Pula Kos 2002

This article was downloaded by: [Loughborough University]
On: 24 November 2014, At: 07:20

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Human Performance
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhup20
Predicting Adaptive
Performance: Further Tests of
a Model of Adaptability
Elaine D. Pulakos , Neal Schmitt , David W. Dorsey ,
Sharon Arad , Walter C. Borman & Jerry W. Hedge
Published online: 13 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Elaine D. Pulakos , Neal Schmitt , David W. Dorsey , Sharon Arad ,
Walter C. Borman & Jerry W. Hedge (2002) Predicting Adaptive Performance: Further
Tests of a Model of Adaptability, Human Performance, 15:4, 299-323, DOI: 10.1207/
S15327043HUP1504_01
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1504_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Loughborough University] at 07:20 24 November 2014
HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 15(4), 299–323
Predicting Adaptive Performance:

Further Tests of a
Model of Adaptability
Elaine D. Pulakos
Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.
Neal Schmitt
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
David W. Dorsey, Sharon Arad,

Jerry W. Hedge, and Walter C. Borman
Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.
This research further investigates an 8-dimension taxonomy of adaptive performance

developed by Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) and the usefulness of
past experience, interest, and self-efficacy predictors developed to measure these
same 8 dimensions for predicting adaptive job performance. Participants in the con-
current, criterion-related validation study included 739 military personnel. They
completed the 3 adaptability measures as well as more traditional cognitive and
noncognitive predictors. Supervisors of the study participants rated their adaptive job
performance. Results showed support for the 8-dimension model of adaptability. In
addition, cognitive ability, personality, and the new adaptability predictors were
shown to predict adaptive performance, with some past experience items adding in-
cremental validity beyond the more traditional cognitive ability and personality mea-
sures. Results are discussed.
Rapid changes in technology (Thach & Woodman, 1994), mergers and restruc-
turing (Kinicki & Latack, 1990), and the globalization of many firms (Black,
Requests for reprints should be sent to Elaine D. Pulakos, Personnel Decisions Research Institues,
Inc., 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1010, Arlington, VA 22209. E-mail: elaine.pulakos@pdri.com
300 PULAKOS ET AL.
Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991) have required workers to be increasingly adapt-

able, versatile, and tolerant of uncertainty. Recognizing the importance of adapt-
ability for today’s workforce, numerous authors have discussed adaptation (e.g.,
see Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; London & Mone, 1999; P. R. Murphy & Jackson,
1999) as it relates to different phenomena at the individual, team, and organiza-
tional levels. Adaptability has also been discussed in relation to many different
organizationally relevant variables (e.g., new people and teams, novel and ill-de-
fined problems, different cultures, new technology, challenging physical condi-
tions, and others), suggesting the potential multidimensional nature of this con-
struct. Others have noted and attempted to describe the nature of individual
differences in adaptability (e.g., Edwards & Morrison, 1994; Hollenbeck,
LePine, & Ilgen, 1996; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997), as well as implica-
tions for staffing and training (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). However, the nature of
adaptability, its dimensionality, and its relations with cognitive ability and per-
sonality constructs remain largely unexplored.
One exception is a recent study by Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon
(2000), which presented an eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive job perfor-
mance. These authors began their research with a review of various literatures on
adaptability and identified six different aspects of adaptive performance. These are
shown in Table 1, along with the research references from which they were de-
rived. The diversity of substantive areas that are represented by these cited articles
is a testament to the perceived importance of adaptability across a variety of behav-
ioral disciplines. Using these dimensions as a starting point, Pulakos et al. (2000)
set out to more systematically define and empirically examine the dimensions un-
derlying adaptive performance. In an initial study, critical incidents from 21 differ-
ent jobs that described work-relevant adaptive behavior were content analyzed.
This effort produced two additional adaptive performance dimensions that are
shown at the bottom of Table 1.
This eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive behavior was then evaluated us-
ing an instrument called the Job Adaptability Inventory (JAI), which consisted of
work-related adaptive behaviors that represented each of the eight dimensions
identified in the critical incident phase of the research. Respondents from 24 dif-
ferent jobs were asked to rate the importance and frequency of performing each
adaptive behavior in their job. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of JAI data col-
lected from 1,619 respondents yielded an eight-factor solution that mirrored the
proposed eight-dimension taxonomy. A confirmatory factor analysis of the EFA
solution on another sample of 1,715 respondents indicated a good fit to the
eight-factor model. Profiles of the criticality of these eight adaptability dimen-
sions for different job families were readily interpretable.
The purpose of this research was to extend investigation and further test the
Pulakos et al. (2000) eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive performance by us-
ing other types of individual difference and job performance measures. Spe-
PREDICTING ADAPTIVE PERFORMANCE 301
TABLE 1
Adaptability Dimensions, Definitions, and Source
Dimension Title Dimension Definition Sources
Solving problems Solves atypical, ill-defined, and Hatano & Inagaki, 1986
creatively complex problems
Dealing with uncertain Adjusts and deals with Ashford, 1986; Dix & Savickas,
or unpredictable unpredictable situations, shifts 1995; Edwards & Morrison,
work situations focus, and takes reasonable 1994; Goodman, 1994; Hall &
action Mirvis, 1995; K. R. Murphy,

1989; Weiss, 1984
Learning new tasks, Anticipates, prepares for, and Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Kinicki &
technologies, and learns skills needed for future Latack, 1990; London & Mone,
procedures job requirements 1999; Noe & Ford, 1992;
Patrickson, 1987; Thach &
Woodman, 1994
Demonstrating Adjusts interpersonal style to Bowen & Schneider, 1988;
interpersonal achieve goals working with new Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &
adaptability teams, coworkers, or customers Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Paulhus
& Martin, 1988;
Demonstrating cultural Performs effectively in different Black, 1990; Chao,
adaptability cultures learning new O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, &
languages, values, traditions, Gardner, 1994; Ilgen &
and politics Pulakos, 1999
Demonstrating Adjusts to various physical factors Edwards & Morrison, 1994;
physically oriented such as heat, noise, Fiedler & Fiedler, 1975;
adaptability uncomfortable climates, and Weinstein, 1978
difficult environments
Handling work stress Remains calm under pressure, Critical incidents analysis
handles frustration, and acts as a (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, &
calming influence Plamondon, 2000)
Handling emergencies Reacts appropriately and Critical incidents analysis
or crisis situations decisively to life-threatening or (Pulakos et al., 2000)
dangerous situations
cifically, we developed both predictor and criterion measures to assess the eight
dimensions of adaptive performance represented in the taxonomy. We then eval-
uated the underlying dimensionality of these measures, testing whether the
eight-dimension model could be replicated. We also investigated the criterion-re-
lated and incremental validity of the adaptability predictors compared to more
traditional cognitive ability and personality predictors. In the following sections,
we describe and provide rationales for the measures that were selected for inclu-
sion in this study.
302 PULAKOS ET AL.
PREDICTORS OF ADAPTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE
To further evaluate the eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive job performance, we

sought to develop predictor measures that would have a high degree of content valid-
ity and as much point-to-point correspondence as possible with the dimensions rep-
resented in the model. Accordingly, items were developed that covered the content
of the eight adaptive performance dimensions and reflected the different ways indi-
viduals might need to adapt in work situations. Respondents were then asked to indi-
cate the following for these items: (a) frequency of past adaptive experience, (b) in-
terest in working in situations demanding the different types of adaptation described in

the items, and (c) self-efficacy about adapting in ways that were described in the items.
Our rationale for including each of these measures is discussed in the following.
Past Experience Adapting

Our premise in measuring frequency of experience adapting in the ways described
in the taxonomy was the same as that usually offered as the basis for developing
and using biodata items in selection research; namely, that past experience and per-
formance is the best predictor of future performance. If an individual has experi-
ence adapting to a given type of situation or circumstance, then he or she should be
successful in a future situation that requires the same sort of adaptation. In light of
our hypothesis that past adaptive experience would be a good predictor of adaptive
performance effectiveness, we constructed an inventory that asked individuals to
report the extent of their past experience adapting in the different ways represented
in the eight-dimension adaptive performance model. The experience measure,
then, is essentially a biodata instrument designed to sample adaptive behaviors
similar to those encountered on the job. We hoped to find that the Pulakos et al.
(2000) factors would account for the variance in adaptive experiences and that the
frequency of individuals’ experiences in these areas would be related to adaptive
success on the job as well.
Interest in Adaptive Situations

Second, we sought to measure the degree to which respondents reported being in-
terested in working in situations demanding that they adapt in the different ways
represented in the model. Our rationale for including an interest inventory of this
nature was based on past research showing the potential usefulness of measured in-
terests relevant to a job for predicting performance (e.g., Abrahams, Neuman, &
Rimland, 1973; Arvey & Dewhirst, 1979; Azen, Snibbe, & Montgomery, 1973).
Again, we hoped to find support for the eight-dimension model and that interests
would predict successful adaptive performance.
Task-Specific Self-Efficacy to Adapt

Self-efficacy, defined by Bandura (1986) as one’s judgment that he or she pos-
sesses the skills and abilities to accomplish a task or obtain a desired outcome, has
been proposed as a useful predictor of performance in novel, unpredictable, or
stressful situations (e.g., Schunk, 1983). Supporting this notion, studies of organi-
zational socialization have revealed a positive relation between self-efficacy and
newcomers’ adjustment to the organization and a negative relation with resistance
to change (Ashford & Lee, 1990; Jones, 1986). Self-efficacy has also been related
to learning performance, one aspect of the present adaptive performance taxon-

omy, in several previous studies (Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Phillips & Gully,
1997). For this research, we constructed a measure of task-specific self-efficacy
that asked individuals to report their self-assessed effectiveness adapting in ways
that were relevant to each of the eight dimensions.
To more fully evaluate the validity of the predictor measures described earlier, es-
pecially their incremental validity compared to more traditional domains of predic-
tor measures, we also included a number of additional cognitive and noncognitive
measures in this research. Specifically, we included a cognitive ability measure and
measures of several personality constructs. To select personality measures, we be-
gan with the “Big Five” (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and selected those constructs that
appeared to have a high degree of conceptual overlap with one or more of the eight
adaptive performance dimensions. The measures we selected are described in the
following, along with a rationale for their inclusion in our research.
Openness. Openness refers to one’s curiosity, broadmindedness, and recep-

tiveness to new environments and events and is one of the Big Five dimensions
(Costa & McRae, 1992). Individuals high on Openness tend to display traits such
as tolerance and curiosity when confronted with novel situations; hence, they
should be less likely to perceive change as stressful and more likely to adapt more
effectively. Barrick and Mount (1991) reported that people high on Openness per-
formed better when asked to do new tasks; and Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, and
Welbourne (1999) reported finding a positive correlation between Openness and
coping with organizational change.
Emotional Stability. Emotional Stability, a positive analogue of neuroticism

and another one of the Big Five personality factors (McCrae & Costa, 1989; Mc-
Crae & John, 1992), refers to the ability to remain calm and levelheaded when con-
fronted with difficult, stressful, or changing situations. In this adaptive perfor-
mance model, two of the factors deal directly with handling stress and adapting to
changing situations. Therefore, Emotional Stability was hypothesized to be a po-
tentially relevant predictor of adaptive performance. In addition, Emotional Stabil-
ity has been found to be a valid predictor of several different types of job per-
304 PULAKOS ET AL.
formance criteria, including irresponsible behavior, teamwork, and executive

capacity, among others (e.g., Hough, 1992).
Achievement motivation. Achievement motivation refers to one’s desire to

achieve results and master tasks beyond others’ expectations. Achievement moti-
vation, coupled with dependability, are the two major components of Conscien-
tiousness, another of the Big Five and a highly effective predictor of performance
across jobs (Hough, 1992; Mount & Barrick, 1995). Previous research has shown
that achievement motivation significantly influences the way people adapt to new
tasks or situations (Dweck, 1986; Schmeck, 1988). However, similar support for
the use of the dependability construct in predicting adaptive performance could not
be found. Conceptually, as well, dependability would likely be expected to be in-
dicative of more stable, consistent performance than the varied and flexible behav-
iors that are believed to underlie adaptive performance. Accordingly, achievement
motivation alone was included as a basis against which to evaluate the incremental
validity of the adaptive performance predictors described earlier.
Cognitive ability. Both traditional and recent conceptualizations of intelli-

gence and cognitive ability suggest that it plays an important role in one’s ability to
adapt. In fact, the ability to modify one’s behavior to deal effectively with a wide
variety of different and changing situations may simply be a function of having
higher levels of intelligence. Snow and Lohman (1984), for example, suggested
that fluid intelligence (innate ability) is the ability to adapt one’s crystallized intel-
ligence (past experiences) to novel tasks. In the context of the research reported
here, it is important to find evidence that measures of adaptive ability are different
from measures of general intelligence and that adaptive ability adds incrementally
(relative to cognitive ability) to the prediction of job performance.
Unlikely virtues. An unlikely virtues (Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, &

McCloy, 1990) measure was also used to assess the degree to which the adaptabil-
ity predictors investigated here might be correlated with this index of social desir-
ability. Although social desirability might not be as great a concern when respon-
dents are asked to indicate their extent of experience or interest in a particular set of
adaptability items, there may be motivation to inflate the extent to which they view
themselves as capable of adapting or otherwise distort their responses on the other
personality scales included here.
ADAPTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES
To investigate the validity of the predictors described earlier for predicting adap-
tive performance, we developed job performance rating measures (described
later in the Method section) for each of the eight dimensions in the taxonomy.
Ratings were made on multiple items for each dimension, which enabled further
testing of the adaptive performance model.
SUMMARY OF THIS RESEARCH
In summary, the purpose of this research was twofold: (a) to further test the
eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive performance proposed by Pulakos et al.
(2000) and (b) to examine the usefulness of the taxonomy as a basis for developing
measures that would effectively predict adaptive job performance. This study con-
tributes to the literature in three important ways. First, by developing and evaluat-
ing a broader array of predictor and criterion measures than were used in the orig-
inal Pulakos et al. (2000) job analytic study, we were able to examine the
replicability and stability of the proposed eight-dimension adaptive performance
model. Second, this research presents and evaluates three innovative predictors of
adaptive performance and examines their potential usefulness for selecting an
adaptive workforce. To review, these predictor measures included assessments of
past experience, interest, and task-specific self-efficacy relevant to the eight pro-
posed adaptive performance dimensions. In addition, a set of rating measures, also
targeted to these eight dimensions, was developed and used as a criterion against
which the adaptability predictors were validated. Finally, we also examined the
criterion-related validity of more traditional measures of ability and personality for
predicting adaptive performance, as well as the incremental validity of the three
new measures compared to these more traditional measures in the prediction of
adaptive job performance.
METHOD
Sample
Participants in the research included 739 military personnel in a wide array of occu-
pations. Eighty–three percent were men. Sixty–five percent were White, 20% Afri-
can American, 9% Hispanic or Latino, 2% Asian, and the remainder were of other
ethnic origins. Average tenure in the military was 4.73 years; tenure ranged from 1 to
18 years. Seventy–six percent of the respondents were less than 27 years old, and all
but 5 respondents were 38 years old or younger. The sample consisted of individuals
who held a cross-section of army jobs. Data were collected from six army installa-
tions across the United States, and soldiers were randomly selected from participat-
ing units within these installations. Because of missing data on relevant variables,
smaller sample sizes were available for the following analyses reported.
306 PULAKOS ET AL.
Measures
Study participants completed the following measures: (a) a set of demographic
questions; (b) the experience, interest, and self-efficacy measures (described ear-
lier) that were derived from the eight-dimension adaptive performance model; (c) a
cognitive ability measure; (d) measures of three personality constructs (Openness,
Emotional Stability, and achievement motivation), which were hypothesized to
predict adaptive performance; and (e) a measure of unlikely virtues. Supervisors of
the participants completed performance rating measures of the eight adaptive per-
formance dimensions. More detail about the measures is provided later.
Past experience, interest, and self-efficacy predictors based on the

adaptive performance model. As discussed, three versions of measures of
each of the eight adaptability dimensions were administered. The first version, an
experience inventory of 80 items, asked respondents to rate the frequency of their
experiences engaging in behaviors relevant to each of the eight adaptive perfor-
mance dimensions, using the following 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 (never), 2
(once or twice), 3 (several times), and 4 (frequently or routinely). The items in-
cluded in the past experience inventory reflected items in the JAI, the job analytic
inventory used in the Pulakos et al. (2000) study, or were more specific examples
of the JAI items that individuals might have experienced. For example, one item on
the original JAI was, “Take action to deal with potentially life-threatening situa-
tions.” Rather than include only this broad, general item on the inventory, we in-
cluded several items to better reflect the actual types of experiences that people
may have encountered dealing with life-threatening situations, such as
• An automobile accident involving personal injury.

• A person who is having a serious or life-threatening health problem (allergic
reaction, choking, heart attack).
The second measure provided an assessment of respondents’ interest in working

in situations that demanded the types of adaptability represented in the taxon-
omy. The interest inventory included some of the same items that appeared in
the experience inventory or analogues of these items. However, because several
of the items did not “translate” well as interest statements, the interest inventory
included only 44 items. For example, items in the “Handling Emergencies and
Crisis Situations” scale dealt with content that individuals would likely not en-
dorse strongly with respect to their interests (e.g., an automobile accident involv-
ing personal injury). A 5-point response scale was used for these items, ranging
from 1 (I would dislike this task or situation very much) to 5 (I would like this
task or situation very much).
The last measure, the task-specific self-efficacy measure, included 80 items that
were as similar to the experience items as possible to ensure their content rele-
vance. Respondents reported their perceived self-effectiveness adapting in ways
that are relevant to each of the eight dimensions, using a 5-point scale ranging from
1 (highly ineffective) to 5 (highly effective). Respondents were instructed to choose
the response option that best described how effective they would perform each
item. Samples of experience, interest, and self-efficacy items for each of the eight
dimensions are shown in Table 2.
Personality measures. As discussed earlier, based on a review of the litera-

ture, we identified three personality constructs that appeared to be most fruitful for
predicting adaptive performance. To review, these constructs included Openness,
Emotional Stability, and achievement motivation. A personal styles inventory
(PSI) was designed to assess these personality constructs. Due to the desire to use
the personality measures at the army’s and researchers’ discretion, the decision
was made to develop rather than purchase commercially available personality
measures. Based on the literature and our past experience developing similar per-
sonality inventories for army personnel, experienced researchers developed an ini-
tial pool of items to measure each of the three constructs. In fact, the personality
scales used in this research were closely modeled after the personality scales de-
veloped for the army’s Project A, whose construct validity has been documented in
the literature (Hough, Barge, & Kamp, 2001). We also developed a random re-
sponse scale and an unlikely virtues scale to detect individuals who were not tak-
ing the tests seriously and who were responding in a socially desirable manner, re-
spectively. Senior researchers not involved in initial item generation reviewed and
edited the pool of items. The response scale used with PSI items was a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Pilot test of the predictors. A pilot test of the adaptability experience, in-
terest, self-efficacy, and PSI measures was conducted to examine the psychometric
properties of these measures and refine them as necessary prior to large-scale ad-
ministration in the validation study. Pilot test data were collected from a total of
107 army soldiers at Ft. Riley, Kansas. Item statistics, intercorrelations between
the scales, and reliabilities were examined to ensure that the measures had accept-
able psychometric properties and expected relations with each other prior to vali-
dation administration.
Administration of the predictors. For the validation study, booklets were

prepared containing the past experience, interest, task-specific self-efficacy, and
PSI measures. The booklets were administered to groups of approximately 20 to
40 soldiers at a time. Examinees were informed that the data were being collected
for research purposes and that their scores would only be reported to the army in
308 TABLE 2
Representative Items From the Three Adaptability Measures
Dimension Title Experience Itema Interest Itemb Self-Assessmentc

Solving problems creatively Having to solve problems for which Finding innovative ways to improve Having to solve problems for which
there are no easy or the quality of products, services, there are no easy or
straightforward answers or systems straightforward answers
Dealing with uncertain or An unanticipated delay in the Developing a plan on short notice to An unanticipated delay in the
unpredictable work situations delivery of materials you need to meet new task or job delivery of materials you need to
complete a project requirements complete a project
Learning new tasks, technologies, Having to periodically update your Learning new ways to perform your Having to periodically update your
and procedures skills to accomplish the work or job skills to accomplish the work or
projects you are assigned projects you are assigned
Demonstrating interpersonal Having to figure out someone’s Adjusting your own behavior to Having to figure out someone’s
adaptability priorities to deal with him or her better fit in with a team or group priorities to deal with him or her
effectively with whom you will be working effectively
Demonstrating cultural adaptability Making friends with people from Learning the rules for appropriate Making friends with people from
different countries social interaction in a different different countries
culture
Demonstrating physically oriented Exercising to increase your Adjusting to working in unusual or Exercising to increase your
adaptability endurance for the future demands unfamiliar physical climates endurance for the future demands
of work activities of work activities
Handling work stress Having too little time to complete Staying focused while juggling Having too little time to complete
work tasks in the way you think multiple responsibilities work tasks in the way you think
they should be done they should be done
Handling emergencies or crisis An automobile accident involving Making quick decisions under An automobile accident involving
situations personal injury life-threatening conditions personal injury
aScale: 1 (never); 2 (once or twice); 3 (several times); 4 (frequently or routinely); bScale: 1 (I would dislike this task or situation very much); 2 (I would dislike
this task or situation); 3 (I would neither like nor dislike this task or situation); 4 (I would like this task or situation); 5 (I would like this task or situation very
much); cScale: 1 (highly effective); 2 (ineffective); 3 (neither effective nor ineffective); 4 (effective); 5 (highly effective).
aggregated form. The test administrator read the instructions for each test and then
waited until all examinees completed the test before moving to the next. None of
the measures were intended to be speeded.
Cognitive ability. Scores for all the participants on the Armed Forces Qual-
ifying Test (AFQT) that was given prior to their entry into the military were pro-
vided and used as the cognitive ability measure in this research.
Performance measures. Two measures of adaptive performance were

completed by participants’ supervisors. The first measure was a set of eight

behaviorally based rating scales constructed to reflect each of the adaptability di-
mensions. The scales contained a definition and behavior summary statements de-
scribing high, mid-range, and low levels of effectiveness for each dimension.
Raters were asked to select one rating from 1 (below average) to 7 (exceptional)
for each dimension, reflecting the ratee’s level of performance effectiveness in the
adaptability area described. The second rating measure asked supervisors to rate
how effective each soldier was at handling 24 situations (3 for each of the eight di-
mensions) that were based on critical incidents requiring adaptive responses.
These ratings were made on 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (below aver-
age) to 7 (exceptional).
Although the rating instruments were developed to assess adaptive perfor-
mance as defined in the Pulakos et al. (2000) taxonomy, care was taken to ensure
that the measures were relevant for the army-enlisted jobs of personnel included in
this validation study. First, critical incidents collected from enlisted army person-
nel were used in defining the initial set of adaptive performance dimensions (see
Pulakos et al., 2000). Second, army-enlisted personnel completed the JAI in the
Pulakos et al. (2000) research, and all eight dimensions were shown to be relevant
for their jobs. Third, the critical incidents from the army jobs were retranslated by
subject matter experts into the eight adaptive performance dimensions, and reli-
ably retranslated incidents were used as the basis for the 24 situations on which
participants were rated and in constructing the behavioral anchors used in these
rating scales. Finally, prior to their administration, the rating measures were care-
fully reviewed and pilot tested in a series of workshops with army-enlisted person-
nel that were representative of the validation study participants to ensure that both
the behavioral anchors and situations were relevant to the jobs of the participants.
Administration of the performance measures. First- and second-line su-

pervisors of soldiers who participated in the validation study were scheduled for a
rating session. During these sessions supervisors completed the behavior-based
adaptive performance rating scales and the situational adaptive performance rating
scales. Supervisor rating sessions consisted of anywhere between 10 to 40 supervi-
sors. The administrator explained to the supervisors the purpose of the study and
310 PULAKOS ET AL.
provided a rater training program that we have used successfully in the past to fa-
cilitate obtaining high-quality ratings (Pulakos, 1984, 1986). This training ap-
proach includes three parts. First, criteria are established for selecting raters, such
that they have had adequate opportunities to observe ratee performance. The sec-
ond component of training involves persuading participants to help us in the re-
search by making accurate ratings. Elements of the “sale” include convincing rat-
ers that the ratings will be kept confidential and used for research only, and
motivating raters to take the task seriously and to do their best to provide accurate
ratings. The third component of training involves teaching raters to avoid common
rating errors (halo, leniency, stereotype error, etc.) and to make ratings that are as
accurate as possible.
Following the rater training, raters completed ratings for each ratee. Each rater
rated from one to six soldiers, depending on how many soldiers from their unit par-
ticipated in the validation study. A total of 376 supervisors rated soldier perfor-
mance. The mean army tenure of the supervisor sample was 10.27 years, ranging
from 1.25 years to 22.75 years. Of the raters, 89% were men; 51% were White,
33% were African American, 11% were Hispanic, and less than 5% each were
Asian and Native American.
Supervisors were asked to report the length of time they had supervised each
soldier they were rating. Twenty-one percent of the supervisors reported working
with or supervising their subordinates for 1 to 3 months, 29% supervised their sub-
ordinates for 4 to 6 months, 26% for 7 to 12 months, and 24% for more than 12
months. Supervisors were also asked to report the average frequency with which
they have had the opportunity to directly observe the job performance of the sol-
dier they were rating. The following represents the reported frequencies: 63% re-
ported having opportunity to observe “daily,” 30% observed “several times a
week,”6% observed “about once a week,” and less than 1% observed “less than
once a week.” These results indicate that supervisors had ample opportunity to ob-
serve the performance of the soldiers they were rating.
Data Analyses
Based on the previous research by Pulakos et al. (2000), which established an em-
pirical and conceptual foundation for specifying the dimensions underlying adapt-
ability, we employed a confirmatory approach with the past experience, interest,
and self-efficacy adaptability measures to determine if the eight-factor conceptual-
ization of adaptability was reflected in our participants’ responses. Specifically, we
conducted maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL 8
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) to evaluate the fit of both an eight-factor model of
adaptability, as well as possible alternative one- and two-factor models hypothe-
sized and tested by Pulakos et al. (2000). The two-factor model consists of items
comprising the following sets of dimensions: (Factor 1) handling emergencies or
crisis situations and demonstrating physically oriented adaptability and (Factor 2)

handling work stress; solving problems creatively; dealing with uncertain and un-
predictable work situations; learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures;
demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; and demonstrating cultural adaptability.
To construct manifest indicators for each of the adaptability dimensions, we em-
ployed an item parceling strategy supported in research by Landis, Beal, and
Tesluk (2000). This procedure established two composite, manifest variables for
each adaptability dimension by randomly assigning items written to tap that di-
mension to one of two composites. Therefore, a total of 16 indicators were avail-
able to test the one-, two-, and eight-factor adaptability models.

The relations between the adaptability, personality, and ability measures were
examined. Finally, adaptive performance was regressed on ability and personality
measures and then, in subsequent steps, the adaptability predictor measures.
RESULTS
Past Experience With Adaptive Situations

In looking first at the past experience adaptability measure, fit indexes for the one-,
two-, and eight-factor models are presented in Table 3. Comparison of the fit in-
dexes suggests that the eight-factor model offers the best fit for the data, and
chi-square difference tests showed significant improvement in fit for the eight-fac-
tor model compared to the one-factor alternative (χ2 = 1,503, df = 28, p < .001) and
the two-factor alternative (χ2 = 1,366, df = 27, p < .001). In subsequent analyses,
TABLE 3
Fit Statistics for Adaptability Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models
Model χ2 df GFI AGFI CFI NNFI RMSEA
Experience measure (n = 603)

One-factor model 1,644 104 .74 .67 .74 .69 .16
Two-factor model 1,507 103 .76 .69 .76 .72 .15
Eight-factor model 141 76 .97 .95 .99 .98 .04
Interest measure (n = 602)
One-factor model 3,039 104 .63 .52 .56 .49 .21
Two-factor model 2,489 103 .67 .56 .64 .58 .19
Self-efficacy measure (n = 601)
One-factor model 3,041 104 .60 .47 .66 .61 .23
Two-factor model 2,804 103 .60 .47 .69 .64 .23
Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit
index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
TABLE 4
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Intercorrelations of Adaptability Measures
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Emergencies–E 1.50 .36 (.75)

Stress–E 2.83 .51 .29 (.81)
Problem- 2.60 .55 .26 .74 (.84)
solving–E
Change–E 2.81 .55 .22 .65 .75 (.86)
Learning–E 2.39 .56 .27 .48 .57 .59 (.85)
Interpersonal–E 2.44 .51 .27 .56 .60 .60 .57 (.84)
Cultural–E 2.86 .46 .26 .36 .42 .45 .43 .40 (.78)
Physical–E 3.00 .52 .18 .42 .45 .48 .49 .46 .47 (.81)
Emergencies–I 3.39 .78 .11 .10 .15 .19 .14 .12 .20 .15 (.90)
Stress–I 3.30 .72 .07 .02 .07 .04 .14 .10 .17 .08 .45 (.80)
Problem- 3.90 .69 –.01 .08 .12 .10 .11 .13 .23 .06 .43 .50 (.88)
solving–I
Change–I 3.23 .67 .06 .01 .08 .06 .12 .11 .17 .09 .48 .56 .55 (.81)
Learning–I 3.88 .68 –.03 –.02 .02 .02 .05 –.04 .12 –.01 .41 .47 .66 .53 (.88)
Interpersonal–I 3.08 .71 –.06 –.07 –.04 .00 .06 .02 .12 –.01 .28 .32 .36 .46 .42 (.83)
Cultural–I 3.61 .74 –.02 –.02 .00 .05 .06 .05 .23 –.02 .31 .41 .50 .43 .55 .55 (.90)
Physical–I 2.62 .77 .10 –.03 –.01 –.03 .08 –.07 .06 .06 .37 .42 .23 .45 .38 .26 .26 (.85)
Emergencies–SE 3.61 .72 .12 .12 .17 .16 .17 .07 .22 .13 .33 .22 .27 .21 .22 .11 .21 .18 (.91)
Stress–SE 3.47 .60 .01 .14 .17 .17 .23 .09 .11 .16 .15 .23 .19 .24 .16 .16 .14 .18 .41 (.86)
Problem- 3.45 .64 .04 .13 .21 .15 .24 .11 .11 .15 .17 .22 .22 .23 .17 .12 .18 .18 .47 .79 (.87)
solving–SE
Change–SE 3.62 .62 –.02 .12 .15 .16 .21 .11 .14 .13 .17 .25 .23 .24 .20 .15 .19 .15 .46 .75 .77 (.90)
Learning–SE 3.75 .62 .07 .16 .20 .19 .29 .12 .26 .17 .22 .25 .29 .23 .31 .17 .27 .19 .45 .52 .55 .63 (.91)
Interpersonal–SE 3.53 .60 .04 .07 .12 .13 .15 .12 .18 .12 .15 .24 .22 .21 .21 .24 .28 .10 .42 .59 .59 .64 .61 (.88)
Cultural–SE 3.81 .65 .02 .14 .18 .21 .16 .13 .36 .17 .21 .21 .32 .23 .29 .24 .42 .18 .39 .41 .48 .53 .70 .63 (.91)
Physical–SE 3.60 .71 .09 .10 .12 .11 .18 .06 .20 .24 .17 .27 .22 .27 .24 .14 .17 .38 .38 .56 .54 .55 .49 .55 .51 (.88)
Note. n = 596–603. E = experience subscale; I = interest subscale; and SE = self-efficacy subscale. Values in parentheses are coefficient alphas. Correlations above .08 are
significant, p < .05.
the eight-factor solution was used as the basis for computing scores corresponding
to the original eight adaptability dimensions. Coefficient alphas, means, and stan-
dard deviations for the eight subscales are presented in Table 4.
Interest in Working in Situations Demanding Adaptability

For the interest measure, fit indexes for the one-, two-, and eight-factor models are
presented in Table 3. Similar to the experience measure, comparison of the fit in-
dexes suggests that the eight-factor model offers the best fit for the data. Chi-
square difference tests showed significant improvement in fit for the eight-factor
model compared to the one-factor alternative (χ2 = 2,862, df = 27, p < .001) and
two-factor alternative (χ2 = 2,312, df = 27, p < .001). Based on these results, the
original specification of items to dimensions was retained. Scale alphas, means,
and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.
Self-Efficacy to Adapt
The measure of task-specific self-efficacy yielded similar results to both the expe-
rience and interest adaptability measures. The eight-factor model yielded superior
fit. Fit indexes for the self-assessment measure are presented in Table 3. Chi-
square difference tests likewise showed significant improvement in fit for the
eight-factor model compared to the one-factor alternative (χ2 = 2,850, df = 28, p <
.001) and two-factor alternative (χ2 = 2,312, df = 28, p < .001). Coefficient alphas,
means, and standard deviations for the measures created on the basis of this factor
solution are also presented in Table 4.
Intercorrelations of the experience, interest, and self-assessment scales are pre-
sented in Table 4. As evident in this table, the intercorrelations of the scales involv-
ing a common response scale are moderate, although intercorrelations corrected
for unreliability in the scales did not approach 1.00. Correlations across response
formats were generally low. This was not surprising in that we did not expect a pri-
ori to find substantial relations between measures of interest, past experience, and
self-efficacy, despite the fact that the items comprising these measures assessed the
same adaptability dimensions. In fact, the intercorrelations between experience
and self-efficacy adaptability dimensions are likely due, in part, to the use of paral-
lel items in the two measures. The data in Table 4 also indicate good internal con-
sistency reliabilities. In the remainder of the analyses described later, items on the
adaptability measures are aggregated in terms of the dimensions shown in Table 4.
Performance Measures
Two complete sets of performance measures were collected for 399 of the partici-
pants in the study. These measures, as previously described, were meant to mea-
314 PULAKOS ET AL.
sure adaptive performance as indicated in the eight adaptability dimensions. Both

exploratory and confirmatory approaches to factor analyzing these measures did
not yield interpretable solutions and generally indicated a strong general factor
when looking within and across the behaviorally and situation-based items. More-
over, when forming an overall composite for the behaviorally and situation-based
ratings separately, composite scores between the two methods correlate .82. Based
on these results, we formed a single, overall mean composite, based on both the 8
behaviorally based and 24 situation-based ratings. The alpha coefficient for this
overall adaptive performance composite was .97.
Correlations Between Adaptability Measures, Personality,

and Performance
Data presented earlier provide partial support for the meaningfulness of the adapt-
ability dimensions in the sense that respondents distinguish between their inter-
ests, experiences, and perceived capabilities to perform on these different di-
mensions. However, the meaningfulness of separate adaptability performance
dimensions, across the experience, interest, and self-assessment measures, was not
evident. In this section, we present data relevant to the correlations of the measures
of adaptability with hypothesized personality correlates, the cognitive ability mea-
sure (AFQT), and the adaptive performance measure described earlier. The means,
standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for the personality measures and the
correlations of all three types of variables with the adaptability dimensions are pre-
sented in Table 5.
First, we note that the correlations between the present personality scales and
cognitive ability are similar to the relations reported between other measures of
these same constructs in the literature. For example, Russell and Peterson (2001)
reported correlations between achievement motivation and components of cogni-
tive ability of .06 to .07. These results mirror our findings, showing no correlation
between achievement motivation and cognitive ability. In addition, Russell and Pe-
terson also reported correlations between a measure of Emotional Stability and
components of cognitive ability of .09 to .10. These findings also parallel our re-
sults, which show a correlation between Emotional Stability and cognitive ability
of .11. Similarly, Russell and Peterson reported a significant and sizable correla-
tion between achievement motivation and Emotional Stability, which is also con-
sistent with our findings. Therefore, these results provide support for the construct
validity of the new personality measures developed for this research.
The results in Table 5 also indicate a relative absence of correlation between the
personality measures and the adaptability experience responses, but comparatively
higher correlations between the personality variables and the interest and the
self-efficacy measures targeted to the eight adaptability dimensions. Openness and
achievement motivation were correlated most highly with the adaptability mea-
TABLE 5
Correlations Between Adaptability Measures and Personality, Ability,
and Adaptive Performance
Achieve- Adaptive
Emotional ment Unlikely Perform-
Variable AFQT Openness Stability Motivation Virtues ance
1. Emergencies–E –.06 .08 .05 .05 .07 .00

2. Stress–E .11* .11* –.08* .09* –.22* .09
3. Problem-solving–E .12* .12* .00 .10* –.12* .11*
4. Change–E .08* .12* .02 .10* –.09* .16*

5. Learning–E .10* .11* .07 .13* –.03 .24*
6. Interpersonal–E .08 .13* –.09* .04 –.16* .04
7. Cultural–E .03 .27* .09* .14* .02 .15*
8. Physical–E .06 .06 –.02 .10* –.07 .17*
9. Emergencies–I .05 .33* .26* .29* .11* .06
10. Stress–I .04 .29* .30* .31* .14 .16*
11. Problem-solving–I .06 .35* .21* .36* .04 .18*
12. Change–I –.04 .29* .28* .30* .16* .11*
13. Learning–I .02 .38* .25* .43* .13* .22*
14. Interpersonal–I –.05 .32* .19* .21* .22* .08
15. Cultural–I –.05 .60* .20* .25* .16* .09
16. Physical–I –.05 .23* .25* .20* .19* .06
17. Emergencies–SE .13* .23* .18* .25* .08* .17*
18. Stress–SE .09* .18* .20* .34* .10* .22*
19. Problem-solving–SE .14* .23* .21* .31* .07 .17*
20. Change–SE .13* .21* .22* .35* .10* .20*
21. Learning–SE .16* .34* .27* .37* .09* .24*
22. Interpersonal–SE .11* .29* .26* .31* .14* .16*
23. Cultural–SE .14* .47* .24* .29* .09* .15*
24. Physical–SE .05 .26* .25* .29* .06 .20*
25. AFQT — .06 .11* .00 –.17* .14*
26. Openness .06 — .34* .40* .10* .07
27. Emotional stability .11* .34* — .30* .27* .18*
28. Achievement .00 .40* .30* — .23* .31*
motivation
29. Unlikely virtues –.17* .10* .27* .23* — .07
M 61.32 3.72 3.22 3.90 2.59 4.63
SD 18.30 .52 .58 .52 .46 .97
Alpha — .83 .80 .82 .74 .97a
Note. AFQT = Armed Forces Qualifying Test; n (correlations with AFQT) = 588–592; n (correla-
tions with personality measures) = 596–600; n (correlations with performance) = 327–331. E = experi-
ence subscale; I = interest subscale; and SE = self-efficacy subscale.
aInterrater reliability in the form of a one rater intraclass correlation coefficient is equal to .61.
*p < .05.
315
316 PULAKOS ET AL.
sures, but virtually all correlations were statistically significant for the interest and
self-efficacy variables. Openness was particularly highly related to one’s per-
ceived capability and interest in adapting to different cultures. All adaptability
measures, including the assessment of self-efficacy, have relatively low correla-
tions with the unlikely virtues measure, indicating that these measures were not
greatly affected by social desirability.
Seventeen of the 24 experience, interest, and self-efficacy correlations with
adaptive job performance were statistically significant (p < .05), with magnitudes
between .11 and .24. For both the experience and self-efficacy adaptability mea-
sures, a majority of subscales yielded significant correlations with performance.

Coupled with the low correlations with the unlikely virtues scale, these results in-
dicate that these measures have potential for selection of military personnel and
perhaps people in other occupations as well. It should be noted that our sample in-
cluded current job incumbents, not applicants (Ellingson, Sackett, & Hough,
1999). Research with an applicant sample should be conducted to determine the
degree to which responses to these items are inflated when motivation to be hired
for a desirable job is present.
Regression of Adaptive Job Performance

on Ability, Personality, and Adaptability Measures
Our last set of analyses was directed to the question of whether the adaptability
measures would add incrementally to the prediction of performance after the pre-
diction afforded by the more traditional personality and ability predictors. Initially,
regression analyses were conducted separately for the three adaptability predictor
measures (experience, interest, and the self-efficacy assessment) to determine if
any of these predictor measures could individually demonstrate incremental valid-
ity over the cognitive ability (AFQT) and personality predictors. For each of these
analyses, the personality and AFQT variables were entered at Step 1, and then the
new adaptability measure subscales were entered at Step 2. The results of these ini-
tial models suggested that only the past experience measure yielded significant in-
cremental validity over the AFQT and personality measures. Hierarchical regres-
sion models for the interest and self-efficacy adaptability measures yielded
R2-change values of .03 (df = 8,309), p > .05 and .02 (df = 8,306), p > .05, respec-
tively. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis for the past experience mea-
sure are presented in Table 6. This analysis was based on a smaller sample (N =
320), largely because of missing data on one or more of the performance rating
measures.
Overall, the results presented in Table 6 represent quite a good prediction of the
adaptive performance composite, with an adjusted multiple correlation of approxi-
mately .40. As a group, the subscales associated with the past experience measure
contributed incrementally to the prediction of adaptive performance after the entry
TABLE 6
Regression Analysis of Adaptive Performance on Personality, Ability,
and Adaptive Experience Measures
r (With Total
Adaptive (Adjusted)
Step Predictor β Performance) R2 ∆R2 ∆F df
1. Openness –.140* .04

Emotional Stability .089 .17
Achievement motivation .311* .31
AFQT .117* .13

.135 (.124) .135 12.329* (4, 315)
2. Emergencies–E –.052 .00
Stress–E .028 .11
Problem-solving–E –.023 .12
Change–E .033 .16
Learning–E .199* .22
Interpersonal–E –.151* .04
Cultural–E .086 .15
Physical–E .062 .17
.189 (.157) .054 2.536* (8,307)
Note. n = 320. AFQT = Armed Forces Qualifying Test; E = experience subscale. β = standardized
regression weights at the last step of the regression analysis.
*p < .05.
of three personality variables and a cognitive ability measure (AFQT). When look-
ing at specific predictors, achievement motivation and the adaptive experience
measure of “learning new tasks, technologies, and procedures” were the only pre-
dictors that added significantly and substantially to the prediction of adaptive per-
formance. The personality measure of Openness and the past experience measure
related to “Demonstrating interpersonal adaptability” also appear as significant in
Table 6; however, this is apparently due to suppression effects given the size and
magnitude of the correlations and beta weights. The AFQT variable added signifi-
cantly to the prediction of adaptive performance, but its standardized regression
weight was comparatively small. However, due to the fact that participating sol-
diers were selected on the AFQT, some degree of range restriction undoubtedly
served to lower its influence in these regression analyses.1
1We were unable to employ a full multivariate correction for range restriction, due to a lack of unre-
stricted parameter estimates for all of the measures. To provide some indication of the degree of range
restriction, the uncorrected correlation between cognitive ability (Armed Forces Qualifying Test) and
adaptive performance in the entire sample is .142. Corrected for range restriction, this correlation esti-
mate increases to .217.
318 PULAKOS ET AL.
DISCUSSION
New technology, globalization, and alterations in jobs require workers to adapt to

new and varied situations at work. This research is an important first step in under-
standing the individual differences that underlie adaptive performance and what
types of predictors are likely to be useful for selecting an adaptive workforce. This
research contributes to the literature in three important ways. First, this research
sought to investigate whether the eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive perfor-
mance proposed by Pulakos et al. (2000) could be replicated and supported using
different measures than these authors used in their original study. Second, this re-
search describes the development of three innovative predictors of adaptive job
performance and presents data regarding their usefulness for selecting an adaptive
workforce. To review, these predictor measures included assessments of past expe-
rience, interest, and task-specific self-efficacy specifically targeted to the eight
proposed adaptive performance dimensions. Finally, this research also examines
the incremental validity of these measures compared to more traditional measures
of cognitive ability and personality for predicting adaptive performance.
Regarding the replicability of the eight-dimension model, confirmatory factor
analyses were used to examine the underlying dimensionality of the past experi-
ence, interest, and task-specific self-efficacy predictors of adaptive performance
and of the criterion measures used in this study as well. The eight-factor model was
confirmed for all three predictor measures, with superior fit indexes resulting for
the eight-factor model compared to one- or two-factor alternatives. This finding
lends further support and credence to the notion that adaptability is a multidimen-
sional construct that can be described in terms of the eight performance dimen-
sions described in Pulakos et al. (2000) and in this article.
Alternatively, examination of the criterion measures did not support a similar
eight-dimension model, but suggested a general factor. There are several potential
reasons for this result with the rating measures. First, the number of rating items
tapping each adaptive performance dimension was relatively small (a total of
four), and there were different types of rating items used (i.e., one behaviorally
based rating per dimension and three ratings of effectiveness tied to specific situa-
tions requiring adaptive performance). Both of these factors may have contributed
to the results that were observed. In addition, despite the rater training provided,
supervisors may have made judgments of overall adaptability rather than making
finer discriminations between the dimensions. Further evaluation of the rating
measures in other jobs and possibly enhancement of the measures to include more
items are areas for future research.
With respect to the validation results themselves, several measures seem useful
for predicting adaptive performance. In fact, many of the predictor measures in-
cluded in this research showed significant zero-order correlations with adaptive
job performance. Several scales from both the past experience and interest invento-
ries that tapped the eight adaptability dimensions were significantly correlated
with adaptive performance. However, perhaps even more interesting is the fact that
many of the adaptive self-efficacy scales were significantly correlated with super-
visor ratings of adaptability. This is in contrast with previous research that has gen-
erally shown minimal relations between self- and supervisor ratings of effective-
ness (e.g., Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988).
Examination of the entire array of measures revealed that cognitive ability and
achievement motivation are significant predictors of adaptive performance, like
they are of other types of job performance. Although achievement motivation was
the strongest predictor of adaptive performance, recall that soldiers were selected
using the cognitive ability (i.e., AFQT) measure and thus the relation between cog-
nitive ability and adaptive performance is restricted to some degree. None of the
interest or self-efficacy measures contributed incrementally to the prediction of
adaptive performance beyond cognitive ability and achievement orientation, but
the learning scale of the past experience measure did. These results suggest that the
most effective traditional measures of job performance are also useful for predict-
ing adaptive performance. In addition, it appears that the prediction of adaptive
performance can be enhanced by the inclusion of a measure that assesses past ex-
perience and demonstrates a willingness to learn new things.
One important area for future research is to further examine the usefulness of
the present predictors for different jobs that are characterized by different types of
adaptive performance requirements. As Pulakos et al. (2000) demonstrated, differ-
ent jobs have different amounts and profiles of adaptability requirements along the
eight adaptive performance dimensions. To examine the possible effects of job on
validity, we sorted the present army jobs into two groups that, based on previous
research and our knowledge of army jobs, had higher versus lower levels of adapt-
ability requirements. We did not have the information or sample sizes to further
group jobs based on their adaptability requirements. We found no significant mod-
erator effects for job and, therefore, reported the results for the entire sample.
However, given that there was considerable variability in the adaptability require-
ments for the jobs within the two groups examined, these data did not enable a
conclusive test regarding the validity of the adaptability predictors for jobs with
different adaptability requirements. In addition, lower levels of adaptability re-
quirements in some of the jobs may have reduced the overall predictive capacity of
some of the predictors. Therefore, future research should be directed at a more sys-
tematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the present predictors in jobs with differ-
ent amounts and types of adaptability requirements.
A final important area for future research, which was not addressed in this
study, is to further examine the relations between adaptive performance and the
other two key dimensions of performance that have been discussed in the litera-
ture: technical and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Borman
& Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Previous research has dif-
320 PULAKOS ET AL.
ferentiated technical and contextual performance both conceptually and based on

the predictors that are thought to explain variation in these different performance
constructs. In addition, Hesketh, Allworth, and Considine (1996) showed that
adaptive performance could be separated from task and contextual performance
and was in some cases predicted by measures (e.g., past experience of change) dif-
ferent from those that have been shown to be relevant to the two more traditional
performance measures. Given the present validation results, however, clearly dis-
tinguishing this type of performance from other performance elements in terms of
its predictors may be more difficult, due to the fact that ability, personality, and ex-
perience variables all appear to contribute to its prediction.

In summary, the present adaptive performance taxonomy and research is impor-
tant for two reasons. First, it presents a conceptual description of job-relevant
adaptability that should be included in performance descriptions and measures, as
relevant and appropriate for the job in question. Second, it suggests the utility of
adding some nontraditional predictors that may serve to increment the prediction
of performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences, Contract #DASW01–97–C–0041. All statements expressed
in this article are ours and do not necessarily reflect the official opinions or policies
of the U.S. Army Research Institute or the Department of the Army.
REFERENCES
Abrahams, N. M., Neuman, I., & Rimland, B. (1973). Preliminary validation of an interest inventory
for selection of Navy recruiters (Research Memorandum SRM 73–3). San Diego, CA: Navy Person-
nel and Training Research Laboratory.
Arvey, R. D., & Dewhirst, R. D. (1979). Relationship between diversity of interests, age, job satisfac-
tion, and job performance. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 17–23.
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 465–487.
Ashford, S. J., & Lee, R. T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human
Relations, 43, 621–648.
Azen, S. P., Snibbe, H. M., & Montgomery, H. R. (1973). A longitudinal predictive study of success and
performance of law enforcement officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 190–192.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big-five personality dimensions in job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Black, J. S. (1990). Locus of control, social support, stress, and adjustment to international transfers.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 7, 1–29.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjust-
ment:Anintegrationofmultipletheoreticalperspectives.AcademyofManagementReview,16,291–317.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The mean-
ing for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of con-
textual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 71–98). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (1988). Services marketing and management: Implications for organiza-
tional behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
10, pp. 43–80). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational so-
cialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McRae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 653–665.
Dix, J. E., & Savickas, M. L. (1995). Establishing a career: Developmental tasks and coping responses.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 93–107.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Edwards, J. E., & Morrison, R. F. (1994). Selecting and classifying future naval officers: The paradox
of greater specialization in broader areas. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker, & J. H. Harris (Eds.), Per-
sonnel selection and classification (pp. 69–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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, 155–166.
Fiedler, F. E., & Fiedler, J. (1975). Port noise complaints: Verbal and behavioral reactions to airport re-
lated noise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 498–506.
Goodman, J. (1994). Career adaptability in adults: A construct whose time has come. The Career De-
velopment Quarterly, 43, 74–84.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new career construct: Developing the whole person at mid-life
and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 269–289.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-super-
visor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta
(Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 52–77). New York: Freeman.
Hesketh, B., Allworth, E., & Considine, G. (1996). Preliminary report on phase I of the selection pro-
ject for Hilton Hotel. Unpublished manuscript, MacQuarie University, Department of Psychology,
Sydney, Australia.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.),
The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp.
21–55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hollenbeck, J. R., LePine, J. A., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Adapting to roles in decision-making teams. In
K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 300–333). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus
prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
Hough, L. M., Barge, B., & Kamp, J. (2001). Assessment of personality, temperament, vocational inter-
ests, and work outcome preferences. In J. Campbell & D. Knapp (Eds.), Exploring the limits in per-
sonnel selection and classification (pp. 111–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
322 PULAKOS ET AL.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related
validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in today’s organizations. In D. R. Ilgen &
E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motiva-
tion, and development (pp. 1–18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS com-
mand language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organiza-
tional change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kinicki, A. J., & Latack, J. C. (1990). Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary job loss.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 339–360.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and de-
velopment: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. Beyerlein, S.
Beyerlein, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leader-
ship (Vol. 3, pp. 253–291). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite
measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 186–207.
London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The
changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp.
119–153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in em-
ployee training: Mediating influences on self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 82, 764–773.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). More reasons to adopt the five-factor model. American Psycholo-
gist, 44, 451–452.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Jour-
nal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research
and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Man-
agement, 13, 153–200.
Murphy, K. R. (1989). The role of cognitive ability in validity generalization. In R. Dillon & J.
Pelligrino (Eds.), Testing: Applied and theoretical perspectives (pp. 218–247). New York: Praeger.
Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work role performance: Challenges for twenty-first cen-
tury organizations. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Im-
plications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 325–365). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Noe, R. A., & Ford, J. K. (1992). Emerging issues and new directions for training research. Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management, 10, 345–384.
Patrickson, M. (1987). Adaptation by employees to new technology. Journal of Occupational Psychol-
ogy, 59, 1–11.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interpersonal flexi-
bility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88–101.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus
of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802.
Pulakos, E. D. (1984). A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 581–588.
Pulakos, E. D. (1986). The development of a training program to increase accuracy with different rating
formats. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 76–91.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the work place:
Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624.
Russell, T. L., & Peterson, N. G. (2001). The experimental battery: Basic attribute scores for predicting
performance in a population of jobs. In J. Campbell & D. Knapp (Eds.), Exploring the limits in per-
sonnel selection and classification (pp. 269–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning style. New York: Plenum.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children’s self-efficacy and achievement.
Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 89–93.
Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive experience: Implications for
training design. In M. A. Quinones & A. Dudda (Eds.), Training for 21st century technology: Appli-
cations of psychological research (pp. 87–118). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. L. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruc-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.
Thach, L., & Woodman, R. W. (1994). Organizational change and information technology: Managing
on the edge of cyberspace. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 30–46.
Weinstein, N. D. (1978). Individual differences in reactions to noise: A longitudinal study in a college
dormitory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 458–466.
Weiss, S. J. (1984). The effects of transition modules on new graduate adaptation. Research in Nursing
and Health, 7, 51–59.

Pula Kos 2002

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

Pula Kos 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Loughborough University]

On: 24 November 2014, At: 07:20

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1504_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Predicting Adaptive Performance:

David W. Dorsey, Sharon Arad,

This research further investigates an 8-dimension taxonomy of adaptive performance

Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991) have required workers to be increasingly adapt-

Dimension Title Dimension Definition Sources

action Mirvis, 1995; K. R. Murphy,

PREDICTORS OF ADAPTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE

To further evaluate the eight-dimension taxonomy of adaptive job performance, we

terest in working in situations demanding the different types of adaptation described in

Past Experience Adapting

Interest in Adaptive Situations

Task-Specific Self-Efficacy to Adapt

to learning performance, one aspect of the present adaptive performance taxon-

Openness. Openness refers to one’s curiosity, broadmindedness, and recep-

Emotional Stability. Emotional Stability, a positive analogue of neuroticism

formance criteria, including irresponsible behavior, teamwork, and executive

Achievement motivation. Achievement motivation refers to one’s desire to

Cognitive ability. Both traditional and recent conceptualizations of intelli-

Unlikely virtues. An unlikely virtues (Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, &

ADAPTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES

SUMMARY OF THIS RESEARCH

formance dimensions. More detail about the measures is provided later.

Past experience, interest, and self-efficacy predictors based on the

• An automobile accident involving personal injury.

The second measure provided an assessment of respondents’ interest in working

Personality measures. As discussed earlier, based on a review of the litera-

Administration of the predictors. For the validation study, booklets were

Dimension Title Experience Itema Interest Itemb Self-Assessmentc

Performance measures. Two measures of adaptive performance were

completed by participants’ supervisors. The first measure was a set of eight

Administration of the performance measures. First- and second-line su-

crisis situations and demonstrating physically oriented adaptability and (Factor 2)

able to test the one-, two-, and eight-factor adaptability models.

Past Experience With Adaptive Situations

Model χ2 df GFI AGFI CFI NNFI RMSEA

Experience measure (n = 603)

Emergencies–E 1.50 .36 (.75)

Interest in Working in Situations Demanding Adaptability

sure adaptive performance as indicated in the eight adaptability dimensions. Both

Correlations Between Adaptability Measures, Personality,

1. Emergencies–E –.06 .08 .05 .05 .07 .00

4. Change–E .08* .12* .02 .10* –.09* .16*

sures, a majority of subscales yielded significant correlations with performance.

Regression of Adaptive Job Performance

1. Openness –.140* .04

AFQT .117* .13

New technology, globalization, and alterations in jobs require workers to adapt to

ferentiated technical and contextual performance both conceptually and based on

perience variables all appear to contribute to its prediction.

10, pp. 43–80). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

You might also like