by about one sten. In terms of industry,
government and financial workers describe themselves as the least competitive, while
retail and manufacturing workers describe themselves as the most competitive, with
about one sten difference. There are no age or ethnic differences.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Persuasive

Achieving

63
 3 Scale Descriptions

Achieving

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description:
Sees career progression as less important,
looks for achievable rather than highly
ambitious targets.
Typical Item:
I am not motivated by targets - n
Key Behavior:
Tend to be more realistic in career terms,
setting targets that are achievable rather than
stretching. Generally, they do not feel that
getting ahead at work is the most important
priority in their lives; they tend to work to
live, rather than live to work. May sometimes
not push themselves sufficiently, or be seen as
not fulfilling their full potential.
Description:
Ambitious and career-centered, likes to work
towards demanding goals and targets.
Typical Items:
I am very ambitious - n
I place great importance on career
progression - i
Key Behavior:
Tend to set high personal goals and expect a
lot of themselves.They are ambitious in their
careers and want to push themselves to the
limit of their abilities.They are prepared to
work long and hard in the pursuit of
excellence and promotion.Their jobs may be
so important to them that their personal and
social lives suffer as a result. Likely to be task-
oriented at all costs.

MODERATE SCORERS

Are moderately ambitious and driven in their careers, placing a good deal of importance on
keeping a balance between their work and leisure time;
Or
Are ambitious in some ways but not others; would like to get promoted, but do not feel
compelled to get to the top of their chosen field.

64
 3 Scale Descriptions

Achieving

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

As education increases, Achieving scores also increase, with about a sten difference
between the most and least educated. Clerical and administrative workers have
significantly lower Achieving scores than all other job roles. Government employees
also score lower than all other industries, with technical scoring one and a half sten
higher. Age differences, although statistically significant, are too small to have any
meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There are no gender or ethnic differences.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with Controlling

Forward Thinking
Vigorous

Moderate correlations with Persuasive Innovative

Evaluative
Conscientious
Competitive

65
 3 Scale Descriptions

Decisive

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Tends to be cautious when making decisions, Makes fast decisions, reaches conclusions
likes to take time to reach conclusions. quickly, less cautious.

Typical Item: Typical Items:

I am cautious about making decisions - n I reach conclusions quickly - n
I am a fast decision maker - i

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Like to take time to weigh things up slowly
and carefully, preferring caution to speed.They
do not like to rush things and tend not to take
risks.They may be accused of procrastination
due to this cautious style and may miss
opportunities through not acting quickly
enough.
Tend to weigh things up quickly and make
quick decisions without deliberation.They may
be prepared to take risks and tend not to
dwell too long on weighing up all possible
options.This impulsive style may sometimes be
seen as rash and things may get overlooked as
a result.When action is called for quickly, very
high scorers will often be behind it.

MODERATE SCORERS

Try to make decisions both with an element of deliberation and reasonable speed, balancing the
need to make a decision quickly with the need to make the right decision;
Or
Make the majority of decisions reasonably quickly, but tend to procrastinate over major decisions.

66
 3 Scale Descriptions

Decisive

7.0

6.5

6.0

STENS

5.5

5.0 GENDER
Male
Female
4.5
18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 no reponse

Other trends

As work experience increases, Decisive scores increase. Those employed in the retail
or manufacturing industries report being more Decisive than those in other industries,
on average one sten higher. Age, gender, and job role differences, although
statistically significant, are too small to have any meaningful impact on scale
interpretation. There are no ethnic or education differences.

Relationships with other scales Positive Negative

Strong correlations with

Moderate correlations with Democratic

Rule Following

67
 3 Scale Descriptions
Social Desirability (OPQ32n only)
LOW SCORERS
Description:
Has been more self-critical in responses, is less
concerned to make a good impression.
Typical Item:
I have occasionally been rude to people
Key Behavior:
There is a variety of different reasons that can
underlie low Social Desirability scores (Stens 1-3).
Any single reason or combination of reasons
could be responsible:
Highly self-critical/analytical - Are highly
analytical in viewing own behavior (often with
high Evaluative, high Behavioral and / or low
Optimistic). Sometimes accompanied with a
large number of scores on the left of the profile.
Low need to please - Are open about own
faults and have only a limited need to be liked or
respected by others (often with low Affiliative
and / or low Caring). Sometimes accompanied
with a large number of scores on the left of the
profile.
Low self-esteem - Are unsure about
themselves and their capabilities (often with low
Relaxed, Optimistic, Socially Confident,
Persuasive and / or Controlling). Sometimes
accompanied with a large number of scores on
the left of the profile.
Low conformism - Do not feel bound to do
the right thing (often with low Conventional,
Detail Conscious, Conscientious and / or Rule
Following).
Faking Bad - In extreme circumstances, it is
possible that respondents will try to deliberately
undersell themselves.Typically characterized by a
large number of scores down the left of the
profile.
MODERATE SCORERS
Neither particularly positive nor self-critical in their answers (Stens 4-7).
68
HIGH SCORERS
Description:
Has been less self-critical in responses, is more
concerned to make a good impression.
Typical Item:
I never annoy my colleagues
Key Behavior:
There is a variety of different reasons that can
underlie high Social Desirability scores (Stens 8-10).
Any single reason or combination of reasons
could be responsible:
Lack of self insight/criticism - Do not view
their own behavior critically (often with high
Optimistic, low Evaluative and / or low
Behavioral). Sometimes accompanied with large
number of scores on the right of the profile.
High need to please - Likes to be liked and
are eager to present a positive image (often with
high Affiliative and Caring). Sometimes
accompanied with large number of scores on the
right of the profile.
High self-esteem - Have a very positive view
of themselves and their capabilities (often with
high Relaxed, Optimistic, Socially Confident,
Persuasive, and / or Controlling). Sometimes
accompanied with large number of scores on the
right of the profile.
High conformism - Feel a great need to do
the right thing (often with high Conventional,
Detail Conscious, Conscientious and / or Rule
Following).
Faking Good - Attempting to consciously or
unconsciously oversell themselves.Typically with
a large number of scores shifted to the right.
(Where there is a concern that someone has
faked good, the best option is often to
administer the ipsative version, OPQ32i.)
 3 Scale Descriptions

Social Desirability (OPQ32n only)

Other trends

There are no age, gender, ethnic or education differences, and no strong relationship
with work experience, job role or industry.

69
 3 Scale Descriptions

Consistency (OPQ32i only)

LOW SCORERS HIGH SCORERS

Description: Description:
Has responded less consistently across the Has responded more consistently across the
questionnaire. questionnaire.

How the consistency scale works:

The Consistency scale is a measure of how consistent people are across the questionnaire.The
more the answers to questions change as the person goes through the questionnaire the lower
the Consistency score.

Key Behavior: Key Behavior:

Low Consistency scores (Stens 1 and A high consistency score generally indicates
sometimes 2) generally indicate a relatively high good understanding of the questionnaire and a
degree of difficulty completing the reasonable level of motivation.
questionnaire. While high Social Desirability scores
There are four common reasons that may sometimes raise concerns, by contrast high
underlie low Consistency scores: Consistency scores generally indicate that the
Highly Situational Style - Behavior tends to person has completed the questionnaire
be highly situational and this leads them to successfully.
answer questions differently across the
questionnaire (often with high Adaptable
scores).
Difficulty with language - Difficulty
understanding the questionnaire (where English
is not the first language or reading is poor).
Low Motivation - Are not motivated to
complete the questionnaire and answer
See Administration randomly (often accompanied by extremely fast
chapter for advice completion - under 20 minutes).
Faking Response - Try to manage the
on testing people for
impression given in responses. It is very difficult
whom English is not to do this consistently. It is advisable with a low
a primary language. Consistency score to check how the individual
felt about completing the questionnaire.

MODERATE SCORERS

Generally an indication that the individual who responded is well motivated and has no difficulty
understanding the questionnaire.

70
 3 Scale Descriptions

Consistency (OPQ32i only)

Other trends

Although there is a statistically significant gender difference in consistency scores, it is

too small to have any meaningful impact on scale interpretation. There is no
relationship with age.

71
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Administration, Scoring and Profiling

This chapter provides guidelines on the administration, scoring and profiling of the
OPQ32 questionnaires. In addition, it covers many important issues surrounding
the communication and management of any assessment process, whether for
selection, development, or counseling purposes.

The first section gives some guidance on managing the assessment process and
highlights the internal communication of projects within an organization.

The remaining sections look in more detail at the administration, scoring and
profiling of the two questionnaires and provide checklists of things to remember.

Managing the process

Providing internal communication about OPQ projects

A critical factor in implementing OPQ32 (or any assessment process) is effective

internal communication. It is important that you are clear in communicating:

• What the objectives of the process are.

• Who will be involved and when
• Any critical dates in the process
• How the information gathered will be used.
• Who will have access to the information
• How the information will be fed back to interested parties SHL publishes a
(the candidates, the candidates’ managers, etc.). briefing leaflet which
we recommend you
The following sections outline the important considerations: before, during and
after completion of OPQ32. send with the letter
of invitation.

Before the event

The candidate should be informed in advance that they will complete a behavioral
questionnaire. A good pre-completion briefing plays an important role in any
selection or development procedure, as it helps the candidate understand the
purpose of the OPQ32 questionnaire and can reduce anxiety and promote more
honest completion of the questionnaire. Information about the nature and purpose
of the questionnaire can be sent out with the invitation letter to the assessment
session. An example of an invitation letter for a selection procedure is given in
Figure 1.

1
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Figure 1: Example briefing letter to candidate before assessment center

Allied Traders
March 21st, 2000

Dear Christopher,
er at Allied Traders
RE: Application for Retail Controll
to invite you to attend our
recent telephon e conversation, I am very pleased
Following our il Controller. I would also like to give
April 6th, for the position of Reta
Assessment Center on Thursday, ensure you are fully prep
ared
cises you will be completing to help
you some information on the exer
beforehand. er.
ct candidates of the highest calib
Allied Traders to attract and sele
We have a strong commitment at of the mos t important attri bute s
of this com mitm ent, we have completed a detailed analysis ncie s are
As part These key compete
il Controller within Allied Traders.
required to be a successful Reta
outlined below:

Customer Relations ntively to their needs, is able to

omers and suppliers, listens atte
Easily builds relationships with cust
customer frustration.
put customers at ease and reduce

Analytical Problem Solving ce of problems and produces

written problems, identifies the sour
In depth analysis of numerical and
options to solve them.

Commercial Orientation s of revenue, profit and cost,

significance of their work in term
Is fully aware of the commercial
e suppliers and competitors.
understands the market of alternativ

Organization to their importance and urgency.

nizes time effec tively, sche dule s and prioritizes tasks according
Orga and annually).
short and medium term (weekly
Develops plans of activities for the
s. The exercises you will
ssm ent day is desi gned arou nd measuring these competencie
The asse
complete are:
practice leaflet enclosed provides
assess your reasoning skills. The
• Two aptitude tests designed to ples to allow you to familiarize yourself
e involve and gives exam
further information about what thes are similar to the Verbal and
be asked in these tests. The tests
with the type of questions you will y to take around an hour in total
the leaflet. These two tests are likel
Numerical Interpretation tests in
to complete. t
behavior at work. There are no righ
h looks at your preferred style of
• A behavioral questionnaire whic as poss ible. The second leaflet
rtant to be as frank and honest
or wrong answers, so it is impo . Please take the opportunity
abo ut com pleting a behavioral questionnaire
provides more information s to the questionnaire within
day. We will discuss your response
to read this before the assessment The questionnaire is not timed,
r information you have provided.
the interview in the light of the othe roximately 45 minutes.
s complete the questionnaire in app
although the majority of candidate

2
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

• An interview with one of our Hum

an Resource Team, which will focu
your previous experience in reta s on the key competencies and
il and stock control. To prepare for
to think through situations where the interview we would like you
you feel you have demonstrated
also like you to consider situations these competencies. We would
where you were less effective and
these situations. The interview will what you have learned from
last approximately one hour.
• We will also ask you to role play
the position of Retail Controller with
a customer complaint. We will prov in Allied Traders and deal with
ide information and give you time
before you meet the customer. The to understand the complaint
whole exercise will take approxim
ately half an hour.
The assessment day will start at
9:15 am on Thursday, April 6th,
enclosed map). We would be grat and it will be held in our offices (see
eful if you could arrive between
to the receptionist on the first floor 9 and 9:15 am and give your nam
. We will provide lunch and will reim e
expenses on the day itself. If you burse any travel and/or parking
are likely to need special facilities
or to make you more comfortable to help you complete the exercise
at the venue then please contact s
further. me and we can discuss your needs

The decisions about the next and

final round of the selection procedu
Distribution) will be made by Frid re (an interview with the Head of
ay, April 14th. All candidates shou
the decision by Monday, April 17th ld receive written confirmation of
. The decision will be based on
assessment day and the informat all the information we gain on the
ion you provided us on your app
Whether or not you are successf lication form and your resume.
ul, we will arrange a time when
your performance on the assessm you can call to receive feedback on
ent day.
We provide this information to allow
you to make the most of the asse
difficulty with the practice or brief ssment day. If you have any
ing leaflets, please call me before
the assessment day to discuss it.
Please confirm your attendance
upon receipt of this letter. If you
date, please let us know immedia have any difficulty in making this
tely and we will look for an alternativ
e date.
I very much look forward to mee
ting you on the 6th.
Sincerely

Mohammed Ashref

Human Resources Manager

Enc: Location Map and Direction

s
Aptitude Test Briefing Leaflet
Personality Questionnaire Briefing
Leaflet

3
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Administration options

It is important to follow the instructions and read directly from the administration
card when administering OPQ32 questionnaires.

OPQ32 can be administered in one of three ways:

• Internet
• Personal Computer (PC)
• Booklet and answer sheet

The methods of administration for OPQ32 questionnaires are summarized in Figure 2.

Two methods use computer based approaches, the third method relies on paper
and pencil administration. Computer based approaches to administration have
become increasingly popular for the following reasons:

more information – they give additional information that is not available from
paper and pencil options (e.g. computing team type scores and immediate
generation of competency based and narrative reports).

better quality – computer technology increases the accuracy and quality of scoring
complex instruments (e.g. they prevent transcription errors in scoring). The use of
computer technology is also perceived positively by the candidates as they
generally feel that computer administration is fairer.

faster delivery – computers are able to significantly improve the output and
turnaround time of a testing process. They produce reports in a fraction of the time
that it takes a human interpreter.

Internet Administration

Administration via the Internet provides the most flexible administration method,
for it brings computerized testing to any computer, anywhere, that has an Internet
connection.

Candidates use a web-link to access the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire is

completed it is automatically scored by the system and the results displayed on the
screen, printed or electronically transferred directly onto a Personal Computer with
appropriate software, allowing the generation of interpretive reports. Team Types,
Leadership and Reporting Styles can also be generated.

4
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Figure 2: Methods of administration for OPQ32 questionnaires

Administration Internet PC Paper and Pencil

method Computer

Questions
PC screen PC Screen Booklet
displayed on …

OPQ32n only

Answers Mouse clicks on Mouse clicks on Hand score Machine score

indicated using … screen displays screen displays answer sheet answer sheet

Hand scoring Scanner and PC

Scoring by … Internet Server PC
key with software

Profile display ■ Displayed on PC ■ PC screen display ■ Paper profile ■ PC screen

options … screen chart display
■ Print out
■ Printed direct from ■ Print out
PC ■ Transfer to paper
profile chart ■ Transfer to
■ Transfer to PC paper
profile chart
■ Transfer to paper
profile chart

To produce computer Enter scores

From PC direct From PC direct From PC direct
generated reports … into PC

5
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Personal Computer (PC) based administration

Another flexible method of administration is to use a Personal Computer to

complete, score, profile and generate reports on OPQ32 questionnaires. With the
increased sophistication and reduction in price of lap-top computers, this method
of administration also provides a very portable approach to administration.

SHL has developed a range of software options for the OPQ32 questionnaires. This
includes on screen administration, automatic scoring and profiling as well as the
generation of interpretive reports using expert system technology.

The reports are produced as Microsoft® Word files, allowing them to be easily
accessed and printed. There is also full flexibility for users to change or edit the
reports or embed relevant passages in other documents. Using Microsoft® Word the
user can print immediately, save the document to look at later, or view the
document on screen. No knowledge of Microsoft Word is required to use the
system and the files can also be saved in other formats such as WordPerfectTM if
required.

Checklist for administering on PC

Each candidate should have:

• One Personal Computer with Expert software installed

• Dongle, security and charging device attached to the PC

In addition the administrator should have:

• One OPQ32 administration card

• Expert OPQ32 Pack User Guide

6
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Booklet and answer sheet administration

Booklet and answer sheet administration is the traditional way of completing

behavioral questionnaires.

If you are administering using booklets and answer sheets, check the booklets for
stray marks before using them. It is worth preparing your materials in advance of
the administration session to make sure that you have all the materials necessary.

There are different types of answer sheet for administering OPQ32. It is essential
that you use the correct answer sheet to allow you to administer, score and profile
the questionnaire in the way that you want.

For the forced choiced version, OPQ32i, there is a single computer scannable
answer sheet available (the scoring system is too complex for hand scoring).

For the normative version, OPQ32n, there are two possible answer sheets: a hand
scoreable answer sheet, scored using acetate overlay keys and a computer
scannable answer sheet.

Checklist for booklet and answer sheet administration

Each candidate should have:
• One question booklet
• One answer sheet
• A #2 pencil
• An eraser

In addition the administrator should have:

• One question booklet and answer sheet for reference and demonstration
purposes
• Spare copies of the booklet and answer sheet
• A test log
• OPQ32 administration card
• Pencil sharpener

7
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Scoring and profiling options

There are three alternative approaches to scoring and profiling with booklet and
answer sheet administration. The options are:

Hand Scoring and Profiling: This option is available for OPQ32n only. It requires
a hand score answer sheet, a set of acetate overlay scoring keys and a profile chart
to display the results.

Bureau Scoring: Both OPQ32n and OPQ32i have a scannable answer sheet which
you can send to the SHL Bureau Scoring Service. The profiles or reports will be
returned via mail, fax or e-mail.

Automated Scanning: OPQ32n and OPQ32i scannable answer sheets can also be
scored using optical scanning software that the client would have to purchase. This
option is particularly effective when there are large batches of answer sheets to
process. Profiles can be printed directly or transferred to pre-printed profile charts
for feedback purposes.

Administering the OPQ32 questionnaires

Administering OPQ32 questionnaires should be based on the administration card,

which covers everything that should be said and done, from the start of the actual
administration to the collection of test materials at the end of the session.

General guidelines for administering OPQ32

This section outlines some of the issues to be considered when administering

OPQ32. While the administration of OPQ questionnaires does not require quite the
formality that the administration of aptitude tests does (e.g. there is no strict time
limit on OPQ), it is still essential for the administration to be well structured and
professional. Poor administrations inevitably lead to less reliable results.

The timetable

As OPQ32 has no strict time limit, candidates vary in the amount of time they need
to complete the questionnaire. Because of the variation in the completion time,
OPQ questionnaires are often administered before a free period or break in the
timetable or at the end of the assessment day.

If the information from the OPQ32 profile is to be used on the same day it is
important to leave enough time for the completed OPQ32 questionnaires to be
scored and profiled.

8
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Assessment room

The room should be spacious, bright and quiet. Allow plenty of space for each
person completing the questionnaire. As the administrator, you should be able to
move between and around the candidates easily without disturbing them.

Check that when the questions are displayed (i.e. in the booklet or on the PC Disconnect the
screen) that there is no glare or reflection making the questions difficult to read.
telephone in the

General atmosphere room and put a

notice on the door
The administrator aims to instill a sense of purpose in the candidates completing
to help prevent
OPQ questionnaires. Try to adopt a professional and sympathetic approach to the
candidates, giving the candidates every encouragement and clear information, unwelcome
without becoming overly familiar or informal. intrusions.

The introduction is an important part of setting the correct tone for the
administration. The administration card provides a reminder of the important points
to cover in an introduction. These are:

• The questionnaire is used in order to provide objective information on

behavioral style, which is relevant to successful performance in aspects of the
job. The results represent a useful additional source of information, which helps
the decision-making or development process.
• The questions are concerned with how you typically behave at work - so, if
you are in any doubt, try to answer from a work point of view.
• People who try to guess what they think is wanted are often incorrect, so just
try to rate yourself as accurately and honestly as possible.
• This is a questionnaire and not a test; consequently there are no right and
wrong answers. It is concerned with behavioral style and not abilities.
If the group has little
• You will have the opportunity to receive feedback on the results of
the questionnaire. work experience,
• There is no time limit, but you should work quickly rather than spending suggest they think
too much time on any one question. Please complete all the questions.
• In some situations it might be appropriate to point out that the questionnaire about similar
includes checks on whether someone is answering honestly and consistently. situations (e.g.
sporting interests,
The administration instructions cover in detail the procedure for the session. Follow
the instructions carefully. When you are using paper and pencil materials, check volunteer activities,
carefully at the end of the session that candidates have completed all the questions. hobbies).

9
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Scoring and profiling

There are a number of options for scoring and profiling OPQ32 questionnaires.

Internet scoring and profiling

The Internet will automatically score and profile after an administration. The
profile can be:

• Viewed on the computer screen

• Printed directly from the computer
• Saved to a diskette
• Used to generate reports, including Team Types, Leadership and
Reporting styles

For more information on Internet administration, please contact SHL.

PC based scoring and profiling

A PC with the OPQ32 Expert Assessment System software installed will

automatically score and profile the OPQ32 questionnaire after an administration.
The administrator enters a password (which prevents the candidate from gaining
access into the system). The profile can be:
See the Expert
System chapter for • Viewed on the PC’s screen
• Printed out
examples of the
• Saved as a Microsoft Word document
different OPQ32 • Used to generate a variety of reports (i.e. giving information on Team Types,
reports. Leadership Style, likely competence, etc.)
• Combined with other scores to produce user configured secondary scales
with the “smart select” tools.

Hand scoring and profiling OPQ32n

The instructions for scoring are contained inside the front cover of the wallet
containing the hand scoring keys for OPQ32n.

To score one OPQ32n answer sheet you will need:

• OPQ32 scoring keys (two keys in their cardboard wallet)
• An OPQ32n profile chart
• A pencil
• An eraser

10
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Hand scoring OPQ32n

Before scoring – visually check that the candidate has responded to every
question.

1 Align scoring key 1 on the answer sheet using the 3 locating circles.
2 Beginning with the top row and working right to left, add up all the scores
in the pink boxes, including the constant of 20, and enter the total in the
corresponding “+” (plus) box on the answer sheet.
3 Add up all the scores in the grey boxes and enter the result in the “-”
(minus) box on the answer sheet.
4 Repeat steps 2 and 3 for all the subsequent rows until both the plus and
minus columns are completed. Remove scoring key 1.
5 Align scoring key 2 on the answer sheet, using the locating circles, and
repeat the whole procedure. Remove scoring key 2.
6 Starting at the top of the answer sheet, subtract each minus score from the
corresponding plus score and enter the result in the “RS” (Raw Score) box.
7 Repeat this procedure until all the “RS” boxes are filled and scoring is
complete.

Note:

The maximum score in any “RS” box in the left-hand column is 36 and the
minimum score is 4.

The maximum score in any “RS” box in the right-hand column is 32 and the
minimum score is 8.

Hand profiling OPQ32n

1 Starting at the top of the left-hand “RS” column on the answer sheet,
carefully transfer the score in the box marked RP3 to the first shaded “RS”
box marked RP3 on the profile chart.
2 Work down the rest of the column, transferring all “RS” scores to the
appropriate shaded boxes on the profile chart.
3 When you have transferred all the scores in the left-hand “RS” column on the
answer sheet follow the arrow and enter the score for RP1 in the appropriate
box at the top of the profile chart.
4 Next enter the score for RP2 followed by RP5 and so on, until all scores have
been transferred to the profile chart.

11
 4 Administration, Scoring and Profiling

Bureau scoring OPQ32n or OPQ32i

With either OPQ32n or OPQ32i scannable answer sheets you can send the answer sheets
to the SHL Bureau Scoring Service to be scored and profiled.

The answer sheets are normally sent to the SHL Bureau Scoring Service by mail and the
complete profiles or reports can be sent back in the mail, or by courier depending on the
turnaround time required. By using fax or e-mail the profiles and reports can be returned to
you even faster. To receive the reports via e-mail, you must have an Internet e-mail address,
Microsoft Word and Mime decoding.

Automated scanning
For more
information about OPQ32n and OPQ32i scannable answer sheets can also be scored using optical scanning
SHL Bureau Scoring software which must be purchased by the client. This option is particularly effective when
there are large batches of answer sheets to process.
or scanning, contact
SHL.
Assessing candidates whose first language is not English

Under most circumstances candidates should complete questionnaires in their first

language. This will generally be the language in which they completed the majority of their
schooling. OPQ32 is an international model of personality, and OPQ questionnaires are
available in other languages. When the appropriate language is available this should be
used. Please contact SHL to check availability if you feel that you require a questionnaire in
a particular language.

Where it is not possible to give a candidate a questionnaire in their first language, special
attention should be paid to ensuring the candidates are clear about what they are being
asked to do and that they understand the practice questions. It is essential that this part of
the administration is not rushed. In order to give people sufficient attention, it is better to test
in small groups and in a more informal room layout. Testing in groups of ten or fewer is less
imposing and will enable candidates to relax and feel relatively free to ask questions.

It is important to allow more time for these administrations to allow enough time to clarify
any miscommunication or lack of understanding.

Testing candidates with disabilities

If a candidate has a disability which makes administration of OPQ32 under standard

conditions more difficult or inappropriate, contact Client Services at SHL for advice and
assistance before the testing session. It is always good practice to discuss the process ahead
of time with the candidate themselves to highlight potential difficulties and explore
solutions. We may be able to supply special materials (e.g. large print test versions),
alternative administration instructions or other advice to allow the questionnaires to be
administered more appropriately.

12
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Interpretation and Feedback

This chapter explores some of the key issues in feedback to candidates after
completion of an OPQ32 questionnaire. As well as discussing the reasons for
providing feedback in more general terms, a case study is provided to illustrate the
specifics of feeding back OPQ32 profiles.

Feedback should always be part of an assessment process (whether the purpose is

for selection, development, counseling, etc.). It not only provides participants with
greater insight into their own behavior, but it also allows you to clarify and confirm
or reject the hypotheses formed before the feedback session.

A face to face interview is generally the most worthwhile approach to feedback. In See Expert System
many circumstances telephone feedback is the next best option. Both of these chapter for more
approaches can be supplemented by a written report. Whether hand written or
information on the
computer generated, a written report can complement a feedback session but
should not be seen as a substitute for an interactive discussion. OPQ32
Interpretation
Reports that can
Why provide feedback?
assist you in
Offering feedback to the respondent can provide a number of specific benefits: providing feedback.

Motivation – Informing candidates or respondents in advance (e.g. in your briefing

letter and in the introduction to the administration session) that they will have an
opportunity to discuss their results can provide an extra incentive for candidates to
complete the questionnaire accurately and openly.

Control of distortion – Telling candidates prior to completion that you will be

discussing their results with them helps to promote an honest approach.

Ownership of results – Gaining an understanding of their own profile can help

people take responsibility for developing themselves.

Fairness – The candidate’s understanding of how the practitioner uses the OPQ32 Feedback provides
profile and other assessment information to reach personnel decisions fosters an
openness and trust between the organization and the individual. As a result, the the opportunity to
process is likely to be perceived as fair rather than prejudiced or biased and the develop your
transparency also helps to demystify the process for the candidate. interpretation and

Openness – As questionnaires can appear mystical or frightening to the lay person, counseling skills.
feedback can reassure candidates and leave them feeling much more positively
disposed towards the use of behavioral questionnaires as well as towards the
organization using them.

1
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Ethical – There is a moral obligation to share fully any recorded information with
the person whom it concerns and who has put time and effort into completing a
questionnaire.

Legal – There is a legal requirement in many countries to give respondents

meaningful feedback of scores from OPQ32 profiles when these are kept on file
(either manual or computer based). Legislation exists across the US and in other
countries. See Best Practice in Questionnaire Use chapter for further details.

General feedback principles

We will initially deal with the general principles of feedback, before turning to
specific issues of interpretation and report writing.

The feedback relationship

The ease of building rapport in the feedback interview will depend partly upon
what has come before, e.g. how well the idea of taking the OPQ was introduced,
the conditions of administration, the expectations that have been created for the
interview, and so on.
It is important to
As self-awareness is always one of the objectives of feedback, it is important that
develop an empathy the person receiving feedback is encouraged to take an active and responsible part
with how the in the interview. A counseling approach is likely to be most appropriate; feedback
is not a matter of “tell and sell” but of shared exploration. Try to develop the role
feedback process is
of a helpful and competent resource, with psychometric know-how. Avoid being
being experienced placed in the position of guru bringing forth unchallengeable truths. Use the
and to communicate pronouns “we”, “us” and minimize the use of “I”.
this empathy.The
It is essential that respondents are given the opportunity fully to express their
person needs to feel attitudes and feelings about the circumstances of the assessment, their experience
that he or she is of completing the questionnaire or inventory and how they feel about the results.
The more respondents themselves can work on the data, the more able will they
being understood
be to offer additional information, produce new insights and incorporate the data
and not judged. into their concept of themselves. The proportion of talking time should at least be
equal and preferably favor the person whose profile it is.

Keep an objective style; don’t confuse how you think you might feel, if the profile
were yours, with how the person is feeling. Everyone’s attitudes are unique. Be
alert to your feelings about the person and the situation lest you inadvertently bias
your description of the results.

2
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Have the courage to help the person confront all the data contained in the profile
and the emerging overall picture. The defense for avoiding what could appear to
be problem areas – “I didn’t want to hurt her” – usually means that the person
giving the feedback is underconfident about how to deal with possible reactions.
Some people may fear that they, themselves, could be hurt.

The person receiving feedback may occasionally disagree with the interpretation or
the score that is fed back. It is important to recognize that the questionnaire is
fallible and does not necessarily represent the “truth”. There is normally a reason
for the difference between what the questionnaire suggests and what the person
asserts, e.g. the score is not representative of the person’s general style; they may
have interpreted the question in relation to a particular context or situation that is
relatively atypical. It is important in these situations that the interpreter explores the
potential reasons for the difference in perceptions rather than dogmatically
asserting that the interpretation is true or valid.

Feedback may seem a mechanical and objective activity but needs, feelings and
aspirations are involved. You can expect any of a whole range of reactions aroused
by someone going through the process of developing a more realistic self-image.

Some reactions to feedback can be specifically predicted from the profile itself.
Contrast the likely feedback reaction of a respondent whose profile suggests they There is an OPQ
are modest, democratic and worrying with that of a competitive, critical respondent
Expert system
with a low score on modesty, for instance.
report designed
There are strong arguments for using the profile openly, placing it on the table to be given to the
between you. This reinforces the openness of the exercise; encourages a co-
individual. See Expert
operative, working-together atmosphere; and the graphic display makes the
information more easily absorbed. System chapter.

However, sometimes the candidate can be distracted by seeing all the profile at
once, can be tempted to look ahead and may not find it easy to concentrate on
what is being discussed. This could be avoided by masking later sections or by
describing and discussing each section in conversation before actually showing that
part of the profile. However, it is not advisable to allow the candidate to take the
profile chart itself away.

Best practice

There are several important considerations to ensure standards of best practice are
maintained within an organization.

Training – Feedback on OPQ32 profiles should only be given by trained users.

Timely – Profiles should be fed back shortly after completion; ideally within a
week, but certainly within a month of completion.

3
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Time allocation – Time needs to be set aside for feedback. Whether feedback is
face to face or over the telephone, specific periods of time need to be allocated for
feedback. Typically 30 minutes to an hour will be required for simple feedback.
Longer may be needed for interviews which combine feedback discussions with
other topics such as implications for performance or development.

Confidentiality – It is important not only to discuss confidentiality with the

respondent, but also to take precautions to ensure that confidentiality is
maintained. Face to face feedback is ideally conducted in a quiet room with sound-
proofing and telephone feedback should not be given from a busy office
environment. Before and after the feedback, take care not to leave the profile
where others might see it.

Sensitivity – OPQ32 questionnaires and other personality instruments can raise

sensitive issues that some people dislike discussing. With this in mind, it is
important not to be overly dogmatic in interpretation and questioning, or make
strong inferences, which are not directly justified from the data.

Feedback to others – Another important consideration is the provision of

feedback to people other than the candidates involved in the process, such as the
individual’s line manager or mentor. This may take the form of a confidential
written report. If feedback is to be provided to such a third party, it is important
Look back at the that the candidate or respondent understands this before completing the
questionnaire.
Scale Descriptions
chapter from time to
time, even when you Preparing to give a feedback interview
know the OPQ32 Allowing adequate time for preparation is often key to feedback, particularly when
well.This will help you are new to the feedback or interviewing process.
you keep to the true
Before the interview it is important to:
meaning of the
• Familiarize yourself with the profile. Look down the profile and see what
scales. surprises you or you feel particularly stands out.
• You may also want to read any background information available about the
candidate to give the profile context.
• Look at the person’s profile and make sure that you are comfortable describing
each score. It can sometimes be particularly difficult to feed back personality
information that is opposite to your own (e.g. people who are Sten 10 on the
Caring scale can have difficulty describing people who are Sten 1). If you find
any difficulty refer to the Scale Descriptions chapter.
• Draft some notes summarizing the key points (even if you don’t use the notes
in the feedback, this is a good way of making your interpretation explicit). If
available, generate computerized Expert reports to support your interpretation
and make sure that you have time to read these thoroughly.

4
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

• Check you are familiar with the norm or comparison group you are using.
• Book sufficient time for the feedback interview
• Ensure privacy and freedom from interruptions. Use a private room, put a “Do
Not Disturb” notice on the door and divert or unplug telephones.
• Prepare a short introduction to the OPQ32 questionnaire.

The structure of the feedback interview

The purpose

Discuss with the person why the OPQ was completed and what use the results are
likely to have. This should be re-emphasized when the complete profile has been
discussed.

It is important that each party agrees on the agenda and that expectations are Prepare a card with
realistic. The OPQ can only go a certain way in resolving working problems, or in bullet points for your
answering work relevant questions and this needs to be understood from the start.
introduction to
Parameters for the interview ensure that you
remember
The degree of confidentiality for the discussion needs to be agreed and, if notes
are to be taken, what will happen to them. The available time for the interview everything.
needs to be understood, as well as whether this time can be extended or a further
meeting arranged. Although the cooperative style desirable for the interview can be
spelled out at the start, it is essential that your words and manner build such an
atmosphere, irrespective of whether it has been made explicit.

Description of the inventory:

Remind the candidate, briefly, of the characteristics of the questionnaire completed

• That it is a self-report inventory.
• That it is not infallible but a technique whose strengths depend on the
frankness with which the questions have been answered.
• That the inventory reflects personality style and not abilities.
• That personality style is not in itself good or bad but appropriate or
inappropriate depending upon circumstances.
• That it consists of so-many dimensions grouped into such-and-such
sections.
• That the profile is a comparison with X norm group.

Balance clarity with brevity, since the individual could be awaiting the results with
some apprehension, and may not absorb too much detail.

5
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Discussion of the circumstances

Discuss with the candidate his or her feelings on being asked to complete the
questionnaire, on how it was administered, on the style of responding and whether
any recent or current events are likely to have affected the responses unduly.

The results

Single dimensions
There are the alternatives of telling the score first or asking for the person’s
expectations and then disclosing the score. Varying the style could perhaps better
hold someone’s interest and encourage contributions. In either case, it is essential
to get reactions, to ask for examples and to link the scores to biographical data to
explore their personal meaning for the candidate.

Linking scales
Combine the dimensional score within any one section or sub-section, and link
scores across sections. The candidates can read off the scales for themselves, so it
is this interlinking that they are likely to expect. By using “within-section” and
“across-section” links, a fairly comprehensive picture can be built up.

Again, check out attitudes and feelings as you go along, get examples, and link the
emerging picture to biographical data.

General predictions
Discuss the general implications for future behavior and choice, when possible,
drawing on validity data. It is essential to remember that the profile is a sample of
the here and now and cannot be taken as constant for all time. After a few years,
retesting should take place, particularly if some major change has taken place or is
being considered. Try to be non-evaluative and discuss what might happen rather
than what should.

Summary and conclusions

From a full and, it is to be hoped, agreed picture, it is necessary to address the
original purpose of the assessment e.g. to help someone understand why they did
(or did not) get a job offer, to establish development plans. If appropriate, these
discussions need to be translated into goal setting and specific action plans as to
who should do what by when.

6
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Interpretation example 1 – Alissa Kahn

Actual interpretation is shown through the use of an example. Users should also
read the Scale Descriptions chapter for support in interpretation.

Alissa Kahn has worked for the last three years as a Business Analyst within the
Commercial department of a large energy company. Alissa joined the company as a
college graduate and spent one year in the Training Program before moving to the
Commercial Department. She has worked on a variety of different project teams
within the Commercial Department over the last three years. Six months ago she
was appointed as project manager, with two other Business Analysts, in assessing
the impact of the increasing internationalization of the energy industry. The aim of
the project is to identify critical processes which, if affected by currency
fluctuations, could seriously affect the company’s performance. Alissa was offered
the opportunity to complete OPQ32n and receive feedback - a service the
corporate HR department offers all newly appointed line Managers.

Her responses to this normative version were profiled against the Managerial and
Professional norm group.

The following is based on a discussion of her profile from the feedback interview.
She was particularly interested in the implications of her profile on the way she
manages others.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Influence

rarely pressures others to change Persuasive enjoys selling, comfortable using
their views, dislikes selling, less negotiation, likes to change other
comfortable using negotiation • • • • • • • • • • people’s views
happy to let others take charge, Controlling likes to be in charge, takes the
INFLUENCE

dislikes telling people what to do, lead, tells others what to do, takes
unlikely to take the lead • • • • • • • • • • control
holds back from criticizing others, Outspoken freely expresses opinions, makes
may not express own views, disagreement clear, prepared to
unprepared to put forward own • • • • • • • • • • criticize others
opinions
accepts majority decisions, Independent Minded prefers to follow own approach,
prepared to follow the consensus prepared to disregard majority
• • • • • • • • • • decisions

Alissa has no great desire to manage or influence others, although she can feel
frustrated when other people do not accept what she is saying. She believes in
making her point clearly and straightforwardly, but not in pressuring others to
accept her view. Alissa also accepts that she can lack tact and subtlety in putting
her point of view across to others. She sometimes finds that her outspoken, critical
nature can get her into problems dealing with people. She has upset a couple of
her more sensitive colleagues by openly criticizing their work. She agreed that she
will need to monitor whether she is making sufficient effort to make sure that her
team understand and accept her decisions.

7
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Sociability RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

quiet and reserved in groups, Outgoing lively and animated in groups,

dislikes being center of attention talkative, enjoys attention
• • • • • • • • • •

SOCIABILITY
comfortable spending time away Affiliative enjoys others’ company, likes to be
from people, values time spent around people, can miss the
alone, seldom misses the company • • • • • • • • • • company of others
of others
feels more comfortable in less Socially Confident feels comfortable when first
formal situations, can feel awkward meeting people, at ease in formal
when first meeting people • • • • • • • • • • situations

Alissa really enjoys the company of others and feels particularly comfortable in
informal social gatherings with friends, and she admits to often dominating these
occasions. However, Alissa likes to get away from other people from time to time
as she can occasionally feel partied out. Alissa feels a little less comfortable when
dealing with people she doesn’t know and sometimes finds that she either clams
up or tends to find herself talking too much.

Empathy RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

makes strengths and achievements Modest dislikes discussing achievements,

known, talks about personal keeps quiet about personal success
success • • • • • • • • • •

EMPATHY
prepared to make decisions Democratic consults widely, involves others in
without consultation, prefers to decision making, less likely to make
make decisions alone • • • • • • • • • • decisions alone
selective with sympathy and Caring sympathetic and considerate
support, remains detached from towards others, helpful and
others’ personal problems • • • • • • • • • • supportive, gets involved in others’
problems

Alissa generally feels that too much consultation can waste time and generally
believes in trusting her own judgement rather than constantly needing to consult
other people. She does not feel the need to talk about herself and her
achievement. She enjoys getting positive feedback about her work but gets easily
embarrassed when publicly praised. She sees herself as someone who will lock all
her energies into helping a friend with a serious problem. However, Alissa
describes herself as someone who “does not suffer fools gladly” and is less
sympathetic when she feels people’s problems are of their own making.

In terms of her new management responsibility it will be important for her to

makes sure she carries her team with her.

8
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

THINKING STYLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Analysis

prefers dealing with opinions and Data Rational likes working with numbers, enjoys
feelings rather than facts and analyzing statistical information,
figures, likely to avoid using • • • • • • • • • • bases decisions on facts and figures
statistics

ANALYSIS
does not focus on potential Evaluative critically evaluates information,
limitations, dislikes critically looks for potential limitations,
analyzing information, rarely looks • • • • • • • • • • focuses upon errors
for errors or mistakes
does not question the reasons for Behavioral tries to understand motives and
people’s behavior, tends not to behavior, enjoys analyzing people
analyze people • • • • • • • • • •

Alissa likes to base her decisions on facts and enjoys analyzing numbers as part of
her approach to problem-solving. She doesn’t always take account of the people
side of a problem. Alissa finds it difficult to hold back her criticism when she feels
that something is inaccurate or wrong.

This analytical approach is likely to be an asset in working on her current project.

However, she recognized she would need to balance her tendency to criticize with
positive feedback to avoid demotivating her team.

THINKING STYLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Creativity

prefers changes to work methods, Conventional prefers well established methods, and change
prefers new approaches, less prefers a more conventional
conventional • • • • • • • • • • approach
prefers to deal with practical rather Conceptual interested in theories, enjoys
CREATIVITY AND CHANGE

than theoretical issues, dislikes discussing abstract concepts

dealing with abstract concepts • • • • • • • • • •
more likely to build upon than Innovative generates new ideas, enjoys being
generate ideas, less inclined to be creative, thinks of original solutions
creative and inventive • • • • • • • • • •
prefers routine, is prepared to do Variety Seeking prefers variety, tries out new
repetitive work, does not seek things, likes changes to regular
variety • • • • • • • • • • routine, can become bored by
repetitive work
behaves consistently across Adaptable changes behavior to suit the
situations, unlikely to behave situation, adapts approach to
differently with different people • • • • • • • • • • different people

Alissa likes to approach problems by understanding the background and theory

involved. She feels that she takes a pragmatic approach when deciding whether to
adopt a new approach or method. While she is eager to see better work methods
in place, she is cautious about implementing them without adequate information to
evaluate their likelihood of success. Alissa does not see herself as someone who is
likely to propose new ideas, but someone who can fine tune other people’s ideas
to make them more effective.

9
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Alissa admits she can sometimes get a little bored with her daily routine and will
try to seek out new activities to break her day up. While Alissa likes to seek out
new things to do, she feels little need to vary her behavior to suit her audience
(although she wishes she could be a little more comfortable around strangers).

Structure THINKING STYLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

more likely to focus upon Forward Thinking takes a long-term view, sets goals
immediate than long-term issues, for the future, more likely to take
less likely to take a strategic • • • • • • • • • • a strategic perspective
perspective
unlikely to become preoccupied Detail Conscious focuses on detail, likes to be

STRUCTURE
with detail, less organized and methodical, organized and
systematic, dislikes tasks involving • • • • • • • • • • systematic, may become
detail preoccupied with detail
sees deadlines as flexible, prepared Conscientious focuses on getting things finished,
to leave some tasks unfinished persists until the job is done
• • • • • • • • • •
not restricted by rules and
procedures, prepared to break Rule Following follows rules and regulations,
rules, tends to dislike bureaucracy prefers clear guidelines, finds it
• • • • • • • • • • difficult to break rules

Alissa sees herself as relatively systematic and organized in her approach, but does
not feel the need always to stick to rules. She generally views rules as useful
guidelines to follow rather than hard and fast. Alissa likes to be relatively
spontaneous in her work and dislikes planning out her work too far in advance, as
she feels it is important to shift priorities as circumstances change. Alissa also views
deadlines as well as rules more flexibly than others and is happy to leave
something unfinished to reflect a change in priorities.

She found it difficult to accept that her less structured style might lead to problems
in planning and organizing tasks. However, after reviewing previous project
performance, she agreed that she could benefit from taking a more strategic view
of progress from time to time, rather than focusing largely on the details of the
immediate task in hand.

10
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Emotion

tends to feel tense, finds it difficult Relaxed finds it easy to relax, rarely feels
to relax, can find it hard to unwind tense, generally calm and
after work • • • • • • • • • • untroubled
feels calm before important Worrying feels nervous before important
occasions, less affected by key occasions, worries about things
events, free from worry • • • • • • • • • • going wrong
sensitive, easily hurt by criticism, Tough Minded not easily offended, can ignore
upset by unfair comments or insults insults, may be insensitive to

EMOTION
• • • • • • • • • • personal criticism
concerned about the future, Optimistic expects things will turn out well,
expects things to go wrong, focuses looks to the positive aspects of a
on negative aspects of a situation • • • • • • • • • • situation, has an optimistic view of
the future
wary of others’ intentions, finds it Trusting trusts people, sees others as
difficult to trust others, unlikely to reliable and honest, believes what
be fooled by people • • • • • • • • • • others say
openly expresses feelings, finds it Emotionally Controlled can conceal feelings from others,
difficult to conceal feelings, displays rarely displays emotion
emotion clearly • • • • • • • • • •

Alissa generally feels tense and describes herself as someone who has a great deal
of nervous energy. However, she does not feel that she gets particularly worried
before important events, although if she has to talk in front of strangers or make a
presentation she gets very anxious in the run up to the event. Alissa sees herself as
someone who can get hurt by unfair remarks, but generally tends to take positive,
constructive criticism relatively well. She is fairly optimistic about the future, and
although she is cautious about some changes that are being made at work, she
thinks things will work themselves out in the long term. Alissa considers herself to
be a reasonably trusting person. She feels she may be overly trusting of her friends
and colleagues at work as they have sometimes let her down. She also considers
herself to be a little over cautious and cynical about the intentions of people she
knows less well. Other people can generally tell how Alissa is feeling and she finds
that people often pick up on her raising an eyebrow when they are talking to her.

11
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Dynamism FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

likes to take things at a steady pace, Vigorous thrives on activity, likes to be busy,
dislikes excessive work demands enjoys having a lot to do
• • • • • • • • • •
dislikes competing with others, feels Competitive has a need to win, enjoys
that taking part is more important competitive activities, dislikes

DYNAMISM
than winning • • • • • • • • • • losing
sees career progression as less Achieving ambitious and career-centered,
important, looks for achievable likes to work to demanding goals
rather than highly ambitious targets • • • • • • • • • • and targets
tends to be cautious when making Decisive makes fast decisions, reaches
decisions, likes to take time to conclusions quickly, less cautious
reach conclusions • • • • • • • • • •

Alissa enjoys being busy and generally feels the need to find something to do on
the rare occasions when she has a small workload. She enjoys competitive activities
and likes to do better than other people whenever she can. After her recent
promotion, Alissa does not feel the need to progress further or set new goals to
achieve, as she enjoys what she is doing at the moment. Alissa likes to be careful
when making decisions and likes to get all her facts straight before making a
decision. Alissa feels particularly uncomfortable when forced to make a decision
without all the necessary facts at her fingertips.

Conclusions

Alissa agreed that the two main areas she needed to address in her new role were:

• Managing her staff and providing leadership

• Managing projects to a timely conclusion

A second meeting was arranged to consider a development plan for these issues.
In the meantime, Alissa liked the suggestion of keeping a diary of relevant
situations from her day-to-day work to provide material for discussion at the next
meeting.

12
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Choosing the right questionnaire, OPQ32n or OPQ32i?

The choice between a questionnaire with an open-ended, (normative) format and a

forced choice (ipsative) format is often based partly on how the OPQ is being
applied. Many users prefer to use an ipsative measure in selection, particularly
where the applicant group is motivated and sophisticated. Under these
circumstances, many of the candidates will have an incentive to make a positive
impression or “fake good” and may have a clear understanding of at least some of
the personality requirements of the job (e.g. senior sales appointments). The open-
ended normative format is often the preferred option for developmental and
counseling applications, where there is less risk the respondent might fake good.

There are, however, no hard and fast rules in choosing between a forced choice
format and an open-ended format. Both questionnaires consistently relate to job
competencies and other external criteria and both formats are likely to be effective
in the majority of developmental or selection applications where OPQ measures
constructs important to the job in question.

The choice between forced choice ipsative format and the open-ended normative
format also often depends on the information the OPQ user feels most comfortable
interpreting. If the user prefers an unrestricted self portrait of the individual, the
normative format is likely to be preferred, as it focuses on how people like to view
themselves (which can be a very positive or highly self critical picture). If the user
prefers to view personality in relative terms (reflecting the view that life is about
choices) an ipsative format is generally preferred as it focuses on what they see as
most like them versus what they consider least like them.

Interpretation example 2 – Bob P

This example looks at differences in interpretation for OPQ32n (normative) and

OPQ32i (ipsative) profiles.

Bob is 38 years old, married with two children aged 2 and 5 years. He has recently
been laid-off from a public sector organization where he had worked for 15 years.
He left school with no qualifications, but completed a craft apprenticeship in
carpentry. His most recent post was Maintenance Surveyor which involved
responsibility for repair and maintenance of properties, including managing a
workshop of about 20 crafts people.

His interests include being President of a large sports club, and in the past he has
played golf and softball. He has been involved with the Boy Scouts all his life and
is currently an Assistant Scout Leader. He is also actively involved with his church.

13
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

His wife suggested that he should attend some career counseling, and he
completed both a normative and ipsative questionnaire very shortly after his lay-
off. He actually completed earlier Concept versions of the OPQ questionnaires but
the scores have been converted to OPQ32 scales.

Overall, both profiles showed Bob to be an outgoing, sociable organizer; relaxed,

sensitive and optimistic. He is not a strategic or innovative thinker, with little
interest in facts and data; and while he appears reasonably ambitious, he seems to
lack a competitive edge.

The two profiles are remarkably similar; in almost every case the observed
differences are two stens or less, which is within two standard errors of
measurement of the scales.

The largest and most interesting shift comes in the feelings and emotions area,
where his sten score on Achieving shifts from 7 on OPQ32n to 2 on OPQ32i. Why
might this be? After discussion at the feedback interview it appeared that the
difference lies in the different item formats of the two questionnaires. In the
OPQ32n version, where he rated himself, he has genuinely responded in the way
he likes to see himself; after all he has achieved a reasonable amount and states
that he wants to be successful. However, in the OPQ32i version, where he ranked
statements in terms of which were most like him, he was forced to make a choice.
He consistently ranked his ambition and career lower than other things. In fact, the
pattern of an easy going, warm, participative extrovert comes out even more
strongly in the OPQ32i questionnaire than in the OPQ32n questionnaire.

OPQ32i FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

dislikes competing with others, feels Competitive has a need to win, enjoys
that taking part is more important competitive activities, dislikes
than winning • • • • • • • • • • losing DYNAMISM
sees career progression as less Achieving ambitious and career-centered,
important, looks for achievable likes to work to demanding goals
rather than highly ambitious targets • • • • • • • • • • and targets
tends to be cautious when making Decisive makes fast decisions, reaches
decisions, likes to take time to conclusions quickly, less cautious
reach conclusions • • • • • • • • • •

OPQ32n FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

dislikes competing with others, feels Competitive has a need to win, enjoys
that taking part is more important competitive activities, dislikes
than winning • • • • • • • • • • losing
DYNAMISM

sees career progression as less Achieving ambitious and career-centered,

important, looks for achievable likes to work to demanding goals
rather than highly ambitious targets • • • • • • • • • • and targets
tends to be cautious when making Decisive makes fast decisions, reaches
decisions, likes to take time to conclusions quickly, less cautious
reach conclusions • • • • • • • • • •

14
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

A note on clinical versus statistical interpretation

A clinical interpretation uses the self-report information on the profiles as a basis

for further exploration of the individual’s style or approach to work. This approach
typically involves a feedback interview where the profile forms the basis for a two-
way discussion. This approach generally combines the information from OPQ with
other information on the individual to gain a greater understanding of an
individual’s preferred style or approach to work. This is the most appropriate use
of profiles in counseling and development contexts, but they can also be used in
this manner for selection application.

The second approach to profile interpretation is statistical. The scores on the

personality questionnaire are arithmetically combined to predict an occupational
outcome, such as job performance. This will only be effective where there is clear
validation evidence available. In this case, no qualitative interpretation of the
profile is involved; the interpretation is entirely statistical. This approach is most
likely to be used in screening candidates.

Some users feel less comfortable with the statistical approach to interpretation.
However, where a local empirical validation study has been conducted there are
strong arguments for basing inferences and decisions on this information, rather
than on more subjective interpretations of the suitability of a particular candidate to
a role. It is a more standardized and objective approach. The statistical approach
can also help to provide estimates of the impact (the cost versus the benefit) of
using the questionnaire based on the likely improvement in performance that will
result from selecting people according to the given rule.

Statistical and clinical interpretation may often overlap, with interpreters using
statistical prediction to improve the decision making, while focusing on qualitative
information to provide richness of interpretation.

A danger zone profile is one example of an approach that uses a combined

statistical and clinical interpretation. The danger zone identifies possible issues
based on statistical information, while the interpreter can probe the area of concern
in a feedback interview to establish the potential impact on the individual’s
performance.

Danger zone profiles

A danger zone profile is one approach to increasing standardization of

interpretation. The danger zone profile marks out parts of a profile chart as
potential areas of concern. Each candidate’s scores are compared with the danger
zone profile to check if any fall in shaded areas. In the case of screening this may
lead to the candidate being rejected or it may lead to the area of concern being
investigated in more detail.

15
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

In practice the danger zone profile is often a clear acetate sheet which is placed
over each profile to identify areas of concern (or strengths).

The danger zone profile should be based on job analysis and/or a validation study
to identify the characteristics related to success in a given role.

Example of a danger zone

In a concurrent validation study based on advertising executives’ potential, three

scales were predicted before the validation study to be predictive of Creative Success:
Conceptual (high scores), Innovative (high scores) and Conventional (low scores).

The results of the validation study confirmed this:

OPQ32 Scale Correlation with

Creative Success Ratings

Conventional –.3

Conceptual .2

Innovative .4

The danger zone can represent these relationships with Creative Success by
shading out more stens as part of the danger zones on the scales with the strongest
correlations with performance.

A danger zone profile based on this set of relationships is shown below.

THINKING STYLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CREATIVITY AND CHANGE
prefers changes to work methods, Conventional prefers well established methods,
prefers new approaches, less prefers a more conventional
conventional • • • • • • • • • • approach
prefers to deal with practical rather Conceptual interested in theories, enjoys
than theoretical issues, dislikes discussing abstract concepts
dealing with abstract concepts • • • • • • • • • •
more likely to build upon than Innovative generates new ideas, enjoys being
generate ideas, less inclined to be creative, thinks of original solutions
creative and inventive • • • • • • • • • •

16
 5 Interpretation and Feedback

Another approach to danger zone profiling uses three different categories:

pass without reservation or “green light”; concern raised or “yellow light”; and
reject or “red light”. The “green lights” continue to the next stage of the selection
procedure. The “red lights” are rejected. If the candidate falls into the middle
category of concern raised or “yellow light” on the danger zone profile, the
candidate will continue to the next stage of the selection procedure, where
competency based questions will be included to provide further information about
the specific concern raised.

Specification equations

A specification equation allows the relative importance of different personality

scales (and other predictors of work criteria e.g. ability tests) to be used to predict
important variables at work (e.g. competence, tenure, satisfaction, etc.).

Specification equations weight the importance of different predictors, just as a

recipe specifies the correct amount of each ingredient to add. Examples of
specification equations can be found in the Appendix.

17
 6 The Expert System

The Expert System

This chapter gives examples of some of the reports available from the OPQ32
Expert system pack and gives full descriptions of the scales used in the Team
Building and Leadership Style reports.

The OPQ32 Expert pack is a computer package which mimics the thought
processes of a skilled OPQ practitioner to produce a series of narrative reports
which comprehensively cover interpretation of OPQ32 profiles in a wide range of
application areas.

It encapsulates the extensive experience gained by SHL consultants over many

years and is available as an interpretation aid to qualified OPQ users. However,
some of the reports described below are specifically designed to be shared with The Expert system
candidates and managers with the support of a trained user. It takes as its input can also administer,
(raw or sten) scores from an OPQ32 profile and from these its various modules
score and profile
produce different kinds of reports.
OPQ32
questionnaires. See
When and why might you use Expert? Administration
chapter.
Using the Expert system has two distinct advantages:

1. It saves time.
The Expert system can release management time, a very expensive commodity, for
other tasks, by eliminating the task of OPQ report writing. This time saving applies
equally to using the Expert assessment system on a bureau or licensed software
arrangement.

A desktop PC can carry out all the necessary inferencing in a few minutes per
candidate. Therefore, the licensed software arrangement is invaluable in situations
where time is pressing, such as in assessment centers.

2. It can improve the quality of your analysis and feedback.

Using the Expert assessment system helps you get more out of the OPQ32 profile,
in terms of breadth, depth and quality of analysis. The breadth of the analysis is
widened by bringing information on team type, leadership style and management
competency profile to your fingertips.

The depth of the analysis is improved by the Expert system’s ability both to be
sensitive to subtle points in the profiles and its infallible memory that ensures
comprehensiveness. Naturally, the system can be no better than the rules that make
it up. However, this rule-base is the product of the knowledge of SHL consultants:
the people with the greatest experience and expertise in the area of personality
assessment using the OPQ questionnaires.

1
 6 The Expert System

Limitations

The Expert system is very good at what it does, but it is important to remember
that it has limitations. All the points that are pertinent to the use and dissemination
of information derived directly from the questionnaire are equally important here
(see Best Practice in Questionnaire Use chapter).

The Expert system does not know about the job you are trying to fill, the special
circumstances of the applicant or a host of other matters that are relevant to the
decisions that often need to be made. It must be used like other assessment tools,
as one tool in a broader arsenal of objective assessment methods, albeit a
particularly powerful one.

What reports are available?

The outputs available are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: OPQ32 Expert reports

Output Description
Candidate Feedback Report For the candidate, to complement and supplement the
feedback interview.

OPQ32 Profile The familiar graphical summary of OPQ32 results.Ability

test scores can be included if desired.

Behavioral Styles Report A detailed interpretation of the individual’s preferred style,

structured within illustrated sections of the profile.

Manager’s Report The same report as described above, but structured and
presented in a format suitable for sharing with an untrained
manager.

Team Building A profile and description of the individual against each of

the eight team types.

Leadership Style A profile and description of the individual based on ten

leadership and reporting styles.

Management Competency Profile A description of likely potential against each of 16 key

management competencies.

Emotional Intelligence A profile and report describing 4 competencies based upon

the theory of Emotional Intelligence.

Each of the reports is described in more detail below. A full set of sample reports
is provided at the end of this chapter. Additional information in relation to the
derivation of types and styles, is also included where appropriate. SHL has a
constant policy for development of the Expert system, which will result in new
reports being added to this list over time.

2
 6 The Expert System

Candidate Feedback Report

This report is intended to be given to the person who has completed the
questionnaire, supplementing the feedback interview. It is designed to be sensitive,
positive and uncontentious. It describes the person’s results in a concise and
friendly way, suitable for someone who is not qualified to interpret the OPQ. It
produces a narrative section for each of the three major groupings on the profile:
Relationships with People, Thinking Style and Feelings and Emotions, and
interprets links between scales within each of these areas.

It is complementary to the OPQ Behavioral Styles and Managers’ Reports, which

provide much greater depth of analysis.

OPQ32 Profile

A computer generated version of the appropriate OPQ32 profile chart is produced.

If ability test results are available they are also represented graphically.

OPQ Behavioral Styles

The OPQ Behavioral Styles prints out or displays on the screen the sten scores for
the OPQ32 scales that make up each of the eight primary areas, plus a first
paragraph describing the meaning of the scores. These descriptions are internal to
the area to which they relate and no reference is made to scales outside the
groups.

A second paragraph then links these scales to those in other areas, where such
links add further value to the profile interpretation. For each section the actual
OPQ32 sten scores are conveniently displayed so a check on the rationale of the
text can be made.

Manager’s Report

This report contains the same narrative text as the OPQ Behavioral Styles Report,
but is presented in a format which makes it suitable for the written report to be
shared with the individual and/or line manager as part of an assessment process.
The scales and sten scores have been removed and a less technical introduction
provided. It is not intended that this report be directly given to a third party, but
that the trained user may choose to edit or feed back this information as part of an
assessment.

3
 6 The Expert System

Team Building

The Team Building report provides an ordered profile of which roles the individual
is more and less likely to adopt in a team situation. This is followed by short
descriptions of how the person’s behavior is likely to match or differ from typical
role behavior. Finally an appendix, giving summary definitions of each of the team
types, is provided. It is possible to produce the profiles without the narrative if
desired.

The team types are derived from OPQ32 scale scores based on the work of
Meredith Belbin. Each OPQ32 team type or role profiled in the report is based on
the combination of a number of OPQ32 scales. For example, the role of Co-
ordinator is composed of OPQ32 scales such as Controlling, Democratic and
Forward Thinking.

In the following pages some ideas for the potential application of team types are
discussed, followed by more detailed descriptions of each team type and how
people in that role function in the team and interact with others.

Two questions are relevant to the assessment of suitability for work in an

operating team:

• How will this individual fit into an existing team?

• How can we select a group of individuals who will operate as a good team?

Both of these questions can be approached by firstly identifying the components of

Further details of an optimal team. Meredith Belbin, after extensive research, initially described eight
team roles for optimum performance. Belbin has demonstrated that teams
Belbin’s work on
incorporating each of these roles tend to be successful. Each role (or type) is
teams can be found
defined in terms of the attributes of an individual who characterizes the role.
in Management
Teams by He later identified a ninth role, the Specialist, but as this is related to the
R M Belbin, knowledge and information that the individual brings to the team, rather than their
Heinemann, (1981). personality or style, it is not produced from OPQ32 profiles.

Table 2 provides a simplified description of each of the eight team types.

Initially, the problem of how an individual will fit into an existing team will be
dependent upon the knowledge of the types of existing team members (so team
type profiles for all relevant individuals are required). The new team member could
be selected either to fill an existing gap (e.g. if the team has no Shaper, then a
Shaper would be a suitable acquisition) or to complement the existing team. For
example, the team may not benefit from an additional Coordinator, but an
additional Completer may be a welcome supplement.

4
 6 The Expert System

Table 2: Eight team types

Team Type Description

Coordinator Sets the team goals and defines roles. Coordinates team efforts and
leads by eliciting respect.

Shaper The task leader who brings competitive drive to the team. Makes things
happen, but may seem abrasive.

Plant Imaginative, intelligent and the team’s source of original ideas.

Concerned with the fundamentals.

Monitor-Evaluator Offers measured, dispassionate critical analysis. Keeps team from

pursuing misguided objectives.

Resource Investigator Salesperson, diplomat, resource seeker. Good improviser with many
external contacts. May be easily diverted from the task at hand.

Completer Worries about problems. Personally checks details. Intolerant of the

casual and sloppy. Sees projects through. To build a successful
team you need to
Team Worker Promotes team harmony. Good listener who builds on the ideas of
others. Likeable and unassertive. consider both the
skills and team types
Implementer Turns decisions and strategies into manageable tasks. Brings logical,
methodical pursuit of objectives to the team. of the members.

Second, the problem of building a team from scratch will clearly be facilitated by a
knowledge of those components required for successful operation. Individuals whose
team types together will produce an appropriate composite should be selected.

Team Building scales are not mutually exclusive. It is quite common, and often
desirable, that an individual fits well into more than one role. Obviously, best use
of the available information involves a consideration of all types and styles for
which an individual has a strong score, and those types and styles for which the
individual has low sten scores.

5
 6 The Expert System

Team Building descriptions

The following long descriptions are based both on the research responsible for
identifying the types and the OPQ32 scales that make up each of the OPQ32 team
types.

Coordinator
Coordinators may not be intellectually outstanding. Their primary characteristic is
that they carry the respect of others. The Coordinator’s role is to direct the group,
but this is rarely achieved by a highly direct or overbearing approach. They tend to
be dominant without being overly assertive. During meetings the Coordinator is
likely to intervene at critical points to resolve issues, particularly where there is
controversy or disagreement between the members of the team. The Coordinator is
the person who stops the discussion from becoming uncontrolled, tending to draw
the conversation back to the group’s objectives without causing offense.

Coordinators are prepared to sound out the opinions of other team members, and
tend to encourage group work rather than expecting individuals to work in
isolation or with limited support. While their approach to people is flexible, a
Coordinator will generally be positive towards, supportive and trusting of other
members of the group.

Coordinators have an enthusiasm that helps motivate the team. While they may
often show warmth and support, they like to maintain a degree of distance
between themselves and others. The Coordinator’s enthusiasm is goal orientated.

They assign roles, or encourage members of the group to take roles, that best
reflect each individual’s talent.

Shaper
Shapers are highly motivated. They have a high degree of nervous energy and a
great need for achievement. Shapers may lead the team, but their personal
characteristics and approach are quite different from a typical Coordinator. The
Coordinator’s commitment to team objectives tends to be morally based, whereas
the Shaper endeavors to reach objectives by whatever means are available, even if
these are illegitimate.

The Shaper’s concern is to win, to reach goals by putting every effort into the
process. The Shaper tends to be opportunistic and will show a strong emotional
response to any form of disappointment or frustration.

6
 6 The Expert System

Shapers are suspicious and impatient. They are singled minded and critical, having
few reservations about challenging others, arguing or being critical at a personal
level. The Shaper tends to be an aggressive extrovert, and as such may elicit an
aggressive response from other team members. The Shaper may lack the
interpersonal understanding and warmth which are characteristic of the
Coordinator. The Shaper’s directive approach is far more oriented towards the
achieving of objectives than towards the stable maintenance of the team.

Interestingly, Shapers’ reactions to the aggressive response which they elicit in

others are generally good humored, as if this is to be expected as part of the
process of directing a team. Since Shapers’ primary role is to inspire action and
dispel complacency, their usefulness is limited in teams which are already
functioning well and in a stable fashion, particularly if the team is already led by a
typical Coordinator. Under these circumstances, the Shaper’s presence may simply
be disruptive. Furthermore, several Shapers in a team may be unproductive,
because, despite much goal-directed effort, interpersonal problems are likely to
arise as a result of conspicuous frustration and open criticism of others.

Shapers are excellent when it comes to sparking life into a team and are, for
example, very useful in teams within organizations where political complications
are apt to slow down progress. Shapers are inclined to rise above problems of this
kind and forge ahead regardless.

Plant
Plants are creative and innovative. They are responsible for the production of
ingenious new ideas and novel strategies. They are very bright and their ideas may
often be radical and practical constraints may sometimes be overlooked.

Plants’ preferred approach is to work independently, thinking intensively, and

following up on their own schemes. They are not very team oriented, although
their contribution to the team is very likely to improve the team’s success. Plants
tend to be introverted and it may take a good Coordinator to draw out useful ideas
from the Plant. The Coordinator and/or the Monitor-Evaluator will also have the job
of rejecting impracticable schemes which the Plant presents.

The way in which the Coordinator and other team members treat the Plant is of
great importance. The Plant is easily offended but responds well to discerning
praise. The Plant’s behavior towards other team members can be off-hand and
critical. However, if the Plant is handled well, the benefits are great. “Handling
well” involves recognizing the Plant’s potential and providing the space to realize it
while also controlling the direction, so as to avoid the pursuit of fruitless schemes.

Soon after the identification of the Plant as a team role, Belbin’s own research
revealed that teams incorporating more than one Plant are no more successful than
teams with no Plants at all. As is the case with Shapers, productivity may be
undermined by interpersonal problems.

7
 6 The Expert System

Monitor-Evaluator
It may be that the innovative members of a team, in particular the Plant, the
Resource Investigator and possibly the Shaper, will find themselves in debate. The
ideas presented by each may be incompatible, with each advocate being equally
committed to a different view. Since the Coordinator is not necessarily intellectually
outstanding, he or she may not be the best person to evaluate which of the ideas
is, in fact, the best. A person who is intelligent, discerning and objective is required
to step in; the Monitor-Evaluator’s role is to do just this. The Monitor-Evaluator has
an attitude of detached indifference to the team and may, for the most part, take a
backseat role, but will come into prominence when a crucial decision is to be
made. Though not creative, the Monitor-Evaluator is very good at weighing up the
facts, carefully considering the pros and cons of each option, and finally coming to
a well considered decision. This will be an objective process free from the
influence of emotional factors.

Monitor-Evaluators show little enthusiasm or personal commitment. They are not

achievers but their judgement is sound. In many ways the lack of commitment to
team goals facilitates the task of Monitor-Evaluators because this enables them to
be impartial in decision making. Though rather dry and critical, the Monitor-
Evaluator fits comfortably into the team, especially if the role is recognized for
what it is, both by the Monitor-Evaluator and by the other team members.

Resource Investigator
Although not a great source of original ideas, the Resource Investigator is effective
when it comes to picking up ideas and making them work. The Resource
Investigator has a critical role to play in the team’s new innovations. In particular,
the Resource Investigator, as the name suggests, is adept at finding out what is
available and what can be done. The Resource Investigator explores beyond the
team itself, having no reservations about probing others for information. The
Resource Investigator is skilled interpersonally, sociable and friendly. The Resource
Investigator is far more extravert than a typical Plant, who is the other half of the
team’s innovative division. Resource Investigators typically get a good reception
from others because of their warm and friendly nature. This clearly facilitates
liaison, which is, in fact, the Resource Investigator’s speciality.

In many cases the Plant and Resource Investigator may be complementary, the
Plant contributing the original ideas and the Resource Investigator contributing
information which allows decisions about feasibility and strategy to be made.

While Plants think intensely, Resource Investigators think on their feet. Though
creative, Plants may not be adaptable. If their schemes start to flounder they may
not be capable of wriggling out of the situation. Conversely the Resource
Investigator is adaptable in circumstances of imminent failure, as well as in times of
success. The Resource Investigator will look into every corner for some valuable
piece of information, which may facilitate improvisation and ultimately save the
day. Furthermore, the Resource Investigator is a negotiator, which in itself clearly
has a great value in the process of realizing ideas.

8
 6 The Expert System

The Resource Investigator is a curious explorer, but enthusiasm for any particular
issue may be short lived. In particular, enthusiasm is inclined to flag if the Resource
Investigator does not receive stimulation from others.

Completer (Finisher)
Completers pay attention to detail. They are hard working and conscientious. As
the title suggests, they are good at picking up the loose ends and tying them up,
but Completers do more than this because they are also organizers. They are
concerned about making sure the detailed aspects of a project, such as pilot testing
and general administrative matters, are planned into schedules.

Completers tend to be anxious, but their anxiety is not usually apparent to others.
Their emotions are generally kept to themselves. They have great self-discipline
and they respect discipline and orderliness in others. Completers tend to work
consistently and to aim for success by these means rather than going for the
opportunistic approach with spectacular success in mind. Completers are reluctant
to let a matter go unfinished. While this tenacity is clearly desirable in most
circumstances, there are occasions when Completers may hold on too long,
refusing to accept defeat, even when a project is not worth pursuing further.

The Completer is a necessary complement to the more radical team members, who
are apt to show great enthusiasm for projects during their early stages of design
and planning but tend later to transfer their enthusiasm elsewhere. The final stages
of implementation may be left to a large extent in the reliable hands of the
Completer, who will make sure that completion is finally achieved with no detail
overlooked. Although rather unimaginative at a social level, the Completer will be
well accepted by other team members because of the appreciation which the
Completer elicits through performing this role.

Team Worker
Team Workers are sociable but not dominant. They are good communicators,
trusting, sensitive and caring. They will tend to place the group’s objectives and the
smooth running maintenance of the group itself before their own personal
ambition. Team Workers are perceptive and diplomatic. They are not critical of
other team members and tend not to make group decisions. One potential source
of a team’s failure is the in-fighting which may occur between difficult team
members. These team members may have skills which are essential to the team’s
success, but unconstructive debate, mutual criticism or frustration at the lack of
recognition for personal contributions may result in the waste of the valuable
resources which these team members possess. The role, therefore, of the Team
Worker is to avert such interpersonal problems and hence allow each of the team
members to contribute effectively. This may be done in a variety of ways, possibly
through a good-humored remark, a word of encouragement, or any form of input
which is likely to reduce tension.

9
 6 The Expert System

It is not uncommon for senior managers to be Team Workers, particularly if their

line managers are competitive and strongly goal-oriented themselves. The presence
of a Team Worker may contribute greatly to the team’s success, simply by
facilitating better cooperation amongst team members. It is quite common for an
individual to be both a Team Worker and another type, so the team-oriented role
may be accompanied by a goal-oriented role within the same person.

Implementer (Company Worker)

As is the case with the Completer type, the Implementer is an essential
complement to the team’s innovative enthusiasts. The Implementer is conscientious
and, like the Completer, is concerned with detail. Implementers are excellent
executives for schemes which others have devised. They are good organizers, they
are capable of directing reports, they tend to be well controlled emotionally and
have a preference for orderliness and routine.

Intercorrelations of The Implementer differs from the Completer in some subtle ways. For example,
the team types are while the Completer is driven by an anxiety to do the job well and reach
presented in the completion, the Implementer is not anxious but is driven instead by identification
with the organization, together with a set of principles which favor hard work and
Appendix.
application. It is because of Implementers’ capacity for application that they are
often left to cope with aspects of work which are held by others to be both
difficult and undesirable. Good Implementers are extremely valuable.

Leadership Styles Style

Another important consideration in assessment concerns how an individual will fit

into vertical relationships, such as between manager and reports.

The Leadership Styles-+ Reports provide a profile running from the leadership style
the individual is most likely to adopt to the least preferred style. This is followed
by short descriptions of the ways in which the person’s behavioral style matches
the leadership style and indications of the reporting types he or she is likely to
manage well. Information on reporting style is similarly structured. Appendices
providing brief definitions of each of the styles conclude each of the reports. It is
possible to produce the profiles without the narrative if desired.

Bass’ analysis of leadership has suggested five broad leadership styles. Four of
these are based on the fundamental “Task vs. People” interaction, while a fifth
reflects leadership negotiated on a transactional, “you do this for me/I do that for
you,” basis.

10
 6 The Expert System

Figure 1: Importance of people and tasks for the five leadership styles

High Directive Consultative

Tasks Negotiative

Low Delegative Participative

Low People High

Bass, B M (1981).
Stodgill’s Handbook
For each of these leadership styles it is possible to define a complementary
reporting role. For example, a Directive Leader may operate from an independence of Leadership :A
of mind. The complementary reporting role would tend to emphasize more survey of theory and
dependence of mind, i.e., someone who is happier operating with clear direction. research. Free Press.
The five leadership styles, together with their complementary reporting styles are
shown in Table 3 with summary descriptions.

Longer descriptions of each of the styles follows, together with a discussion of

strengths and weaknesses associated with each.

11
 6 The Expert System

Table 3: Leadership and complementary reporting styles

STYLE ATTRIBUTES
Directive Leader Maintains responsibility for planning and control. Issues instructions
in line with own perception of priorities.

Receptive Report Adheres to instructions and deadlines. Prefers to work with clear
direction from above.

Delegative Leader Minimal personal involvement. Believes in delegation of task and

responsibility.

Self-Reliant Report Prefers to work without constraints. Has own ideas and enjoys the
opportunity to develop them with minimal intervention.

Participative Leader Prefers consensus decision making. Prepared to take time over
decisions. Ensures involvement of all relevant individuals.

Collaborating Report Many ideas to contribute. Enjoys the collaborative decision-making

process and prefers radical methods to conventional.

Consultative Leader Pays genuine attention to opinions/feelings of reports but maintains

a clear sense of task objectives and makes the final decisions.

Informative Report Likes to be involved in decision making, but accepts final decision
even if contrary to personally held views.

Negotiative Leader Makes deals with reports. Influences others by identifying their
needs and using these as a basis for negotiation.

Reciprocating Report Not afraid to speak up and undeterred by status. Responds less well
to direction than persuasion. May be stubborn but task orientated.

Directive leader
Directive leaders provide their reports with comprehensive instructions about what
to do and how to do it. They tend to plan in detail and provide reports with
schedules. They will monitor the work of their reports and make sure that they are
working to capacity and on schedule for deadlines.

Directive leaders tend not to seek the opinions of their reports. They do not
generally approve of individualistic styles amongst their reports but prefer to
maintain standard ways of doing things.

Directive leaders may be perceived by others as overbearing and possibly lacking

in warmth, but they do have a strong goal-orientation, and providing their own
abilities are strong, they are likely to produce results given the right reports.

12
 6 The Expert System

Receptive report
Receptive reports tend to opt for orthodox methods in favor of independently
derived approaches. They are malleable and generally do not have strong views of
their own. They are not critical of the proposals which others make, but are ready
to accept direction from their superiors. They will stick to deadlines and will be
prepared to accept routine ways of completing tasks. Receptive reports are not
likely to overlook details, and are in fact anxious to achieve set goals, although this
anxiety, and emotions generally, are not freely displayed.

Delegative leader
Delegative leaders communicate with their reports less than leaders who adopt
other styles. Reports are given a relatively free hand. Delegative leaders do not give
clearly defined instructions and do not plan the work of their reports. They tend
not to consult their reports about the ways in which projects should be
approached. They simply hand over the work to be done, possibly with a few
suggestions but no more.

Delegative leaders are not likely to have great insight into human nature and are
not particularly sympathetic, or understanding of a report’s needs. They are likely
to be free from anxiety and are generally good humored and relatively
unconcerned about how reports are coping.

Although the characteristics of the Delegative leader are generally negative, it is the
case that reports whose natural style is to be very independent cannot always work
well under the supervision of other leaders. This is because they are constrained or
distracted by the interventions of a leader whose involvement is more active.

Self-Reliant report
This is the report who works well under a Delegative leader. The Self-Reliant
report is typically independent, disliking the constraints of methodologies imposed
by others and preferring to generate personal views. The Self-Reliant report may be
difficult to manage by a leader who is not prepared to give a free hand, but not for
a leader who prefers to leave work in the hands of reports.

Self-Reliant reports are likely to be both creative and oriented towards getting
results. As a result, their innovations tend to be practical and designed to fulfil
specified requirements. The Self-Reliant report may be quite unrestrained
emotionally, which could be a source of problems if this reporting style is paired
with a non-complementary leadership style.

13
 6 The Expert System

Participative leader
Participative leadership is the most democratic. Typical Participative leaders prefer
consensus decisions which result from group discussion during which all group
members have relatively equal status. Although the Participative leaders are quite
persuasive, they are far from overbearing with regard to their opinions. Their way
of achieving motivation and commitment from their group members is to provide
them with the opportunity to have real involvement.

The Participative leader’s social style is warm and friendly. He or she is also
concerned for the well-being of reports, making an effort to understand them in
order that they may be better able to involve fully all individuals in the group
effort. Participative leaders’ approach to leadership itself may be quite
unconventional, even undisciplined, in the eyes of others, because they tend not to
utilize their status as leader in a strongly directive way. They are more likely to use
their position as leader to maintain democracy by preventing individual group
members from overpowering and excluding others.

Collaborating report
The complement to a Participative leader is someone who shares his or her rather
unconventional conceptions on minimizing the importance of status to allow
individual contribution from all group members. Collaborating reports are apt to
contribute freely because they are not short of original ideas, and they are not
reserved about challenging the views of others if they can identify weaknesses in
plans or methods.

Collaborating reports tend to be friendly individuals and, as such, are predisposed

towards group work. In spite of their capacity for constructive criticism, they are
not inflexible in their views; if they feel there is a problem with a particular
proposal they will speak up but will ultimately accept the consensus decision even
if it is contrary to the line which they have taken. Typically, their critical approach
is also accompanied by a degree of good humored optimism.

Consultative leader
As is the case with Participative leaders, the personality traits which characterize
Consultative leaders focus around their approach to decision making. Consultative
leaders are strongly inclined towards group work and the involvement of all group
members in decision-making processes. However, Consultative leaders, while
preferring the democratic approach in principle, are likely to make final decisions
themselves. This means that reports are given every opportunity to contribute their
views. Consultative leaders, after having considered all views, may come to a
decision which is not consensual, but rather a product of their own analysis.
Consultative leaders do not ignore the opinions offered by their reports, but they
may come to a decision which is in contrast to them.

14
 6 The Expert System

Consultative leaders are friendly in their approach to reports but, nevertheless, are
quite directive when they feel that instruction and organization from the front are
required. Consultative leaders seek to understand the thinking style of their reports.
They are not slow to challenge the arguments presented to them, although they are
themselves quite sensitive and generally unwilling to aim criticism at a personal level.

Informative report
Since Consultative leaders do seek the advice and opinions of reports, their ideal
reciprocator is somebody who can provide them with sound and useful
information. Informative reports should be individuals who can draw on a firm
theoretical understanding of problems to generate suggestions. They are likely to
be critical in their own analysis so that their suggestions are not full of overlooked
weaknesses, and they will be forthcoming with original ideas and creative solutions
to problems. In other words, their thinking style must be both logical and lateral.
They should share their preferred leader’s orientation towards group-based effort
and allowance for individual contributions from all team members, but must also be
sufficiently flexible with respect to their own ideas and opinions for them to stand
down gracefully when their contributions are not accepted by the group’s leader.

Negotiative leader
Negotiative leaders are not autocratic in their style but instead persuade their
reports to comply, often using incentives to encourage the desired response. As
their name suggests, they negotiate with their reports, conveying to them that they
are prepared to offer a quid pro quo for work done in accordance with their
wishes. They epitomize what is often called “transactional leadership”.

Negotiative leaders are opportunists, having insight into what makes people tick.
They are politically aware and are skilful social interactors. They use these
characteristics to get tasks underway and ultimately completed. They are inclined to
adapt their own behavior according to circumstances as successful sales people
often do. They are able to conceal their emotions when necessary, and may even
fake emotional responses in order to make interpersonal alliances which will, at
some point, be of practical use.

Because of their strong need for achievement, Negotiative leaders will go to some
lengths to get jobs done, which may involve bending the rules. Negotiative leaders
are ambitious and play to win.

15
 6 The Expert System

Reciprocating report
Though not as malleable as the Negotiative leaders would like, it is the
Reciprocating report who will complement a Negotiative leader to produce good
results. Reciprocating reports tend to be quite individualistic in approach and are
capable themselves of organizing and directing others. They are not intimidated by
the status of others but may have a slightly inflated perception of their own status.
They appreciate the negotiative style of their preferred leader and would not
respond well to a leader whose approach was more autocratic.

Emotionally, Reciprocating reports are stable, generally being able to ignore

personal slights which are at their expense and having few problems in containing
feelings which may have undesired consequences if freely displayed.

Although Reciprocating reports are not typically competitive with their colleagues,
they do share the Negotiative leader’s goal orientation. The relationship between
the two allows the leader to persuade the report that an idea is worth pursuing.
The intercorrelation This may not be easy, however, because the reports are inclined to have strong
of the leadership and opinions of their own. However, if persuaded, reports will utilize their
organizational and directive abilities in implementation.
reporting styles is
provided in the It is important to realize that the ideal complement for a Negotiative leader is not
Appendix. somebody who is easily persuaded and happy to accept the views of others. A
report of this kind may have more synergy with a Directive leader. If a leader is to
take a Negotiative style, it is preferable that the process of negotiation itself should
be productive.

Management Competency Profile

This report uses the 16 management competencies of the SHL Inventory of

Management Competencies (IMC) as headings under which there is an indication
of the individual’s likely competence in that area, plus bullet point interpretations
of the relevant personality dimensions that contribute to the potential competence.
It is important to note that this interpretation is based solely upon the OPQ32
profile (and aptitude scores if available). No information about the individual’s
actual competence is used. As such, it is likely to be a useful basis for discussion in
a career development context, or in a selection situation when considered along
with other measures of competence (for example, within the context of an
assessment center or competency-based interview). The introduction to the report
alerts users to the importance of considering the format of the OPQ32 questionnaire
completed and the impact of this upon the individual’s profile. In particular, if the
ipsative (OPQ32i) version has been completed, the forced choice nature of the
responses means that the individual cannot score highly on all competence areas. In
this format, the profile should be taken as an indication of the candidate’s likely
relative strengths and limitations across the competencies considered.

16
 6 The Expert System

The following Table provides definitions of each of the Management Competencies

covered.

Table 4: IMC Management Competencies

Competency Description
Leadership Motivates and empowers others in order to reach organizational goals.

Planning & Organizing Organizes and schedules events, activities and resources. Sets up and
monitors timeframes and plans.

Quality Orientation Shows awareness of goals and standards. Follows through to ensure that
quality and productivity standards are met.

Persuasiveness Influences, convinces or impresses others in a way that results in

acceptance, agreement or behavior change.

Specialist Knowledge Understands technical or professional aspects of work and continually

maintains technical knowledge.

Problem Solving & Analysis Analyzes issues and breaks them down into their component parts.
Makes systematic and rational judgements based on relevant information.

Oral Communication Speaks clearly, fluently and in a compelling manner to both individuals
and groups.

Written Communication Writes in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate grammar, style
and language for the reader.

Commercial Awareness Understands and applies commercial and financial principles.Views issues
in terms of costs, profits, markets and added value.

Creativity & Innovation Creates new and imaginative approaches to work-related issues.
Identifies fresh approaches and shows a willingness to question
traditional assumptions.

Action Orientation Demonstrates a readiness to make decisions, take the initiative and
originate action.

Strategic Demonstrates a broad-based view of issues, events and activities and a

perception of their longer term impact or wider implications.

Interpersonal Sensitivity Interacts with others in a sensitive and effective way. Respects and works
well with others.

Flexibility Successfully adapts to changing demands and conditions.

Resilience Maintains effective work behavior in the face of set-backs or pressure.

Remains calm, stable and in control of themselves.

Personal Motivation Commits self to work hard towards goals. Shows enthusiasm and career
commitment.

17
 6 The Expert System

Example reports

The following pages give the example of the Integrated Premium and Emotional
Intelligence Report based on the profile of Ms. Jane Smith.

Integrated Premium Report

Ms. Jane Smith

March 24, 2000

Internet: http://www.shlusa.com
E-mail: info.n-america@shlgroup.com

© SHL Group plc. 2000. All Rights Reserved

® SHL and OPQ are registered trademarks of SHL Group plc.

18
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Stens
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
rarely pressures others to change their views, dislikes Persuasive enjoys selling, comfortable using negotiation, likes to change other
7
selling, less comfortable using negotiation peopleís view

INFLUENCE
happy to let others take charge, dislikes telling people Controlling likes to be in charge, takes the lead, tells others what to do, takes
6 what to do, unlikely to take the lead control

holds back from criticizing others, may not express own Outspoken freely expresses opinions, makes disagreement clear, prepared to
8 views, unprepared to put forward own opinions criticize others

accepts majority decisions, prepared to follow the Independent Minded prefers to follow own approach, prepared to disregard majority
7 consensus decisions

quiet and reserved in groups, dislikes being center of Outgoing lively and animated in groups, talkative, enjoys attention
9 attention

SOCIABILITY
comfortable spending time away from people, values Affiliative enjoys othersí company, likes to be around people, can miss the
7 time spent alone, seldom misses the company of others company of others

feels more comfortable in less formal situations, can feel Socially Confident feels comfortable when first meeting people, at ease in formal
8 awkward when first meeting people situations

makes strengths and achievements known, talks about Modest dislikes discussing achievements, keeps quiet about personal
3 personal success success

EMPATHY
prepared to make decisions without consultation, prefers Democratic consults widely, involves others in decision making, less likely to
5 to make decisions alone make decisions alone

selective with sympathy and support, remains detached Caring sympathetic and considerate towards others, helpful and
4 from othersí personal problems supportive, gets involved in othersí problems
THINKING STYLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
prefers dealing with opinions and feelings rather than Data Rational likes working with numbers, enjoys analyzing statistical
8
facts and figures, likely to avoid using statistics information, bases decisions on facts and figures

ANALYSIS
does not focus on potential limitations, dislikes critically Evaluative
6 critically evaluates information, looks for potential limitations,
analyzing information, rarely looks for errors or
focuses upon errors
mistakes
does not question the reasons for peopleís behavior, Behavioral tries to understand motives and behaviors, enjoys analyzing people
7
tends not to analyze people

prefers changes to work methods, prefers new Conventional prefers well established methods, prefers a more conventional
2
approaches, less conventional approach

CREATIVITY AND CHANGE

prefers to deal with practical rather than theoretical Conceptual interested in theories, enjoys discussing abstract concepts
8
issues, dislikes dealing with abstract concepts

more likely to build on than generate ideas, less Innovative generates new ideas, enjoys being creative, thinks of original
5
inclined to be creative and inventive solutions

prefers routine, is prepared to do repetitive work, does Variety Seeking prefers variety, tries out new things, likes changes to regular
7
not seek variety routine, can become bored by repetitive work

behaves consistently across situations, unlikely to Adaptable changes behavior to suit the situation, adapts approach to different
7
behave differently with different people people

more likely to focus upon immediate than long-term Forward Thinking takes a long-term view, sets goals for the future, more likely to take
7
issues, less likely to take a strategic perspective a strategic perspective

STRUCTURE
unlikely to become preoccupied with detail, less Detail Conscious focuses on detail, likes to be methodical, organized and
6
organized and systematic, dislikes tasks involving detail systematic, may become preoccupied with detail

sees deadlines as flexible, prepared to leave some Conscientious focuses on getting things finished, persists until the job is done
5
tasks unfinished

not restricted by rules and procedures, prepared to Rule Following follows rules and regulations, prefers clear guidelines, finds it
3
break rules, tends to dislike bureaucracy difficult to break rules

FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

tends to feel tense, finds it difficult to relax, can find it Relaxed finds it easy to relax, rarely feels tense, generally calm and
7
hard to unwind after work untroubled

feels calm before important occasions, less affected by W orrying feels nervous before important occasions, worries about things
3
key events, free from worry going wrong

sensitive, easily hurt by criticism, upset by unfair Tough Minded not easily offended, can ignore insults, may be insensitive to
EMOTION

8
comments or insults personal criticism

concerned about the future, expects things to go wrong, Optimistic expects things will turn out well, looks to the positive aspects of a
7
focuses on negative aspects of a situation situation, has an optimistic view of the future

wary of othersí intentions, finds it difficult to trust others, Trusting trusts people, sees others as reliable and honest, believes what
5
unlikely to be fooled by people others say

openly expresses feelings, finds it difficult to conceal Emotionally Controlled can conceal feelings from others, rarely displays emotion
3
feelings, displays emotion clearly

likes to take things at a steady pace, dislikes excessive Vigorous thrives on activity, likes to keep busy, enjoys having a lot to do
6
work demands

dislikes competing with others, feels that taking part is Competitive

DYNAMISM

4 has a need to win, enjoys competitive activities, dislikes losing

more important than winning

sees career progression as less important, looks for Achieving ambitious and career-centered, likes to work to demanding goals
7
achievable rather than highly ambitious targets and targets

tends to be cautious when making decisions, likes to Decisive makes fast decisions, reaches conclusions quickly, less cautious
8
take time to reach conclusions

has been more self-critical in responses, is less Social Desirability has been less self-critical in responses, is more concerned to make
2 concerned to make a good impression a good impression

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 US OPQ32n General Occupational 1999

19
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

OPQ Behavioral Styles Report

Introduction

This report is designed for those who are qualified to interpret OPQ results. It
represents a powerful interpretation aid when preparing for a feedback interview,
writing an assessment report, or interpreting OPQ32 information across a range of
other contexts.

The report explores Ms. Smith's responses to the OPQ32n questionnaire. This gives a
profile of Ms. Smith's perceived preferences for different ways of behaving at work.

Each section presents an area of the OPQ32 profile, together with a narrative
interpretation of these scales and the links between them. Further links with other
sections of the profile (where these offer more in-depth understanding of the
individual) are then presented.

Remember, when considering the results of the personality questionnaire, it is

important to recognize that the responses given were Ms. Smith's own view, and
represent the way she sees her own behavior, rather than how her personality might be
described by another person. The accuracy of this report depends on the frankness
and honesty with which the questionnaire was completed as well as her level of self-
awareness. It should be noted that she has tended to be more self-critical than most
in her responses, and that this may have affected her profile as described below.

This report should be treated confidentially. The shelf-life of the information contained
in this report is considered to be 18-24 months, depending upon Ms. Smith's work role
and personal circumstances. To guarantee relevance, the profile and its interpretation
should always be directly related to the individual's current or future role.

20
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Relationships with People

Influence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RP1 Persuasive

RP2 Controlling

RP3 Outspoken

RP4 Independent Minded

Ms. Smith is fairly moderate when it comes to her influencing style. If called upon to
take charge, negotiate or sell an idea, she emerges as similar to others. However, if
anything she has slightly more preference to negotiate and sell than others. Ms. Smith
is likely to speak up when she feels that something needs saying. While she is
prepared to put forward her own views, she is only slightly less likely than others to
follow a consensus opinion rather than go her own way. She is likely to put her point
across passionately, but under most circumstances is still willing to accept a group
decision, even though she may disagree.

Her general feeling of confidence and ease with others is likely to strengthen the overall
impact that she has when trying to influence.

Sociability
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RP5 Outgoing

RP6 Affiliative

RP7 Socially confident

She is likely to be very sociable in a number of ways. She tends to be confident when
meeting strangers for the first time or addressing a group, and when part of a group she
tends to be an extremely lively talker. Her preference for spending time in the company
of people is very similar to that of most others, although she places a little more value
on spending time with others than is typical of the majority of people. In practice, she is
at ease with people, but also enjoys periods of time alone and will probably seek out
work which offers this balance.

In addition to her strong tendency to be the center of attention and very lively nature,
she rather enjoys telling others about her successes. This could potentially result in her
being seen as quite self-centered and boastful.

21
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Empathy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RP8 Modest

RP9 Democratic

RP10 Caring

Ms. Smith is someone who enjoys talking about her achievements and successes. At
the same time, her interest in other people's welfare and level of sympathy for their
problems is perhaps a little less apparent than is usual. When making decisions, she
probably consults others about as much as most. The fact that she talks about herself
may make some people think that she focuses solely on herself, however, this should
not detract from the fact that she is reasonably concerned about the welfare of others.

Thinking Style

Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TS1 Data Rational

TS2 Evaluative

TS3 Behavioral

Ms. Smith is comfortable working with numerical or statistical information. This

preference for numbers is coupled with a moderate interest, typical of the majority of
people, in critically analyzing information or plans proposed to her. She also reports a
slightly stronger than usual level of interest in analyzing people, their motivations and
behaviors. It is clear that her interest in data is strong and she may often focus on the
numerical side of any problem.

Ms. Smith's preference for numerical and statistical analysis is coupled with her prompt
decision-making style. This suggests that, when making decisions, she will feel
confident that she has considered the data and evaluated the alternative options. While
competence or ability cannot be inferred from personality alone, this combination
suggests that she is highly likely to feel comfortable drawing quick inferences from data,
and then using these to make quite rapid decisions. Her strong orientation towards
using data and statistics is further supported by an interest in thinking within a more
abstract or theoretical context. This should provide her with a powerful analytical style
when considering issues.

22
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Creativity and Change

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TS4 Conventional

TS5 Conceptual

TS6 Innovative

TS7 Variety Seeking

TS8 Adaptable

Ms. Smith reports an extremely strong preference for new ways of working and sees
herself as intellectually curious, enjoying discussing hypothetical or theoretical issues.
She couples this considerable interest in the theory and breadth of issues with a
moderate interest in the production of creative ideas. It would seem that she sees
herself as a radical thinker who wants to consider the theory and complexity involved,
but whose actual output of ideas may be more moderate.

Ms. Smith reports a level of interest in variety in her work which is a little more marked
than most of her peers. When she is faced with change, she recognizes, quite well, the
need to adapt her behavior to meet the perceived changing demands of the situation or
people. Overall, her approach to changing situations may be described as quite
adaptable.

Ms. Smith is likely to communicate her belief that radical approaches and methods are
preferrable to others in a forceful way. She will be prepared to argue the benefits of
these to others in order to get her message across and will do so in a reasonably
persuasive manner. Ms. Smith's attempts to persuade and influence others are likely to
be supported to some extent by her willingness to adapt her behavior according to the
situation.

Structure
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TS9 Forward Thinking

TS10 Detail Conscious

TS11 Conscientious

TS12 Rule Following

Ms. Smith reports a fairly typical perspective in terms of shorter versus longer-term
thinking. She combines a slight tendency to focus on the longer term with a balanced
view of working in a methodical and organized way. Thus, her desire to take a strategic
view, while not pronounced, is likely to take account of detail to a certain extent.

Ms. Smith reports as much interest in seeing tasks through to completion as most of her
peers. On the other hand, she seems disinclined to stick closely to rules and
regulations. It may be that she would rather disregard the rules if she feels they might
inhibit getting the job done. Her view appears to be that rules are made to be broken,
particularly if that will make it easier to meet a deadline or move on to a more
interesting or important task.

There appears to be a strong relationship between her attitude towards the constraints
of adhering to rules and regulations and her strong preference for taking a new
approach rather than sticking to established methods and values. Together, these may
cause her to be perceived as rebellious and likely to challenge the status quo of
operations and systems within the organization.

23
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Feelings and Emotions

Emotion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FE1 Relaxed

FE2 Worrying

FE3 Tough Minded

FE4 Optimistic

FE5 Trusting

FE6 Emotionally Controlled

Ms. Smith considers herself a little less anxious than most people. In addition, she
feels that when faced with stressful situations, she remains relatively calm. Her
calmness in important situations may actually help others stay relaxed, but there is also
the risk that she may appear less involved at times. Ms. Smith considers herself
resilient in the face of criticism and is unlikely to take offense at insults directed towards
her. This is accompanied by a relatively optimistic view of the future. Additionally, she
is relatively balanced in terms of trusting others and tends to invest about as much faith
in people as most.

She is someone who is prepared to show her emotions openly and people are likely to
be able to tell how she is feeling. When these emotions are positive or expressed as
enthusiasm, others may find this endearing or motivating. However, if the emotions are
negative or hostile this expression of emotion has the potential to be rather destructive.
Her willingness to speak out and criticize others is consistent with her own relative
insensitivity to criticism or negative comments. It may be that she feels that such
criticism is acceptable within the workplace, and to take it too much to heart would be
an overreaction.

Dynamism
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FE7 Vigorous

FE8 Competitive

FE9 Achieving

FE10 Decisive

Ms. Smith presents quite a consistent and typical picture when it comes to her sources
of energy and drive. Her level of career ambition is only a little higher than most. Her
desire to win within competitive situations is rather lower. In addition, she expresses a
fairly typical level of interest to most others in keeping busy and occupied at work.
Although not especially low, her levels of drive and energy are likely to come across as
moderate rather than highly dynamic. She reaches decisions quickly. This is likely to
be well received in an environment where risk-taking is acceptable, but less desired in a
situation where mistakes can lead to very serious consequences, perhaps in financial
situations or where people's safety is at risk.

24
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Managersí Report

Introduction
This report is based upon Ms. Smith's responses to a self-report personality
questionnaire, the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32n). This
questionnaire invited her to describe her behavior, preferences and attitudes, in
relation to different aspects of her working life, by indicating her level of agreement
or disagreement with a number of statements. Her responses have been compared
against those of a large relevant comparison group to give a profile of Ms. Smith's
perceived preferences for different ways of behaving at work. These are grouped
into three main areas: Relationships with People, Thinking Style and Feelings and
Emotions.

This report should be treated confidentially. It describes Ms. Smith's personality

profile and makes links between the various aspects involved. When considering
the results of the personality questionnaire, it is important to recognize the
responses given were Ms. Smith's own view, and represent the way she sees her
own behavior, rather than how her personality might be described by another person.
The accuracy of this report depends on the frankness and honesty with which the
questionnaire was completed, as well as her self-awareness. The comments made
here should therefore be seen as tentative rather than infallible. Nevertheless, this
self-report can provide important indicators of Ms. Smith's style at work, and it is
likely to enable us to predict a good deal about her behavior in different situations.

Note that the questionnaire describes Ms. Smith's preferred style of behaving rather
than her competence or ability. The questionnaire gives a broad picture of her
current style, and so the report is necessarily quite general. The greatest value can
be gained by discussing the implications of this information against her current or
future role. The shelf-life of the information contained in the report is considered to
be 18-24 months, depending on Ms. Smith's work role and personal circumstances.
If there have been major changes in her life or there is a significant change in role,
she should complete the questionnaire again.

If you have any concerns regarding the content of this report, please raise these with
someone who has received full training in the use of OPQ questionnaires.

25
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Relationships with People

Influence
Ms. Smith is fairly moderate when it comes to her influencing style. If called upon to
take charge, negotiate or sell an idea, she emerges as similar to others. However, if
anything she has slightly more preference to negotiate and sell than others. Ms.
Smith is likely to speak up when she feels that something needs saying. While she
is prepared to put forward her own views, she is only slightly less likely than others
to follow a consensus opinion rather than go her own way. She is likely to put her
point across passionately, but under most circumstances is still willing to accept a
group decision, even though she may disagree.

Her general feeling of confidence and ease with others is likely to strengthen the
overall impact that she has when trying to influence.

Sociability
She is likely to be very sociable in a number of ways. She tends to be confident
when meeting strangers for the first time or addressing a group, and when part of a
group she tends to be an extremely lively talker. Her preference for spending time
in the company of people is very similar to that of most others, although she places
a little more value on spending time with others than is typical of the majority of
people. In practice, she is at ease with people, but also enjoys periods of time alone
and will probably seek out work which offers this balance.

In addition to her strong tendency to be the center of attention and very lively
nature, she rather enjoys telling others about her successes. This could potentially
result in her being seen as quite self-centered and boastful.

Empathy
Ms. Smith is someone who enjoys talking about her achievements and successes.
At the same time, her interest in other people's welfare and level of sympathy for
their problems is perhaps a little less apparent than is usual. When making
decisions, she probably consults others about as much as most. The fact that she
talks about herself may make some people think that she focuses solely on herself,
however, this should not detract from the fact that she is reasonably concerned
about the welfare of others.

26
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Thinking Style

Analysis
Ms. Smith is comfortable working with numerical or statistical information. This
preference for numbers is coupled with a moderate interest, typical of the majority of
people, in critically analyzing information or plans proposed to her. She also reports
a slightly stronger than usual level of interest in analyzing people, their motivations
and behaviors. It is clear that her interest in data is strong and she may often focus
on the numerical side of any problem.

Ms. Smith's preference for numerical and statistical analysis is coupled with her
prompt decision-making style. This suggests that, when making decisions, she will
feel confident that she has considered the data and evaluated the alternative
options. While competence or ability cannot be inferred from personality alone, this
combination suggests that she is highly likely to feel comfortable drawing quick
inferences from data, and then using these to make quite rapid decisions. Her
strong orientation towards using data and statistics is further supported by an
interest in thinking within a more abstract or theoretical context. This should provide
her with a powerful analytical style when considering issues.

Creativity and Change

Ms. Smith reports an extremely strong preference for new ways of working and sees
herself as intellectually curious, enjoying discussing hypothetical or theoretical
issues. She couples this considerable interest in the theory and breadth of issues
with a moderate interest in the production of creative ideas. It would seem that she
sees herself as a radical thinker who wants to consider the theory and complexity
involved, but whose actual output of ideas may be more moderate.

Ms. Smith reports a level of interest in variety in her work which is a little more
marked than most of her peers. When she is faced with change, she recognizes,
quite well, the need to adapt her behavior to meet the perceived changing demands
of the situation or people. Overall, her approach to changing situations may be
described as quite adaptable.

Ms. Smith is likely to communicate her belief that radical approaches and methods
are preferrable to others in a forceful way. She will be prepared to argue the
benefits of these to others in order to get her message across and will do so in a
reasonably persuasive manner. Ms. Smith's attempts to persuade and influence
others are likely to be supported to some extent by her willingness to adapt her
behavior according to the situation.

10

27
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Structure
Ms. Smith reports a fairly typical perspective in terms of shorter versus longer-term
thinking. She combines a slight tendency to focus on the longer term with a
balanced view of working in a methodical and organized way. Thus, her desire to
take a strategic view, while not pronounced, is likely to take account of detail to a
certain extent.

Ms. Smith reports as much interest in seeing tasks through to completion as most of
her peers. On the other hand, she seems disinclined to stick closely to rules and
regulations. It may be that she would rather disregard the rules if she feels they
might inhibit getting the job done. Her view appears to be that rules are made to be
broken, particularly if that will make it easier to meet a deadline or move on to a
more interesting or important task.

There appears to be a strong relationship between her attitude towards the

constraints of adhering to rules and regulations and her strong preference for taking
a new approach rather than sticking to established methods and values. Together,
these may cause her to be perceived as rebellious and likely to challenge the status
quo of operations and systems within the organization.

Feelings and Emotions

Emotion
Ms. Smith considers herself a little less anxious than most people. In addition, she
feels that when faced with stressful situations, she remains relatively calm. Her
calmness in important situations may actually help others stay relaxed, but there is
also the risk that she may appear less involved at times. Ms. Smith considers
herself resilient in the face of criticism and is unlikely to take offense at insults
directed towards her. This is accompanied by a relatively optimistic view of the
future. Additionally, she is relatively balanced in terms of trusting others and tends
to invest about as much faith in people as most.

She is someone who is prepared to show her emotions openly and people are likely
to be able to tell how she is feeling. When these emotions are positive or expressed
as enthusiasm, others may find this endearing or motivating. However, if the
emotions are negative or hostile this expression of emotion has the potential to be
rather destructive. Her willingness to speak out and criticize others is consistent
with her own relative insensitivity to criticism or negative comments. It may be that
she feels that such criticism is acceptable within the workplace, and to take it too
much to heart would be an overreaction.

Dynamism
Ms. Smith presents quite a consistent and typical picture when it comes to her
sources of energy and drive. Her level of career ambition is only a little higher than
most. Her desire to win within competitive situations is rather lower. In addition,
she expresses a fairly typical level of interest to most others in keeping busy and
occupied at work. Although not especially low, her levels of drive and energy are
likely to come across as moderate rather than highly dynamic. She reaches
decisions quickly. This is likely to be well received in an environment where risk-
taking is acceptable, but less desired in a situation where mistakes can lead to very
serious consequences, perhaps in financial situations or where people's safety is at
risk.

11

28
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Management Competency Profile

Introduction

This report summarizes how Ms. Smith's preferred style or typical way of behaving is likely to
influence her potential on a range of management competencies.

The format of the personality questionnaire that she completed (OPQ32n) asked her to rate herself
on a series of different statements and her responses were then compared against the responses
given by similar others, such as managers & professionals. The profile below is best viewed as
indicating how her self-perception of her style is likely to impact her potential on each competency,
compared with how others view themselves.

The ticks, crosses and circles indicate which aspects of her style are likely to contribute positively
or more negatively to each competency. The overall fit between Ms. Smith's style and each
competency (as outlined above) is shown in the bar graphs on the right hand side of the report.

The key explains these competency fit indicators in more detail.

The competencies are more fully defined on the final page of this report.

Key to Competency Fit Indicators

Key Likely Moderate Likely Key

Limitation Limitation Strength Strength

1 - Poor 2 - Weak 3 - Average 4 - Good 5 - Excellent

Fit Fit Fit Fit Fit

12

29
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Managerial Qualities
Generally uses persuasion when motivating others. 1 2 3 4 5
Is prepared to take charge of a group when required. Leadership
Consults others to a reasonable degree when making decisions.
Is very outgoing and high profile when with others.

Tends to consider the longer term view when planning. 1 2 3 4 5

Pays reasonable attention to detail when planning. Planning & Organizing
Gives some thought to potential difficulties in a plan.
Recognizes the need to complete plans to deadline.

May break rules, possibly affecting quality compliance. 1 2 3 4 5

Moderately concerned with evaluating against standards. Quality Orientation
Pays a fair degree of attention to detail when reviewing work.
Places a degree of emphasis on quality and task completion.

Is quite interested in selling and negotiating. 1 2 3 4 5

Holds quite strong views and is reluctant to change these. Persuasive
Likely to feel very confident when formally presenting views.
Persuasion of others aided by her strong outgoing approach.

Professional Qualities
Is very interested in applying theory to professional practices. 1 2 3 4 5
Likely to evaluate technical developments fairly critically. *Specialist Knowledge
Enjoys working with numerical data.
May question the consensus view of developments in her area.

May not always spot potential difficulties in solutions. 1 2 3 4 5

Likely to apply theories and concepts to problem solving. Problem Solving &
Enjoys problem solving with numerical data. Analysis
Tends to show flexibility when implementing solutions.

Feels very confident and at ease when speaking formally. 1 2 3 4 5

Generally enjoys using a persuasive and convincing style. Oral Communication
Is extremely outgoing and sociable in manner.
Generally adopts a different style to suit her audience.

1 2 3 4 5
Will spend some time evaluating written work for errors. **Written
Likes working with theoretical or conceptual documents. Communication

Specialist Knowledge tends to be specific to the particular job; these aspects of style may not be appropriate for some specialties.
Written Communication is best assessed using written exercises (e.g. in-basket) or verbal tests rather than based primarily on the responses
to a personality questionnaire.

13

30
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Entrepreneurial Qualities
May sometimes lack competitive edge in commercial situations. 1 2 3 4 5
Is quite likely to be motivated by stretching business targets. Commercial Awareness
Brings a degree of sales focus to a commercial environment.
Can generally separate commercial from personnel issues.

Sees herself as a reasonably creative individual. 1 2 3 4 5

Questions traditional methods when generating ideas. Creativity & Innovation
Prepared to challenge the rules when implementing an idea.
Usually applies intellectual analysis to the creative process.

Decides upon a course of action quickly. 1 2 3 4 5

Has reasonable energy reserves with which to initiate action. Action
Quite high emphasis on targets likely to encourage action. Orientation
Will balance a desire to check detail with a need for action.

Somewhat enjoys thinking in the longer term. 1 2 3 4 5

Balances attention to detail with taking a broader overview. Strategic
Enjoys working with theoretical strategic models.
Sets quite demanding long-term goals.

Personal Qualities
Slightly less inclined to offer support to colleagues in need. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages others to contribute to some extent. Interpersonal Sensitivity
Finds difficulty in holding back criticism of others' views.
Values cooperation somewhat more than competition.

Enjoys variety and change. 1 2 3 4 5

Generally adjusts behavior to new circumstances. Flexibility
Sometimes rejects group consensus and goes own way.
Is fairly optimistic when faced with change.

Finds it fairly easy to remain relaxed. 1 2 3 4 5

Deals with criticism easily and is very unlikely to dwell on it. Resilience
Prefers to be open in expressing emotions.
Is fairly likely to take an optimistic and positive view.

Has reasonable levels of energy and keeps fairly busy. 1 2 3 4 5

Is fairly ambitious and likely to seek career progression. Personal Motivation
Is quite unlikely to be motivated by the prospect of winning.

14

31
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Competency Definitions
Area Competency Definition
Motivates and empowers others in order to reach
Leadership
organizational goals.

Organizes and schedules events, activities and

Planning & Organizing
resources. Sets up and monitors timescales and plans.
Managerial Qualities Shows awareness of goals and standards. Follows
Quality Orientation through to ensure that quality and productivity standards
are met.
Influences, convinces or impresses others in a way that
Persuasiveness
results in acceptance, agreement or behavior change.

Understands technical or professional aspects of work

Specialist Knowledge
Problem Solving & Analysis
Professional Qualities
Oral Communication
and continually maintains technical knowledge.
Analyzes issues and breaks them down into their
component parts. Makes systematic and rational
judgements based on relevant information.
Speaks clearly, fluently and in a compelling manner to
both individuals and groups.

Writes in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate

Written Communication
grammar, style and language for the reader.

Understands and applies commercial and financial

Commercial Awareness
Creativity & Innovation
Entrepreneurial Qualities
Action Orientation
Strategic
principles. Views issues in terms of costs, profits,
markets and added value.
Creates new and imaginative approaches to work-related
issues. Identifies fresh approaches and shows a
willingness to question traditional assumptions.
Demonstrates a readiness to make decisions, take the
initiative and originate action.
Demonstrates a broad-based view of issues, events and
activities and a perception of their longer term impact or
wider implications.

Interacts with others in a sensitive and effective way.

Interpersonal Sensitivity
Respects and works well with others.

Successfully adapts to changing demands and

Flexibility
conditions.
Personal Qualities Maintains effective work behavior in the face of setbacks
Resilience or pressure. Remains calm, stable and in control of
themselves.
Commits self to work hard towards goals. Shows
Personal Motivation
enthusiasm and career commitment.

15

32
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Team Types

Introduction

This report summarizes Ms. Smith's preferred team types based upon her personality
profile. It identifies the styles she is likely to adopt, those she may adopt under some
circumstances, and those she is unlikely to adopt when working in a team or group
situation. It then describes likely behaviors of people with a similar level of preference
for that team type.

Unlikely to adopt May adopt Likely to adopt Team Type

Resource Investigator

Coordinator

Shaper

Plant

Monitor Evaluator

Team Worker

Implementer

Completer
US OPQ32n General Occupational 1999

Likely to Adopt

Resource Investigator
She is very likely to have many contacts and networks outside of the team and knows how to obtain relevant
information or support. It is possible though, that she may neglect the task at hand in favor of developing
new relationships.

Coordinator
She may be prepared to manage or chair the team in a consultative, empowering way. She is likely to
provide direction to discussions and actively invite contributions from other team members.

Shaper
She adds to the competitive drive of the team and pushes to reach targets and achieve set goals within the
available time frames.

16

33
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

May Adopt

Plant
She sees herself as a potential source of original and creative ideas. It is possible that others in the team
may be stronger in this role.

Monitor Evaluator
She is prepared to spend some time analyzing problems and evaluating ideas and suggestions. In doing so,
she may help to prevent the team from pursuing misguided objectives.

Team Worker
She may be fairly supportive and encouraging of others, probably helping to promote harmony in the team.
She is likely to facilitate communication between team members without taking on a very dominant role.

Implementer
She is likely to spend some time turning decisions, ideas and strategies into manageable practical tasks.
She probably breaks down activities into logical steps to pursue agreed objectives.

Unlikely to Adopt

Completer
She is unlikely to focus on detail or to be the member of the team who makes sure that a task is completed
to perfection. She probably leaves tying up any loose ends and paying attention to the finer points to others.

17

34
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Team Type Descriptions

Extensive research by Meredith Belbin (1981)* has highlighted eight particular roles,
or team ìtypesî which appear to have special relevance in most organizational
structures. Each type contributes an important element towards good group
performance, and teams incorporating each of these types, as opposed to a
predominance of any one, tend to be more successful.

The attributes associated with each of the eight team types are summarized below:

Coordinator
• Sets the team goals and defines roles.
• Coordinates team efforts and leads by eliciting respect.

Shaper
• The task leader who brings competitive drive to the team.
• Makes things happen but may be thought abrasive.

Plant
• Imaginative, intelligent and the teamís source of original ideas.
• Concerned with fundamentals.

Monitor Evaluator
• Offers measured, dispassionate critical analysis.
• Keeps team from pursuing misguided objectives.

Resource Investigator
• Sales person, diplomat, resource seeker.
• Good improviser with many external contacts.
• May be easily diverted from task at hand.

Completer
• W orries about problems. Personally checks details.
• Intolerant of the casual and sloppy. Sees project through.

Team Worker
• Promotes team harmony. Good listener who builds upon the ideas of others.
• Likeable and unassertive.

Implementer
• Turns decisions and strategies into manageable tasks.
• Brings logical, methodical pursuit of objectives to the team.

*Belbin,RM (1981); Management Teams, Heinemann

18

35
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Leadership Styles

Introduction

This report summarizes Ms. Smith's preferred styles of leadership based upon her
personality profile. It identifies the styles she is likely to adopt, those she may adopt under
some circumstances, and those she is unlikely to adopt when managing people. This report
then describes likely behaviors of people with a similar level of preference for that
leadership style. Finally, it identifies the type of reports she is likely to manage well.

Unlikely to adopt May adopt Likely to adopt Leadership Style

Negotiative Leader

Directive Leader

Delegative Leader

Participative Leader

Consultative Leader
US OPQ32n General Occupational 1999

Likely to Adopt

Negotiative Leader
She is willing to negotiate with staff to make sure that their motivation is maintained. She is insightful as to
how to reward staff, often inducing performance to its full potential.

Manages Well
Reciprocating Reports who like to negotiate to reach agreement about their personal and work objectives.

Directive Leader
She is reasonably prepared to provide others with clear direction. She tends to expect staff to do as they are
told in an unquestioning way and will manage others in line with her own sense of priorities.

Manages Well
Receptive Reports who look for explicit and frequent direction.

Delegative Leader
She is reasonably inclined to leave staff to manage themselves. She tends to delegate work to others and
allows them to use their own initiative.

Manages Well
Self-Reliant Reports who work well on their own and do not need constant direction.

Participative Leader
She tends to prefer to work with others as part of the team. She will generally involve staff in joint decision-
making .

Manages Well
Collaborative Reports who enjoy democratic decision-making with their views being taken into consideration.

19

36
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Likely to Adopt

Consultative Leader
She prefers to consult before making a decision. Nonetheless, she is still likely to maintain a clear sense of
overall objectives and to take responsibility for the final decision.

Manages Well
Informative Reports who provide information and enjoy being consulted

Unlikely to Adopt
There are no styles which Ms. Smith is unlikely to adopt. As such she is likely to be quite flexible in her manner of
leadership.

20

37
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Leadership Styles Descriptions

An analysis of leadership by Bass (1981)* has suggested five broad leadership styles.
Four of these are based on the fundamental ìtask v peopleî interaction. For instance,
someone who is more focused on the task at hand than the people in the team will tend
to be a Directive Leader. A fifth reflects leadership ìnegotiatedî on a ìtit-for-tat ñ you
do this for me/I do that for youî basis.

Directive Leader
• Maintains responsibility for planning and control

• Issues instructions in line with own perception of priorities.

Delegative Leader
• Minimal personal involvement.

• Believes in delegation of task and responsibility.

Participative Leader
• Prefers consensus decision making.

• Prepared to take time over decisions.

• Ensures involvement of all relevant individuals.

Consultative Leader
• Pays genuine attention to opinions and feelings of subordinates, but maintains a clear sense of
task objectives and makes the final decisions.

Negotiative Leader
• Makes deals with subordinates.

• Influences others by identifying their needs and using these as a basis for negotiation.

*Bass, B M (1981) Stodgillís Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. Free Press.

21

38
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Reporting Styles

Introduction

This report summarizes Ms. Smith's preferred reporting styles based upon her
personality profile. It identifies the styles she is likely to adopt, those she may adopt
under some circumstances, and those she is unlikely to adopt when being managed.
This report then describes likely behaviors of people with a similar level of preference
for that reporting style. Finally, it identifies the type of leader she is likely to work well
for.

Unlikely to adopt May adopt Likely to adopt Reporting Style

Self-Reliant Report

Collaborating Report

Reciprocating Report

Informative Report

Receptive Report
US OPQ32n General Occupational 1999

Likely to Adopt

Self-Reliant Report
She prefers to work autonomously without direct supervision. She expects to be allowed to use her
initiative and make decisions rather than seek direction from others.

Works well for

Delegative Leaders who give responsibility to their staff and encourage them to be autonomous.

Collaborating Report
She wants to work collaboratively with her manager and to be actively involved in the decision-making
process. She likes to be able to input her own ideas and views.

Works well for

Participative Leaders who themselves work as part of the team and involve others in the decision- making
process.

Reciprocating Report
She likes to negotiate with her manager to help achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

Works well for

Negotiative Leaders who adopt a process of negotiating rewards for staff in return for hard work.

22

39
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

May Adopt

Informative Report
She generally likes to provide inputs to her manager as part of the decision-making process. She
appreciates being consulted, especially when the issues involved impact her directly.

Unlikely to Adopt

Receptive Report
She strongly dislikes working for a manager who gives her lots of instructions and is unlikely to simply
implement these without question. She is likely to prefer being more involved in any decision-making
process.

23

40
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Reporting Styles Descriptions

For each of the five leadership styles it is possible to define a complementary reporting
role. For example, a receptive report is likely to suit a directive leader far more than
one who is more self-reliant.

Receptive Report
• Adheres to instructions and deadlines.

• Prefers to work with clear direction from above.

Self-Reliant Report
• Prefers to work without restraints.

• Has own ideas and enjoys the opportunity to develop them with minimal intervention.

Collaborating Report
• Many ideas to contribute.

• Enjoys the collaborative decision making process and prefers radical methods to conventional.

Informative Report
• Likes to be involved in decision making, but accepts final decision even if contrary to personally
held views.

Reciprocating Report
• Not afraid to speak up and undeterred by status.

• Responds less well to direction than persuasion.

• May be stubborn, but task orientated.

24

41
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Candidate Report

Introduction
This report is confidential and is intended for the sole use of the person who completed the
questionnaire.

It has been given to you to provide some feedback about the analysis of your responses to the
questionnaire which you recently completed.

The self-report personality questionnaire invited you to describe your behavior, preferences
and attitudes in relation to different aspects of your working life. It was chosen to give a broad
picture of your current style. Your responses have been compared with a large group of people
who have completed the same questionnaire.

When considering this reportís description of your personality, it is important to recognize that
it is based on the answers you gave and is your own view, representing the way you see your
behavior, rather than how your behaviors might be described by another person. This self-
report can, nevertheless, give important clues to understanding the way you see your style at
work and it is likely to predict a good deal about your behavior in different situations. This
report links the information under three broad headings and summarizes all of your responses
to the questionnaire.

The specific application of the information will influence which sections of the report are most relevant.
You may have already received personal feedback of these results, or have been offered an opportunity
to receive feedback. Whoever gave you feedback and/or this report should be qualified to answer your
questions about any aspect of the report and provide a more detailed analysis of what the results mean
for you.

The contents of this report are likely to be a good description of your behavior at work for
about 18 to 24 months, depending upon your work role and personal circumstances.

25

42
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Relationships with People

Influence
You are slightly more comfortable than your peers in situations requiring persuasion and
negotiation. However, you appear equally likely to take charge of people or allow others to
do so. This suggests that you may prefer to manage others through influencing. You
prefer to say what you think and are prepared to criticize people when you feel it is
appropriateand you also have a slight tendency to stick with your own view rather than
following group consensus.

Sociability
You are someone who feels confident in social situations and meeting people for the first
time. You are probably very sociable and talkative, suggesting you greatly enjoy being the
center of attention. You also describe yourself as gaining slightly more enjoyment than
most, from the company of other people.

Empathy
You are willing to discuss your successes and openly proud of your achievements. You
express a moderate level of comfort with group decision making and probably make sure
you get your share of the credit when the outcomes are successful. You are slightly less
likely than others to get involved in people's personal problems, generally preferring to
keep a professional distance from colleagues at work.

Thinking Style

Analysis
You gain of pleasure and satisfaction from working with facts and figures and analyzing
numerical information. In addition, you are moderately interested in critically evaluating
information and arguments. When it comes to understanding people, you are fairly
interested in people's behavior and the motives that drive them.

Creativity and Change

You have a strong tendency to be radical in your approach to work. Coupled with your
preference for discussing abstract concepts, this suggests a theoretical approach to tasks
and problems. In terms of generating ideas, you appear to be equally content to generate
your own ideas or to use the ideas of others. Therefore, you are likely to enjoy discussing
others' ideas in a hypothetical manner, even supporting some of their radical ideas, but are
slightly less likely to come up with your own radical ideas. You often find change and
variety stimulating. You are slightly more likely than others to adapt your style according
to the situation or the people who are with you.

26

43
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Structure
You are slightly more comfortable thinking things through in advance rather than dealing
with each issue as it arises. You also are as concerned with the detail and organization of
the task as other people. You strike a balance between painstakingly seeing all jobs
through to the end and compromising your standards to get the job done on time.
Additionally, you describe yourself as being prepared to ignore rules and regulations at
work when you feel that this is necessary.

Feelings and Emotions

Emotion
Your responses suggest that you are, in comparison to others, relatively free from anxiety
on a day-to-day basis. You also remain confident and calm before important occasions.
You are usually left unaffected by insults and personal criticism. You prefer to take a
positive view of events rather than dwell on the negative. You are likely to display your
feelings and emotions openly. You may find it difficult to hide from others how you feel.

Energy and Drive

You appear to be as active as most other people and are most comfortable when you are
moderately busy. You generally enjoy taking part in an activity for its own sake rather than
feeling that you always have to win. This implies that you may not have to beat others to
feel that you have done well. You like to make decisions quickly rather than considering
the facts for too long. Furthermore, you are fairly ambitious in your career and find more
difficult targets can motivate you.

27

44
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

ABOUT THE EXPERT REPORT

This report was generated using the SHL Expert Assessment System. It includes information
from the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32). The use of this questionnaire is
limited to those people who have received specialist training in its use and interpretation. The
report herein is generated from the results of a questionnaire answered by the respondent(s)
and substantially reflects the answers made by them. Due consideration must be given to the
subjective nature of questionnaire-based ratings in the interpretation of this data. This report
has been generated electronically - the user of the software can make amendments and
additions to the text of the report. SHL Group plc and its associated companies cannot
guarantee that the contents of this report are the unchanged output of the computer system.
We can accept no liability for the consequences of the use of this report and this includes
liability of every kind (including negligence) for its contents.

ÆSHL and OPQ are registered trademarks of SHL Group.

SHL USA, Inc.

Flatiron Park West
2555 55th Street, Suite 201D
Boulder
CO 80301
Toll Free: 1-888-522-7736
Fax: 303-442-1184

Internet: http://www.shlusa.com
E-mail: info.n-america@shlgroup.com

Also : SHL Australia, SHL Belgium, SHL Canada, SHL Denmark, SHL Finland,
SHL France, SHL Germany, SHL Greece, SHL Group, SHL Hong Kong/China,
SHL Hungary, SHL Indonesia, SHL Ireland, SHL Italy, SHL Japan, SHL Korea,
SHL Mexico, SHL Netherlands, SHL New Zealand, SHL Norway, SHL Poland,
SHL Portugal, SHL Saudi Arabia, SHL Singapore, SHL South Africa, SHL Spain,
SHL Sweden, SHL Switzerland, SHL Turkey, SHL UK, Park Human Resources,
SHL USA, SHL Landy Jacobs.

28

45
 6 The Expert System

Emotional Intelligence Report

Ms. Jane Smith

March 24, 2000

Internet: http://www.shlusa.com
E-mail: info.n-america@shlgroup.com

© SHL Group plc. 2000. All Rights Reserved

® SHL and OPQ are registered trademarks of SHL Group plc.

46
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Emotional Intelligence (EI) Report

This report describes competencies key to the development of Emotional Intelligence (EI),
which can be defined as how well we understand our own feelings and emotions as well as
those of others, and how well we manage our relationships with others.

This report is based on your responses to the OPQ32. It is important to note that OPQ32,
along with all self-report questionnaires, is not infallible. The accuracy of this report will
depend on the frankness with which you answered the OPQ32 questions. However, while this
report is not intended to be definitive, it does provide a starting point for you to consider
development needs that are key to both individual and organizational success.

The report has been structured to provide a straightforward and easy to interpret profile. It
consists of an overall summary of your EI development needs and then specific sections
related to four key competencies. The EI model that has been used to construct this report is
shown below:

Overall
Emotional Intelligence

Managing Feelings Managing Relationships

How you manage your thoughts, How you manage your relationships
emotions and feelings. Essentially, with other people. Essentially, this is
this is the aspect of EI regarding how the aspect of EI regarding how you
you manage yourself. work with others.

Feelings & Emotions Personal Insight Empathy Social Ease

How well you handle How well you How well you appreciate How well you adapt your
your feelings about understand your feelings the perspectives of other approach and style to
yourself and others about yourself and people and how they feel different work and social
others or think about things situations

Emotional Intelligence (EI) Summary

Potential Moderate Strength, Could Potential Strength

Development Need Benefit From Development
Overall Emotional
Intelligence

Your overall score places you in the high-range on EI suggesting a potential strength. The table
that follows summarizes development needs for the four specific EI competencies. How you work
with others does, of course, depend on how well you understand your own emotions, so it is
important to refer to both sets of competencies in considering your EI development needs.

EI Competency Area Potential Development Moderate Strength, Could Potential Strength

Need Benefit From
Development
Managing Personal Insight Feelings & Emotions
Feelings
Managing Empathy Social Ease
Relationships

47
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Managing Feelings

Competency Potential Moderate Strength, Could Potential Strength

Development Need Benefit From Development
Feelings &
Emotions
Personal Insight

Feelings and Emotions

Your scores suggest that you have the capacity to channel your emotions positively even though
you may, at times, feel tense or uncomfortable sharing your own feelings and emotions with others.

• Consider a time when your spirits have been particularly low or when things have seemed
particularly bleak. Remember the point at which you realized things would work out, or that you
simply had to work through the problems you faced until you got to a solution. Reflect on your
thoughts and feelings at that moment of realization, and use that memory to help you when you
are confronted with difficulties again.

• Think back to a time when you felt particularly tense or upset, and remember your feelings and
thoughts at that time. Then think forward to when you felt more relaxed and happy. Allow the
more positive feelings to wash through and replace the earlier negative emotions, and allow
yourself to experience how more positive feelings lift your spirits. Use this technique to remind
yourself of more positive emotions when you are confronted by difficulties, and to help you
maintain a positive focus when engaging with other people.

Personal Insight

Although you are someone who is capable of personal insight, you are also someone who may act
without fully thinking through the emotional impact of your actions on yourself or others. You can
achieve personal change when committed to doing so, but you also need to think about how to
maintain your commitment and overcome the frustrations that you may experience in pursuing your
personal development.

• Do you find that you tend to act before thinking through the consequences of your actions?
Have there been occasions recently when thinking before acting may have led to a more
positive outcome sooner, and/or have enabled you to manage the emotions involved in
resolving issues? Think back to such occasions and consider how thinking issues through in
advance of acting could have helped you, and how you might apply those insights in the future.

• Are you someone who finds it difficult to stay motivated or committed to a course of action
when things prove difficult or frustrating? Has your experience in setting personal goals in the
past led to you avoiding difficult goals? How do you adapt to change? Do you see change as
motivating or demotivating, and why? Are there others that you know who seem to achieve the
goals they set for themselves, are able to overcome difficulties and seem to adapt easily to
change? Have you discussed these issues with them, and what insights have these discussions
given you?

48
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Managing Feelings - What do I already do?

Managing Feelings - What could I do more of?

49
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Managing Relationships

Competency Potential Moderate Strength, Could Potential Strength

Development Need Benefit From Development
Empathy

Social Ease

Empathy

Your scores suggest a strong need for independence. You may feel that involving others in making
decisions only serves to complicate matters rather than get things done. This need for
independence may express itself to others as a general disinterest in them, or as preference for
keeping people at a distance in order to avoid getting involved in the thoughts and feelings of other
people.

• While retaining your independence may be important to you, consider how this may cut you off
from important lines of communication and information. If others consider you to be
disinterested and unconcerned about what they know and feel, they will not feel obliged to
share their knowledge and understanding with you. By consulting with them, you may achieve
your objectives more easily and with greater satisfaction than might at first be obvious to you.
Actively listening to others and offering them opportunities to contribute to conversations and
discussions will strengthen the positive view others will have of you as a team member and a
potential mentor.

• Refer to your score under Personal Insight (PI). If this is low, it suggests a potential blind spot.
The true impact you have on other people may be something that is hidden from your own
view. If others feel a strong sense of distance from you, then they are unlikely to share their
thoughts and feelings with you or to provide you with feedback on your strengths and
development needs.

Social Ease

Your scores suggest that you are someone who enjoys the company of other people and who
develops strong attachments to others. You are likely to enjoy being at the center of a discussion
or conversation and are relaxed in the company of others.

• Your scores suggest that you are someone who is likely to make a positive impact on other
people when engaging in a group at work or socially. While you are also likely to make an
impact in such situations, your Personal Insight and Empathy scores also indicate the nature of
that impact.

• If your Empathy score is low, others may find your natural confidence and exuberance very
powerful, and may feel that, while you are sharing your own thoughts and feelings with them,
you are not listening or attending to their thoughts and feelings. If your Personal Insight score
is also low, then you may not be aware of this effect on others. If both your Empathy and
Personal Insight scores are low, then you should consider how to adjust your style and
approach with others to give them a more positive sense of their interaction with you. For
example, by encouraging them to contribute and participate, and by giving them an active
sense of your presence by listening to them.

50
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

Managing Relationships - What do I already do?

Managing Relationships - What could I do more of?

51
 6 The Expert System

Ms. Jane Smith OPQ32 Version n March 24, 2000

ABOUT THE EXPERT REPORT

This report was generated using the SHL Expert Assessment System. It includes information
from the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32). The use of this questionnaire is
limited to those people who have received specialist training in its use and interpretation. The
report herein is generated from the results of a questionnaire answered by the respondent(s)
and substantially reflects the answers made by them. Due consideration must be given to the
subjective nature of questionnaire-based ratings in the interpretation of this data. This report
has been generated electronically - the user of the software can make amendments and
additions to the text of the report. SHL Group plc and its associated companies cannot
guarantee that the contents of this report are the unchanged output of the computer system.
We can accept no liability for the consequences of the use of this report and this includes
liability of every kind (including negligence) for its contents.

® SHL and OPQ are registered trademarks of SHL Group.

SHL USA, Inc.

Flatiron Park West
2555 55th Street, Suite 201D
Boulder
CO 80301
Toll Free: 1-888-522-7736
Fax: 303-442-1184

Internet: http://www.shlusa.com
E-mail: info.n-america@shlgroup.com

Also : SHL Australia, SHL Belgium, SHL Canada, SHL Denmark, SHL Finland,
SHL France, SHL Germany, SHL Greece, SHL Group, SHL Hong Kong/China,
SHL Hungary, SHL Indonesia, SHL Ireland, SHL Italy, SHL Japan, SHL Korea,
SHL Mexico, SHL Netherlands, SHL New Zealand, SHL Norway, SHL Poland,
SHL Portugal, SHL Saudi Arabia, SHL Singapore, SHL South Africa, SHL Spain,
SHL Sweden, SHL Switzerland, SHL Turkey, SHL UK, Park Human Resources,
SHL USA, SHL Landy Jacobs.

52
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

This chapter discusses the issues involved in establishing and maintaining good
practice in the use of OPQ32 questionnaires including fairness and equal
opportunities considerations. It covers social and legal responsibilities as well as
safeguards for the prevention of misuse. While personality questionnaires are
powerful tools which can help place and develop people effectively, in the wrong
hands they are potentially harmful, both to individuals and organizations.

Users of tests have a responsibility to their employers and other test users, but
perhaps their principal responsibility is to the individual being tested. Any person
who is asked to complete a test or personality questionnaire has a right to be
treated fairly and with sensitivity, and the right is the same whether the individual
is one of a large number in a major recruitment drive, or someone who needs in-
depth counseling. The code of practice applies to all test users, including licensed
psychologists, independent consultants, or Human Resource departments in large
organizations. Individual test users should accept responsibility for the way they
personally use tests, although some organizations will implement a standard code
of practice to help individual users maintain uniform high standards.

The following represent key points for the ethical implementation of personality
questionnaires, and should form a basis for both individual users and organizations
in setting standards for their use.

Standards for good practice

Appropriate use

It is important that any tool being used for assessment should measure relevant
constructs. This ensures that decisions made on the basis of the results will be both
effective and fair to all concerned.

When personality instruments were first used to assess people for selection, many
were clinical instruments, often designed to help diagnose mental disorders. Many
of the items contained within these instruments are intrusive and irrelevant to the
world of work. Clinical instruments are generally inappropriate for occupational
use and occupational instruments (including OPQ32 questionnaires) are rarely
appropriate for clinical settings.

It is important to establish clear objectives for use of OPQ32 questionnaires and to

check that information from the profiles has relevance for the decisions to be made
or to support development or other processes.

1

ITC guidelines can
be found on their
website at
http://cwis.kub.nl/nfsw_1/itc/
It is essential that
questionnaire results,
booklets, scoring
keys, etc are kept
under lock and key,
and computer files
are secure, so that
only qualified users
have access to this
material.
2
7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use
Qualified users
Multi-scale questionnaires such as OPQ32 require proper knowledge and skills to
be used appropriately and effectively. For these reasons, reputable test publishers
throughout the world restrict the supply of personality questionnaires to qualified
psychologists and individuals specifically trained in their administration and
interpretation. The use of a personality questionnaire by someone who is not
competent in its administration and interpretation is clearly misuse of the instrument.
The International Test Commission has produced guidelines and standards on
competency to use tests and SHL adheres to these and other local standards, such
as the American Psychological Association’s Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, when providing access to OPQ32 materials and training in
their use.
The OPQ will only be supplied to qualified users who either:
a) are eligible under the American Psychological Association guidelines to use level
B assessment instruments, or
b) have undergone appropriate SHL training.
Qualified OPQ users should ensure that the questionnaires are not used by
untrained individuals, or for a purpose for which they are not intended. The
qualification to use OPQ does not lapse (even if an individual has a period of
being unlicensed,) but users should take responsibility for recognizing when they
have a need for refresher training or additional skills training (e.g., in more
advanced applications of OPQ.)
Confidentiality
Candidates may come away from some assessment procedures with concerns or
fears about the fairness or confidentiality of a procedure – who will have access to
my personal details or results? It is important that the person being assessed
understands how OPQ is being used and who will have access to their results now
and in the future.
Care needs to be taken in storing personality questionnaire results. Reports, profiles
and answer sheets should not be stored on personnel files (either on paper or on
computer) to which untrained individuals may have access, unless accompanied by
a short narrative explaining the information. The information should only be
available to those who need it.
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Feedback

Feedback is recommended in every situation and application, including selection.

Ideally, feedback should be face to face, but in many situations telephone feedback
may be the only practical option. In some circumstances, it may be useful to The Expert system
supplement this verbal feedback with a written report or summary, which could be Candidate Report is
hand written or computer generated. a convenient way to
provide candidates
It is important to make sure that the results given to the individual are consistent
with their results in
with the contract previously discussed (in the briefing letter, the administration and
a meaningful way.
in the feedback). Thus, if face to face feedback is promised, then it should be
readily available.

Shelf-life

OPQ32 profiles should not be considered relevant and valid for decision-making
purposes indefinitely. While personality style generally shows consistency over
time, people do change and profiles can become outdated. Views vary on how For more
long results remain useful but after 6-12 months results should not be used for information on
important decisions (e.g. promotion) and about two years is probably a sensible
providing feedback
limit for development purposes. It may be helpful to keep results for longer for
research purposes or to monitor change. consult the Feedback
chapter.
Using the same results for different purposes

It is important that the results of a test or a questionnaire are not used for a
purpose other than that which was originally intended and was agreed with the
respondent. For example, it would be inappropriate to use OPQ32 profiles for a
team building exercise and then use the same profiles to select for promotion
without consulting the candidate. In such situations, it is generally appropriate to
offer the respondent the opportunity to complete the questionnaire again.

3
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Copyright

Test materials are extremely vulnerable to copyright infringement. In most

countries, the reproduction of test materials by any means (including computer
installations) without the permission of the author is a criminal offense, whether or
not the reproduced materials are to be sold.
SHL provides a free
helpline telephone Illegal copying of materials leads to lack of standardization, poor control of
service for all clients. materials, and gives a bad impression to all who encounter the reproduced
material. In addition, the resulting loss of income will ultimately contribute to less
There is always a
new test development, reduced updating services, or higher prices.
consultant available
to deal with All OPQ32 materials, including profile charts, and software supplied on computer
questions, Monday installations, are subject to copyright. SHL has, in the past, actively pursued
through Friday, potential breaches of copyright when these are discovered, and continues to do so.
during normal office
Users purchasing generic shell systems for computer based test administration and
hours. In addition,
expert reporting should be aware that the responsibility for obtaining the test
there is a computer publisher’s permission to install a particular test on the system often rests with the
help desk to assist user rather than the supplier of such a system. The user will be in breach of
with issues about copyright if permission has not been obtained.
computer products.
Technical support

OPQ32 questionnaires are supported by a continuing SHL research and

development program and users are provided with regular updates, which contain
information on recent studies. We can also provide basic training as well as skills
updates for users.

OPQ32 users are encouraged to get in touch to discuss research within their
organization. Advice and training on job analysis and assistance with validation and
other research designs are available upon request. This research is essential to
ensuring the relevance of OPQ32 questionnaires and its effectiveness in
contributing to fair and effective selection decisions and development applications.

4
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Fairness

This section discusses issues of fairness in relation to the use of OPQ32

questionnaires. Throughout the development of the OPQ questionnaires, emphasis
was placed on making sure that the content is fair to all groups. However, it is
only by ensuring that the instruments are appropriately used that one can ensure
that the decisions and inferences based on OPQ32 scores are truly fair.

Fairness is important in any application of OPQ32 questionnaires but has particular

implication for equality of opportunity in selection and promotion decisions.
Fair selection is
What is unfair selection? generally good
selection, so
Selection is all about discrimination between applicants. Fair discrimination
procedures which
distinguishes between applicants on the basis of characteristics that are
demonstrably job relevant and directly related to performance. If discrimination is ensure equality of
not based on relevant characteristics or the method of assessing the job relevant opportunity, typically
characteristics are particularly unreliable, then there may be unfair discrimination; enhance the quality
more able candidates may be rejected in favor of the less able. If such of the applicants
discrimination has the effect of rejecting proportionately greater numbers of a
selected.
particular gender, racial or ethnic group, or those with disabilities then it is
unlawful in the U.S. and in many other countries.

Two types of discrimination

It is helpful to distinguish between direct and indirect discrimination.

Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favorably due to their ethnic
origin, religion or gender and is usually (but not always) deliberate.

Indirect discrimination, on the other hand, can often be unintended and has
some implications for the use of personality questionnaires and other assessment
instruments. Indirect discrimination occurs when an employer applies a condition
or requirement to applicants (e.g. that they score above a particular sten on a
personality questionnaire scale), which one group (e.g. Asian men) finds
considerably harder to achieve than others do and which cannot be justified.

When a condition or requirement has the effect of disproportionately excluding

more people from one gender, religion or ethnic group, it is said to have adverse
impact.

5
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Where such a situation exists, the employer must be able to show that the
condition is justifiable. If the questionnaire and the way it is used measure a job
relevant attribute as demonstrated by, say, a job analysis study, then its use might
be fair despite the difference in rejection rates (adverse impact).

Justifiable means the condition or requirement should be necessary rather than

merely convenient and when the discriminatory effect or the adverse impact of the
condition is severe, it would require greater justification.

Fairness and the law

In the U.S. there is legislation outlawing discrimination of various sorts. Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been the principle body of federal legislation in the
area of fair employment. Section 703(a) of Title VII states:

"It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire
or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual
with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Just as Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex,
religion or national origin, employers are also mandated under the Age
Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 to provide equal employment opportunity
on the basis of age. As amended in 1986, the act specifically forbids discrimination
on the basis of age for employees over the age of 40, unless the employer can
demonstrate that age is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification for the job in
question.

The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures was developed by the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with the purpose of
encouraging active compliance with the law. As listed above, the law clearly
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or
age. These groups are referred to as "protected groups." Today, the most important
federally protected groups are females vs. males, persons over 40 years of age vs.
persons under 40, and non-whites vs. whites. In order to document compliance
with federal laws, an organization should maintain detailed and up-to-date
employment records pertaining to recruiting, selection, promotion, and any other
pertinent personnel decisions.

Although many cases have been brought against employers for unfair selection
practices, very few of these have specifically involved the use of standardized
psychometric tests. It is hope that this reflects the professional approach taken by
the majority of trained individuals using tests in the selection and assessment of
people at work. Essentially, good selection is fair selection, and so procedures
related to ensuring equal opportunity should, in any case, be followed to improve
the effectiveness of selection decisions.

6
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Users should not forget, however, that although considerable development effort
has been put into the elimination of intrinsic bias, only appropriate use will ensure
that the decisions made on the basis of tests are fair.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 went into effect in November of 1991. Features of the
act that impact employment testing include:

• Burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate job relevance and
business necessity of selection procedures. (This includes the employment
interview.)
• Prohibits "race and sex norming" of employment test scores. (This is the
practice of using separate norms for protected groups.)
• Extends Title VII protection to US citizens employed by US companies while
living abroad.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The employment provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) went
into effect in July of 1992. The ADA prohibits discrimination against "qualified
individuals with disabilities." This is defined as individuals who, with or without
reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of a position. A
disability is defined as: (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more major life activities, (2) a record of such impairment, or (3) being
Briefing for
regarded as having such an impairment (ADA Technical Assistance Manual (Title I),
candidates with
1992).
disabilities will allow
The ADA requires that tests be given to people who have impaired sensory, them to see whether
speaking or manual skills in a format and manner that does not require use of the they need any special
impaired skill, unless the test is designed to measure that skill. (Sensory skills accommodations in
include the abilities to hear, see and process information.)
completing the

However, an employer does not have to provide an alternative test format for a questionnaire.
person with an impaired skill if the purpose of the test is to measure that skill.

Generally, an employer is only required to provide such an accommodation if it is

known, before administering a test, that an accommodation will be needed. Usually
it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to request any required
accommodation for a test. It has been suggested that the employer inform
applicants in advance of any tests that will be administered as part of the
application process so that they may request an accommodation, if needed.

An employer is not required to offer an applicant the specific accommodation

requested. This request should be given primary consideration, but the employer is
only obligated to provide an effective accommodation.

7
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Although the ADA does not mandate that a job analysis be conducted, an effective
management approach will invariably include this step to the extent possible. Having an
up-to-date job analysis helps define and document essential job functions and identifies
the skills and abilities relevant to successful performance of these functions.

If a candidate has a disability which would impose difficulties on him/her while completing
the tests under standard conditions, contact SHL for advice and assistance before the
testing session.We can provide advice and perhaps special testing materials or alternative
administration instructions to allow testing to take place

How can unfair discrimination be recognized?

The first sign that a test or other assessment procedure may be discriminating
unfairly is a large difference in the rejection rates for two distinct groups (e.g. more
females rejected than males). This may result from real differences in the ability to
do the job between the two groups or it may be unrelated to the job and,
therefore, unfair.

The Uniform Guidelines have adopted the "four-fifths" rule as a criterion for
determining whether a personnel procedure has an adverse impact on any
protected group. Basically, this standard stipulates that adverse impact exists
whenever the hiring group is less than four-fifths of the hiring rate for whatever
group is treated most favorably by the test in questions (the majority group),
except when the difference is based on small numbers of individuals and is not
statistically significant.

The best way to ensure that a personality questionnaire (or other measure) is not
causing such a large difference unfairly is to conduct a validity study. The validity
study would explore empirically the relationship between the personality
questionnaire scores and job performance for both groups. If the scores on the
instrument do not relate to job performance, then the use of the measure could be
unlawful. However, if the validation study justifies the use of the questionnaire, the
differences in selection rates should not matter, provided all other appropriate
measures show similar differences. An employer with an active equal opportunity
policy will still be concerned to find ways to reduce the adverse impact.

8
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Fair discrimination and test design

The OPQ32 questionnaires have been constructed with a view toward reducing the
effects of various kinds of unintentional bias which could distort the
meaningfulness of scores. To this end, both questionnaires:

• Are composed of questions that are designed to have a high degree of content
relevance to the world of work
• Are free from ambiguous or obscure questions
• Provide a sufficiently reliable (accurate) measure of a job relevant attribute
• Have detailed and carefully phrased instructions
• Have an associated briefing leaflet which can be sent out before the assessment
• Contain example questions to help candidates become familiar with the
questionnaires’ content and to demonstrate what is expected of them.
• Are accompanied by relevant norms against which applicants can be compared
• Have been checked for material which is inappropriate or less familiar to Results of many
some groups validation studies can
• Have been standardized on groups which include minorities be found in the
Criterion Validity
The design of any instrument does not in itself guarantee fair selection. Any
chapter.
questionnaire may be unfair when used for purposes for which it was not
intended. Lack of rigor in administration procedures and interpretation can
seriously impact on the fairness of a questionnaire.

How do I ensure the OPQ is relevant (valid)?

The choice of selection instruments should be based on the results of job analysis.
A well conducted job analysis will identify the attributes required to be successful
in the job. The more detailed the analysis of the job and the closer the match of
the attribute to the test, the higher the content validity of the assessment.

Whenever possible, this approach should be supported by empirical research

relating candidate or incumbent scores to actual job performance. This information
will allow users to refine their use of the instruments and answer the question:
how relevant are they?

9
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Typically, only some of the 32 attributes measured by the questionnaire will be

relevant to performance in a particular role. The user must, therefore, determine
which are the relevant scales to be used in decision making. For a relevant ability
measure, all things being equal, higher scores are preferable to lower scores. This
is not so for personality measures. For one role, people who score high on a
particular scale may be most effective, whereas for another, low scores may be
preferred and for a third both high and low scores may be counter-indications and
the best performances may come from those with intermediate scores. Thus, the
same questionnaire can be appropriate for a wide variety of jobs, but the way it is
used will be different.

It is possible to use the information from the OPQ32 questionnaires in a qualitative

manner to help build a general picture about the suitability of an applicant. The
job requirements should be investigated through job analysis and validation studies
before using scores in a mechanistic way, e.g., rigid cut-offs on single scale scores
or combinations of scores should not be used without adequate validation data,
and then only with extreme caution.

It should be remembered that candidates are describing their behavioral style or

preferences. Someone acting in a manner which is more natural will tend to
perform and feel better in a role than those forced to act against their preferences.
Preferences are not abilities, however, and someone who describes themselves as
very analytical may not be so good at solving problems as someone else for whom
the analytical approach is less natural.

Who should use the test or questionnaires?

OPQ32 questionnaires should only be administered or interpreted by those who

are trained. Using tests in the correct manner and knowing their limitations as well
as their advantages is important.

How should the questionnaires be administered?

The way the instrument is administered has been shown to significantly affect the
results obtained and the user must always follow the instructions given. Particular
OPQ questionnaires
care should be taken to establish rapport with those individuals who might lack
are available in many confidence or who feel anxious about completing a personality questionnaire.
different languages. Special attention should be paid to those whose first language is not English to
ensure that they have understood properly what is required of them. It is particularly
important that candidates with disabilities are provided with appropriate materials
and conditions for completing the questionnaire. See Administration chapter.

10
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

Are there score differences between different groups?

Differences between males and females have been shown to occur from a
relatively early age and can continue into later life in many areas of behavior.
For example, males and females demonstrate different levels of interest in
various occupational areas as shown through interest inventories.

With multi-scale personality questionnaires, comparisons are complex.

Differences do occur, but on the whole these seem to be smaller than those
found with most other types of measures. Women often describe themselves as
less competitive and assertive, but more empathic and conscientious in their
approach. Differences are typically even smaller between different ethnic
groups. When several scales are used in making a selection decision, the small
differences found can often cancel out, so that there is no overall impact of the
measure. See Group Comparisons chapter for information on how the OPQ32
profiles for various groups compare.

Should the impact on selection be monitored?

Undoubtedly, yes. Only by monitoring the effect of using the questionnaires can
we assess whether fair selection is taking place and what impact there is on the
proportion of majority and minority groups employed. The information from the
monitoring and follow-up process should also be fed back into the selection
procedures to refine the use of the questionnaires and improve the recruitment
of a more effective workforce.

Other good practice guides with information on using tests fairly:

Standards for Educational and Psychological Equal Opportunities Guidelines for Best
Testing.The American Psychological Practice in the Use of Personnel Selection Tests.
Association,Washington, D.C., 1999. SHL,Thames Ditton, 1991.

Principles for the Validation and Use of Guidelines for Testing People with Disabilities.
Personnel Selection Procedures: Third Edition. SHL,Thames Ditton, 1992.
Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Inc. Bowling Green, OH, 1987.

The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Best Practice in the Management of

Procedures. Equal Employment Opportunity Psychometric Tests:
Commission,Washington, D.C. 1978 Guidelines for Developing Policy.
http://www.eeoc.gov SHL,Thames Ditton, 1993.

11
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

How can adverse impact be reduced?

Experience has shown that the interpretation of questionnaire scores and the way
in which they and the instrument are used are as crucial to the avoidance of
unlawful discrimination as the actual content of the test itself.

The following steps can help to reduce adverse impact when score differences are
found:

Remember that • Apply the same rigorous code of practice to the use of the questionnaire as
adverse impact can ability tests and any other assessment method. This includes monitoring results
occur with any to enable possible adverse impact to be identified.
• Be aware of the scales in which there may be differences between groups, to
selection procedure,
increase sensitivity of interpretation.
e.g. interviews and
• Ensure that the interpretation of the questionnaire is set in the context of actual
shortlisting from job requirements, rather than on subjective notions of good and bad, or
application forms. It stereotypes.
is important that • Use the questionnaire data in conjunction with the feedback interview and
other data to build a picture of the individual. Never use rigid cut-offs based on
those involved are
single scales or combinations of scores without adequate evidence.
properly trained
• Carry out validation studies whenever possible to ensure that the job
both in applying the requirements and methods of assessment used can be justified.
techniques and in • Remember that typical score differences between groups are normally quite
equal opportunities. small – much smaller than they might be with some other methods of
assessment. The appropriate use of the data may serve, in the long run, to
reduce the adverse impact often associated with other methods of assessment.

12
 7 Best Practice in Questionnaire Use

A final note

Finally, in evaluating the use of questionnaires in fair selection, the user should
consider what would replace them. Personality questionnaires are generally
associated with less adverse impact than many other selection procedures. If they
were not used, on what information will the decision be made? How fair and
relevant is the method from which this information has been obtained? The issues
of fair selection do not apply to psychometric instruments alone but encompass all
selection and assessment procedures, including application forms and interviewing
methods.

SHL does not wish to see any of the OPQ questionnaires used in an unfair way,
but in a way that promotes good practice and equal opportunities. We have
produced a booklet, “Equal Opportunities Guidelines for Best Practice in the Use of
Personnel Selection Tests,” which provides further advice in this area. Users are
encouraged to submit relevant data to SHL so we can continue to monitor the
impact of our questionnaires on different groups. We can offer specialist help in
the study of problems of fairness in selection and in developing test policy. We
welcome questions from users and are happy to provide practical advice.

Applying OPQ32

Suggestions given in this manual regarding the applications for which OPQ
questionnaires are relevant should be regarded as guidelines only. Relevance needs
to be examined in the light of each individual application and the surrounding
context. For example, there is a greater degree of suspicion and fear within an
organization when compulsory downsizing is occurring, which may delay the
appropriate use of a personality measure in the organization to a later date. If you
have concerns about applying OPQ32 questionnaires in a particular context or
application, seek professional advice before implementation.

SHL accepts no liability for any loss of whatsoever nature suffered by any person
or entity as a result of placing reliance on this Manual and User’s Guide.

13
Development
Background

This chapter describes the development of the OPQ models of personality,

focusing on the creation of the initial OPQ models through to the development of
the OPQ32 questionnaires. This is followed by a discussion of how each scale in
the OPQ32 model evolved from the original Concept Model.

In the first chapter of the User’s Guide, a brief background to the development of
the OPQ was presented. An important part of this background concerns the
development objectives of the OPQ.
See Introduction for
• Designed specifically for the world of work more details of the
• Avoids clinical or obscure psychological constructs development
• Comprehensive in terms of personality scale measures
objectives.
• For use by HR professionals as well as psychologists.
• Based on sound psychometric principles.

These led to the use of two approaches to personality questionnaire construction

which will be explained shortly. In the following sections of this chapter,
information is given on the main development stages of the OPQ Concept Model.

Two approaches to personality questionnaire construction

Two main approaches to scale construction have been adopted in the development
of the OPQ models and questionnaires: the conceptual or deductive approach; and
the inductive approach.

The conceptual or deductive approach

A deductive approach is one in which questionnaire items are written to reflect a

pre-specified or a priori model of personality.

In many occupational situations there is a need for optimal description of

personality even at the expense of some repetition of measurement. The OPQ
Concept model of personality was developed to provide this detailed description
and is based on a rational analysis of the important personality characteristics in
the world of work. The model was based on a thorough review of existing
questionnaires, Repertory Grid studies and an analysis of personality variables listed
by organizations in interviewing, appraisal and assessment center documentation.
Needless to say, various conceptual models were proposed, tested out statistically
and amended before the final model was established.
The inductive approach

An inductive approach is one where a wealth of data about personality is

generated, and a reductionist approach is then taken to establish the simplest, most
parsimonious statistical solution to the data.

The proposed structure of personality is, therefore, determined by the statistical

manipulation of correlation matrices. Not surprisingly, this technique tends to
produce fewer, more independent scales or factors, though the exact number may
vary. Cattell’s work, for example, produced the 16 Factor solution measured by the
16PF, while Eysenck’s early work suggested 2 broad factors, which were statistically
independent.

Factor analysis on the Concept Model scales was used in the development of the
Factor versions of the OPQ, which contain fewer, more independent personality
factors. Just as the Concept scales had to satisfy considerations of statistical
adequacy, the Factor scales were guided by issues of psychological
meaningfulness.

The Factor Models represent a robust statistical summary of the full OPQ model. As
they have fewer scales, fewer items are needed to provide the same precision of
measurement. This reduces administration time while still providing a robust
statistical summary of the full model.

The development of the OPQ Concept Model : 1981-1984

The first development phase took place in the United Kingdom between 1981 and
1984. The development of the OPQ Concept Model started with a review to
identify the key inputs to the development program and led to the specification of
an initial model of personality. The initial model of personality was trialled using
construct Adjective Checklists (ACLs) that used adjectives as questions to measure
the model. The resulting data were analyzed and led to the Amended Conceptual
Model of Personality. Full items rather than adjectives were then written, reviewed
and trialled and the data analyzed. This led to the OPQ Concept model of
personality and the first OPQ Concept Model questionnaires.

The development of the Concept Model is discussed in more detail over the next
few pages.
Identification of the key inputs to the Concept Model development

In order to specify the scales that might be usefully measured by the questionnaire,
a detailed analysis of relevant research and other data was undertaken. This phase
of the development took nearly two years and involved the following:

• A review of all existing questionnaires and models of personality relevant to the

occupational field. This included the work of Cattell and Eysenck, and also
covered questionnaires such as the California Personality Inventory, the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator, the Gordon Personal Profile and Inventory and the Kostic
PAPI. See Appendix for
• Review of all the validation data on the relationship between personality scales full reference list.
and job performance.
• Review of documentation from sponsoring and other client organizations to
investigate which aspects of personality were relevant to them. Documentation
included assessment center and interviewing criteria, appraisal systems and
person specifications.
• Repertory Grid study to investigate the constructs used by managers in the
working environment to assess personal attributes of individuals. Approximately
100 Repertory Grids were completed, and some 800 constructs were elicited,
giving a pool of adjectives, phrases and potential items for the questionnaires.

These activities resulted in an initial model of personality incorporating some 40 bi-

polar scales plus five ancillary scales. Each pole was considered separately giving
90 variables in all. The provisional model is shown in Figure 1.

As a preliminary trial of the model before writing full length items, an Adjective
Checklist (ACL) study was carried out.

For each scale, six definitive adjectives were chosen, three each for the positive
and negative poles of the scale. In each group of three adjectives there was at least
one considered to be undesirable to most respondents. These clusters of adjectives
were subsequently known as HICs (Homogeneous Item Clusters).

The ACL also included 70 miscellaneous adjectives which did not load on a
particular scale but which had been identified as important in the vocabulary used
by individuals and organizations to describe personality at work, e.g. “common
sense”, “drive”, “respected”, “dependable”.
 Figure 1: Initial model of personality

BEHAVIOR

Relationships with people Ideas/Cognitive style Feelings

Dominance Theoretical Energy

Competitive v Abasing Time Sharing v Linear Thinking Active v Passive

Aggressive v Mild Objective v Subjective Proactive v Reactive

Controlling v Following Ambiguity v Tolerance v Rigid Disillusioned v Optimistic

Persuasive v Accepting Innovative v Adaptive

Achieving v Quitting Concrete v Abstract Self Concept

Confidence v Self Esteem

Ambitious v Satisfied Low Risk v High Risk

Self Control v Impulsive

High Introspective v Low

Empathy

Perceptive v Imperceptive Anxiety

Conventionalism
High Trait v Low Trait
Nurturance v Uncaring Conservative v Radical

High State v Low State

Compromising v Regulating High Structuring v Low

Tough Minded v Tender Minded

Inclusion v Exclusion Super-ego Strength v Expedient

Self Blame v Extra-punitive

Tolerant v Mistrusting

Expression Independence High Order v Low Order

Genuine v Hypocrisy Affiliation v Loner
Change v Maintenance
Exhibition v Shy Self-sufficient v Dependent

Spontaneous v Inhibited

High Status v Low Status

Socially Skilled v Awkward

Openness v Defensiveness
There were three separate tasks in the ACL study, each based on the same list of
adjectives, and most respondents completed only one of the three. The tasks were
as follows:
• Self rating
• Rating a colleague
• Rating “how I would like to be”

The Social
The third task was designed to provide an indication of social desirability of the
adjectives. Confidence HIC.
Socially confident
Trialling on occupational groups Shy
Articulate
Sponsoring organizations were active in finding respondents in a variety of
Timid
functions to complete the tasks and about 500 working adults returned the
Adjective Checklists. This included both “self rating” and “rating a colleague” Overbearing
questionnaires. Some 60 people completed the third rating. Quiet

Data analysis

For analysis, the 400 adjective questionnaire was first analyzed into 90 HICs of 4
items each, and 40 marker variables. The 90 HICs comprised 45 positive and 45
negatively loading clusters onto a total of 45 scales, including the 40 scales in the
model and 5 others.

Complementary HICs were added to form 45 scales and a 98 x 98 correlation

matrix was formed of the 45 scales, 40 markers, 9 second order scales, 3 third
order scales and one fourth order scale. Each individual item was then correlated
with each of the 45 scales.

Throughout the analysis the “self” rating and “others” rating data were considered
separately. Small differences were noticed between the two tasks, with slightly
more subtlety (and, therefore, more factors emerging) in the “self” rating than
“others” rating.

Factor analysis was carried out using SPSS and Promax programs, extracting factors
with eigen values greater than 1.0. The most encouraging finding was how those
who responded to the study were able to be very discerning about personality
variables at work, both in relation to themselves and others. It was also
encouraging that the fieldwork method, involving largely mailing distribution to
nominated individuals, self administration and anonymity of response provided
such good quality data, and could, therefore, be employed in future fieldwork.
 Amended conceptual model of personality

Following the ACL study the OPQ model was further refined and a total of 32
psychologically meaningful and measurable scales identified. This model (refer to
Figure 2) was used as a basis for writing items for the first forms of the OPQ
questionnaire itself.

Full length item trialling

The next stage of the research was to write full items to measure the 32 scales in
the newly refined model. Items were generated based on the adjectives, phrases
and Repertory Grid constructs generated in the previous stage, supplemented by
Critical Incident discussions. A number of item writers were employed to increase
creativity, and those item writers spanned different age groups, genders and ethnic
groups. Over 2000 items were generated, from which the best 1500 were selected.

A number of different item formats were written to explore the relative strengths
and weaknesses of several different item types commonly utilized in this type of
questionnaire. These were:

Item type 1: Likert Rating

A good item was
The task was to rate oneself on a 5 point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to
considered to be “strongly disagree”. There were 384 items, i.e., 12 per scale.
unambiguous,
interesting to Item type 2: Multiple Choice
complete, relevant to Items consisted of questions, statements or situations, with three varying options
for each question. There were 384 items, i.e., 12 per scale.
the general working
population and
Item type 3: Forced Choice
aimed at a reading This type was made up of pairs of words or phrases. The task was to choose
level appropriate for which word or phrase is most like you. The ACL questionnaire was an important
average ability levels input to the design of this section. There were 320 pairs, comprising every
and above. comparison between different scales but within the same domain.

Item type 4: Ranking

Forced choice consisting of blocks of four statements. The task was to rank order
the four in terms of “which comes easiest to you”. Every scale was compared at
least once with every other scale, resulting in 107 blocks of four statements.
Figure 2: Model proposed after Adjective Checklist Study

RELATING

Tough Extroversion Warm Extroversion

Assertiveness Outgoing Empathy Adherence

1.Take the lead 6. Effusive 8.Tolerant 10. Gregarious

2. Manipulative 7. Socially Confident 9. Nurturant 11. Dependent

3. Competitive

4. Autocratic

5. Status Conscious

THINKING

Structure Abstraction Adherence

1. Forward Thinking 4.Theoretical 9. Objective

2. Conscientious 5. Practical 10. Subjective

3. Conservative 6. Innovative 11. Critical

7. Concerned with Detail 12. Decisive

8. Flexible

FEELINGS

Anxieties Emotions Self-Image

1. Generally Relaxed 4.Thick Skinned 6. Self-esteem

2. Anxiety Prone 5. Emotional Control 7. Self-awareness

3. Optimism

Energy

8. Active

9. Need for Achievement

Field trials using the UK Government’s “Labour Force Survey” as a sampling frame
were carried out on just over 700 working adults, mostly employed in sponsoring
organizations. Most respondents were asked to complete two out of four sections,
so that direct comparisons could be made between item types. Over 1200 sections
were available for analysis. Distribution of materials was by mail to individuals
designated by sponsoring organizations.

The high response rate (85%) was helped by Human Resource managers having
particular responsibility for following up individuals in the sample.

Item analysis was carried out on all returned questionnaire sections. Every item
was correlated with every scale; every scale was correlated with every other scale
within the same section, and scales in different sections were compared with each
other as a test of consistency.

A good item was taken as one which was closely related (i.e., had a high
correlation) with other items in its own scale, but was not closely related to items
in other scales. A good scale was one which was internally consistent (i.e., high
internal reliability coefficient) and which was consistent across the four different
item formats (high alternate form reliability).

The above criteria were applied and a number of items rejected. The usual reason
for rejecting an item was that it related to other scales as well as its own. For
example, an item in the scale Controlling was a good item only if it correlated well
with its own scale but showed a lower correlation with all others.

These criteria alone could lead to very narrow scales being developed. To counter
that, as well as the psychometric criteria, item content was continuously reviewed
to ensure that it adequately sampled the diversity of the relevant construct domain.

The 32 scale conceptual model was again refined as some scales were found not to
work well. These were scales which were found to be unreliable in that they had
low internal consistencies and/or alternate form reliabilities. The changes made to
the conceptual model are summarized below:
• 2 scales were dropped because they could not be reliably measured, reducing
the total number of scales to 30.
• 2 scales were renamed to reflect the items which seemed to work best within
them.
• Some groupings of scales within the model changed in line with statistical data
as to the best relationship between them. For example, Decisive moved from
Thinking Style to the Energies section of the Feelings and Emotions domain.

The above work resulted in the Concept Model of the OPQ, measuring 30 scales
and utilizing three main item formats.

Factorial studies

The Concept model of personality represents a comprehensive instrument which

involves correlated scales.

The next stage was to investigate the best statistical summary of the Concept
Model, by subjecting the data collected in the previous stage to factor analysis.

Item parcels of three homogeneous items from each scale were used as a basis for
the factor analysis. Individual items were judged to be too small, and whole scales
too large to be suitable for the purpose. Forced choice items were not included as
this item format is not statistically suitable for the procedure.

The analysis used was Promax, a well-developed and documented program, which
was run independently on the three item banks, allowing for cross-validation of
resulting solutions.
For further research

Factorial Models were produced for solutions from 2 factors up to 19, ceasing on the factor
when introducing further factors did not significantly account for more of the structure of the
common variance. Concept Model see:
Matthews, G. &
This analysis produced several solutions over each of the three item parcel banks
Stanton, N. (1994).
and these were closely studied and compared. A series of cross-checks were
Item and Scale
carried out, and the following analyses undertaken:
Factor Analyses of
• item analysis which provided internal consistency reliability coefficients for the the OPQ. Personality
factored scales; and Individual
• correlations of the factored scales from each item bank with each other to Differences, 16, 5,
check for stability of the solutions across item type;
733-743.
• correlations of the factored scales with the Concept Model;
• intercorrelation of the factored scales to ensure that scales within a solution
were sufficiently distinct to be worth measuring individually.
The factored scales were refined on the basis of this information and final solutions
were reached which had acceptable psychometric properties as well as being
conceptually meaningful. Factor Models containing 4, 5, 8, 10 and 17 factors were
identified and taken through to the final standardization stage. Final refinement
after standardization trialling resulted in the published Factorial Models with 14
(Factor version), 8 (Octagon version) and 5 (Pentagon version) scales.

These represent statistically robust summaries of the Concept Model. The Factor
Model, for example, summarizes approximately 70 percent of the reliable variance
in the Concept Model.

Standardization stage

The objectives at this stage were as follows:

• item analysis: to conduct a final check on the reliability of the models and the
items measuring each scale;
• reliability: to obtain internal consistency and cross form consistency estimates
for every scale;
• norms: to produce sten norm tables, and investigate the relationship of scores
with demographic variables;
• to design workable administration instructions, materials and scoring systems.

Final form trial booklets included five sections covering four different item formats,
with each respondent asked to complete two out of the five sections. Sections were
allocated at random to ensure a good distribution of different sections completed.
In addition, respondents completed background information including their job title
and responsibilities, employer, years of experience, approximate salary level,
educational qualifications, gender, age and ethnic origin.

The standardization trials were intended to sample all occupational groups for
whom the OPQ questionnaires would be potentially relevant. The aim was to
collect data on a sample which broadly reflected the breakdown of the relevant job
categories in the economy. A sampling frame was used based on the Labor Force
Survey (1981) classification of occupations.

OPQ standardization questionnaires were mailed out to participating organizations,

who were mainly OPQ sponsors. This took place from November, 1983 to
February, 1984. All booklets distributed were closely monitored, and for security
purposes all booklets were required to be returned to SHL, irrespective of whether
or not they had been completed.
A total of 3,230 standardization trial booklets were distributed within organizations
including government departments, local authorities, engineering, banking and
finance, manufacturing, retail and public services. Approximately 75 percent of
those questionnaires distributed were returned at least partially completed.

Since many respondents had completed more than one section, the total number of
completed sections which could be analyzed was approximately 2,800.

Item analysis resulted in further selection of items and refinement of the Factorial
Models. Nine separate questionnaires were constructed covering the Concept and
Factorial Models. For each of the nine proposed questionnaires, the internal
consistency reliability was computed for each scale. Cross form consistency
estimates were obtained between the questionnaires measuring each level of the
model.

Sten norm tables were computed for each OPQ version based on the
standardization sample. Correlations with various demographic variables were
considered, including gender, age, educational level and seniority (as measured by
salary level).

The final stage of the development phase involved the design of booklets, answer
sheets, scoring keys and software for computer administration.

Nine questionnaires were published in the UK in September 1984. Three were

based on the full 30 scale Concept Model.

Concept 4 Ipsative format, based on blocks of 4 items.

Concept 3 Normative format with three different answer options for each
statement.
Concept 5 Normative format with a five point rating scale.

The remaining versions were all normative in format with two or three different
options to choose for each statement, on a five point rating scale.

14 scale Factor 3 and Factor 5

8 scale Octagon 2 and Octagon 5
5 scale Pentagon 2 and Pentagon 5
 Some definitions:

Normative: Questionnaires described here as “normative” have answer formats where

respondents rate each statement independently - either using a 1-5 scale or choosing between
options indicating varying degrees of agreement.
Ipsative: With ipsative questionnaires respondents divide a fixed number of points between
the different scales.With OPQ this is achieved by ranking items representing different scales.
Forced choice: This refers to item formats where respondents must choose between
different statements or options.While typically associated with ipsative questionnaires, if the
respondent is forced to choose between options representing different positions on the same
scale, responses will be normative.
Norm referencing: The practice of using comparisons with norm tables to interpret scale
scores.While this is the origin of the term “normative,” in fact both normative and ipsative
OPQ scores are interpreted using norms.

Further development of the OPQ Model: 1985-1993

Since the original Concept 4 (ipsative) and Concept 3 and 5 (normative)

questionnaires, further refinements and improvements have been made to the OPQ
item content. Between publication in 1984 and the start of the OPQ32 development
program in 1994, the OPQ range of questionnaires was continuously developed.
The main landmarks in this process are listed below:

Development of the Concept 4.2 questionnaire

Concept 4.2 replaced the Concept 4 questionnaire. It too was ipsative in format
using very similar groups of 4 items. However, the task in this version required
only choosing the most and least preferred statements, rather than a full ranking.
Research showed this version produced equally reliable results but was quicker to
complete.

Development of the extended Factor Model (FMX)

Two 19 scale questionnaires were developed from the original 14 scale Factor
Model. These included five additional scales which users had requested to provide
more detail in certain areas of the profile. Both were normative versions with 5
point Likert response scales. The first was aimed at occupational groups. The
second had modified items for use with students in a careers guidance context.
Development of the Concept 5.2 questionnaire

The original Concept 3 and Concept 5 questionnaires had to be used together to

provide good reliability. Therefore, it was decided to replace them with a single,
longer questionnaire. As users preferred the Concept 5 format, the number of items
per scale was increased from six to eight to provide a sufficient level of reliability.

Development of Perspectives

The Perspectives questionnaire was developed to allow a Concept Model profile of

an individual to be derived from the responses of another person. This 360 degree
approach to profiling is intended mainly for use in counseling contexts.

General population study

In March 1990 a major OPQ standardization study was undertaken using Concept
5.2 to provide UK General Population norms. Data on nearly 3000 people was
collected by the British Market Research Bureau using refined random selection
sampling, including a booster sample of ethnic minority respondents to examine
the cross-cultural effects of the questionnaire.

Development of Images

A new 6 scale OPQ model and questionnaire was produced based on a replication
of the original factor studies using the data from the standardization study. This
questionnaire reflects much of the work on the Big Five model of personality.
However, in this case our research showed strong evidence for a separate
Achieving scale representing energies.

Development of Factor 16

Replication of the factor studies on the General Population sample, together with
accumulated experience of using the original Factor Models and the extended
Factor Model led to the development of a 16 Factor Model, with simultaneous
development work in the UK and Italy. Both a normative and an ipsative version
were developed.

Applied models

In addition to these general models a number of “applied” models have been More information
developed containing only scales relevant to a particular occupational group. The
about these versions
first of these were the Work Styles Questionnaire (WSQ) intended mainly for jobs
in production and maintenance, the Customer Service Questionnaire (CSQ) and the can be found in the
Sales Personality Questionnaire (SPQ). Current models are the 16 scale Work Styles relevant manual.
Questionnaire (a revision of the original model) and the two versions of the
Customer Contact Styles Questionnaire.
 International validation study

Between 1992 and 1993 a large validation study was undertaken of the OPQ
Concept 4.2 questionnaire. Overall, more than 1000 managers were included from
three countries. OPQ profiles and managers’ ratings of performance were collected.
Results from this study are presented in the Criterion Validity chapter.

The SHL Validation Computer generated Expert system

Review contains
descriptions of more Over the years SHL has developed computer software to aid and extend
than 80 different interpretation of OPQ profiles. The original systems were DOS based but
Microsoft™ Windows based systems were developed as technology moved on. An
validation studies for
inference engine was designed which could be used by an expert in OPQ
a variety of OPQ interpretation to create rules for report generation. In addition, the OPQ has been
versions and job related to various models of work styles such as Belbin’s team types and theories
groups. of leadership and reporting styles. These can also be generated as profiles or
narrative reports from the computerized Expert systems. Reports available for
OPQ32 and the different derived scales are described in the Expert Systems
chapter.

OPQ around the world

International versions of the OPQ have been developed and standardized in many
languages and countries including:

Australia Belgium Canada Denmark

France Germany Greece Holland

Hong Kong Hungary Indonesia Ireland

Italy Japan Korea Mexico

New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal

Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore South Africa

Spain Sweden Turkey USA

The ongoing research and development of the Concept Model and other OPQ
versions, together with the growing internationalization of its use formed the basis
of the OPQ32 development program.
The OPQ32 development program : 1994-1999

The OPQ32 development program was a long-term research endeavor. The

program ran from 1994 to the OPQ32 launch in the Spring of 1999. Part of the
development was aided by a Teaching Company Scheme research grant.

The discussion of the development of OPQ32 is in two parts. The development

process is outlined first, indicating the key stages involved in the OPQ
development program. This is followed by a discussion of the evolution of the
OPQ32 model from the original Concept Model scales.

The fundamental aim of the development program was to review and revise the
Concept Model and develop two new questionnaires to measure the model. This
program started with a detailed look at the two most up-to-date and popular
Concept Model questionnaires, Concept 4.2 (ipsative) and Concept 5.2 (normative).

The main stages of the development of OPQ32 were as follows:

• Establish the developmental objectives

• Data gathering and review
• Propose new initial model
• Trial normative questions
• Revise model and finalize normative questionnaire (OPQ32n)
• Develop ipsative questionnaire (OPQ32i)

Stage 1: Establish developmental objectives

The objectives of the revision were to update the Concept Model based on
information on the use of the questionnaires from around the world. This led to a
new international model of personality designed to reflect the changing nature of
work at the beginning of the 21st century. While the revision had specific aims, the
original development objectives of OPQ outlined in the first chapter of the User’s
Guide were also adhered to.

Specifically the aims in the OPQ32 revision were to:

Produce an international personality questionnaire

The experience of the development of the OPQ Concept Model around the world
provided an opportunity to build on the Concept Model to ensure that the new
model is appropriate for use in different cultures and relatively free from problems
of translation and adaptation.
 Achieve even better validity
The aim was not only to increase the empirical validity, but also the face validity
of the questionnaire. The most radical changes to the validity of the
questionnaires were expected to be achieved by identifying new work relevant
constructs to be measured and removing constructs that have limited relevance
to the majority of managerial, professional and ancillary roles for which the OPQ
Concept questionnaire are most used.
Refer to the end of
this chapter for
Improve the reliabilities of some scales
further information. The majority of the Concept Model scales have highly acceptable reliability
estimates. However, some of the scales of Concept 5.2 have lower reliabilities,
which could benefit from improvement (e.g. Forward Planning).

Reduce the overlap between scales

The Concept Model was designed as a comprehensive measure of personality
and was designed to include constructs that correlated strongly with each other,
but that were still different in content (e.g. Social Confidence and Outgoing).
Refer to the The OPQ32 model is also designed to have overlapping constructs. However,
Construct Validity the OPQ32 model was designed to maintain or increase the reliability of the
scales, while lowering the correlation between the constructs. The goal was to
chapter for further
lower the average intercorrelation between scales and to avoid a scale sharing
information.
more than 50 percent of its reliable variance with another (i.e. a true score
intercorrelation no greater than .7 between any two scales).

Keep the questionnaire length to a minimum

The questionnaires should not be longer than necessary. The questionnaire
length was to be reduced where there was sufficient scope for the reduction
(high reliability and variance).

Stage 2: Data gathering and review

The second stage of the revision was a more formal data gathering process on
the OPQ Concept Model questionnaires from around the world to assess how it
could be amended to meet these criteria.

The data gathered for the review can be classified into two main categories:
quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative

The quantitative data were collected on the two Concept Model questionnaires,
Concept 4.2 and Concept 5.2, from around the world. In some countries only
Concept 5.2 is available, in some countries only Concept 4.2 is available and in
other countries both questionnaires are available. The collection of this data led
to the identification of data sets that could provide additional useful information
in the development program. A number of the studies were set up specifically as
part of the OPQ32 development program where no existing data were available
(e.g. Human Resource Predictive Validation Study)

The analyses were based on three main themes:

• Criterion related validity review

• Relationships with other measures
• Psychometric analyses

Criterion related validity review

Since the initial development of the OPQ, much criterion related validity data have
been amassed. The SHL Validation Review contains some 80 studies from different
organizations looking at many different job roles. Robertson & Kinder (1993)
published a meta-analysis of OPQ validation studies showing consistent significant
relationships with a number of different management competencies as well as
significant improvement in predictions of performance over cognitive ability tests
used alone (see Salgado, 1996).
See the Criterion
SHL carried out an international validation study using the same methodology with Validity chapter for
over 1000 managers from different organizations in three different countries
further details of
(Robertson et al, 1996). Overall ratings of performance, as well as specific
these studies and
competency ratings made by line managers, were used as criterion variables.
Another study by SHL looked at the predictive validity of the questionnaire with their results.
over 300 Human Resource personnel. Again, criterion ratings of overall
performance and of specific competencies were collected from line managers.
These two studies had very similar findings.

In addition, a literature survey was undertaken to bring together occupational

validity findings for other personality measures.

Relationships with other measures

The relationship of the OPQ Concept 5.2 questionnaire with other instruments was
considered. These included:

• the NEO PI-R, Results from a

• the 16PF Version 4 (Form A) and Version 5,
number of these
• the SHL Motivation Questionnaire,
studies are provided
• the SHL Customer Contact Styles Questionnaire and
• the SHL Advanced Occupational Interest Inventory. in the Construct
Validity chapter.
 Psychometric analyses
Much analysis was completed on the large data base of completed Concept Model
questionnaires amassed over the years. The relationships between the different
scales was investigated through the raw and true score correlations of the scales
for both the ipsative and normative questionnaires. In addition, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses of the Concept 5.2 scale data were undertaken to
better understand underlying structure.

Both norm and reliability results were compared for the two Concept Model
questionnaires for data from different countries around the world, as well as for
different ethnic groups within the UK. This was used to highlight areas which did
not adapt well to other cultures and languages.

At the item level, large data sets were used to replicate original item analyses as
well as item level factor analyses. In particular, work was done looking at the
construct similarity of positive and negative loading items from the same scale. The
analyses at one stage often suggested specific analyses at another level, e.g. the
analysis of the scale intercorrelations led to subsequent item level factor analyses
of items from specific scales.

Qualitative

The qualitative data were based on an International Consultation exercise. This

exercise sought the views of experienced OPQ users around the world. The review
focused on cultural issues that could affect responses to items and therefore scales.
The review also asked respondents to propose potential new personality constructs
to be measured.

The review included OPQ users from:

Australia Belgium Canada Denmark

Germany Hong Kong Ireland Italy

Korea Poland Saudi Arabia Singapore

South Africa United Kingdom USA

Stage 3: Propose new initial model

A panel of OPQ experts worked together with the summarized quantitative and
qualitative data from the review and proposed a new model of personality. The
new proposed model of personality is shown in the middle column of Figure 3
later in the chapter, with the original Concept Model and the final OPQ32 model in
the left and right columns, respectively.

The new model included high and low score descriptions for each scale. In some
cases the descriptions were identical to the Concept Model descriptions. Other The differences
scales also had possible suggestions for change to be tried along with the original between the
scale version. Concept Model and
OPQ32 are
A team of experienced personality questionnaire item writers wrote a large number
summarized at the
of positive and negative items to measure both the new scale descriptions and
end of this chapter.
suggestions for change. More than double the number of required items were
written for each scale. The item writers were given clear instructions regarding the
nature of the items including:

• Use work relevant content

• Use easily accessible vocabulary
• Use simple grammatical forms (no passives, double meanings)
• Avoid complex items (e.g. double barrelled, if … then … statements)
• Keep items short

The items were then reviewed separately by a team of experienced reviewers. The
reviewers typically rejected items on one of two grounds: they didn’t relate closely
to the scale description; or they didn’t perfectly fulfill the general criteria for items.

Stage 4:Trial normative questions

This led to a reduced set of items for trialling. 569 items were trialled in total, 248
from the existing questionnaire and 321 new items. 505 students from a variety of
academic institutions in the UK completed all the items.

Items were selected at this stage for inclusion in the second normative trial based
primarily on their item partial but taking into consideration scale content and
breadth.
 The second trial questionnaire contained 366 items, of which 230 were chosen for
the final normative questionnaire. The first trial was considered a rough filter
process leading to a reduced set of items for the second trial. In some cases the
items were amended or re-written for the second trial.

The second trial was conducted simultaneously in New Zealand, USA and the UK
to ensure international consistency with over 1500 respondents from a variety of
different organizations.

Stage 5: Revise model and finalize normative questionnaire (OPQ32n)

The second trial led to the selection of the final set of items for the normative
questionnaire. The model was slightly revised based on the results of the two trials.
Figure 3 outlines these changes, which are discussed in more detail in the next
MacIver, R (1997).
section. The two key changes were removing the Pragmatic scale and the creation
A shorter OPQ? of the Rule Following scale. Some of the other proposed scale amendments were
Selection & successful and some were less so and not included in the final model. The most
Development common problem with amendments was new item content failing to correlate with the
Review, 13, (1) 13. rest of the scale. Again, these issues are discussed in more detail in the next section.

Concept 5.2 has eight items for each scale. Eight items were initially selected for
each of the scales of normative version OPQ32. At this stage, scales were identified
that showed high internal consistency (α>0.8) and good variance (sd >5.5) that
might be reduced to six items. Ten item solutions for other scales with broader
content domains were also considered. In the end, 16 scales were reduced to six
The Scale items with the remaining 17 scales of OPQ32n composed of eight items. Where the
Descriptions chapter removal of items seriously impacted on the reliability (particularly if it fell below
0.7), or pushed the standard deviation below 4, the scale was not reduced in length.
gives age and gender
trends from the The normative questionnaire was subsequently standardized on the UK population.
General Population Further details can be found in the Norms chapter.
sample.
Stage 6: Develop ipsative questionnaire (OPQ32i)

With the model finalized and the items selected for the normative questionnaire,
OPQ32n, the ipsative model was developed. More items were written and
reviewed by groups of experienced item writers and reviewers. Criteria for writing
items remained the same except that items should be slightly shorter for the
ipsative questionnaire than for the normative questionnaire.

The normative item set was used in addition to the scale descriptions as an
indicator of the ipsative item content. This helped to ensure similarity of content
between the ipsative and normative questionnaires. The items were trialled using a
5 point Likert scale to check psychometric properties and to provide a measure of
typical endorsement rates for each item to facilitate building the ipsative questionnaire.

The item pattern for OPQ32i places items in blocks of four (quads). In each block
of four, the task is to choose the item most like you and the item least like you.
Two points are scored for the relevant scale for a “most like” response and zero
points for a “least like” response. The two remaining items in the block score one
point for their respective scales. The design has a total of 104 blocks of four items
(416 items in total). Each scale has 13 items (i.e. 13 x 32 = 416). The item pattern is
balanced to ensure that items from one scale will only be in the same block of four
as an item from any other scale once or twice throughout the whole questionnaire.

The items were placed in the blocks based on factors such as their item mean and
correlation with the other three scales in the block of four. Some blocks of four
were identified as more likely to give candidates difficulty and be poorer indicators
of the traits than other blocks of four. These tended to be blocks where there were
relatively large differences between the item means or the scales in a block were
strongly correlated with each other. In total, 33 blocks were identified as more
likely to give such problems. Each of these blocks had a parallel block written with
alternative items designed to overcome the problem. In one case two parallel
The final scale
blocks were written.
reliabilities and
The final questionnaire with 138 blocks was then trialled on varied occupational intercorrelations
and professional groups of 807 people. After the trial, an item metric analysis was can be found in
used to select between the parallel blocks leaving the 104 blocks of the item the Reliability and
pattern. Information on item statistics can be found in the appendix.
Construct Validity
chapters.
Summary of differences between OPQ32 and the
Concept Model

Figure 3 outlines the differences between the Concept Model, the initial proposed
model and the OPQ32 model. The following discussion highlights issues in the
derivation of each of the OPQ32 scales.

Persuasive (OPQ32 and Concept)

There were two key changes to Persuasive. The first change was to emphasize
negotiation as well as selling and persuading within the items. The second change
was to remove items which focused on “preferring others to do the influencing” as
this concept (abdication of responsibility) is also related to low Controlling.

Controlling (OPQ32 and Concept)

Alternative items written but no major content change.

Independent Minded, Outspoken and Evaluative (OPQ32)

Independent and Critical (Concept)
The Independent and Critical scales were both fairly broad with some overlap of
content and strong true score correlations.

An item-level factor analysis (Principal Components extraction, Varimax and

Oblimin [delta = 0] rotation) suggested three content areas across the two scales.
The first element of Independent identified was a preparedness “to go one’s own
way” rather than simply following group consensus, creating the Independent
Minded scale. The second element identified from the Concept Model Independent
scale was being “prepared to speak up” which forms one element of the
Outspoken scale in the new model. The second aspect of the Outspoken scale is
“being prepared to directly criticize others” (i.e. face to face) from the Critical scale.
The third new scale, Evaluative, emerges from what remains of the Concept Model
Critical scale, a preference for evaluating and analyzing information and for
identifying potential problems (although not necessarily vocalizing these issues).

Outgoing and Socially Confident (OPQ32)

Independent Minded
Independent
Outspoken
Critical
Evaluative
Figure 3: OPQ Concept Model, the proposed model and the final
OPQ32 model

Concept Model Proposed Model OPQ32 Model

Persuasive Persuasive Persuasive
Controlling Controlling Controlling
Independent Independent Minded Independent Minded
Outspoken Outspoken
Outgoing Outgoing Outgoing
Affiliative Affiliative Affiliative
Social Confidence Socially Confident Socially Confident
Modest Modest Modest
Democratic Democratic Democratic
Caring Caring Caring
Practical Pragmatic Removed
Data Rational Data Rational Data Rational
Artistic Removed
Evaluative Evaluative
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Traditional Traditional Conventional
Change Orientated Variety Seeking Variety Seeking
New Adaptable Adaptable
Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual
Innovative Innovative Innovative
Forward Planning Forward Thinking Forward Thinking
Detail Conscious Detail Conscious Detail Conscious
Conscientious Conscientious Conscientious
Rule Following
Relaxed Relaxed Relaxed
Worrying Worrying Worrying
Tough Minded Tough Minded Tough Minded
Emotional Control Optimistic Optimistic
New Trusting Trusting
Optimistic Emotionally Controlled Emotionally Controlled
Critical
Active Amended Vigorous Vigorous
Competitive Competitive Competitive
Achieving Achieving Achieving
Decisive Decisive Decisive
Outgoing and Social Confidence (Concept)
To reduce the high intercorrelation between these two scales the scale definitions
were refined to exclude common content. Some changes to items were identified
to reduce the overlap between the two scales. Outgoing is now focused solely on
expressed behavior such as “talking a lot” and Socially Confident is focused on
social anxiety, e.g., “I feel confident with strangers.” Items relating to shyness were
removed as they can be interpreted as either anxiety or expressed behavior.

Affiliative (OPQ32 and Concept)

Some new negative items were proposed relating to enjoying being alone and
preferring to spend some time away from others. Only the items relating to liking
to get away from others loaded strongly on the scale and were included in OPQ32.
It would seem that low scorers on Affiliative are not necessarily individuals who
have a strong preference to be alone; rather they are individuals that may
sometimes find too much people contact uncomfortable or overwhelming.

Socially Confident (OPQ32)

Social Confidence (Concept)
Refer to discussion of Outgoing. The change of scale name is made to be more
consistent with the other OPQ scale labels.

Modest (OPQ32 and Concept)

The scale now focuses on willingness to discuss individual successes and
achievements and avoids references to status. Status consciousness was identified
in the international review as more strongly related to immodesty in some cultures
than others so these items were dropped.

Democratic (OPQ32 and Concept)

Focuses primarily on consulting and encouraging contribution from others.
Preference for group and committee decision making is no longer part of
Democratic in the OPQ32 scale. This concept is now picked up with the
Independent Minded scale.

Caring (OPQ32 and Concept)

New items relating to being supportive in the OPQ32 model, but no major content
change.
Practical (Concept only)
This scale was finally removed after the second trial as a result of its limited
relevance to managerial and professional roles. It has greater relevance to manual
and technical roles and is picked up in questionnaires aimed at this group.

An attempt to focus the scale on pragmatic problem solving led to high correlations
with Controlling and Decisive. It was decided that the Pragmatic scale provided too
little extra relevant information to justify inclusion in the new model.

Data Rational (OPQ32 and Concept)

Alternative items written but no major content change. Some new items relating to
being more intuitive did not correlate with the other items on the Data Rational
scale. This suggests that people who enjoy working with numbers (e.g.,
mathematicians) may consider themselves as intuitive in their approach as those
who prefer to avoid numerical data.

Evaluative (OPQ32)
Critical (Concept)
Refer to the discussion of Independent Minded.

Artistic (Concept only)

This scale was removed as a result of its limited relevance to the majority of
managerial and professional roles which have little artistic content. In addition,
many respondents found the artistic items of low face validity and this tainted their
response to the whole questionnaire.

Behavioral (OPQ32 and Concept)

Items relating to self-analysis and introspection were removed, leaving a focus
solely on the analysis of the behavior and motivation of others.

Conventional (OPQ32)
Traditional (Concept)
Conventional essentially measures the same concept as the Traditional scale in the
Concept Model. The word “traditional” is less emphasized in items as it has specific
cultural interpretations in different parts of the world (e.g., in South Africa
“Traditional” can be interpreted as having a belief in apartheid). This was also the
reason for the change in scale name.
 Variety Seeking (OPQ32)
Change Orientated (Concept)
Two changes were made to Change Orientated: references to foreign travel were
removed, and the negative items were given a greater focus on preference for
routine. Travel items were found to be more of an indicator of Change Orientated
in some cultures than others (e.g., a better indicator in the UK than the US). The
name was changed to better reflect the content of the OPQ32 scale.

Adaptable (OPQ32 only)

This new scale was identified as a potentially important variable in relation to
Cultural Sensitivity. While it is important to have concern for others (Caring) and to
This flexibility of
consider issues from other people’s perspectives (Behavioral), it is also important to
approach can also
modify behavior or approach to suit different situations and people.
have its downside at
times, as other Conceptual (OPQ32 and Concept)
people may view Alternative items written, but no major content change.
adaptable behavior
Innovative (OPQ32 and Concept)
as inconsistent.
New items measure the number of ideas an individual produces, the originality,
and diversity of these ideas, but no major content change.

Forward Thinking (OPQ32)

Forward Planning (Concept)
The items were changed to focus on longer term planning and have a greater focus
on more strategic organizational issues. The move to long rather than short term
planning also helps to keep Forward Thinking distinct from Detail Conscious and
A true non- Conscientious. The name was changed to reflect the change in the content towards
conformist would be a longer term perspective.
expected to be low
on both the Detail Conscious (OPQ32 and Concept)
Alternative items written, but no major content change.
Conventional and
Rule Following scales Conscientious (OPQ32 and Concept)
(prefer new Alternative items written, but no major content change.
approaches and
break the rules). Rule Following (OPQ32 only)
This scale resulted from some new items originally intended as part of the
Traditional scale. Both the new Conventional and old Traditional scale focus on
attitudes. The new, more behavioral items concern following, breaking and
bending rules and these form the new Rule Following scale.
Relaxed and Worrying (OPQ32 and Concept)
To reduce the correlation between Relaxed and Worrying, the Worrying scale was
refocused on pre-event worry and concern. Items relating to anxiety or guilt after
events were removed. The modified Worrying scale correlates more strongly with
Socially Confident than before.

Tough Minded (OPQ32 and Concept)

Alternative items written, but no major content change.

Optimistic (OPQ32 and Concept)

Alternative items written, but no major content change.

Trusting (OPQ32 only)

This new scale is partly derived from the Critical scale. It focuses on the trust and
faith an individual has in others. The new scale is useful in understanding issues
such as how an individual delegates a task to others, or approaches negotiations.
The type of emotion
Emotionally Controlled (OPQ32) being displayed is
Emotional Control (Concept)
likely to depend on
The scale was refocused on the extent to which emotions are displayed. Items
information from the
relating to the sort of emotions experienced were removed. The scale name was
changed to be consistent with other OPQ32 scale names. scales which precede
Emotionally
Vigorous (OPQ32) Controlled on the
Active (Concept) profile chart:
The new scale focuses on an enjoyment of being busy and occupied. Items relating
Relaxed,Worrying,
to physical activity were removed as less relevant to many jobs and potentially
unfair to some people with disabilities. Tough Minded,
Optimistic,Trusting.
Competitive (OPQ32 and Concept)
Alternative items written, but no major content change.

Achieving (OPQ32 and Concept)

Some items relating to the choice between work life and outside interests were
removed. New items focus on being career centered and working to ambitious
targets.

Decisive (OPQ32 and Concept)

Alternative items written, but no major content change.
For details of the
Social Desirability (OPQ32n and Concept 5.2) interpretation of
The Social Desirability scale remains largely unchanged. Some alternatives trialled Social Desirability
concerned image management (making a good impression), but were eventually and Consistency
removed in the standardization phase as their psychometric characteristics were refer to the Scale
unpredictable.
Descriptions chapter.
 Consistency (OPQ32i and Concept 4.2)
The consistency score for Concept 4.2 was based on how many of five repeated
pairs of items were ranked in the same order on both presentations. This scale was
too short to differentiate well between consistent and inconsistent response
patterns. However, repeating additional item pairs could increase the length of the
questionnaire or reduce scale breadth. For the OPQ32i questionnaire a new
See Appendix for consistency score has been developed. The expected raw score for each scale, with
details of the truly random responding, is equal to the number of items loading on that scale.
Consistent response patterns will produce scores that deviate from this middle
effectiveness of the
score. Therefore, the new consistency score is the mean squared difference of the
Consistency score.
observed from the expected score across all scales.

Improvements in scale reliabilities

One of the specific aims of the OPQ32 revision was to improve the reliabilities of
certain Concept scales, particularly for the normative Concept 5.2 questionnaire.
This has been successfully achieved, with general improvements in reliability for
both normative and ipsative versions.

The median internal consistency for the Concept 5.2 questionnaire is 0.75. This has
increased to 0.79 for OPQ32n. (These figures are based on the respective general
population samples for the two instruments.) Of the seven scales with reliabilities
below 0.7 in the Concept 5.2 questionnaire, only two remained with lower
reliabilities after the revision (see Table 1).

There is also an improvement in the internal consistencies of OPQ32i over Concept

4.2. The increase is less marked than for the normative version, with a median
internal consistency for OPQ32i of 0.81 compared with 0.79 for Concept 4.2. Both
figures are based on the standardization samples for those instruments. The two
scales with reliabilities below 0.7 in Concept 4.2 now have much higher values.
However the reliability of two scales (Democratic and Evaluative) slipped just
below 0.7 in OPQ32i.

Thus, despite the increase in the number of scales, reliability has been improved
without increasing the number of items per scale. In fact the OPQ32n questionnaire
is shorter than Concept 5.2 and the OPQ32i has only 4 additional item quads.
Table 1: Improvements in internal consistencies
(OPQ32 versus Concept)

General Population (n = 2987) General Population (n=2028)

Concept 5.2 alpha mean sd SEm OPQ32n alpha mean sd SEm

Independent 0.63 28.40 4.27 2.60 Outspoken 0.76 21.73 4.90 2.40

Independent Minded 0.70 21.17 4.51 2.47

Democratic 0.64 26.14 4.05 2.43 Democratic 0.65 23.94 4.00 2.36

Critical 0.60 26.43 3.93 2.49 Evaluative 0.70 22.95 4.23 2.31

Change Orientated 0.62 26.97 4.32 2.66 Variety Seeking 0.70 21.96 4.60 2.52

Forward Planning 0.57 25.21 3.87 2.54 Forward Thinking 0.78 22.32 4.14 1.94

Achieving 0.63 21.24 4.39 2.67 Achieving 0.81 20.57 5.73 2.50

Social Desirability 0.67 22.18 4.39 2.52 Social Desirability 0.63 20.93 4.40 2.68

Standardization Sample (n = 146) Standardization Sample (n=807)

Concept 4.2 alpha mean sd SEm OPQ32i alpha mean sd SEm

Modest 0.68 12.75 3.83 2.16 Modest 0.81 13.10 4.72 2.06

Achieving 0.68 10.64 3.78 2.15 Achieving 0.79 13.77 4.84 2.22
 9 Norms

Norms
Norms are sets of data derived from groups of individuals who have already
completed a test or questionnaire. They place an individual’s score on a
standard scale by comparing it with the scores obtained by others.

The sten scale

There are various types of standard scales that can be used. Some, like
percentiles, relate to the rank ordering of scores. However, these do not provide
a uniform interval scale and they cannot be combined or compared
arithmetically. Therefore, standard scores which transform raw scores in a linear
manner are usually preferred for reporting personality scale scores.

The sten (standard ten) scale is used in reporting scores for OPQ32 in common
with many other personality questionnaires. It provides a scale of ten evenly
spaced units. Stens have the advantage that they are based on the principles of
standard scores and that they encourage us to think in terms of bands of scores,
rather than absolute points. With stens these bands are sufficiently narrow to
avoid highlighting tiny differences between people.

The relationship between stens and other commonly used scales is shown
below.

Normal Distribution Curve

Mean
and
Median
and
Mode

2% 14% 34% 34% 14% 2%

-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Standard z-score

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 T-score

0.1 0.8 2.28 6.68 15.87 30.85 50 69.15 84.13 93.32 97.72 99.2 99.9 Percentiles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Stens

1
 9 Norms

The sten score is calculated from the raw score using the mean and standard
deviation of the comparison population in the following formula:

( x-x )
2 sd + 5.5

x = individual raw score

x = mean score
sd = standard deviation

Scores are rounded to the nearest whole number and any score two standard
deviations or more above the mean is collapsed into the highest unit (sten 10);
scores two standard deviations or more below the mean are collapsed into the
lowest unit (sten 1).

Each unit has a band width of half a standard deviation (except 10 and 1). The
scale has a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2.

OPQ32 users do not need to calculate sten scores. Norm tables are provided for
converting raw scores using standard comparison groups, and several
prenormed profile charts are available.

SHL will supply tailored norm tables for users who collect large samples of their
own data. These are useful for looking at personality trends for the group,
although for the purposes of interpretation using a single more general group is
often simpler.

OPQ32 norm groups

The following norm groups are provided for OPQ32 questionnaires.

Group 1 US General Occupational sample for OPQ32n

Group 2 US Managerial & Professional sample for OPQ32n
Group 3 UK General Population sample for OPQ32n
Group 4 UK Managerial & Professional sample for OPQ32n
Group 5 UK Standardization sample for OPQ32i
Group 6 UK Managerial & Professional sample for OPQ32i
Group 7 UK Undergraduate sample for OPQ32i

In addition, a number of comparison profiles are provided at the end of the

chapter showing trends in scores for different occupational groups.

2
 9 Norms

US General Occupational Sample for OPQ32n

The general occupational sample norm group for OPQ32n is based upon
several groups recruited to participate in the normative data collection. It is
primarily occupational, with a small percentage of undergraduate and graduate
students (less than 10%.)

Participants completed the OPQ 32n via the Internet or via paper and pencil
administration. Some participants completed the questionnaire on personal time,
while most participants completed the questionnaire during their working
hours. Gender was fairly well represented, with 46% males and 54% females.
86% classified themselves as caucasian. Mean age is 39, with a standard
deviation of 11. Less than 1% of the participants reported less than a high
school diploma, with 72% having a bachelors degree or higher. The participants
classified themselves primarily as professional or managerial, from various
industries, including financial/insurance, manufacturing, healthcare, technical,
government, and other professional services.

More details of the sample are provided overleaf.

3
 9 Norms

US General Occupational sample for OPQ32n - Background Information

Gender Age

40

35

30

25

% 20

15

male 54% 10

female 46%
5

0
no 18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65
response

Ethnic Origin Educational Qualifications

Caucasian 82%

African-American 7%

Asian 3%

Hispanic 4%

Native American 3%

No response/other 1%
No response/other 4%

HS grad/some college 9%

Bachelors 35%

Masters 28%

Ph.D. 24%

4
 9 Norms

Job Function

50
No response/other
45
Professional
40
Managerial
35
Clerical/admin
30

25 Sales

% 20 Unskilled

15

10
5

0
8% 45% 23% 13% 9% 1%

yy;;
;; yy
Job Function
30 No response/other

25 Manufacturing

% 20 Financial

15 Health care
10 Technical
5
Government
0
15% 16% 26% 11% 8% 10% 4% 8% 2% Retail/Hospitality

Professional Services

Academic

Experience

No response

<1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

>15 years

5
6
Table 1: OPQ32n: US General Occupational norms (n = 1053)
Scale Sten Scale Mean SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 -22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Persuasive 22.5 5.3
Controlling 8 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 Controlling 24.1 4.3
Outspoken 4 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 Outspoken 21.9 5.0
Independent Minded 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 36 Independent Minded 21.0 4.3
Outgoing 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 Outgoing 21.2 5.9
Affiliative 4 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 34 35 - 36 Affiliative 22.8 5.5
Socially Confident 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Socially Confident 22.6 5.2
Modest 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 Modest 19.3 5.0
9 Norms

Democratic 4 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 36 Democratic 25.9 4.5

Caring 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Caring 26.9 4.3
Data Rational 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 31 32 Data Rational 23.1 5.2
Evaluative 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Evaluative 26.7 4.3
Behavioral 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 35 36 Behavioral 28.2 5.3
Conventional 4-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 36 Conventional 18.6 5.3
Conceptual 4 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Conceptual 25.6 5.1
Innovative 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 31 32 Innovative 23.8 5.1
Variety Seeking 4 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Variety Seeking 25.3 5.2
Adaptable 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Adaptable 23.0 4.7
Forward Thinking 8 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 30 31 32 Forward Thinking 25.0 4.3
Detail Conscious 4 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Detail Conscious 25.8 5.3
Conscientious 8 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 Conscientious 25.7 3.7
Rule Following 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 Rule Following 21.4 5.2
Relaxed 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 Relaxed 21.9 5.6
Worrying 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 Worrying 20.9 5.3
Tough Minded 8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 Tough Minded 19.6 5.7
Optimistic 4 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 34 35 36 Optimistic 29.0 5.1
Trusting 4 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 Trusting 24.4 5.6
Emotionally Controlled 8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Emotionally Controlled 19.6 5.4
Vigorous 4 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 35 36 Vigorous 28.8 4.3
Competitive 8 9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21- 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 32 Competitive 17.5 4.9
Achieving 4 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 35 36 Achieving 27.0 5.3
Decisive 8 9-11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 32 Decisive 18.9 4.6
Social Desirability 4-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 27 - 36 Social Desirability 17.3 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 9 Norms

US Managerial & Professional Norm Group OPQ32n

The US Managerial & Professional sample norm group for OPQ32n is based
upon several groups recruited to participate in the normative data collection.
They come from a variety of industries, including manufacturing,
financial/insurance, healthcare, technical and government. The General
Occupational Norm Group was examined to determine how many of the 1053
could be classified as Managerial and Professional. 725 were determine to be
Managerial and Professional. As with the larger group, this group completed
the OPQ 32 for developmental purposes.

Participants completed the OPQ 32n via the Internet or via paper and pencil
administration. Some participants completed the questionnaire on personal time,
while most participants completed the questionnaire during their working
hours. Gender was fairly well represented, with 51% males and 49% females.
85% classified themselves as caucasian. Mean age is 40, with a standard
deviation of 10. Less than 1% of the participants reported less than a high
school diploma, with 87% having a bachelors degree or higher. This group is
very experienced, with 55% reporting 15 or more years of experience.

More details of the sample are provided overleaf.

7
 9 Norms

US Managerial & Professional sample for OPQ32n - Background Information

Gender Age

44%
45

40

35

30

% 25

18%
20
15%

male 51% 15

female 49% 8%
10 <8%
6%
5
<1%

0
no 18-25 26-30 31-39 40-55 56-65 >66
response

Ethnic Origin Educational Qualifications

Caucasian 85%

African-American 6%

Asian 2%

Hispanic 3%

Native American 3%

No response/other 1%
No response/other 1%

HS grad/some college 13%

Bachelors 36%

Masters 37%

Ph.D. 13%

8
 9 Norms

Job Function

Professional

Managerial

yy;y
;;
Job Function
No response/other
30
Manufacturing
25
Financial
% 20
15 Health care

10 Technical

5 Government

0 Retail/Hospitality
10% 19% 22% 15% 10% 11% 3% 4% 2%
Professional Services

Academic

Experience

No response

<1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

>15 years

9
10
Table 2: OPQ32n: US Managerial & Professional norms (n = 726)

Scale Sten Scale Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 -22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Persuasive 23.0 5.0
Controlling 8 - 15 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Controlling 24.7 4.9
Outspoken 4 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 36 Outspoken 23.3 4.8
Independent Minded 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 36 Independent Minded 21.1 4.3
Outgoing 8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 Outgoing 21.0 6.0
Affiliative 4 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 36 Affiliative 22.5 5.4
Socially Confident 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Socially Confident 22.7 5.2
Modest 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 Modest 19.3 4.8
9 Norms

Democratic 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Democratic 26.1 4.4

Caring 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Caring 26.7 4.3
Data Rational 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Data Rational 24.0 5.0
Evaluative 4 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 36 Evaluative 27.4 4.0
Behavioral 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 35 36 Behavioral 28.3 5.4
Conventional 4-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 36 Conventional 18.0 5.3
Conceptual 4 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 34 35 36 Conceptual 26.0 5.1
Innovative 8 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 Innovative 24.3 4.9
Variety Seeking 4 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 Variety Seeking 25.9 5.0
Adaptable 8 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Adaptable 23.3 4.6
Forward Thinking 8 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 30 31 32 Forward Thinking 25.4 4.1
Detail Conscious 4 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 Detail Conscious 25.7 5.2
Conscientious 8 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 Conscientious 25.7 3.6
Rule Following 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 Rule Following 20.8 5.2
Relaxed 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 Relaxed 21.9 5.6
Worrying 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 Worrying 20.7 5.2
Tough Minded 8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 Tough Minded 19.8 5.6
Optimistic 4 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 34 35 36 Optimistic 29.2 5.1
Trusting 4 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 Trusting 25.0 5.4
Emotionally Controlled 8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Emotionally Controlled 19.7 5.5
Vigorous 4 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 35 36 Vigorous 28.9 4.2
Competitive 8 9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21- 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 32 Competitive 18.0 4.9
Achieving 4 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 35 36 Achieving 27.6 5.0
Decisive 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 Decisive 19.1 4.6
Social Desirability 4-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 27 - 36 Social Desirability 17.3 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 9 Norms

UK General population sample for OPQ32n

The general population norm group for OPQ32n is based on a representative

sample of the British population collected by the Office of National Statistics in
parallel to their Labor Force Survey. The sampling frame is by postcode, with
the sample stratified by region and socio-economic group. Carried out from
September 1998 to January 1999, this survey sampled 2028 people from all
socio-economic, educational and occupational backgrounds throughout Great
Britain. As this is a general sample (as opposed to an exclusively occupational
one), it should be noted that 27% of the respondents were economically inactive
(i.e. not seeking employment).

In comparison to the results of the full Labor Force Survey, this sample is
generally similar. However, some groups were more willing than others to agree
to respond to the questionnaire. In addition the sampling was carried out during
normal working hours which may have affected the composition. Consequently
there are some small differences in the make up of the two samples. There is a
small oversampling of women (60% vs. 51%) and economically inactive people
(27% vs. 20%), and an undersampling of ethnic minority respondents (4% vs.
6%). The latter has been addressed by an additional sampling of people from
these groups, and the results are presented in the Group Comparisons chapter.

More details of the sample are provided overleaf.

11
 9 Norms

UK General population sample for OPQ32n – Background information

Gender Age
40% are male, 60% are female The mean age is 31,
with a standard deviation of 13

40

35

30

25

% 20

15

10
male
5
female

0
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

Ethnic Origin Educational Qualifications

Total ethnic minority = 4%

40

35

30

25
no qualifications

% 20 low GCSE

high GCSE
15
ONC/BTEC

A level
10
white higher qualification
asian 5 degree

black other
0

12
 9 Norms

Job Function

managerial and administrative

professional

associate professional and technical

clerical and secretarial

craft and related

personal and protective service

sales

plant and machine operatives

other

Employment Status
Total in employment = 69%

employed

unemployed

economically
inactive

Industry Sector

manufacturing

construction

wholesale, retail. motor trade

hospitality

transport, storage, communication

finance

real estate

public administration

health and social work

other

13
14
Table 3: OPQ32n: UK General population norms (n = 2028)

Scale Sten Scale Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 8 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 32 Persuasive 19.8 4.4
Controlling 8 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Controlling 21.0 4.8
Outspoken 4 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 36 Outspoken 21.7 4.9
Independent Minded 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 36 Independent Minded 21.2 4.5
Outgoing 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Outgoing 20.5 5.1
Affiliative 4 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 Affiliative 22.6 5.4
Socially Confident 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 32 Socially Confident 20.5 5.0
Modest 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 32 Modest 19.1 4.5
9 Norms

Democratic 4 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 36 Democratic 23.9 4.0

Caring 4 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 36 Caring 25.7 4.3
Data Rational 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 Data Rational 19.7 4.7
Evaluative 4 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 36 Evaluative 23.0 4.2
Behavioral 4 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 35 36 Behavioral 24.7 5.2
Conventional 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 36 Conventional 21.2 4.6
Conceptual 4 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 36 Conceptual 21.6 4.8
Innovative 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Innovative 21.2 4.6
Variety Seeking 4 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 36 Variety Seeking 22.0 4.6
Adaptable 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 Adaptable 21.1 4.1
Forward Thinking 8 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Forward Thinking 22.3 4.1
Detail Conscious 4 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 34 35 - 36 Detail Conscious 24.2 5.0
Conscientious 8 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 Conscientious 24.2 3.7
Rule Following 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 Rule Following 22.1 4.7
Relaxed 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 Relaxed 21.0 5.1
Worrying 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 Worrying 23.1 4.8
Tough Minded 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 32 Tough Minded 17.9 5.1
Optimistic 4 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 34 35 - 36 Optimistic 23.8 5.5
Trusting 4-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 36 Trusting 20.6 5.6
Emotionally Controlled 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 Emotionally Controlled 21.0 4.5
Vigorous 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 Vigorous 26.3 4.5
Competitive 8 9 10 - 11 2 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 32 Competitive 15.5 4.2
Achieving 4-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 36 Achieving 20.6 5.7
Decisive 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 32 Decisive 18.8 4.0
Social Desirability 4-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 36 Social Desirability 17.7 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OPQ32n.1.99
 9 Norms

UK Managerial & professional sample for OPQ32n

The managerial and professional norm group for OPQ32 (version n) is drawn
from both the general population sample and relevant occupational groups
sampled during 1998 as part of the standardization trials of the new
questionnaire. 392 respondents out of the total ONS survey sample of 2028 were
classified as having managerial or professional occupations. These were
supplemented by 661 managers and professionals from a number of different
organizations who were generally completing the questionnaire for personal
development purposes. This gave an overall managerial and professional sample
size of 1053. The sample spans a wide range of occupational roles across a
variety of industry sectors (see overleaf for detailed breakdowns).

15
 9 Norms

UK Managerial & professional sample for OPQ32n –

Background information
Gender Age
58% are male, 42% are female The mean age is 38,
with a standard deviation of 11

40

35

30

25

% 20

15

10
male
5
female

0
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

Ethnic Origin Educational Qualifications

Total ethnic minority = 4.7%

40

35

30

25
no qualifications

% 20 low GCSE

high GCSE
15
ONC/BTEC

A level
10
white higher qualification

asian 5 degree

black other
0

16
 9 Norms

Job Function

managerial and administrative

professional

associate professional and technical

other

Industry Sector

manufacturing

hospitality

finance

health and social work

transport

other

17
18
Table 4: OPQ32n: UK Managerial & professional norms (n = 1053)

Scale Sten Scale Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 Persuasive 22.8 4.9
Controlling 8 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Controlling 24.5 4.2
Outspoken 4 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 36 Outspoken 23.2 4.4
Independent Minded 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 36 Independent Minded 21.1 4.5
Outgoing 8 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 Outgoing 21.4 5.2
Affiliative 4 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 36 Affiliative 23.6 5.2
Socially Confident 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 -31 32 Socially Confident 22.8 4.8
Modest 8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 32 Modest 18.9 5.0
9 Norms

Democratic 4 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 36 Democratic 24.5 4.1

Caring 4 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 36 Caring 26.5 4.1
Data Rational 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 -31 32 Data Rational 22.5 5.0
Evaluative 4 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 36 Evaluative 25.9 3.8
Behavioral 4 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 34 35 36 Behavioral 27.2 4.7
Conventional 4-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 36 Conventional 18.4 5.0
Conceptual 4 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 Conceptual 23.8 4.8
Innovative 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 Innovative 22.8 4.9
Variety Seeking 4 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 36 Variety Seeking 24.8 4.4
Adaptable 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 Adaptable 22.3 4.4
Forward Thinking 8 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Forward Thinking 24.7 3.9
Detail Conscious 4 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 Detail Conscious 25.7 5.1
Conscientious 8 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 Conscientious 25.0 3.9
Rule Following 8 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Rule Following 21.3 4.6
Relaxed 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 -31 32 Relaxed 22.5 5.0
Worrying 8 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 Worrying 21.2 5.1
Tough Minded 8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 Tough Minded 19.2 5.3
Optimistic 4 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 34 35 36 Optimistic 27.0 5.3
Trusting 4 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 Trusting 23.1 5.1
Emotionally Controlled 8 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 Emotionally Controlled 21.0 5.0
Vigorous 4 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 35 - 36 Vigorous 27.3 3.9
Competitive 8 9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 32 Competitive 17.5 5.1
Achieving 4 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 -35 36 Achieving 24.8 5.7
Decisive 8 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 32 Decisive 20.2 4.1
Social Desirability 4 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 36 Social Desirability 18.3 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OPQ32n.2.99
 9 Norms

UK Standardization sample for OPQ32i

The standardization norm group for OPQ32i consists of 807 respondents. About
two thirds of the sample were drawn from people in various roles across seven
different organizations in industry and commerce, and the remaining third were
students from a number of higher education institutions. Some respondents
completed the questionnaire for self-development purposes as part of a formal
self-development program, the others solely for the purposes of the
standardization study. The data were collected during 1998. See over for further
background details of the sample.

19
 9 Norms

UK Standardization sample for OPQ32i – Background information

Gender Age
43% are male, 57% are female Age ranges from 16-68, with a mean age of 31
and a standard deviation of 11

40

35

30

25

% 20

15

10
male
5
female

0
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-68

Ethnic Origin Educational Qualifications

Total ethnic minority = 9%

40

35

30

25

% 20 no qualifications

low GCSE
15
high GCSE

ONC/BTEC
10
white A level

asian 5 degree

black other
0

20
 9 Norms

Job Function

Managerial and administrative

Professional supporting management

Professional in education, welfare and health

Professional in science, engineering and technology

Clerical

Sales

Other

Student

Industry Sector

manufacturing

transport

finance

consultancy

21
22
Table 5: OPQ32i: UK Standardization norms (n = 807)
Scale Sten Scale Mean SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 0 1-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Persuasive 10.9 5.0
Controlling 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Controlling 12.0 5.9
Outspoken 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Outspoken 13.3 4.8
Independent Minded 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Independent Minded 13.6 4.3
Outgoing 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Outgoing 12.6 5.7
Affiliative 0-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 Affiliative 15.5 4.8
Socially Confident 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Socially Confident 12.3 5.1
Modest 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Modest 13.1 4.7
9 Norms

Democratic 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Democratic 15.0 3.8

Caring 0-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 Caring 16.8 4.4
Data Rational 0 1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 Data Rational 10.4 5.8
Evaluative 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 Evaluative 13.9 3.8
Behavioral 0-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 Behavioral 15.3 5.2
Conventional 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 Conventional 10.5 4.2
Conceptual 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Conceptual 13.0 5.1
Innovative 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Innovative 12.2 5.8
Variety Seeking 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Variety Seeking 15.0 4.1
Adaptable 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 Adaptable 14.9 4.9
Forward Thinking 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Forward Thinking 12.5 4.2
Detail Conscious 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Detail Conscious 14.0 5.3
Conscientious 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 Conscientious 16.4 4.6
Rule Following 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 Rule Following 10.2 4.9
Relaxed 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Relaxed 10.9 5.4
Worrying 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Worrying 12.5 5.8
Tough Minded 0 1-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Tough Minded 10.8 5.0
Optimistic 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Optimistic 14.7 4.6
Trusting 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Trusting 11.3 4.6
Emotionally Controlled 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 Emotionally Controlled 11.7 5.0
Vigorous 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Vigorous 15.0 4.4
Competitive 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 Competitive 10.9 5.8
Achieving 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Achieving 13.8 4.8
Decisive 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Decisive 11.3 4.8
Consistency 0 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 34 35 - 37 38 - 41 42 - 75 Consistency 27.6 6.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OPQ32i.1.99
 9 Norms

UK Managerial & professional sample for OPQ32i

The managerial and professional group consists of 329 respondents from a wide
range of professional functions including personnel, finance, general
management, and technical specialists. This was a relatively experienced group
with nearly half having over 15 years of work experience. The questionnaire
was completed during 1998, mainly for self development purposes. See over for
background details of the sample

23
 9 Norms

UK Managerial & professional sample for OPQ32i –

Background information
Gender Age
50% are male, 50% are female Age ranges from 19-68, with a mean age of 35
and a standard deviation of 10

40

35

30

25

% 20

15

10
male
5
female

0
19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-68

Ethnic Origin Educational Qualifications

Total ethnic minority = 6%

40

35

30

25

% 20 no qualifications

low GCSE
15
high GCSE

ONC/BTEC
10
white A level

asian 5 degree

black other
0

24
 9 Norms

Job Function

managerial and administrative

professional supports management

professional in education,
welfare and health
professional in science, engineering
and technology
sales

other

25
26
Table 6: OPQ32i: UK Managerial & professional norms (n = 329)

Scale Sten Scale Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 Persuasive 11.6 5.2
Controlling 0-1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Controlling 13.0 5.8
Outspoken 0-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Outspoken 13.1 4.9
Independent Minded 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 Independent Minded 13.5 4.3
Outgoing 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Outgoing 12.0 5.7
Affiliative 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Affiliative 14.9 4.6
Socially Confident 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Socially Confident 12.5 5.2
Modest 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Modest 13.5 4.8
9 Norms

Democratic 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Democratic 15.0 4.1

Caring 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 Caring 16.2 4.4
Data Rational 0 1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Data Rational 10.2 5.8
Evaluative 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Evaluative 14.0 4.0
Behavioral 0-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 Behavioral 15.0 5.5
Conventional 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 Conventional 10.1 4.3
Conceptual 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Conceptual 12.3 5.3
Innovative 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Innovative 12.8 5.8
Variety Seeking 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Variety Seeking 15.2 4.1
Adaptable 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 Adaptable 15.0 4.7
Forward Thinking 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 Forward Thinking 12.9 4.3
Detail Conscious 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Detail Conscious 13.6 5.0
Conscientious 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 Conscientious 16.2 4.4
Rule Following 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 26 Rule Following 9.7 4.8
Relaxed 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Relaxed 10.3 5.4
Worrying 0 1-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Worrying 11.8 5.8
Tough Minded 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Tough Minded 10.8 4.9
Optimistic 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Optimistic 15.1 4.5
Trusting 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Trusting 11.3 4.6
Emotionally Controlled 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Emotionally Controlled 11.2 4.9
Vigorous 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Vigorous 15.4 4.0
Competitive 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Competitive 11.3 6.1
Achieving 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Achieving 14.4 4.8
Decisive 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 Decisive 12.2 4.9
Consistency 0 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 37 - 39 40 - 75 Consistency 27.7 6.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OPQ32i.2.99
 9 Norms

UK Undergraduate sample for OPQ32i

The undergraduate group consists of 249 respondents from eleven institutions of

higher education and two business management schools. The sample is from a
wide range of subject disciplines (see overleaf for a detailed breakdown). They
completed the questionnaire during 1998 as part of the standardization process.

27
 9 Norms

UK Undergraduate sample for OPQ32i – Background information

Gender
40% are male, 60% are female
Age
Age ranges from 18 to 58, with a mean of 23
and a standard deviation 7.
80% of the sample
were under 25.

male under 25

female 25 and over

Ethnic Origin Degree Type

Total ethnic minority = 17%

arts

science

social science

computing

business/marketing
white law
asian combined

black other

28
 Table 5: UK OPQ32i: Undergraduate norms (n = 249)

Scale Sten Scale Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Persuasive 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 Persuasive 10.7 4.6
Controlling 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Controlling 11.6 5.9
Outspoken 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Outspoken 13.6 4.7
Independent Minded 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Independent Minded 14.9 4.1
Outgoing 0-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 Outgoing 13.7 5.5
Affiliative 0-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 Affiliative 16.4 4.8
Socially Confident 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 Socially Confident 12.0 5.0
Modest 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Modest 12.0 4.6
Democratic 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Democratic 15.0 3.8
Caring 0-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 Caring 16.6 4.4
Data Rational 0 1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Data Rational 9.7 5.7
Evaluative 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 Evaluative 14.0 3.8
Behavioral 0-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 -25 26 Behavioral 16.0 5.2
Conventional 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 26 Conventional 9.9 4.0
Conceptual 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 Conceptual 14.7 4.8
Innovative 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Innovative 12.7 5.6
Variety Seeking 0-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Variety Seeking 15.4 4.2
Adaptable 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 Adaptable 15.0 4.8
Forward Thinking 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 Forward Thinking 12.4 4.2
Detail Conscious 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 Detail Conscious 12.7 5.1
Conscientious 0-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 Conscientious 15.8 4.6
Rule Following 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 26 Rule Following 9.7 4.8
Relaxed 0 1-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Relaxed 11.0 5.2
Worrying 0-1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 Worrying 13.6 5.9
Tough Minded 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 Tough Minded 10.9 5.3
9 Norms

Optimistic 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Optimistic 13.9 5.0

Trusting 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 Trusting 10.9 4.7
Emotionally Controlled 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 Emotionally Controlled 11.8 5.3
Vigorous 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 Vigorous 13.6 4.7
Competitive 0 1-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 Competitive 11.5 5.6
Achieving 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 Achieving 14.7 4.6
Decisive 0 1-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 26 Decisive 10.0 4.5
Consistency 0 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 20 21 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 31 32 - 35 36 - 39 40 - 42 43 - 75 Consistency 27.8 7.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OPQ32i.3.99

29
 9 Norms

Comparison profiles

The following pages and figures profile a number of different occupational

groups, based on various subgroups of the norm data already presented. These
comparison profiles provide indications of common trends in personality style
for different occupations and industry sectors and can be useful in deciding how
to use the OPQ32 profiles for different applications as well as for individual
interpretations. In each case the average score for the groups profile has been
normed against the most general norm group for that version of the
The Scale questionnaire - the UK General Population sample for OPQ32n and the UK
Standardization sample for OPQ32i.
Descriptions and
Group Comparisons
However, it is important to stress that the differences highlighted are only trends
chapters provide a based on the data collected. They are very small relative to differences between
comprehensive individuals within groups. Even though the average score for a group may be
discussion of age, different from the general norm, there will still be the full range of scores within
gender and ethnic the group. In addition, trends observed within groups may be due to other
demographic variables such as age, gender and ethnic origin. Such potential
differences.
confounding effects are discussed where appropriate.

30
 9 Norms

US Managerial and professional comparisons

Figure 1: US Managerial and professional profile - OPQ32n

4 5 6 7
Managerial
Persuasive & professional
Controlling n=726

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken General
occupational
Independent Minded n=326
Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

31
 9 Norms

Figure 1 contrasts the US Managerial & Professional norm group with members of the
General Occupational norm group who do not identify themselves as managers or
professionals. Both groups completed the OPQ32n. Both groups are employed in a
variety of industries.The General Occupational group also consists of a variety of job
roles, and includes a small number undergraduate and graduate students.

In the interpersonal domain, both groups have fairly similar profiles. In general, the
managerial and professional group scores higher on Persuasive, Controlling and
Outspoken, demonstrating that they will be more persistent in getting their point
across to others.The general occupational group, however, appears to be a little more
friendly and outgoing, and has a stronger need to be with others, as evidenced by
their higher Affiliative scores.

The area where the groups differ the most is in the Thinking Styles domain. Managers
and professionals have described themselves as more critical, innovative thinkers than
the general group. Additionally, the general group has described themselves as more
Conventional and Rule Following than the managerial and professional group.

In the Feelings and Emotions section, there are two areas where there are notable
differences:Worrying and Trusting.The general group scores lower than managerial
and professional on both of these scales. It could be that people in non-managerial or
professional groups have less control over their work lives, and therefore worry more
and have less trust. Other interesting, though small, differences are that managers and
professionals score higher on Competitive, Achieving and Decisive.

32
 9 Norms

UK Managerial and professional comparisons

Figure 1: UK Managerial and professional profile - OPQ32n

4 5 6 7 Managerial
Persuasive & professional
n=1053
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

General
Outspoken
population
Independent Minded n=1636
Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional
THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

33
 9 Norms

Figure 2: UK Managerial and professional profile – OPQ32i

Managerial 4 5 6 7

& professional Persuasive

n=329
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Undergraduates
Outspoken
n=249
Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Consistency

34
 9 Norms

Figures 1 and 2 contrast managers and professional respondents from a broad

range of organizations and industry sectors, with other people. Figure 1 is based
on the data from the two norm groups for OPQ32n, the UK Managerial and
Professional group and all the members of the UK General Population sample
who do not belong to this group. The managers are, therefore, compared with a
very broad group of other people. The OPQ32i profile in Figure 2 contrasts the
results for norm groups four and five. Thus the managers are compared with
undergraduates, who are typically younger and a little better educated, and may Managers and
be future managers and professionals themselves. professionals are
more willing to take
The differences in Figure 1 are more marked than those in Figure 2, because of
the more general comparison group. There are clear differences in all parts of charge of a situation,
the OPQ32 profile, with managers and professionals showing higher scores on more critical in their
many scales. The biggest differences are on the Controlling, Evaluative and approach to
Achieving scales. information and
more career focused
In the interpersonal domain managers and professionals describe themselves as
than other people.
markedly more assertive in terms of speaking out and selling ideas to others as
well as taking control than the general population but only a little more
assertive than the student group. They are similar to the general population in
other respects except that they are rather more confident in formal situations.
They are a little less gregarious than the student group and a little more modest.
These trends may reflect the age difference between the two groups as much as
their different occupational status.

The Thinking Styles domain shows the most consistent differences between
managers and professionals and the general population group. Managers have
described themselves as more analytical in approach, both with people and
data, less conventional and more open to change, and on the whole more
structured in style than the general group. They are similar to the undergraduate
group in this respect except that the latter are even more Conceptual in
approach than the managers, perhaps reflecting their current academic pursuits.

Students and managers and professionals are also fairly similar in respect of the
Feelings and Emotions domain but a little different from the general population,
who describe themselves as generally more anxious and pessimistic about the
world and less trusting of others. The managers and professionals see
themselves as having greater stores of energy than both the other groups. They
are substantially more Competitive and Achieving than the general group, but
they are also more willing to take quick decisions and show a greater
preference for keeping busy and active than both the other comparison groups.

The majority of these differences reflect expectations of managers and

professionals and the competencies they need for their jobs. Perhaps the least
predictable findings are in the Feelings and Emotions domain where the
managers seem to see the world in a positive light, expressing a more optimistic
outlook on life and a greater belief in the trustworthiness of others.

35
 9 Norms

UK Managerial and professional comparisons

Figure 3: Senior job function profile - OPQ32n

Managerial 4 5 6 7

(n=236) Persuasive

Professional Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

(n=165)
Outspoken
Director Independent Minded
(n=98)
Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

36
 9 Norms

Figure 4: Senior job function profile – OPQ32i

4 5 6 7 Professional
Persuasive in Education,
Welfare
Controlling
& Health

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken (n=46)

Independent Minded Professional

in Science,
Outgoing
Engineering
Affiliative & Technology
(n=87)
Socially Confident
Managerial
Modest
(n=60)
Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Consistency

37
 9 Norms

The next two Figures (3 and 4) highlight the difference between different groups
of managers and professionals. In Figure 3 the managers and professionals from
the general population sample were broken down into those with a purely
management role, those having professional occupations such as accountancy or
Managers have the computer programming, and those who described themselves as a company
highest average director. Many of the latter were from small businesses and a substantial
proportion would be self-employed. Within each group a variety of
Controlling score.
organizations and industry sectors are represented. The professional groups
contained more women (60%) than either the managers (47%) or the directors
(31%) and they were also better educated with the majority having degree level
qualifications.

Figure 4 is a similar breakdown of the managerial and professional sample for

the OPQ32i data in Table 4. There was not always sufficient background
information to classify respondents so these groups are quite small. For this
reason trends should be interpreted with caution. There were no directors in this
group but there was a number of general managers. Most of the professionals
belonged to one of two groups, those from science and technology such as
programmers and engineers, and those from people focused professions such as
teaching and health workers.

Again there are only relatively minor differences between the different groups.
Together the two figures show some of the trends discussed previously in
contrasting managers and professionals together with other people. All the
groups are more Controlling, Evaluative, Forward Thinking, Optimistic and
Decisive and less Conventional and Rule Following than the population as a
The Directors’
whole.
profile shows many
elements of an There are few specific trends associated with managers as a group but they do
entrepreneurial tend to be more willing to take charge than people in other senior roles in
approach. business. The managers shown in Figure 4 seem to be rather less Conceptual
than might be expected, but this may be in contrast to the professionals and
students who make up the best part of the rest of the comparison group here,
rather than in absolute terms.

The profile of the directors shows most deviations from the overall population
average. They describe themselves as Independent Minded and Innovative (but
also Evaluative), and they are the most Achieving and Competitive of all of the
groups. They see themselves as radical, both in terms of breaking with
traditional approaches and a willingness to break the rules if this seems
necessary. Although Socially Confident they are neither particularly Affiliative nor
Caring and have rather less trust in others than the other groups profiled here.
This suggests a rather single minded drive to meet goals which may encompass
unconventional and innovative approaches and is unlikely to be diverted by the
needs or wishes of others.

38
 9 Norms

Professionals show most differences from the other groups in the Thinking
Styles dimensions and describe themselves as particularly more Evaluative,
Behavioral and Conceptual than others. The analysis of information of various
sorts is key to most professional pursuits. From Figure 4 we can see that while
these trends generally are true of both groups of professionals there are some
differences in style between those from technological and those from more
people-centered professions. Those from education, welfare and health describe
themselves as more people focused. In terms of analysis, Behavioral is their
strongest scale reflecting their interest in the behavior of others. They believe in
consultation and have a stronger need than others for close contact with people.
They also have rather more confidence that others will keep their word. Their
style seems to be creative but unstructured in that they are lower than others on
the Detail Conscious, Conscientious and Rule Following scales and they
definitely see themselves as quite Innovative. However, there is evidence of
susceptibility to stress in their low Relaxed and Tough Minded scores together
with high Worrying.

Professionals in technological areas, in contrast, are markedly less people

centered. They are less sociable, Caring and Behavioral. An interest in data and
critically evaluating information dominates their thinking style.

As with all the comparison profiles, it is important to remember that the trends
described are based on average scores and while they are real, the variability of
scores within each of these groups will be far greater than the differences
described above. It would be inappropriate to stereotype all members of these
groups with the trends discussed here.

39
 9 Norms

UK Non-managerial job function comparison

Figure 5: Non-managerial job function profile - OPQ32n

Clerical and 4 5 6 7

secretarial Persuasive
(n=336)
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Personal and
Outspoken
protective
service Independent Minded
(n=258)
Outgoing
Plant and Affiliative
machine
operatives Socially Confident
(n=179)
Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

40
 9 Norms

This comparison profile highlights the OPQ32n score differences between three
groups of respondents performing different job functions of a non-managerial
nature. The comparison is based on the general population group described
earlier in this chapter. 336 respondents could be classified as having clerical and
secretarial job roles, 258 as having personal and protective service occupations,
and 179 were plant and machine operatives. The groups are normed using the
total general population sample (n = 2028). The comparison is purely between
job functions, in that each function may distribute over a wide range of
organizations and industry sectors.

In general the profiles for these groups are very similar to each other and to the
general population sample. Care should be taken not to overemphasize the
impact of the differences mentioned in the following discussion. There are only
a few deviations from the general population norm for each group. In general
they are as might be expected. Those with personal and protective service
occupations show less preference for working with factual information
compared to the two other occupational groups. Given that 77% of this group is
female, it is perhaps not surprising that they are quite soft hearted and are the
most Democratic and Caring of the three groups, although the clerical group has
an even higher proportion of women (85%).

The clerical and secretarial group shows less interest in influencing than others,
being the least Persuasive, Controlling and Outspoken. This may reflect the
mostly females make up of this group. They are more Detail Conscious than the
other groups, which relates well to the type of work they do. Similar to the
other groups they are very slightly more Conventional and traditional in their
outlook, than the general population group.

The plant and machine operatives are much less people oriented than the other
groups. They are low Caring and Behavioral and do not try to understand others
and have little time for their problems. This may partly reflect the male
domination of this group (69%). They are low Forward Thinking, suggesting that
they are less likely to take a long-term approach to things. They also have a less
Trusting attitude to the world than the other groups. In terms of Thinking Style
their average score is towards the lower end of the normal range suggesting a
lessened interest in the world of ideas. This is perhaps not surprising as this
group had the lowest level of formal education, with 50% with no qualifications
at all, compared to 21% for the other two groups.

41
 9 Norms

UK Job domain comparison

Figure 6: Job domain profile – OPQ32i

Banking 4 5 6 7

(n=151) Persuasive

Sales (n=88) Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Consulting Outspoken
(n=173) Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Consistency

42
 9 Norms

This comparison profile highlights the OPQ32i differences between three groups
of respondents working in different occupational domains. Unlike the previous
profile comparisons, these job function groups are industry specific. The
comparisons, therefore, reflect characteristics of both the job role and the
industry sector.

All three groups were part of the standardization norm group for OPQ32
described earlier in this chapter. 151 respondents worked within the banking
sector (130 of whom were mortgage advisors); 88 had sales jobs (mainly in the
car rental business); and a further 173 worked for consulting firms (in
A high Persuasive
management, PR, and computing). The groups are normed against the total
standardization sample (n = 807). In terms of age and gender the three groups score is typical of
are fairly similar so these factors should not confound the findings. Average level sales groups, but can
of education does however vary across the groups, with 36% of consultants be counterproductive
having a university degree compared to 18% of the sales group and 15% of the when it is too high.
banking group.

In terms of Relationships with People, the most noticeable finding is the high
average Persuasive score for the sales group, showing a strong preference for
selling both ideas and products. Otherwise this group is not very different from
the others. The consultants are quite similar to the sales people, although their
preference for selling is not as strong. This is perhaps not surprising since for
most, selling, as well as delivering consultancy advice, will be part of their role.
The banking group is rather different from the other two throughout the profile.
In the Relationships with People domain they prefer not to control and influence
others and will tend to follow the group consensus, without strong views of
their own. This fits in well with their description of themselves as Modest; they
tend not to talk about themselves and their achievements. In addition they see
themselves as quite willing to help others when needed.

In the Thinking Styles domain, none of the groups see themselves as particularly
Conceptual or Evaluative. The banking group describe themselves as quite
structured and conforming in approach. They work in an organized manner, pay
attention to detail and take deadlines and commitments seriously. They are not
at all radical in their approach; they prefer traditional work methods and like to
follow rules and procedures. They also find it more difficult than most to be
Innovative. Not surprisingly, working in finance, they express a much higher
preference than the other two groups for working with numerical information.

Again the sales people and the consultants are fairly similar. They both dislike,
rather than like, working with figures. Neither group is particularly structured in
approach, being more casual than the bankers about details and deadlines. The
consultants also describe themselves as a little more Behavioral than the other
two groups.

43
 9 Norms

In terms of dynamism, the sales people are the most Competitive, which is a
fairly typical finding. They are also less Trusting of others and quite high Tough
Minded and not easily upset by what others say. The consultant group shows
few strong trends in this area, although they describe themselves a little less
Emotionally Controlled than the norm group, as do the sales people. The
banking group shows little career ambition and rather low Competitive scores.
They describe themselves as more Vigorous than others, suggesting their energy
comes from a liking for keeping busy and active rather than a drive to achieve.

It is important to remember that the above discussion refers to trends between

the three groups, and there will be people in each group whose scores are very
different from the averages described here. It would be wrong to assume that all
members of these job domains are the same, or even that those who match the
average profile would be more effective in the role without specific validation
evidence. The trends do show what might be expected of applicants to these
different roles.

44
 9 Norms

UK Industry sector comparison

Figure 7: Industry sector profile – OPQ32n

4 5 6 7 Manufacturing
Persuasive (n=380)

Controlling Hospitality

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken (n=101)

Independent Minded Education

(n=164)
Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

Conceptual THINKING STYLE

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

45
 9 Norms

Unlike previous comparisons, this one is purely between industry sectors, in that
each group may comprise a whole range of different job functions. The groups
here were all part of the general population sample described earlier in this
chapter. 380 respondents could be classified as working in the manufacturing
Many of the trends sector, 101 in the hospitality industry, and 164 in education. The groups are
of those working in normed using the total general population sample (n = 2028).
education are similar
to the professionals The education and hospitality groups are dominated by women (79% and 76%
respectively), while the manufacturing group is 58% male. Unsuprisingly, those
in health, education
working in education had the highest level of education themselves; 40% have a
and welfare profiled
degree compared with 10% for the manufacturing group and 5% for the
in Figure 4. hospitality group. Some of the profile trends described below may be related to
these background differences rather than the industry sector itself.

The three groups are more similar than they are different. However, there are a
few contrasts that can be made. Those working in Education show the greatest
differences. As might be expected, they describe themselves as more positive
about people. They are more Caring and Trusting of others, prefer a more
Democratic style and describe themselves as more Affiliative, liking to spend
time with others more than most. This positive view of others is matched by
their view of the world shown by their higher Optimistic score. They also
express a preference for thinking in theoretical terms, perhaps related to their
Remember that the high educational achievements. So it is not surprising, therefore, that they
combine their interest in people and their liking for analysis and are more
discussion refers to
interested in analyzing the motives of others as shown by their higher
trends, and there will Behavioral score. This interest does not extend to dealing with facts and figures.
be people in each
group whose scores The other two groups have few individual trends. Those working in the
are very different manufacturing sector express less interest in understanding why people behave
as they do and describe themselves as less Caring than the norm group. Those
from the average.
in the hospitality group share the educationalists’ lack of interest in figures, but
otherwise their profile is very like the general population sample.

46
 10 Reliability

Reliability
This chapter provides information on the reliability of OPQ32 questionnaires.
Reliability is essential in assessment because, without consistency, scores cannot
be meaningful. In effect, reliability is the extent to which anything is measured
at all. In particular, a test or questionnaire cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

Introduction

All measures have a degree of error associated with them. It is important to

understand the accuracy of the scores produced by an instrument in order to
make realistic and appropriate interpretations, for example about how consistent
results are likely to be on different occasions. Reliability coefficients and
standard errors of measurement provide this information.

A variety of factors can affect the reliability of a questionnaire such as the clarity
or ambiguity of the items, the candidate’s state of motivation and alertness, the
quality of the administration procedures and the accuracy of scoring. Some of
these factors are intrinsic to the design of the instrument while others are related
to the way the questionnaire is used. In addition, it should be remembered that
reliability estimates are always sample dependent. The greater the variation of
scores in the group studied, the higher the measured estimate of reliability.

There are three main methods of estimating reliability:

Test-retest reliability is the result of administering the same questionnaire on

two separate occasions to the same people and correlating the results. It
provides an estimate of the stability of each personality scale over time. This
measure tends to be less related to the breadth or homogeneity of the scales
than other estimates of reliability. However, it may underestimate the reliability
where there has been a real change in personality between the first and second
administration. Table 3 shows test-retest reliability for the OPQ32n questionnaire.

Parallel or alternate form reliability looks at the agreement between two

parallel forms of the questionnaire. A parallel form estimate of reliability requires
two versions of a questionnaire to be available that measure the same constructs
with the same approach. The OPQ32n and OPQ32i questionnaires are not
parallel forms as, although they attempt to measure the same constructs, they
use different item formats (normative and forced choice). However, correlations
between the two versions are provided in Table 4 for comparison purposes.

1
 10 Reliability

Internal consistency reliability is a measure of the consistency with which a

set of questionnaire items are answered. It is estimated with a single
administration of the questionnaire. The breadth or homogeneity of the measure
influences the value of the coefficient obtained.

In the past the split half method was often used to estimate internal consistency,
but Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is a better measure in most circumstances. This
method of assessing internal consistency reliability is recognized as a stringent
test of the reliability of a scale. High values of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
indicate a greater degree of accuracy in scores, and generally more
homogeneous scale content.

Reliability coefficients of 0.7 are generally considered the minimum acceptable

level for the use of an aptitude test in selection. With personality questionnaires
lower values are sometimes acceptable, but as the reliability drops below 0.7
scores will become less stable and differentiate less effectively. High reliability is
an important consideration for any personality questionnaire developer, but
paradoxically scales with extremely narrow or homogeneous content are
unlikely to predict broad performance measures alone and may need to be
combined with other scales to be effective.

The Standard Error of Measurement

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEm) provides an error band around a

score. When reliability is high, the SEm band will be small around a score.
When profiling However, an unreliable scale will have a bigger band around a score, giving a
OPQ32 scores it is less precise indication of where an individual’s “true score” on the personality
useful to draw a trait is likely to lie.
band from one sten
The band of error around a test score can be calculated by adding and
below to one sten
subtracting SEm(s) from a score. Under standard assumptions, this band of error
above the actual provides a statistical confidence interval, or tolerance figure for the score. There
score, as a reminder is a 68% likelihood that the person’s true score on the trait will be within one
of the error band. SEm of the observed score and the person’s real score will fall outside a two
SEm band only 5% of the time.

The calculation of the Standard Error of Measurement has particularly important

implications for the interpretation of multi-scale personality questionnaires. For
example, if we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that all 32 scales of OPQ32
have an SEm of one, then 5% of the scores in a profile, or one or two of the 32
scales, are likely to have true scores that are more than two stens away from the
actual sten score they received; eight or nine of the 32 scores are likely to be
between one and two stens out and 22 of the scales are likely to be one sten or
less from their true underlying score on the trait being assessed.

2
 10 Reliability

OPQ32 reliabilities

The pages that follow present a number of tables describing the reliability for
the OPQ32 questionnaires. An important aim of the OPQ32 development
program was to ensure high reliability for scales and the tables show that this
has been achieved.

Internal consistency reliabilities for OPQ32n

Table 1 provides internal consistency estimates together with raw and sten score
SEms for OPQ32n for two data sets. The first is for data collected during 1999 in
various organizations as part of the standardization trials for the questionnaire.
This group includes 1053 employees and students described in the General
Occupational norm group (see previous chapter). The second set is the
Managerial & Professional norm group (n = 726).

The internal consistencies of the OPQ32n scales for the general occupational
group range from 0.90 to 0.72, with a mean of 0.83. For the managerial &
professional group, they range from 0.91 to 0.71, with a mean of 0.83. These
figures exclude the Social Desirability scale, whose internal consistency (0.72
and 0.73 for the two groups) reflects the broad range of content used in the
Social Desirability items. This is a high level of internal consistency reliability for
both groups.

In general, the internal consistencies are similar for both groups. This is most
likely due to the fact that the managerial & professional group is a subsample of
the general occupational group.

3
 10 Reliability

Internal consistency reliabilities for OPQ32i

Table 2 provides internal consistency estimates and raw and sten score SEms for
OPQ32i. The table is based on the UK standardization sample (n = 807; see
previous chapter). The internal consistencies range from 0.67 to 0.88, with a
median of 0.81. Again these are high values, with only two scales, with lower
variance, falling below 0.7.

The sten score SEm for both the OPQ32n and OPQ32i questionnaires for all
scales is around one. This is the band of error that should be placed around
scores when plotted on a profile chart. There should be two stens difference
between scores of two individuals on the same scale before it can be inferred
See the Feedback that there is a reliable difference between them in that characteristic.
chapter for an
example of Test-retest reliabilities for OPQ32n
interpreting
Table 3 provides the test-retest reliabilities for OPQ32n. The table is based on a
differences between group of 107 undergraduates at various higher education institutions throughout
OPQ32n and England. The retest took place on average one month after the initial testing.
OPQ32i profiles. The reliabilities range from 0.64 to 0.91 with a median of 0.79. These are high
values and only slightly lower in magnitude than the internal consistency
estimates. This shows that OPQ32n scores can be expected to remain stable
over this period. There are, however, six scales with values below 0.7. Two of
these are the Vigorous and Social Desirability scales which underwent some item
changes since this trial.

Correlations across versions

The normative and ipsative versions of OPQ32 cannot be seen as parallel forms
of the same instrument because of the different response pattern used. However,
the two different forms do measure the same set of traits in different ways.
Table 4 provides the correlations across the two versions. The table is based on
154 undergraduates from various higher education institutions throughout
England. Both versions of OPQ32 questionnaires were completed in the same
testing session. The correlations range from 0.45 to 0.79 with a median of 0.66.
This shows that there is a strong relationship between scores on the two
versions. However, some respondents will have somewhat different profiles from
the two instruments. This happens when the rated preferences (OPQ32n) differ
from the ranked preferences (OPQ32i). This is most likely to happen when the
OPQ32n profile is less differentiated and the person has described themselves as
high on nearly all scales (or low on nearly all scales).

4
 10 Reliability

Table 1: Internal consistency reliabilities for US OPQ32n

General Occupational (n = 1053) Managerial & Professional ( n = 726)

OPQ32n raw sten raw sten
score score score score
alpha mean sd SEm SEm alpha mean sd SEm SEm
Persuasive 0.85 22.47 5.27 2.04 0.77 0.84 22.97 5.02 2.01 0.80
Controlling 0.83 24.08 4.26 1.76 0.82 0.80 24.66 3.87 1.73 0.89
Outspoken 0.79 22.94 5.00 2.29 .92 0.78 23.34 4.82 2.26 0.94
Independent Minded 0.72 21.04 4.40 2.33 1.06 0.71 21.11 4.32 2.33 1.08
Outgoing 0.90 21.17 5.95 1.88 0.63 0.90 20.99 5.98 1.89 0.63
Affiliative 0.83 22.80 5.54 2.28 0.82 0.82 22.45 5.38 2.28 0.85
Socially Confident 0.86 22.63 5.18 1.94 0.75 0.87 22.71 5.17 1.86 0.72
Modest 0.88 19.32 4.96 1.72 0.69 0.88 19.32 4.84 1.68 0.69
Democratic 0.77 25.91 4.45 2.13 0.96 0.78 26.06 4.40 2.06 0.94
Caring 0.73 26.85 4.33 2.25 1.04 0.72 26.75 4.25 2.25 1.06
Data Rational 0.86 23.14 5.22 1.95 0.75 0.85 23.97 4.96 1.92 0.77
Evaluative 0.79 26.72 4.32 1.98 0.92 0.78 27.43 4.05 1.90 0.94
Behavioral 0.90 28.15 5.36 1.69 0.63 0.91 28.27 5.35 1.61 0.60
Conventional 0.82 18.61 5.32 2.26 0.85 0.82 17.98 5.26 2.23 0.85
Conceptual 0.84 25.56 5.12 2.05 0.80 0.85 26.01 5.11 1.98 0.77
Innovative 0.90 23.83 5.14 1.63 0.63 0.90 24.39 4.90 1.55 0.63
Variety Seeking 0.78 25.27 5.20 2.44 0.94 0.77 25.88 5.00 2.40 0.96
Adaptable 0.83 23.02 4.75 1.96 0.82 0.82 23.28 4.60 1.95 0.85
Forward Thinking 0.83 25.04 4.31 1.78 0.82 0.81 25.40 4.07 1.77 0.87
Detail Conscious 0.79 25.80 5.31 2.43 0.92 0.78 25.67 5.23 2.45 0.94
Conscientious 0.75 25.65 3.74 1.87 1.00 0.74 25.68 3.63 1.85 1.02
Rule Following 0.88 21.36 5.24 1.82 0.69 0.87 20.78 5.21 1.88 0.72
Relaxed 0.90 21.93 5.56 1.76 0.63 0.90 21.88 5.57 1.76 0.63
Worrying 0.89 20.88 5.26 1.74 0.66 0.89 20.67 5.23 1.73 0.66
Tough Minded 0.90 19.62 5.65 1.79 0.63 0.90 19.82 5.56 1.76 0.63
Optimistic 0.89 29.04 5.15 1.71 0.66 0.89 29.22 5.09 1.69 0.66
Trusting 0.87 24.36 5.55 2.00 0.72 0.87 24.98 5.35 1.93 0.72
Emotionally Controlled 0.89 19.61 5.44 1.80 0.66 0.89 19.71 5.50 1.82 0.66
Vigorous 0.80 28.81 4.34 1.94 0.89 0.79 28.93 4.20 1.92 0.92
Competitive 0.80 17.55 4.91 2.20 0.89 0.79 17.97 4.90 2.25 0.92
Achieving 0.82 27.01 5.32 2.26 0.85 0.81 27.60 5.01 2.18 0.87
Decisive 0.83 18.85 4.63 1.91 0.82 0.83 19.06 4.65 1.92 0.82
Social Desirability 0.72 17.31 4.62 2.44 1.06 0.73 17.27 4.58 2.38 1.04

5
 10 Reliability

Table 2: Internal consistency reliabilities for OPQ32i (n=807)

OPQ32i raw sten

score score
alpha mean sd SEm SEm
Persuasive 0.81 10.88 5.00 2.18 0.87
Controlling 0.87 11.96 5.91 2.13 0.72
Outspoken 0.76 13.33 4.81 2.36 0.98
Independent Minded 0.72 13.61 4.31 2.28 1.06
Outgoing 0.85 12.55 5.73 2.22 0.77
Affiliative 0.82 15.49 4.78 2.03 0.85
Socially Confident 0.83 12.33 5.14 2.12 0.82
Modest 0.81 13.10 4.72 2.06 0.87
Democratic 0.68 14.98 3.83 2.17 1.13
Caring 0.78 16.76 4.35 2.04 0.94
Data Rational 0.88 10.36 5.84 2.02 0.69
Evaluative 0.67 13.87 3.79 2.18 1.15
Behavioral 0.82 15.28 5.24 2.22 0.85
Conventional 0.74 10.50 4.22 2.15 1.02
Conceptual 0.79 13.04 5.06 2.32 0.92
Innovative 0.88 12.21 5.76 2.00 0.69
Variety Seeking 0.72 15.01 4.10 2.17 1.06
Adaptable 0.82 14.94 4.85 2.06 0.85
Forward Thinking 0.75 12.54 4.18 2.09 1.00
Detail Conscious 0.80 13.97 5.26 2.35 0.89
Conscientious 0.82 16.40 4.58 1.94 0.85
Rule Following 0.84 10.21 4.88 1.95 0.80
Relaxed 0.85 10.88 5.38 2.08 0.77
Worrying 0.88 12.45 5.83 2.02 0.69
Tough Minded 0.82 10.83 5.00 2.12 0.85
Optimistic 0.80 14.68 4.60 2.06 0.89
Trusting 0.81 11.33 4.58 2.00 0.87
Emotionally Controlled 0.85 11.66 5.03 1.95 0.77
Vigorous 0.75 14.96 4.39 2.20 1.00
Competitive 0.86 10.85 5.79 2.17 0.75
Achieving 0.79 13.77 4.84 2.22 0.92
Decisive 0.80 11.27 4.78 2.14 0.89

6
 10 Reliability

Table 3: Test-retest reliabilities for OPQ32n (n=107)

First testing Second testing

OPQ32n sten
score test-retest
mean sd mean sd SEm reliability
Persuasive 20.78 4.80 20.88 4.56 0.80 0.84
Controlling 21.21 5.02 21.90 4.48 0.77 0.83
Outspoken 21.35 5.10 21.56 4.74 0.89 0.79
Independent Minded 22.07 4.71 22.37 4.12 0.89 0.78
Outgoing 21.47 5.50 22.09 5.09 0.69 0.88
Affiliative 24.45 5.50 24.56 5.47 0.72 0.87
Socially Confident 20.93 4.75 21.52 4.80 0.77 0.84
Modest 17.76 4.61 17.54 4.70 1.15 0.66
Democratic 25.73 4.03 25.79 3.69 1.17 0.67
Caring 26.49 4.58 26.60 4.15 0.96 0.76
Data Rational 18.99 5.69 18.93 5.37 0.75 0.86
Evaluative 24.85 4.44 25.47 4.20 1.00 0.75
Behavioral 28.36 5.24 28.56 5.15 0.92 0.80
Conventional 18.24 4.81 18.67 4.84 1.04 0.72
Conceptual 25.66 4.36 25.76 3.95 1.10 0.68
Innovative 22.55 5.42 22.76 5.38 0.69 0.88
Variety Seeking 24.89 5.13 24.91 4.98 0.80 0.82
Adaptable 23.32 4.76 23.71 4.59 0.94 0.75
Forward Thinking 22.49 4.23 22.81 4.74 0.96 0.78
Detail Conscious 23.15 6.21 23.56 6.16 0.57 0.91
Conscientious 23.90 4.72 23.98 4.32 0.94 0.78
Rule Following 20.72 5.01 20.21 4.90 0.75 0.86
Relaxed 21.28 5.52 21.36 5.22 0.63 0.90
Worrying 23.68 5.06 22.69 4.68 0.92 0.77
Tough Minded 18.35 5.86 18.42 5.94 0.69 0.86
Optimistic 25.21 6.61 25.27 6.32 0.66 0.87
Trusting 20.37 5.95 20.12 5.90 0.80 0.84
Emotionally Controlled 21.17 5.07 21.15 5.21 0.82 0.79
Vigorous* 24.64 5.58 26.05 5.32 1.20 0.64
Competitive 16.10 4.51 16.49 4.25 0.92 0.78
Achieving 25.46 5.14 25.25 4.80 0.87 0.77
Decisive 17.29 3.92 17.53 3.78 1.25 0.64
Social Desirability* 23.37 3.65 23.10 3.32 1.15 0.67
*Some changes in the item content between trial and final form.

7
 10 Reliability

Table 4: Correlations across versions (n=154)

OPQ32n OPQ32i
OPQ32 Scale mean sd mean sd correlation
Persuasive 20.72 4.74 10.61 4.49 0.66
Controlling 21.62 4.97 11.09 5.69 0.73
Outspoken 21.91 5.08 12.28 4.38 0.68
Independent Minded 22.52 4.91 13.58 3.97 0.54
Outgoing 22.49 5.14 14.01 5.65 0.74
Affiliative 24.89 5.14 16.59 5.00 0.59
Socially Confident 21.35 4.45 12.37 4.60 0.70
Modest 19.29 4.38 11.77 4.41 0.54
Democratic 25.11 4.54 14.67 3.78 0.49
Caring 27.85 4.94 16.78 4.73 0.58
Data Rational 18.90 5.70 9.57 5.69 0.74
Evaluative 24.34 4.44 13.05 3.75 0.45
Behavioral 27.38 5.69 16.38 5.13 0.66
Conventional 18.33 5.11 9.27 3.74 0.56
Conceptual 25.03 4.47 14.48 4.68 0.66
Innovative 22.10 5.41 12.05 5.60 0.79
Variety Seeking 24.81 4.99 15.20 4.39 0.59
Adaptable 22.99 5.28 14.21 4.86 0.59
Forward Thinking 22.10 4.72 12.38 4.68 0.69
Detail Conscious 22.92 5.97 12.90 4.99 0.70
Conscientious 23.90 4.40 15.90 4.73 0.62
Rule Following 19.68 5.14 9.42 4.31 0.68
Relaxed 21.58 5.14 10.92 5.30 0.69
Worrying 23.24 5.21 14.10 5.76 0.72
Tough Minded 18.34 5.71 11.18 5.34 0.68
Optimistic 25.07 6.39 14.28 4.96 0.69
Trusting 20.21 5.97 10.67 4.79 0.63
Emotionally Controlled 20.62 4.90 12.03 5.10 0.63
Vigorous* 25.11 5.05 13.49 4.56 0.56
Competitive 16.09 5.03 10.76 5.39 0.65
Achieving 25.30 5.46 14.94 4.55 0.72
Decisive 17.87 4.50 9.20 4.40 0.58
*Some changes in the item content between trial and final form.

8
 11 Construct Validity

Construct Validity
This chapter discusses the various forms of validity and presents information on
the construct validity of OPQ32. It presents scale intercorrelations, factor analytic
results and correlations with other instruments, both those in the OPQ family,
including the earlier Concept Model questionnaires, and other personality related
instruments.

These studies consistently support the construct validity of the OPQ32 scales
with strong relationships with similar scales and instruments and weak
correlations with disparate ones. The studies described in this chapter are:

1 OPQ32 scale intercorrelations

2 Standard error of difference
3 Factor analysis of OPQ32n
4 Relationship of OPQ32 to OPQ Concept Model
5 Relationship of OPQ32 to OPQ Factor Model
6 Relationship of OPQ32 to Images
7 Relationship of OPQ32 to the SHL Motivation Questionnaire
8 Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to 16PF5
9 Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to NEO PI-R
10 Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The straightforward
11 Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to a measure of Type A behavior design, and absence
12 Relationship of peer-ratings and self-report OPQ scores
of jargon, enables
people to see the
Introduction
relevance of what is
The validity of a questionnaire is a broad concept covering many important being measured.
issues of an instrument’s use. It is not limited simply to the effectiveness of a
questionnaire or indeed its relevance or appropriateness, although all these are
important. The validity of a questionnaire is also concerned with the
interpretation of scores and whether the inferences drawn from a questionnaire
are realistic and useful.

While validity is a broad concept, different facets of validity can be

distinguished:

Face Validity is the degree to which a test or questionnaire appears to have

relevance for a particular job to the untrained eye (e.g. line manager, candidate).
It is not necessary for a questionnaire to have face validity, but it makes its use
much more acceptable to all those who come into contact with the
questionnaire or its results. The OPQ32 questionnaires have good face validity
for occupational use. Both candidates and their managers can clearly see the
relevance of the questions and scales to style of performance at work. The
whole design ethic for all the OPQ questionnaires is to avoid the “mumbo
jumbo” elements typical of many psychological instruments.

1
 11 Construct Validity

Content Validity is concerned with the similarity between the content of the
questionnaire scale and the domain it is designed to measure. It is not
absolutely necessary for an instrument to have high content validity. Some
practitioners prefer using an indirect method of measurement. For instance,
Cattell (1959), in the Motivational Analysis Test, tried to infer from questions
about social knowledge and opinions, people’s motivational traits. Criterion
keyed questionnaires (e.g. the MMPI, 1970) often have content that does not
attempt to sample the domain being measured. However, the effectiveness of
these types of questionnaire can be limited both in absolute terms and in
generalizability over time and culture. The inductive approach used in
developing the OPQ questionnaires is more conducive to content validity. The
use of job analytic techniques to understand and define the domains to be
measured, and the straightforward way these are converted into item content
produce high content validity. This helps justify the use of questionnaires in the
work environment.

Criterion Related Validity in occupational terms is the relationship between a

score on a questionnaire and a measure of performance in the job. When
performance is rated at the same time as the questionnaire is completed, this is
often known as concurrent validity. Predictive validity is the relationship
Criterion validity between a score on a questionnaire and a subsequent future measure of job
studies for OPQ32 performance. From a practical standpoint, criterion related validity is the most
are presented in the necessary form of validity in order to support the use of a questionnaire and
show its effectiveness for occupational applications.
following chapter.
Construct Validity is the extent to which a scale measures a particular
hypothetical construct or trait. This is the most abstract form of validity and from
a theoretical point of view, the most basic. It is difficult to show, in that it
requires that scale scores always behave as might be expected if they are really
measuring their underlying construct. Many forms of evidence are required to
build a picture of construct validity. This includes all the types of evidence
described for previous forms of validity, but many other types of results can also
support (or undermine) the construct validity of an instrument. These include
intercorrelation patterns of scales within the questionnaire, factor structures and
correlations with other instruments. Typically, the focus is on convergent
evidence (relationships occurring when expected) and divergent evidence
(absence of relationships when not expected).

In this chapter studies are presented which examine the relationship of OPQ32
scales to each other through intercorrelations, standard error of difference and
factor analysis. Correlations between OPQ32 scales and a number of other
instruments are presented. In addition, relationships between the OPQ Concept
Model, which Study 4 shows has a great deal of commonality with the OPQ32
model, and a further series of measures are described.

2
 11 Construct Validity

1. OPQ32 scale intercorrelations

Intercorrelations are an important consideration for multi-scale instruments such

as OPQ32 questionnaires as they indicate how closely related different
constructs are to each other. As well as supporting construct validity, this can
help users interpret whether a particular combination of scales (e.g. high Social
Confidence and low Worrying) is relatively common in the population or not.

OPQ interpretation is generally based on an understanding of how individual

scales work in combination or link with each other. It is important to understand
whether a particular combination of scales is commonplace or relatively unusual,
in the same way it is useful to know whether an individual’s score on a single
scale is typical or extreme in comparison to others.

Socially Confident and Worrying are negatively correlated, so we would expect

high Socially Confident and low Worrying to be a relatively frequently occurring
combination, but high Socially Confident and high Worrying would be much
more unusual.

The number of scales in the OPQ32 model means that they cannot be
completely independent of each other. The design philosophy of the
questionnaire is to produce a very detailed profile of behavioral style. This
means that broad domains, such as those described in the Big Five model, are The Scale
split into multiple scales which will inevitably intercorrelate to some extent.
Descriptions chapter
Although this can lead to some redundancy, in purely statistical terms, it allows
lists for each scale
greater depth and detail of interpretation for profiles, particularly when an
individual is different from the general trend shown in the correlation. People the strongest
who score high on Socially Confident tend to be more Outgoing and extrovert relationships with
in style and most profiles will show similar scores on these scales. However, for other scales.
the few people who are outgoing with friends but uncomfortable in more formal
situations or socially suave in public but reserved in private, the existence of the
two scales provides a better picture of their style than a single scale on which
they would both obtain moderate scores.

Tables 1 and 2 show the intercorrelations of OPQ32n and OPQ32i scales

respectively. The samples are the general population and standardization groups
described in more detail in the Norms chapter. The pattern of intercorrelations
for the two versions is generally similar with the same pairs of scales showing
the highest positive and negative correlations in both questionnaires. However,
the OPQ32i matrix is negatively biased with correlations generally lower (less
positive or more negative) than the OPQ32n matrix. This is because the ipsative
format places a statistical constraint on the intercorrelation matrix. (See Baron,
1996 for a discussion of this.) It has also been argued (Saville and Willson, 1991)
that normative correlations may be slightly inflated through the presence of a
common factor arising from response biases.

3
 11 Construct Validity

The correlations for the normative version (OPQ32n) range from -0.57 to 0.55,
with two-thirds falling between -0.2 and 0.2. For the ipsative questionnaire, scale
intercorrelations range from -0.36 to 0.58 with 82% falling between -0.1 and 0.1.
This suggests a generally high degree of independence for the scales, despite
the large number of relatively narrow scales included. However, raw score
correlations can underestimate true relationships where scale reliabilities are not
high. This issue is addressed in the next section.

Intercorrelations and reliability

When considering intercorrelations it is important to take account of the

reliability or precision of measurement of each scale. The lower the reliability of
each of a pair of scales the lower the maximum possible correlation between
them and the less common variance they can share.
Most pairs of
OPQ32 scales share If two scales correlate at 0.6, this clearly suggests that there is a strong
relationship between the two personality traits the scales assess. How strong a
less than 10%
relationship is dependent on the reliability of the two scales. If both scales have
reliable common reliabilities of 0.9, the “true score” correlation, that is, the theoretical correlation
variance. if there were no error of measurement in the scores, is 0.67, and the scales
share 44% common variance. If, on the other hand, the two scales have
reliabilities of 0.6, then the true score correlation is +1, they are perfectly related
and both scales measure the same trait.

In essence, correcting the intercorrelations for unreliability helps us assess how

effectively a questionnaire differentiates between the different constructs it
measures. In the development of the OPQ32 questionnaires, the aim was to
have no more than 50% of the reliable variance shared by any two scales, and at
least 50% specific to each scale. Tables 3 and 4 give the shared reliable variance
for the OPQ32 scales for the two versions, based on the same samples as
before.

In general, despite the large number of scales in the OPQ32 model the scales
show a fair degree of independence. 77% of the OPQ32n scale pairs share less
than 10% common variance rising to 89% for OPQ32i. However, there are a few
pairs of scales which are highly related.

There are more strong relationships for OPQ32n than for OPQ32i. This is partly
due to the tendency to lower correlations of ipsative questionnaires and partly
due to the broader sample used to compute the OPQ32n correlations. Using the
general population sample will tend to show bigger intercorrelations than might
occur in occupational groups such as that used for the OPQ32i correlations,
which are typically more homogeneous.

4
 Table 1: Intercorrelations of OPQ32n scales – US General Occupational (n=1053)
RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RP10 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE7 FE8 FE9 FE10 SDE
RP1 Persuasive 1.00 0.44 0.33 0.22 0.41 0.18 0.47 -0.13 -0.02 0.07 0.10 0.18 0.12 -0.27 0.25 0.43 0.31 -0.02 0.28 -0.03 0.05 -0.15 0.14 -0.40 0.25 0.27 0.03 -0.15 0.18 0.20 0.38 0.21 0.03

RP2 Controlling 1.00 0.42 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.27 -0.14 -0.07 0.05 0.15 0.31 0.16 -0.25 0.21 0.37 0.29 0.01 0.30 0.06 0.16 -0.11 0.04 -0.28 0.20 0.26 0.02 -0.12 0.27 0.22 0.49 0.24 0.02

RP3 Outspoken 1.00 0.33 0.35 0.03 0.22 -0.27 -0.07 -0.13 0.07 0.35 0.10 -0.24 0.16 0.25 0.21 -0.05 0.12 -0.07 0.04 -0.26 -0.02 -0.20 0.12 0.11 -0.03 -0.43 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.26 -0.14

RP4 Independent Minded 1.00 0.11 -0.16 0.11 -0.05 -0.33 -0.18 0.08 0.24 0.05 -0.33 0.21 0.28 0.21 -0.08 0.10 -0.08 -0.01 -0.28 -0.02 -0.20 0.11 0.08 -0.20 -0.05 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.22 -0.09

RP5 Outgoing 1.00 0.45 0.53 -0.27 0.03 0.13 -0.18 -0.03 0.10 -0.15 0.09 0.26 0.19 -0.01 0.07 -0.12 -0.01 -0.08 0.08 -0.27 0.09 0.24 0.00 -0.48 0.14 0.03 0.18 0.25 -0.07

RP6 Affiliative 1.00 0.32 -0.14 0.28 0.29 -0.12 -0.11 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.11 -0.04 0.06 -0.03 0.06 0.12 0.15 -0.12 0.03 0.17 0.13 -0.23 0.09 -0.11 0.11 -0.05 0.06

RP7 Socially Confident 1.00 -016 0.02 0.17 -0.04 0.05 0.09 -0.13 0.15 0.31 0.19 -0.04 0.18 0.01 0.10 -0.03 0.26 -0.57 0.23 0.29 0.05 -0.23 0.15 0.08 0.26 0.13 0.13

RP8 Modest 1.00 0.00 0.06 0.03 -0.09 -0.04 0.08 -0.08 -0.12 -0.06 -0.06 -0.07 0.02 -0.03 0.10 -0.04 0.05 0.08 -0.08 -0.01 0.31 -0.04 -0.13 -0.14 -0.08 0.08

RP9 Democratic 1.00 0.39 -0.04 0.02 0.22 0.04 0.13 -0.01 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.11 -0.04 0.15 0.23 -0.09 0.13 -0.21 0.08 -0.35 0.17

RP10 Caring 1.00 -0.15 -0.03 0.37 -0.01 0.16 0.09 0.06 -0.03 0.13 0.12 0.23 0.20 0.06 0.01 -0.04 0.25 0.22 -0.08 0.17 -0.30 0.10 -0.18 0.42

TS1 Data Rational 1.00 0.37 -0.05 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.25 0.13 0.04 0.04 -0.08 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.00 0.03

TS2 Evaluative 1.00 0.30 -0.17 0.35 0.33 0.16 0.07 0.32 0.20 0.16 -0.18 -0.10 -0.03 0.04 0.11 0.00 -0.01 0.17 0.13 0.32 -0.01 -0.09

TS3 Behavioral 1.00 -0.12 0.38 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.02 0.08 -0.05 -0.02 -0.07 -0.04 0.12 -0.11 -0.14 0.09 -0.11 0.13 -0.10 0.05

TS4 Conventional 1.00 -0.33 -0.45 -0.63 -0.10 -0.15 0.23 0.05 0.45 -0.06 0.18 -0.17 -0.18 0.15 0.07 -0.13 -0.06 -0.20 -0.28 0.01

TS5 Conceptual 1.00 0.37 0.35 0.10 0.27 -0.09 -0.01 -0.21 0.09 -0.14 0.15 0.19 0.07 -0.02 0.10 0.01 0.20 0.06 0.01

TS6 Innovative 1.00 0.39 0.00 0.30 -0.04 0.09 -0.21 0.10 -0.29 0.23 0.23 0.08 -0.10 0.20 0.13 0.33 0.22 0.11

TS7 Variety Seeking 1.00 0.14 0.17 -0.28 -0.02 -0.32 0.05 -0.18 0.15 0.22 0.02 -0.05 0.22 0.07 0.27 0.19 -0.01

TS8 Adaptable 1.00 0.06 -0.05 -0.10 -0.17 -0.05 0.10 -0.15 -0.09 -0.11 -0.01 -0.04 0.06 -0.01 -0.01 -0.21

TS9 Forward Thinking 1.00 0.24 0.31 0.07 0.06 -0.17 0.21 0.34 0.14 -0.01 0.29 0.05 0.52 -0.01 0.10

TS10 Detail Conscious 1.00 0.55 0.38 -0.01 -0.01 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.18 -0.03 0.19 -0.16 0.22

TS11 Conscientious 1.00 0.34 -0.01 -0.07 0.11 0.15 0.02 0.00 0.35 -0.04 0.34 -0.08 0.29

TS12 Rule Following 1.00 -0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.10 -0.16 0.01 -0.33 0.29

FE1 Relaxed 1.00 -0.39 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.08 0.05 0.21

FE2 Worrying 1.00 -0.41 -0.26 -0.07 0.04 -0.14 -0.19 -0.21 -0.20 -0.19

FE3 Tough Minded 1.00 0.31 0.17 0.19 0.13 0.05 0.17 0.08 0.27

FE4 Optimistic 1.00 0.40 -0.08 0.28 -0.02 0.28 0.10 0.17

FE5 Trusting 1.00 -0.04 0.14 -0.14 0.02 0.03 0.14

FE6 Emotionally Controlled 1.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.05 -0.16 0.15

FE7 Vigorous 1.00 -0.04 0.42 0.11 0.10

FE8 Competitive 1.00 0.31 0.20 -0.05

11 Construct Validity

FE9 Achieving 1.00 0.07 0.07

FE10 Decisive 1.00 -0.18

SDE Social Desirability 1.00

5
6
Table 2: Intercorrelations of OPQ32i scales – UK Standardization sample (n=807)
RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RP10 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE7 FE8 FE9 FE10
RP1 Persuasive 1.00 0.29 0.12 -0.08 0.21 -0.02 0.28 -0.21 -0.04 -0.16 -0.18 -0.03 -0.12 -0.25 -0.12 0.13 -0.04 -0.02 -0.09 -0.25 -0.23 -0.21 -0.02 -0.28 0.02 -0.02 -0.13 -0.18 -0.11 0.27 0.23 0.02

RP2 Controlling 1.00 0.34 0.06 0.17 -0.18 0.19 -0.30 -0.17 -0.26 -0.09 0.02 -0.16 -0.29 -0.17 0.17 0.02 -0.08 -0.07 -0.20 -0.15 -0.29 -0.03 -0.34 -0.04 -0.04 -0.22 -0.26 0.01 0.30 0.26 0.21

RP3 Outspoken 1.00 0.22 0.25 -0.15 0.14 -0.25 -0.13 -0.26 -0.14 0.10 -0.16 -0.18 -0.03 0.03 0.09 -0.17 -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.22 0.09 -0.28 0.13 -0.15 -0.20 -0.27 -0.06 0.15 0.04 0.21

RP4 Independent Minded 1.00 0.05 -0.03 -0.13 -0.10 -0.19 -0.15 -0.13 0.07 0.08 -0.09 0.18 0.17 0.23 0.01 0.02 -0.20 -0.24 -0.31 -0.03 0.06 -0.12 -0.11 -0.24 -0.02 -0.21 0.11 -0.03 0.12

RP5 Outgoing 1.00 0.40 0.40 -0.27 0.00 -0.01 -0.35 -0.34 0.01 -0.24 -0.12 -0.03 0.09 0.02 -0.29 -0.36 -0.36 -0.25 0.01 -0.07 0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.25 -0.01 0.08 -0.03 -0.02

RP6 Affiliative 1.00 0.18 -0.07 0.22 0.24 -0.22 -0.32 0.16 -0.06 -0.05 -0.18 0.01 0.12 -0.26 -0.21 -0.20 -0.06 -0.03 0.20 -0.12 0.02 0.18 -0.06 -0.01 -0.10 -0.22 -0.18

RP7 Socially Confident 1.00 -0.17 -0.01 0.04 -0.22 -0.17 0.05 -0.16 -0.08 -0.04 -0.03 -0.11 -0.17 -0.21 -0.21 -0.24 0.18 -0.44 0.14 0.18 0.01 -0.25 -0.03 -0.09 -0.06 -0.09

RP8 Modest 1.00 0.06 0.17 0.01 -0.05 -0.11 0.23 -0.11 -0.18 0.03 0.04 -0.05 0.16 0.18 0.19 -0.06 0.18 0.05 -0.11 0.07 0.46 0.03 -0.21 -0.29 -0.06
11 Construct Validity

RP9 Democratic 1.00 0.31 -0.11 -0.03 0.16 -0.01 0.03 -0.11 -0.10 0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.08 -0.22 0.18 -0.11 -0.04 0.24 -0.07 -0.07 -0.23 -0.13 -0.26

RP10 Caring 1.00 -0.16 -0.17 0.32 0.13 0.00 -0.22 -0.13 0.10 -0.07 0.06 0.00 0.15 -0.14 0.19 -0.14 0.00 0.22 0.02 0.06 -0.31 -0.28 -0.27

TS1 Data Rational 1.00 0.21 -0.12 0.08 0.10 -0.06 -0.27 -0.08 0.04 0.26 0.16 0.18 0.04 -0.02 0.00 -0.09 0.02 0.05 0.00 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

TS2 Evaluative 1.00 0.03 -0.08 0.27 0.18 -0.08 -0.03 0.13 0.09 0.09 -0.08 -0.15 -0.12 -0.10 -0.19 -0.19 -0.02 -0.05 -0.02 0.13 0.10

TS3 Behavioral 1.00 -0.16 0.30 0.03 -0.01 0.04 -0.01 -0.18 -0.17 -0.15 -0.12 0.10 -0.15 0.03 0.06 -0.12 -0.12 -0.21 -0.09 -0.17

TS4 Conventional 1.00 -0.17 -0.35 -0.23 -0.01 0.07 0.34 0.27 0.52 -0.03 0.22 -0.04 -0.12 0.09 0.25 0.04 -0.15 -0.32 -0.06

TS5 Conceptual 1.00 0.32 0.06 0.00 0.02 -0.16 -0.22 -0.22 -0.04 0.00 -0.08 -0.08 -0.05 -0.10 -0.23 -0.14 -0.04 -0.04

TS6 Innovative 1.00 0.19 -0.08 0.04 -0.31 -0.29 -0.40 0.03 -0.24 0.01 0.08 -0.09 -0.19 -0.16 0.04 0.12 0.17

TS7 Variety Seeking 1.00 0.01 -0.06 -0.26 -0.19 -0.25 -0.04 0.03 -0.05 -0.03 -0.17 -0.01 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.07

TS8 Adaptable 1.00 -0.14 -0.09 -0.14 -0.01 -0.17 0.22 -0.17 -0.08 -0.08 0.10 -0.14 -0.03 -0.08 0.02

TS9 Forward Thinking 1.00 0.20 0.19 0.08 -0.18 -0.02 -0.16 0.09 -0.08 -0.06 0.02 -0.02 0.25 -0.04

TS10 Detail Conscious 1.00 0.58 0.44 -0.05 0.05 -0.07 -0.14 -0.03 0.14 0.22 -0.25 -0.09 -0.13

TS11 Conscientious 1.00 0.39 -0.12 0.08 -0.06 -0.11 -0.03 0.06 0.24 -0.16 0.05 -0.07

TS12 Rule Following 1.00 -0.14 0.28 -0.06 -0.11 0.11 0.19 0.06 -0.15 -0.11 -0.24

FE1 Relaxed 1.00 -0.35 0.40 0.22 0.00 0.08 -0.13 -0.05 -0.18 0.04

FE2 Worrying 1.00 -0.29 -0.18 0.16 0.23 -0.01 -0.09 -0.15 -0.22

FE3 Tough Minded 1.00 0.11 -0.03 0.09 -0.14 -0.08 -0.12 0.03

FE4 Optimistic 1.00 0.23 -0.16 -0.07 -0.14 0.02 -0.05

FE5 Trusting 1.00 -0.06 -0.03 -0.24 -0.24 -0.11

FE6 Emotionally Controlled 1.00 -0.05 -0.12 -0.25 -0.08

FE7 Vigorous 1.00 -0.02 0.10 -0.03

FE8 Competitive 1.00 0.41 0.10

FE9 Achieving 1.00 -0.05

FE10 Decisive 1.00

 11 Construct Validity

The strongest relationship for both versions is between Detail Conscious and
Conscientious, two scales relating to structure in approach to work. This is the
only scale pair which share more than 50% common variance. Three pairs of
scales share more than 40% common variance in the normative results. These
are Conventional and Variety Seeking, Socially Confident and Worrying, and
Controlling and Achieving. All these relationships make sense in construct terms.
People who prefer more traditional approaches are more likely to prefer routine
to change and variety. People who are confident with others are less likely to
suffer extensively from worries before important events, which typically involve
meeting people. The Controlling-Achieving correlation suggests that career
minded people who strive to achieve goals generally don’t mind taking control
of others.

For the ipsative questionnaire, one pair of scales shows a substantial

relationship, which is less evident in the OPQ32n matrix. This is Conventional
and Rule Following. Both these scales relate to conforming to, or challenging,
existing conventions, one in terms of work practices and the other in terms of
rules and procedures. The OPQ32i Conventional scale has less shared variance
with Variety Seeking than the OPQ32n scale. This suggests the ipsative version
has slightly more emphasis on conformity and slightly less on openness to
change. This is the only major structural difference between the two sets of
relationships although a few smaller ones do occur, as would be expected from
the different answer format of the two questionnaires.

7
8
Table 3: Percentage of common reliable variance for OPQ32n scales – UK General population (n=2028)

RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RP10 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE7 FE8 FE9 FE10 SDE
RP1 Persuasive 35 15 6 23 6 21 11 4 3 5 15 8 14 12 25 11 1 12 1 3 1 1 14 5 8 1 7 5 7 33 11 3

RP2 Controlling 31 16 15 2 21 12 0 0 7 29 8 14 12 27 19 1 15 5 5 5 3 19 5 8 0 4 12 8 43 21 1

RP3 Outspoken 31 25 2 12 20 1 1 2 24 1 7 6 13 8 0 2 0 1 8 1 13 6 1 2 14 3 5 13 15 2

RP4 Independent Minded 4 2 5 2 17 1 1 15 1 15 5 15 13 0 2 0 1 13 0 8 3 0 6 0 2 4 10 10 0

RP5 Outgoing 26 39 23 2 6 1 2 4 8 5 10 6 0 2 0 0 2 2 15 2 10 1 24 4 0 11 11 0

RP6 Affiliative 11 8 15 22 1 0 6 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 4 2 0 11 13 14 3 2 5 0 2

RP7 Socially Confident 7 1 7 0 8 6 4 6 11 5 2 8 4 4 0 11 47 10 17 5 7 5 1 11 12 5

RP8 Modest 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 7 3 1 2 0 0 1 1 4 0 4 0 16 1 3 16 6 0
11 Construct Validity

RP9 Democratic 33 0 3 23 0 7 0 1 1 7 5 5 9 1 0 0 9 14 5 2 9 2 15 7

RP10 Caring 2 1 38 1 5 1 0 0 5 6 8 8 0 0 0 10 15 5 6 16 2 2 14

TS1 Data Rational 21 0 2 7 2 0 0 9 12 3 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 4 5 10 2 1

TS2 Evaluative 24 9 36 26 12 3 22 17 9 2 1 6 1 4 0 1 7 3 29 9 2

TS3 Behavioral 6 35 8 5 6 11 3 2 0 0 0 1 6 2 4 3 2 9 0 2

TS4 Conventional 24 25 49 4 4 1 0 19 1 5 2 3 0 1 2 1 17 8 0

TS5 Conceptual 22 14 6 13 2 0 3 1 4 0 6 1 1 1 0 17 1 0

TS6 Innovative 25 2 15 1 2 5 2 13 2 7 0 2 5 2 32 14 1

TS7 Variety Seeking 5 3 1 0 13 3 6 4 6 0 0 3 1 16 8 0

TS8 Adaptable 0 0 4 4 1 3 4 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 3

TS9 Forward Thinking 17 11 0 3 6 1 17 4 3 10 0 35 2 3

TS10 Detail Conscious 57 13 3 2 1 8 3 0 17 0 8 0 12

TS11 Conscientious 14 2 2 2 7 3 0 27 0 9 0 15

TS12 Rule Following 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 4 1 9 10

FE1 Relaxed 18 17 21 5 0 1 0 1 2 2

FE2 Worrying 19 11 1 1 3 5 10 15 2

FE3 Tough Minded 7 3 1 1 0 3 3 2

FE4 Optimistic 22 4 6 0 12 3 5

FE5 Trusting 3 1 3 1 0 4

FE6 Emotionally Controlled 0 0 4 2 0

FE7 Vigorous 0 20 3 3

FE8 Competitive 10 9 0

FE9 Achieving 10 3

FE10 Decisive 0

SDE Social Desirability

 Table 4: Percentage of common reliable variance for OPQ32i scales – UK Standardization sample (n=807)
RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RP10 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE7 FE8 FE9 FE10
RP1 Persuasive 12 2 1 6 0 12 7 0 4 4 0 2 10 2 2 0 0 1 9 8 6 0 11 0 0 3 5 2 10 8 0

RP2 Controlling 17 1 4 5 5 13 5 10 1 0 4 13 4 4 0 1 1 6 3 11 0 15 0 0 7 9 0 12 10 6

RP3 Outspoken 9 10 4 3 9 3 11 3 2 4 5 0 0 1 4 4 3 2 7 1 12 3 3 6 11 1 3 0 7

RP4 Independent Minded 0 0 3 2 7 4 3 1 1 2 5 5 11 0 0 7 9 15 0 1 3 2 10 0 8 2 0 3

RP5 Outgoing 22 22 10 0 0 16 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 13 19 19 9 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 0

RP6 Affiliative 5 1 9 9 6 18 4 1 0 4 0 2 11 6 6 1 0 6 2 0 5 1 0 2 7 5

RP7 Socially Confident 4 0 0 7 5 0 4 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 8 4 26 3 5 0 9 0 1 0 1

RP8 Modest 1 4 0 0 2 8 2 4 0 0 0 4 5 5 0 4 0 2 1 30 0 6 13 0

RP9 Democratic 19 2 0 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 6 2 0 11 1 1 9 3 12

RP10 Caring 4 6 16 3 0 7 3 2 1 1 0 3 3 5 3 0 8 0 1 14 13 12

TS1 Data Rational 7 2 1 1 0 11 1 0 9 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

TS2 Evaluative 0 1 13 6 1 0 3 2 1 1 4 3 2 7 7 0 1 0 3 2

TS3 Behavioral 4 14 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 3 0 1 2 2 6 1 4

TS4 Conventional 5 18 9 0 1 19 12 42 0 7 0 2 1 9 0 3 17 1

TS5 Conceptual 15 1 0 0 4 8 7 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 3 0 0

TS6 Innovative 6 1 0 14 12 22 0 8 0 1 1 5 4 0 2 4

TS7 Variety Seeking 0 1 11 6 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 1

TS8 Adaptable 3 1 3 0 4 7 4 1 1 1 3 0 1 0

TS9 Forward Thinking 7 6 1 5 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 11 0

TS10 Detail Conscious 51 28 0 0 1 3 0 3 8 9 1 2

TS11 Conscientious 22 2 1 1 2 0 1 9 4 0 1

TS12 Rule Following 3 11 1 2 2 5 1 3 2 8

FE1 Relaxed 16 23 7 0 1 3 0 5 0

FE2 Worrying 12 5 4 7 0 1 3 7

FE3 Tough Minded 2 0 1 3 1 2 0

FE4 Optimistic 8 4 1 3 0 0

FE5 Trusting 1 0 9 9 2

FE6 Emotionally Controlled 0 2 10 1

FE7 Vigorous 0 2 0
11 Construct Validity

FE8 Competitive 24 1

FE9 Achieving 0

FE10 Decisive

9
 11 Construct Validity

2. Standard error of difference

Many of the interpretations of OPQ profiles are based on a difference between

two scores (e.g. “Alex is more Persuasive than Controlling”). But how many
stens between two scores constitutes a real difference, 1 sten, 2 stens or more?

The standard error of difference (SEd) is a measure which can help the user
answer this question. The SEd depends on the reliability of the two scores. The
higher the scale reliabilities the smaller the SEd is. It provides an error band for
a difference between two scores, just as the standard error of measurement
provides a band of error around individual scores.

The SEd is calculated using the following formula:

Where two scales SEd = SEm12 + SEm22

have a strong
positive correlation, If there are two full SEds between the score on one scale and the score on
another scale, then there is a 95% likelihood that there is a real difference
differences between
between one score and another. The majority of SEds for OPQ32n in Table 5 are
scores which exceed
1.5 or less and those for OPQ32i in Table 6 are typically below 1.2. Therefore,
two SEds will be as a rule of thumb, a difference of 3 stens or more is a strong indication that the
quite rare. person has scored higher on one scale than another (e.g. a sten 4 on Controlling
and a sten 7 on Persuasive justifies the interpretation “Alex is more Persuasive
than Controlling”).

10
 Table 5: SEd of OPQ32n scales – UK General population (n=2028)
RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RP10 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE7 FE8 FE9 FE10 SDE
RP1 Persuasive 1.27 1.39 1.47 1.27 1.31 1.25 1.27 1.53 1.44 1.32 1.47 1.27 1.41 1.36 1.27 1.47 1.43 1.36 1.39 1.41 1.27 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.28 1.27 1.34 1.34 1.37 1.31 1.39 1.56

RP2 Controlling 1.27 1.36 1.13 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.43 1.33 1.20 1.36 1.13 1.30 1.23 1.13 1.36 1.31 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.13 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.15 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

RP3 Outspoken 1.47 1.27 1.31 1.25 1.27 1.53 1.44 1.32 1.47 1.27 1.41 1.36 1.27 1.47 1.43 1.36 1.39 1.41 1.27 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.28 1.27 1.34 1.34 1.37 1.31 1.39 1.56

RP4 Independent Minded 1.36 1.40 1.34 1.36 1.61 1.53 1.41 1.56 1.36 1.50 1.45 1.36 1.56 1.51 1.45 1.47 1.50 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.31 1.37 1.36 1.43 1.43 1.46 1.40 1.47 1.64

RP5 Outgoing 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.43 1.33 1.20 1.36 1.13 1.30 1.23 1.13 1.36 1.31 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.13 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.15 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

RP6 Affiliative 1.16 1.18 1.47 1.37 1.24 1.40 1.18 1.34 1.28 1.18 1.40 1.36 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.18 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.20 1.18 1.27 1.27 1.30 1.23 1.31 1.50

RP7 Socially Confident 1.11 1.41 1.31 1.18 1.34 1.11 1.28 1.22 1.11 1.34 1.29 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.11 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.12 1.11 1.20 1.20 1.23 1.16 1.25 1.44

RP8 Modest 1.43 1.33 1.20 1.36 1.13 1.30 1.23 1.13 1.36 1.31 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.13 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.15 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

RP9 Democratic 1.59 1.48 1.61 1.43 1.56 1.51 1.43 1.61 1.57 1.51 1.53 1.56 1.43 1.40 1.40 1.38 1.44 1.43 1.50 1.50 1.52 1.47 1.53 1.70

RP10 Caring 1.38 1.53 1.33 1.47 1.42 1.33 1.53 1.48 1.42 1.44 1.47 1.33 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.34 1.33 1.40 1.40 1.43 1.37 1.44 1.62

TS1 Data Rational 1.41 1.20 1.35 1.29 1.20 1.41 1.37 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.20 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.21 1.20 1.28 1.28 1.31 1.24 1.32 1.51

TS2 Evaluative 1.36 1.50 1.45 1.36 1.56 1.51 1.45 1.47 1.50 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.31 1.37 1.36 1.43 1.43 1.46 1.40 1.47 1.64

TS3 Behavioral 1.30 1.23 1.13 1.36 1.31 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.13 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.15 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

TS4 Conventional 1.39 1.30 1.50 1.46 1.39 1.41 1.44 1.30 1.27 1.27 1.25 1.31 1.30 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.34 1.41 1.59

TS5 Conceptual 1.23 1.45 1.40 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.23 1.20 1.20 1.18 1.25 1.23 1.32 1.32 1.34 1.28 1.36 1.54

TS6 Innovative 1.36 1.31 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.13 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.15 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

TS7 Variety Seeking 1.51 1.45 1.47 1.50 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.31 1.37 1.36 1.43 1.43 1.46 1.40 1.47 1.64

TS8 Adaptable 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.31 1.28 1.28 1.26 1.32 1.31 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.36 1.43 1.60

TS9 Forward Thinking 1.36 1.39 1.23 1.20 1.20 1.18 1.25 1.23 1.32 1.32 1.34 1.28 1.36 1.54

TS10 Detail Conscious 1.41 1.27 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.28 1.27 1.34 1.34 1.37 1.31 1.39 1.56

TS11 Conscientious 1.30 1.27 1.27 1.25 1.31 1.30 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.34 1.41 1.59

TS12 Rule Following 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.15 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

FE1 Relaxed 1.06 1.04 1.11 1.10 1.19 1.19 1.22 1.15 1.23 1.43

FE2 Worrying 1.04 1.11 1.10 1.19 1.19 1.22 1.15 1.23 1.43

FE3 Tough Minded 1.09 1.08 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.13 1.22 1.42

FE4 Optimistic 1.15 1.23 1.23 1.26 1.20 1.28 1.47

FE5 Trusting 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.27 1.46

FE6 Emotionally Controlled 1.30 1.33 1.27 1.34 1.53

FE7 Vigorous 1.33 1.27 1.34 1.53

11 Construct Validity

FE8 Competitive 1.30 1.37 1.55

FE9 Achieving 1.31 1.50

FE10 Decisive 1.56

SDE Social Desirability

11
12
Table 6: SEd of OPQ32i scales – UK Standardization sample (n=807)
RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RP10 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE7 FE8 FE9 FE10
RP1 Persuasive 1.19 1.11 1.08 1.17 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.06 1.12 1.20 1.05 1.15 1.10 1.13 1.20 1.08 1.15 1.10 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.15 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.10 1.18 1.13 1.14

RP2 Controlling 1.16 1.13 1.22 1.20 1.20 1.19 1.10 1.17 1.24 1.10 1.20 1.14 1.18 1.24 1.13 1.20 1.15 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.20 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.15 1.22 1.18 1.18

RP3 Outspoken 1.05 1.14 1.12 1.13 1.11 1.02 1.09 1.16 1.01 1.12 1.06 1.10 1.16 1.05 1.12 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.14 1.07 1.15 1.10 1.10

RP4 Independent Minded 1.11 1.09 1.10 1.08 0.99 1.06 1.14 0.98 1.09 1.03 1.07 1.14 1.02 1.09 1.04 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.14 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.04 1.12 1.07 1.08

RP5 Outgoing 1.18 1.19 1.17 1.09 1.15 1.22 1.08 1.18 1.13 1.16 1.22 1.11 1.18 1.13 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.13 1.21 1.16 1.17

RP6 Affiliative 1.17 1.15 1.07 1.13 1.20 1.06 1.16 1.10 1.14 1.20 1.09 1.16 1.11 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.11 1.19 1.14 1.15

RP7 Socially Confident 1.16 1.07 1.14 1.21 1.07 1.17 1.11 1.15 1.21 1.10 1.17 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.21 1.17 1.15 1.16 1.19 1.12 1.20 1.15 1.15

RP8 Modest 1.06 1.12 1.20 1.05 1.15 1.10 1.13 1.20 1.08 1.15 1.10 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.15 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.10 1.18 1.13 1.14
11 Construct Validity

RP9 Democratic 1.03 1.11 0.95 1.07 1.00 1.04 1.11 0.99 1.07 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.01 1.10 1.04 1.05

RP10 Caring 1.18 1.03 1.13 1.08 1.11 1.18 1.06 1.13 1.08 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.13 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.08 1.16 1.11 1.12

TS1 Data Rational 1.11 1.20 1.15 1.18 1.24 1.14 1.20 1.16 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.20 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.16 1.23 1.18 1.19

TS2 Evaluative 1.06 1.00 1.04 1.11 0.98 1.06 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.11 1.06 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.01 1.09 1.04 1.04

TS3 Behavioral 1.10 1.14 1.20 1.09 1.16 1.11 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.11 1.19 1.14 1.15

TS4 Conventional 1.08 1.15 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.13 1.05 1.13 1.08 1.09

TS5 Conceptual 1.18 1.07 1.14 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.14 1.12 1.13 1.16 1.09 1.17 1.12 1.12

TS6 Innovative 1.14 1.20 1.16 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.20 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.16 1.23 1.18 1.19

TS7 Variety Seeking 1.09 1.04 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.14 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.04 1.12 1.07 1.08

TS8 Adaptable 1.11 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.11 1.19 1.14 1.15

TS9 Forward Thinking 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.13 1.16 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.06 1.14 1.09 1.10

TS10 Detail Conscious 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.15 1.13 1.14 1.17 1.10 1.17 1.12 1.13

TS11 Conscientious 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.11 1.19 1.14 1.15

TS12 Rule Following 1.20 1.22 1.17 1.16 1.17 1.20 1.13 1.20 1.15 1.16

FE1 Relaxed 1.22 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.13 1.21 1.16 1.17

FE2 Worrying 1.20 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.16 1.23 1.18 1.19

FE3 Tough Minded 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.11 1.19 1.14 1.15

FE4 Optimistic 1.14 1.17 1.10 1.17 1.12 1.13

FE5 Trusting 1.17 1.10 1.18 1.13 1.14

FE6 Emotionally Controlled 1.13 1.21 1.16 1.17

FE7 Vigorous 1.14 1.09 1.10

FE8 Competitive 1.17 1.17

FE9 Achieving 1.12

FE10 Decisive
 11 Construct Validity

3. Factor analysis of OPQ32n

Based on OPQ32n scale intercorrelations for the UK general population group, a

factor analysis was performed. A number of different approaches were used
which all gave similar results. Principal components extraction followed by
oblimin rotation gave the clearest picture.

Five factors were extracted explaining 48% of the total variance in the data set. Correlations
Table 7 shows the main factor loadings in the rotated factor matrix. In
between Images
interpreting the factors it is useful to consider the Big Five model of personality
(McCrae & Costa, 1987) as well as the six factor SHL Images questionnaire. and the six derived
factors of OPQ32
The extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experience are shown in
dimensions are very clear and similar to typical Big 5 descriptions. There is Table 12.
some discussion in the literature regarding the nature of the conscientiousness
dimension and the extent to which it encompasses an element of drive. See
Matthews (1997) for a discussion of the nature of the Big Five. In these results
the OPQ32 Vigorous scale, relating to the desire to remain active and busy,
loads with the more traditional structure related scales, as does the OPQ32
Achieving dimension, albeit with only a moderate loading. Some OPQ32 scales
were less well explained by the factor solution, or had only moderate loadings
on any of the factors. These included scales related to influencing (Persuasive,
Controlling and Independent Minded) which are outside the Big Five model,
and some of the dynamism scales, particularly Achieving and Decisive, which
again are not well represented within the Big Five model. The Social Desirability
scale has only low loadings on two factors.

In other analyses, where a sixth factor was retained, the extra factor sometimes
came from a splitting of one of the Big Five dimensions, but sometimes looked
more like an energy factor loading the Vigorous, Achieving, and to a lesser
extent Competitive and Decisive scales. This left a softer, more dispositional
agreeableness factor and more of an emphasis on structure in the
conscientiousness factor, with Rule Following loading in as well, rather than in
the openness to experience factor as here. This latter result is very similar to the
Images model.

Finally, it should be noted that there is a degree of intercorrelation between the

derived factors, as would be expected from an oblimin rotation. However, the
factor intercorrelations are not unduly large, with the largest, extraversion with
openness to experience, not exceeding 0.30.

13
 11 Construct Validity

Table 7: Pattern matrix for OPQ32n factor analysis (principal

components extraction, oblimin rotation, n = 2028)

OPQ32 scale Factor Big 5 label

1 2 3 4 5
Outgoing 0.77
Emotionally Controlled -0.72
Modest -0.68
Outspoken 0.54 -0.38 Extraversion
Affiliative 0.53 0.46
Persuasive 0.40
Controlling 0.35 0.34 0.31

Caring 0.69
Democratic 0.67
Competitive -0.53 Agreeableness
Trusting 0.51 -0.34
Independent Minded -0.42
Decisive -0.40

Detail Conscious 0.78

Conscientious 0.71
Vigorous 0.53
Forward Thinking 0.52 Conscientiousness
Evaluative 0.52 0.44
Data Rational 0.50
Achieving 0.47 0.32

Tough Minded -0.69

Relaxed -0.69
Worrying 0.62 Neuroticism
Socially Confident 0.45 -0.48
Optimistic 0.32 -0.45
Social Desirability 0.31 -0.35

Conventional -0.71
Variety Seeking 0.68
Conceptual 0.68 Openness to
Innovative 0.53 experience
Rule Following 0.31 0.42 -0.52
Behavioral 0.47 0.50
Adaptable 0.39 0.46

Loadings below 0.30 omitted.

14
 11 Construct Validity

Table 8: Intercorrelations of OPQ32n oblique factors

Factor Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience

Extraversion 0.00 0.16 -0.17 0.28

Agreeableness 0.07 0.00 -0.12
Conscientiousness -0.19 0.17
Neuroticism -0.08

4. Relationship of OPQ32 to OPQ Concept Model

Table 9 describes the relationships between the OPQ32 and Concept Model
scales. Respondents completed all items from the OPQ32n and Concept 5.2
questionnaires. The correlations are based on two samples. The first is a group
of 505 trialling participants from a variety of organizations collected throughout
1997. However, some item changes were made to five of the OPQ32n scales, so
further data were collected using the final item set. The second sample
comprises 121 respondents from the general population group (see the Norms
chapter). In both cases, common items in the two questionnaires were not
repeated in the item set. This will tend to increase the observed correlations for
the scales which have changed least (see Development chapter). All correlations
easily exceed standard levels for statistical significance. See Appendix F for the
full correlation matrices for both studies.

Scales which are essentially unchanged between the two versions have high
intercorrelations, typically in the 0.8 to 0.9 range, with Achieving showing the
lowest correlation across the two studies but still above 0.7 and higher than its
correlation with any other scale. Other correlations of changed scales are
typically in the 0.4 to 0.6 range, showing some commonality with the old
questionnaire but some new content coverage as well. The item changes
between the first and second study were generally minor. However, some
content changes were made to two scales. Items still being interpreted as
relating to physical activity were replaced with those relating to keeping busy
for the Vigorous scale. This resulted in a lower correlation with the old Active
scale in the second study and a slightly larger correlation with the Conscientious
scale. The Social Desirability scale was made more similar to the old scale and
some experimental items relating to image management were dropped. Hence,
the higher correlation in the second study.

The OPQ32 questionnaire has not only maintained but extended the
measurement domains of the Concept questionnaire. Existing validation findings
for the Concept questionnaire will generally remain valid, while the new
dimensions provide potential for prediction in new areas.

15
 11 Construct Validity

Table 9: Correlations between OPQ32n and Concept 5.2

OPQ32n scale Concept 5.2 scale Study 1 (n = 505) Study 2 (n = 121)

r r

Persuasive Persuasive 0.87 0.87

Controlling Controlling 0.94 0.95
Outspoken Independent 0.52 0.51
Independent Minded Independent 0.64 0.66
Outgoing Outgoing 0.91 0.89
Affiliative Affiliative 0.82 0.86
Socially Confident Social Confidence 0.84 0.86
Modest Modest 0.89 0.90
Democratic Democratic 0.78* 0.83
Caring Caring 0.85 0.90

Data Rational Data Rational 0.96 0.92

Evaluative Critical 0.63 0.64
Behavioral Behavioral 0.85 0.86
Conventional Traditional 0.84 0.85
Conceptual Conceptual 0.98 0.97
Innovative Innovative 0.93 0.93
Variety Seeking Change Orientated 0.62 0.61
Adaptable
Forward Thinking Forward Planning 0.64 0.62
Detail Conscious Detail Conscious 0.95 0.92
Conscientious Conscientious 0.82 0.78
Rule Following

Relaxed Relaxed 0.85 0.84

Worrying Worrying 0.77 0.81
Tough Minded Tough Minded 0.91 0.88
Optimistic Optimistic 0.94 0.93
Trusting
Emotionally Controlled Emotional Control 0.91 0.85
Vigorous Active 0.67* 0.45
Competitive Competitive 0.87 0.84
Achieving Achieving 0.77* 0.71
Decisive Decisive 0.91 0.81
Social Desirability Social Desirability 0.77* 0.89

* Some OPQ32 items differ from the final version.

16
 11 Construct Validity

5. Relationship of OPQ32 to OPQ Factor Model

Table 10 describes the relationships between the OPQ32n and SHL Factor
questionnaires. The correlations are based on a sample of 603 respondents from
the general population group (see the Norms chapter) who completed all the
items from the OPQ32n and FS5.2 questionnaires. While there are occasional
common items between the two questionnaires, these were not repeated. The
presence of these common items will slightly enlarge the observed correlations.

For each Factor scale the four highest correlating OPQ32 scales are listed
(provided they reach 0.30 in magnitude) with the conceptually closest scale first.
Many smaller correlations also reach statistical significance in this large sample.
See Appendix F for the full correlation matrix.

It is clear that the correlations with the Factor questionnaire are in accordance
with what would be expected from a content analysis of the scales of the two
questionnaires. OPQ32 scores are picking up all the reliable variance from the
shorter instrument with the exception of the Active scale in the Factor model.
The OPQ32 Vigorous scale has been defined to have less emphasis on physical
activity and more on maintaining energy investment in a task. The same is not
true in the opposite direction with the shorter Factor questionnaire less able to
pick up much of the variance of certain OPQ32 scales such as Affiliative,
Modest, Democratic, Adaptable, Forward Thinking and Trusting.

17
 11 Construct Validity

Table 10: Correlations of OPQ32n and Factor 5.2 (n = 603)

Factor 5.2 scale Highest OPQ32n correlations

Influential Controlling (0.92); Persuasive (0.51); Evaluative (0.53);
Achieving (0.55)

Sociable Socially Confident (0.78); Outgoing (0.73);Worrying (-0.50);

Persuasive (0.46)

Empathic Caring (0.70); Behavioral (0.71); Democratic (0.43);

Conceptual (0.32)

Outspoken Outspoken (0.63); Independent Minded (0.68); Evaluative (0.48);

Controlling (0.40)

Traditional Conventional (0.80); Rule Following (0.51);Variety Seeking (-0.47);

Innovative (-0.44)

Data Rational Data Rational (0.89); Evaluative (0.46); Conceptual (0.34);

Achieving (0.30)

Conceptual Conceptual (0.94); Evaluative (0.48); Behavioral (0.41);

Conventional (-0.38)

Innovative Innovative (0.90); Controlling (0.53);Achieving (0.49);

Conventional (-0.47)

Methodical Detail Conscious (0.81); Conscientious (0.59);

Forward Thinking (0.44);Vigorous (0.44)

Relaxed Relaxed (0.70);Tough Minded (0.67);Worrying (-0.52);

Socially Confident (0.38)

Emotionally Controlled Emotionally Controlled (0.89); Outgoing (-0.44); Modest (0.33);

Outspoken (-0.33)

Optimistic Optimistic (0.88); Relaxed (0.47);Trusting (0.38);

Socially Confident (0.35)

Competitive Competitive (0.87); Persuasive (0.36);Achieving (0.45);

Controlling (0.33)

Achieving Achieving (0.76); Controlling (0.46); Persuasive (0.45);

Competitive (0.44)

Active Vigorous (0.35)

Decisive Decisive (0.90); Controlling (0.44); Innovative (0.42);

Socially Confident (0.34)

18
 11 Construct Validity

6. Relationship of OPQ32 to Images

Table 11 describes the relationships between the OPQ32n and Images

questionnaires. Images is the shortest OPQ model with 6 scales closely related
to Big Five scales with an additional Achieving factor. The correlations are based
on a sample of 650 respondents from the UK general population group (see the
Norms chapter). It should be noted that there is some item commonality
between the OPQ32n and Images scales. Respondents only completed common
items once, and this can enlarge the size of the observed correlations for scales
with common items.

For each Images’ scale the four highest correlating OPQ32 scales are listed.
Many smaller correlations also reach statistical significance in this large sample.
See Appendix F for the full correlation matrix. Clearly the multiple scales of the
OPQ32 questionnaire cover the measurement domain of the Images
questionnaire.

Table 11: Correlations of OPQ32n and Images (n = 650)

Images scale Highest OPQ32n correlations

Imaginative Conceptual (0.73); Innovative (0.68); Evaluative (0.52);
Conventional (-0.45)

Methodical Detail Conscious (0.71); Conscientious (0.52); Evaluative (0.36);

Vigorous (0.35)

Achieving Achieving (0.78); Controlling (0.50); Persuasive (0.44);

Forward Thinking (0.42)

Gregarious Outgoing (0.81); Socially Confident (0.69); Persuasive (0.47);

Worrying (-0.45)

Emotional Worrying (0.56); Relaxed (-0.52);Tough Minded (-0.51);

Socially Confident (-0.31)

Sympathetic Caring (0.81); Behavioral (0.39); Democratic (0.39);Affiliative (0.35)

19
 11 Construct Validity

Table 12 describes the correlations between the Images scales and the five
derived factor scores based on the factor analysis of OPQ32n scale scores
presented earlier. Scores on the five factors were calculated for the same
respondents by unit-weighting the relevant scales using the factor structure
derived from the full general population group (see Table 7). There is strong
convergent and divergent validity for all of the scales and factors. Openness to
experience and Imaginative, Conscientiousness and Methodical, Extraversion and
Gregarious, Neuroticism and Emotional and Agreeableness and Sympathetic all
show stronger correlations with each other than with any other scale or factor.
The strongest correlations are for Imaginative and Gregarious, and the weakest
for Sympathetic. The Images Sympathetic scale does not correlate substantially
with the OPQ32 Competitive scale which loads onto the Agreeableness factor
and this will reduce the intercorrelation of the two. The Images Achieving scale
correlates strongly with the Conscientiousness factor reflecting the loading of the
OPQ32 Achieving scale within this factor. Thus, the pattern of correlations
matches the scale and factor definitions.

Table 12: Correlations of Images and OPQ32n factor scores

(n = 650)

OPQ32n factor scores

Openness to Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness
Images scale experience

Imaginative 0.73 0.39 0.42

Methodical 0.64

Achieving 0.39 0.61 0.41

Gregarious 0.32 0.75 -0.51

Emotional 0.62

Sympathetic 0.58

Correlations below 0.30 omitted

7. Relationship of OPQ32 to the SHL Motivation

Questionnaire

Table 13 describes the relationships between OPQ32n and the SHL Motivation
Questionnaire (MQ). The correlations are based on a sample of 479 respondents
from the general population group (see the Norms chapter) who completed
both questionnaires.

For each MQ scale, OPQ32 scales correlating 0.35 or above are listed. Many
smaller correlations also reach statistical significance in this large sample. See
Appendix F for the full correlation matrix.

20
 11 Construct Validity

Correlations between the two instruments are moderate rather than high.
People’s self-report of their preferred style is clearly different from the way they
describe what motivates them. However, as would be expected there are
moderate relationships between scales with similar content domains.

There are also several areas of relative exclusivity. MQ scales that are not
explained by OPQ32 scales include Fear of Failure and Commercial Outlook.
Equally, there are OPQ32 scales which have little impact on motivation and do Power is the only
not relate strongly to any MQ scale. These include scales related to interpersonal MQ scale that is
style such as Outgoing and Democratic and scales related to emotions such as
strongly related to
Relaxed and Tough Minded. It can be concluded that motivational needs in the
workplace are distinct from personality, and as such, the different instruments OPQ32n scales.
are complementary, with both required for a comprehensive assessment of the
individual.

Table 13: Correlations of OPQ32n and SHL Motivation

Questionnaire (n = 479)

MQ scale Highest OPQ32n correlations

Level of Activity Vigorous (0.43)

Achievement Achieving (0.43); Controlling (0.40); Evaluative (0.37);Vigorous (0.35)

Competition

Fear of Failure

Power Controlling (0.63);Achieving (0.51); Persuasive (0.45);

Evaluative (0.35)

Immersion

Commercial Outlook

Affiliation Affiliative (0.43)

Recognition

Personal Principles

Ease & Security

Personal Growth Achieving (0.41); Conceptual (0.37);

Interest Evaluative (0.42); Conceptual (0.39); Conventional (-0.36)

Flexibility Rule Following (-0.39); Conventional (-0.38);

Autonomy

Material Reward

Progression

Status

Correlations below 0.35 omitted

21
 11 Construct Validity

8. Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to 16PF5

Table 14 describes the relationships between the OPQ Concept 5.2 and the
16PF5 questionnaires. The figures are based on data gathered during 1995 from
a sample of 243 undergraduates from various higher education institutions
throughout England.

For each 16PF5 scale, the four highest correlating Concept 5.2 scales are listed
(provided they reach 0.30 in magnitude). Many smaller correlations reach
statistical significance in this sample. See Appendix F for the full correlation
matrix. Also provided are some multiple regression statistics.

The pattern of correlations supports the construct validity of the OPQ scales.
Larger correlations are seen for areas of similar content e.g. Social Boldness and
Social Confidence; Privateness and Emotional Control; and Perfectionism and
Detail Conscious, whereas there are many near zero correlations for unrelated
scale pairs, e.g. Social Boldness and Competitive; Privateness and Conscientious;
and Perfectionism and Social Confidence.

In general, most of the 16PF5 scales are adequately explained by the Concept
Model of OPQ. Exceptions are the Reasoning scale (a measure of intelligence
rather than personality), and the Vigilance scale. The latter measures whether an
individual is trusting or suspicious of others, and as such may be expected to
relate strongly to the new OPQ32 Trusting scale.

One 16PF5 scale (Sensitivity) is best explained by the two Concept scales
dropped from the OPQ32 model because they showed little criterion related
validity in occupational use. This scale will not be well explained by OPQ32
questionnaires. In contrast there are a number of scales in the larger OPQ
Concept model and also included in the OPQ32 model which are not well
explained using the 16PF5 scales. These include Modest, Data Rational,
Behavioral, Variety Seeking (Change Oriented), Competitive, Achieving and
Decisive.

22
 11 Construct Validity

Table 14: Correlations and regression statistics for OPQ Concept 5.2 and 16PF5 (n = 243)

16PF5 scale Highest OPQ Concept correlations Alpha R Rc %V

A Warmth Caring (0.41); Emotional Control (-0.39);Affiliative (0.33) 0.69 0.68 0.66 92

B Reasoning 0.8 0.39 0.36 20

C Emotional Stability Optimistic (0.70); Relaxed (0.67);Worrying (-0.52);

Tough Minded (0.49) 0.73 0.81 0.81 122

E Dominance Independent (0.53); Persuasive (0.52); Critical (0.48);

Controlling (0.47) 0.68 0.73 0.72 112

F Liveliness Outgoing (0.53);Affiliative (0.44); Social Confidence (0.31) 0.74 0.61 0.60 66

G Rule Consciousness Traditional (0.49); Detail Conscious (0.44);

Conscientious (0.39); Forward Planning (0.36) 0.7 0.62 0.61 76

H Social Boldness Outgoing (0.82); Social Confidence (0.82); Persuasive (0.51);

Controlling (0.46) 0.87 0.88 0.88 103

I Sensitivity Artistic* (0.49); Practical* (-0.35) 0.76 0.7 0.69 83

L Vigilance 0.6 0.3 0.28 22

M Abstractedness Detail Conscious (-0.46); Conscientious (-0.43);

Forward Planning (-0.34) 0.71 0.7 0.69 93

N Privateness Emotional Control (0.70); Outgoing (-0.36); Modest (0.32);

Affiliative (-0.31) 0.72 0.76 0.75 110

O Apprehension Relaxed (-0.66);Tough Minded (-0.65); Worrying (0.62);

Optimistic (-0.53) 0.77 0.77 0.76 98

Q1 Openness to Change Traditional (-0.52); Conceptual (0.41); Innovative (0.40);

Independent (0.34) 0.65 0.7 0.69 111

Q2 Self-reliance Affiliative (-0.50); Democratic (-0.36); Outgoing (-0.34) 0.75 0.64 0.63 71

Q3 Perfectionism Detail Conscious (0.71); Conscientious (0.65);

Forward Planning (0.58); Decisive (-0.33) 0.74 0.81 0.81 119

Q4 Tension Relaxed (-0.45);Worrying (0.36); Tough Minded (-0.36) 0.73 0.68 0.66 83

Alpha: internal consistency of the predicted (16PF5) scale (within study).

R: multiple correlation
Rc: multiple correlation, adjusted for number of scales in equation.
%V: percentage of reliable variance explained in the predicted (16PF5) scale.Where %V exceeds 100% it is likely that alpha
underestimates true scale reliability.
* These scales were dropped in the OPQ32 revision (see Development chapter).

23
 11 Construct Validity

9. Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to NEO PI-R

Tables 15 and 16 describe the relationships between the OPQ Concept 5.2
questionnaire and the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R). The
figures are based on data gathered during 1995 from a sample of 197
undergraduates from various higher education institutions throughout England.

The NEO PI-R can be scored to produce 30 relatively narrow subscales or five
broad second order factors. For each of the five second order NEO factors, the
four highest correlating OPQ scales are listed in Table 15 (provided they reach
0.30 in magnitude). Many smaller correlations also reached statistical significance
in this sample. See Appendix F for the full correlation matrix of all scales and
factors.

Comparing the results with the factor structure of the OPQ32 model shown in
The five broad NEO
Table 7, in most cases the OPQ32 scales which load most strongly onto the NEO
scales are often used PI-R Big 5 scales factor together, lending support to the construct validity of the
as markers for the questionnaire. The biggest divergence is on the extraversion dimension where
Big Five in the highest loading OPQ scales (Social Confidence, Controlling, Persuasive)
personality research. relate more to a hard, assertive style, whereas the OPQ32 factor has a stronger
element of gregarious sociability (Outgoing, low Modest, low Emotionally
Controlled).

Table 16 provides the multiple regression statistics for the OPQ scales as
predictors of the 30 NEO subscales. In general, most of the 30 NEO subscales
are adequately explained by the Concept Model of OPQ. Exceptions are
Excitement Seeking, Fantasy and Trust. Excitement Seeking and Fantasy are not
directly relevant to the world of work, and consequently may be considered
beyond the scope of the OPQ model of personality. Trust, similarly to the 16PF5
factor Vigilance, may be expected to relate strongly to the new OPQ32 Trusting
scale.

Table 15: Correlations of OPQ Concept 5.2 and NEO PI-R Big 5 (n = 197)

NEO Big 5 scale Highest OPQ Concept correlations

Neuroticism Relaxed (-0.83);Worrying (0.69); Optimistic (-0.64);
Tough Minded (-0.63)

Extraversion Social Confidence (0.66); Controlling (0.61); Persuasive (0.60)

Openness to Experience Conceptual (0.58); Behavioral (0.50); Innovative (0.42);

Change Oriented (0.41)

Agreeableness Caring (0.61); Competitive (-0.56); Modest (0.43); Democratic (0.40)

Conscientiousness Detail Conscious (0.76); Forward Planning (0.73);

Conscientious (0.73);Achieving (0.45)

24
 11 Construct Validity

Table 16: Regression statistics for OPQ Concept 5.2 and 30 subscales
of NEO PI-R (n = 197)

NEO PI-R subscale Alpha R Rc %V

N1 Anxiety 0.82 0.89 0.88 116
N2 Angry Hostility 0.86 0.75 0.73 73
N3 Depression 0.81 0.81 0.81 99
N4 Self Consciousness 0.73 0.82 0.81 124
N5 Impulsiveness 0.69 0.58 0.56 65
N6 Vulnerability 0.81 0.83 0.82 102
E1 Warmth 0.81 0.76 0.75 85
E2 Gregariousness 0.79 0.74 0.73 87
E3 Assertiveness 0.76 0.84 0.84 123
E4 Activity 0.77 0.75 0.75 94
E5 Excitement Seeking 0.74 0.58 0.57 58
E6 Positive Emotions 0.82 0.71 0.71 74
O1 Fantasy 0.72 0.55 0.52 52
O2 Aesthetics 0.81 0.81 0.80 98
O3 Feelings 0.69 0.76 0.75 118
O4 Actions 0.60 0.68 0.67 125
O5 Ideas 0.87 0.85 0.85 95
O6 Values 0.69 0.66 0.64 86
A1 Trust 0.90 0.60 0.58 42
A2 Straightforwardness 0.84 0.76 0.75 79
A3 Altruism 0.80 0.72 0.71 78
A4 Compliance 0.78 0.70 0.68 76
A5 Modesty 0.83 0.81 0.81 94
A6 Tender Mindedness 0.69 0.60 0.58 71
C1 Competence 0.73 0.73 0.72 98
C2 Order 0.71 0.80 0.79 123
C3 Dutifulness 0.70 0.77 0.76 118
C4 Achievement Striving 0.70 0.80 0.79 129
C5 Self Discipline 0.82 0.80 0.79 94
C6 Deliberation 0.73 0.76 0.75 105
Alpha: internal consistency of NEO subscale (within study).
R: multiple correlation.
Rc: multiple correlation, adjusted for number of scales in equation.
%V: percentage of reliable variance explained in the predicted (NEO PI-R) subscale.Where %V
exceeds 100% it is likely that alpha underestimates true scale reliability.
25
 11 Construct Validity

10. Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a questionnaire developed by Isabel

Briggs-Myers, derived from Jung’s theory of personality. Although essentially a
type instrument, it is possible to derive four scale scores from responses.

Table 17 reports figures based on the relationship between the OPQ Concept 5.2
questionnaire and the MBTI form G for 217 personnel and training professionals
who attended courses at SHL’s Management Center during 1991.

For each MBTI scale the three highest OPQ Concept correlates are shown. All
correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Also provided are some
multiple regression statistics. A similar table for MBTI correlates of OPQ scales is
provided in Appendix F.

Table 17: Correlations and regression statistics for OPQ Concept

5.2 and MBTI (n = 217)

MBTI scale* Highest OPQ Concept correlations Alpha R Rc %V

Extraversion - Outgoing (-.67); Social Confidence (-.53);
Introversion Emotional Control (.47) .82 .77 .73 79

Sensing - Conceptual (.54); Innovative (.46);

Intuitive Traditional (-.41) .84 .71 .65 61

Thinking - Critical (-.40);Tough Minded (-.38);

Feeling Achieving (-.33) .83 .68 .62 56

Judging - Detail Conscious (-.45);Traditional (-.37);

Perceiving Forward Planning (-.33) .86 .73 .68 62

Alpha: internal consistency of MBTI scales form G as reported in manual.

R: multiple correlation.
Rc: multiple correlation, adjusted for number of scales in equation.
%V: percentage of reliable variance explained in the predicted (MBTI) scale.
* High scorers are Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling and Perceiving.

26
 11 Construct Validity

Extraversion-Introversion (E-I)

As would be expected with a scale which contrasts the extravert, who looks
outward for stimulation, enjoys interacting with others and who has a need for
company, versus the introvert, who looks inward for stimulation, prefers his or
her own company and values privacy, the main correlations are with the OPQ
scales in the area of relationships with people. Thus, correlations were obtained
with the Outgoing and Social Confidence scales. The openness of displaying Emotionally
emotion of the MBTI Extravert also comes through, with correlations between Controlled strongly
the Extraversion-Introversion scale of the MBTI and the Emotional Control scale relates to the
of the OPQ questionnaire. extraversion scales
of the OPQ32
Sensing-Intuitive (S-N)
questionnaire.
As expected, the strongest correlation here is with the OPQ scale of Conceptual
(.54). Since it is the intuitive individual who prefers to pick up the general
impression rather than the particulars of a situation, and the scale of Conceptual
is concerned with an interest in the reasons behind events, this relationship
makes a great deal of sense. Whereas the sensor is preoccupied with the
present, the intuitive individual is concerned with possibilities for the future.
This characteristic is also seen in the relationship between this scale and the
OPQ Concept scales Innovative and Traditional (Conventional in OPQ32).

Thinking-Feeling (T-F)

Of the four indices of the MBTI, this shows the least strong relationship to the
scales of the Concept Model. However, having said that, it does correlate
substantially with the Concept scales of Tough Minded, Critical (Evaluative in
OPQ32) and Achieving. That the “feeler” should be less Tough Minded, Critical
and Achieving seems likely, since the feeler tends to be ruled by emotion rather
than cold, rational thought.

Judging-Perceiving (J-P)

In the Judging attitude, the preference is for things to be planned and fixed, and
for deadlines once established to be met. In the Perceiving attitude, however,
things are much more open-ended, options are kept open. The difference in the
two types is well reflected in the relationship with the OPQ scales. The largest
correlations are with Detail Conscious, Forward Planning (Forward Thinking in
OPQ32) and Traditional (Conventional in OPQ32). These relationships would
seem to indicate that the judging type is about preferring things to be organized,
structured and settled.

27
 11 Construct Validity

The relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the OPQ is
interesting in that the relationship between scales of each of the questionnaires
supports the validity of the constructs in both of the questionnaires. Clearly
though, the OPQ is a much more extensive measure of personality within an
occupational context, and measures many job-relevant traits which are not dealt
with by the MBTI’s four scales.

11. Relationship of OPQ Concept Model to a measure of

Type A behavior

Type A behavior is characterized by an excessive drive for achievement,

competitiveness, hostility, impatience and vigorous speech and mannerisms.

To establish the effectiveness of the OPQ in measuring Type A Behavior, Nind &
Wigfield (1992) looked at the relationship between Type A Behavior based on
Version C of the Jenkins Activity Survey and OPQ Concept 5. Table 18 shows
the statistically significant correlates based on a study of 91 MBA students.

Table 18: Correlations of OPQ Concept 5 and Jenkins Activity

Survey (n = 91)

OPQ Concept scales Significant correlations

Persuasive .20

Controlling .26*

Modest -.34*

Democratic -.21

Caring -.27*

Artistic -.25*

Detail Conscious -.23

Relaxed -.37*

Active .19

Competitive .53*

Achieving .41*

Multiple Correlation .84*

All correlations significant at 5% level (two-tailed)

* significant at 1% level (two-tailed)

28
 11 Construct Validity

We can see from the table that OPQ scales Competitive, Achieving and Relaxed
correlate particularly well, the Type A individual being typically more
Competitive and Achieving and less Relaxed. The relationship between the
Concept Model and Type A behavior on this evidence is strong and highlights
applications for the use of OPQ questionnaires in the area of work-related
stress.

12. Relationship of peer-ratings and self-report OPQ scores

One important source of validity evidence is the relationship between self-

ratings of personality and the ratings of peers. We would not expect there to be
unduly high correlations between self-report and peer-ratings as an individual
has much more information on which to base an opinion than do peers. Scales
may vary considerably in the strength of the self-report to peer relationship, as
some constructs may be less easily observed by peers than the individual’s
perception of him or herself. However, we would expect to find that there is a
positive relationship between the self-rating on a personality scale and the peer-
rating of an individual on the same scale. The presence of this relationship
points to the self-report measure’s construct validity.

Secondly, if we are going to be able to support all the different constructs

represented by scales, then these relationships should be strongest with
comparisons between self-report measures and peer measures for the same scale
rather than between different scales. For example, self-report measures of
Outgoing should correlate more highly with a peer-rating of Outgoing than
peer-ratings of other scales.

Wigfield and Janman (1991) conducted a study to investigate this for the OPQ
Perspectives is an
Concept Model. To relate self-report to peer-ratings, a group of 232 individuals
OPQ-based
completed OPQ Concept 4.2 self-report questionnaires and were also rated by a
number of others using Perspectives. The subjects were all Human Resource questionnaire
professionals in management courses. designed to describe
an individual in terms
Table 19 shows the relationship between the self-report scale scores and the of how he or she is
Perspectives ratings made by peers. The first column shows the relationship
seen by others.
between self-report and the respective average peer-rating for each scale. The
second column accounts for the unreliability in the peer-ratings by correcting the
correlation in line with the internal consistency of peer-raters responses for each
scale. The final column in the table shows any higher correlations between the
self-report on that scale and peer-ratings on other scales.

It is clear from Table 19 that there are significant positive relationships between
the averaged rating of peers and the self-report ratings for each scale. These
vary from 0.24 for Change Orientated (Variety Seeking in OPQ32) to 0.58 for
Data Rational. All of the coefficients are statistically significant.

29
 11 Construct Validity

Only three scales show stronger relationships with peer-ratings for another scale,
all with negative correlations. These are Modest self-report which shows an
inverse relationship with the Outgoing peer-rating, Innovative self-report which
shows a negative relation with the Traditional (Conventional in OPQ32) peer-
rating and Optimistic self-report which shows a greater negative relationship
Further analysis of with Worrying peer-rating.
this data can be
These results are impressive: out of 870 other correlations between self and
found in Saville and
peer-report scales, no positive and only three negative correlations exceed the
Willson (1991). relationship between self-reports and peer-reports for the same scale. These
results present clear evidence in support of the construct validity of the OPQ
scales.

30
 11 Construct Validity

Table 19: Correlations of self and peer-ratings of OPQ Concept

Model scales (n = 232)

OPQ Concept scale Self vs. Peer Self vs. Peer Stronger correlates
r corrected* r (uncorrected)

Persuasive .26 .33

Controlling .39 .49
Independent .35 .48
Outgoing .54 .64
Affiliative .37 .48
Socially Confident .44 .57
Modest .32 .45 Outgoing -.37
Democratic .30 .50
Caring .37 .46

Practical .47 .66

Data Rational .58 .72
Artistic .57 .63
Behavioral .29 .40
Traditional .44 .52
Change Orientated .24 .34
Conceptual .54 .75
Innovative .39 .43 Traditional -.43
Forward Planning .40 .47
Detail Conscious .51 .57
Conscientious .47 .52

Relaxed .41 .51

Worrying .30 .37
Tough Minded .32 .38
Emotional Control .45 .54
Optimistic .32 .48 Worrying -.33
Critical .32 .45
Active .35 .48
Competitive .32 .40
Achieving .45 .63
Decisive .42 .52

* correction is based on internal consistency of peer-raters.

All correlations are significant at the 1% level two-tailed.

31
 12 Criterion Validity

Criterion Validity
This chapter focuses on studies which relate OPQ32 results to indicators of
performance of various kinds, generally managers’ ratings of competence. As
well as supporting the construct validity of the questionnaires, these studies
provide an indication of how effective profiles can be in selecting and matching
people to jobs. With a total sample size exceeding 6000 they provide a robust
body of evidence to support occupational use of the OPQ32 questionnaire. They
also show patterns of consistent relationships between scales and different
competency indicators which are useful in interpreting profiles and in using the
questionnaires most effectively in selection and development applications. The
studies described in this chapter are:

1 Comparison of validity from different sources: concurrent, predictive and

retrospective.
2 The OPQ and the assessment of management competencies.
The SHL Validation
3 The incremental validity of the OPQ over ability tests in personnel selection.
4 A meta-analysis of the validity of the OPQ across 21 validity studies and Review provides
occupational groups. summaries of a wide
5 The cross-validation of the OPQ for management assessment. range of further
6 International studies: a selection of validation studies from use of the OPQ studies.
around the world.

Many of these studies used OPQ Concept Model questionnaires rather than
OPQ32 instruments. There is a strong relationship between the two instruments
with many scales remaining virtually unchanged. Twenty-five of the scales are
essentially alternate forms with correlations of above 0.7, most above 0.8. The
remaining OPQ32 scales are either new or substantial reworkings of the other
scales; these tend to correlate between 0.4 and 0.6 with the original Concept
scales. Therefore, results of Concept Model studies support the criterion-related
validity of the OPQ32 questionnaires, at least in respect of the common scales.
The relationship between the Concept Model and OPQ32 scales is discussed in
the previous chapter.

A note on the correlation coefficient in validity studies

What is a correlation coefficient of 0.3 for example between test and job
performance criterion actually worth? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer
to this question. The usefulness of a correlation of this size will depend on such
factors as the sample size, the reliability of the job performance criterion, the
existence of any restriction of range in test scores and criterion variables and
extrinsic factors such as the ratio of the number of applicants to hires (the
selection ratio).

1
 12 Criterion Validity

It has been shown that the benefit of a test is linear to its validity coefficient
(Cronbach and Gleser, 1965) and not to its squared value, as is sometimes
erroneously believed. Making reasonable assumptions on selection ratio,
uncorrected coefficients of around 0.2 can be shown to be potentially useful
A scale showing a (Robertson, 1993).
0.2 correlation with
job performance can
increase the chances 1. Comparison of validity from different sources:
of finding a high
concurrent, predictive and retrospective.
performer by as
One important question to address is whether OPQ scores have validity in
much as 20%. predicting future job performance. The majority of OPQ validation studies tend
to be concurrent, when job performance and personality are assessed within a
short time period. Concurrent studies are simpler to conduct than predictive
studies as the time gap between administration of the personality questionnaire
and the assessment of job performance makes life difficult for the researcher.
Organizations are typically interested in instant results, rather than waiting
months to see if their selection procedures are effective. Most occupational
predictive studies require larger initial samples than concurrent studies with
many of the participants no longer available to be assessed at the time of the
follow up assessment of job performance.

While concurrent studies demonstrate the presence of a relationship between

personality and performance at any one point in time, they do not provide
direct evidence that personality predicts future job performance. What is needed
is evidence that OPQ scores are not only related to performance, but also
predict future performance.

To establish whether the results from concurrent studies generalize to predictive

validity, a large concurrent validity study was followed by a predictive validity
study employing the same job performance criteria as the first study. Both these
studies used Concept Model questionnaires.

Another important question is whether the OPQ32 model relates to performance

dimensions (or competencies) in a similar manner to the Concept Model. To
establish the link between OPQ32 and job competencies further studies were
undertaken. In one, a broad sample completed the OPQ32n questionnaire and a
self-report assessment on the 16 management competencies. In the other, as
many as possible of the sample used in the predictive study were located and
asked to complete the OPQ32n questionnaire. Scores were then related back to
previous ratings of performance.

The four studies are now described in more detail, followed by the results.

2
 12 Criterion Validity

The concurrent study

Four hundred and thirty seven UK based managers took part in the concurrent
study during 1992 from the following industry sectors: financial services,
manufacturing and distribution. The sample was 95% of white UK origin.
Women made up 28% of the sample and 58% of the group did not have degree
level qualifications. They came from a wide range of functions in financial
services, manufacturing and distribution organizations and they described
themselves as mainly (74%) junior/middle managers. Their mean age was 37, sd
= 8.83. The managers all volunteered to take part in the study and no selection
for participation took place; there was no obvious restriction of range, although
some had been selected for their current position using ability tests and
personality questionnaires. This group formed the UK sample of an international
validation study. Data from Turkish and Korean samples are described at the
end of this chapter.

Each of the managers completed an OPQ Concept 4.2 questionnaire, which is

the ipsative version of the Concept Model. Their performance was rated by their
immediate line managers using the Inventory of Management Competencies
(IMC). This is a 360 degree instrument which can be used to collect ratings of a
manager’s performance on a set of sixteen generic management competencies
covering business & professional, reasoning, interpersonal and personal
competencies. There are ten items per scale, each relating to a different sub- The competency
element of the defined competencies. The rater is asked to rate the manager on definitions for the
a 1 to 5 point scale indicating how frequently the manager in question exhibits IMC can be found in
the behaviors underlying the overall competency and the rater also makes an the Expert System
ipsative (forced choice) rating for each set of four items. These normative and
chapter.
ipsative ratings were combined to increase the observed variance of scores.

The predictive study

The initial sample was based on a database of over 2000 HR professionals who
had already completed OPQ Concept 4.2. Between one and six years after
completion each of the respondents was sent a job performance rating form,
which they were asked to pass on to their direct line manager to complete.

Their line manager rated their performance on 16 generic management

competencies (based on the IMC model). The rating form consisted of one item
per competency on a 9 point frequency rating scale. This short rating form was
employed for practical purposes, allowing the manager to complete the
assessment of performance in under 10 minutes. Rating forms were returned and
matched to the original OPQ scores. The final sample consisted of 292 HR
professionals from more than 250 organizations, although not all were rated on
all competencies.

3
 12 Criterion Validity

The sample was 98% of white UK origin. Women made up 57% of the sample.
Over 80% were qualified to degree level or above. They came from a variety of
levels of management with 21% describing themselves as junior managers and
30% as senior. The performance data were collected during 1996.

Many aspects of this study were far from ideal. The job performance assessment
form was limited to a one-item response and clearly had limited reliability.
There is also a danger of the poorer performers self-selecting themselves out of
the sample and being unwilling to pass the rating form on to their manager. The
large numbers of organizations and raters in the sample are also likely to lower
the observed validities. Despite the many limitations of this study, it does
provide a rare opportunity to assess whether hypotheses from a concurrent
validity study are supported in a predictive design.

The self-report study

One part of the general population sample that completed the OPQ32n
questionnaire in 1998 was asked to self rate on the 16 management
competencies of the IMC, using a single item per competency and a 7 point
rating scale. Only data from respondents educated to GCSE standard or above
were used in the analysis. In other ways, the sample was similar in background
to the full sample described in the Norms chapter. Data from between 185 and
370 individuals were available for the different competencies. The variation in
the size of the sample results from each respondent being asked to rate only the
competencies they have direct experience of observing the ratee.

The retrospective study

For the fourth study, the predictive study sample was revisited. Each participant
in that study was approached in late 1998 and asked to complete the OPQ32n
questionnaire; 92 people agreed and their OPQ32 scores were related back to
the performance data collected some two years earlier.

Results

A set of hypotheses was developed for the first, concurrent study by a group of
6 OPQ experts. These were then used in the subsequent studies. Two experts
adapted the hypotheses for use with OPQ32 scales. The results are presented in
terms of these initial hypotheses. The results of the four studies are presented in
Table 1 on the following pages. For each competency, the table shows the
scales hypothesized to relate to it from the original concurrent study and the
observed correlations from each study. Although the first two studies used OPQ
Concept Model questionnaires, the results are presented in terms of OPQ32
scale names where these are different.

4
 12 Criterion Validity

In addition to the correlations based on the hypotheses, examples of additional

significant relationships are shown so that any consistent trends can be seen.
The table also shows the total percentage of hypothesized relationships reaching
significance at the 1% level, as well as the percentage of non-hypothesized
relationships which reached the same level of statistical significance. For
hypothesized relationships, one-tailed significance is used. For non-
hypothesized, two-tailed tests are applied.

5
6
Table 1: Correlations between competency ratings and OPQ scores for four studies
Hypothesised
Hypothesized OPQ32 scales Examples of other significant correlations

Leadership Persuasive Controlling Outgoing Democratic

Concurrent 0.12* 0.24** 0.14** 0.15*

Predictive 0.05 0.17** 0.03 0.08
Retrospective 0.10 0.06 0.13 -0.08
Self 0.30** 0.44** 0.28** 0.32** Forward Thinking (0.42**);
Socially Confident (0.40**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 56% 23%
Planning and Forward Detail Conscientious
Organising Thinking Conscious

Concurrent 0.38** 0.13** 0.21** Evaluative (0.17**); Persuasive (-0.14**)

12 Criterion Validity

Predictive 0.24** 0.16** 0.23** Persuasive (-0.19**); Socially Confident (-0.14**)

Retrospective 0.29** 0.31** 0.37** Conceptual (-0.31**); Rule Following (0.26**)
Self 0.38** 0.36** 0.32** Controlling (0.42**); Evaluative (0.40**);
Achieving (0.40**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 100% 24%

Quality Orientation Evaluative Detail Conscientious Rule Following

Conscious

Concurrent 0.05 0.12** 0.14** n/a Forward Thinking (0.15**)

Predictive 0.03 0.06 0.10 n/a Forward Thinking (0.18**)
Retrospective 0.16 0.13 0.29** 0.01 Forward Thinking (0.39**)
Self 0.20** 0.30** 0.36** 0.07 Achieving (0.37**); Vigorous (0.36**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 43% 9%

Persuasiveness Persuasive Outgoing Socially Achieving

Confident

Concurrent 0.27** 0.23** 0.26** 0.11* Detail Conscious (-0.23**)

Predictive 0.09 0.12* 0.10 0.01
Retrospective 0.14 0.17 0.03 -0.08
Self 0.45** 0.43** 0.46** 0.38** Controlling (0.47**); Outspoken (0.31**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 44% 23%
 Hypothesized
Hypothesised OPQ32 scales Examples of other significant correlations

Specialist Knowledge Independent Data Rational Evaluative Conceptual Innovative

Minded

Concurrent 0.11* 0.17** 0.17** 0.15** 0.10*

Predictive 0.05 0.04 0.18** -0.02 0.14* Variety Seeking (-0.22**)
Retrospective 0.12 0.14 0.33** 0.05 0.31** Outspoken (0.34**)
Self 0.08 0.25** 0.28** 0.20** 0.19** Conventional (-0.19**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 44% 25%
Problem Solving Independent Data Rational Evaluative Conceptual Innovative
& Analysis Minded

Concurrent 0.11* 0.25** 0.24** 0.21** 0.09 Affiliative (-0.20**); Outgoing (-0.18**)
Predictive -0.01 0.11 0.18** 0.14* 0.04 Affiliative (-0.20**)
Retrospective 0.14 0.17 0.33** 0.11 0.20 Forward Thinking (0.40**)
Self 0.17** 0.31** 0.44** 0.28** 0.29** Controlling (0.37**); Forward Thinking (0.29**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 40% 22%

Oral Communication Persuasive Outgoing Socially Adaptable

Confident

Concurrent 0.24** 0.26** 0.35** n/a Conscientious (-0.24**);

Detail Conscious (-0.21**)
Predictive 0.08 0.08 0.08 n/a
Retrospective 0.13 0.17 0.04 0.23* Behavioural (0.22**)
Self 0.26** 0.34** 0.34** -0.05 Controlling (0.32**); Decisive (0.29**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 43% 22%

Written Communication Evaluative Conceptual

Concurrent 0.20** 0.11*

Predictive -0.07 0.03
12 Criterion Validity

Retrospective -0.03 0.02

Self 0.37** 0.32** Detail Conscious (0.26**); Innovative (0.26**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 38% 10%

7
8
Hypothesised
Hypothesized OPQ32 scales
OPQ32 scales Examples of other significant correlations

Commercial Awareness Persuasive Competitive Achieving

Concurrent 0.36** 0.17** 0.15** Caring (-0.17**)

Predictive 0.20** 0.10 0.12 Controlling (0.21**); Caring (-0.16**)
Retrospective 0.21 0.25* 0.34** Adaptable (0.36**); Forward Thinking (0.28**)
Self 0.28** 0.20** 0.27** Data Rational (0.32**); Controlling (0.26**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 67% 14%

Creativity & Innovation Independent Conventional (-) Conceptual Innovative Rule Following (-)
Minded

Concurrent 0.15** -0.21** 0.26** 0.32** n/a Detail Conscious (-0.20**);

12 Criterion Validity

Conscientious (-0.15**)
Predictive 0.04 -0.12* 0.16** 0.25** n/a Detail Conscious (-0.17**); Modest (-0.16**)
Retrospective 0.09 -0.14 0.06 0.32** -0.08 Adaptable (0.26*);Tough Minded (0.20*)
Self 0.26** -0.45** 0.28** 0.46** -0.13 Variety Seeking (0.37**); Modest (-0.25**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 61% 25%

Action Orientation Vigorous Decisive

Concurrent 0.10* 0.20** Detail Conscious (-0.13**)

Predictive 0.02 0.05 Controlling (0.25**)
Retrospective 0.03 0.13 Controlling (0.33**); Innovative (0.28**)
Self 0.31** 0.41** Controlling (0.52**); Innovative (0.42**);
Achieving (0.46**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 38% 21%

Strategic Data Rational Evaluative Conceptual Forward Detail

Thinking Conscious (-)

Concurrent 0.10* 0.13** 0.17** 0.16** -0.16** Conventional (-0.15**);Achieving (0.14**)

Predictive -0.01 0.01 0.19* 0.01 -0.09 Controlling (0.16**)
Retrospective 0.09 0.19 0.23* 0.28** -0.18
Self 0.20** 0.30** 0.14 0.28** 0.23 Achieving (0.40**); Innovative (0.35**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 40% 20%
 Hypothesised
Hypothesized OPQ32 scales
OPQ32 scales Examples of other significant correlations

Interpersonal Sensitivity Controlling (-) Outspoken (-) Affiliative Democratic Caring Competitive (-)

Concurrent -0.10* n/a 0.14** 0.14** 0.23** -0.18** Independent Minded (-0.24**);
Decisive (-0.20**)
Predictive -0.07 n/a 0.12* 0.16** 0.17** -0.19** Outgoing (0.17**); Achieving (-0.16**)
Retrospective -0.09 0.03 0.22* 0.04 0.05 -0.11
Self 0.27** 0.08 0.28** 0.31** 0.52** -0.02 Socially Confident (0.35**); Outgoing (0.30**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 50% 20%

Flexibility Variety Adaptable Detail Optimistic

Seeking Conscious (-)

Concurrent 0.21** n/a -0.12* 0.17** Independent Minded (-0.19**); Evaluative (-0.14**);
Predictive 0.05 n/a -0.02 0.07
Retrospective 0.16 0.10 -0.20 0.12
Self 0.35** 0.04 0.15 0.20** Conventional (-0.40**); Innovative (0.39**);
Forward Thinking (-0.27**); Worrying (-0.30**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 29% 21%

Resilience Relaxed Tough Minded Optimistic Emotionally Controlled

Concurrent 0.20** 0.10* 0.16** 0.21** Independent Minded (-0.16**)

Predictive 0.15** 0.12* 0.12* 0.11
Retrospective 0.20 0.11 -0.07 0.07
Self 0.28** 0.33** 0.32** 0.05 Worrying (-0.38**); Socially Confident (0.36**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 63% 17%

Personal Motivation Vigorous Competitive Achieving

Concurrent 0.19* 0.20** 0.31** Persuasive (0.29**); Modest (-0.25**)

Predictive 0.07 0.10 0.14*
12 Criterion Validity

Retrospective 0.08 0.05 0.25* Forward Thinking (0.33**)

Self 0.32** 0.20** 0.56** Conscientious (0.37**) Forward Thinking (0.32**)
Percentage reaching
1% significance 42% 26%

* Significant at 5% level
** Significant at 1% level

9
 12 Criterion Validity

Overall, the studies clearly show that OPQ questionnaires can make a strong
contribution to predicting job performance through individual competency areas.
There is a great deal of similarity in the results of the four studies despite three
very different samples and four different designs, in terms of both the way the
criterion data were collected, and the actual OPQ questionnaire used. With a
total sample of over 1000 these results show not only the validity of the
instruments, but its generalizability across organizations and jobs.

The agreement between the concurrent and predictive studies suggests that
information from other concurrent studies will be useful in establishing
predictors of future performance. It is particularly impressive because of the
large number of organizations involved in the data collection for the predictive
study (more than 250). This again indicates that OPQ validity can be expected to
generalize across different jobs and organizations.

The results of the self-report study confirm that OPQ32 scales are related to self-
perceived competence in the job, predicting job performance dimensions with a
similar pattern to the Concept Model. This study produced more statistically
significant correlations than the others, perhaps because of the self-report nature
of both predictors and criterion data. This was also a much broader sample
made up of people from all walks of life, not just those in managerial or related
positions. In most cases, although there were many significant correlations, those
with the hypothesized scales were of the highest. The concordance with the
results of the other samples is evident. While many of the correlations for the
retrospective sample fail to reach statistical significance because of the small
sample size, it is clear that the observed effect sizes are on a par with the
original predictive study results. In all cases across the four studies a higher
percentage of hypothesized than non-hypothesized relationships reached
statistical significance.

The current results can be used to generate further hypotheses for future studies
as well as aid in the use of the OPQ32 questionnaires in practice. For instance,
the best predictors of the Quality Orientation criterion from the hypothesized
scales were Detail Conscious and Conscientious. However, the information on
“other” correlations suggests that the Forward Thinking scale is also related.

10
 12 Criterion Validity

2.The OPQ and the assessment of management

competencies

This independent study on the validity of the OPQ questionnaire for assessing
competencies (Dulewicz, 1992) is of particular interest, as the candidates were
from a wide variety of organizations in the UK and overseas (100 managers from
over 70 organizations in all), coming from relatively senior positions within
those organizations. The managers filled out OPQ Concept 5 questionnaires
about a month after they were rated on 40 job competencies. Two researchers
then established the relationships they expected to exist between the job
competencies and the scales of OPQ Concept 5. Of the possible 1200
relationships, 57 were hypothesized to exist by the researchers. These
relationships were with competencies in the areas of Information Handling,
Management, Interpersonal and Personality.

Of the Information Handling competencies, 12 out of the 14 expected

relationships correlated significantly with the relevant OPQ scales. The scales
significantly correlating were Data Rational, Conceptual, Innovative, Detail
Conscious, Critical and Decisive.

There were nine hypothesized relationships with job competencies in the

Management area. Of these, three correlated significantly. The hypothesized
OPQ scales which were significantly related to competencies in this area were
Caring and Behavioral.

The job competencies relating to the Interpersonal area contained 11 expected

relations with OPQ scales. Of these, nine were significant. The OPQ scales
which correlated significantly were Persuasive, Socially Confident, Caring and
Behavioral.

Finally, 23 relationships were hypothesized in the Personality area. Of these, 11

were statistically significant. These related to the OPQ scales Data Rational,
Innovative, Detail Conscious, Conscientious, Emotional Control, Active,
Competitive and Achieving.

In all, 35 of the expected 57 relationships were significant at the 5% level or

above. This figure is well in excess of the three or so relationships that would
be expected by chance. Interestingly, as Dulewicz points out, the OPQ scales
which do not correlate particularly well with competencies are in the areas
related to the Feelings and Emotions domain and also areas related to
Controlling, Forward Planning and Decisive. Dulewicz suggests that information
relating to these areas may not be readily available to bosses rating their
subordinate and they are actually better measured by the OPQ self-report
ratings. In other words, the criterion rating may be the problem in these areas
and not the personality questionnaire itself.

11
 12 Criterion Validity

Dulewicz’s results not only demonstrate the validity of the use of OPQ profiles
in a diverse group of senior managers but also their value as part of a
competence-based approach to selecting managers.

This paper also raised important questions about the selection of appropriate
measures of job competence, with the OPQ self-report measures being a more
appropriate measure of competence when the behavior or outcome is not
readily open to observation by external raters.

3.The incremental validity of the OPQ over ability tests

in personnel selection

In the USA, Sevy (1992) reviewed results from the eight independent validity
studies in which the OPQ was used in conjunction with ability tests. Table 2
summarizes the occupations and sample sizes involved.

Table 2: Summary of studies conducted by Sevy using the OPQ

questionnaire and a battery of cognitive tests

Study Job title Sample

1 Refinery operators 170

2 Production supervisors 85

3 Production managers 105

4 Service station managers 180

5 Entry-level dept store managers 135

6 Customer service reps 100

7 Engineers 55

8 Production employees 85

To assess the relative contributions of ability and personality, Sevy created a

composite score for each candidate for both the cognitive and the personality
battery, based on individuals’ scores on the relevant scales of each of the
batteries. In addition to this, Sevy also produced an “overall composite” by
combining the composites of both batteries. These composites were then
correlated with overall composites of job-performance ratings (the criteria having
been identified by job-analysis).

Table 3 shows the average validities (r) of personality and cognitive composites
and the overall composite.

12
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 3: Average validity of different predictors of job performance

(uncorrected for criterion unreliability)

Predictor Total n r

Cognitive 904 .24

Personality 916 .27

Combined 901 .35

The results indicate a validity for the OPQ based battery of similar magnitude to
the cognitive ability based battery and essentially independent from it. The
higher combined correlation further demonstrates the incremental validity of
including relevant personality measures over and above using ability tests alone,
a finding replicated in other studies.

4. A meta-analysis of the validity of the OPQ across 21

Many of the studies
validity studies and occupational groups
included in the meta-
Another paper which reviewed some 21 validity studies employing the OPQ analysis are
questionnaire and cognitive ability tests is by Robertson and Kinder (1993). In described in the SHL
this case, formal meta-analytic techniques were used. Table 4 lists the individual Validation Review.
constituent studies.

This study, like others discussed here, looks at only those correlations between
personality scales and criteria which were hypothesized to exist on the basis of
expectations of a group of personnel practitioners and a smaller group of
psychologists. While this study does remove the problem of including irrelevant
correlations, it still has some unavoidable methodological limitations. The main
difficulty lies in the fact that different studies were based on a variety of job
competency criteria. Because of the differences in competencies across the jobs,
the competencies had to be grouped into a number of areas. With different
aspects of personality more or less important depending on each job, this means
correlations are included from jobs with which one would only expect weak
correlations as well as from jobs where one would expect strong correlations.
For example, we would not expect exactly identical attributes related to
“analysis” to be relevant in a pub manager as a foreign exchange dealer.

13
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 4:Validation studies in Robertson and Kinder’s meta-analysis

Industry Job type Sample size

Major airline Telephone sales agents 49

Transport (delivery service) Sales staff 68

Financial services 13 System analysts, 9 Analyst 38

programmers and 16 Programmers

Financial services Foreign exchange dealers 86

Financial services Programmer/Analysts,Analysts, 60

Senior analysts and Project leaders

Oil Graduate entrants into Information 34

Technology department

Financial services Accounts staff 50

(Building Society)

Financial services Branch managers 281

(Building Society)

Financial services (Bank) Trainee managers 336

Financial services (Bank) Foreign exchange dealers 48

Financial services Middle managers 399

(Building Society)

Brewing Tenants (both partners) 33

Brewing Managers 34

Financial services Graduate entrants as 34

management trainees

Catering Restaurant managers 82

Communications Sales executives 34

Confectionery Sales representatives 37

Transport Managers 41

Manufacturing (Engineering) Senior managers 146

Manufacturing (Engineering) Senior managers 109

This problem is compounded by differences in the amount of information

available to raters in rating competencies across jobs. For example, with a highly
structured job we would expect little information to be available on an
individual’s creativity. In less structured jobs there is potential for an individual
to express creative flair, allowing more information for the rater to assess
creativity. In other words, we not only have a problem of criterion unreliability
within an organization but an issue of criterion unreliability between
organizations and jobs. In spite of these difficulties, the results are useful in
providing what are probably lower bound estimates of OPQ score validities.

14
 12 Criterion Validity

The results are given in Table 5 which shows the extent to which a composite
score based on a combination of hypothesized scale scores correlates with the
relevant criterion. The results are corrected for criterion unreliability using the
figure of 0.6 as an estimate of typical criterion reliability (Hunter and Schmidt,
1990) to give a more reasonable indication of the validity of the OPQ
questionnaire in relation to the different criterion areas.

Table 5:The composite validity over 20 studies (total n = 1999)

Competence area Composite validity

adjusted for criterion unreliability of 0.6

Analysis .41

Planning/Organizing .17

Creative .43

Decision-making .22

Manage staff .34

Persuasiveness .15

Interpersonal .21

Communication .26

Adaptability .12

Resilience .26

Energy .35

Business sense .18

As we can see, the OPQ is successful at predicting a broad range of criterion

areas, and does particularly well in some. Like study 2, the strongest results are
associated with more cognitive functional domains such as Analysis and
Creative. Robertson and Kinder note:

“When the coefficients reported in this study for scale composites are corrected for
OPQ scores
criterion reliabilities of .6 or .8, the magnitude of the validity coefficients
increases to exceed .30 for several criterion areas (e.g. rtt = .80: Analysis r = .36 significantly predict
Energy r = .30. If rtt = .60: Analysis r = .41 Energy r = .35).” the majority of
competencies clearly
Salgado (1996) later published a note on the Robertson and Kinder meta-analysis and consistently
in which he produced a correction to indicate that the prediction of
across organizations.
competencies in all but two of the competency areas could be generalized
across organizations. Given the unavoidable limitations on this form of study,
the results are encouraging, particularly as the competencies in a specific area
could be appreciably different across a number of jobs.

15
 12 Criterion Validity

Along with Sevy’s study (1992), this study also provided information on the
relative contributions of cognitive ability and personality as measured by the
OPQ questionnaire, and in this case, to the different generalized areas of
competencies across jobs. Specifically, it gives us information on the additional
or incremental validity of the OPQ questionnaires over and above measures of
cognitive ability in the job competence areas. It again demonstrated that OPQ
scores can add substantially to prediction of competency ratings over and above
the prediction provided by measures of cognitive ability alone.

All in all, this study provides strong evidence favoring the OPQ scales’ efficacy
as predictors of job competence, or as Robertson and Kinder put it:

“These results compare reasonably well with coefficients obtained from meta-
analysis of highly regarded predictors such as assessment centers, cognitive
ability tests and work samples…. The work reported here provides clear support
for the notion that personality scales can provide unique criterion-related
validity.”

5.The cross-validation of the OPQ for management

assessment

One of the problems, as we have already noted, of using multiple correlation of

OPQ data to predict complex job performance criteria is that such studies are
likely to capitalize on chance effects in the data. Some critical researchers have
described this problem as being rather like “fishing” for results by examining
every possible correlation for every scale with every criterion, and reporting only
the significant ones. They argue that this is likely to result in chance findings
sometimes being reported as evidence of validity.

One way around this issue is to carry out research utilizing only a small number
of scales with clear, a priori, hypotheses specifying which scale should predict
which criterion, as has been done for the studies previously described.

The study reported here and previously reported by Saville, Nyfield, Sik &
Hackston (1991) is based on two separate validation studies involving a total of
700 managers across two different types of organizations with a gap of four
years between the two studies.

The analysis reported has been designed to make use of the two studies to
provide a test of the extent to which hypotheses (derived by examining the
results of one sample) are supported by the results explained in the second
sample. In the first study, those scales which predicted job success were
identified and then their correlations with semantically similar criteria in the
second study were examined. This means that the first study was used in an
exploratory way to construct a priori hypotheses for the second study.

16
 12 Criterion Validity

The design of this study should, therefore, avoid the danger of capitalizing on
chance effects in the data. If the results of this study, involving different
managers in different organizations, show substantial cross-validation for the
predictive scales, then this finding would offer significant support for the
criterion-related validity of personality questionnaires.

The overall study is based on two separate one day assessments, in two
different organizations which included the use of OPQ questionnaires.

In 1984, a large national UK bank conducted an audit of managerial human

resources prior to restructuring, involving 440 senior and middle managers.
Participants’ immediate managers independently rated them on job performance
characteristics on a two-point scale (very simply, “they display it” or “they
don’t”) on a range of job performance criteria. The 440 managers separately
completed the Concept 4 version of the OPQ as part of a one day assessment
center which also involved aptitude tests, a group exercise, an in-basket and an
interview.

Four years later, in 1988, two groups of senior managers at an electrical

manufacturing company took part in a similar exercise. There were 270 in all
and they were again rated by their managers against criteria similar to those in
the first study. This time, a three-point scale was used (high/average/low). In
addition to completing an OPQ questionnaire (either Concept 3+5 or Concept
4.2), each manager completed two SHL ability tests, one of numerical critical
reasoning (NA4) and one of verbal critical reasoning (VA3).

The samples were chosen because they represent two of the largest managerial
validation samples ever conducted in the UK. Selection decisions did follow,
though the criterion data were collected concurrently and referred to managers’
performance in their current jobs. The situations were realistic and serious,
conducted in an occupational context.

Five job performance criteria from the earlier study were directly comparable to
criteria in the later study. Criteria in the second study which were not present in
the first have not been included here, even if the scales loading on to them
would seem appropriate from a rational point of view. The five overlapping
criteria are shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Criteria matched from two separate validation studies

Managers in banking (n=440) Managers in electrical engineering (n=270)

1984 Study 1988 Study

Analytical ability Intellect

Good leader Leadership
Strong in personal relationships Interpersonal skills
Commercial flair Entrepreneurial
Creative thinker Creative

17
 12 Criterion Validity

It is worth remembering that these criteria were identified by the organizations

themselves, and for that reason correspondence is inevitably imperfect. Any lack
of correspondence will tend to bring down the observed validities. Obtained
validities, if say “Commercial Flair” and “Entrepreneurial” meant exactly the same
thing to raters in both organizations, would probably be greater than those
expected here.

The personality scales that were significantly correlated with the job
performance criteria in the first study were used as hypotheses in the second.
There is nothing surprising in the personality scales and job performance criteria
correlations found in the first study shown in the upper parts of Tables 7 - 11.
That Creative managers are likely to be Innovative and Conceptual is predictable
and might have been foreseen rationally. In the method adopted now however,
rational hypotheses are replaced by predictions based on the first of the two
studies.

The main results of this study are shown in Tables 7 - 11, with each table
As ability tests were dealing with a different job performance criterion (or competency). The results
used in both for the sample of 440 managers in banking from the first study are given at the
top of each table with their ability test results. The results for the senior
organizations, this
managers in electrical engineering (the second study) are broken down under
study shows the
three headings. First, the coefficients are given for the total sample (n=270) for
incremental validity the selected personality scales. Then they are broken down for a sample of
of personality respondents who completed a normative version of the OPQ (Concept 3+5) and
measures over a sample of managers who completed an ipsative version of the OPQ (Concept
cognitive variables. 4.2). The former sample has a bias towards sales and marketing managers while
the latter had a bias toward technical managers with a background in
engineering.

Next follows the multiple correlation showing the combined effect of the
selected personality scales. Multiple correlations are corrected for attenuation
(unreliability) in the criterion; a reliability of 0.6 for the criterion has been
assumed. Because the correction is only a good approximation, wholly
uncorrected correlations are also quoted. Following this are the results for the
ability tests. Next are the multiple correlations of the two ability measures alone
and with the chosen personality scales, and a test for incremental validity of
personality over ability. Results for each of the criterion constructs used in this
research (using the terms in the second study to label them) are discussed
below. In addition to the chosen personality variables, any of the OPQ scales
which correlated significantly in the second study, but not in the first study are
reported at the bottom of each table, i.e., those which emerge as predictors of
success against criteria of performance in the second study only.

18
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 7: Cross-validation for the Intellect criterion

Personality Dimensions: Study 1 n=440

Data Rational 0.37**

Conceptual 0.37**

Critical 0.35**

Verbal Critical Reasoning 0.30**

Numerical Critical Reasoning 0.31**

Personality Dimensions: Study 2 n=270 n=153 n=116

significant in Study 1 Combined Normative Ipsative
(Concept 3+5) (Concept 4.2)

Data Rational 0.17** 0.35** 0.27**

Conceptual 0.25** 0.36** 0.20**

Critical 0.16* 0.44** 0.33**

Multiple R. for above personality dimensions 0.42** 0.42** 0.49**

(Corrected for attenuation) (0.54**) (0.54**) (0.63**)

Verbal Critical Reasoning 0.30** 0.28** 0.15*

Numerical Critical Reasoning 0.24** 0.42** 0.30**

Multiple R - Ability 0.33** 0.31** 0.40**

Multiple R - Personality & Ability 0.48** 0.48** 0.55**

Incremental Validity 0.15** 0.17** 0.15**

Personality Dimensions: Study 2

not significant in Study 1

Innovative 0.16** NS 0.31**

NS - Not Significant
* - Significant at 5% level
** - Significant at 1% level

If we look at Table 7, we can see the results for the Intellect criterion, initially
for the banking study and then for the engineering managers. As expected, the
verbal and numerical reasoning tests correlate significantly and precisely as
predicted (r is about .30 for both samples). Allowing for unreliability of the
criterion, the adjusted correlation is a little above 0.4, a sizeable and useful
correlation. As predicted, the personality scales of Data Rational, Conceptual and
Critical all correlate significantly with a combined value of about 0.4. When
corrected for unreliability in the criterion their combined effect is approximately
0.5, with significant incremental validity over ability tests alone.

19
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 8: Cross-validation for the Leadership criterion

Personality Dimensions: Study 1 n=440

Controlling 0.27**

Verbal Critical Reasoning NS

Numerical Critical Reasoning NS

Personality Dimensions: Study 2 n=270 n=153 n=116

significant in Study 1 Combined Normative Ipsative
(Concept 3+5) (Concept 4.2)

Controlling 0.30** 0.40** 0.25**

Multiple R. for above personality dimensions 0.30** 0.40** 0.25**

(Corrected for attenuation) (0.39**) (0.52**) (0.32**)

Verbal Critical Reasoning NS NS NS

Numerical Critical Reasoning NS NS NS

Multiple R - Ability NS NS NS

Multiple R - Personality & Ability 0.31** 0.40** 0.26**

Incremental Validity 0.26** 0.35** 0.21**

Personality Dimensions: Study 2

not significant in Study 1

None

NS - Not Significant
* - Significant at 5% level
** - Significant at 1% level

Only one scale - Controlling - was hypothesized to correlate with Leadership. As

we can see from Table 8, this does correlate significantly in the normative,
ipsative and combined managerial replication sample with an adjusted validity of
0.4. It is interesting that, regardless of any other aspects of personality, those
who “enjoy being in charge” tend to be perceived by their bosses as being good
leaders. This relationship is seen in many of the other studies reported here. The
ability tests do less well against this criterion and clear evidence of the
incremental validity of personality over ability is shown. We might rationally
have predicted that personality rather than intellect is a key component of this
aspect of managerial success.

20
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 9: Cross-validation for the Interpersonal Skills criterion

Personality Dimensions: Study 1 n=440

Critical -0.24**

Affiliative 0.21**

Forward Planning -0.20**

Verbal Critical Reasoning NS

Numerical Critical Reasoning NS

Personality Dimensions: Study 2 n=270 n=153 n=116

significant in Study 1 Combined Normative Ipsative
(Concept 3+5) (Concept 4.2)

Critical -0.23** -0.33** NS

Affiliative 0.28** 0.34** 0.16*

Forward Planning -0.18** NS NS

Multiple R. for above personality dimensions 0.34** 0.37** NS

(Corrected for attenuation) (0.44**) (0.48**) (NS)

Verbal Critical Reasoning NS NS NS

Numerical Critical Reasoning NS NS NS

Multiple R - Ability NS NS NS

Multiple R - Personality & Ability 0.34** 0.47** NS

Incremental Validity 0.32** 0.33** NS

Personality Dimensions: Study 2

not significant in Study 1

Outgoing .30** .27** .31**

Active .19** .16* .21**

NS - Not Significant
* - Significant at 5% level
** - Significant at 1% level

The position is a little more complicated for the Interpersonal Skills criterion
(Table 9). The Critical scale shows significant negative correlations in the
combined and normative sample; the Affiliative scale correlates significantly
across all samples, whereas Forward Planning correlates negatively and
significantly in the combined group. The personality variables give significant
incremental validity over the ability tests in the normative and combined
samples.

21
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 10: Cross-validation for the Entrepreneurial criterion

Personality Dimensions: Study 1 n=440

Persuasive 0.27**

Verbal Critical Reasoning NS

Numerical Critical Reasoning NS

Personality Dimensions: Study 2 n=270 n=153 n=116

significant in Study 1 Combined Normative Ipsative
(Concept 3+5) (Concept 4.2)

Persuasive 0.11** 0.25** NS

Multiple R. for above personality dimensions 0.11** 0.25** NS

(Corrected for attenuation) (0.14**) (0.32**) (0.15*)

Verbal Critical Reasoning 0.17** 0.12* 0.20**

Numerical Critical Reasoning 0.10* NS 0.15*

Multiple R - Ability 0.17** 0.14* 0.21**

Multiple R - Personality & Ability 0.21** 0.28** 0.22**

Incremental Validity NS 0.14** NS

Personality Dimensions: Study 2

not significant in Study 1

Traditional -0.29** -0.22** -0.20*

Change Orientated 0.25** 0.15* 0.19*

Conceptual 0.23** 0.14* 0.24**

Innovative 0.16** 0.27** 0.15*

NS - Not Significant
* - Significant at 5% level
** - Significant at 1% level

The results for the Entrepreneurial job performance criterion are given in Table
10. The personality scale of Persuasive correlates significantly in the total sample
and in the normative group, but does not reach significance in the ipsative
sample. Ability tests also show some degree of correlation here (combined value
about 0.2).

22
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 11: Cross-validation for the Creative criterion

Personality Dimensions: Study 1 n=440

Innovative 0.38**

Conceptual 0.25**

Verbal Critical Reasoning NS

Numerical Critical Reasoning NS

Personality Dimensions: Study 2 n=270 n=153 n=116

significant in Study 1 Combined Normative Ipsative
(Concept 3+5) (Concept 4.2)

Innovative 0.34** 0.36** 0.33**

Conceptual 0.39** 0.43** 0.41**

Multiple R. for above personality dimensions 0.43** 0.46** 0.42**

(Corrected for attenuation) (0.56**) (0.59**) (0.54**)

Verbal Critical Reasoning 0.21** 0.17* 0.27**

Numerical Critical Reasoning 0.13* NS 0.23**

Multiple R - Ability 0.21** NS 0.28**

Multiple R - Personality & Ability 0.44** 0.47** 0.45**

Incremental Validity 0.23** 0.30** 0.17**

Personality Dimensions: Study 2

not significant in Study 1

Independent 0.19** 0.20** 0.19**

NS - Not Significant
* - Significant at 5% level
** - Significant at 1% level

OPQ correlates with Entrepreneurial, which are not hypothesized, include being
more unconventional (i.e., less Traditional), Change Orientated, Conceptual and
Innovative. For the normative sample, but not the ipsative, significant
correlations were also achieved with Controlling, Independent, Outgoing,
Competitive, Achieving, Decisive and less Data Rational, Detail Conscious,
Worrying and Emotional Control. The reasons for these differences between the
two samples on this criterion may be due to the normative sample being
primarily comprised of sales and marketing managers and the ipsative sample
containing more engineering or technical executives. It might be that this was a
more appropriate job performance variable for the normative sample, in that
more relevant behavioral data were available to rate the sales and marketing
managers and, therefore, the performance criterion is more reliable.

23
 12 Criterion Validity

If this is the case, it does paint an intriguing picture of the more Entrepreneurial
managers as being more persuasive and controlling of others, more difficult to
manage, more inclined to make fast decisions by gut feel, more radical in
thinking, innovative and disliking bureaucracy, less worried about things going
wrong, likely to express their feelings, optimistic and highly competitive and
career ambitious.

Finally, for the Creative criterion, Table 11 shows the Concept scales predicted
to correlate. The results for the selected two OPQ scales are persuasive; the raw
multiple correlation is in excess of 0.4 and when adjusted for unreliability in the
criterion, in excess of 0.5. Again, significant incremental validity over ability
alone (which nevertheless has validity) is shown.

Both ability tests and nominated OPQ self-report personality scales show
predictable, significant and substantial correlation with criteria of management
job success, in one of the largest ever UK studies on the validity of assessment
techniques in managers (n=710 overall). The majority of the estimated validities
Both normative and are in the region of 0.3 to 0.5, high coefficients by any standards. Significant
ipsative scales incremental validity of personality scales over ability was also demonstrated.
predicted job Both ipsative and normative questionnaires were used in the study, and it seems
performance criteria that both can effectively predict performance against external criteria. In terms of
the information that can be obtained from them, they are fairly interchangeable.
well in this study.

It is perhaps worth considering why this pair of studies was able to provide
such valid predictions about successful job performance based on self-report
questionnaires.

One concern frequently expressed is the possibility of respondents overselling

themselves, presenting themselves more favorably than they really are,
particularly in selection. However, here valid predictions have been made
despite the fact that decisions about promotion were based on the findings, and
distortion does not seem to have affected this. It is important not to exaggerate
the problem of social desirability in responding: not every respondent is out to
deceive. Hough et al., (1990) have shown that response distortion due to social
desirability responding does not appear to have much impact on the validity
coefficients. Perhaps because data were shared with respondents during a
feedback interview, not only were they less likely to be deliberately dishonest,
but could well also have been motivated to respond more thoughtfully.

Another possible reason for the success of this validation study is that the
criteria against which individual scales were validated were highly specific (e.g.
Interpersonal Skills), rather than crude measures of overall performance. Indeed,
higher scores on some personality scales might predict success against certain
criteria yet failure against others. The Critical scale, for example, is positively
correlated with ratings of Intellect, but negatively with Interpersonal Skill.
Evidently fault finding, cynical managers are perceived less favorably in the
interpersonal domain.

24
 12 Criterion Validity

Overall, this pair of studies show substantial criterion-related validity for

personality questionnaires with specific scales or dimensions being predictors of
specific job competencies or performance measures. The importance of
personality as a key factor in job performance, along with the incremental
validity of personality questionnaires over ability tests, can be supported from
these findings.

6. International validation studies

The following studies were undertaken in various countries around the world
using a variety of different criterion measures.

International study 1:The prediction of consumer products sales

effectiveness in the USA
Payne (1994)

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefits of carefully chosen pre-
employment tests for selection of sales staff in a manufacturing organization. The
study’s focus was to determine whether or not the use of multiple pre-
employment measures would explain a significant amount of variance in job
performance. Here we look at the results for the OPQ questionnaire using the
US Concept 5 version.

Method
A concurrent validation approach was used with all sales staff of a single
manufacturing company. Within two months, personality and ability tests were
administered, personnel information collated and evaluations of staff were made
by their supervisors according to a job analysis based single rating.

Sample
401 employees of a US consumer sales organization were included in this study.
Staff worked in locations across the whole of the US; 63% of the sample were
male, 17% of ethnic minority groups, 95% had a four-year college degree with
12% of the sample having advanced degrees or working towards one.
Approximately 72% of the staff were employed in the lower levels of the
organization which were the main entry levels for the organization. The work at
these levels was direct customer contact sales, with higher levels taking more
responsibility for the work of others.

These levels were used to split the sample into two further categories:

• Level I (Sales - entry level) and Level II (Sales direct to retail stores)
• Level III and Level IV (Sales at retailer chain headquarters)

25
 12 Criterion Validity

Criteria
Twenty competency dimensions were developed for the study. They were
derived from job analysis, designed to differentiate performance effectiveness and
were behaviorally anchored. Supervisors were required to rate the importance of
each skill to successful job performance for each role, then they rated the level
of competence on each dimension for each of their staff. These ratings were
combined to provide a single “Contribution Rating” for each employee. In
addition to these criteria, data were collected on each of the individuals’ last
Performance Appraisal reviews.

Relationships between predictors and criteria

The results of correlating OPQ scores with these criteria that reach statistical
significance are shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Significant correlations between OPQ scores and criteria

for staff at Levels I - IV

Staff at Level I and Level II Staff at Level III and IV

n = 257
Significant OPQ scales Correlation with Correlation with Correlation with Correlation with
contribution rating performance appraisal contribution rating performance appraisal
n = 144 n = 135

Controlling .19 .16* .19*

Modest -.27*

Practical .22* .18* .11

Data Rational .12 .14

Behavioral .13 .18*

Conceptual .17 .11 .15*

Innovative .16*

Forward Planning .19 .21*

Detail Conscious .18

Conscientious .33* .20* .15*

Tough Minded .15*

Optimistic .19* .17*

Critical .15* .16*

Active .19*

Competitive .12

Achieving .18 .17* .18*

Decisive .16 .17

Social Desirability .11

All correlations significant at 5%, level one-tailed

* significant at 1%, level one-tailed

26
 12 Criterion Validity

Overview
Several OPQ personality dimensions were found to have significant positive
correlations with job success as measured by the contribution rating. Multiple
regression analysis confirmed one of the study’s hypotheses that combining the
use of cognitive ability tests with personality measures adds to the predictive
value of either alone. The adjusted R2 which shows the total variance in
performance accounted for by the measures was 29% and 20% for the two
groups, showing the use of the questionnaire with tests would have a major
impact on the quality of selection decisions.

Comparisons of scores on the questionnaire revealed no significant differences

between different ethnic and gender groups in terms of predicting performance.

Results for the performance appraisal and contribution ratings were very similar
for the higher level staff. However, the performance appraisal scores were not
found to correlate well with OPQ scores for lower level staff. There was only a
modest correlation between this criterion and the contribution rating - it seems
that restriction of range and distortion of the performance appraisal scores
occurred as company policy limited the number of outstanding ratings, and
scores were not given for poor performers. The performance appraisal rating
was used primarily to determine salary increases and proved a poor criterion
measure for this group.

The Conscientious scale was the best single indicator of performance for the
lower level group. At the more senior level, this factor seems to have similar
importance to a number of other OPQ scales.

27
 12 Criterion Validity

International study 2: Identifying leadership potential among

manufacturing engineers in the USA and Europe

Introduction
The study explored whether standardized assessment measures could be used to
identify individuals with high levels of leadership potential. The fundamental
question addressed by the study was whether there is a relationship between
ratings of leadership potential and employees’ answers to standardized tests and
questionnaires.

Method
The study used a concurrent validation design to explore relationships between
managers’ ratings of leadership potential and employees’ scores on measures of
motivation and ability as well as the OPQ Concept 5 questionnaire (US version).
Data were collected during 1988.

Sample
The sample used in this study consisted of professionals working at various sites
of the Manufacturing Division of a large US employer. Most were based in the
US but 15% were based in Europe. The study focused primarily on employees
holding engineering positions, although 20% were employees who held
positions considered to be at an equivalent level as those of the engineers (e.g.
health and safety managers). Data were available for a total of 105 employees.
97% were White. Employees’ ages ranged from 24 to 59, with an average age of 39.

Criteria
Leadership potential was measured using manager ratings of 15 different
competencies drawn from the Lominger Leadership Architect competency model
- Action Oriented, Command Skills, Composure, Creativity, Dealing with
Ambiguity, Drives Results, Functional/Technical Skills, Innovation, Integrity and
Trust, Interpersonal Savvy, Learning on the Fly, Motivating Others, Perseverance,
Priority Setting, Strategic Agility, Technical Problem Solving,

Table 13 shows the significant correlations found between the different criteria
of leadership and OPQ scale scores.

28
 Table 13: Correlations between competency ratings and OPQ scales for US engineers (n = 105)

Controlling Independent Modest Caring Behavioral Traditional Conceptual Innovative Forward Emotional Achieving Decisive
Planning Control

Leadership
Potential .31 .22 .19 .36 -.34 .21 .32 .22

Strategic Agility .29 .21 .21 .41 -.30 .24

Command Skills .19 .31 -.22 -.20 .27

Integrity and Trust 24 .26

Dealing with .26 .35 -.23 .23

Ambiguity

Innovation .34 -.34 .20 .19

Drives Results .31 -.32 .19 .29 .21

Technical Problem .24 -.22

Solving

Priority Setting .23 -.27

Interpersonal .21 -.19

Savvy

All correlations are significant at the 5% level.

12 Criterion Validity

29
 12 Criterion Validity

Overview
The following characteristics were associated with ratings of several leadership
competencies and appear to have the most influence on overall leadership
potential for this organization:

• A preference for unconventional and novel methods and approaches (low

Traditional - the Conventional scale of OPQ32).

• An interest in understanding the thoughts and behaviors of others

(Behavioral).
When a group is
Engineers are typically more conservative than most in their approach to
very homogeneous
management issues and their interests often lie more in understanding machines
in a characteristic,
than people. Because of these tendencies, individuals who are willing to be a
someone who is little more radical in approach and consider the people dimension of a problem
different may have a may stand out from the group as being better managers and leaders.
performance
advantage. The following characteristics showed strong associations with specific leadership
competencies, as well as an association with leadership potential in general:

• A preference for taking the lead with others (Controlling) was related to
Strategic Agility ratings. A similar finding can be seen in many other studies
reported here.

• A strong career focus and interest in challenging career goals (Achieving)

was related to Drives Results and Strategic Agility.

• A preference for making quick decisions, even if they entail some risk
(Decisive) was related to ratings of Command Skills.

In addition, significant relationships were found with other instruments used in

the study, including the SHL Motivation Questionnaire and high level reasoning
tests. The organization found the OPQ results very useful in identifying
leadership potential among their engineering staff.

30
 12 Criterion Validity

International study 3:Validating psychometric instruments with

Turkish managers
Nyfield, Gibbons, Baron and Robertson (1995)

Introduction
The study was undertaken as part of an international validation study. The main
objective of the study was to explore whether or not the same personality
constructs show criterion-related validity, with specific competency criteria,
across different countries. It was hypothesized that it would be possible to use
the OPQ questionnaires across cultures, with appropriate adaptations. Here we
present the results from the Turkish sample. The UK sample is the concurrent
sample in the first study in this chapter.

Method
A concurrent validation study was conducted. The study involved two main
stages: managers completed the OPQ Concept 4.2 questionnaire, as well as
numerical and verbal ability tests (NMG1 and VMG1). They were then rated by
their immediate line managers against the competencies on the SHL Inventory of
Management Competencies described earlier. The data were collected during the
period April 1994 to March 1995, using standardized Turkish versions of the
instruments.

Sample
503 Turkish managers were drawn from a wide range of functional areas within
a manufacturing company. The sample was predominantly male with only 14%
female managers. The average age was 39 (sd = 7).

The hypotheses tested in this study were based on the findings from the parallel
UK sample (see the first study in this chapter). The main results of the study are
presented in Table 14. This table shows the main, statistically significant
relationships between the personality and ability measures and the competency
ratings. Those that reached significance in the UK sample are shown in bold.

31
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 14: Correlations between competency ratings and OPQ scores

for Turkish managers

COMPETENCY (n= 503) Main OPQ scale correlates Ability test correlates

Leadership Controlling .11; Democratic .11;

Forward Planning .11

Planning and Organizing Forward Planning .24; Detail Conscious .11

Quality Orientation Forward Planning .11; Detail Conscious .11;

Achieving .09

Persuasiveness Persuasive .08; Socially Confident .11

Specialist Knowledge Innovative .12; Data Rational .10; NMG1 .17; VMG1 .09
Independent .08; Practical .08;Achieving .08

Problem Solving Data Rational .22; Innovative .12; NMG1 .32;VMG1 .22;
Independent .09

Oral Communication Socially Confident .16; Outgoing .12 VMG1 .14;

Written Communication Critical .08; VMG1 .08

Commercial Awareness Persuasive .22

Creativity and Innovation Innovative .26;Traditional -.24; NMG1 .27;VMG1 .19;

Independent .14; Conceptual .10

Action Orientation Controlling .15;Active .11; Decisive .09 NMG1 .11;

Strategic Data Rational .16; Innovative .12; NMG1 .13;

Forward Planning .09

Interpersonal Sensitivity Controlling -.16; Critical -.16; Affiliative .14;

Competitive -.10

Flexibility Optimistic .14; Change Orientated .11;

Traditional -.09; Conscientious -.08; Relaxed .07

Resilience Relaxed .14; Optimistic .14;

Tough Minded .12

Personal Motivation Achieving .10; Decisive .07

All correlations are significant at the 5% level

Overview
Many of the relationships found in the UK study were observed in this study.
Overall 59% of the significant correlations with OPQ scales in the UK sample
were replicated in this study, rising to 63% when ability tests are included. The
same scales were related to the individual competencies as found previously.
These results not only show the validity of the Turkish OPQ questionnaire, but
they provide strong support for the proposition that the OPQ scales predict job
performances in the same manner in the Turkish and UK samples and that
validity generalizes across national and language boundaries.

32
 12 Criterion Validity

International study 4:Validation of an assessment center in a Belgian

Bank.

Introduction
This study investigated the validity of several years of assessment center
procedures used as a determinant of promotion to management positions in a
Belgian bank. A predictive design was used.

Method
Data were gathered over five years from an assessment center procedure in a
Belgian bank, designed to select managers for promotion. Measures used
included in-basket exercises, a role play, three aptitude tests, one analysis and
presentation exercise, two group exercises, two interviews as well as the OPQ
Concept 4.2 questionnaire. Candidates could choose whether to complete the
assessments in French or in Dutch.

Sample
252 employees attended the assessment centers; 201 were men, 51 women, 127
French-speaking (Walloon) and 125 Dutch (Flemish). Mean age was 38; the
oldest participant was 53. Length of service at the bank ranged from one year to
38 years with a mean of 16 years and a standard deviation of eight years.
Performance ratings were available on 77-82 of them.

Criteria
Assessment centers were run between 1990 and 1995. Criterion measurement
was undertaken between September and October 1995. The main criteria were
line managers’ ratings on the SHL Inventory of Management Competencies
(IMC), providing scores on 16 generic management competencies. In addition an
overall performance score was calculated by combining the ratings for all IMC
scales.

33
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 15: Correlations between competency ratings and OPQ scales

for Belgian managers

COMPETENCY OPQ scale correlates (n=77-82)

Leadership Artistic -.24; Conscientious .27

Planning and Organizing Competitive -.23

Quality Orientation Conscientious .24; Competitive -0.24

Persuasiveness Persuasive .27; Controlling 0.31*; Outgoing .30*; Socially Confident .39*;
Modest -.25; Data Rational -.22; Artistic -.29*; Detail Conscious -.22

Specialist Knowledge

Problem Solving

Oral Communication Persuasive .23; Controlling .21; Outgoing .23; Socially Confident .26*;
Modest -.24; Practical -.21;

Written Communication Controlling .23; Socially Confident .22; Change Oriented -.23;

Commercial Awareness Persuasive .33; Controlling .24; Outgoing .23; Socially Confident .32*;
Caring -.28;Artistic -.33*; Behavioral -.35*; Conceptual -.24;
Detail Conscious -.33*; Relaxed .25; Emotional Control .24; Achieving .24

Creativity and Innovation Behavioral -.31*; Forward Planning -.26*; Detail Conscious -.27;Active .22;
Decisive .21

Action Orientation Persuasive .28*; Outgoing .33; Socially Confident .31*; Data Rational -.26*;
Behavioral -.29*; Detail Conscious -.26; Relaxed .23; Active .33*; Decisive .24

Strategic

Interpersonal Sensitivity Independent -.25; Socially Confident .31*; Caring .31*; Relaxed .21

Flexibility Outgoing .21;Affiliative .23; Socially Confident .33*; Relaxed .29*

Resilience Data Rational -.26*; Innovative .26*; Relaxed .42*

Personal Motivation Persuasive .29*; Outgoing .41*; Socially Confident .38*; Data Rational -.25;
Behavioral -.23; Relaxed .27;Active .31*; Decisive .21

Global IMC Controlling .27; Outgoing .22; Socially Confident .31*; Relaxed .21;Artistic -.23

All correlations significant at the 5% level

* significant at the 1% level.

34
 12 Criterion Validity

Overview
The results of this study again show strong relationships between OPQ scores
and competency ratings. Caution needs to be taken when interpreting these
results since the sample size of around 80 is rather small to evaluate the 16 by
30 matrix of possible relationships. It is particularly important to interpret the
results on the basis of prior hypotheses when the sample is so small.

Those OPQ scales shown in bold correlate with the given IMC competency in
other studies described here. Similar patterns of relationships are found in this
Belgian sample as in the other studies, although somewhat fewer of the
hypothesized correlations reach significance, at least in part because of the
somewhat smaller sample size in this study.

There is another trend that can be seen in the data presented here. There are a
number of scales that correlate with many of the competencies. This suggests
that managers may have had difficulty in differentiating between the
competencies in their ratings. It also raises the possibility that there is a
particular style of behavior that is viewed positively in the culture of this Belgian
bank. There is a clear preference for managers who are Outgoing, Socially
Confident and Controlling. These scales correlate with up to 7 different
competencies. Equally, the competencies where these personality attributes
would be of no advantage at all - such as Planning and Organizing, Specialist
Knowledge and Problem Solving, show none or few significant relationships
with any scale. These managers had typically been with the bank for many
years. It may be that they tended to be rather introverted and, therefore, any
who were more gregarious performed notably better in those areas where this
was an advantage. A similar trend was found with the engineers and people
orientation in international study 2. These types of conclusions must remain
speculative until tested with further research. They do, however, show how
OPQ questionnaires can be useful in diagnosing organizational issues.

35
 12 Criterion Validity

International study 5:The validation of personality and ability

measures with Korean managers

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion-related validity of
personality and ability variables against generic management competencies. The
study was designed to provide evidence to support the development of
prediction equations to be entered into a corporate competency-based HR
system. The application was designed to aid the matching of people to jobs
(recruitment, selection, promotion), and jobs to people (reassignment, guidance,
career planning).

Method
The SHL Work Profiling System (WPS) was used to analyze more than 100 jobs
in the organization, and generate person specifications consisting primarily of a
four point importance rating for each competency from the SHL Inventory of
Management Competencies (IMC). For each competency, the OPQ scales
thought to be most related were identified. Scores from these scales were
combined together with ability test scores, when relevant, to create a prediction
composite. Managers completed the OPQ Concept 4.2 questionnaire in Korean.
They were rated by their line managers using the IMC questionnaire. They also
completed verbal and numerical ability tests.

Sample
363 managers and professionals from a medium sized engineering company
spread across 10 regions in South Korea took part in the study. The vast
majority were males aged 26-43, with a university degree; 40 representative
managerial and professional job positions were sampled.

The results are shown in Table 16. The main OPQ scale correlates for each
competency are shown. Significant correlations in other studies reported here
are shown in bold. The prediction composite column shows the correlation
between the combination of scales and test scores hypothesized, a priori, to
relate to that competency and the competency score.

36
 12 Criterion Validity

Table 16: Correlations between competency ratings and OPQ scales

for Korean engineers

Competency Main OPQ correlates (n=363) Prediction

Composite

Leadership Controlling .17*; Conceptual -.19*;Artistic -.17*; .16

Independent -.15*

Planning & Organizing Detail Conscious .21*; Forward Planning .19*; .23*
Conscientious .19*; Affiliative -.19*; Outgoing -.15*;
Socially Confident -.14*; Optimistic -.13

Quality Orientation Forward Planning .14*; Detail Conscious .14*; .21*

Conscientious .19*; Affiliative -.21*; Outgoing -.15*;
Optimistic -.14*

Persuasiveness Persuasive .24*; Outgoing .22*; Socially Confident .21*; .29*

Controlling .30*; Relaxed -.19*; Decisive .19*;
Modest -.17*

Specialist Knowledge Innovative .20*; Critical .15*; Affiliative -.25*; .22*

Caring -.21*; Conscientious .18*;Achieving .17*

Problem Solving Conceptual .12; Innovative .15*; Critical .21*; .21*

Affiliative -.23*; Forward Planning .17*;
Democratic -.16*; Optimistic -.15*

Oral Communication Persuasive .18*; Outgoing .19*; Socially Confident .19*; .24*
Controlling .22*; Decisive .17*; Modest -.15*;
Democratic -.14*

Written Communication Conceptual .14*; Active -.19*; Democratic -.16* .14

Commercial Awareness Conscientious .14*; Independent -.13 NS

Creativity & Innovation Traditional -.16*; Innovative .21*; Practical .18* .22*

Action Orientation Decisive .22*;Active .22*; Controlling .27*; .32*

Relaxed -.25*; Conceptual -.19*; Socially Confident .16*

Strategic Forward Planning .11; Affiliative -.21*; Traditional -.16* .10

Interpersonal Sensitivity Affiliative .13; Caring .16*; Innovative -.28*; .21*

Emotional Control .27*; Conceptual -.21*; Critical -.21*

Flexibility Forward Planning -.17*; Innovative -.23*; NS

Emotional Control .17*; Conceptual -.17*; Critical -.17*

Resilience Relaxed .16*;Tough Minded .19*; .27*

Emotional Control .20*; Optimistic .17*;
Conceptual -.27*; Innovative -.26*; Democratic .17*

Personal Motivation Active .23*; Competitive .15*;Achieving .24*; .28*

Relaxed -.23*; Conscientious .16*

All correlations significant at 5% level

*Significant at 1% level; two-tailed test.
NS - not significant

37
 12 Criterion Validity

Overview
This study has been performed in a very different cultural environment from
others described in this chapter, but still many of the same correlation patterns
are seen. 52% of the hypothesized correlations reached statistical significance,
whereas only 23% of other correlations did. The same personality scales predict
performance for these Korean managers as seen in studies in Europe and the
USA. Prediction composites based on Western research typically correlated
moderately with performance ratings.

There are many other additional relationships reaching significance in this study.
This is partly a function of the large sample size, where even small correlations
can be statistically significant. However, if we examine the additional
correlations, some trends can be seen. There are negative correlations with
Affiliative and Outgoing for many of the structure related competencies such as
Planning and Organizing and Quality Orientation. Emotional Control is important
for several competencies, as is Conscientiousness. This suggests that quiet,
controlled people who do well on the job are generally valued. Additionally,
Social Confidence is sometimes seen as helpful while extraverted behavior is
generally not. These trends are consistent with many of the descriptions of Far
Eastern culture. Thus, the relationship patterns show both consistency across
countries as well as cultural differences.

A final word

It is through building results from a number of studies of the kind reported here
that consistent trends can be found and interpretation and prediction from
questionnaires can be improved. The clear patterns of relationships found in all
the studies in this chapter provide strong support for the validity of OPQ32
questionnaires.

The OPQ32 model is supported by the SHL OPQ research and development
program and future validation results will be published in OPQ Updates
(available to all registered OPQ Users), the SHL Validation Reviews, as well as
the broader scientific literature.

38
 13 Group Comparisons

Group Comparisons
This chapter presents information on the breakdown of OPQ32 scores by
gender, ethnic group and age. Throughout the development of the OPQ32
questionnaires much attention was paid to ensure the content of the items was
appropriate for all people who might respond to them. As well as a formal
review process involving people from different backgrounds, statistical analyses
were performed to identify and analyze any difference in response patterns
between groups. Results of some of these analyses are presented here.

Analysis by gender

Tables 1 and 2 show results for the US general occupational sample for the
OPQ32n questionnaire and the UK standardization sample for the OPQ32i
questionnaire, broken down by gender. See the Norms chapter for a full
description of these samples.
See Scale
Descriptions chapter
Each table shows the mean, standard deviations, reliabilities and standard errors
of measurement for both males and females. The final column is the for graphical display
standardized difference between the two groups. This is the raw score difference of age and gender
as a proportion of the standard deviation of the combined group. It provides a trends for each
measure of how much variation in scores is associated with gender differences scale.
rather than other factors. A standardized difference of 0.5 would be equivalent
to a one sten difference in average scores.

Comparing the Cronbach alpha internal consistency reliabilities for the two
groups, values are typically within 0.04 of each other for both test versions.
These results support the conclusion that the instruments are performing in the
same manner for the two groups.

Score differences between the men and women based on the general population
sample for the OPQ32n questionnaire have already been discussed for each
scale in the Scale Descriptions chapter. Table 1 shows the mean for the same
data in figures and Table 2 provides similar data for the standardization sample
for OPQ32i. These results are presented in graphical form in Figures 1 and 2.

1
2
Table 1: OPQ32n scores by gender (US Data)

Male (n = 479) Female (n = 573)

Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Standardized
SEm SEm SEm SEm difference

Persuasive 23.81 4.93 0.84 1.94 0.79 21.34 5.30 0.84 2.09 0.79 0.47**
Controlling 24.80 4.04 0.82 1.70 0.84 23.48 4.36 0.83 1.82 0.83 0.31**
Outspoken 23.78 4.89 0.78 2.30 0.94 22.23 5.00 0.79 2.29 0.92 0.31**
Independent Minded 21.50 4.33 0.71 2.32 1.07 20.66 4.42 0.72 2.36 1.07 0.19**
Outgoing 20.83 5.80 0.89 1.90 0.66 21.45 6.06 0.90 1.88 0.62 -0.10
Affiliative 22.51 5.33 0.81 2.32 0.87 23.05 5.71 0.85 2.22 0.78 -0.10
Socially Confident 22.79 5.24 0.87 1.88 0.72 22.48 5.12 0.86 1.93 0.75 0.06
Modest 19.28 4.90 0.88 1.69 0.69 19.36 5.01 0.89 1.68 0.67 -0.02
Democratic 25.48 4.57 0.78 2.14 0.93 26.27 4.32 0.76 2.10 0.97 -0.18**
Caring 25.84 4.39 0.73 2.29 1.04 27.70 4.11 0.71 2.21 1.08 -0.43**
Data Rational 24.27 4.75 0.85 1.84 0.77 22.20 5.41 0.86 2.01 0.74 0.40**
Evaluative 27.50 4.05 0.79 1.87 0.92 26.08 4.43 0.79 2.05 0.93 0.33**
13 Group Comparisons

Behavioral 27.50 5.47 0.90 1.75 0.64 28.71 5.20 0.90 1.63 0.63 -0.23**
Conventional 17.85 5.36 0.83 2.22 0.83 19.25 5.20 0.81 2.25 0.86 -0.26**
Conceptual 26.41 4.83 0.83 2.00 0.83 24.85 5.23 0.84 2.07 0.79 0.30**
Innovative 24.98 4.80 0.89 1.60 0.66 22.87 5.22 0.90 1.65 0.63 0.41**
Variety Seeking 26.25 4.79 0.75 2.39 1.00 24.45 5.40 0.79 2.48 0.92 0.35**
Adaptable 23.05 4.74 0.83 1.96 0.83 23.01 4.77 0.84 1.92 0.81 0.01
Forward Thinking 25.40 4.15 0.81 1.81 0.87 24.74 4.42 0.84 1.78 0.80 0.15*
Detail Conscious 24.87 5.53 0.80 2.47 0.89 26.58 4.99 0.77 2.39 0.96 -0.32**
Conscientious 25.17 3.90 0.76 1.90 0.98 26.06 3.56 0.74 1.82 1.02 -0.24**
Rule Following 20.04 5.31 0.88 1.81 0.68 22.46 4.93 0.85 1.89 0.76 -0.46**
Relaxed 22.66 5.32 0.89 1.79 0.67 21.32 5.68 0.90 1.76 0.62 0.24**
Worrying 19.80 5.32 0.89 1.74 0.65 21.78 5.05 0.88 1.74 0.69 -0.38**
Tough Minded 21.05 5.39 0.89 1.80 0.67 18.41 5.59 0.89 1.82 0.65 0.47**
Optimistic 28.99 5.20 0.89 1.74 0.67 29.08 5.11 0.88 1.74 0.68 -0.02
Trusting 24.50 5.38 0.87 1.98 0.73 24.24 5.70 0.88 1.96 0.69 -0.05
Emotionally Controlled 20.39 5.48 0.89 1.80 0.66 18.96 5.34 0.88 1.82 0.68 0.26**
Vigorous 28.66 4.30 0.80 1.91 0.89 28.94 4.38 0.79 1.99 0.91 -0.06
Competitive 19.54 5.00 0.80 2.23 0.89 15.89 4.16 0.79 1.89 0.91 0.74**
Achieving 27.60 5.17 0.82 2.17 0.84 26.52 5.41 0.82 2.27 0.84 0.20**
Decisive 19.48 4.70 0.83 1.91 0.81 18.31 4.51 0.82 1.92 0.85 0.25**
Social Desirability 17.24 4.67 0.72 2.46 1.05 17.38 4.58 0.72 2.43 1.06 -0.03

* significant at the 5% level (two-tailed)

** significant at the 1% level (two-tailed)
 Table 2: OPQ32i scores by gender (UK Data)
Male (n = 345) Female (n = 459)
Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Standardized
SEm SEm SEm SEm difference

Persuasive 11.55 5.12 0.82 2.17 0.85 10.39 4.86 0.81 2.12 0.87 0.24**
Controlling 12.52 5.77 0.87 2.08 0.72 11.51 5.98 0.87 2.16 0.72 0.17*
Outspoken 13.66 4.87 0.78 2.29 0.94 13.05 4.73 0.77 2.27 0.96 0.13
Independent Minded 13.74 4.16 0.68 2.35 1.13 13.51 4.43 0.75 2.22 1.00 0.05
Outgoing 11.62 5.54 0.84 2.22 0.80 13.25 5.78 0.86 2.16 0.75 -0.28**
Affiliative 14.54 4.80 0.82 2.04 0.85 16.20 4.65 0.83 1.92 0.82 -0.36**
Socially Confident 12.07 5.34 0.85 2.07 0.77 12.53 4.99 0.83 2.06 0.82 -0.09
Modest 13.33 4.98 0.83 2.05 0.82 12.94 4.52 0.81 1.97 0.87 0.09
Democratic 14.27 3.88 0.67 2.23 1.15 15.50 3.71 0.66 2.17 1.17 -0.33**
Caring 15.33 4.20 0.74 2.14 1.02 17.87 4.13 0.77 1.98 0.96 -0.61**
Data Rational 11.38 5.72 0.87 2.06 0.72 9.60 5.84 0.88 2.02 0.69 0.30**
Evaluative 14.31 3.86 0.68 2.18 1.13 13.56 3.72 0.66 2.17 1.17 0.20*
Behavioral 13.91 5.22 0.82 2.21 0.85 16.32 5.03 0.82 2.13 0.85 -0.48**
Conventional 10.16 4.20 0.75 2.10 1.00 10.77 4.22 0.77 2.03 0.96 -0.14*
Conceptual 13.57 5.35 0.81 2.33 0.87 12.64 4.80 0.77 2.30 0.96 0.19*
Innovative 13.95 5.67 0.88 1.96 0.69 10.89 5.49 0.87 1.98 0.72 0.56**
Variety Seeking 15.23 4.13 0.71 2.23 1.08 14.83 4.06 0.72 2.15 1.06 0.10
Adaptable 14.72 4.83 0.80 2.16 0.89 15.11 4.84 0.81 2.11 0.87 -0.08
Forward Thinking 12.28 4.39 0.77 2.10 0.96 12.71 4.01 0.73 2.08 1.04 -0.11
Detail Conscious 12.72 5.00 0.77 2.40 0.96 14.92 5.23 0.81 2.28 0.87 -0.42**
Conscientious 15.46 4.64 0.82 1.97 0.85 17.12 4.39 0.81 1.91 0.87 -0.38**
Rule Following 9.32 4.85 0.84 1.94 0.80 10.89 4.79 0.84 1.92 0.80 -0.33**
Relaxed 12.27 5.78 0.86 2.16 0.75 9.82 4.80 0.81 2.09 0.87 0.51**
Worrying 11.70 5.99 0.88 2.07 0.69 13.05 5.64 0.87 2.03 0.72 -0.24**
Tough Minded 12.34 5.05 0.82 2.14 0.85 9.68 4.64 0.80 2.07 0.89 0.58**
Optimistic 14.62 4.45 0.76 2.18 0.98 14.71 4.72 0.81 2.06 0.87 -0.02
Trusting 11.04 4.61 0.80 2.06 0.89 11.55 4.57 0.82 1.94 0.85 -0.11
13 Group Comparisons

Emotionally Controlled 12.19 5.08 0.85 1.97 0.77 11.29 4.95 0.85 1.92 0.77 0.18*
Vigorous 13.99 4.33 0.75 2.17 1.00 15.68 4.30 0.76 2.11 0.98 -0.39**
Competitive 12.45 5.81 0.86 2.17 0.75 9.65 5.47 0.85 2.12 0.77 0.51**
Achieving 13.87 4.53 0.75 2.26 1.00 13.68 5.07 0.81 2.21 0.87 0.04
Decisive 11.89 5.00 0.81 2.18 0.87 10.79 4.54 0.79 2.08 0.92 0.24**
Consistency 26.62 7.27 28.36 6.25 -0.28**

* significant at the 5% level (two-tailed)

** significant at the 1% level (two-tailed)

3
 13 Group Comparisons

Although many of the average differences between males and females reach
statistical significance due to the large sample sizes, the magnitude of these
differences is typically very small. For both groups most are under half a sten.
The figures show that the vast majority of average scores for both groups and
versions lie within the sten 5 to sten 6 band. However, a few scales do show
larger differences between the genders in both their normative and ipsative
formats.

The trends in both normative and ipsative versions, in terms of the size and
direction of differences, are essentially the same. In the relationships with
people section, men consider themselves about a sten higher on Persuasive than
women. Men are also more Outspoken, while women are more Caring. In the
thinking style section, men see themselves as more Evaluative and Innovative
than women, while the latter give more importance to the structure scales
(Detail Conscious and Rule Following). In addition, women are more Worrying,
while men describe themselves as more Tough Minded and Competitive.

One difference between these results and the earlier OPQ Concept Model
standardization in 1991 is between the Active and Vigorous scales. Men tend to
score higher on the Concept Active scale. This relates in large measure to a
liking for physical activity. Women have higher average scores on the revised
Vigorous scale which places more emphasis on keeping busy and general levels
of activity and avoids references to physical exertion.
Additional advice on
Apart from this change reflecting the content revision, trends are similar to those
using the
found in the standardization of the OPQ Concept Model and to the results of
questionnaires fairly other studies (Feingold, 1994). This consistency suggests they reflect real but
is provided in the small differences in the way men and women behave. Overall, the small score
Best Practice differences are likely to balance out when a particular set of scales are used in
chapter. selection. This makes adverse impact unlikely in use; however, users should
monitor their own results to ensure that neither gender group is being unduly
excluded.

4
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 1: OPQ32n scores by gender (US Data)

4 5 6 7 Male n=479
Persuasive
Female n=573
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken

Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

5
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 2: OPQ32i scores by gender

Male n=345 4 5 6 7

Persuasive
Female n=459
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken

Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Consistency

6
 13 Group Comparisons

Analysis by ethnic origin

The general occupational sample for the OPQ32n questionnaire sampled a

representative group of ethnic minority respondents with respect to the full US
population (see Norms chapter). There were 17% from ethnic minority groups
compared to 18% or more according to current US census estimates. The
OPQ32i standardization does not reflect US ethnic groups as it is based upon
UK data. As US ipsative data is collected, updates will be produced to report
ethnic origin information for the ipsative questionnaire.

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and

standard errors of measurement for the white and ethnic minority respondents
on each scale of the normative and ipsative versions of the OPQ32 respectively.
For these analyses, non-majority respondents are treated as one composite
group because sample sizes do not allow further breakdown. The standardized
difference between the average score for the two groups is also shown with its
associated significance level. This is the raw score difference as a proportion of
the whole group standard deviation. A standardized difference of 0.5 would be
equivalent to a one sten difference in average scores.

Comparing the Cronbach alpha internal consistency reliabilities for the two
groups, values are typically within 0.05 of each other for both test versions.
There are a couple of instances where the difference is .07, however, it appears
that overall, the instruments are performing in the same manner for the two
groups.

7
8
Table 3: OPQ32n scores by ethnic origin (US Data)

White (n = 868) Ethnic minority (n = 184)

Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Standardized
SEm SEm SEm SEm difference

Persuasive 22.48 5.27 0.86 2.00 0.76 22.40 5.32 0.83 2.16 0.81 0.01
Controlling 24.18 4.18 0.83 1.74 0.83 23.64 4.65 0.84 1.88 0.81 0.13
Outspoken 22.94 4.95 0.79 2.27 0.92 22.92 5.27 0.79 2.42 0.92 0.00
Independent Minded 20.96 4.29 0.71 2.31 1.08 21.45 4.84 0.74 2.47 1.02 -0.11
Outgoing 21.26 6.01 0.91 1.84 0.61 20.73 5.67 0.86 2.08 0.74 0.09*
Affiliative 22.86 5.56 0.84 2.24 0.80 22.50 5.46 0.80 2.42 0.89 0.07
Socially Confident 22.57 5.25 0.87 1.87 0.71 22.86 4.82 0.81 2.09 0.87 -0.06
Modest 19.30 4.85 0.88 1.66 0.68 19.41 5.43 0.89 1.79 0.66 -0.02
Democratic 25.91 4.36 0.77 2.10 0.96 25.92 4.90 0.80 2.22 0.90 0.00
Caring 26.74 4.33 0.73 2.25 1.04 27.39 4.32 0.73 2.24 1.04 -0.15
Data Rational 23.08 5.30 0.87 1.90 0.72 23.46 4.84 0.82 2.07 0.86 -0.07
Evaluative 26.89 4.20 0.78 1.96 0.93 25.97 4.78 0.82 2.04 0.85 0.21**
13 Group Comparisons

Behavioral 28.33 5.37 0.91 1.63 0.61 27.35 5.19 0.86 1.92 0.74 0.18*
Conventional 18.67 5.37 0.83 2.20 0.82 18.32 5.08 0.78 2.39 0.94 0.07
Conceptual 25.71 5.12 0.85 1.99 0.78 24.84 5.02 0.80 2.26 0.90 0.17*
Innovative 23.91 5.13 0.90 1.59 0.62 23.44 5.17 0.88 1.79 0.69 0.09
Variety Seeking 25.14 5.26 0.79 2.44 0.93 25.89 4.92 0.75 2.45 1.00 -0.15
Adaptable 22.99 4.81 0.84 1.90 0.79 23.20 4.47 0.78 2.10 0.94 -0.04
Forward Thinking 25.00 4.35 0.83 1.78 0.82 25.27 4.16 0.80 1.86 0.89 -0.06
Detail Conscious 25.73 5.34 0.79 2.43 0.91 26.11 5.17 0.77 2.46 0.95 -0.07
Conscientious 25.61 3.77 0.77 1.82 0.97 25.86 3.61 0.69 2.03 1.12 -0.07
Rule Following 21.29 5.25 0.88 1.83 0.70 21.70 5.23 0.86 1.97 0.75 -0.08
Relaxed 21.87 5.60 0.90 1.73 0.62 22.21 5.38 0.87 1.95 0.72 -0.06
Worrying 20.96 5.21 0.89 1.74 0.67 20.54 5.50 0.90 1.74 0.63 0.08
Tough Minded 19.55 5.66 0.90 1.78 0.63 19.89 5.63 0.88 1.94 0.69 -0.06
Optimistic 29.08 5.17 0.89 1.71 0.66 28.86 5.05 0.86 1.87 0.74 0.04
Trusting 24.72 5.52 0.88 1.89 0.68 22.64 5.43 0.81 2.36 0.87 0.37**
Emotionally Controlled 19.59 5.45 0.89 1.78 0.65 19.73 5.43 0.87 1.99 0.73 -0.03
Vigorous 28.87 4.27 0.80 1.93 0.90 28.53 4.67 0.80 2.10 0.90 0.08
Competitive 17.40 4.75 0.80 2.15 0.90 18.28 5.53 0.80 2.48 0.90 -0.18*
Achieving 26.85 5.41 0.83 2.21 0.82 27.76 4.84 0.77 2.32 0.96 -0.17*
Decisive 18.99 4.01 0.83 1.65 0.82 18.15 4.70 0.82 2.01 0.85 0.18*
Social Desirability 17.08 4.45 0.71 2.41 1.08 18.43 5.23 0.75 2.61 1.00 -0.29**

* significant at the 5% level (two-tailed)

** significant at the 1% level (two-tailed)
 Table 4: OPQ32i scores by ethnic origin (UK Data)
White (n = 719) Ethnic minority (n = 67)
Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Mean sd alpha raw score sten score Standardized
SEm SEm SEm SEm difference

Persuasive 10.77 5.08 0.82 2.16 0.85 11.27 4.32 0.75 2.16 1.00 -0.12
Controlling 11.90 5.94 0.87 2.14 0.72 11.69 5.53 0.83 2.28 0.82 0.04
Outspoken 13.32 4.84 0.78 2.27 0.94 12.88 4.75 0.77 2.28 0.96 0.09
Independent Minded 13.58 4.30 0.72 2.27 1.06 13.39 4.61 0.74 2.35 1.02 0.04
Outgoing 12.60 5.71 0.86 2.14 0.75 11.91 5.65 0.85 2.19 0.77 0.12
Affiliative 15.61 4.77 0.83 1.97 0.82 14.81 4.55 0.78 2.13 0.94 0.18
Socially Confident 12.35 5.21 0.84 2.09 0.80 11.72 4.42 0.76 2.17 0.98 0.14
Modest 13.19 4.78 0.82 2.03 0.85 12.24 4.27 0.76 2.09 0.98 0.23
Democratic 15.03 3.84 0.67 2.21 1.15 14.66 3.71 0.63 2.26 1.22 0.10
Caring 16.81 4.40 0.78 2.07 0.94 16.72 3.70 0.68 2.10 1.13 0.02
Data Rational 10.41 5.85 0.88 2.03 0.69 10.58 5.72 0.87 2.06 0.72 -0.03
Evaluative 13.88 3.77 0.67 2.16 1.15 13.73 3.78 0.65 2.23 1.18 0.04
Behavioral 15.35 5.32 0.84 2.13 0.80 14.73 4.47 0.74 2.28 1.02 0.14
Conventional 10.44 4.27 0.77 2.05 0.96 11.28 3.73 0.66 2.18 1.17 -0.23
Conceptual 12.99 5.13 0.80 2.29 0.89 14.09 4.28 0.69 2.38 1.11 -0.26
Innovative 12.23 5.84 0.88 2.02 0.69 11.97 5.02 0.83 2.07 0.82 0.05
Variety Seeking 14.98 4.08 0.71 2.20 1.08 14.88 4.14 0.71 2.23 1.08 0.02
Adaptable 15.03 4.87 0.81 2.12 0.87 14.21 4.79 0.79 2.19 0.92 0.17
Forward Thinking 12.40 4.18 0.75 2.09 1.00 14.22 4.06 0.72 2.15 1.06 -0.45**
Detail Conscious 14.03 5.30 0.81 2.31 0.87 13.85 4.85 0.76 2.37 0.98 0.04
Conscientious 16.39 4.63 0.83 1.91 0.82 16.61 4.57 0.82 1.94 0.85 -0.05
Rule Following 10.12 4.91 0.85 1.90 0.77 11.31 4.68 0.82 1.99 0.85 -0.26
Relaxed 10.82 5.47 0.85 2.12 0.77 11.37 4.22 0.70 2.31 1.10 -0.13
Worrying 12.57 5.86 0.88 2.03 0.69 11.54 5.43 0.85 2.10 0.77 0.19
Tough Minded 10.76 5.00 0.83 2.06 0.82 11.40 4.72 0.77 2.26 0.96 -0.14
Optimistic 14.73 4.61 0.79 2.11 0.92 14.57 4.34 0.76 2.12 0.98 0.04
Trusting 11.48 4.59 0.81 2.00 0.87 10.13 4.45 0.81 1.94 0.87 0.31*
13 Group Comparisons

Emotionally Controlled 11.61 5.08 0.86 1.90 0.75 12.31 4.35 0.77 2.09 0.96 -0.16
Vigorous 15.12 4.39 0.76 2.15 0.98 13.15 3.97 0.69 2.21 1.11 0.50**
Competitive 10.64 5.70 0.86 2.13 0.75 12.36 5.90 0.86 2.21 0.75 -0.30*
Achieving 13.58 4.91 0.79 2.25 0.92 15.46 4.06 0.69 2.26 1.11 -0.47**
Decisive 11.28 4.78 0.80 2.14 0.89 10.96 4.86 0.80 2.17 0.89 0.07
Consistency 28.04 6.61 23.78 7.46 0.58**

* significant at the 5% level (two-tailed)

** significant at the 1% level (two-tailed)

9
 13 Group Comparisons

Turning to the comparison of scores between the different ethnic groups, Tables
3 and 4 show that few of the score differences reach statistical significance, far
fewer than were noted when comparing the two gender groups. This is not just
a function of the smaller ethnic minority samples; the observed differences are
also smaller with only one exceeding 0.3 of a standard deviation, which would
constitute an average score difference of just over half a sten. Differences of this
order have little or no impact on the interpretation of profiles. It might be
expected that cultural differences between groups would result in large
differences in scores. However, the occupational relevance of the OPQ32
content, together with the straightforward way items are phrased, means that
people from different cultural backgrounds can relate to the questionnaires in a
similar manner.

The biggest differences are seen in the dynamism area with ethnic minority
respondents describing themselves as more Competitive and Achieving than the
white groups. They also described themselves as a little less Trusting. The white
group describe themselves as a little more Outgoing, Evaluative and Conceptual.
It is difficult to interpret such differences for the combined ethnic minority
group since it includes people from very different cultural groups.

Figures 3 and 4 plot the average sten scores for the white group and ethnic
minority group. For comparison purposes Figure 5 shows the breakdown in
scores for the UK OPQ Concept 5.2 questionnaire. This is based on a general
British population sample with large booster groups of 220 Black and 312 Asian
respondents.

The most striking feature of the figures is the small size of the differences that
do exist. Most points lie within the sten five to six band. The ipsative OPQ32i
questionnaire shows slightly larger differences than the normative. This may be
a function of the format which forces respondents to choose between different
scales and tends to increase contrasts between scores. However, the broader
spread of scores will be partly due to the greater variability of small groups, and
increasing the sample size will tend to result in scores moving towards the
general mean.

10
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 3: OPQ32n scores by ethnic origin (US Data

4 5 6 7

Persuasive White n=868

Controlling
Minority n=184

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken

Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

11
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 4: OPQ32i scores by ethnic origin (UK Data)

White n=719 4 5 6 7

Persuasive
Asian n=42
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Black n=25
Outspoken

Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Consistency

12
 13 Group Comparisons

The overall picture is one of consistent patterns but small differences overall.
These are likely to reflect some real but minor differences in the typical style of
members of different groups in a work setting. In interpreting these, it should be
remembered that the full range of sten scores occur in each group. So there is
far more variability within each group than there is between different groups
where the observed differences rarely even reach one sten in magnitude.
Differences of this order are unlikely to have much impact on selection rates for
different groups, particularly where a number of OPQ32 scales are used to make
a decision and differences are likely to cancel out. Nevertheless, it is important
that users monitor the impact of all assessment procedures to ensure fairness.
Additional advice on using questionnaires appropriately can be found in the
Best Practice chapter.

13
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 5: OPQ Concept 5.2 scores by ethnic origin (UK data)

White n=2306 4 5 6 7

Persuasive
Asian n=312

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Controlling
Black n=220
Independent

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Practical

Data Rational

Artistic

Behavioral

THINKING STYLE
Traditional

Change Orientated

Conceptual

Innovative

Forward Planning

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Emotional Control

Optimistic

Critical

Active

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

14
 13 Group Comparisons

Analysis by age

Table 5 shows the correlations of OPQ32 scale scores with the respondent’s age
for both versions of the questionnaire. In general there is a wide age range in
both the OPQ32n general population group and the OPQ32i standardization
sample (see Norms chapter). Therefore these correlations represent linear trends Graphical displays of
across the working life-span. the age trends for
the normative
The age distributions in the general occupational group are fairly reflective of
the US general population according to US Census estimates. There are sample can be found
proportionally more respondents in the 31-39 and 40-55. in the Scale
Descriptions chapter.
Due to the large samples many of the correlations with age reach significance.
However, few reach 0.2 in magnitude, and therefore, age accounts for less than
4% variance in scale scores. Figures 6 and 7 represent the age trends by
comparing profiles for two age bands for the the normative questionnaire, and
three age bands for the ipsative questionnaire. The two age bands in the
normative table are grouped to reflect US legal requirements for the Age
Discrimination Act. The three bands for the ipsative table are based upon UK
data and do not reflect the critical age 39-40 break.

The largest differences in age are within the Affiliative and Trusting scales.
Younger people report quite higher Affiliative scores than older people, while
older people report more Trusting. These findings are also consistent with the
UK ipsative findings.

Other results are less consistent across the two questionnaires and should be
replicated before being used in interpreting profiles. Several scales show
reversal trends between the two questionnaires. This may be due to the
differences in the two samples, with the normative sample from the US and the
ipsative sample from the UK. Once US ipsative data has been collected the data
will be reexamined and an update will be produced.

15
 13 Group Comparisons

The age trends found are, if anything, slightly larger than those found for gender
and ethnic groups. They are consistent with the findings of the 1990
standardization of the OPQ Concept 5.2 questionnaire. Thus, over a nine year
period there has been little change in findings. This consistency supports a
hypothesis that differences in scores between young and older respondents are
the result of maturational age trends rather than cohort effects. However, even a
decade is too short a timespan to be certain of this when we are considering
changes over a 50 year working life span. It is also possible that the observed
effects are the joint outcome of both maturational and cohort effects.

As with all the group differences flagged in this chapter, even where the effects
seem quite large, they are still much smaller than typical differences between
individuals. The full range of sten scores can be found in all age groups.
Differences of this order are unlikely to have a great impact on selection rates
for different age groups, particularly where a number of OPQ32 scales are used
together so that differences cancel out. However, it is still important to monitor
all assessment procedures to ensure fairness. Additional advice on using
questionnaires appropriately can be found in the Best Practice chapter.

16
 13 Group Comparisons

Table 5: Correlations of OPQ32 scores with age

OPQ32n OPQ32i
n = 1052 (US) n = 807 (UK)
Persuasive 0.05 -0.03
Controlling -0.02 0.10**
Outspoken 0.04 0.02
Independent Minded -0.07* -0.10**
Outgoing -0.14** -0.24**
Affiliative -0.24** -0.26**
Socially Confident -0.04 0.05
Modest 0.11** 0.17**
Democratic 0.01 0.00
Caring 0.06 -0.01

Data Rational 0.08** 0.05

Evaluative 0.10** 0.06
Behavioral -0.01 -0.07*
Conventional -0.06* 0.18**
Conceptual 0.06 -0.16**
Innovative 0.11** 0.04
Variety Seeking 0.02 -0.03
Adaptable -0.07* -0.02
Forward Thinking 0.03 0.08*
Detail Conscious -0.02 0.10**
Conscientious -0.04 0.09*
Rule Following -0.13** 0.01

Relaxed 0.02 0.00

Worrying -0.02 -0.13**
Tough Minded -0.01 0.00
Optimistic 0.08** 0.08*
Trusting 0.34** 0.10**
Emotionally Controlled 0.01 0.02
Vigorous 0.08** 0.10**
Competitive 0.00 -0.08*
Achieving -0.12** -0.21**
Decisive 0.12** 0.20**
Social Desirability/Consistency 0.07* -0.02

* Significant at the 5% level (2-tailed).

** Significant at the 1% level (2-tailed)

17
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 6: OPQ32n scores by age (US Data)

4 5 6 7
Under age 40, n=557 Persuasive

Age 40 and over, n=481 Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

Outspoken

Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Social Desirability

18
 13 Group Comparisons

Figure 7: OPQ32i scores by age (UK Data)

4 5 6 7 16-24 n=361
Persuasive
25-44 n=321
Controlling

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE

45-64 n=114
Outspoken

Independent Minded

Outgoing

Affiliative

Socially Confident

Modest

Democratic

Caring

Data Rational

Evaluative

Behavioral

Conventional

THINKING STYLE
Conceptual

Innovative

Variety Seeking

Adaptable

Forward Thinking

Detail Conscious

Conscientious

Rule Following

Relaxed

Worrying

Tough Minded
FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS

Optimistic

Trusting

Emotionally Controlled

Vigorous

Competitive

Achieving

Decisive

Consistency

19
 Appendix

Appendix
This appendix contains additional information relating to chapters of the Manual
and User’s Guide.

Appendix A: Abbreviations
Appendix B: Use of specification equations
Appendix C: Team types and leadership styles
Table 1: Intercorrelation of team types for OPQ32n and OPQ32i
Table 2: Intercorrelation of leadership and reporting styles for
OPQ32n and OPQ32i
Table 3: Intercorrelation of team types and leadership and
reporting styles for OPQ32n
Table 4: Intercorrelation of team types and leadership and
reporting styles for OPQ32i

Appendix D: The effectiveness of Consistency scores in identifying non-

consistent response patterns
Table 5 Distribution of Consistency scores: real and random data
Figure 1: Distribution of Consistency scores: real and random data

Appendix E: Item statistics

Table 6: Item partial distribution for OPQ32n and OPQ32i

Appendix F: Construct validity

Table 7: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Concept 5.2
Table 8: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Concept 5.2
Table 9: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Factor 5.2
Table 10: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and Images
Table 11: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and SHL Motivation
Questionnaire
Table 12: Intercorrelation of OPQ Concept 5.2 and 16PF5
Table 13: Intercorrelation of OPQ Concept 5.2 and NEO PI-R
Table 14: MBTI and OPQ Concept 5.2

Appendix G: The OPQ Sponsors

Appendix H: References and further reading

1
 Appendix A

Appendix A: Abbreviations

Many of the tables provided in this appendix are too large to show full scale
names to label rows and columns. The following abbreviations are used where
necessary.

SHL Instruments

OPQ32 OPQ Concept 5.2

RP1 Persuasive R1 Persuasive

RP2 Controlling R2 Controlling
RP3 Outspoken R3 Independent
RP4 Independent Minded R4 Outgoing
RP5 Outgoing R5 Affiliative
RP6 Affiliative R6 Socially Confident
RP7 Socially Confident R7 Modest
RP8 Modest R8 Democratic
RP9 Democratic R9 Caring
RP10 Caring T1 Practical
TS1 Data Rational T2 Data Rational
TS2 Evaluative T3 Artistic
TS3 Behavioral T4 Behavioral
TS4 Conventional T5 Traditional
TS5 Conceptual T6 Change Orientated
TS6 Innovative T7 Conceptual
TS7 Variety Seeking T8 Innovative
TS8 Adaptable T9 Forward Planning
TS9 Forward Thinking T10 Detail Conscious
TS10 Detail Conscious T11 Conscientious
TS11 Conscientious F1 Relaxed
TS12 Rule Following F2 Worrying
FE1 Relaxed F3 Tough Minded
FE2 Worrying F4 Emotional Control
FE3 Tough Minded F5 Optimistic
FE4 Optimistic F6 Critical
FE5 Trusting F7 Active
FE6 Emotionally Controlled F8 Competitive
FE7 Vigorous F9 Achieving
FE8 Competitive F10 Decisive
FE9 Achieving D1 Social Desirability
FE10 Decisive
SDE Social Desirability

2
 Appendix A

OPQ Factor 5.2 Motivation Questionnaire MQ.M5

PF1 Influential E1 Level of Activity

PF2 Sociable E2 Achievement
PF3 Empathic E3 Competition
PF4 Outspoken E4 Fear of Failure
TF1 Traditional E5 Power
TF2 Data Rational E6 Immersion
TF3 Conceptual E7 Commercial Outlook
TF4 Innovative S1 Affiliation
TF5 Methodical S2 Recognition
EF1 Relaxed S3 Personal Principles
EF2 Emotionally Controlled S4 Ease & Security
EF3 Optimistic S5 Personal Growth
VF1 Competitive I1 Interest
VF2 Achieving I2 Flexibility
VF3 Active I3 Autonomy
VF4 Decisive X1 Material Reward
DF1 Social Desirability X2 Progression
X3 Status

3
 Appendix A

Other instruments

16PF5 NEO PI-R MBTI

A Warmth N1 Anxiety EI Extroversion-Introversion

B Reasoning N2 Angry Hostility SN Sensing-Intuition
C Emotional Stability N3 Depression TF Thinking-Feeling
E Dominance N4 Self Consciousness JP Judging-Perceiving
F Liveliness N5 Impulsiveness
G Rule Consciousness N6 Vulnerability
H Social Boldness E1 Warmth
I Sensitivity E2 Gregariousness
L Vigilance E3 Assertiveness
M Abstractedness E4 Activity
N Privateness E5 Excitement Seeking
O Apprehension E6 Positive Emotions
Q1 Openness to Change O1 Fantasy
Q2 Self-reliance O2 Aesthetics
Q3 Perfectionism O3 Feelings
Q4 Tension O4 Actions
IM Impression Management O5 Ideas
O6 Values
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
N Neuroticism
E Extraversion
O Openness to Experience
A Agreeableness
C Conscientiousness

4
 Appendix B

Appendix B: Use of specification equations

Specification equations allow a purely statistical interpretation of OPQ32 scores,

which when based on sufficient evidence can provide effective and highly
consistent decision-making. See the Interpretation and Feedback chapter for a
discussion of statistical versus clinical interpretation. A specification equation
combines scores on a number of scales to create an overall score. This is similar to
the way financial institutions carry out credit scoring. Ideally local validation
evidence should be used to create the equation but in the absence of a sufficiently
large data set expert judgement is often used.

Such equations can form the basis for computerized expert decision systems such
as the OPQ32 Expert system. This is a complex approach requiring specialist skills.
Users may wish to engage professional help in implementation.

Expert derived specification equation

This form of specification equation is normally based on a combination of evidence

such as:

• the relationship between OPQ32 and competencies in other similar roles

• the similarity between the definition of the competency (based on job analysis)
and the definition of the OPQ32 scale (based on the judgement of OPQ expert
users
• small scale local validation

Because this approach relies on the subjective judgements of the individuals

creating the equations, it is essential that great care is taken to ensure that
irrelevant scales are not included in the equations. In general it is unusual for more
than 3-5 scales to be used.

Example

Three OPQ users independently rated the importance of different OPQ32 scales for
predicting the competency “Analysis and Problem Solving” based on a job analysis
of the role and validation evidence from similar roles. They subsequently met and
agreed that three scales were important in predicting performance on the
competency;

• Conceptual
• Evaluative
• Data Rational

5
 Appendix B

While the job analysis indicated that there was a numerical reasoning component
to this competency, other forms of reasoning were identified as more important to
the role, handling written information in particular. This led the group to give Data
Rational a lower weighting. The final equation they specified was:

(2 x Conceptual) + (2 x Evaluative) + (1 x Data Rational)

Therefore a candidate with a Sten score of 4 on Conceptual, 5 on Evaluative, and 7

on Data Rational will have a total score of 25.

Total Score = (2 x 4) + (2 x 5) + (1 x 7)
= 8 + 10 + 7
= 25

The range of values the total score can take will differ depending on the equation.
For this reason it is often helpful to express these scores on a standard scale such
as the sten scale.

Analytically derived specification equation

Where sufficient samples are available, multiple regression or discriminant function

analysis can be used to derive equations.

Example

A validation study was conducted on 147 job incumbents. They each completed
the OPQ32i questionnaire and were rated on a teamworking competency by their
direct line manager.

Eight OPQ scales were chosen as potential predictors by an expert judge:

Outspoken
Affiliative
Democratic
Caring
Evaluative
Behavioral
Adaptable
Competitive

A multiple linear regression analysis was used to derive the equation which best
predicted competency ratings (expressed on a 1-5 scale) from sten scores on these
scales.

6
 Appendix B/C

The final equation derived was

Rating = (0.19 x Democratic) + (0.25 x Caring) - (0.13 x Competitive) + 1.4

Therefore if a candidate scored Sten 3 on Democratic, Sten 4 on Caring and Sten 8

on Competitive the (rounded) competency rating is 2.

Rating = 0.19 x 3 + 0.25 x 4 - 0.13 x 8 + 1.4

= 0.57 + 1 - 1.04 + 1.4

= 1.93

Appendix C:Team types and leadership styles

Table 1: Intercorrelation of team types for OPQ32n and OPQ32i

Team types are described in the Expert System chapter. The Team Type
intercorrelations are calculated on the managerial and professional groups described
in the Norms chapter. The correlations for OPQ32n (n = 1053) are in the upper part
of the table. Those for OPQ32i (n = 329) are in the lower part of the table.

Monitor- Resource Team

Co-ordinator Shaper Plant Evaluator Investigator Completer Worker Implementer

Coordinator 0.24 0.12 0.04 0.73 -0.02 -0.23 0.34

Shaper 0.02 0.33 -0.04 0.34 -0.06 -0.69 -0.26
Plant 0.01 0.36 0.23 0.19 -0.22 -0.38 -0.32
Monitor-Evaluator -0.32 -0.17 0.07 -0.28 0.48 -0.42 0.41
Resource Investigator 0.36 0.09 0.10 -0.65 -0.35 -0.18 -0.06
Completer -0.31 -0.23 -0.40 0.47 -0.71 -0.02 0.69
Team Worker 0.03 -0.60 -0.35 -0.30 0.22 0.10 0.06
Implementer -0.09 -0.48 -0.57 0.40 -0.64 0.76 0.17

7
8
Table 2: Intercorrelation of leadership and reporting styles for OPQ32n and OPQ32i

Leadership and reporting styles are described in the Expert System chapter. The intercorrelations are calculated on the
managerial and professional groups described in the Norms chapter. The correlations for OPQ32n (n = 1053) are in the
upper part of the table. Those for OPQ32i (n = 329) are in the lower part of the table.
Appendix C

Directive Receptive Delegative Self-Reliant Participative Collaborating Consultative Informative Negotiative Reciprocating
Leader Report Leader Report Leader Report Leader Report Leader Report

Directive Leader -0.64 -0.13 0.82 -0.22 -0.03 0.33 0.19 0.35 0.76
Receptive Report -0.55 -0.03 -0.68 0.10 -0.07 -0.38 -0.35 -0.47 -0.66
Delegative Leader -0.14 0.05 -0.15 -0.35 -0.32 -0.54 -0.23 0.04 -0.13
Self-Reliant Report 0.62 -0.50 -0.18 -0.11 -0.03 0.42 0.19 0.47 0.67
Participative Leader -0.70 0.23 -0.21 -0.47 0.89 0.72 0.43 0.47 0.23
Collaborating Report -0.40 0.00 -0.22 -0.43 0.84 0.75 0.56 0.44 0.44
Consultative Leader -0.08 -0.35 -0.62 0.08 0.55 0.60 0.56 0.51 0.62
Informative Report -0.12 -0.27 -0.10 -0.09 0.09 0.23 0.26 0.38 0.40
Negotiative Leader -0.14 -0.25 0.23 -0.01 0.35 0.28 0.05 -0.10 0.71
Reciprocating Report 0.63 -0.62 -0.09 0.23 -0.18 0.20 0.23 -0.05 0.38
 Appendix C

Table 3: Intercorrelation of team types and leadership and reporting

styles for OPQ32n

Team types and leadership styles are described in the Expert System chapter. The
intercorrelations for OPQ32n are calculated on the managerial and professional
norm group (n = 1053) described in the Norms chapter.

Monitor- Resource Team

Coordinator Shaper Plant Evaluator Investigator Completer Worker Implementer

Directive Leader 0.54 0.69 0.23 0.22 0.30 0.04 -0.74 0.15
Receptive Report -0.34 -0.75 -0.59 -0.21 -0.43 0.33 0.76 0.40
Delegative Leader -0.33 -0.15 -0.03 -0.17 0.02 -0.35 -0.20 -0.30
Self-Reliant Report 0.50 0.66 0.35 0.26 0.36 0.11 -0.68 0.10
Participative Leader 0.47 -0.06 -0.04 -0.30 0.63 -0.12 0.48 0.14
Collaborating Report 0.55 0.13 -0.02 -0.33 0.71 -0.18 0.27 0.11
Consultative Leader 0.75 0.37 0.19 0.01 0.70 -0.06 -0.05 0.15
Informative Report 0.44 0.23 0.39 0.29 0.43 0.07 -0.27 0.19
Negotiative Leader 0.58 0.45 0.29 -0.06 0.75 -0.11 -0.35 0.00
Reciprocating Report 0.76 0.65 0.25 0.00 0.76 -0.15 -0.59 0.08

Table 4: Intercorrelation of team types and leadership and reporting

styles for OPQ32i

Team types and leadership styles are described in the Expert System chapter. The
intercorrelations for OPQ32i are calculated on the managerial and professional
norm group (n = 329) described in the Norms chapter.

Monitor- Resource Team

Coordinator Shaper Plant Evaluator Investigator Completer Worker Implementer

Directive Leader 0.35 0.58 0.22 0.09 -0.22 -0.11 -0.74 -0.05
Receptive Report -0.20 -0.70 -0.66 -0.06 -0.25 0.53 0.66 0.67
Delegative Leader -0.35 -0.20 -0.03 -0.16 0.22 -0.29 -0.18 -0.17
Self-Reliant Report 0.07 0.51 0.30 0.20 -0.30 0.10 -0.52 -0.08
Participative Leader 0.07 -0.25 -0.11 -0.37 0.54 -0.21 0.81 -0.20
Collaborating Report 0.30 0.00 -0.08 -0.46 0.67 -0.35 0.53 -0.27
Consultative Leader 0.38 0.25 0.23 -0.09 0.32 -0.26 0.23 -0.34
Informative Report -0.13 0.01 0.41 0.33 -0.05 0.01 -0.15 -0.16
Negotiative Leader 0.07 0.19 0.21 -0.35 0.53 -0.34 0.02 -0.40
Reciprocating Report 0.59 0.54 0.25 -0.30 0.46 -0.51 -0.48 -0.36

9
 Appendix D

Appendix D:The effectiveness of Consistency scores in

identifying non-consistent response patterns

For the OPQ32i questionnaire, a Consistency score is provided to show whether a

respondent has answered in a consistent manner. People who answer the
questionnaire honestly and accurately will tend to respond in a consistent manner
when presented with similar items. However, people who are trying to distort their
answers, or choosing those items they think will be viewed most positively, or not
paying attention to the way they are answering will tend to be inconsistent in their
answers to different questions.

In order to check whether the Consistency score can effectively identify non-
consistent response sets, some random data were generated and compared with
real candidate responses (OPQ32i standardization sample, n = 807; see Norms
chapter). Statistical software was used to generate 500 random response sets on
OPQ32i. The results for both the real and random data were normed using the real
data as a comparison group. The distributions of consistency scores for the two
groups were compared and the results are shown in Table 5 and Figure 1. The
consistency score clearly differentiates between the real and random data.

Table 5: Distribution of Consistency scores - real and random data

Percentage of sample
Consistency Sten Real data n = 807 Random data n = 500

1 3.8 100
2 2.5 0
3 5.4 0
4 11.3 0
5 12.6 0
6 20.7 0
7 26.4 0
8 10.3 0
9 7.0 0
10 0.3 0

10
 Appendix D

Figure 1: Distribution of Consistency scores - real and random data

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
real data
40%
random data

30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
sten

11
 Appendix E

Appendix E: Item statistics

The following table shows the minimum, maximum and mean item partial for each
scale and version of the questionnaire. Scale means, sds and reliabilities are
provided for comparison purposes. See Reliability chapter for further discussion.

Table 6: Item partial distributions for OPQ32n and OPQ32i

OPQ32n OPQ32i
General population (n = 2028) Standardization (n = 807)

Scale mean SD alpha Item partials mean SD alpha Item partials

min max mean min max mean

Persuasive 19.83 4.40 0.76 0.36 0.60 0.50 10.88 5.00 0.82 0.25 0.56 0.45
Controlling 21.04 4.80 0.84 0.54 0.73 0.62 11.96 5.91 0.87 0.28 0.65 0.54
Outspoken 21.73 4.90 0.76 0.33 0.57 0.45 13.33 4.80 0.78 0.29 0.52 0.40
Independent Minded 21.17 4.51 0.70 0.25 0.45 0.39 13.61 4.31 0.72 0.16 0.49 0.34
Outgoing 20.54 5.07 0.84 0.56 0.67 0.62 12.55 5.72 0.86 0.33 0.65 0.52
Affiliative 22.57 5.38 0.81 0.45 0.64 0.54 15.49 4.78 0.83 0.40 0.57 0.47
Socially Confident 20.49 4.97 0.85 0.53 0.73 0.64 12.33 5.14 0.84 0.31 0.61 0.49
Modest 19.13 4.53 0.84 0.44 0.73 0.62 13.10 4.72 0.82 0.37 0.55 0.46
Democratic 23.94 4.00 0.65 0.26 0.45 0.34 14.98 3.82 0.67 0.15 0.40 0.29
Caring 25.65 4.34 0.72 0.36 0.49 0.42 16.76 4.35 0.78 0.27 0.49 0.40
Data Rational 19.74 4.73 0.80 0.37 0.69 0.55 10.36 5.84 0.88 0.39 0.69 0.56
Evaluative 22.95 4.23 0.70 0.22 0.54 0.39 13.87 3.79 0.67 0.15 0.41 0.30
Behavioral 24.72 5.21 0.84 0.44 0.64 0.57 15.28 5.24 0.83 0.33 0.57 0.48
Conventional 21.24 4.57 0.74 0.21 0.63 0.44 10.50 4.22 0.76 0.13 0.53 0.38
Conceptual 21.58 4.84 0.78 0.29 0.57 0.48 13.04 5.05 0.79 0.28 0.52 0.42
Innovative 21.23 4.61 0.84 0.55 0.66 0.61 12.21 5.76 0.88 0.44 0.64 0.56
Variety Seeking 21.96 4.60 0.70 0.28 0.49 0.39 15.01 4.09 0.71 0.20 0.46 0.33
Adaptable 21.10 4.05 0.73 0.27 0.57 0.47 14.94 4.85 0.81 0.05 0.56 0.44
Forward Thinking 22.32 4.14 0.78 0.43 0.62 0.52 12.54 4.18 0.75 0.26 0.47 0.37
Detail Conscious 24.23 5.04 0.76 0.38 0.53 0.46 13.97 5.25 0.81 0.29 0.60 0.44
Conscientious 24.24 3.71 0.74 0.28 0.60 0.49 16.40 4.58 0.82 0.37 0.55 0.46
Rule Following 22.07 4.71 0.84 0.50 0.71 0.63 10.21 4.87 0.85 0.39 0.58 0.50
Relaxed 20.96 5.14 0.86 0.46 0.77 0.66 10.88 5.37 0.85 0.36 0.61 0.50
Worrying 23.07 4.75 0.86 0.52 0.76 0.65 12.45 5.83 0.88 0.33 0.63 0.55
Tough Minded 17.90 5.09 0.87 0.61 0.72 0.66 10.83 4.99 0.82 0.36 0.57 0.47
Optimistic 23.77 5.45 0.83 0.49 0.64 0.56 14.68 4.60 0.79 0.30 0.55 0.42
Trusting 20.60 5.58 0.84 0.44 0.67 0.58 11.33 4.58 0.81 0.39 0.53 0.44
Emotionally Controlled 20.96 4.50 0.79 0.39 0.64 0.54 11.66 5.02 0.85 0.45 0.56 0.51
Vigorous 26.33 4.52 0.79 0.35 0.65 0.50 14.96 4.38 0.76 0.23 0.52 0.38
Competitive 15.49 4.17 0.77 0.40 0.59 0.52 10.85 5.78 0.86 0.35 0.65 0.53
Achieving 20.57 5.73 0.81 0.23 0.65 0.52 13.77 4.84 0.79 0.23 0.57 0.41
Decisive 18.82 3.96 0.76 0.37 0.63 0.50 11.27 4.78 0.80 0.24 0.57 0.43
Social Desirability 20.93 4.40 0.63 0.20 0.50 0.33

12
 Appendix F

Appendix F: Construct Validity

Table 7: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Concept 5.2

(n = 505; see Construct Validity, study 4)

OPQ32n mean sd Concept 5.2 mean sd

RP1 22.48 4.41 R1 22.95 5.61
RP2 22.25 4.82 R2 23.41 6.32
RP3 22.72 5.20 R3 26.07 4.36
RP4 22.28 4.94 R4 22.54 6.91
RP5 21.98 5.49 R5 27.57 4.28
RP6 24.87 4.94 R6 22.63 6.29
RP7 22.45 5.11 R7 18.91 5.41
RP8 18.08 4.62 R8 24.55 4.14
RP9 26.48 3.63 R9 27.97 4.17
RP10 26.46 4.30 T1 23.26 6.47
TS1 19.87 5.25 T2 19.93 7.67
TS2 24.91 4.63 T3 25.09 6.42
TS3 28.57 4.95 T4 28.16 4.36
TS4 17.87 4.51 T5 18.20 4.37
TS5 25.69 4.52 T6 25.97 4.12
TS6 23.11 4.59 T7 24.57 4.71
TS7 25.18 4.56 T8 24.14 5.79
TS8 23.78 4.14 T9 22.96 4.41
TS9 23.81 4.34 T10 23.83 5.88
TS10 23.79 6.01 T11 25.64 5.71
TS11 24.17 4.28 F1 19.92 6.33
TS12 19.75 2.50 F2 23.52 4.94
FE1 21.62 5.16 F3 16.90 6.67
FE2 22.82 4.67 F4 20.21 6.48
FE3 18.28 5.83 F5 25.73 5.76
FE4 26.67 5.80 F6 24.29 4.10
FE5 21.33 5.40 F7 23.05 6.28
FE6 20.94 5.29 F8 16.13 5.16
FE7 22.10 2.39 F9 20.18 5.12
FE8 16.32 4.89 F10 17.77 5.34
FE9 27.82 4.83 D1 16.81 4.00
FE10 18.08 4.31
SDE 18.67 2.45

13
14
Table 7 (continued): Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Concept 5.2 (n = 505; see Construct Validity, study 4)

Concept 5.2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 D1

OPQ32n

RP1 .87 .55 .30 .47 .25 .47 -.22 .14 .09 .17 .06 .12 .23 -.10 .30 .23 .41 .29 .12 .26 .10 -.11 .17 -.20 .20 .33 .16 .29 .35 .19 .04
RP2 .60 .94 .44 .52 .14 .54 -.22 -.02 .06 .17 .15 .14 .22 -.17 .31 .28 .39 .48 .29 .30 .24 -.22 .23 -.19 .28 .43 .21 .38 .41 .27 .09
RP3 .43 .45 .52 .48 .13 .41 -.38 -.04 -.07 .06 .05 .08 .13 -.16 .16 .18 .26 .14 .07 .06 .13 -.24 .16 -.42 .14 .39 .08 .33 .27 .25 -.08
Appendix F

RP4 .25 .29 .64 .17 -.09 .19 -.13 -.25 .00 .02 .04 .08 .21 -.27 .14 .28 .26 .15 .05 .02 .06 -.19 .10 -.09 .07 .36 .03 .34 .31 .25 -.05
RP5 .53 .51 .38 .91 .44 .69 -.39 .08 .10 .05 -.05 .14 .18 -.14 .32 .17 .27 .08 -.04 .07 .13 -.25 .12 -.43 .36 .24 .17 .18 .23 .31 .00
RP6 .25 .19 .01 .41 .82 .33 -.18 .21 .26 .00 -.04 .11 .09 -.03 .17 .06 .10 -.02 -.08 .08 .10 -.07 .04 -.24 .25 .01 .12 -.06 .04 .10 .06
RP7 .47 .52 .30 .65 .28 .84 -.19 .06 .11 .14 .12 .21 .19 -.12 .41 .21 .27 .29 .15 .18 .30 -.36 .21 -.26 .44 .29 .22 .13 .28 .23 .20
RP8 -.23 -.23 -.15 -.31 -.20 -.24 .89 .08 .06 -.01 -.05 .02 -.05 .04 -.06 -.08 -.06 .01 .06 .02 -.02 .12 -.07 .30 -.13 -.09 -.01 -.18 -.12 -.16 .26
RP9* .09 .00 -.08 .05 .24 .08 .07 .78 .32 .08 .05 .22 .31 .02 .13 .13 .14 .21 .19 .26 -.05 .11 -.06 -.10 .12 .04 .09 -.26 -.03 -.34 .15
RP10 .20 .14 .06 .18 .32 .17 .01 .33 .84 .00 -.05 .31 .38 -.02 .17 .16 .08 .19 .10 .23 -.07 .13 -.21 -.17 .17 .01 -.02 -.25 -.06- .14 .25
TS1 .04 .17 .03 -.03 -.09 .06 .00 .05 -.09 .27 .96 -.09 -.07 -.03 .07 .14 .09 .29 .19 .21 .16 -.13 .18 .18 .02 .08 .08 .13 .20 .01 .10
TS2 .38 .45 .36 .23 .09 .26 -.07 .02 .06 .14 .18 .27 .40 -.22 .24 .47 .45 .50 .31 .27 .07 -.03 .08 -.12 .08 .63 .13 .24 .34 .01 .08
TS3 .21 .17 .25 .18 .19 .13 -.04 .19 .36 -.02 -.02 .38 .85 -.10 .19 .45 .26 .27 .09 .07 -.07 .08 -.17 -.13 .04 .27 -.01 -.02 .20 -.08 .04
TS4 -.20 -.23 -.27 -.21 -.07 -.24 .02 -.02 -.02 -.07 -.06 -.13 -.12 .84 -.38 -.22 -.30 -.10 .03 .00 -.15 .19 -.13 .05 -.22 -.24 -.12 -.16 -.26 -.15 -.09
TS5 .26 .30 .36 .22 .16 .24 -.09 .06 .15 .02 .18 .41 .47 -.24 .24 .97 .40 .31 .08 .11 .00 -.03 -.01 -.11 .05 .40 .03 .11 .21 -.05 .05
TS6 .37 .37 .37 .29 .14 .30 -.08 .04 .00 .27 .12 .28 .24 -.27 .30 .40 .93 .26 .06 .12 .12 -.15 .12 -.13 .16 .35 .17 .19 .32 .16 .12
TS7 .16 .23 .25 .26 .14 .27 -.05 -.02 .01 .09 .00 .16 .11 -.39 .62 .11 .27 .04 -.09 .02 .18 -.16 .09 -.05 .25 .20 .25 .19 .29 .17 .11
TS8 .07 .04 -.02 .06 .08 .00 -.13 .09 .00 .05 .04 -.06 .11 .03 .07 .04 -.02 .06 .05 .07 -.05 .12 .00 .06 -.03 .01 .09 .05 .11 -.08 -.14
TS9 .29 .36 .21 .15 -.01 .23 -.03 .10 .13 .10 .18 .17 .27 -.02 .18 .27 .25 .63 .42 .41 .00 .04 -.01 -.06 .12 .34 .08 .16 .40 -.05 .16
TS10 .13 .30 .07 .03 -.02 .12 .10 .13 .12 .16 .16 .08 .13 .07 .03 .05 .06 .60 .95 .57 .00 .06 .01 .00 .05 .17 .10 .12 .25 -.25 .20
TS11 .26 .34 .15 .17 .13 .23 .09 .18 .21 .17 .13 .15 .14 -.02 .14 .10 .20 .52 .57 .82 .07 -.01 .04 -.05 .24 .19 .17 .08 .33 -.11 .26
TS12* -.11 -.05 -.24 -.16 -.01 -.11 .12 .17 .11 -.05 .08 -.08 -.04 .34 -.28 -.11 -.20 .13 .29 .38 -.09 .18 -.06 .03 -.03 -.19 -.09 -.13 -.09 -.29 .09
FE1 .18 .18 .12 .25 .11 .34 -.05 .04 -.03 .16 .11 -.08 -.06 -.11 .24 .01 .11 .07 -.05 .03 .85 -.58 .44 .03 .56 .12 .18 -.02 -.01 .25 .17
FE2 -.24 -.29 -.25 -.32 .01 -.51 .09 .11 .10 -.14 -.12 -.05 .01 .18 -.25 -.14 -.19 -.16 -.04 -.05 -.52 .77 -.41 .02 -.29 -.25 -.15 -.17 -.15 -.30 -.17
FE3 .20 .22 .19 .18 -.04 .30 -.02 .00 -.18 .25 .14 -.08 -.16 -.14 .20 .06 .17 .13 .02 .04 .53 -.50 .91 .17 .27 .20 .20 .15 .11 .22 .19
FE4 .24 .26 .16 .37 .26 .41 -.14 .12 .14 .06 .05 .11 .06 -.13 .31 .04 .16 .13 .02 .19 .47 -.36 .21 -.15 .94 .04 .18 -.04 .15 .19 .18
FE5 .05 .06 -.05 .10 .29 .15 -.01 .26 .22 .05 -.03 .16 .04 .01 .04 .06 .09 -.03 -.05 .08 .12 -.06 .02 -.16 .31 -.27 .01 -.27 -.13 .03 .14
FE6 -.14 -.14 -.06 -.34 -.29 -.24 .29 -.09 -.15 .07 .20 -.14 -.15 .05 .00 -.04 -.09 .08 .04 .00 .17 -.04 .25 .91 -.12 -.01 .06 .05 .04 -.09 .10
FE7* .28 .32 .18 .31 .19 .36 -.03 .14 .01 .20 .13 .11 .08 -.10 .38 .08 .29 .28 .18 .29 .31 -.19 .20 -.01 .39 .19 .67 .13 .31 .20 .18
FE8 .21 .22 .11 .06 -.21 .06 -.16 -.30 -.35 .00 .12 -.20 -.09 -.06 .02 .04 .07 .06 .12 .05 .05 -.06 .14 .07 -.05 .18 .06 .87 .44 .18 -.06
FE9* .37 .45 .32 .26 .05 .28 -.12 -.05 -.01 .06 .15 .10 .23 -.13 .28 .20 .28 .46 .33 .36 .01 .03 .01 -.10 .18 .31 .18 .43 .77 .08 .07
FE10 .26 .28 .27 .32 .07 .29 -.24 -.22 -.13 .07 .02 -.02 -.09 -.16 .16 -.03 .15 -.13 -.23 -.11 .27 -.34 .25 -.14 .23 .09 .12 .24 .15 .91 -.05
SDE* .11 .18 -.04 .08 -.01 .20 .24 .14 .15 .11 .13 .12 .09 -.03 .18 .06 .13 .38 .30 .26 .16 -.13 .04 .07 .17 .11 .07 -.01 .19 -.10 .77

Correlations of magnitude 0.11 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.09 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
* Some items differ from final version
 Appendix F

Table 8: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Concept 5.2

(n = 121; see Construct Validity, study 4)

OPQ32n mean sd Concept 5.2 mean sd

RP1 19.86 4.88 R1 20.71 5.01
RP2 20.97 4.98 R2 21.07 6.54
RP3 21.83 5.30 R3 24.77 4.45
RP4 21.65 5.19 R4 19.32 6.08
RP5 19.64 4.62 R5 24.65 5.18
RP6 22.50 5.67 R6 19.63 6.99
RP7 19.62 5.21 R7 20.50 5.39
RP8 18.74 4.41 R8 23.07 4.53
RP9 24.38 4.57 R9 26.34 5.27
RP10 25.35 5.05 T1 24.40 6.12
TS1 20.36 4.15 T2 19.68 6.09
TS2 23.61 4.52 T3 20.70 6.95
TS3 24.68 5.87 T4 24.60 4.86
TS4 21.81 4.94 T5 21.96 4.37
TS5 21.74 4.86 T6 22.12 4.29
TS6 21.61 4.63 T7 21.04 4.55
TS7 21.00 4.81 T8 22.75 5.84
TS8 21.08 4.07 T9 22.93 4.07
TS9 22.88 4.30 T10 25.34 4.45
TS10 25.12 4.68 T11 25.69 4.64
TS11 24.27 3.62 F1 19.52 6.20
TS12 22.70 5.08 F2 23.65 5.11
FE1 21.09 5.22 F3 17.20 6.04
FE2 23.31 4.87 F4 19.92 6.06
FE3 18.12 5.27 F5 23.37 5.66
FE4 23.81 6.00 F6 22.49 4.12
FE5 21.07 6.07 F7 20.36 5.73
FE6 20.43 5.00 F8 15.64 4.37
FE7 26.28 5.14 F9 17.16 4.68
FE8 15.87 4.43 F10 18.18 4.62
FE9 21.38 6.06 D1 18.49 3.87
FE10 18.70 3.75
SDE 17.65 4.15

15
16
Table 8 (continued): Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and OPQ Concept 5.2 (n = 121; see Construct Validity, study 4)

Concept 5.2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 D1

OPQ32n

RP1 .87 .49 .32 .51 .36 .54 -.20 .15 .15 .16 .23 .07 .13 -.17 .34 .20 .38 .38 .15 .25 .22 -.34 .18 -.20 .28 .12 .24 .28 .41 .31 .09
RP2 .62 .95 .38 .43 .19 .36 -.27 .05 .03 .25 .15 .02 .15 -.12 .31 .25 .44 .41 .10 .29 .16 -.28 .08 -.37 .22 .32 .39 .34 .38 .46 -.16
RP3 .38 .56 .51 .27 .08 .17 -.40 -.03 -.13 .12 .04 .01 .15 -.14 .09 .15 .36 .26 .00 .16 .18 -.27 .18 -.40 .05 .35 .24 .25 .28 .47 -.26
Appendix F

RP4 .27 .23 .66 .19 -.13 .12 -.08 -.26 -.14 .17 .04 .19 .11 -.22 .19 .20 .43 .31 .06 .20 .07 -.21 .11 -.14 .11 .22 .01 .25 .38 .42 -.05
RP5 .31 .34 .32 .88 .44 .67 -.26 .06 .18 .14 .01 .24 .23 -.20 .40 .31 .40 .33 .06 .05 .26 -.30 .05 -.43 .37 .04 .25 .01 .27 .27 .01
RP6 .22 .18 -.04 .54 .86 .55 -.24 .46 .46 -.07 .06 .15 .12 -.19 .36 .14 .12 .12 -.05 .03 .27 -.23 .10 -.46 .42 -.19 .24 -.16 .04 -.02 .25
RP7 .43 .33 .22 .73 .48 .86 -.15 .19 .21 -.02 .19 .23 .15 -.17 .43 .23 .24 .32 .18 .17 .45 -.53 .23 -.37 .45 -.02 .29 .09 .29 .24 .16
RP8 -.31 -.23 -.25 -.31 -.29 -.26 .90 -.22 -.14 -.04 .02 -.07 -.10 .07 -.05 -.02 -.20 -.13 -.09 .01 -.07 .05 .12 .38 -.17 -.05 -.20 -.09 -.14 -.17 .13
RP9 .16 .04 -.01 .08 .51 .19 -.05 .83 .62 -.07 -.03 .20 .34 .04 .15 .04 -.06 .09 .13 .02 .13 .01 -.09 -.08 .29 .02 -.01 -.36 -.23 -.29 .18
RP10 .18 .13 .11 .19 .55 .24 -.07 .53 .90 .00 .02 .39 .53 -.23 .35 .31 .15 .30 .30 .22 .01 .01 -.14 -.14 .37 .06 .17 -.41 .00 -.10 .29
TS1 .21 .19 .04 .06 .09 .23 -.03 -.01 .06 -.11 .92 -.02 .18 -.05 .23 .29 .08 .32 .32 .30 .20 -.07 .16 .08 .16 .22 .25 .17 .33 .12 -.15
TS2 .27 .44 .36 .07 -.07 .07 -.02 .00 .14 .17 .22 .29 .41 -.10 .33 .43 .43 .57 .36 .43 .04 -.10 .04 -.03 .18 .64 .13 .09 .33 .21 -.25
TS3 .17 .17 .32 .15 .29 .17 -.10 .34 .63 .09 .15 .52 .86 -.22 .35 .47 .31 .49 .28 .25 .10 -.03 -.05 -.15 .40 .41 .10 -.30 .15 -.02 -.11
TS4 -.09 -.10 -.25 -.23 -.13 -.14 -.01 .06 -.11 -.21 -.11 -.20 -.09 .85 -.45 -.40 -.32 -.24 .00 -.10 -.15 .31 -.18 -.03 -.26 -.21 -.17 -.01 -.38 -.40 -.02
TS5 .26 .33 .30 .33 .18 .35 .00 .11 .32 .05 .29 .49 .54 -.37 .44 .97 .35 .46 .18 .19 .08 -.14 .04 -.09 .27 .42 .12 -.01 .39 .16 -.10
TS6 .38 .41 .34 .38 .17 .23 -.28 -.06 .11 .39 .05 .31 .26 -.29 .38 .32 .93 .58 .24 .40 .12 -.20 .11 -.19 .32 .29 .24 .08 .42 .38 -.08
TS7 .25 .25 .30 .29 .19 .23 .06 .03 .13 .33 .04 .29 .11 -.42 .61 .30 .41 .31 .08 .17 .16 -.33 .30 -.03 .32 .22 .20 -.08 .38 .28 .18
TS8 -.14 .00 -.08 -.22 -.10 -.26 -.17 .06 .04 -.08 -.08 .11 .08 -.04 -.07 .11 -.05 -.16 -.03 -.09 -.16 .29 -.27 .13 -.10 .08 -.04 -.01 -.13 -.07 -.45
TS9 .30 .38 .30 .35 .21 .33 -.15 .02 .28 .15 .25 .25 .34 -.10 .39 .24 .48 .62 .37 .40 .14 -.17 -.01 -.21 .49 .19 .34 .06 .49 .26 -.11
TS10 .12 .18 .12 .03 -.01 .13 -.06 -.03 .20 .11 .24 .10 .24 .00 .18 .12 .26 .45 .92 .60 .13 -.05 .06 .04 .20 .24 .30 .07 .16 .12 .00
TS11 .21 .24 .14 .16 .11 .22 -.03 -.09 .17 .17 .22 .10 .19 -.06 .15 .10 .31 .43 .58 .78 .10 -.10 .06 -.02 .26 .14 .24 .11 .28 .19 .09
TS12 -.03 -.15 -.13 -.12 -.02 .00 .17 .11 .18 -.12 .04 .05 .04 .47 -.18 -.08 -.15 .03 .25 .29 -.05 .17 -.17 -.03 .03 -.17 -.09 -.15 -.22 -.32 .32
FE1 .07 .08 .14 .23 .25 .39 -.04 .19 .06 -.07 .11 -.01 .00 -.06 .18 -.06 .08 -.05 -.07 .02 .84 -.49 .36 -.08 .51 .08 .10 -.08 -.04 .12 .11
FE2 -.31 -.32 -.25 -.54 -.25 -.65 -.01 -.03 -.03 -.03 -.17 -.16 -.06 .21 -.35 -.20 -.23 -.26 -.03 -.09 -.59 .81 -.40 .28 -.42 -.09 -.13 -.11 -.25 -.32 -.11
FE3 -.02 .08 .06 .13 .20 .27 .15 -.01 .01 .07 .24 .01 -.04 -.17 .24 .06 .14 .15 .00 .09 .55 -.57 .88 .04 .34 .08 .14 -.10 .12 .19 .20
FE4 .21 .20 .25 .42 .38 .44 -.18 .23 .39 .04 .23 .37 .38 -.27 .47 .29 .35 .36 .22 .28 .50 -.28 .15 -.11 .93 .13 .26 -.07 .41 .18 .04
FE5 .09 .06 -.14 .23 .51 .34 .04 .45 .35 -.16 -.03 .13 .02 -.05 .20 .02 .02 -.01 .02 -.02 .20 -.14 .12 -.16 .37 -.40 .02 -.20 -.08 -.08 .25
FE6 -.23 -.35 .03 -.42 -.43 -.35 .35 -.20 -.20 .05 .15 -.16 -.20 .00 -.14 -.09 -.21 -.13 -.05 -.02 -.02 .07 .12 .85 -.12 .15 -.17 .06 .03 -.11 -.03
FE7 .23 .36 .23 .20 .27 .24 -.04 .09 .13 .27 .31 -.03 .07 -.19 .31 .16 .28 .41 .33 .54 .14 -.23 .20 -.08 .35 .11 .45 .11 .31 .18 .10
FE8 .28 .15 -.08 .04 -.18 .04 -.01 -.35 -.46 .05 .08 -.14 -.24 .06 -.13 -.06 .00 -.02 -.05 .01 -.06 -.08 .05 .14 -.15 .01 .09 .84 .22 .26 -.22
FE9 .41 .54 .40 .44 .23 .37 -.25 .06 .17 .31 .40 .23 .31 -.28 .53 .39 .51 .58 .28 .43 .08 -.19 .11 -.15 .43 .31 .42 .16 .71 .34 -.08
FE10 .24 .26 .12 .20 -.05 .11 -.19 -.24 -.18 .15 .07 .00 -.07 -.40 .20 .15 .35 .16 .03 .11 .10 -.33 .06 -.13 .07 .08 .16 .37 .32 .81 -.14
SDE .05 -.21 -.09 .05 .20 .15 .25 .19 .23 -.03 -.09 -.01 -.13 .01 .06 -.08 -.09 -.12 .15 .12 .20 -.13 .16 .01 .14 -.23 -.04 -.23 -.17 -.15 .89

Correlations of magnitude 0.23 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.18 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
 OPQ32n Factor 5.2 PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4 TF1 TF2 TF3 TF4 TF5 EF1 EF2 EF3 VF1 VF2 VF3 VF4 DF1
mean 25.27 25.34 29.55 26.80 26.25 23.77 24.54 25.55 28.55 22.32 26.09 27.62 18.48 20.53 25.27 23.63 22.56
mean sd 6.13 6.35 3.77 4.29 4.28 6.97 4.75 5.82 4.18 4.64 5.01 5.02 4.68 5.09 5.47 5.18 4.15

Persuasive 19.58 4.72 .51 .46 .07 .30 -.25 .20 .25 .44 .17 .20 -.18 .24 .36 .45 .16 .29 .02
Controlling 21.10 4.87 .92 .43 .13 .44 -.32 .30 .31 .53 .34 .28 -.13 .30 .33 .46 .27 .44 .00
Outspoken 21.52 4.93 .42 .42 -.02 .63 -.27 .19 .22 .31 .13 .20 -.33 .08 .26 .27 .12 .31 -.16
Independent Minded 21.33 4.47 .28 .15 .01 .68 -.36 .14 .27 .30 .06 .12 -.08 -.02 .14 .21 .12 .24 -.07
Outgoing 20.12 5.06 .39 .73 .13 .31 -.32 .04 .14 .33 .08 .17 -.44 .24 .16 .19 .14 .31 -.10
Affiliative 22.51 5.46 .13 .43 .25 .01 -.04 -.05 .06 .05 .10 .11 -.25 .30 -.04 .02 .07 .00 .08
Socially Confident 20.45 4.94 .46 .78 .17 .30 -.17 .17 .23 .34 .25 .38 -.18 .35 .11 .20 .18 .34 .12
Modest 19.30 4.55 -.30 -.36 -.01 -.22 .20 -.12 -.16 -.29 -.07 -.07 .33 -.17 -.28 -.33 -.10 -.21 .14
Democratic 24.28 3.97 .07 .10 .43 -.09 .11 -.02 .12 .02 .24 -.04 -.14 .27 -.23 -.09 .11 -.18 .11
Caring 25.81 4.08 .09 .20 .70 .04 .10 -.08 .06 .06 .19 -.11 -.11 .23 -.24 -.11 .03 -.12 .27
Data Rational 19.79 4.89 .23 .05 -.08 .09 -.05 .89 .29 .19 .30 .20 .06 .13 .16 .23 .10 .14 .00
Evaluative 23.23 4.35 .53 .24 .23 .48 -.24 .46 .48 .48 .42 .19 -.02 .19 .20 .35 .18 .31 -.01
Behavioral 25.17 4.89 .36 .23 .71 .29 -.18 .14 .41 .31 .20 -.09 -.10 .19 -.05 .12 .14 .09 .01
Conventional 21.34 4.72 -.36 -.25 -.09 -.33 .80 -.24 -.38 -.47 -.08 -.15 .08 -.15 -.11 -.25 -.19 -.28 .04
Conceptual 21.33 5.03 .32 .22 .32 .36 -.30 .34 .94 .35 .19 .09 -.09 .18 .06 .20 .15 .13 -.05
(n = 603; see Construct Validity, study 5)

Innovative 21.00 4.66 .49 .29 .15 .37 -.44 .25 .36 .90 .20 .17 -.06 .24 .24 .40 .22 .42 .00
Variety Seeking 21.95 4.49 .37 .27 .11 .30 -.47 .20 .28 .42 .07 .20 .00 .21 .14 .26 .23 .29 -.05
Adaptable 21.30 4.03 .11 -.06 .09 .05 -.18 .06 .12 .15 -.04 -.17 .01 -.10 .05 .12 .06 .02 -.32
Forward Thinking 21.48 4.28 .35 .14 .14 .16 -.08 .27 .23 .31 .44 .17 -.02 .32 .17 .36 .19 .19 .09
Detail Conscious 24.32 5.06 .20 .08 .17 .09 .18 .25 .10 .06 .81 .08 .06 .24 .01 .13 .16 .04 .16
Conscientious 24.69 3.66 .24 .12 .16 .16 .07 .11 .08 .14 .59 .10 -.06 .23 .07 .25 .25 .03 .22
Table 9: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and Factor 5.2

Rule Following 21.74 4.98 -.16 -.09 .08 -.22 .51 -.09 -.19 -.24 .20 -.05 .04 -.02 -.12 -.07 -.01 -.27 .34
Relaxed 20.48 5.03 .15 .29 -.04 .03 -.06 .12 .08 .11 .16 .70 -.01 .47 .03 .01 .20 .15 .16
Worrying 23.41 4.81 -.35 -.50 .04 -.26 .22 -.25 -.23 -.32 -.19 -.52 .05 -.29 -.25 -.19 -.15 -.32 -.16
Tough Minded 17.87 4.97 .21 .30 -.11 .16 -.12 .17 .08 .17 .14 .67 .06 .30 .09 .12 .14 .17 .17
Optimistic 23.95 5.44 .33 .38 .23 .14 -.12 .18 .20 .28 .36 .35 -.13 .88 .05 .12 .23 .17 .11
Trusting 20.47 5.58 .07 .13 .19 -.08 .08 .00 .02 .06 .18 .16 -.14 .38 -.16 .00 .07 -.03 .21
Emotionally Controlled 21.39 4.64 -.15 -.32 -.16 -.13 .09 .01 -.09 -.08 .00 .04 .89 -.15 -.05 -.07 -.03 -.02 .02
Vigorous 26.34 4.35 .28 .19 .16 .14 .00 .16 .03 .22 .44 .07 -.05 .21 .08 .27 .35 .16 .04
Competitive 15.30 4.13 .26 .14 -.19 .16 -.17 .20 .09 .23 .04 .14 -.02 .03 .87 .44 .11 .28 -.02
Appendix F

Achieving 20.32 5.75 .55 .29 .11 .27 -.26 .30 .27 .49 .36 .12 -.15 .25 .45 .75 .29 .32 -.02
Decisive 18.89 4.04 .41 .34 -.08 .29 -.29 .19 .13 .36 .11 .22 -.09 .13 .28 .26 .12 .90 -.04
Social Desirability 17.65 4.19 .01 .06 .16 -.10 .10 .02 -.07 .03 .19 .19 .05 .16 .00 -.01 .01 -.06 .89

Correlations of magnitude 0.11 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.08 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

17
18
OPQ32n Images Imaginative Methodical Achieving Gregarious Emotional Sympathetic Social Desirability
mean 25.39 28.04 22.28 24.75 19.5 28.86 20
mean sd 4.77 3.63 4.98 5.63 5.02 4.24 4.28

Persuasive 19.60 4.65 .36 .12 .44 .47 -.21 .00 -.01
Controlling 21.02 4.81 .44 .24 .50 .43 -.29 .01 -.08
Outspoken 21.49 4.92 .31 .14 .26 .42 -.21 -.12 -.26
Independent Minded 21.32 4.41 .30 .09 .21 .22 -.19 -.12 -.14
Outgoing 20.13 5.09 .30 .00 .20 .81 -.20 .13 -.15
Affiliative 22.50 5.41 .10 -.01 .04 .44 -.09 .35 .06
Appendix F

Socially Confident 20.37 4.90 .31 .13 .25 .69 -.31 .18 .04
Modest 19.38 4.53 -.25 -.02 -.31 -.39 .11 .01 .11
Democratic 24.22 3.99 .13 .13 .00 .12 .12 .39 .06
Caring 25.80 4.07 .14 .11 -.05 .22 .14 .81 .17
Data Rational 19.72 4.80 .21 .31 .26 -.02 -.11 -.19 .03
Evaluative 23.10 4.32 .52 .36 .41 .21 -.11 .01 -.08
Behavioral 25.06 4.88 .45 .15 .19 .24 .12 .39 -.06
Conventional 21.35 4.65 -.45 -.04 -.28 -.30 .19 .06 .04
Conceptual 21.29 4.96 .73 .11 .26 .24 -.07 .10 -.07
Innovative 21.11 4.61 .68 .09 .40 .31 -.25 .01 .00
Variety Seeking 21.93 4.44 .37 .00 .30 .28 -.16 -.01 -.09
Adaptable 21.26 3.92 .21 -.03 .14 -.06 .16 -.08 -.27
Forward Thinking 21.32 4.24 .28 .25 .42 .17 -.13 .06 .06
Detail Conscious 24.13 5.02 .08 .71 .20 .05 -.07 .14 .14
(n = 650; see Construct Validity, study 6)

Conscientious 24.60 3.63 .11 .52 .28 .13 -.06 .17 .16
Rule Following 21.78 4.94 -.24 .05 -.09 -.10 .03 .23 .31
Relaxed 20.43 5.02 .08 .05 .07 .21 -.52 .00 .15
Worrying 23.43 4.80 -.26 -.10 -.20 -.44 .56 .08 -.07
Tough Minded 17.88 4.88 .11 .07 .16 .21 -.51 -.07 .14
Table 10: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and Images

Optimistic 23.80 5.34 .29 .22 .20 .32 -.23 .19 .04
Trusting 20.47 5.56 .08 .07 .04 .12 -.08 .30 .15
Emotionally Controlled 21.42 4.55 -.12 .05 -.07 -.40 -.04 -.18 .06
Vigorous 26.36 4.28 .14 .35 .33 .19 -.02 .15 -.02
Competitive 15.31 4.11 .13 .05 .37 .08 -.15 -.26 .00
Achieving 20.22 5.70 .37 .29 .78 .32 -.12 .02 -.03
Decisive 18.83 4.01 .29 -.01 .26 .34 -.27 -.13 -.07
Social Desirability 17.67 4.19 -.06 .10 -.01 .04 -.23 .33 .87

Correlations of magnitude 0.11 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.08 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
 OPQ32n MQ.M5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 I1 I2 I3 X1 X2 X3
mean 24.09 30.59 27.68 21.03 27.19 19.99 26.98 29.75 31.69 31.14 31.46 30.67 30.62 21.61 30.53 31.55 30.49 29.95
mean sd 4.45 3.61 3.73 6.12 3.78 3.82 3.79 3.57 3.73 3.43 3.51 3.37 3.19 3.32 3.46 3.72 3.69 3.49

Persuasive 19.99 4.72 .18 .27 .24 .05 .45 .07 .26 .10 .11 .04 .06 .24 .25 .13 .09 .09 .21 .12
Controlling 21.26 4.87 .31 .40 .27 .02 .63 .10 .16 .09 .16 .12 .08 .34 .36 .21 .28 .15 .30 .15
Outspoken 21.77 5.14 .13 .15 .12 .06 .28 -.01 .04 .10 .11 -.02 .06 .18 .24 .13 .17 .10 .17 .09
Independent Minded 21.20 4.70 .20 .17 .08 .07 .23 .10 .00 -.10 .00 .01 .01 .10 .21 .26 .19 .05 .18 .01
Outgoing 20.81 5.30 .11 .13 .12 -.02 .22 .04 .09 .24 .11 .01 .04 .20 .14 .13 .03 -.01 .12 .02
Affiliative 22.52 5.35 .00 .02 .05 -.01 .15 -.08 .03 .43 .09 -.01 .01 .11 .01 .05 -.06 -.04 .12 .02
Socially Confident 20.86 4.94 .20 .18 .13 .00 .26 .06 .13 .18 .05 .06 .07 .19 .17 .14 .07 .06 .16 .07
Modest 18.85 4.60 -.03 -.14 -.26 -.02 -.22 .04 -.12 -.09 -.22 .05 -.09 -.14 -.10 -.07 -.02 -.12 -.19 -.17
Democratic 24.01 4.18 -.04 .13 .01 -.06 .09 -.13 .07 .33 .17 .17 .16 .21 .09 -.13 -.05 .06 .10 .08
Caring 25.34 4.43 .08 .11 -.04 -.09 .12 .02 .01 .33 .05 .20 .04 .13 .03 -.05 -.02 -.13 .03 .02
Data Rational 19.81 5.01 .26 .22 .22 .10 .20 .18 .19 -.21 -.06 -.08 .00 .12 .11 .05 .09 .09 .14 -.02
Evaluative 23.39 4.22 .29 .37 .19 .13 .35 .05 .10 -.01 .14 .20 .14 .31 .42 .14 .24 .18 .29 .16
Behavioral 24.44 5.31 .09 .30 .09 .00 .30 -.03 -.01 .29 .20 .31 .16 .31 .30 .06 .16 .03 .23 .16
Conventional 21.39 4.70 -.16 -.30 -.04 -.01 -.31 -.02 -.01 -.06 -.14 -.10 -.05 -.27 -.36 -.38 -.22 -.03 -.27 -.04
Conceptual 21.66 4.93 .09 .33 .06 .04 .29 .02 -.02 .13 .14 .27 .16 .37 .39 .19 .22 .07 .26 .14
Innovative 21.42 4.77 .13 .24 .09 .06 .31 .09 .03 .01 .07 .05 .03 .19 .33 .30 .19 .02 .11 .08
Variety Seeking 22.32 4.54 .13 .32 .05 .05 .33 .04 .03 .15 .12 .12 .03 .31 .46 .33 .28 .07 .28 .03
Adaptable 21.13 3.86 -.03 .15 .05 -.09 .08 -.09 -.01 .09 .14 .07 .07 .14 .17 .02 .08 .12 .11 .12
Forward Thinking 22.84 4.00 .15 .30 .16 -.01 .34 .04 .15 .07 .10 .25 .15 .33 .27 .09 .25 .17 .24 .18
Detail Conscious 24.56 5.23 .16 .25 .16 .05 .17 .02 .12 -.04 .04 .11 .11 .15 .10 -.07 .14 .11 .17 .06
Conscientious 23.86 3.80 .17 .20 .13 .06 .13 .02 .18 .05 .05 .11 .09 .16 .10 -.01 .10 .06 .15 .07
Rule Following 21.86 4.74 -.09 -.09 .04 -.10 -.21 -.04 .07 -.01 -.02 .04 .02 -.10 -.23 -.39 -.23 .03 -.11 -.01
Relaxed 21.30 5.08 .10 .09 .11 .03 .06 -.04 .06 .04 -.03 .04 .07 .09 .10 .07 .10 .06 .03 -.02
Questionnaire (n = 479; see Construct Validity, study 7)

Worrying 22.90 5.02 -.18 -.20 -.13 -.04 -.28 -.09 -.12 -.03 .01 .00 .03 -.13 -.15 -.20 -.07 -.03 -.04 .01
Table 11: Intercorrelation of OPQ32n and SHL Motivation

Tough Minded 17.90 5.27 .15 .00 .01 .09 .07 .06 .05 -.05 -.13 -.11 -.07 .03 .01 .15 -.02 .00 -.04 -.16
Optimistic 23.84 5.32 .27 .27 .18 .02 .25 .05 .15 .17 .02 .10 .04 .23 .16 .07 .01 -.01 .06 .00
Trusting 20.72 5.37 .19 .17 .01 .05 .19 .05 -.01 .20 .01 .16 .03 .18 .13 .06 .00 -.13 .05 -.05
Emotionally Controlled 20.86 4.59 .00 -.13 -.05 .07 -.12 .01 -.02 -.21 -.19 -.02 -.08 -.17 -.11 -.04 -.05 .00 -.09 -.09
Vigorous 25.97 4.64 .43 .35 .18 .00 .31 .15 .22 .08 .02 .14 .13 .24 .24 .09 .19 .05 .18 .08
Competitive 15.90 4.39 .08 .05 .22 .11 .19 .11 .16 -.15 -.04 -.14 -.05 -.05 .01 .13 -.02 .11 .09 .03
Appendix F

Achieving 20.95 5.82 .27 .43 .28 .05 .51 .10 .21 .11 .17 .09 .12 .41 .35 .24 .19 .15 .34 .18
Decisive 19.00 3.91 .25 .20 .16 .07 .32 .09 .13 -.06 .00 -.01 .02 .11 .20 .25 .16 .06 .16 .07
Social Desirability 17.55 4.09 .13 .17 .19 -.04 .23 .05 .23 .12 .10 .13 .12 .15 .03 -.09 .04 .08 .15 .17

Correlations of magnitude 0.12 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.09 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

19
20
Concept 5.2 16PF5 A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM
mean 24.33 11.66 23.35 24.18 24.66 20.25 22.33 23.78 22.40 21.00 21.34 20.93 34.15 16.94 19.71 21.02 21.53
mean sd 4.66 2.60 5.08 4.02 4.07 5.33 6.00 5.10 3.75 5.69 5.50 5.69 5.17 4.63 5.48 5.14 4.99
Persuasive 26.77 5.40 .27 -.04 .27 .52 .22 .04 .51 -.12 -.09 .02 -.20 -.20 .18 -.18 .10 -.07 .02
Controlling 27.57 5.92 .24 -.04 .32 .47 .17 .15 .46 -.14 -.05 -.13 -.09 -.18 .14 -.15 .22 -.14 .18
Independent 30.52 4.53 -.07 .04 .10 .53 .12 -.23 .30 -.02 .05 .27 .01 -.17 .34 .10 -.08 .09 -.06
Outgoing 26.12 6.77 .28 -.03 .34 .44 .53 -.15 .82 .03 -.07 .02 -.36 -.26 .20 -.34 -.06 -.07 .08
Appendix F

Affiliative 31.46 4.36 .33 .06 .27 .09 .44 -.17 .43 .08 -.19 -.05 -.31 -.07 .10 -.50 -.10 -.06 .11
Socially Confident 26.74 6.57 .29 -.07 .46 .45 .31 .02 .82 -.01 -.12 -.17 -.29 -.40 .24 -.25 .07 -.24 .24
Modest 23.15 5.61 -.13 .02 -.01 -.24 -.25 .16 -.30 -.05 -.09 -.19 .32 -.01 .02 .15 .07 -.21 .23
Democratic 27.94 4.67 .21 -.11 .12 -.13 .07 .13 .19 .03 -.13 -.24 -.12 -.08 .08 -.36 .23 -.25 .25
Caring 31.28 4.51 .41 -.09 .08 .03 .08 .16 .27 .17 -.06 -.16 -.14 .06 .09 -.15 .22 -.26 .27
Practical 28.53 6.44 -.08 -.01 .26 .18 .13 -.01 .21 -.35 .03 -.06 -.04 -.20 .15 -.18 .10 -.26 .22
Data Rational 24.33 7.99 -.25 .15 .20 .02 -.14 .17 -.04 -.29 .04 -.28 .13 -.15 -.04 .10 .20 -.20 .15
Artistic 29.28 6.11 .20 -.13 -.02 .09 .03 .03 .16 .49 -.09 .06 -.28 .05 .30 -.07 .12 -.01 .04
Behavioral 31.12 5.02 .27 .06 -.11 .20 .00 .04 .11 .15 .11 .14 -.15 .28 .24 -.04 .13 -.05 -.14
Traditional 22.17 5.48 .05 -.01 -.07 -.21 -.16 .49 -.14 -.08 .09 -.22 .14 .12 -.52 .16 .28 .02 -.03
Change Orientated 28.53 6.10 .01 -.12 .27 .39 .18 -.06 .42 -.06 .06 .19 -.11 -.18 .40 -.05 .04 -.09 .09
Conceptual 30.31 4.37 .05 -.08 .38 .34 .19 -.06 .30 -.11 .02 -.02 -.03 -.33 .32 -.17 .01 -.20 .19
Innovative 28.14 5.27 -.06 .13 .09 .19 -.07 -.13 .13 .04 -.06 .19 -.19 -.12 .41 .05 -.05 -.16 .04
Forward Planning 26.58 4.96 .18 -.11 .31 .31 -.12 .36 .17 -.15 -.03 -.34 .07 -.17 .02 .11 .58 -.18 .23
(n = 243; see Construct Validity, study 8)

Detail Conscious 27.09 6.38 .08 -.13 .20 .06 -.13 .44 .04 -.07 -.03 -.46 .17 -.08 -.18 .07 .71 -.16 .25
Conscientious 29.30 5.89 .09 -.16 .30 .16 .02 .39 .21 -.06 -.01 -.42 .08 -.11 -.17 -.02 .65 -.16 .24
Relaxed 25.56 6.84 -.08 -.01 .67 .20 .15 .04 .32 -.23 -.17 -.26 -.05 -.66 .12 -.10 -.08 -.45 .45
Worrying 26.10 5.64 .06 .02 -.52 -.23 -.15 .02 -.39 .16 .07 .15 .08 .62 -.15 .07 .12 .36 -.34
Tough Minded 20.97 6.54 -.11 .02 .49 .24 .16 .04 .29 -.25 .01 -.12 .03 -.64 .12 -.04 -.05 -.36 .28
Emotional Control 25.23 6.35 -.39 .00 -.06 -.24 -.18 .11 -.36 -.22 .08 -.08 .70 -.06 -.11 .16 .01 -.06 .09
Optimistic 29.76 6.36 .01 .02 .70 .36 .22 .05 .43 -.17 -.17 -.23 -.07 -.53 .11 -.16 .00 -.29 .37
Critical 19.74 5.00 -.22 .01 -.02 .28 -.07 .01 .05 -.21 .16 .08 .29 -.03 .01 .16 .02 .21 -.16
Active 27.55 4.09 .05 -.04 .12 .48 .04 -.08 .31 -.13 .13 .06 .01 -.12 .24 .03 .18 .04 .06
Table 12: Intercorrelation of OPQ Concept 5.2 and 16PF5

Competitive 27.60 6.40 -.01 -.10 .31 .17 .17 .08 .19 -.29 -.12 -.13 .05 -.23 .01 -.19 .10 -.21 .20
Achieving 24.06 5.11 -.02 -.15 .25 .30 .05 .09 .22 -.07 .09 .06 .11 -.21 .19 .02 .15 -.16 .14
Decisive 23.06 5.89 -.23 .09 .29 .23 .10 -.20 .17 -.16 -.04 .08 -.02 -.32 .16 .08 -.33 .06 -.07
Social Desirability 21.18 5.03 .12 -.21 .27 -.10 -.04 .27 .12 -.12 -.09 -.37 .06 -.21 .00 .02 .32 -.52 .61

Correlations of magnitude 0.16 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.12 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
 Table 13: Intercorrelation of OPQ Concept 5.2 and NEO PI-R (n = 197; see Construct Validity, study 9)

Concept 5.2 NEO PI-R N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 C1 C2 C3

mean 16.27 13.46 15.03 15.27 17.51 11.09 23.25 20.31 16.64 18.59 20.72 22.43 20.23 19.71 22.73 19.99 21.51 22.98 18.55 16.67 23.22 16.71 16.96 19.97 20.84 17.15 20.83
mean sd 6.60 5.11 6.31 5.26 4.88 4.83 3.84 4.43 5.72 4.54 4.91 4.89 4.92 5.85 4.29 4.53 5.46 4.09 4.92 5.14 3.91 4.71 5.57 3.71 4.29 5.06 4.65
R1 27.71 5.56 -.31 -.07 -.37 -.40 .06 -.41 .33 .35 .63 .42 .27 .40 -.02 .10 .06 .30 .15 .10 -.01 -.42 -.01 -.19 -.40 -.15 .35 .18 .12
R2 27.76 6.27 -.30 -.04 -.35 -.38 .07 -.41 .31 .36 .79 .50 .20 .27 -.12 .09 .14 .31 .17 .15 -.01 -.30 .01 -.30 -.37 -.12 .45 .27 .29
R3 29.69 4.11 -.18 .06 -.26 -.37 .05 -.32 .15 .19 .45 .31 .19 .19 .17 .16 .31 .29 .33 .28 -.08 -.32 -.07 -.42 -.29 -.11 .30 .07 .16
R4 26.52 6.73 -.30 -.01 -.38 -.49 .11 -.32 .45 .57 .69 .58 .29 .49 .02 .05 .16 .31 .03 .20 .14 -.31 .02 -.26 -.38 -.10 .31 .06 .07
R5 32.13 4.08 -.06 -.08 -.07 -.12 .13 -.07 .61 .54 .29 .25 .32 .33 .16 .19 .34 .16 .02 .17 .31 .10 .38 .06 .10 .23 .25 .03 .13
R6 26.91 6.06 -.40 -.13 -.50 -.63 .03 -.46 .42 .47 .67 .51 .15 .42 -.06 .07 .14 .35 .09 .20 .15 -.27 .00 -.17 -.44 -.13 .37 .11 .17
R7 22.93 6.49 -.03 -.27 .14 .14 -.20 .00 -.08 -.37 -.31 -.28 -.20 -.22 .00 .02 -.11 -.01 .07 .09 .01 .29 .22 .33 .65 .15 -.07 -.07 .09
R8 28.69 4.56 .13 -.15 -.02 .05 -.16 .02 .27 .16 -.05 -.11 -.07 -.02 -.19 .12 .13 .07 .06 -.14 .26 .28 .28 .28 .25 .32 .11 .20 .22
R9 30.98 5.31 .19 -.23 .04 .15 -.02 -.01 .44 .13 -.06 -.01 -.12 .13 -.02 .27 .48 .16 .21 .00 .29 .45 .64 .31 .37 .51 .22 .08 .30
T1 28.96 5.83 -.27 -.15 -.14 -.07 -.16 -.23 -.05 -.12 .01 -.01 .05 -.09 -.06 -.02 -.03 .22 .26 .04 -.07 .00 .11 -.03 .12 -.03 .12 .16 .13
T2 25.83 7.09 -.17 -.13 -.17 -.15 -.32 -.26 -.13 -.05 .07 .11 .01 -.10 -.18 -.14 -.18 .06 .20 -.11 -.05 -.04 -.09 -.02 -.17 -.12 .25 .29 .26
T3 29.15 5.90 .04 -.15 .02 -.07 -.04 -.06 .21 .01 .15 .07 -.01 .09 .24 .77 .39 .36 .40 .32 .08 .01 .14 .07 .08 .27 .15 .07 .11
T4 32.08 4.38 .17 .02 .11 .05 .09 -.04 .40 .09 .20 .21 .07 .18 .17 .33 .57 .25 .35 .31 .00 .02 .28 .03 .08 .21 .21 .04 .16
T5 21.51 4.53 .33 .15 .26 .23 .07 .21 -.03 -.11 -.12 -.12 -.25 -.23 -.20 .02 .02 -.38 -.14 -.43 -.09 .01 .04 .04 .01 .04 -.03 .19 .17
T6 30.90 3.94 -.35 -.24 -.27 -.32 .04 -.38 .23 .22 .32 .31 .26 .37 .19 .19 .12 .59 .17 .40 .10 -.08 .13 .09 -.14 -.05 .21 -.01 .06
T7 28.24 5.85 -.03 -.11 -.08 -.07 -.11 -.16 .01 -.17 .08 .06 -.05 -.07 .17 .34 .28 .34 .80 .27 -.07 .06 .01 -.07 .05 .05 .21 .09 .20
T8 28.85 6.10 -.33 -.12 -.29 -.34 -.03 -.32 .11 .01 .36 .24 .01 .12 .19 .27 .18 .43 .36 .20 -.04 -.11 .07 -.12 -.18 -.04 .26 .03 .11
T9 27.01 4.93 -.22 -.22 -.34 -.28 -.18 -.49 .14 .08 .37 .38 -.08 .07 -.17 .17 .14 .32 .34 .01 .08 .01 .18 -.08 -.15 .02 .64 .50 .55
T10 27.20 6.53 .06 -.07 -.06 -.03 -.29 -.16 .15 .05 .14 .20 -.09 -.11 -.32 .20 .11 .03 .23 -.15 .02 .08 .28 .01 .02 .08 .47 .77 .65
T11 29.38 5.77 -.07 -.15 -.23 -.18 -.19 -.26 .20 .06 .27 .30 -.05 .10 -.13 .16 .16 .29 .25 .10 .02 .04 .31 .01 -.05 -.01 .52 .56 .65
F1 25.03 6.57 -.84 -.60 -.71 -.62 -.32 -.68 .05 .16 .23 .03 .07 .20 -.07 -.18 -.26 .20 .06 .26 .25 -.10 .00 .15 -.13 -.10 .23 -.04 -.01
F2 26.55 5.57 .76 .39 .59 .61 .23 .55 -.01 -.19 -.32 -.06 -.07 -.15 .06 .16 .27 -.14 .02 -.20 -.15 .16 .11 -.01 .16 .23 -.13 .13 .13
F3 20.92 6.98 -.65 -.38 -.49 -.66 -.18 -.49 .07 .19 .26 .05 .08 .16 -.06 -.12 -.31 .13 -.09 .10 .07 -.31 -.11 -.01 -.16 -.27 .06 -.14 -.12
F4 23.77 6.43 -.15 -.26 .02 .16 -.12 -.08 -.25 -.33 -.32 -.15 -.01 -.14 .02 -.13 -.39 -.04 -.03 .01 -.06 -.01 .01 .26 .23 -.07 -.06 -.05 -.06
F5 29.76 6.21 -.57 -.40 -.67 -.60 -.04 -.59 .29 .32 .38 .36 .18 .61 -.03 -.05 .02 .40 .08 .29 .38 -.10 .14 .11 -.26 -.03 .36 -.07 .06
F6 28.29 4.24 -.18 .05 -.23 -.19 -.08 -.26 -.03 .03 .28 .23 .12 .02 .07 .08 .18 .31 .30 .16 -.27 -.34 -.12 -.33 -.31 -.10 .34 .20 .19
F7 27.65 6.49 -.14 -.08 -.14 -.20 .13 -.25 .25 .35 .31 .51 .36 .29 .07 -.09 .07 .24 -.13 .07 .08 -.13 .09 -.08 -.17 -.12 .10 .07 -.06
F8 20.71 5.82 -.01 .24 -.07 -.15 .13 -.20 .03 .15 .40 .34 .25 .12 -.01 .01 .09 .12 .11 -.12 -.26 -.47 -.20 -.45 -.54 -.30 .21 .11 .05
F9 24.87 5.48 -.23 .02 -.31 -.37 -.07 -.39 .09 .18 .47 .44 .24 .23 -.06 .13 .10 .32 .32 .12 -.10 -.30 -.02 -.30 -.39 -.19 .46 .32 .26
Appendix F

F10 23.39 5.67 -.31 .09 -.20 -.28 .14 -.27 -.04 .09 .33 .27 .25 .19 .05 -.15 -.13 .07 -.06 .08 .00 -.35 -.25 -.17 -.29 -.16 -.02 -.22 -.28
D1 20.97 4.81 -.25 -.50 -.16 -.21 -.40 -.33 .19 -.13 -.06 -.13 -.28 -.18 -.18 .13 .02 .09 .19 -.04 .22 .36 .40 .33 .30 .17 .26 .09 .31

Correlations of magnitude 0.18 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.14 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

21
 Appendix F

Table 13 (continued): Intercorrelation of OPQ Concept 5.2 and

NEO PI-R (n = 197; see Construct Validity, study 9)

Concept 5.2 NEO PI-R C4 C5 C6 N E O A C

mean 18.35 19.02 16.37 88.62 121.95 127.16 112.09 112.55
mean sd 5.43 5.37 5.21 25.45 19.26 18.92 19.15 23.79
R1 27.71 5.56 .35 .26 -.04 -.33 .60 .17 -.31 .25
R2 27.76 6.27 .48 .40 -.02 -.32 .61 .18 -.28 .39
R3 29.69 4.11 .36 .18 -.04 -.23 .38 .39 -.33 .21
R4 26.52 6.73 .25 .19 -.21 -.31 .76 .18 -.24 .14
R5 32.13 4.08 .13 .10 -.08 -.06 .56 .26 .27 .11
R6 26.91 6.06 .33 .27 -.09 -.47 .66 .19 -.23 .24
R7 22.93 6.49 -.10 .05 .18 -.04 -.37 .02 .42 .02
R8 28.69 4.56 .13 .14 .35 -.02 .02 .02 .40 .24
R9 30.98 5.31 .18 .18 .26 .04 .10 .29 .61 .26
T1 28.96 5.83 .14 .13 .06 -.22 -.05 .11 .03 .16
T2 25.83 7.09 .29 .33 .21 -.25 -.01 -.08 -.12 .35
T3 29.15 5.90 .12 .14 .03 -.05 .13 .65 .14 .13
T4 32.08 4.38 .19 .13 .10 .10 .27 .50 .14 .17
T5 21.51 4.53 .02 -.04 .16 .28 -.22 -.26 .01 .10
T6 30.90 3.94 .19 .24 -.08 -.34 .42 .41 .00 .13
T7 28.24 5.85 .20 .21 .15 -.12 -.03 .58 .00 .22
T8 28.85 6.10 .20 .21 .05 -.32 .22 .42 -.12 .18
T9 27.01 4.93 .63 .66 .47 -.37 .24 .22 .00 .73
T10 27.20 6.53 .58 .66 .49 -.11 .08 .04 .10 .76
T11 29.38 5.77 .62 .71 .38 -.23 .21 .21 .06 .73
F1 25.03 6.57 .00 .15 .06 -.83 .19 -.01 .02 .08
F2 26.55 5.57 .02 -.05 .07 .69 -.21 .06 .12 .04
F3 20.92 6.98 -.09 .00 -.09 -.63 .21 -.10 -.19 -.09
F4 23.77 6.43 -.11 -.01 .00 -.09 -.29 -.14 .10 -.06
F5 29.76 6.21 .17 .24 -.02 -.64 .53 .16 .05 .15
F6 28.29 4.24 .32 .35 .19 -.20 .17 .28 -.38 .33
F7 27.65 6.49 .17 .10 -.20 -.15 .51 .04 -.09 .04
F8 20.71 5.82 .36 .10 -.15 -.01 .33 .06 -.56 .14
F9 24.87 5.48 .60 .41 .05 -.30 .42 .24 -.34 .45
F10 23.39 5.67 .00 -.12 -.50 -.19 .29 -.05 -.30 -.24
D1 20.97 4.81 .12 .24 .41 -.39 -.15 .06 .44 .30

Correlations of magnitude 0.18 or higher are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlations of magnitude 0.14 or higher are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

22
 Appendix F

Table 14: MBTI and OPQ Concept 5.2

(n = 217; see Construct Validity, study 10)

OPQ Concept 5.2 Scale Major MBTI correlates Alpha R Rc %V

Persuasive .32 (JP) -.28 (EI) 0.74 .42 .41 30
Controlling -.29 (TF) -.20 (EI) 0.88 .42 .41 21
Independent .34 (SN) .28 (JP) 0.63 .43 .42 44
Outgoing -.67 (EI) .22 (JP) 0.86 .68 .67 61
Affiliative -.37 (EI) .19 (TF) 0.75 .40 .38 26
Social Confidence -.53 (EI) 0.86 .56 .55 41
Modest .34 (EI) -.21 (SN) 0.82 .38 .36 20
Democratic 0.64 .20 .16 6
Caring .31 (TF) 0.76 .32 .30 15
Practical 0.87 .10 .00 0
Data Rational -.22 (TF) 0.88 .26 .23 7
Artistic .29 (SN) 0.83 .32 .30 13
Behavioral 0.73 .25 .22 9
Traditional -.41 (SN) -.37 (JP) .23 (TF) 0.74 .56 .55 55
Change Orientated .31 (JP) -.29 (TF) .23 (SN) 0.62 .51 .50 65
Conceptual .54 (SN) 0.75 .56 .55 54
Innovative .46 (SN) -.21 (TF) 0.84 .52 .51 37
Forward Planning -.33 (JP) -.31 (TF) 0.57 .53 .52 83
Detail Conscious -.45 (JP) -.20 (SN) 0.74 .46 .45 37
Conscientious -.22 (JP) 0.80 .31 .29 13
Relaxed -.22 (TF) 0.83 .33 .31 14
Worrying -.21 (EI) .19 (TF) 0.73 .34 .32 19
Tough Minded -.38 (TF) 0.83 .41 .40 23
Emotional Control .47 (EI) -.28 (TF) 0.76 .53 .52 47
Optimistic -.23 (JP) -.22 (TF) 0.73 .38 .36 25
Critical -.40 (TF) .34 (SN) 0.60 .53 .52 75
Active -.22 (TF) 0.79 .29 .27 11
Competitive -.21 (TF) 0.71 .26 .23 11
Achieving -.33 (TF) .30 (SN) .24 (JP) 0.63 .52 .51 66
Decisive .29 (JP) 0.76 .36 .34 20

R - multiple correlations
Rc - multiple correlation, adjusted for number of scale in equation.
%V - percentage of reliable variance explained in the predicted (OPQ) scale.
Note: The OPQ reliable variance is based on the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the Concept 5.2 in a
study of 2987 individuals.

From the multiple correlations reported in Table 14, the areas of the Concept
Model OPQ the MBTI measures effectively can be seen. Unsurprisingly with only 4
scales the MBTI only predicts a few areas well. These are areas such as Outgoing,
Traditional (Conventional in OPQ32), Change Orientated (Variety Seeking in
OPQ32), Conceptual, Critical (Evaluative in OPQ32), Forward Planning and
Achieving.

Areas that are not covered well include OPQ scales such as Controlling, Modest
and Democratic and scales such as Data Rational, Behavioral, Conscientious,
Relaxed, Worrying, Competitive and Active.

23
 Appendix G

Appendix G:The OPQ Sponsors

The original development of the OPQ was generously sponsored by 53

organizations, including the following:

Abbey National Building Society KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Alcan Aluminium (UK) Ltd Littlewood Organization plc
Army Personnel Research Establishment Local Government Training Board
Blue Circle Industries plc London Borough of
Hammersmith & Fulham
Bradford & Bingley Building Society
Manpower Services Commission
BritAg Ltd
May & Baker Ltd
British Petroleum Co Ltd
Memorex UK Ltd
British Telecom
National Computing Centre
Burmah Oil Trading Ltd
National Westminster Bank plc
Cambridge Recruitment Consultants
Pilkington Brothers plc
Canada Life Assurance Co
Plessey Electronic Systems Ltd
Carrera Rothmans Ltd
Post Office
Chloride Group plc
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd
Civil Aviation Authority
RDL Contracting Ltd
Deloitte Haskins & Sells
RHMS Foods Ltd
Dickinson Robinson Group
J Sainsbury plc
Fine Fare Ltd
Scottish & Newcastle Breweries Ltd
Golden Wonder Ltd
Simpson Crowden Consultants Ltd
Granada TV Rental Ltd
Southern Gas
Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance
Standard Telephones & Cables plc
Host Group Ltd
Touche Ross & Co
Imperial Brewing & Leisure Ltd
Trustee Savings Bank
Ind Coope-Taylor Walker Ltd
Water Industry Training Association
International Computers Ltd (MSDD)
Watney Mann & Truman Brewers Ltd
Kelvin Watson Ltd
Yorkshire Bank plc

24
 Appendix H

Appendix H: References and further reading

American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association &

National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing. Washington D.C. APA.

Baron, H. (1996). An evaluation of some psychometric parameters: A response to

Barrett, Kline, Paltiel & Eysenck. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 69, 21-23.

Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 49-56.

Barrett, G.U. & Depinet, R.L. (1991). Reconsideration of testing for competence
rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 46, 1012-1024

Barrett, P. & Paltiel, L. (1996). Can a single item replace an entire scale? POP vs the
OPQ5.2. Selection & Development Review, 12, (6) 1-4.

Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Bass B.M. (1981). Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and

research. Free Press.

Belbin, R.M. (1981). Management Teams. Heinemann, Oxford.

Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison

of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214-227.

Cattell, R.B. (1959). Motivational Analysis Test. IPAT, Champaign Illinois.

Cronbach, L.J. & Gleser, G.C. (1965). Psychological Tests and Personnel Decisions.
University of Illinois, Urbana.

Drakeley, R. & Hallmark, A. (1995). OPQ Concept Model Questionnaires (OPQ-C).

In: David Bartram (Ed). Review of Personality Assessment Instruments (B) For Use
in Occupational Settings. BPS Books, Leicester.

Dulewicz, V. (1992). Assessment of management competencies by personality

questionnaires. Selection & Development Review, 8, 1, 1-4.

Dulewicz, V. (1995). A validation of Belbin’s team roles from 16PF and OPQ using
bosses’ ratings of competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 68, 81-91.

25
 Appendix H

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429-456.

Fletcher, C. (1991). Personality tests: The great debate. Personnel Management,

September, 38-42.

Ghiselli, E.E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel
Psychology, 26, 461-477.

Gibbons, P.J., Baron, H., Nyfield, G. & Robertson, I.T. (1995). Hypothesis Testing in
Personality Questionnaire Validation Research. Paper presented at the 4th European
Congress of Psychology, Athens, Greece, July 1995.

Haladyna, T.M. (1992) Review of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire.

Buros, Vol 11.

Hough, L., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kemp, J.D. & McCloy, R.A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response
distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 5, 581-595.

Hough, L.M. (1998). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In M. Hakel (ed.),
Beyond Multiple Choice: Evaluating Alternatives to Traditional Testing for Selection
131-166, Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of Meta-analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.

Mabey, W. & Hunter, R. (1986). Using personality measures to improve selection.

Guidance and Assessment Review, 2.

MacIver, R. (1997). A shorter OPQ? Selection & Development Review, 13, (1) 13.

Matthews, G. (1997). The big five as a framework for personality assessment. In: N.
Anderson and P. Herriot (Eds). International Handbook of Selection and
Assessment, 475-492. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Matthews, G. & Stanton, N. (1994). Item and scale factor analyses of the OPQ.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 5, 733-743.

Matthews, G., Stanton, N., Graham, N.C. & Brimelow, C. (1990). A factor analysis of
the scales of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual
Differences, 11, 6, 591-596.

McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 81-90

26
 Appendix H

Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning
and consequences of measurement. In: Wainer, H and Braun, H. (Eds) Test Validity,
New Jersey: LEA.

MMPI (1970). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The Psychological

Corporation.

Nind, K. & Wigfield, D. (1990). OPQ correlates of the Type A behavior pattern
Selection & Development Review, 8, 1, 6-8.

Nyfield, G., Gibbons, P.J., Baron, H. & Robertson, I.T (1995). The cross-cultural
validity of management assessment methods. Paper presented at the 10th Annual
SIOP Conference, Orlando, May 1995.

Nyfield, G., MacIver, R. & Morgan, J (1996). Assessment practice across cultures.
Methods used, norms, reliability and validity. Paper presented at 11th Annual SIOP
Conference, San Diego, April 1996.

Payne, T.L. (1994). The Prediction of Consumer Products Sales Effectiveness with
Psychometric Instruments. Masters Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh.

Paunonen, S.U., Jackson, D.N., Trzebinski, J. & Forsterling, F. (1992). Personality

structure across cultures: A multi-method evaluation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62, 3, 447-456.

Robertson, I.T. (1993). Personality assessment and personnel selection. European

Review of Applied Psychology, 43, 187-194.

Robertson, I.T., Baron, H., Gibbons, P.J., MacIver, R. & Nyfield, G.

Conscientiousness and job success for managers. Paper presented at the British
Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference, 1997.

Robertson, I.T., Gibbons, P.J., Baron, H., MacIver, R. & Nyfield, G (1996).
Understanding management performance. Paper presented at British Academy of
Management Conference, Birmingham, September 1996.

Robertson, I.T. & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies: An

examination of the criterion-related validity of some personality variables. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 225-244.

Salgado, J.F. (1996). Personality and job competencies: A comment on Robertson

and Kinder (1993) study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
69, 373-375.

27
 Appendix H

Salgado, J.F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in
the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

Saville, P., Nyfield, G., Sik, G. & Hackston, J. (1991). Enhancing the person-job
match through personality assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference
of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Saville, P. & Sik, G. (1991). Ipsative scaling: A comedy of measures, As you like or
much ado about nothing? Guidance & Assessment Review, 7, 3, 1-4.

Saville, P. & Sik, G. (1992). Personality questionnaires: Current issues and

controversies. The Human Resource Management Year Book 1992, 28-37.

Saville, P. & Sik, G. (1995). Hitting the target: A rejoinder to Barrett & Paltiel.
Selection & Development Review, 11, (6)

Saville, P. & Sik, G. (1995). Reductio ad absurdum? Selection & Development

Review, 11, (3) 1.

Saville, P., Sik, G., Nyfield, G., Hackston, J. & MacIver, R. (1996) - A demonstration
of the validity of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) in the
measurement of job competencies across time and in separate organizations.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 243-262

Saville, P. & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative
approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 64, 219-238.

Schmitt, N., Gooding, R.Z., Noe, R.A. & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity
studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study
characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407-422.

Sevy, B.A. (1992). The incremental validity and efficiency of personality tests in
selection. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual SIOP Conference, Montreal,
Quebec.

SHL (1984). The Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ). Thames Ditton.

Saville & Holdsworth Ltd.

SHL (1989). Validation Review. Thames Ditton. Saville & Holdsworth Ltd.

Shackleton, V.J & Fletcher, C. OPQ Factor Model Questionnaires (OPQ-F). In

Review of Personality Assessment Instruments (B) For Use in Occupational Settings.
Editor David Bartram. BPS Books 1995.

28
 Appendix H

Smith, M. (1988). Calculating the sterling value of selection. Guidance &

Assessment Review, 4, 6-9.

Smith, M. & Robertson, I.T. (1991). Assessing competencies. In Bohm. R. &

Sparrow, P. (Ed). Focusing on Human Resources : A Competency Based Approach.
London. McGraw-Hill.

Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors
of job performance : A meta-analysis review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.

Toplis, J., Dulewicz, V. & Fletcher, C. (1991). Psychological Testing. A Practical

Guide. 2nd Edition. IPM, Wimbledon.

Wigfield, D. & Janman, K. (1991). Seeing ourselves as others see us. Guidance &
Assessment Review, 7, 5, 3-4.

29
 Americas OPQ32i Non-Managerial 2002 Date created: 24/05/04

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RP1 Persuasive 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 3888 9.42 4.68

RP2 Controlling 0-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 3888 13.01 5.47
RP3 Outspoken 0-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 3888 12.85 4.58
RP4 IndependentMinded 0-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 3888 11.03 3.86
RP5 Outgoing 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 3888 10.18 4.96
RP6 Affilative 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 3888 11.35 4.23
RP7 SociallyConfident 0-3 4-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3888 12.29 4.53
RP8 Modest 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3888 13.33 4.72
RP9 Democratic 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 3888 12.39 3.82
RP10 Caring 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3888 13.86 4.10
TS1 DataRational 0-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 3888 15.16 5.12
TS2 Evaluative 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3888 14.80 3.74
TS3 Behavioral 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 3888 11.02 4.74
TS4 Conventional 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3888 14.08 3.91
TS5 Conceptual 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 3888 12.56 4.78
TS6 Innovative 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3888 11.66 4.97
TS7 VarietySeeking 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 3888 11.91 4.48
TS8 Adaptable 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3888 11.55 5.12
TS9 ForwardThinking 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3888 13.03 4.42
TS10 DetailConscious 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3888 16.04 4.28
TS11 Conscientious 0 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 3888 18.03 3.76
TS12 RuleFollowing 0-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3888 15.75 4.38
FE1 Relaxed 0-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 3888 15.59 5.00
FE2 Worrying 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 26 3888 7.80 5.07
FE3 ToughMinded 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3888 14.00 4.46
FE4 Optimistic 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 3888 14.61 4.22
FE5 Trusting 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 3888 10.94 4.60
FE6 EmotionallyControlled 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 3888 11.27 4.87
FE7 Vigorous 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 3888 15.62 4.20
FE8 Competitive 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 3888 9.87 5.79
FE9 Achieving 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3888 15.95 4.10
FE10 Decisive 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3888 15.04 4.85
CNS Consistency 0 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 35 36 - 38 39 - 75 3888 26.12 6.25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

©2002 SHL USA plc.

 US OPQ32i General Occupational Composite '01 Date created: 2/9/05

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RP1 Persuasive 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 429 10.31 5.45

RP2 Controlling 0-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 26 429 13.66 5.81
RP3 Outspoken 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 429 12.53 4.86
RP4 Independent Minded 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 429 12.88 3.99
RP5 Outgoing 0-0 1-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 429 11.23 5.48
RP6 Affiliative 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 429 12.02 4.76
RP7 Socially Confident 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 429 11.49 4.86
RP8 Modest 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 429 13.80 4.81
RP9 Democratic 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 429 13.88 4.12
RP10 Caring 0-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 429 15.84 4.48
TS1 Data Rational 0-1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 429 12.99 5.79
TS2 Evaluative 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 429 13.83 3.62
TS3 Behavioral 0-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 429 13.74 4.71
TS4 Conventional 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 429 12.44 4.13
TS5 Conceptual 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 429 11.87 4.84
TS6 Innovative 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 429 11.80 5.37
TS7 Variety Seeking 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 429 14.02 4.30
TS8 Adaptable 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 429 12.02 5.11
TS9 Forward Thinking 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 429 14.06 4.69
TS10 Detail Conscious 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 429 13.42 4.94
TS11 Conscientious 0-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 26 429 17.74 4.20
TS12 Rule Following 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 429 12.68 5.56
FE1 Relaxed 0-0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 429 10.81 5.37
FE2 Worrying 0 1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 429 9.40 5.53
FE3 Tough Minded 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 429 11.98 4.50
FE4 Optimistic 0-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 429 16.17 4.14
FE5 Trusting 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 429 11.96 4.61
FE6 Emotionally Controlled 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 429 11.19 4.90
FE7 Vigorous 0-8 9 - 10 11 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 429 15.88 3.92
FE8 Competitive 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 24 25 - 26 429 11.82 6.10
FE9 Achieving 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 26 429 16.46 4.71
FE10 Decisive 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 429 12.06 5.29
CNS Consistency 0 - 13 14 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 37 38 - 40 41 - 75 429 27.19 6.76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

N=429 - May 2, 2001 ©1995 by Saville & Holdsworth Ltd

 US OPQ32i General Occupational Composite '01 Date created: 2/9/05

Sector: US general occupational composite group. N = 429.

Job: Membership including executives (27%), MBA students (25%) and staff from a call center (48%).
Date: May 2, 2001
Sex: Male 46%, Female 54%.
Race: Asian/Pacific Islander 2%, Black 15%, Hispanic 8%, Native American 1%, White 40%, Unknown 34%
Educ: Mixed group, specific education attainment is unknown.
Age: 18-30 years 34%, 31-39 years 19%, 40 years and older 16%, Unknown 31%
Tenure: Unknown

N=429 - May 2, 2001 ©1995 by Saville & Holdsworth Ltd

 OPQ32i US Mgr & Prof '01 Date created: 2/9/05

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RP1-Persuasive 0 1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 285 10.28 5.88

RP2-Controlling 0-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 -25 26 285 14.82 5.59
RP3-Outspoken 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 285 12.74 4.97
RP4-Independent-Minded 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 285 13.29 3.98
RP5-Outgoing 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 285 11.00 5.88
RP6-Affiliative 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 285 12.88 5.04
RP7-Socially_Confident 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 285 11.53 5.04
RP8-Modest 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 285 13.45 4.90
RP9-Democratic 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 285 14.19 4.55
RP10-Caring 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 285 14.48 4.68
TS1-Data_Rational 0-1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 26 285 13.29 5.92
TS2-Evaluative 0-7 8-9 10 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 285 14.68 3.75
TS3-Behavioral 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 285 13.61 4.85
TS4-Conventional 0-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 285 11.32 4.16
TS5-Conceptual 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 285 12.08 5.14
TS6-Innovative 0-0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 285 12.12 5.82
TS7-Variety_Seeking 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 285 14.62 4.15
TS8-Adaptable 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 285 12.20 5.09
TS9-Forward_Planning 0-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 285 15.11 4.61
TS10-Detail_Conscious 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 285 12.29 5.40
TS11-Conscientious 0-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 26 285 16.83 4.43
TS12-Rule_Following 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 285 10.19 5.10
FE1-Relaxed 0 1 2-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 285 9.82 5.23
FE2-Worrying 0-0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 285 9.18 5.98
FE3-Tough_Minded 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 285 10.89 4.51
FE4-Optimistic 0-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 26 285 16.60 4.28
FE5-Trusting 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 285 12.96 4.34
FE6-Emotionally_Controlled 0-0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 285 10.59 5.09
FE7-Vigorous 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 285 15.72 4.22
FE8-Competitive 0-1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 285 13.84 6.16
FE9-Achieving 0-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 25 26 285 17.36 4.56
FE10-Decisive 0-0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 285 12.03 5.84
CNS-Consistency 0 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 37 38 - 40 41 - 75 285 29.30 5.62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Docreg Number ©1995 by Saville & Holdsworth Ltd

 OPQ32i US Mgr & Prof '01 Date created: 2/9/05

Sector: Management and Professional – Mixed Industry Sectors

Job: Mixed group of executives (41%) and MBA students (59%).
Date: May 2001
Sex: 41% female and 59% male
Race: .3% Black, 2.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.4% Hispanic, .3% Native American, 48% White, 2.4% Other,
44% Unknown
Educ: .3% Some College, 43% College Degree, 12% Masters Degree, 2% PhD, 44% Unknown
Age: 44% 18-30 years, 8% 31-39 years, 4% 40 years or older, 43% Unknown
Tenure: 2% less than 6 months, 3% 6 months-1 year, 28% 1-5 years, 10% 6-10 years, 6% 11-15 years,
6% more than 15 years, 44% Unknown

Docreg Number ©1995 by Saville & Holdsworth Ltd

 Canadian OPQ32i Managerial & Professional 2002 Date created: 24/05/04

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RP1 Persuasive 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 418 12.22 5.48

RP2 Controlling 0-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 418 14.99 5.37
RP3 Outspoken 0-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 418 12.13 4.54
RP4 IndependentMinded 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 418 10.76 4.12
RP5 Outgoing 0 1-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 418 11.29 5.18
RP6 Affilative 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 418 12.67 4.39
RP7 SociallyConfident 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 418 14.14 4.57
RP8 Modest 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 418 13.32 4.78
RP9 Democratic 0-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 418 15.33 4.21
RP10 Caring 0-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 418 16.15 4.13
TS1 DataRational 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 418 12.54 6.14
TS2 Evaluative 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 418 14.61 3.98
TS3 Behavioral 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 418 13.99 5.05
TS4 Conventional 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 418 11.59 4.32
TS5 Conceptual 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 418 11.44 4.73
TS6 Innovative 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 418 12.73 5.48
TS7 VarietySeeking 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 418 13.63 4.41
TS8 Adaptable 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 418 12.39 4.92
TS9 ForwardThinking 0-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 418 13.73 4.54
TS10 DetailConscious 0-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 418 14.34 4.80
TS11 Conscientious 0 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 24 - 25 26 418 18.18 3.88
TS12 RuleFollowing 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 418 11.62 4.84
FE1 Relaxed 0 1-3 4-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 418 10.22 4.66
FE2 Worrying 0 1-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 418 8.24 5.35
FE3 ToughMinded 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 418 11.04 4.28
FE4 Optimistic 0-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 418 15.44 4.32
FE5 Trusting 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 418 12.84 4.26
FE6 EmotionallyControlled 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 418 9.74 4.54
FE7 Vigorous 0-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 418 16.39 3.97
FE8 Competitive 0-1 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 418 10.6 5.92
FE9 Achieving 0-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 418 16.18 4.88
FE10 Decisive 0 1-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 418 11.48 5.36
CNS Consistency 0 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 37 - 39 40 - 75 418 27.35 6.12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

©2002 SHL USA plc.

 Canadian OPQ32i Managerial & Professional 2002 Date created: 24/05/04

Group This norm group is based on a sample of 418 records collected

during the years 2001-2002. This is a diverse group of
executives, managers and professionals from within a variety
of sectors.

Gender Male 53.6%

Female 46.4%
Industry Transportation 35%
Financial 31%
Other/no response 34%

©2002 SHL USA plc.

 Candian OPQ32i Non-Managerial 2002 Date created: 24/05/04

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RP1 Persuasive 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 3887 9.42 4.68

RP2 Controlling 0-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 3887 13.01 5.47
RP3 Outspoken 0-3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 3887 12.85 4.58
RP4 IndependentMinded 0-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 26 3887 11.03 3.87
RP5 Outgoing 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 3887 10.18 4.96
RP6 Affilative 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 26 3887 11.35 4.23
RP7 SociallyConfident 0-3 4-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3887 12.29 4.53
RP8 Modest 0-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3887 13.33 4.72
RP9 Democratic 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 3887 12.39 3.82
RP10 Caring 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3887 13.86 4.10
TS1 DataRational 0-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 3887 15.16 5.11
TS2 Evaluative 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3887 14.80 3.73
TS3 Behavioral 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 3887 11.02 4.74
TS4 Conventional 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3887 14.09 3.91
TS5 Conceptual 0-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 3887 12.56 4.78
TS6 Innovative 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3887 11.66 4.97
TS7 VarietySeeking 0-2 3-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 26 3887 11.91 4.48
TS8 Adaptable 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3887 11.55 5.12
TS9 ForwardThinking 0-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 26 3887 13.03 4.42
TS10 DetailConscious 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3887 16.04 4.28
TS11 Conscientious 0 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 3887 18.03 3.77
TS12 RuleFollowing 0-6 7-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3887 15.75 4.38
FE1 Relaxed 0-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 3887 15.60 5.00
FE2 Worrying 0 1-2 3-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 26 3887 7.80 5.07
FE3 ToughMinded 0-5 6-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 26 3887 14.00 4.46
FE4 Optimistic 0-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 3887 14.61 4.22
FE5 Trusting 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 3887 10.94 4.60
FE6 EmotionallyControlled 0-1 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 3887 11.27 4.87
FE7 Vigorous 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 3887 15.62 4.20
FE8 Competitive 0-1 2-4 5-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 26 3887 9.86 5.78
FE9 Achieving 0-7 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3887 15.95 4.10
FE10 Decisive 0-5 6-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 3887 15.04 4.85
CNS Consistency 0 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 35 36 - 38 39 - 75 3887 26.12 6.25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

©2002 SHL USA plc.

 OPQ32n General Occupational norm group Date created: 9/7/01

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Persuasive 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 1053 22.47 5.27

Controlling 8 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 1053 24.08 4.26
Outspoken 4 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 36 1053 22.94 5.00
Independent Minded 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 36 1053 21.04 4.40
Outgoing 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 1053 21.17 5.95
Affiliative 4 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 36 1053 22.80 5.54
Socially Confident 8 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 1053 22.63 5.18
Modest 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 1053 19.32 4.96
Democratic 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 36 1053 25.91 4.45
Caring 4 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 1053 26.85 4.33
Data Rational 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 1053 23.14 5.22
Evaluative 4 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 1053 26.72 4.32
Behavioral 4 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 35 36 1053 28.15 5.36
Conventional 4-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 36 1053 18.61 5.32
Conceptual 4 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 1053 25.56 5.11
Innovative 8 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 – 30 31 32 1053 23.83 5.14
Variety Seeking 4 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 1053 25.27 5.20
Adaptable 8 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 1053 23.02 4.75
Forward Thinking 8 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 1053 25.09 4.31
Detail Conscious 4 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 –35 36 1053 25.79 5.31
Conscientious 8 - 18 19 - 20 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 1053 25.65 3.74
Rule Following 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 1053 21.36 5.24
Relaxed 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 1053 21.93 5.56
Worrying 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 1053 20.88 5.26
Tough Minded 8 9 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 1053 19.62 5.65
Optimistic 4 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 34 35 36 1053 29.04 5.15
Trusting 4 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 35 36 1053 24.36 5.55
Emotionally Controlled 8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 32 1053 19.61 5.44
Vigorous 4 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 35 36 1053 28.81 4.34
Competitive 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 32 1053 17.55 4.91
Achieving 4 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 32 33 - 34 35 36 1053 27.01 5.32
Decisive 8-9 10 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 32 1053 18.85 4.63
Social Desirability 4-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 36 1053 17.31 4.62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 SHL Group plc, 2001

 OPQ32n Managerial & Professional norm group Date created: 9/7/01

Scale Sten N Mean SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Persuasive 8 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 726 22.97 5.02

Controlling 8 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 726 24.66 3.87
Outspoken 4 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 36 726 23.34 4.82
Independent Minded 4 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 36 726 21.11 4.32
Outgoing 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 726 20.99 5.98
Affiliative 4 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36 726 22.45 5.38
Socially Confident 8 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 726 22.71 5.17
Modest 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 32 726 19.32 4.84
Democratic 4 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 36 726 26.06 4.40
Caring 4 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 726 26.75 4.25
Data Rational 8 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 30 31 32 726 23.97 4.96
Evaluative 4 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 36 726 23.43 4.05
Behavioral 4 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 726 28.27 5.35
Conventional 4-7 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 36 726 17.98 5.26
Conceptual 4 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 - 35 36 726 26.01 5.11
Innovative 8 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 31 32 726 24.39 4.90
Variety Seeking 4 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 726 25.88 5.00
Adaptable 8 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 726 23.28 4.60
Forward Thinking 8 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 726 25.40 4.07
Detail Conscious 4 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 33 34 –35 36 726 25.67 5.23
Conscientious 8 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 726 25.68 3.63
Rule Following 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 726 20.78 5.21
Relaxed 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 32 726 21.88 5.57
Worrying 8 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 726 20.67 5.23
Tough Minded 8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 32 726 19.82 5.56
Optimistic 4 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 31 32 - 34 35 36 726 29.22 5.09
Trusting 4 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 35 36 726 24.98 5.35
Emotionally Controlled 8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 32 726 19.71 5.50
Vigorous 4 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 33 34 35 36 726 28.93 4.20
Competitive 8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 32 726 17.97 4.90
Achieving 4 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 36 726 27.60 5.01
Decisive 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 28 29 - 32 726 19.06 4.65
Social Desirability 4-8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 24 25 - 26 27 - 36 726 17.27 4.58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 SHL Group plc, 2001