Journal of Applied Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association

2011, Vol. 96, No. 4, 762–773 0021-9010/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021832

Validity of Observer Ratings of the Five-Factor Model of

Personality Traits: A Meta-Analysis

In-Sue Oh Gang Wang and Michael K. Mount

Virginia Commonwealth University University of Iowa

Conclusions reached in previous research about the magnitude and nature of personality–performance
linkages have been based almost exclusively on self-report measures of personality. The purpose of this
study is to address this void in the literature by conducting a meta-analysis of the relationship between
observer ratings of the five-factor model (FFM) personality traits and overall job performance. Our
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

results show that the operational validities of FFM traits based on observer ratings are higher than those
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

based on self-report ratings. In addition, the results show that when based on observer ratings, all FFM
traits are significant predictors of overall performance. Further, observer ratings of FFM traits show
meaningful incremental validity over self-reports of corresponding FFM traits in predicting overall
performance, but the reverse is not true. We conclude that the validity of FFM traits in predicting overall
performance is higher than previously believed, and our results underscore the importance of disentan-
gling the validity of personality traits from the method of measurement of the traits.

Keywords: personality, five-factor model, observer ratings, job performance, selection

Numerous meta-analytic studies using the five-factor model
(FFM) personality traits as an organizing framework have shown
that personality traits are valid predictors of job performance for
numerous criteria. In particular, Conscientiousness, and to a lesser
extent Emotional Stability, are the most consistent predictors
across jobs and criteria (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz &
Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997). Other FFM traits (e.g., Agree-
ableness) are also valid predictors of performance in certain jobs or
certain performance criteria (e.g., organizational citizenship be-
havior), but their validities do not generalize across jobs and
performance criteria (see Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson,
2009).
Despite these positive findings, the magnitude of the validity
obtained in these studies is only moderate, with estimated opera-
tional validity in the .20s range (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001;
Schmidt, Shaffer, & Oh, 2008). In light of these findings, a set of
This article was published Online First December 13, 2010.
In-Sue Oh, Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia
Commonwealth University; Gang Wang and Michael K. Mount, Depart-
ment of Management and Organizations, Tippie College of Business,
University of Iowa.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2010 annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
August 6 –10. We thank Frank Schmidt, Murray Barrick, and Kibeom Lee
for their useful comments on an earlier version of this article. We also
thank Jared LeDoux and Donald H. Kluemper for sharing their data
with us.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to In-Sue
Oh, Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Common-
wealth University, 301 West Main Street, Box 844000, Richmond, VA
23284, or to Michael K. Mount, Department of Management and Organi-
zations, Tippie College of Business, S358 John Pappajohn Bus Building,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1994. E-mail: isoh@vcu.edu or
michael-mount@uiowa.edu
former journal editors of the Journal of Applied Psychology and
Personnel Psychology reviewed the literature pertaining to the
relationship between personality traits and job performance
(Morgeson et al., 2007), and they concluded that the validity of
personality measures in predicting job performance is so low that
the use of “self-report” personality tests in selection contexts
should be reconsidered. Similarly, Ployhart (2006, pp. 878 – 879)
stated, “This concern is not restricted to academics; applied expe-
rience suggests many practitioners and human resource (HR) man-
agers remain skeptical of personality testing because these valid-
ities appear so small.” It should be noted, however, that other
scholars have refuted these claims and have presented a more
favorable view of the validity of self-report personality measures
(e.g., Oh & Berry, 2009; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge,
2007; Tett & Christiansen, 2007).
Thus, considering all arguments pro and con, it is fair to say that
there is considerable debate about the amount of progress that has
been made in understanding relationships between personality
traits and job performance. However, one area where there is no
disagreement is that virtually all of our knowledge about the
usefulness of personality traits in selection contexts (e.g., which
personality traits predict which criteria; how well they predict; and
whether the validities generalize across jobs, organizations, and
occupations) is based exclusively on a single method of measure-
ment: self-reports of personality traits (see Mount, Barrick, &
Strauss, 1994, for an exception). Accordingly, in Morgeson et al.’s
(2007) article, several of the journal editors suggested that future
research should focus on identifying alternatives to self-report
personality measures. For example, K. Murphy (p. 719) stated,
I have more faith in the constructs than in the measures. And I think
the problem is that we have been relying on self-report measures for
the last 100 years. We should look at other ways of assessing person-
ality. If you want to know about someone’s personality just ask his or
her co-workers.

762
 OBSERVER RATINGS OF PERSONALITY
Similarly, M. Campion (p. 719) stated, “I think one theme I hear
is let’s think about different ways of measuring these constructs.
Let’s not abandon the construct, but instead abandon self-report
measurement and think about new and innovative ways of mea-
suring the constructs.” In their Annual Review of Psychology
chapter, Sackett and Lievens (2008, p. 424) also noted that one
strategy for improving the measurement of personality is to mea-
sure the same construct with different methods than self-reports.
Examples of this strategy include measuring the FFM traits using
interviews rather than self-reports (Barrick, Patton, & Haugland,
2000; Van Iddekinge, Raymark, & Roth, 2005) and developing
implicit measures of personality using situational judgment tests
(Motowidlo, Hooper, & Jackson, 2006) or conditional reasoning
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
measures (James et al., 2005; also see Berry, Sackett, & Tobares,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2010).
Clearly, in any field of science, it is important to demonstrate
the robustness of findings by showing that results converge across
multiple methods of measurement of the same traits (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959). Given the important role that personality traits play
in predicting job performance at work (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001)
and given recent, reoccurring pessimistic views of the use of
self-reports of personality in high-stakes selection contexts (e.g.,
Morgeson et al., 2007), it is imperative that researchers examine
alternatives to self-report measures of personality in predicting job
performance. Accordingly, the major purpose of this study is to
conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the validity of observer ratings
of FFM personality traits in predicting job performance. We com-
pare the magnitude of the validity estimates of observer ratings of
FFM traits with previously derived validity estimates based on
self-report measures of FFM traits. We also examine the incre-
mental validity of observer ratings of personality over self-reports
of personality using currently available meta-analytic evidence.
We believe the findings have the potential to make important
practical and theoretical contributions to the field. For example, if
the results show that observer ratings of personality have substan-
tially higher validities than validities based on self-reports, it
affirms the perspective of both Murphy and Campion in Morgeson
et al. (2007) that we should not abandon FFM constructs but rather
should explore alternative ways of measuring the constructs. The-
oretically, such findings would mean that personality traits should
play even more prominent roles in models that seek to explain job
performance.
Validity of Self-Reports Versus Observer Ratings of
Personality Traits
Historically, the estimated strength of relationships between
FFM traits and outcome variables has been based on the ability of
self-reports of personality to predict the outcomes. In the field
of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, use of self-reports of
job-relevant personality traits as a selection procedure is often the
norm given its positive and generalizable validity and its practi-
cally meaningful incremental validity over cognitive ability, the
single best selection procedure (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Why
has the use of self-reports been the most frequently used method in
personality measurement? First, it may reflect the convenience of
obtaining such information. It is easier for researchers and practi-
tioners to obtain ratings from a single individual who is the target
research participant or the focal job applicant or incumbent than it
763
is to collect the ratings from other individuals. Second, it may
reflect the belief that personality judgments made by the target
person are the most accurate representations of his or her actual
personality. Third, it may reflect the fact that some personality
traits (e.g., affective personality traits including Emotional Stabil-
ity) are inherently internal to the target person and thus are less
able to be observed by others or perhaps are unknowable by others
(e.g., Spain, Eaton, & Funder, 2000). Lastly, it may reflect re-
search findings that show that self-reports of personality are valid
in predicting numerous important life outcomes, including job
performance both cross-sectionally and longitudinally (e.g., Judge,
Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner,
Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007).
Nonetheless, as discussed earlier, the validity of self-reports of
personality is not as high as many researchers expect to be. As
Sackett and Lievens (2008, p. 424) stated, “there seems to be a
general sense that personality ‘should’ fare better than it does.”
There are several possible explanations for the relatively low
validity of self-reports of personality traits. First, self-reports of
personality are subject to response distortion (faking). Generally
speaking, it is clear that individuals can fake/distort their responses
to personality measures when instructed to do so in both laboratory
and field settings (see Hooper & Sackett, 2008, for meta-analytic
evidence). One form of response distortion is impression manage-
ment tendencies, whereby in high-stakes testing individuals inten-
tionally present themselves in a favorable light to obtain valued
rewards (e.g., employment). A second form is self-deception,
whereby individuals unintentionally distort their ratings of socially
desirable traits in a positive direction (e.g., Paulhus, 1991; Paulhus
& Reid, 1984). Both of these response distortion tendencies rep-
resent systematic, but irrelevant, variance that may lower the
validity of the ratings. There is considerable debate in the literature
about the impact of response distortion on the validity of self-
reports of personality. Existing research is inconclusive about
whether these response distortion tendencies significantly alter the
validity of self-reports of personality. For example, Ellingson,
Smith, and Sackett (2001) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss
(1996) found that social desirability does not affect the construct
and criterion-related validity of self-report measures of personal-
ity, respectively. However, in actual selection settings, equal va-
lidity does not necessarily translate into the same applicants being
selected (Kehoe, 2002; Morgeson et al., 2007). To the degree that
applicants do not distort their ratings equally, their rank order on
test scores may change, which in turn may alter who is selected if
a top-down selection strategy is used. An anonymous reviewer
suggested to us that response distortion may be less severe for
applicants with high levels of positive FFM traits (e.g., Conscien-
tiousness) than for applicants with low levels of the same traits,
which further indicates that the degree of response distortion may
not be equal among applicants; some may fake more than others.
Overall, the above discussion clearly illustrates that personality
measurement (particularly, in selection contexts) should not be
limited to self-reports and that we need to look for alternative
methods of measurement to move this field forward (Morgeson et
al., 2007).
For example, there is evidence (e.g., Kolar, Funder, & Colvin,
1996; see Hofstee, 1994) that personality assessments made by
well-acquainted observers can provide equally accurate informa-
tion about the target person. According to socioanalytic theory
 764 OH, WANG, AND MOUNT
(R. T. Hogan, 1991), there is a clear distinction between what
self-reports and observer ratings of personality measure. Self-
reports assess the internal dynamics (e.g., identity) that shape the
behavior of an individual, whereas observer ratings capture the
reputation of an individual. Because reputations typically are based
on the individual’s past performance, and because past perfor-
mance is a good predictor of future performance, reputations are
likely to be more predictive of behavior in work settings than the
internal dynamics of one’s personality. That is, observer ratings of
personality are not so much a foresight as a hindsight, in which
personality is inferred from the person’s behavior rather than vice
versa. Funder and Dobroth (1987, p. 409; also see Funder &
Colvin, 1988) also argued, “evaluations of the people in our social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
environment are central to our decisions about who to befriend and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
avoid, trust and distrust, hire and fire, and so on.” Hence, the goal
of observer ratings of personality is behavioral prediction—from
an evolutionary psychology perspective, the prediction accuracy is
critical to survival (R. T. Hogan, 2007). Furthermore, an individ-
ual’s identity (self-reports of personality) and reputations (ob-
server ratings of personality) are not necessarily the same, al-
though they are related to each other to a meaningful degree.
Connolly, Kavanaugh, and Viswesvaran (2007) presented meta-
analytic evidence showing that the true-score correlations between
self-reports and observer ratings of the FFM personality are mod-
erate to strong with values ranging from a low of .46 for Agree-
ableness to a high of .62 for Extraversion. This suggests that
ratings/reports of the same trait obtained from different sources are
related but also capture unique variance. Thus, one of the main
questions we address in the present study is whether observer
ratings of personality account for incremental validity in job per-
formance over that accounted for by self-reports of personality. In
line with this reasoning, Mount et al. (1994) found that observer
ratings of sales representative’s personality showed substantial
incremental validity above and beyond self-reports of personality
in predicting overall job performance. When examined in the
opposite direction, however, self-reports of personality did not
show significant incremental validity over observer ratings of
personality. Despite these positive findings, it should be noted that
their results were limited to a single job—sales; thus, we do not yet
know whether the higher validity of observer ratings compared
with self-reports of personality is generalizable to other jobs.
Although Mount et al.’s (1994) results are encouraging, there
are several possible reasons that observer ratings actually may
have lower validity than self-reports. One is that observers have
limited opportunities to observe a target person’s behavior both in
terms of the diversity and relevance of situations, as well as the
duration and frequency of time spent observing the target. As
mentioned earlier (Connolly et al., 2007), some personality traits
are private to the target person and thus not easily observable to
observers. In other words, target persons are in a better position to
rate/report their own personality traits because they observe them-
selves all the time and across numerous different situations. Sec-
ond, it is possible that observer ratings, like self-reports, contain
response distortion (e.g., friendship bias), albeit different types
than those associated with self-reports (e.g., faking). On one hand,
it is likely that observers (friends, parents, referees) intentionally
minimize targets’ socially undesirable traits (e.g., being sloppy,
rude, nervous, untrustworthy, or unimaginative) or exaggerate
targets’ socially desirable traits (e.g., being hardworking, assertive,
cooperative, unenvious, or creative). On the other hand, the fun-
damental attribution error posits that observers are inclined to
unconsciously make dispositional attributions for targets’ behavior
(Martinko & Gardner, 1987; L. Ross, 1977). Thus, observers may
unintentionally amplify the role that target’s personality traits play
but overlook the influence of situational factors. As a result, it is
possible that observers unintentionally give high ratings to desir-
able traits when targets achieve good results (e.g., job perfor-
mance) or low ratings of desirable traits to those who achieve poor
results, even though the good or bad results might be mainly due
to situational factors that are out of targets’ control. To the extent
that these unintentional distortions exist, observer ratings of per-
sonality may have lower validity than self-reports of personality.
Third, when assessing others’ personality, observers may also be
subject to rater errors, such as leniency, central tendency, and halo
found in performance appraisal (Ployhart, Schneider, & Schmitt,
2006; Scullen, Mount, & Goff, 2000). To the degree that observers
make these rater errors, observer ratings of personality may have
lower validities than self-reports. Nonetheless, given the lack of
meta-analytic evidence regarding the validity of observer ratings
of personality, it remains an empirical question whether the valid-
ity of observer ratings is higher or lower than that of self-reports.
In summary, there are compelling reasons to investigate the
validity of observer ratings of personality traits versus self-reports
as well as their incremental validity over self-reports in the pre-
diction of job performance. First, nearly all of the previous re-
search about the validity of personality traits is based on self-
reports, and this has limited the robustness of conclusions of the
usefulness of personality for selection purposes. Second, recent
research (Connolly et al., 2007) shows that observer ratings dem-
onstrate adequate psychometric properties—such as internal con-
sistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity—which
establishes the necessary conditions for further exploration of their
validity. Third, by definition, observer ratings do not contain
self-distortion bias (e.g., faking) that constrains the validity, fair-
ness, applicant reaction, and practicality (manager reaction) of
self-reports, although observer ratings may be subject to other
equally or more serious types of bias (Ployhart, 2006). Fourth,
although there is very limited evidence, empirical studies (e.g.,
Mount et al., 1994) and socioanalytic theory (R. T. Hogan, 1991,
2007) suggest that compared with self-reports, observer ratings
(one’s reputation) may have higher validities and can account for
unique variance in performance measures beyond that explained
by self-reports (one’s identity). Finally, on the basis of their review
of the literature, members of a distinguished panel of ex-journal
editors (Morgeson et al., 2007) and authors of a recent review of
selection research (Ployhart, 2006; Sackett & Lievens, 2008;
Schmidt et al., 2008) have called for more research that examines
alternatives to self-reports of personality.
Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to conduct a
meta-analysis of the validity of observer ratings of personality
traits for overall work performance. We examine, via meta-
analysis and meta-analytic regression, two important research
questions: (a) are observer ratings of FFM personality traits valid
predictors of overall job performance? and (b) do observer ratings
of FFM personality traits account for incremental validity over
self-reports of FFM traits?
 OBSERVER RATINGS OF PERSONALITY
Method
Literature Search
We conducted an extensive electronic and manual search for
both published and unpublished studies to minimize publication
bias (Cooper, 2003). For the electronic search, we searched elec-
tronic databases such as EBSCO, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and
Dissertation Abstracts. Given the large number of studies on the
relationship between personality and performance, we developed
two decision rules to search relevant primary studies. First, we
limited our initial search to studies whose abstract included at least
a keyword for each of the following two categories: (a) keywords
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
representing personality traits (e.g., personality, Big Five, five-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
factor model [FFM]) and (b) keywords representing performance
criteria (e.g., performance, organizational citizenship behavior
[OCB], helping, deviance, counterproductive work behavior). Sec-
ond, we searched primary studies citing Mount et al. (1994), the
pioneering study examining the validity of observer ratings of
personality in predicting job performance. For the manual search,
we consulted all issues of major I/O psychology journals (e.g.,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology) published
as of May 2010 for in-press articles that may have not yet been
included in the electronic databases. In addition, we searched
abstracts of recent major scholarly meetings (e.g., the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the Academy of
Management conference programs) and contacted several re-
searchers active in personality research. Finally, we searched for
possible unpublished and in-press studies by sending e-mail re-
quests to the Academy of Management listservs and by posting a
request on the call for papers section of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology’s official website.
Inclusion Criteria
To be included in the meta-analysis, primary studies had to meet
the following criteria. First, at least one of the FFM personality
traits had to be measured. We mainly included studies in which
measures were explicitly designed to measure one of the FFM
personality traits (factors), as was done in Hurtz and Donovan
(2000). That is, studies in which non-FFM personality traits (e.g.,
Core Self-Evaluations; Scott & Judge, 2009) were measured were
excluded. Second, participants’ FFM personality traits had to be
assessed by single or multiple observers. Third, participants’ work
performance (e.g., overall, task, contextual, counterproductive per-
formance; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002) had to be examined at the
individual level. We excluded primary studies in which interview
performance was the criterion (e.g., Van Iddekinge, McFarland, &
Raymark, 2007). Fourth, participants’ FFM personality and per-
formance had to be rated by different people/sources to avoid
common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). At the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, however, we
relaxed this inclusion criterion to increase the number of relevant
studies. We included four primary studies (Peterson, Smith, Mar-
torana, & Owens, 2003; S. M. Ross & Offermann, 1997; Shaffer,
Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006; Zimmerman, Tri-
ana, & Barrick, 2010) in which there is or might be slight overlap
between personality and performance rating sources. For example,
in Zimmerman et al. (2010), Master of Business Administration
765
(MBA) applicants’ personality was measured by three referees,
one of whom may be the current supervisor who provided perfor-
mance ratings (R. Zimmerman, personal communication, May 12,
2010). In addition, we included two primary studies (Aronson,
Reilly, & Lynn, 2006; Brennan & Skarlicki, 2004) in which
personality and performance were assessed by the same observer.
Contrary to our expectations, we found that the extrapolated results
were virtually the same with and without the six primary studies
(no more than ⫾.02). Thus, in Table 1, we report the results that
include all six studies. (Results without these six studies are
available upon request from the first author.) Fifth, we focused on
samples of working adults in organizational settings to generalize
our findings to a typical organizational setting and to be compa-
rable with similar meta-analyses examining the validity of self-
reports of personality for job performance (e.g., Hurtz & Donovan,
2000).
As a result, a total of 16 primary studies with 18 independent
samples met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-
analysis. Among the 16 primary studies, 12 were published arti-
cles, and four were unpublished (a dissertation, a data set, and two
working papers). All of the samples are incumbent samples. To
maximize coding accuracy, the first two authors independently
coded all studies and compared their coding results. The initial
agreement rate was 93%. All the remaining discrepancies were
resolved through a series of discussions.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We estimated the operational (true) validity (corrected for un-
reliability in the criterion measure and range restriction on the
predictor measure) of observer ratings of personality using Hunter
and Schmidt’s (2004) validity generalization methods, which have
been used in all other meta-analyses on the relationship between
self-reports of personality and job performance (e.g., Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Specifically, we used
individual correction methods to synthesize validity coefficients
across studies using the Hunter–Schmidt Meta-Analysis Package
Program 1.1 (VG6 Module; Schmidt & Le, 2004).
To be comparable with the procedures used in previous meta-
analyses (e.g., Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), we corrected each valid-
ity (correlation) coefficient for measurement error in the criterion
measure using the meta-analytically derived mean interrater reli-
ability estimate, given that no primary study reported interrater
reliability estimates (Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). If
there were multiple raters, we used the meta-analytic single-rater
reliability (.52) and the Spearman–Brown formula to derive a
reliability estimate that reflected the number of individuals who
provided performance ratings. The mean interrater reliability esti-
mate across these studies included in this meta-analysis was .67
(SD ⫽ .16). It should be noted that Hurtz and Donovan (2000)
used a somewhat lower interrater reliability estimate (.53) to
correct for measurement error in the criterion measures. With
regard to which type of reliability to use (interrater or coefficient
alpha) in correcting for unreliability of job performance ratings to
estimate operational validity, there is an on-going debate in the
literature (Murphy & DeShon, 2000; Schmidt, Viswesvaran, &
Ones, 2000). For informational purposes, we report results cor-
rected for measurement error using the meta-analytic mean inter-
rater reliability estimate adjusted for the number of raters and the
 766 OH, WANG, AND MOUNT

Table 1
Operational Validity of Observer Ratings of Five-Factor Model (FFM) Personality Traits for Overall Job Performance

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

FFM trait k N Nraters r៮ ␳ˆ៮ SD␳ 80% CrI␳ SE␳៮ 95% CI␳៮ % Var

Conscientiousnessa 17 2,171 1.72 .28 .37 .17 .16 .59 .05 .29 .46 31
Conscientiousnessb 17 2,171 1.72 .28 .33 .15 .14 .53 .04 .25 .42 30
Emotional Stabilitya 16 1,872 1.70 .15 .21 .00 .21 .21 .02 .16 .25 140
Emotional Stabilityb 16 1,872 1.70 .15 .18 .00 .18 .18 .02 .14 .23 136
Agreeablenessa 16 2,074 1.83 .21 .31 .14 .12 .49 .04 .22 .39 39
Agreeablenessb 16 2,074 1.83 .21 .26 .15 .06 .46 .04 .17 .35 31
Extraversiona 14 1,735 1.73 .19 .27 .15 .08 .46 .05 .18 .36 40
Extraversionb 14 1,735 1.73 .19 .24 .13 .07 .40 .04 .16 .32 40
Openness/Intellecta 14 1,735 1.73 .18 .26 .19 .02 .50 .06 .15 .37 29
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Openness/Intellectb 14 1,735 1.73 .18 .23 .17 .01 .44 .05 .13 .33 28
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. (1) number of independent validity coefficients—validities for counterproductive work behaviors are reverse coded when aggregating across performance
criteria; (2) total sample size; (3) average numbers of observers (raters) for personality; (4) sample-size weighted mean observed validity; (5) estimated mean
operational (true) validity—validity corrected for unreliability in the criterion measure and range restriction on the personality measures; (6) estimated standard
deviation of the operational validities; (7) lower and upper bounds of the 80% credibility interval for the validity distribution; (8) estimated standard error for the
mean operational validity; (9) lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean operational validity; (10) percentage of observed
variance accounted for by statistical artifacts.
a
Corrected for measurement error in the criterion using inter-rater reliability after adjusting for the number of raters (M ⫽ .67, SD ⫽ .16) and range
restriction on the predictor (.92 for Conscientiousness and Extraversion and .91 for the other FFM traits). b Corrected for measurement error in the
criterion using internal consistency (coefficient alpha; M ⫽ .89, SD ⫽ .08) and range restriction on the predictor (.92 for Conscientiousness and Extraversion
and .91 for the other FFM traits).

alpha coefficient estimates available from the primary studies
included in this meta-analysis (M ⫽ .89, SD ⫽ .08).
Because we were interested in estimating operational validity,
we did not correct for measurement error in the predictor (FFM
personality) measures; the mean reliabilities (coefficients alpha)
computed across primary studies included in this meta-analysis
range from .77 for Openness to .86 for Extraversion (on average
.82 across all FFM traits), which are generally comparable with
Viswesvaran and Ones’s (2000) FFM reliability generalization
results. We further corrected for direct range restriction on the
predictor measure using the meta-analytic information (ux [⫽
restricted incumbent SD/unrestricted applicant SD] ⫽ .92 for Con-
scientiousness and Extraversion, and ux ⫽ .91 for the other FFM
traits) reported in Schmidt et al. (2008). It should be noted that
Hurtz and Donovan (2000) used essentially the same mean ux
estimate (.92) to correct for measurement error in their predictor
measures.
It is noted that by using the mean artifact estimates rather than
their distributions, the variance due to artifacts was somewhat
underestimated, and consequently true standard deviation of oper-
ational validities was somewhat overestimated (McDaniel, Whet-
zel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994). This practice, nonetheless, made
the 90% credibility value (a cutoff value used to determine validity
generalization) more conservative. To ensure that the validity
coefficients included in our meta-analysis were statistically inde-
pendent, we computed a composite correlation when original stud-
ies reported multiple validity estimates within a single sample
(e.g., correlations between personality and several facets of per-
formance); otherwise, the average of the validity estimates was
used. Finally, we initially set the cutoff value of the minimum
number of primary studies to be included in each meta-analysis to
three based on Chambless and Hollon (1998), who argued that
good empirical evidence exists when an important relationship is
found in a minimum of three studies from at least two different
researchers.
Results
Overall Validity Coefficients
Table 1 presents the results of the omnibus meta-analysis ag-
gregated across performance criteria (e.g., overall, task perfor-
mance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work be-
havior). In this analysis, validity (correlation) coefficients for
counterproductive work behavior are reverse coded. Average num-
bers of observers (raters) for the FFM personality traits are 1.72 for
Conscientiousness, 1.70 for Emotional Stability, 1.83 for Agree-
ableness, 1.73 for Extraversion, and 1.73 for Openness/Intellect.
The mean operational validity estimates (␳៮ˆ ) range from .21 (Emo-
tional Stability) to .37 (Conscientiousness). Consistent with pre-
vious meta-analyses (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan,
2000; Salgado, 1997) and second-order meta-analyses (Barrick et
al., 2001; Schmidt et al., 2008), Conscientiousness (␳៮ˆ ⫽ .37, k ⫽
17, N ⫽ 2,171) has the highest mean operational validity among
the FFM traits, which represents a moderate to strong level of
validity. The estimated operational validity for Agreeableness,
Openness/Intellect, Extraversion, and Emotional Stability is
greater than .20 (ks ⫽ 14 –16, Ns ⫽ 1,735–2,074). The 80%
credibility intervals for all FFM traits do not include zero, sug-
gesting that all FFM traits’ positive validities generalize in at least
90% of the cases. Further, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for
all FFM traits do not include zero, which indicates that all mean
operational validity estimates are significantly greater than zero
(nonzero) at the .05 level (Whitener, 1990).
 OBSERVER RATINGS OF PERSONALITY 767

Validity Coefficients as a Function of the Number of
Observers (Raters)
The validity estimates in Table 1 were based on more than one
observer (rater), and the average number of raters varied somewhat
across the FFM traits. (On average, across the FFM traits there
were 1.74 observers [raters].) It is well established that validity
estimates may be influenced (increased) by the use of multiple
observers (raters) because averaging across multiple raters may
increase both reliability and validity, as the reliability index sets
the upper limit of validity (Oh & Berry, 2009; Schmidt & Zim-
merman, 2004). Thus, to make the validity estimates based on
observer ratings of personality comparable with those based
on self-reports of personality, we applied the procedure used in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 2). To make the comparison, we carefully chose meta-
analytic results of self-reports of personality in Hurtz and Donovan
(2000, Table 3, p. 875).
As shown in Table 2, the mean observed and operational valid-
ity estimates of the FFM personality traits measured by a “single”
observer are higher than the corresponding results based on self-
reports for overall job performance on average by .10 (ranging
from .04 [Emotional Stability] to .13 [Openness/Intellect]) and .12
(ranging from .04 [Emotional Stability] to .17 [Openness/
Intellect]), respectively. Further, the mean observed and opera-
tional validities of the FFM personality traits based on three
observers are even higher than the corresponding results based on
self-reports for overall job performance on average by .14 and .19,

respectively. Standard deviations of the mean operational validity

Schmidt and Zimmerman (2004) based on the Spearman–Brown
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

formula to extrapolate mean observed and operational validity
estimates based on one, two, and three observer ratings of person-
ality. Accordingly, Table 2 presents the mean observed and oper-
ational validity estimates of the FFM traits in terms of the average
number of observers (raters) and compares the results with oper-
ational validity estimates of self-reports for overall job perfor-
mance. Using the average number of observers for each FFM
personality trait and/or meta-analytic evidence on interrater reli-
ability for a single observer (rater) reported in Connelly (2008), we
computed the mean observed and operational validities as a func-
tion of the number of observers (reported in Columns 1 and 2 of
estimates and the standard errors for the mean operational validity
estimates were also estimated by the use of the procedure de-
scribed in Hunter and Schmidt (2004, pp. 158 –159, 205).
Incremental Validity of Single Observer Ratings of
Personality Over Self-Reports
Table 3 presents the incremental validity of “single” observer
ratings of personality over self-reports of personality for overall
job performance. Column 1 shows mean operational validity esti-
mates for self-reports of FFM traits for job performance reported
in Hurtz and Donovan (2000, Table 3). Column 2 shows the

Table 2
Operational Validity of Observer Ratings of Five-Factor Model (FFM) Personality for Overall Job Performance as a Function of
the Number of Observers

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

FFM trait Rating source r៮ ␳ˆ៮ SD␳ 80% CrI␳ SE␳៮ 95% CI␳៮ Diff.

Conscientiousness self-reporta .15 .22 .13 .06 .38 .03 .17 .27 —
1 observerb .25 .32 .15 .13 .51 .05 .22 .42 .10
2 observersb .29 .38 .18 .15 .61 .06 .26 .50 .16
3 observersb .31 .41 .19 .17 .65 .07 .27 .55 .19
Emotional Stability self-reporta .09 .14 .05 .07 .21 .03 .09 .19 —
1 observerb .13 .18 .00 .18 .18 .04 .10 .26 .04
2 observersb .16 .22 .00 .22 .22 .05 .12 .32 .08
3 observersb .17 .24 .00 .24 .24 .05 .14 .34 .10
Agreeableness self-reporta .07 .10 .10 ⫺.02 .22 .02 .05 .15 —
1 observerb .18 .26 .12 .11 .41 .05 .16 .36 .16
2 observersb .21 .32 .14 .14 .50 .06 .20 .44 .22
3 observersb .23 .34 .15 .15 .53 .06 .22 .46 .24
Extraversion self-reporta .06 .09 .11 ⫺.05 .23 .03 .04 .14 —
1 observerb .17 .24 .13 .07 .41 .05 .14 .34 .15
2 observersb .19 .28 .15 .09 .47 .05 .18 .38 .19
3 observersb .21 .29 .16 .09 .49 .06 .17 .41 .20
Openness/Intellect self-reporta .03 .05 .08 ⫺.05 .15 .03 ⫺.01 .11 —
1 observerb .16 .22 .16 .02 .42 .07 .08 .36 .17
2 observersb .19 .27 .20 .01 .53 .08 .11 .43 .22
3 observersb .20 .29 .21 .02 .56 .08 .13 .45 .24

Note. (1) estimated mean observed validity; (2) estimated mean operational (true) validity—validity corrected for unreliability in the criterion measure
and range restriction on the personality measures; (3) estimated standard deviation of the operational validity; (4) lower and upper bounds of the 80%
credibility interval for the validity distribution; (5) estimated standard error for the mean operational validity; (6) lower and upper bounds of the 95%
confidence interval for the estimated mean operational validity; (7) raw differences between operational validities for self-reports and observer ratings of
a given FFM trait. Total N and k for each FFM personality are as follows: Conscientiousness (N ⫽ 2,171, k ⫽ 17); Emotional Stability (N ⫽ 1,872, k ⫽
16); Agreeableness (N ⫽ 2,074, k ⫽ 16); Extraversion (N ⫽ 1,735, k ⫽ 14); Openness/Intellect (N ⫽ 1,735, k ⫽ 14).
a
Values for self-report personality are taken from Hurtz and Donovan (2000, Table 3). b Values for observer ratings of personality in this table are
extrapolated using the Spearman-Brown formula based on results in boldface in Table 1 and the average number of observers (raters) for each FFM trait:
1.72 for Conscientiousness; 1.70 for Emotional Stability; 1.83 for Agreeableness; 1.73 for Extraversion; and 1.73 for Openness to Experience.
 768 OH, WANG, AND MOUNT

Table 3
Regression and Usefulness Analyses for Self-Report Versus “Single” Observer Ratings of Personality in Predicting
Overall Job Performance

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

FFM trait ␳ˆ៮ self ␳ˆ៮ other 2

(⌬Rself) (⌬Rself ) 2
(⌬Rother) (⌬Rother ) 2
(Rs⫹o) (Rs⫹o ) ␤self ␤other

Conscientiousness .22 .32 .019 (.013) .119 (.067) .339 (.115) .12 .28
Emotional Stability .14 .18 .020 (.008) .060 (.020) .200 (.040) .09 .15
Agreeableness .10 .26 .001 (.001) .161 (.058) .261 (.068) .02 .25
Extraversion .09 .24 .001 (.000) .151 (.050) .241 (.058) ⫺.02 .25
Openness/Intellect .05 .22 .003 (.001) .173 (.047) .223 (.050) ⫺.04 .24

Note. (1) mean operational validity estimates for self-reports of five-factor model (FFM) personality traits from Hurtz and Donovan (2000, Table 3); (2)
mean operational validity estimates of observer ratings of personality from the current study–validity is attenuated for a “single” observer (see Table 2);
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(3) incremental validity (⌬R) and change in R2 (⌬R2) due to adding self-reports to observer ratings of a given FFM personality trait; (4) incremental validity
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(⌬R) and change in R2 (⌬R2) due to adding observer ratings to self-reports of a given FFM personality trait; (5) multiple R and R2 from the combination
of self-reports and observer ratings of a given FFM personality trait; (6 –7) standardized regression weights comparing self-reports vs. observer ratings of
a given FFM personality trait.

attenuated operational validity estimates for a “single” observer
rating. Column 3 shows incremental validities of self-reports over
a “single” observer rating of a given FFM trait computed using the
meta-analytically derived intercorrelations between self-reports
and observer ratings of FFM traits (Connolly et al., 2007), whereas
Column 4 reports incremental validities of a “single” observer
rating over self-reports of a given FFM trait. The results for each
of the FFM traits show that self-reports of personality provide
negligible incremental validity (.001–.020; on average .009) above
and beyond observer ratings of personality. However, observer
ratings of personality provide substantial incremental validity
(.060 –.173; on average .132) over self-reports of personality in
predicting overall job performance. Column 5 shows the overall
multiple Rs (.200 –.336; on average ⫽ .25) for both self-reports
and observer ratings of a given FFM personality trait; it clearly
shows that the multiple Rs are mostly due to observer ratings,
rather than self-reports, of personality. Because “the validity of a
hiring method is a direct determinant of its practical value” or
utility, we focused on multiple R and incremental validity (change
in R) above (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998, p. 262). However, as an
anonymous reviewer suggested, some readers may be interested in
seeing variance accounted for (R2) and change in R2. Thus, these
values are also provided in Table 3 (numbers in parentheses in
Columns 3, 4, and 5). It is again clear that for each FFM trait,
observer ratings of personality (.020 –.067; on average .048 or
4.8%) account for more variance in job performance than do
self-reports of personality (.000 –.013; on average .005 or .5%), net
of each other. Columns 6 and 7 show the standardized regression
weights (␤s) for self-reports and observer ratings of a given FFM
trait. For example, when both observer ratings and self-reports of
Conscientiousness are entered in the same equation predicting
overall job performance, the estimated standardized regression
weight for observer ratings (.28) is 2.33 times larger than that for
self-reports (.12).
Discussion
Although progress has been made in the past 20 years in
understanding the validity of personality traits for predicting job
performance, results of multiple meta-analyses and second-order
meta-analyses have shown that the operational validities of self-
reports of FFM traits are modest (in the .20s range) at best.
Accordingly, this meta-analysis responds to the call by several
prominent scholars (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2007; Ployhart, 2006)
for research that investigates alternatives to self-report measures of
personality. The results lead to different conclusions about the
validity of FFM traits in predicting job performance and may
inform the debate surrounding the usefulness of personality traits
for predicting job performance.
Prior to discussing specific results, we urge the reader to use
appropriate levels of caution in interpreting our results because of
the relatively small number of primary studies/samples included in
the meta-analysis (ks ⫽ 14 –17). For example, given the relatively
small ks, the standard deviations (variances) of the observed and
operational validity estimates may be somewhat overestimated.
This may result in wider credibility intervals and conservative
estimates of the generalizability of the results across primary
studies. However, the mean operational validities are likely to be
accurate given considerable sample sizes (Ns ⫽ 1,735–2,171).
Relatedly, Hunter and Schmidt (2004, p. 408) stated that “several
studies combined meta-analytically contain limited information
about between-study variance (although they provide substantial
information about means).”
Magnitude of the Validity of Observer Ratings of
FFM Traits
One important contribution of this study is that the operational
validities of all FFM traits based on a single observer rating are
higher than those obtained in meta-analyses based on self-report
measures. The operational validities we obtained for a “single”
observer rating predicting overall performance ranged from .18
(Emotional Stability) to .32 (Conscientiousness), all of which
except for Emotional Stability exceed or equal the highest validity
reported in previous meta-analyses based on self-reports of the
FFM traits (i.e., .22 for Conscientiousness; Hurtz & Donovan,
2000, Table 3). In fact, the magnitude of the differentials between
observer-ratings and self-reports based validities in predicting
overall performance is substantial (at least .10) except for Emo-
tional Stability. Even for Emotional Stability, the observer validity
 OBSERVER RATINGS OF PERSONALITY
is larger by .04 (.18 vs. .14), which translates into about 30% gain
in validity. As mentioned earlier, the reason why Emotional Sta-
bility based on observer ratings has relatively smaller validity gain
might be that internal thought processes inherent to anxiety and
depression are difficult to observe. Nonetheless, the findings re-
garding the mean operational validity for observer ratings of
Openness/Intellect (.22 vs. .05 for self-reports; a 340% gain) are
especially noteworthy in this regard because every prior meta-
analysis based on self-reports has shown that Openness has essen-
tially no validity in predicting overall performance (Schmidt et al.,
2008).
One possible explanation pertains to the method of measuring
Openness. In fact, most of the primary studies included in this
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
meta-analysis measured Openness/Intellect using Goldberg (1992)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
or similar variants such as Saucier (1994; in fact, a short version of
Goldberg, 1992) and the International Personality Item Pool
(http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/).1 These FFM questionnaires emphasize
more g-loaded facets of Openness such as ideas, inquisitiveness,
and intellectance than other facets such as aesthetics and fantasy.
Accordingly, the items’ shared variance with g may account for the
high validity obtained for Openness. This also relates to the dis-
tinction we made earlier between personality viewed from the self
versus other perspective. From the self perspective, Openness may
refer to traits associated with one’s internal experience, such as the
facets of fantasy, feelings, and aesthetics, whereas from the ob-
server’s perspective, Openness refers to those traits associated with
external experience, such as the facets of actions, ideas, and
values. Because the external facets are more observable (visible to
others) and are more highly correlated with g, observer ratings are
more valid predictors of job performance (Griffin & Hesketh,
2004).
In sum, our findings based on a single observer rating lead to
more optimistic conclusions about the validity of FFM traits in
predicting overall performance; not only are the validity estimates
substantially higher than those based on self-reports but also all of
the FFM traits are more generalizable predictors of overall perfor-
mance.
Incremental Validity of Observer Ratings
Another contribution of the study is that single observer ratings
have substantial incremental validity (on average .132) over cor-
responding self-report measures of FFM traits in predicting overall
performance. However, the reverse is not true, as the incremental
gain of self-reports over observer ratings was negligible (close to
zero) for all FFM traits. Thus, when single observer ratings are
used to predict overall performance, self-report measures add little
to the prediction. These findings broadly support the findings in
the pioneering study by Mount et al. (1994), which showed higher
validities of observer ratings of personality relative to self-reports
and substantial incremental validity of observer ratings of person-
ality over self-reports in predicting job performance among sales
representatives. Our results extend their findings by including
multiple samples and by using meta-analytic methods that remove
biases due to statistical and methodological artifacts.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
Practically speaking, one way to show the potential of observer
ratings of personality as a selection tool is whether this predictor
769
accounts for variance in job performance above that accounted for
by other well established predictors. Following Schmidt and Hunt-
er’s (1998) analysis scheme, we computed the incremental validity
of single observer ratings of Conscientiousness (␳៮ˆ ⫽ .32) over
cognitive ability (␳៮ˆ ⫽ .51), which is the single best predictor of
overall job performance. The overall R is .605, and the incremental
validity (⌬R) of single observer ratings of Conscientiousness over
general mental ability is .10. Further, one noteworthy advantage of
observer ratings of personality over self-reports is the use of
multiple raters, which increases reliability and, in turn, increases
its validity (Schmidt et al., 2008). If three observers (raters) were
used to assess a target person’s personality, we could expect the
validity to be estimated at .41 (with ⌬R ⫽ .17) for Conscientious-
ness. In sum, our findings address many of the concerns raised by
prominent scholars that personality traits should predict better than
they do; in fact, our results confirm what those scholars suspected,
as we found that all of the FFM traits predict overall job perfor-
mance substantially better than previous research has shown.
Given the aforementioned advantage whereby multiple observer
ratings are available, one possible use of observer ratings for
selection purposes is to embed FFM personality items in reference
check procedures. For example, Zimmerman et al. (2010; included
in the current meta-analysis) measured two FFM personality traits
(Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) using a reference
checklist form. They reported stronger (observed) validities at .39
for Conscientiousness and .26 for Emotional Stability. Similarly,
Taylor, Pajo, Cheung, and Stringfield (2004; included in the cur-
rent meta-analysis) measured two FFM personality traits (Consci-
entiousness and Agreeableness) through a structured telephone
reference check with a brief (less than 15 min) interview with each
referee, and they also reported stronger validities.
Another noteworthy practical issue is that applicant reactions to
selection procedures and tools can influence recruitment outcomes
(Ployhart, 2006). As Hausknecht, Day, and Thomas (2004, p. 675)
stated, “organizations using selection tools and procedures that are
perceived unfavorably by applicants may find that they are unable
to attract top applicants, and may be more likely to face litigation
or negative public relations.” On the positive side, the good news
is that recent meta-analytic evidence indicates that reference forms
(M ⫽ 3.29, SD ⫽ 0.93) are more favorably rated than are (self-
report) personality tests (M ⫽ 2.83, SD ⫽ 1.01; d ⫽ 0.47, 95% CI
[.36, .58]). As such, it is possible that embedding personality tests
in reference forms may lead to more positive applicant reactions
than asking applicants to respond to a personality questionnaire.
Confirming this expectation, Zimmerman et al. (2010) reported
that MBA applicant reactions to a reference checklist containing
personality measures were positive. Notwithstanding the above
advantages and possibilities of using observer ratings of person-
ality in selection, Hurtz and Donovan (2000, p. 877) noted, “the
practice of using rating sources other than oneself is not likely to
be adopted in personnel selection practices.” Although we do not
share this view, we acknowledge that there are important issues
that need to be addressed before observer ratings can be used for
personnel selection purposes. As an example, although it is pos-
sible to embed personality measures in other selection tools (e.g.,
1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this issue to our
attention.
 770 OH, WANG, AND MOUNT
reference forms, phone reference checks, interviews), it is difficult
to overcome some of the contextual aspects of the rating proce-
dures. As an anonymous reviewer suggested, applicants are un-
likely to seek recommendation letters from individuals who are
likely to rate them poorly, and past employers are generally un-
willing to provide negative references because of concerns about
litigation.2 More research is definitely needed on this issue. None-
theless, we believe it is premature to dismiss the possible use of
observer ratings for personnel selection purposes. Our results show
that observer ratings have much higher validities in predicting job
performance than self-reports and additionally have an important
advantage over self-reports because multiple observer ratings can
be averaged, which can reduce the amount of bias (idiosyncrasy)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
across observers and thus can increase validity.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Regardless of the practical issues associated with using observer
ratings for selection purposes, the present findings have significant
theoretical implications for models of job performance. An impor-
tant goal in I/O psychology is to develop models that seek to
explain how individual differences and situational factors relate to
job performance (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1992). By disentangling
the validity of FFM traits from their method of measurement, our
results contribute to the development of these models by providing
a better understanding of the importance of one set of individual
difference variables, personality traits, in explaining job perfor-
mance. Our findings that the operational validities for the FFM
traits based on single observer ratings are, on average, 1.5 times (or
by .12) larger than those for corresponding traits based on self-
reports clearly show that personality traits play a more central role
in explaining job performance than previous research has revealed.
Further, our findings that each of the FFM traits is a valid (non-
zero) predictor of overall performance and that the validities of all
FFM traits generalize (80% credibility intervals do not contain
zero) suggest that models that include only the FFM constructs of
Conscientiousness (and Emotional Stability) are likely to be defi-
cient in explaining job performance. Finally, the findings that FFM
traits based on observer ratings account for substantial incremental
validity over cognitive ability (e.g., for Conscientiousness alone
there is a incremental gain of .10 based on a “single” observer
rating) reveal that FFM traits are comparatively more important
relative to general mental ability than previous research has sug-
gested.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
There are several limitations in this meta-analysis. First, as we
acknowledged in several places, the number of primary studies and
the sample sizes in this meta-analysis are relatively small. How-
ever, the overall findings are consistent with those of representa-
tive primary studies such as Mount et al. (1994). Specifically, the
average raw score difference across the FFM traits is only .02
between the validities based on one observer in Table 2 and the
validities reported in Table 1 of Mount et al. with coworker as
personality rating source and supervisor as performance rating
source. Given the much larger sample sizes in the current study,
our study provides more accurate and powerful validity estimates
of observer ratings of personality than Mount et al. (Hunter &
Schmidt, 2004). In addition, we used relatively stringent inclusion
criteria, which restricted the population of primary studies. In these
circumstances, it is useful to know the robustness of the findings.
For example, the operational validity of Conscientiousness mea-
sured via a “single” observer rating (␳៮ˆ ⫽ .32) is based on 17
independent samples (N ⫽ 2,171; average n per sample ⫽ approx-
imately 130). Following Berry et al. (2010), we determined how
many primary studies, each with an operational validity of .20 (a
typical level of operational validity) and sample size of 130, would
be needed to lower the operational validity of observer ratings of
Conscientiousness for overall job performance (.32) to .22, the
operational validity of self-reports of Conscientiousness. We found
that it would take about 100 such primary studies with the speci-
fied parameters to lower the validity to .22. Thus, these findings
are quite robust, as it would take the addition of a large number of
primary studies to change our conclusions. Having said this, one
major goal of this meta-analysis was to stimulate additional re-
search pertaining to observer ratings of personality. It is clear that
more primary studies are needed so that we can have more accu-
rate estimates and test more moderators (e.g., occupation, narrower
facet, rating source, characteristics of observers such as the level of
acquaintanceship).
We have alluded to areas where additional research is needed,
but there are certainly other areas that need to be addressed. One
is the extent to which the characteristics of the observers influence
the validity of the ratings. For example, in the present study, most
observers are coworkers (peers), which we expect are likely to be
the most frequent source of observer ratings in organizational
settings. One research question is whether other rating sources
such as subordinates, supervisors, customers, friends, or referees
(those explicitly asked to provide ratings in high-stakes contexts)
may yield comparable or even higher validities. Thus, a fruitful
area for future research is to examine the psychometric properties
of ratings made by raters from different perspectives. Potential
moderators include how long the rater has known the ratee, in what
context he or she has known the person (work or nonwork), and
what the purpose of the observer rating is (for selection or devel-
opment). Another fruitful future research might be to selectively
choose and combine facets of the FFM because this would yield
shorter measures that may have higher validities (Hurtz & Dono-
van, 2000). Recent research findings show that some facets of
FFM traits are significantly more predictive of job performance
than other facets and are more predictive of the overall score on the
FFM construct (e.g., Ashton, 1998; Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, &
Cortina, 2006; Mount & Barrick, 1995; Paunonen & Nicol, 2001;
Stewart, 1999; Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003).
Second, both validation type (predictive vs. concurrent) and
validation sample (applicants vs. incumbents) are important issues
(moderators) but have rarely been empirically examined in the
domain of personality (see Van Iddekinge & Ployhart, 2008, pp.
883– 885). However, there are several reasons that these issues
should be carefully examined in future personality validation stud-
ies. For example, “applicants are thought to be more likely than
incumbents to attempt to distort their response (i.e., fake) on
noncognitive predictors to increase their chances of being se-
lected” (Van Iddekinge & Ployhart, 2008, p. 894). As discussed
earlier, response distortion may lead to lower validity. In support
of this notion, Hough (1998) in fact found that observed validity
2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this issue to our
attention.
 OBSERVER RATINGS OF PERSONALITY
was smaller for predictive designs than for concurrent designs on
average by .07 by reanalyzing personality validation data (albeit
not based on explicit FFM measures) collected during Project A.
The same may apply to observer ratings of personality. Observers
(e.g., referees) are more likely to distort their ratings (i.e., be
susceptible to friendship bias) when their target is in high-stakes
selection contexts rather than in nonselection contexts. To the
extent this is true, the validity estimates reported in this study may
be overestimates of predictive designs, given that all primary
studies included in the meta-analysis were based on incumbents
and that all primary studies except for two (Taylor et al., 2004;
Zimmerman et al., 2010) were based on concurrent designs. How-
ever, Weekley, Ployhart, and Harold (2004) did not find significant
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
differences in terms of the validity of three FFM traits (Conscien-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness) between predictive (based
on three primary studies) and concurrent designs (based on five
primary studies). Thus, research is inconclusive about this issue,
and thus more primary studies should further examine this issue.3
Lastly, Ployhart (2006, p. 884) argued that previous meta-
analyses (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; J. Hogan & Holland, 2003;
Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) provide an effective summary of what
has been done on the relationships between personality and job
performance, “but we may often be interested in questions of what
could be done or what should be done.” On this point, as did
Ployhart (2006), we agree with Landy, Shankster, and Kohler
(1994, p. 286), who noted that “meta-analysis and traditional
research should be complementary and not competitors.” That is,
meta-analysis should encourage, rather than discourage, future
primary studies. We hope that this meta-analysis will further
encourage organizational researchers to investigate the use of
different sources of personality assessment other than self-reports
in their primary studies, as well as to explore procedural issues
(both legal and logistical) in the use of observer ratings for selec-
tion purposes.
Conclusion
Due caution should be exercised when interpreting our results
based on the relatively small number of primary studies included
in the meta-analyses. Nonetheless, the results reveal that the va-
lidities of observer ratings of FFM traits are substantially higher in
predicting overall performance compared with those based on
self-reports. Further, consistent with previous research, Conscien-
tiousness has the highest validity predicting overall job perfor-
mance. The new substantive finding was that when based on
observer ratings, all FFM traits are valid (nonzero) and generaliz-
able predictors of overall performance across situations. The re-
sults also show that observer ratings have substantial incremental
validity over self-reports of FFM traits and over general mental
ability in predicting overall performance.
3
We thank the Action Editor, Robert Ployhart, for bringing this issue to
our attention.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
771
*Aronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader
personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The
moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 23, 221–247. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.06.003
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of
narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289 –303.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3⬍289::AID-JOB841⬍3.0
.CO;2-C
*Barrick, M. R. (2009). [Observer ratings of personality and multiple
performance outcomes]. Unpublished raw data.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality
dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. In-
ternational Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9 –30. doi:10.1111/
1468-2389.00160
Barrick, M. R., Patton, G. K., & Haugland, S. N. (2000). Accuracy of
interviewer judgments of job applicant personality traits. Personnel
Psychology, 53, 925–951. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02424.x
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Tobares, V. (2010). A meta-analysis of
conditional reasoning tests of aggression. Personnel Psychology, 63,
361–384. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01173.x
*Brennan, A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Personality and perceived justice
as predictors of survivor’s reactions following downsizing. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1306 –1328. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2004.tb02008.x
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant
validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,
56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported
therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.7
Connelly, B. S. (2008). The reliability, convergence, and predictive valid-
ity of personality ratings: An other perspective (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent
validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-
analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15,
110 –117. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00371.x
Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3–9. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.3
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A
meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job
performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental va-
lidity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40 –57.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40
Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the
influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 122–133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.122
Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquain-
tanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149 –158. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.55.1.149
Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits:
Properties associated with inter-judge agreement. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 409 – 418. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.409
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26 – 42. doi:10.1037/
1040-3590.4.1.26
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a
good predictor of job performance. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 12, 243–251. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.278_1.x
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions
 772 OH, WANG, AND MOUNT
to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 639 – 683. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality?
European Journal of Personality, 8, 149 –162. doi:10.1002/
per.2410080302
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and
job performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 88, 100 –112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 873–919). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R. T. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hooper, A. C., & Sackett, P. R. (2008, April). Self-presentation on per-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sonality measures: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
San Francisco, CA.
Hough, L. M. (1998). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In M.
Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to tradi-
tional testing for selection (pp. 131–166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
recting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 – 879.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
Ilies, R., Fulmer, I., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. (2009). Personality
and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. doi:10.1037/a0013329
James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D., Patton, T. W.,
LeBreton, J. M., . . . Williams, L. J. (2005). A conditional reasoning
measure for aggression. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 69 –99.
doi:10.1177/1094428104272182
*Judge, T. A., & Colbert, A. E. (2001). Personality and leadership: A
multi-sample study. Working paper.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The
Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success
across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621– 652. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
*Kamdar, D., & Dyne, L. V. (2007). The joint effects of personality and
workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance
and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1286 –
1298. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286
Kehoe, J. (2000). Research and practice in selection. In J. Kehoe (Ed.),
Managing selection in changing organizations: Human resource strat-
egies (pp. 397– 437). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the
accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others.
Journal of Personality, 64, 311–337. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996
.tb00513.x
Landy, F. J., Schankster, L. J., & Kohler, S. S. (1994). Personnel selection
and placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 261–296. doi:
10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.001401
*LeDoux, J., & Kluemper, D. H. (2010, August). An examination of
potential antecedents and organization-based outcomes of metapercep-
tion accuracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader member attribution
process. Academy of Management Review, 12, 235–249. doi:10.2307/
258532
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994).
The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599 – 616. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R.,
Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality
tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683–
729. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x
Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006). Implicit policies
about relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness in
situational judgment items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 749 –
761. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.749
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions: Implications for research and practice in human resource man-
agement. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
13, 153–200.
*Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of
observer ratings of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 272–280. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.272
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. P. (2000). Inter-rater correlations do not
estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 53, 873–900. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02421.x
*Nilsen, D. (1995). An investigation of the relationship between person-
ality and leadership performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Oh, I.-S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and
managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498 –1513.
doi:10.1037/a0017221
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In
support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel
Psychology, 60, 995–1027. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social
desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red her-
ring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660 – 679. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.81.6.660
*Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). The dark-side of self-monitoring:
Engaging in counterproductive behavior at work. Best Papers Proceed-
ings of the Academy of Management, 11–16.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1984). Two-component models of socially
desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
598 – 609. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Paunonen, S. V., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The personality hierarchy and
the prediction of work behaviors. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.),
Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 161–191). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10434-007
*Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003).
The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management
team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organiza-
tional performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 795– 808. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.795
Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and
strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868 – 897. doi:
10.1177/0149206306293625
Ployhart, R. E., Schneider, B., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Staffing organiza-
tions: Contemporary practice and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R. N., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R.
(2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of person-
ality traits, socio-economic status, and cognitive ability for predicting
important life outcomes. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 313–
345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
 OBSERVER RATINGS OF PERSONALITY
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distor-
tions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 10, 173–220. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
*Ross, S. M., & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Mea-
surement of personality attributes and work group performance. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078 –1086. doi:10.1177/
01461672972310008
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87, 66 – 80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of
Psychology, 59, 419 – 450. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093716
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job perfor-
mance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
30 – 43. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar
Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506 –516.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of causal models of
processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 1, 89 –92. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768758
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications
of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for Hunter–Schmidt meta-
analysis methods. Iowa City, IA: Department of Management and Or-
ganizations, University of Iowa.
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I.-S. (2008). Increased accuracy of
range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of personality and
general mental ability in job and training performance. Personnel Psy-
chology, 61, 827– 868. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00132.x
Schmidt, F. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Reliability is not
validity and validity is not reliability. Personnel Psychology, 53, 901–
912. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02422.x
Schmidt, F. L., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2004). A counterintuitive hypothesis
about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 553–561. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.89.3.553
Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who
wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 20 –33. doi:10.1037/a0012951
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent
structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
956 –970. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.956
*Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., Black, J. S., & Ferzandi,
L. A. (2006). You can take it with you: Individual differences and
expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 109 –125.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.109
*Small, E. E., & Diffendorff, J. M. (2006). The impact of contextual
self-ratings and observer ratings of personality on the personality–per-
formance relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 297–
320. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00009.x
Spain, J. S., Eaton, L. G., & Funder, D. C. (2000). Perspectives on
773
personality: The relative accuracy of self vs. others for the prediction of
behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality, 68, 837– 867. doi:
10.1111/1467-6494.00118
Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance:
Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959 –968. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.84.6.959
*Taylor, P. J., Pajo, K., Cheung, G. W., & Stringfield, P. (2004). Dimen-
sionality and validity of a structured telephone reference check proce-
dure. Personnel Psychology, 57, 745–772. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2004.00006.x
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the cross-
roads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Mur-
phy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967–993. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00098.x
Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow
measures on both sides of the personality–job performance relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335–356. doi:10.1002/job.191
Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. H. (2007).
Antecedents of impression management use and effectiveness in a
structured interview. Journal of Management, 33, 752–773. doi:
10.1177/0149206307305563
Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2008). Developments in the
criterion-related validation of selection procedures: A critical review and
recommendations for practice. Personnel Psychology, 61, 871–925. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00133.x
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Raymark, P. H., & Roth, P. L. (2005). Assessing
personality with a structured employment interview: Construct-related
validity and susceptibility to response inflation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 536 –552. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.536
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in Big Five
factors personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies
and measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224 –
235. doi:10.1177/00131640021970475
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative
analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 557–574. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.557
Weekley, J. A., Ployhart, R. E., & Harold, C. M. (2004). Personality and
situational judgment tests across applicant and incumbent settings: An
examination of validity, measurement, and subgroup differences. Human
Performance, 17, 433– 461. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1704_5
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility
intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315
*Yoo, T.-Y. (2007). The relationship between HEXACO personality fac-
tors and a variety of performance in work organizations. Korean Journal
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20, 283–314.
*Zimmerman, R. D., Triana, M. C., & Barrick, M. R. (2010). Predictive
criterion-related validity of observer-ratings of personality and job-
related competencies using multiple raters and multiple performance
criteria. Human Performance, 23, 361–378.
Received February 25, 2010
Revision received September 20, 2010
Accepted September 23, 2010 䡲