Mettl Personality Map

Mettl Personality Map– Technical Manual
METTL PERSONALITY
MAP (MPM)
- Technical Manual
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2020 Mercer Mettl. All rights reserved.
This Manual may not, in whole or in part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, or converted to any electronic or machine-readable
form without prior written consent of Mercer Mettl.
Page 1 of 45
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Underpinnings of MPM ......................................................................................................... 6
Conceptualisation and Development ............................................................................................................ 8
Literature Review and Industry Analysis.................................................................................................. 8
Item Construction...................................................................................................................................... 9
Content Validity: ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Social Desirability................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Standardization ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Traits - Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 11
Factors – Definitions and Composition .................................................................................................. 13
Psychometric Properties.............................................................................................................................. 14
Reliability................................................................................................................................................ 14
Validity ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Administration and Scoring ........................................................................................................................ 22
Online Administration ............................................................................................................................ 22
Scoring .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Response Biases and Validity Scales ...................................................................................................... 24
Demographics and Adverse Impact ............................................................................................................ 26
Applications and Use of MPM.................................................................................................................... 28
Employment Selection ............................................................................................................................ 29
Training and Development ..................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix 1: Demographic details of Pilot study (N = 1289) ............................................................ 32
Appendix 2: Demographic details of the Standardization study 1 (N = 955) .................................. 33
Appendix 3: Demographic details of the Standardization study 2 (N = 1000) ............................... 36
Appendix 4: Demographics and Correlation (Standardization Study 2) .......................................... 37
References ................................................................................................................................................... 44
Page 2 of 45
Executive Summary
Mettl Personality Map (henceforth referred as MPM) is a comprehensive measure of adult
personality, which attempts to assess human personality via a total of 28 traits and 175 items,
answered on a 6-point Likert based agreement scale. The assessment has been created in English
language, is self-administered and is appropriate for people of all genders and ages who have a
reading level equivalent of no less than 6th grade.
The purpose of this technical manual is to describe the process of standardization and validation
of the MPM. This assessment is a measure of normal personality. An employee’s personality plays
an extremely important role in their various aspects of work, like organizational fitment, role
fitment, job performance etc. Especially today, with the rise of volatility, uncertainty, complexity
and ambiguity (VUCA) in the world of work, it is of utmost importance to understand such aspects.
Scholars in the field of organizational behaviour have time and again emphasized the relevance of
human personality in employee’s positive work behaviour (Witt, Burke, Barrick and Mount, 2002,
Youssef and Luthans, 2007). Practitioners as well have found personality assessments to form one
of the most significant aspects of employment and pre-employment testing. Mercer Mettl’s
previous personality assessments have been extensively used in hiring and developmental
interventions at all job levels across all industries as well. MPM is also suggested to have similar
applications.
The following goals guided the development of the MPM:
 It must be relevant and measure the personality of the assessment takers.
 It must be credible and high in terms of psychometric rigour.
 It should be easy to administer and simple to interpret.
 It should not be too long, and it should take an average time of 30-35 minutes to complete.
Page 3 of 45
 It must be free from cultural biases and adverse impact on a specific demographic group.
 It should be developed as per the guidelines prescribed by Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing developed jointly by the American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement
in Education (1999), EFPA test review model, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures (EEOC, 1978), and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's
Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (SIOP, 2018).
Aforementioned guidelines are important for the development of a scientifically rigorous and
globally relevant personality assessment. Details of MPM development and standardization
procedure will be shared in the sections that follow.
Page 4 of 45
Introduction
With the advancement of technology, data processing, and accessibility of the internet, the face of
personality assessment has changed from what it was known it to be over the years and is also
likely to change how things are done in the future. For a start, the evaluation of the statistical
properties of assessments is more accurate, flexible and easily accessible to psychologists than
before, which increases the critical evaluation of assessments and demands higher standards.
MPM is a Likert-based self-report measure of personality, developed at par with modern
assessment standards, specifically for use in occupational settings. In MPM, there has been an
attempt to move away from focussing solely on the five-factor model of personality and develop
a new theoretical understanding of personality by integrating advancements in the fields of both
personality and personnel psychology. It embodies a conceptual model that distils decades of
research and industry expertise on the structure of personality. It has been developed and refined
by a combination of rational and factor analytic methods.
This manual summarizes the scientific process of MPM development, evidence of reliability,
validity and standardization. It also provides information on scoring and interpretation of the
assessment scores, individual profiles and technical data supporting this edition.
Page 5 of 45
Theoretical Underpinnings of MPM

In the last decade, there has been a growing discussion around the need for a more comprehensive
and occupationally relevant personality assessment (Cattel and Mead, 2008; Hough, Oswald and
Ock, 2015; Schmit and Ryan, 1993). It has been pointed out time and again and that even though
the Five-Factor model of personality is till date one of the most relevant personality models,
inclusion of highly evaluative terms and descriptors lead to factors beyond the Big Five (Saucier,
Hampson and Goldberg, 2000). With over a decade of experience in personality assessments,
Mercer Mettl experts have found that several aspects of adult personality go beyond the Five-
Factor model as well. Based on this, a need to generate a new theoretical model of personality was
identified and thus began the initial phase of conceptualisation of work relevant personality
constructs.
Mercer Mettl researchers began with, the lexical approach to understand various terms used to
describe human personality in literature as well as work settings. The lexical hypothesis (Allport
& Odbert, 1936; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996) states that the most meaningful personality attributes
are encoded into the language, and the more important the attribute, the more likely it is to be
expressed as a single word. Lexical approach has proven to be an extremely useful template for
the development of a more sophisticated assessment instrument (Saucier, 2008). Hence, using this
approach, researchers at Mercer Mettl aimed to establish a strong basis of a sophisticated
personality assessment in occupational setting.
Further, a factor analytic approach was used as it utilizes rational, objective and mostly quantitative
evidence and explanations to underpin and account for a broad and complex understanding of
human behaviour. According to trait theorists, traits can be used to understand human behaviour
and their strength may be measured using questionnaire items. It is with this notion that MPM
Page 6 of 45
endeavours to measure and assess underlying personality structures and dimensions of people in
occupational setting within a holistic notion of trait, predictability and behaviour.
MPM endeavors to not limit the notion of personality to five broad buckets, but rather, develop a
detailed understanding of unique, stable characteristics of human personality, by both qualitatively
building on different systematic lenses and quantitatively refining their meaning.
Page 7 of 45
Conceptualisation and Development
MPM has been developed with an aim of making a more robust, reliable and occupationally
relevant assessment of adult personality in work setting. Several steps have been taken in
assessment development in order to ensure that major goals of the assessment are accomplished.
Following sections highlight the steps undertaken in the same light.
Literature Review and Industry Analysis
The main objective of MPM was to be occupationally relevant and comprehensive rather than for
the constructs to be original discoveries. Hence, for the same it was deemed right to base the new
assessment in previous personality literature and on relevant industry viewpoints. A review of past
literature on scientifically established personality theories, especially relevant in work setting, as
well as an industry analysis on relevant personality traits and dispositions was undertaken as the
first step. After scanning over 150 journal articles, around 50 relevant research papers were
evaluated along with 1394 job description documents (henceforth referred as JDs), as well as input
from 4 subject matter experts, to unearth most commonly desired employee personality constructs
across different industries and job levels. A list of thousands of words was generated through this
method. Modern day techniques like agglomerative semantic clustering (using text embedding
with neural networks for classifiers) and frequency analysis (after removing stop-words and
limiting the root-word) were then utilised to develop a more meaningful list of traits. This list of
traits was then screened in detail by a group of subject matter experts. This approach was
consciously used, since, from the hundreds of constructs that have been proposed to account for
individual difference, recurrence of certain constructs in both literature as well occupational
settings is a testimony to their relevance in this field.
A meaningful discovery at this stage, similar to what was originally hypothesized, was the
Page 8 of 45
emergence of relevant personality constructs beyond the five factor model. A list of 35 constructs
in total were generated at this stage, with 12 constructs like proactivity, openness to feedback,
learning orientation, independence, integrity, take charge etc. which fall outside the umbrella of
the ‘Big Five’. As a next step, a review of literature was done to then identify the source of these
35 constructs and find previously established theoretical models and researches to define these
constructs and establish their relevance in the field of personality testing and individual differences
in work setting.
Item Construction
The final assessment consists of a total of 175 self-report 6 point Likert based items including 10
items measuring social desirability. But the assessment development began with a total of 378
items including 13 items on social desirability. Strict guidelines for clear and concise item writing
given by Kline (2006) were followed. It was ensured that each item deals with only one central
thought, avoids terms like all or none, avoids double negatives, and indeterminate terms like
frequently or sometimes.
For items measuring social desirability, theory of impression management was utilised (Crowne
and Marlowe, 1960). It states that a person’s tendency of social desirable responding or impression
management can be measured through behaviours which are culturally sanctioned and approved
but are improbable in occurrence. For example the scale includes items such as “I always know
why I like things.” Responding in agreement with such items contribute to social desirability.
There are also other items like “I have sometimes doubted my abilities as a person.” Responses
indicating disagreement to such items, contribute to social desirability. The purpose of this scale
is to account for a person’s tendency to respond in a more positive manner than his actual
behaviour. Currently, these items are retained in an experimental format and do not contribute to
Page 9 of 45
the social desirability score of the candidate.
Once the item construction for the entire scale, i.e. 378 items was completed, the items were then
subjected to review by subject matter experts for assessing content validity.
Content Validity:
Items were further content validated by subject matter experts who reviewed the items on relevance
for the proposed traits. A four-point rating scale with one as “least relevant” to four as “most
relevant” was used to indicate the relevance of each item. On the basis of their feedback, a Content
Validity Index (CVI) was calculated for each item.
CVI = (No. of raters who rated the item as relevant or gave the rating as 3 + No. of raters who
rated the item as most relevant or gave the rating as four)/Total no. of raters.
Only items with a CVI value of .75 and above were retained in order to establish content validity
of the assessment (see Yaghmaie, 2003).
Standardization
MPM was standardised on an overall sample of 3244 adults (demographic information given in
Appendix 1-3) from across the globe over the course of three studies where item analysis,
assessment reliability, and dimensionality were assessed. The details of the three studies are
mentioned as follows:
Study 1
An initial measure of 378 items representing 35 traits was administered on a sample of around
1500 candidates. After removing incomplete responses, a total of 1289 responses were analysed.
Items analysis was done and items were removed based on mean (>5 or <2), standard deviation
Page 10 of 45
(<1), corrected item total correlation (<.20). At this stage, certain traits were found to be highly
correlated both empirically and theoretically and hence were merged. A total of 252 items
representing 33 traits were retained at the end of this study. An acceptable reliability of traits was
found at this stage ranging from .56 - .87 with a median reliability of .73.
Study 2
These 252 items and 33 traits were further analysed. A study on a total sample 1955 candidates
was conducted to establish reliability, validity and dimensionality of the new measure. The sample
was divided into two, containing 955 and 1000 candidates each. Initial analysis was conducted on
the sample of 955 candidates. Based on item analysis, Trait reliability and exploratory factor
analysis, 82 items were removed. A total of 175 items representing 28 traits was retained. In order
to confirm the item properties and the factor structure, 175 items were analysed again on the
separate set of 1000 candidates.
Study 3
A total of 175 items representing 28 traits was retained at this stage as well. Reliabilities (Cronbach
alpha) ranged from .60 to .88. Median reliability was .75. A 28 primary factor structure explaining
around 53% of variance was found in both samples. Further, a second order factor structure was
also designed in order to make the results more interpretive and meaningful. It has been noted that
primarily, the focus of the tool will remain on the 28 traits, and for the sake of understanding
broader constructs, a four factor structure was further designed. A four factor second order
structure explaining 56% variance was explored and confirmed. The psychometric properties of
the final assessment have been described in the following chapter.
Traits - Definitions
The 28 traits are unique measures of human personality, describing a wide range of human
Page 11 of 45
behaviour. The definitions of the final list of 28 traits are given in the table 1.
Table 1: 28 Traits
Trait Name Definition

Tendency to be attentive to messages from others, correctly interpreting them
Active Listening
and responding appropriately
Active concern for the wellbeing of others and willingness to help or support
Altruism
someone in need
Analytical Tendency to be more factual or data driven in their approach to problem
Mindset solving
Achievement Tendency to set challenging goals for oneself at work and make great efforts
Striving to successfully accomplish these goals
Tendency to confidently express one’s ideas and feelings in a direct and
Assertiveness
appropriate way
Tendency to be more inclined to work co-operatively with others or as part
Cooperation
of a team rather than separately or for their own self
Tendency to work at a fast pace and with high energy, characterized by
Dynamism
getting involved in multiple activities
Tendency to demonstrate concern and understanding for others' feelings,
Empathy
thoughts and experiences by putting oneself in their position
Tendency to actively identify and nurture new areas for growth by regularly
Growth Mindset
creating and taking advantage of learning opportunities at work
Independence Preference for working autonomously and under minimal supervision
A desire to want to convince or persuade others by reading and anticipating
Influence situations in a way that allows them to prepare, adapt and tailor their
behaviour based on the people and conditions around
Tendency to be governed by a moral code of conduct and belief in doing the
Ethics
right thing at work
Intellectual Tendency to look at ideas and information that is different and complex, and
Mindset understand concepts which are not concrete
Take Charge A natural tendency to lead and take charge
Modesty Tendency to be self-effacing and unassuming of one's achievements
Openness to Openness to experiencing major work-related changes and adjusting
change appropriately to new work structures, processes, and requirements
Openness to A measure of tendency to accept and respect the individual differences of
diversity people and a desire to understand different cultures and belief systems
Ownership Tendency to be responsible for one's actions and decisions
Tendency to work towards tasks in a diligent manner, persisting until they
Persistence
are completed, despite distractions or obstacles
Planning Tendency to be well organized and structured in one's approach to work
Page 12 of 45
Tendency to look at the brighter aspects of things and feel positive emotions
Positivity
like hope, optimism and joy
Tendency to engage in self‐starting, future‐oriented behaviour to enact
Proactivity positive change rather than react to things and situations or engage in an
activity only when directed to do so
Rule Adherence Inclination towards following rules and having a heightened sense of duty
Tendency to remain calm and adapt well to adversity, trauma, tragedy,
Resilience
threats or other significant sources of stress
Tendency to engage in behaviours that have some potential danger or harm
Risk Propensity
but also provide an opportunity for some benefit
Self-Efficacy Confidence in one's ability to accomplish things
Tendency to enjoy social situations and find the company of others
Sociability
energizing and rewarding
Trust A firm belief in fairness, honesty, and good intentions of people in general.
Factors – Definitions and Composition
The four factor scales are an amalgamation of the 28 traits of human personality, describing a
broader range of human behaviour. It will be useful for organizations to understand their
employees’ tendencies in the following four aspects as described by the second order factor
structure: their tendency to positively manage themselves, their goal, others, and their tendency to
lead or take charge in a workplace. The definitions of the final list of four factor scales are given
in the table 2
Table 2: Four Factors
Trait Name Definition

Self It represents an individual’s positive orientation toward self, and constitutes
traits that like positivity, resilience, self-efficacy, dynamism, growth
mindset, ethics and openness to change. These traits describe an individual’s
tendencies to remain strong and positive towards oneself. People high on this
trait are emotionally strong and stable. They are confident in themselves and
display positive character strengths at work.
People It represents an individual’s tendencies to deal with people, and constitutes
traits like sociability, trust, empathy, altruism, active-listening, cooperation
and openness to diversity. The traits are relevant in understanding an
individual’s interaction with people around them. People high on this factor
Page 13 of 45
are good at understanding and interacting with people around them, they can
align themselves with what others are feeling and work well with a wide set
of people.
Goal It can be defined as an individual’s tendencies to pursue and achieve one’s
goals at large. It constitutes of traits like achievement striving, analytical
mindset, persistence, planning and rule-adherence. People high on this factor
are goal-oriented, diligent, organized and obedient in a workplace.
Lead It can be defined as an individual’s natural tendency to help himself and
others move forward by proactively taking charge and ownership of things
around oneself. It constitutes of traits like assertiveness, independence,
influence, intellectual mindset, take-charge, modesty, ownership, proactivity
and risk propensity. A person high on this factor would display strong
leadership qualities, and would be able to take appropriate risks to move
forward.
Psychometric Properties
MPM displays robust psychometric properties. The final list of items display good internal
consistency, no overlap with validity scale items, no cultural bias and no intrusive or insensitive
content. Mercer Mettl maintains adequate reading level for both its desktop and mobile
assessments with the flesch readability level equivalent to 6th grade. The assessment is well-
validated in occupational settings, displaying strong association with job performance across job
levels and industries.
The assessment is not intended to measure clinical or psychopathological aspects of behaviour. It
has not been validated on children or adolescents and hence should be ideally used with adults as
a measure of normal personality.
Reliability
Internal Consistency:
The reliability of an assessment can be assessed in many ways. One of the ways is to measure the
consistency of scores obtained by the same individual across items within the same test. This is
Page 14 of 45
commonly tested through a statistical indicator called Cronbach alpha, which is a measure of inter
item correlation. The Cronbach alpha coefficient ranges from .00 to 1.00. A perfectly reliable test
would have a reliability coefficient of 1.00, and a completely unreliable test would have a
reliability coefficient of .00. Since the MPM is a multi-dimensional assessment, alphas are reported
at the level of different dimensions/traits (see Table 3). All traits were found to display good
internal consistency. Cronbach Alpha’s ranged from 0.60-0.88 at the trait level with median
reliability as 0.75. At the secondary level, the four factors displayed a high internal consistency,
with values ranging from 0.86-0.93, with the median reliability of 0.90 (See table 4).
Table 3: Internal consistency reliability of the traits of MPM
No. Trait Name No. of Items Cronbach Alpha

1 Active Listening 5 0.75
2 Altruism 6 0.75
3 Analytical Mindset 7 0.75
4 Achievement Striving 5 0.65
5 Assertiveness 3 0.65
6 Cooperation 6 0.8
7 Dynamism 6 0.62
8 Empathy 6 0.74
9 Growth Mindset 5 0.65
10 Independence 7 0.72
11 Influence 5 0.64
12 Ethics 7 0.68
13 Intellectual Mindset 8 0.76
14 Take Charge 8 0.8
15 Modesty 5 0.62
16 Openness to change 6 0.76
17 Openness to diversity 6 0.79
18 Ownership 7 0.6
19 Persistence 5 0.75
20 Planning 5 0.73
21 Positivity 6 0.73
22 Proactivity 5 0.67
23 Rule Adherence 6 0.81
24 Resilience 7 0.85
Page 15 of 45
25 Risk Propensity 6 0.84

26 Self-Efficacy 6 0.88
27 Sociability 6 0.83
28 Trust 5 0.86
Table 4: Internal consistency reliability of the factors of MPM
No. Factor Name No. of Traits Cronbach Alpha

1 Self 7 .93
2 People 7 .91
3 Goal 5 .89
4 Lead 9 .86
Validity
Construct Validity:
Evidence for construct validity of the newly created assessment was gathered through a series of
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The results from exploratory factor analysis provide
evidence to support the 28 factor representation of the personality assessment as well as a four
factor second order structure. Factor analysis is typically used for the investigation of construct
validity in cases where the relationships amongst variables are unknown or ambiguous (Brown,
2006). Since, MPM aims to build a novel assessment beyond the traditional Big Five, EFA and
CFA were found useful to establish construct validity of the tool. Confirmatory factor analysis
results indicate reasonable fit statistics with RMSEA = .08 and SRMR = .07
Convergent Validity
The 28 traits aim to delineate the detailed aspects of human personality. Thus, it was proposed that
the traits are likely to display strong correlations with other personality measures. For the purpose,
two standardised and internationally accepted personality assessments Big Five Assessment (John
and Srivastava, 1999) and Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994) were administered on a sample of 145
Page 16 of 45
respondents along with the newly developed MPM. Mini-markers represent a brief version of
Goldberg’s Adjective Checklist. The results show that traits are positively correlated to alternative
measures of similar constructs. For example: ‘Sociability’ is significantly positively correlated to
Extraversion in both Big Five and Saucier. Further looking at its correlations with individual
adjectives, it shows strong correlations with the following adjectives ‘Warm’, ‘Talkative’, and
‘Extrovert’. It was also found through the adjective check-list analysis that traits showed negative
correlations with constructs of opposite meaning. For example: Sociability was negatively
correlated to ‘Quiet’ or Achievement was negatively correlated to ‘Inefficient’, ‘Sloppy’,
‘Unintellectual’, ‘Envious’, and ‘Cold’. Similarly, other constructs are found to be positively
correlated to similar constructs on the two personality assessments. Due to time and other
constraints, the shorter version of personality assessments were used which are standardised at a
factor level, rather than Trait level. Hence, it was decided to accept correlation coefficients with
an absolute value of .30 and above. The correlation coefficients for convergent validity of MPM
ranges from .30-.51 displaying good validity. The detailed results are presented in table 5 and 6.
Table 5: Correlates of MPM traits scales
MPM Traits Saucier BFI

Active Listening Agreeableness, Conscientiousness Conscientiousness
Agreeableness,
Altruism Conscientiousness
Analytical Mindset Agreeableness Agreeableness
Conscientiousness and Emotional
Achievement Striving Stability
Assertiveness Extraversion, Emotional Stability
Cooperation Extraversion
Dynamism Conscientiousness and Extraversion
Empathy Agreeableness
Growth Mindset Agreeableness
Independence Agreeableness Openness
Influence Extraversion and Intellect Extraversion
Ethics Openness
Intellectual Mindset Intellect Openness
Page 17 of 45
Take Charge Conscientiousness and Intellect

Modesty Emotional Stability Extraversion
Openness to change Agreeableness Openness
Openness to diversity Extraversion
Ownership Agreeableness Openness
Persistence Conscientiousness
Planning Conscientiousness and Intellect Conscientiousness and Openness
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness,
Positivity and Emotional Stability Conscientiousness
Proactivity Intellect Openness
Conscientiousness and Emotional Conscientiousness and Emotional
Rule Adherence Stability Stability
Resilience Intellect
Agreeableness and
Risk Propensity Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness, Extraversion
Emotional Stability
Self-Efficacy and Intellect
Sociability Extraversion Extraversion
Trust Agreeableness
Page 18 of 45
Table 6: Adjective Check-list Correlates of MPM. Trait scales
MPM Traits Positive Negative

Inefficient, Sloppy,
Active Listening Deep, Cooperative Unintellectual, Envious, Cold
Altruism Unenvious Envious
Analytical Mindset Cold
Achievement Striving Unenvious Inefficient, Sloppy, Envious
Assertiveness Shy
Cooperation Envious
Dynamism Inefficient
Empathy Warm Cold
Growth Mindset Warm, Cooperative
Independence Warm Cold
Influence Cooperative
Ethics Inefficient
Intellectual Mindset Cooperative, Deep Unintellectual
Take Charge Energetic
Modesty Inefficient, Envious
Openness to change Warm, Unenvious Cold
Openness to diversity Cold
Ownership Warm, Cooperative Inefficient, Envious, Cold
Efficient, Systematic, Energetic,
Persistence Cooperative
Planning Unintellectual
Positivity Sloppy, Envious
Proactivity Warm Unintellectual
Rule Adherence Efficient, Systematic, Cooperative Sloppy, Envious
Resilience Deep
Risk Propensity Cooperative, Systematic, Efficient
Self-Efficacy Bold, Systematic, Energetic
Sociability Warm, Talkative, Extrovert Quiet
Trust Cooperative
The tables also represent important insights into the new age traits that have been added in the
MPM, which go beyond the Big Five factors. If you look at the traits that fit right under the Big
Five umbrella like Sociability, Trust, Persistence, they show clear strong correlations with larger
factors like Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness respectively. While looking at the
new age constructs like resilience, risk propensity, and leadership orientation, they tend to correlate
Page 19 of 45
with more than one factors as well there is so direct correlate in the adjective check-list. This can
also be taken as a reflection of how these traits form and above and beyond the traditional big five.
Criterion-Related Validity
Criterion-related validity evidence of the MPM was gathered through two studies done on samples
of working professionals from India (N=81) and abroad (N=47). A well representative sample was
chose in terms of age, gender and employment level. The latter sample was collected from a
consulting organization and constitutes of employees working as consultants. Indicators of
positive employee performance and workplace behaviour were correlated with the traits of the
newly developed MPM. It is important to note here that in criterion related validity analysis, the
precision and relevance of criterion data/employee performance data is extremely vital. To
strengthen the same, managers were asked to rate their subordinates on a list of criterion variables,
rather than just the overall performance. Moreover, they were provided a brief description of the
criterion variable to aid them measuring the same more precisely and accurately.
For example: To assess ‘Collaboration’, managers were instructed to “Please rate the extent to
which this individual values and works well with others, irrespective of their background or
differences.” A 10-point rating scale was used to assess individual performance on each criterion
variable respectively.
The results indicate mostly significant positive relationships between criterion variables and
various traits of MPM. An absolute value of r = 0.25, was used as base value for indicating
significant correlations. The tables 7 and 8 display the criterion correlates of various MPM traits
passing the threshold. The range of criterion validity for MPM is 0.25<= r <= 0.51. Thus, providing
evidence of relevance of the tool in context to positive workplace behaviour or employees.
Page 20 of 45
Table 7: Criterion Validity Study 1 (N=81)
Criterion MPM Traits (r)

Achievement Striving (0.29), Dynamism
Adaptability (0.25), Resilience (0.25)
Achievement Striving (0.26), Intellectual-
Mindset (0.31), Proactivity (0.25), Resilience
Analytical Ability (0.25)
Achievement Striving (0.25), Empathy (0.30),
Client Service Resilience (0.27), Self-Efficacy (0.26)
Altruism (0.29), Empathy (0.34), Resilience
Collaboration (0.36)
Communication Altruism (0.27), Empathy (0.33)
Integrity Altruism (0.33), Resilience (0.27)
Learning Orientation Achievement Striving (0.26), Empathy (0.27)
Proactive Dynamism (0.26), Self-Efficacy (0.27)
Table 8: Criterion Validity Study 2 (N=47)

Criterion MPM Traits (r)
Change Agility Modesty (0.27)
High Potential Ethics (0.28), Take-Charge (0.28)
Collaboration Modesty (0.28)
Analytical Mindset (0.42), Ethics (0.31),
Result Focus Ownership (0.49), Persistence (0.29), Self-
Efficacy (0.27)
Analytical Ability Ownership (0.25), Persistence (0.33)
Client Service Self-Efficacy (0.51)
Page 21 of 45
Administration and Scoring

Online Administration
MPM is a digital assessment, administered through an online platform which has been designed
in-house by Mercer Mettl for the administration, scoring, and reporting of psychometric
assessments. The online platform can be accessed through a computer or a smart phone. The
unique feature of the online assessment platform is its capability to generate real time reports.
Test takers will be sent a URL to the test, which they can use to access the test through any
device on which internet is accessible.
Since it is an online assessment, Mercer Mettl recommends following conditions as ideal for
uniform administration:
1. Test Takers should be advised to take the test in a quiet and well-lit room. It is necessary to
minimize distractions while taking the assessment. Further, comfortable seating position is
also recommended for the entire duration
2. Test takers should be advised to read the instructions carefully, in order to understand how to
efficiently respond to the assessment.
3. Entire test should be taken in one instance to minimize impact of external variables in an
individual’s scores. Test Takers should be advised to read the time mentioned at the starting
of assessment to keep their schedule free accordingly. The time mentioned at the start is the
maximum time that should a candidate to finish the assessment, if they are taking the
assessment seriously in a comfortable environment as suggested in previously.
4. It is rare for technical issues to occur in the middle of the test, but no system is foolproof.
Test takers should be advised to inform the administrator (or point of contact who sent the
test link) in case of any technical issue. Even if you have completed more than 70% of the
Page 22 of 45
assessment, the report generated may not be accurate. Hence, it is advisable for test takers to
inform administrators about any technical glitches, and take the assessment again.
Scoring
MPM scores are automatically generated. Currently there are two types of scoring: Trait based
and Competency based. In order to understand how the scores are generated it is important to
understand the relation between items, traits and competencies. Item responses on MPM are
coded on a 6-point scale based on the valence with respect to the construct they are intended to
measure. Items are combined into traits, and these trait scores are computed as standardized z-
scores (for which the means and standard deviations are provided, initially based on the
standardization sample). In trait based reports, this z score is then converted into Sten score
based on the formula mentioned below and trait based scores are reported.
To calculate a competency score, traits are combined into competencies – either based on the
standardized Mercer Mettl Competency Framework or a customized client-specific competency
framework. At this level, competency scores are converted into Sten scores using this formula
given below, which brings these scores into a more user-friendly 10-point scale.
(Z-score * 2) + 5.5
OR
[(X-M)/SD] *2 + 5.5 (same as above)
Interpretation
As reported in the last section, scores on MPM are generated automatically and the reports can
be accessed by the organization. The report is easy to understand and self-interpretive, yet the
Page 23 of 45
following points should be understood for better interpretation of the report.
Banding for Overall Recommendations
A banding strategy was used for administrative and interpretive ease as well as to accommodate
any imprecision in the non-cognitive assessment scores and their inferences. The assessment
reports (see Appendix for a sample) would contain profiles and narrative descriptions based on
candidates’ score bands on each competency according to this rubric:
 Low: Sten scores 1 to 4
 Moderate: Sten scores 5 to 6
 High: Sten scores 7 to 10
Response Biases and Validity Scales
Response bias is ‘a systematic tendency to respond to a range of questionnaire items on some other
basis than the specific item content’ (Paulhus, 1991, 18). Under these conditions response
determinants such as the subjects' generalized tendency to agree are legitimately considered as
sources of cumulative error. Any personality measurement tool will have such an error based on
the respondent style of answering questions. To increase the validity of the test, it is essential to
flag such erroneous cases to support a more accurate use of the output of a psychometric test
In order to identify which candidates’ responses were likely to be ‘genuine’ or less likely to be
distorted due to faking or careless responding, the following decision rules were put in place for
hiring managers to prioritize candidates for further consideration:
1. Socially Desirability: Tendency to present self in an unrealistically positive or socially
describable manner. An atypical response will be highlighted in the report where a person
has responded in an overly positive manner, scoring maximum points (i.e. 6) in equal to
over 80% of the items of the assessment or 5 & 6 in equal to or over 67% of the items.
Page 24 of 45
These cutoffs were calculated based on the standardization data as it was found that
responses of 99% of candidates were lesser than the aforementioned percentages
respectively. A Candidate’s high score on social desirability will be flagged in the report.
The report of such candidate’s should be interpreted carefully. In an occupational setting it
is quite prevalent for candidates to respond in a manner that is socially desirable. Even
though there is not much evidence correlating social desirability and overall job
performance, such responses may be a result of a candidate trying to manage one’s
impression in front of others or a self-image where one unconsciously indulges in self –
deception. In both cases, the person’s responding style needs to be highlighted as it may
not be true to their original behavior. A good follow up would be to interview such
individuals and ask them to state examples of when and how they displayed their top
competencies.
2. Central tendency error: Also known as central tendency bias, it is a rater’s tendency to
score everyone around the midpoint of the scale, and not use the extremes. A six point scale
is used in the present assessment in order to reduce the central tendency error as it has no
single mid-point. It has been found in the past researches that a 6 point scale as compared
to a 5 point scale creates better discrimination among responses, increases Cronbach alpha,
and has higher difficulty level of decision making for answering the test (Chang, 1994 and
Chomeya, 2010), thus reducing the central tendency error. Yet, a high score on central
tendency error indicates that either the candidate is unsure about the response to the items
or has chosen a safe mode of responding to the items. Hence, rater’s tendency to choose
the two central responses more than 50% of the times will be flagged in the report for extra
caution. This cutoff again was calculated based on the standardization data. 99% of
Page 25 of 45
candidates chose the central two scores (3 & 4) lesser times than the aforementioned
percentage.
3. Genuine: If a candidate does not display any of the above mentioned response biases, then
the report is generated with a flag called Genuine. This should not be interpreted as a
measure of the respondent’s character or a guarantee that there are no items with in genuine
response from their end. But, as a confirmation of response validity and absence of major
response biases that may lead to distorted results.
Response biases indicate that the candidate has not attempted the assessments in the manner
that can be useful to identify their distinctive personality attributes. This in turn is expected to
interfere with the decisions that follow. Hence, it would be best to consider retesting the
candidates in such a scenario. Such cases should not be considered for a statistical/detailed
analysis of scores if required further.
Demographics and Adverse Impact
MPM has been developed with an objective to be culturally fair in application. It has been
developed using a global sample, having a large portion of employed adults. Hence, it is well suited
for employment setting. It further shows no major differences in sample based on age, gender,
educational qualification, and ethnicity. It is also found that both native English speakers as well
as people who have English as their second language perceive the test in a similar manner.
Moreover, MPM follows the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP,
1978) in order to support fairness in employment testing. UGESP defines Adverse Impact as “a
substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions which
works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex or ethnic group” (see section 1607.16).
Page 26 of 45
UGESP recommends the four-fifths rule for examining the potential of Adverse Impact, stating
that the “selection rate for any race, sex or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or
80%) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal
enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.” (1978, see section 1607.4 D). Courts have
also applied this rule to cases involving age discrimination. The Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 prohibited discrimination in selection contexts against
individuals 40 years of age or older. In addition, the UK’s Equality Act (2010) legally protects
people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. Several researchers in the past
have proposed alternative methods for examining Adverse Impact (e.g., moderated multiple
regression, one-person rule, and the N of 1 rule), although none have been as widely adopted as
the four-fifths rule.
Further, in order to address the impact of demographic variables such as age, gender, education,
etc. on test scores, past researchers have examined correlations between personality scales and
such variables (Costa, and McCrae, 1995; Rust, 2005). Information of this nature helps one
understand the role of demographic influences on the relationship between trait scores and other
criteria and if absence of such provides assessments the added advantage of lower probability of
adverse impact.
28 personality traits of MPM have been examined to determine their correlations with various
demographic variables like age, gender, educational qualification and native language of the test
takers (refer to Appendix 4 table 1). Table 1 presents correlation coefficients between MPM traits
and the aforementioned demographic variables. Although some correlation coefficients are
significant, no correlation exceeds 0.20 in absolute magnitude. The low magnitude of these
correlations is an evidence that MPM is stable across age, gender, educational qualifications and
Page 27 of 45
is perceived similarly by both native English speakers as well as non-native English speakers. Past
research also suggests that personality traits remain stable in adulthood.
Additionally, a statistical significance test for mean group differences on individual assessment
scales is often considered informative about group differences and hence provides assessments the
added advantage of lower probability of adverse impact.
In MPM group differences based on age, gender, education, native language and ethnicity have
been examined (refer to Appendix 4, table 2-6). Table 2-6 presents the comparisons of mean group
differences between the previously mentioned variables and MPM Trait scores. Results suggest
that even though there are differences in the mean score between some traits on different variables,
the impact of such differences are small. Cohen’s D (Cohen, 1988) was calculated to understand
the impact of such differences. In conclusion, while there were some differences in mean scores
observed, the effect sizes were small and within the normal and allowable range.
Based on the same, MPM appears to be an appropriate instrument for use across many populations,
irrespective of age, gender, education and native language. Further, it should also be noted that
unlike some other instruments that have been standardised on student population, standardisation
sample for MPM consists of over 57% of working professionals (see Appendix 3 table 4).
Applications and Use of MPM
Personality assessments have been popularly used in organizational setting for different purposes
as they provide unequivocal insights into a person’s behavior. Since, personality is a unique and
relatively stable pattern of thoughts, feelings and behavior, such assessments are valuable to
predict an individual’s future behavior as well. Organizations, hence, utilize personality
assessments throughout the employee lifecycle to better hire, retain, develop and engage their
Page 28 of 45
employees. In the present section, the two most prevalent applications of personality testing are
discussed, and it has been highlighted how MPM should be ideally used in such settings
Employment Selection
Many organizations use testing as a component of their employment selection process. Typical
selection test programs make use of cognitive tests, personality tests, and basic skills tests, to
name a few. Tests are used as part of a larger battery to screen out unqualified candidates or to
categorize prospective employees according to their probability of success on the job.
MPM is designed to assist in the selection of employees for jobs that match their personality.
Many professional positions require a certain set of personality traits. The test can be used to
assess applicants for a wide variety of professional jobs, including individual contributor
positions, and lower-to- upper level management jobs across industries, occupations, and
education levels. Selection decisions should always be based on multiple job-relevant measures
rather than relying on any single measure (e.g., using only the Mettl Personality Map scores to
make decisions). To achieve the best results in employment selection using MPM, Mercer Mettl
recommends that the assessment is used with the following caveats and tips in mind:
Use with other measures: MPM, like any other hiring tool, is best used as part of a systematic
selection process, along with other scientifically developed and job-relevant predictors of future
success. Ideally, the MPM should be administered to job applicants who possess the minimum
requirements for the job. The assessment results can serve as an important part of the hiring
decision – but not the only one.
Aggregate results: MPM, when used with large numbers of job applicants, in recommended ways,
will yield a better-quality workforce over time. However, like with any assessment of human
personality, it is not infallible and should be used in conjunction with other information and
Page 29 of 45
followed up with behavioural event interview.
Simple to complex: If the primary focus is to screen out candidates unlikely to succeed, hiring
managers should focus on eliminating those “not recommended for hire” from the pool first. Those
remaining, should be prioritized as those “recommended for hire” and then consider those
“cautiously recommended for hire”.
Training and Development
One of the major avenues of using personality assessments is also training and development
exercises. Great organizations not only invest in hiring good employees but also in their growth.
Understanding personality profile of employees may offer organizations the added advantage by
providing information one needs to understand in order to develop training programs. MPM is
not only relevant in predicting job performance, but also in identifying an individual’s relative
strengths and/or weaknesses within a job setting. Information about such intrapersonal and inter-
personal variables which are boosting or interfering with one’s desired performance may help
organizations design more effective training programs.
Again, to achieve the best results in training and development setting using MPM, Mercer Mettl
recommends that the assessment is used with the following caveats and tips in mind:
Use with other measures: MPM, like any other training and development tool, is best used as
part of a test battery, along with other scientifically developed and job-relevant measures of an
individual’s development needs. Ideally, the MPM should be administered to employees along
with other necessary and relevant tools like ability and aptitude assessments. Manager’s ratings,
360 degree feedback may also be utilised to assess training needs of an individual. The assessment
results can serve as an important part of identifying training and development needs, but surely
should not be used in isolation.
Page 30 of 45
Aggregate results: Using MPM in in conjunction with other information as mentioned previously
like 360 degree feedback, and managers rating, may help enhance the incremental validity of the
results. Thus, it has been recommended to aggregate results from different tools before designing
a training program for employees.
Page 31 of 45
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Demographic details of Pilot study (N = 1289)
Table 1: Gender
Gender Frequency Percent
Female 659 51.12
Male 604 46.86
Other 3 0.23
Prefer not to say 17 1.32
Table 2: Age
Age Frequency Percent
16 - 25 years 531 41.19
26-35 years 354 27.46
36-45 years 257 19.94
46-55 years 105 8.15
56-65 years 42 3.26
Table 3: Nationality
Nationality Frequency Percent
Africa 203 15.75
Asia 631 48.95
Australia & New Zealand 15 1.16
Europe 168 13.03
Latin America 8 0.62
North America 68 5.28
United Kingdom 141 10.94
Undisclosed 55 4.27
Table 4: Educational Qualification

Educational Qualification Frequency Percent
Undergraduate 318 24.67
Graduate 350 27.15
Postgraduate 312 24.20
Doctorate 23 1.78
Undisclosed 286 22.19
Page 32 of 45
Table 5: Employment Status

Employment Status Frequency Percent
Employed 620 48.10
Seeking Employment 275 21.33
Student 394 30.57
Table 6: Job Level

Job Level Frequency Percent
Level 1: Executive Officers: Senior-most Leaders (CEO
+ One Level Below) 86 6.67
Level 2: Senior Managers/Directors: Senior
Management (Three Levels Below CEO). 132 10.24
Level 3: Managers /Supervisors: Middle management to
first-level managers (Five Levels Below CEO) 324 25.14
Level 4: Entry Level: Non-management/ individual
contributor (including entry level) 279 21.64
Not Applicable 468 36.31
Appendix 2: Demographic details of the Standardization study 1 (N = 955)
Table 1: Gender
Female 483 50.58
Male 455 47.64
Other 3 0.31
Table 2: Age
16 - 25 years 334 35.39
26-35 years 295 30.89
36-45 years 198 20.73
46-55 years 89 9.32
56-65 years 33 3.66
Page 33 of 45
Africa 141 14.76
Asia 350 36.65
Europe 118 12.36
Undisclosed 72 7.54

Graduate 323 33.82
Doctorate 20 2.09

Employed 490 51.31
Student 230 24.08
Table 6: Job Level

Page 34 of 45
Page 35 of 45
Appendix 3: Demographic details of the Standardization study 2 (N = 1000)
Table 1: Gender
Female 478 47.8
Male 488 48.8
Other 12 1.2
Table 2: Age
16 - 25 years 320 32.0
26-35 years 320 32.0
36-45 years 191 19.1
46-55 years 121 12.1
56-65 years 48 4.8
Africa 121 12.1
Asia 398 39.8
Europe 127 12.7
Undisclosed 59 5.9

Graduate 322 32.2
Doctorate 12 1.2
Page 36 of 45

Employed 577 57.7
Student 234 23.4
Table 6: Job Level

Appendix 4: Demographics and Correlation (Standardization Study 2)
Table 1: Correlations with Age, Gender, Educational qualification and Native Language (N
= 1000)
Native
Age Gender Education
Trait Language
Active Listening 0.01 -0.05 .159** 0.026
Altruism -0.04 -.074* -0.03 0.006
Analytical Mindset -0.04 .120** -0.04 -.192**
Achievement Striving 0.04 -.099** .086** .064*
Assertiveness 0 -0.057 0.06 -0.044
Cooperation -0.02 -.083** .094** 0.014
Dynamism -0.02 -0.017 .162** 0
Empathy -0.03 0.041 -0.03 -0.046
Growth Mindset 0.01 -0.019 0.06 0.045
Independence -0.01 0.055 .135** -0.004
Influence 0.01 -.071* 0.03 0.018
Ethics 0.05 -0.031 .174** -0.037
Intellectual Mindset -0.01 -0.047 .128** -0.017
Take Charge -0.01 -.089** .161** .123**
Page 37 of 45
Modesty -0.01 0.025 -.084** -.104**

Openness to change -0.04 -0.029 .098** -0.001
Openness to diversity -0.04 0.036 -.113** -.145**
Ownership -0.03 0.046 0.02 -.242**
Persistence 0.04 -0.057 0.01 0.02
Planning 0.02 -.093** .114** 0.029
Positivity -0.01 0.006 .063* -0.026
Proactivity -0.01 0.005 .149** -.074*
Rule Adherence -0.03 -.094** .087** 0.03
Resilience -0.01 -.078* .183** .187**
Risk Propensity 0.01 -0.021 -0.05 -.111**
Self-Efficacy -0.01 -.111** .192** 0.059
Sociability -0.04 -0.042 0.06 0.008
Trust 0 -0.023 .122** -0.001
Table 2: Mean differences – Gender

P Cohen's
Trait Gender N Mean SD T
Value D
Female 478 4.56 0.78 -2.55 0.01 0.16
Achievement Striving
Male 488 4.68 0.70
Female 478 4.43 0.91 -2.68 0.01 0.17
Active Listening
Male 488 4.57 0.77
Female 478 4.65 0.78 2.95 0.00 -0.19
Altruism
Male 488 4.50 0.78
Female 478 4.22 0.79 -5.22 0.00 0.34
Analytical Mindset
Male 488 4.47 0.71
Female 478 4.05 1.04 -3.33 0.00 0.21
Assertiveness
Male 488 4.27 0.95
Female 478 4.09 0.89 -4.85 0.00 0.31
Cooperation
Male 488 4.35 0.79
Female 478 4.14 0.69 -1.73 0.08 0.11
Dynamism
Male 488 4.21 0.65
Female 478 4.59 0.78 2.11 0.04 -0.14
Empathy
Male 488 4.48 0.73
Female 478 4.58 0.77 -2.26 0.02 0.15
Growth Mindset
Male 488 4.69 0.68
Female 478 3.80 0.74 1.56 0.12 -0.15
Independence
Male 488 3.73 0.79
Female 478 4.13 0.72 -3.27 0.00 0.22
Influence
Male 488 4.28 0.69
Female 478 4.41 0.71 -2.60 0.01 0.17
Ethics
Male 488 4.52 0.68
Page 38 of 45
Female 478
Intellectual Mindset 4.41 0.71 -4.00 0.00 0.26
Male 488 4.59 0.68
Female 478 4.12 0.81 -4.95 0.00 0.32
Take Charge
Male 488 4.36 0.69
Female 478 3.84 0.78 0.32 0.75 -0.24
Modesty
Male 488 3.83 0.80
Female 478 4.31 0.87 -2.40 0.02 0.15
Openness to change
Male 488 4.43 0.72
Female 478 4.56 0.80 0.00 1.00 0.26
Openness to diversity
Male 488 4.56 0.77
Female 478 4.44 0.65 1.23 0.22 -0.79
Ownership
Male 488 4.39 0.68
Female 478 4.39 0.84 -2.04 0.04 0.13
Persistence
Male 488 4.50 0.81
Female 478 4.65 0.71 -3.29 0.00 0.21
Planning
Male 488 4.80 0.70
Female 478 4.16 0.94 -1.36 0.17 0.88
Positivity
Male 488 4.24 0.74
Female 478 4.35 0.81 -1.75 0.08 0.11
Proactivity
Male 488 4.43 0.71
Female 478 4.21 0.95 -5.83 0.00 0.38
Resilience
Male 488 4.54 0.79
Female 478 4.04 0.95 -2.56 0.01 0.16
Risk Propensity
Male 488 4.20 0.94
Female 478 4.21 0.89 -1.42 0.16 0.92
Rule Adherence
Male 488 4.29 0.90
Female 478 4.41 1.07 -6.11 0.00 0.39
Self-Efficacy
Male 488 4.79 0.86
Female 478 4.28 1.04 -1.91 0.06 0.12
Sociability
Male 488 4.40 0.92
Female 478 3.95 0.76 -4.09 0.00 0.26
Trust
Male 488 4.15 0.70
Table 3: Mean differences – Age

P Cohen's
Trait Age N Mean SD T
Value D
>=40 271 4.37 0.81 -3.02 0.00 0.21
Active Listening <40 729 4.55 0.84
>=40 271 4.79 0.72 5.42 0.00 -0.37
Altruism <40 729 4.51 0.79
>=40 271 4.35 0.74 0.00 1.00 0.00
Analytical Mindset <40 729 4.35 0.77
Achievement Striving >=40 271 4.66 0.71 1.07 0.28 -0.07
Page 39 of 45
<40 729 4.60 0.76

>=40 271 4.26 0.95 1.87 0.06 -0.13
Assertiveness <40 729 4.13 1.01
>=40 271 4.34 0.79 2.68 0.01 -0.18
Cooperation <40 729 4.19 0.86
>=40 271 4.29 0.63 3.46 0.00 -0.24
Dynamism <40 729 4.13 0.69
>=40 271 4.56 0.70 0.48 0.63 -0.03
Empathy <40 729 4.53 0.78
>=40 271 4.63 0.72 -0.33 0.74 0.02
Growth Mindset <40 729 4.64 0.73
>=40 271 4.01 0.76 6.08 0.00 -0.44
Independence <40 729 3.68 0.75
>=40 271 4.12 0.70 -2.29 0.02 0.16
Influence <40 729 4.24 0.72
>=40 271 4.68 0.64 6.28 0.00 -0.43
Ethics <40 729 4.39 0.70
>=40 271 4.46 0.72 -1.39 0.17 0.10

Intellectual Mindset <40 729 4.53 0.69
>=40 271 4.32 0.74 1.93 0.06 -0.14
Take Charge <40 729 4.21 0.77
>=40 271 3.92 0.75 2.06 0.04 -0.14
Modesty <40 729 3.81 0.81
>=40 271 4.40 0.77 0.73 0.47 -0.05
Openness to change <40 729 4.36 0.81
>=40 271 4.57 0.71 0.17 0.87 -0.01
Openness to diversity <40 729 4.56 0.80
>=40 271 4.56 0.65 4.27 0.00 -0.30
Ownership <40 729 4.36 0.66
>=40 271 4.51 0.74 1.52 0.13 -0.10
Persistence <40 729 4.42 0.85
>=40 271 4.79 0.71 1.77 0.08 -0.13
Planning <40 729 4.70 0.71
>=40 271 4.32 0.73 2.84 0.01 -0.19
Positivity <40 729 4.16 0.88
>=40 271 4.53 0.75 3.27 0.00 -0.23
Proactivity <40 729 4.35 0.77
>=40 271 4.38 0.82 2.83 0.01 -0.19
Rule Adherence <40 729 4.21 0.92
>=40 271 4.47 0.80 2.05 0.04 -0.14
Resilience <40 729 4.35 0.92
>=40 271 4.03 0.97 -1.70 0.09 0.12
Risk Propensity <40 729 4.15 0.94
Self-Efficacy >=40 271 4.74 0.92 2.70 0.01 -0.18
Page 40 of 45
<40 729 4.56 1.01

>=40 271 4.28 0.92 -1.26 0.21 0.09
Sociability <40 729 4.36 0.99
>=40 271 4.20 0.86 3.90 0.00 -0.26
Trust <40 729 3.96 0.97
Table 4: Mean differences – Native Language

P Cohen's
Trait Language N Mean SD T
Value D
Active English 425 4.49 0.83 -0.18 0.86 0.01
Listening Non-English 575 4.50 0.85
English 425 4.76 0.77 6.17 0.00 -0.40
Altruism Non-English 575 4.46 0.76
Analytical English 425 4.29 0.76 -2.01 0.05 0.13
Mindset Non-English 575 4.39 0.75
Achievement English 425 4.60 0.73 -0.82 0.41 0.05
Striving Non-English 575 4.63 0.76
English 425 4.22 1.00 1.40 0.16 -0.09
Assertiveness Non-English 575 4.13 0.99
English 425 4.21 0.84 -0.45 0.65 0.03
Cooperation Non-English 575 4.24 0.85
English 425 4.18 0.68 -0.01 0.99 0.00
Dynamism Non-English 575 4.18 0.67
English 425 4.58 0.73 1.47 0.14 -0.09
Empathy Non-English 575 4.51 0.77
Growth English 425 4.60 0.75 -1.40 0.16 0.09
English 425 3.77 0.78 0.14 0.89 -0.01
Independence Non-English 575 3.76 0.76
English 425 4.19 0.74 -0.55 0.58 0.04
Influence Non-English 575 4.22 0.70
English 425 4.50 0.68 1.18 0.24 -0.08
Ethics Non-English 575 4.45 0.71
English 425 4.53 0.71 0.55 0.58 -0.04
Intellectual
English 425 4.13 0.80 -3.85 0.00 0.25
Take Charge Non-English 575 4.32 0.72
English 425 3.93 0.74 3.34 0.00 -0.21
Modesty Non-English 575 3.77 0.82
Openness to English 425 4.37 0.83 0.05 0.96 0.00
change Non-English 575 4.37 0.78
Openness to English 425 4.70 0.70 4.74 0.00 -0.30
diversity Non-English 575 4.47 0.82
Page 41 of 45
English 425 4.60 0.61 7.98 0.00 -0.50

Ownership Non-English 575 4.28 0.67
English 425 4.43 0.81 -0.62 0.53 0.04
Persistence Non-English 575 4.46 0.83
English 425 4.70 0.71 -0.93 0.35 0.06
Planning Non-English 575 4.74 0.71
English 425 4.23 0.88 0.81 0.42 -0.05
Positivity Non-English 575 4.19 0.82
English 425 4.46 0.75 2.35 0.02 -0.15
Proactivity Non-English 575 4.35 0.77
Rule English 425 4.37 0.92 3.51 0.00 -0.23
Adherence Non-English 575 4.17 0.87
English 425 4.35 0.90 -0.95 0.34 0.06
Resilience Non-English 575 4.41 0.87
Risk English 425 3.91 1.00 -5.90 0.00 0.38
Propensity Non-English 575 4.27 0.88
English 425 4.54 0.98 -1.86 0.06 0.12
Self-Efficacy Non-English 575 4.66 0.99
English 425 4.33 1.01 -0.25 0.80 0.02
Sociability Non-English 575 4.35 0.95
English 425 4.02 0.91 0.02 0.99 0.00
Trust Non-English 575 4.02 0.97
Table 5: Mean differences – Ethnicity

P
Cohen's
Trait Ethnicity N Mean SD T Valu
D
e
Active White 96 4.38 0.88 -0.58 0.57 0.09
Listening Black 84 4.45 0.87 2.66
White 96 4.67 0.82 2.67 0.01 -0.40
Altruism Black 84 4.36 0.76 -3.53
Analytical White 96 3.97 0.74 -3.51 0.00 0.53
Mindset Black 84 4.38 0.80 -1.76
Achievement White 96 4.31 0.76 -1.77 0.08 0.26
Striving Black 84 4.50 0.68 -0.01
White 96 3.97 1.01 -0.01 0.99 0.00
Assertiveness Black 84 3.97 1.02 -0.35
White 96 4.11 0.77 -0.35 0.73 0.05
Cooperation Black 84 4.15 0.83 0.08
White 96 3.94 0.67 0.08 0.94 -0.01
Dynamism Black 84 3.93 0.62 0.53
White 96 4.57 0.75 0.54 0.59 -0.08
Empathy Black 84 4.51 0.65 -1.38
Growth White 96 4.43 0.76 -1.39 0.17 0.21
Page 42 of 45
Mindset Black 84 4.58 0.70 0.28

White 96 3.76 0.73 0.28 0.78 -0.04
Independence Black 84 3.73 0.72 -1.96
White 96 4.05 0.82 -1.98 0.05 0.29
Influence Black 84 4.27 0.71 0.31
White 96 4.31 0.68 0.31 0.76 -0.05
Ethics Black 84 4.28 0.66 -0.70
Intellectual White 96 4.35 0.70 -0.70 0.49 0.10

Mindset Black 84 4.42 0.69 -0.90
White 96 3.95 0.81 -0.91 0.37 0.13
Take Charge Black 84 4.06 0.71 -0.14
White 96 4.20 0.80 -0.14 0.89 0.02
Modesty Black 84 4.21 0.72 4.26
Openness to White 96 4.75 0.62 4.22 0.00 -0.64
change Black 84 4.32 0.72 3.30
Openness to White 96 4.47 0.57 3.29 0.00 -0.49
diversity Black 84 4.18 0.60 -1.94
White 96 4.16 0.79 -1.94 0.05 0.29
Ownership Black 84 4.39 0.81 -1.83
White 96 4.38 0.76 -1.84 0.07 0.27
Persistence Black 84 4.57 0.69 -0.59
White 96 3.96 0.98 -0.59 0.55 0.09
Planning Black 84 4.04 0.82 -0.57
White 96 4.17 0.80 -0.58 0.57 0.08
Positivity Black 84 4.23 0.65 2.76
White 96 4.34 0.89 2.73 0.01 -0.41
Proactivity Black 84 3.94 1.07 -1.68
Rule White 96 4.06 0.95 -1.70 0.09 0.25
Adherence Black 84 4.29 0.83 -2.90
White 96 3.72 0.97 -2.91 0.00 0.43
Resilience Black 84 4.12 0.91 -0.70
Risk White 96 3.81 0.77 -0.70 0.48 0.10
Propensity Black 84 3.89 0.68 -2.64
White 96 4.10 1.09 -2.68 0.01 0.39
Self-Efficacy Black 84 4.50 0.89 0.14
White 96 4.26 1.03 0.15 0.88 -0.02
Sociability Black 84 4.24 0.78 -1.50
White 96 3.71 1.00 -1.50 0.14 0.22
Trust Black 84 3.93 0.97
Page 43 of 45
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, Joint
Committee on Standards for Educational, Psychological Testing (US), & National Council
on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
American Educational Research Association.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In
G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality
theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (p. 135–159). Sage
Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7
Chang, L. (1994). A Psychometric Evaluation of 4-Point and 6-Point Likert-Type Scales in
Relation to Reliability and Validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205–
215. doi:10.1177/014662169401800302
Chomeya, R. (2010). Quality of Psychology Test Between Likert Scale 5 and 6 Points. Journal of
Social Sciences, 6(3), 399–403. doi:10.3844/jssp.2010.399.403
Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1996, August). The validity of non-cognitive
measures decays when applicants fake. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, USA,
127-131.
Dunnette, M. D., McCartney, J., Carlson, H. C., & Kirchner, W. K. (1962). A study of faking
behavior on a forced-choice self-description checklist. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 13–
24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01843.x
Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in
personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.155
Holtgraves, T. (2004) Social Desirability and Self-Reports: Testing Models of Socially Desirable
Responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 161-172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ock, J. (2015). Beyond the Big Five: New Directions for
Personality Research and Practice in Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational
Page 44 of 45
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 183–209. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-

032414-111441
Kline, P. (2006). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London, Rutledge
McFarland, L. A., Ryan, A. M., & Ellis, A. (2002). Item Placement on a Personality Measure:
Effects on Faking Behavior and Test Measurement Properties. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 78(2), 348–369. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7802_09
Saucier, G. (2008). Measures of the Personality Factors found recurrently in Human Lexicons. In
G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D. H. Saklofske 2008 eds.,The Sage Handbook of Personality
Theory and assessment, London, Sage Publications.
Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-language studies of lexical
personality factors. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in personality psychology, Vol. 1 (p.
1–36). Psychology Press.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the
five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical
perspectives (p. 21–50). Guilford Press.
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in
applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 966–
974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.966
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (EEOC, 1978), Retrieved September 11,
2019, from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of
conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.164
Yaghmaie F (2003) Content validity and its estimation. J Med Educ 3(1): 25–27.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive Organizational Behavior in the Workplace. Journal
of Management, 33(5), 774–800. doi:10.1177/0149206307305562
Page 45 of 45

Mettl Personality Map

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mettl Personality Map

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mettl Personality Map– Technical Manual

Copyright © 2020 Mercer Mettl. All rights reserved.

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3

reading level equivalent of no less than 6th grade.

The following goals guided the development of the MPM:

 It must be relevant and measure the personality of the assessment takers.

 It must be credible and high in terms of psychometric rigour.

 It should be easy to administer and simple to interpret.

Psychological Testing developed jointly by the American Educational Research

Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement

globally relevant personality assessment. Details of MPM development and standardization

procedure will be shared in the sections that follow.

MPM is a Likert-based self-report measure of personality, developed at par with modern

a new theoretical understanding of personality by integrating advancements in the fields of both

by a combination of rational and factor analytic methods.

Theoretical Underpinnings of MPM

approach, researchers at Mercer Mettl aimed to establish a strong basis of a sophisticated

personality assessment in occupational setting.

occupational setting within a holistic notion of trait, predictability and behaviour.

detailed understanding of unique, stable characteristics of human personality, by both qualitatively

building on different systematic lenses and quantitatively refining their meaning.

Conceptualisation and Development

Following sections highlight the steps undertaken in the same light.

Literature Review and Industry Analysis

literature on scientifically established personality theories, especially relevant in work setting, as

individual difference, recurrence of certain constructs in both literature as well occupational

settings is a testimony to their relevance in this field.

the social desirability score of the candidate.

subjected to review by subject matter experts for assessing content validity.

Validity Index (CVI) was calculated for each item.

of the assessment (see Yaghmaie, 2003).

separate set of 1000 candidates.

the final assessment have been described in the following chapter.

Trait Name Definition

Factors – Definitions and Composition

Table 2: Four Factors

Trait Name Definition

levels and industries.

The assessment is not intended to measure clinical or psychopathological aspects of behaviour. It

a measure of normal personality.

Table 3: Internal consistency reliability of the traits of MPM

No. Trait Name No. of Items Cronbach Alpha

25 Risk Propensity 6 0.84

Table 4: Internal consistency reliability of the factors of MPM

No. Factor Name No. of Traits Cronbach Alpha

measures of similar constructs. For example: ‘Sociability’ is significantly positively correlated to

correlated to ‘Quiet’ or Achievement was negatively correlated to ‘Inefficient’, ‘Sloppy’,

Table 5: Correlates of MPM traits scales

MPM Traits Saucier BFI

Take Charge Conscientiousness and Intellect

Table 6: Adjective Check-list Correlates of MPM. Trait scales

MPM Traits Positive Negative

consulting organization and constitutes of employees working as consultants. Indicators of

precision and relevance of criterion data/employee performance data is extremely vital. To

evidence of relevance of the tool in context to positive workplace behaviour or employees.

Table 7: Criterion Validity Study 1 (N=81)

Criterion MPM Traits (r)

Table 8: Criterion Validity Study 2 (N=47)

Administration and Scoring

device on which internet is accessible.

also recommended for the entire duration

efficiently respond to the assessment.

assessment seriously in a comfortable environment as suggested in previously.

standardized Mercer Mettl Competency Framework or a customized client-specific competency

Modesty -0.01 0.025 -.084 -.104