Journal of Applied Psychology

© 2021 American Psychological Association

ISSN: 0021-9010 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000964

Meta-Analysis of Biodata in Employment Settings: Providing Clarity to

Criterion and Construct-Related Validity Estimates
Andrew B. Speer, Andrew P. Tenbrink, Lauren J. Wegmeyer,
Caitlynn C. Sendra, Mike Shihadeh, and Sugandhjot Kaur
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University

Although biodata inventories have long been used to hire job applicants, there are limitations to current
biodata knowledge and little in the way of contemporary biodata meta-analytic reviews. This study
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

establishes a precise understanding of biodata validity by conducting an updated meta-analysis that

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

differentiates biodata validity in terms of two important defining features: construct domain and scoring
method (rational, hybrid, empirical). Evidence was established in terms of criterion-related validity with job
performance and additional work outcomes, as well as convergent validity with common external hiring
measures. In total, 180 independent samples of criterion correlations were examined, and 63 samples were
analyzed containing correlations with convergent measures. Findings across the meta-analyses revealed that
biodata inventories are one of the most predictive assessment methods available, but that the relationship
with work outcomes differs by construct domain and scoring method. Empirically scored overall composite
scales had superior criterion-related validity (ρ = .44) to rationally scored composite scales (ρ = .24).
Scales developed to measure conscientiousness and leadership were generally the most predictive of the job
performance of the narrow construct domains, and particularly when empirically keyed. However, when
biodata scores were correlated with theoretically aligned performance ratings, rational scoring resulted in
similar validity coefficients as empirical scoring. Finally, biodata scales exhibited expected patterns of
correlations with external measures and were only modestly correlated with cognitive ability and five-factor
model personality scores. Taken together, biodata inventories are highly predictive assessment methods and
are likely to provide unique variance over other common predictors.

Keywords: biodata, application blanks, biographical information, employee selection, meta-analysis

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000964.supp

Biodata inventories have long been used to hire job applicants,
and this measurement method has demonstrated meaningful rela-
tionships with many work and life outcomes (e.g., Breaugh, 2014;
Gessner et al., 1993; Mumford & Owens, 1987; Mumford et al.,
1996; Oswald et al., 2004; Rothstein et al., 1990; Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998). Despite this, there are limitations to our current
knowledge of biodata inventories. These include a lack of an
updated and nuanced meta-analytic understanding of the relation-
ships between biodata scores with performance outcomes and scores
on other selection assessments. Importantly, past biodata summaries
have failed to differentiate biodata according to which construct
domain the measurement assesses. Furthermore, past meta-
analytical work has failed to provide a systematic test of the impact
of biodata scoring method on biodata validity. The current research
provides an updated and improved biodata meta-analysis by
Andrew B. Speer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3376-2103
Portions of this research were presented at the 2021 Annual Conference for
the Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology in the presentation
titled “Meta-Analysis of Biodata at Work: Criterion & Construct Validity
Estimates.”
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew B.
Speer, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward
Avenue, Detroit, MI 48402, United States. Email: speerworking@gmail.com
differentiating biodata according to two major factors: construct
domain and scoring method. It examines relationships with several
performance outcomes and with common selection assessments,
which is important in order to not only determine the construct
validity of biodata, but also its ability to uniquely contribute to
selection test batteries over and above other common assessment
measures. This work contributes in several major ways to the
biodata literature.
First, existing biodata meta-analyses are outdated and challenging
to interpret in several ways. The most recent meta-analyses were
conducted in the 1990s, with Bliesener (1996) assessing criterion-
related validity and Bobko et al. (1999) investigating construct
relations with other predictors as part of a broader investigation.
The Bliesener’s meta-analysis included data up until 1993 with few
correlations with performance ratings. Nearly 30 years have passed
since. Other biodata meta-analyses or consortium studies are simi-
larly decades old (e.g., Carlson et al., 1999; Hunter & Hunter, 1984;
Reilly & Chao, 1982; Rothstein et al., 1990; Schmidt & Hunter,
1998) and therefore do not account for the considerable amount of
primary research that has occurred since then. For example, the most
recent meta-analysis of criterion-related validity by Bliesener (1996)
only reported 16 effect sizes correlating biodata scores with job
performance ratings (Table 1). Our present study, even after being
more selective in the quality of the studies used, analyzed a total of
97 independent samples for this effect. In total, 180 independent
samples of criterion correlations were examined in this study, and 63

1
 2 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
independent samples were analyzed containing convergent predic-
tor correlations, thus providing a much more comprehensive set of
meta-analyses of biodata’s effects.
Relatedly, there is a need for a more rigorous biodata meta-
analysis to establish firm, accurate estimates of biodata relation-
ships. Several features of past work make it challenging to interpret
biodata validity estimates. For example, the Bliesener’s (1996)
meta-analysis used self-report performance ratings, which are
known to be biased (Murphy et al., 2018), combined studies that
used different methods of obtaining respondent life history (open-
ended survey responses, standardized questionnaires, interview
responses), did not correct for artifacts such as criterion unreliability
and range restriction, and at times reported correlations based on
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
criterion averages across bands of biodata scores rather than indi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
vidual respondents. These features make it challenging to interpret
past biodata effects and highlight a need to perform an updated and
more rigorous account of biodata validity.
Third, past meta-analytical work has failed to consider the
construct validity and intended construct domains of biodata scales.
Table 1 provides a comparison of major recent biodata summary
studies in comparison to this study, and as seen, none empirically
delineated biodata scales by intended construct domain. Although a
strength of biodata is that it is a measurement method and can
therefore assess a range of constructs (e.g., knowledge and proce-
dural skills, leadership), this has resulted in challenges interpreting
the construct validity of biodata. For example, a biodata scale
designed to reflect intellectual ability will differ substantially
from one that reflects social skills; these scales represent separate
construct domains that would be expected to demonstrate differen-
tial correlations with work outcomes (e.g., problem-solving at
work) and other psychological measures (e.g., extraversion). Con-
struct domain thus serves as a factor that must be considered when
comparing the validity of different biodata scales.
Although this has been previously acknowledged (e.g., Bobko
et al., 1999; Mumford et al., 1996, 2012), we still do not have a firm
empirical understanding of the construct validity of biodata scales.
Past biodata meta-analyses have not distinguished biodata scales in
terms of intended construct domains; instead, biodata scales have
been broadly lumped together. Thus, even though per the last meta-
analysis (Bliesener, 1996) and a large consortium study (Rothstein
et al., 1990), biodata is estimated to correlate about .32–.33 with job
performance at work, it is unclear whether these estimates apply to
all biodata scales consistently (Table 1). A lack of construct domain
differentiation has rendered our current meta-analytic estimates of
biodata validity as limited and has hampered biodata theory.
As such, this study differentiates biodata scales according to
intended construct domains while introducing a biodata taxonomy
to help make sense of the literature, then summarizing results
according to this taxonomy. This work builds on past biodata
research (e.g., Mumford & Owens, 1987; Mumford et al., 1996;
Oswald et al., 2004; Schmitt & Golubovich, 2013; Sisco & Reilly,
2007) and contributes by providing a much more precise under-
standing of biodata validity in terms of correlations with job
performance, separated by biodata construct domain. This is in
line with Lievens and Sackett’s (2017) modular approach to selec-
tion instruments and their call to conduct meta-analyses that break
predictor method relationships by defining method factors and by
targeted constructs. By differentiating the construct domains of
biodata, researchers and practitioners can develop a more precise
understanding of the validity of this measurement method.
Fourth, although several primary studies have recently examined
the impact of scoring method on biodata validity (e.g., Cucina et al.,
2012), studies are generally limited to single biodata inventories and
applications within the same or similar organizations. For example,
Cucina et al. (2012) is an excellent study that demonstrates the
benefits and weaknesses to various biodata scoring methods and
across various sample sizes. However, these analyses were per-
formed on a single biodata inventory and in a single organizational
context, and conclusions regarding the superiority of scoring
method would be strengthened if findings were generalized across
more biodata inventories and across samples. Within a single study
it is possible that a rational scoring key was poorly developed, thus
serving as a reason why an empirical key may be superior. For more
robust confidence regarding the superiority of either method, valid-
ity must be compared across different inventories and different
contexts. This is important because there is still debate regarding the
appropriateness of different scoring methods (e.g., rational, empiri-
cal) in terms of validity. Contemporary narrative reviews of biodata
are noncommittal or inconclusive regarding the predictive superi-
ority of any single scoring method (Breaugh, 2009; Schmitt &
Golubovich, 2013), and this is likely fueled by not having synthe-
sized empirical evidence regarding these methods. Many research-
ers and practitioners simply do not know which of these methods
should be preferred if the goal is to maximize criterion-related
validity. A lack of meta-analytical evidence regarding scoring
method is thus a knowledge gap; such meta-analytical evidence
would have a substantial impact on how practitioners apply biodata
in the field, and as this paper will show, scoring method is a major
moderator of biodata validity.
Fifth, our understanding of assessment matures as we increas-
ingly understand how it relates to other constructs and measures. An
often overlooked but important concern is how hiring methods
correlate with other known predictors commonly used to hire job
applicants. Knowledge of predictor intercorrelations allows for an
understanding of construct validity by empirically establishing
nomological networks (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). It also has
practical implications: understanding whether an assessment will
provide unique variance over an existing selection measure is useful
when developing an assessment procedure. For example, if biodata
measures correlate very highly with other common measures such as
personality assessments or cognitive ability tests, biodata scores
would be redundant when added to hiring protocols. On the other
hand, predictors that exhibit less overlap are more capable of
providing unique variance over and above one another. For these
reasons, it is important to investigate the correlations between
biodata scores and scores from other assessment measures. Thus,
this study also contributes to the literature by establishing correla-
tions between biodata scores (by construct domain) and other
common preemployment assessments. As shown in Table 1, current
large-scale evidence of such relationships is limited.
Taken together, there is an obvious need for an updated and more
comprehensive meta-analysis of biodata validity, and especially one
that provides a nuanced understanding of biodata inventories by
differentiating biodata validity according to construct domain and
scoring method, as well as in terms of both criterion-related validity
and relationships with other external selection assessments. We
begin by describing what biodata is in terms of format, construct
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1
Major Recent Large Scale Biodata Summary Studies in Comparison to This Study

rxy Validity (omnibus) rxy Validity (multiple specific construct domains)

Adv Perf Specific Obj Training Adv
Study/moderator Study type Perf ratings Specific perf dim Obj perf Training perf pot ratings perf dim perf perf pot

Rothstein et al. (1990) Consortium 11,332 (1), .27 (.33) 11,332 (1), .27 (.33)
Empirical/hybrid Consortium 11,332 (1), .27 (.33) 11,332 (1), .27 (.33)
Rational
Bliesener (1996) Meta 14,025 (16), .32 (NA) 3,582 (19), .53 (NA) 35,256 (49), .36 (NA)
Empirical/hybrid
Rational
Cucina et al. (2012) Single study 5,272 (1), .25 (NA)
Empirical/hybrid Single study 5,272 (1), .35 (NA)
Rational Single study 5,272 (1),p.15 (NA) p p p p p p p p p
This Study Meta p p p p p p p p p p
Empirical/hybrid Meta p p p p p p p p p p
Rational Meta

Convergent correlations (multiple specific

Convergent correlations (omnibus) construct domains)
Study/moderator GMA E A C ES | O GMA E A C ES | O

Bobko et al. (1999) Meta 1,363 (2), .19 (NA) 1,363 (2), .51 (NA)
BIODATA META-ANALYSIS

Empirical/Hybrid
Rational p p p p p p p p p p
This study Meta p p p p p p p p p p
Empirical/hybrid Meta p p p p p p p p p p
Rational Meta
Note. The chosen articles were viewed as seminal, large-scale studies completed in the past several decades, with some recommended by the review team. Within cell, the data are presented as sample size
(number of studies), uncorrected correlation (corrected correlation). The corrected correlations shown in the table were corrected for criterion unreliability and range restriction. In studies where effect size
estimates were provided for both empirical and rational scoring, we averaged the two effect sizes for the overall results in this table. GMA = general mental ability; E = extraversion; A = agreeableness; C =
conscientiousness; ES = emotional stability; O = openness to experience (latter two combined to save table space). Omnibus refers to biodata analyses without delineation by construct domain. “rxy Validity” =
criterion-related validity; “Perf ratings” = performance ratings; “Specific perf dim” = specific performance dimensions; “Obj perf” = objective performance; “Training perf” = training performance; “Adv pot”
= advancement potential.
3
 4 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
domain, and item scoring methods. We also introduce a taxonomy to
code existing biodata scales into meaningful construct domains. We
then examine the criterion-related and construct-related validity by
construct domain and scoring method.
What Is Biodata?
Biodata inventories have a long history of use and research. This
measurement method is based on the notion that past behavior is the
best predictor of future behavior. Thus, biodata inventories include
questions about a person’s life history. Early accounts of biodata
instruments can be traced to the 19th century, where they were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
utilized for hiring insurance agents (Stokes, 1994). Since then,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
biodata inventories have been administered across a range of
settings. For example, they were used during World War II to select
pilots, with the question “Did you ever build a model airplane that
flew?” holding its place in biodata folklore as one of the best
predictors of success in that role. More commonly, biodata inven-
tories have been used across the public and private sector as part of
larger selection batteries for a range of different job types.
In terms of a definition, most researchers will agree that biodata
deals with describing behaviors and events occurring earlier in one’s
life, including personal background and life history events (Asher,
1972; Hough, 2010; Mael, 1991; Mumford et al., 2012; Nickels,
1994; Owens & Schoenfeldt, 1979). Furthermore, most acknowl-
edge that biodata inventories are standardized measures about a
person’s past (Mumford et al., 2012). For this study, we define
biodata based on Mael’s (1991) seminal biodata review, which
outlined a theory and taxonomy of biodata features that is still widely
followed today. Namely, the defining attribute of biodata is that it is
historical in nature (i.e., deals with past events) and that it avoids
overly generalized perceptions of oneself across many different types
of situations. Thus, questions that are generalized perceptions across
contexts, such as “I am a social person,” are not biodata, nor are
situational judgment questions, or questions that deal with a future
frame of reference. However, perceptions and attitudes regarding a
person’s past behaviors are biodata. For example, asking someone
how they typically behave in social situations (Figure 1) would
constitute a biodata item, even though the item is based on a person’s
self-assessment of their past behavior.
A few clarifying points about biodata inventories must be made
when discussing the definition of biodata. First, biodata inventories
Figure 1
Example Biodata Items
(a) When working on teams, I typically...
am supportive of other employees’ ideas.
help implement others’ plans to perfection.
provide suggestions to the group on what to do.
take the lead when no one else will.
(b) In the past year, how many times were you late to
school or work?
Never
Once
Twice
Three-to-four times
More than four times
In the past year I was not involved in work or school
are a method of measurement and therefore can assess a wide variety
of constructs. According to ecological theory (e.g., Breaugh, 2009;
Mael, 1991; Mumford et al., 1990), individuals enter life with a
hereditarily determined set of individual differences and environ-
mental resources, and via adaptation to the environment, that person
is shaped over time. A person is exposed to or chooses what
situations to engage in, which results in required adaptations to
attain goals within those contexts. This produces a cyclical and
interactive process where situational exposure and choice lead to
adaptation, which in turn leads to future choices and changes that
shape the qualities of the individual. This theory is further bolstered
by social identity theory, such that experiences that are salient to
one’s self-identity shape future behavioral tendencies and self-views
(Mael, 1991).
The major takeaway is that past history can explain currently
existing differences in people, which in turn are related to important
life criteria (e.g., job performance). These past experiences can be
conceptually grouped into factors or components, such that certain
experiences are expected to covary; this has been demonstrated both
empirically and based on a priori theory (e.g., Cucina et al., 2013;
Karas & West, 1999; Mumford & Owens, 1987; Mumford et al.,
1996; Oswald et al., 2004; Sisco & Reilly, 2007; Stricker & Rock,
1998). These covarying experiences share a similar construct
domain, acting either as reflective indicators caused by a latent
construct, or serving as causal indicators that influence a formative
construct.
The distinction of formative versus reflective may not always be
clear for biodata, given the interactive assumptions of the ecological
model. However, formative domains are most likely to occur when
situational exposure is not under the control of the person but which
nonetheless is likely to shape a person’s qualities (i.e., input vari-
ables, per the language of Owens & Schoenfeldt, 1979). Parental
warmth would be an example representing this, as taken from
Mumford and Owens (1987). Reflective biodata indicators, on
the other hand, are more directly caused by the latent construct
domain(s). For example, questions about how many hours someone
spent studying are largely a function of one’s achievement motiva-
tion (or other related traits). As another example, getting higher
grades than others, quickly reading books, and more capably solving
problems than one’s peers are all at least partial indicators of
intelligence as well. In this regard, biodata items are very capable
of measuring traditional psychological constructs such as personal-
ity traits, cognitive abilities, knowledge, and interests.
Second, there has been debate whether biodata inventories
should only capture objective past behaviors (i.e., “hard” content,
e.g., “Have you ever formally supervised a team?”), or whether
attitudes and perceptions of past behaviors should be included as
well (i.e., “soft” content, “Do you argue with peers at work?”).
When biodata assessments are “soft” and veer from more objective
items, the distinction between biodata inventories and other self-
report assessments (e.g., personality inventories) may become
blurred. This concern is valid, though also to be expected. Self-
report personality assessments and biodata inventories are both
methods of assessment, and the domain of personality constructs
(which can be measured by many methods, e.g., self-report, peer-
report, assessment centers, narratives) is tremendously broad con-
sidering personality is generally defined as a person’s typical pattern
of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions (Funder, 2016).
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
Given this incredible scope of behaviors encompassed within the
personality spectrum, biodata inventories will inevitably capture
personality-related variance. However, the key to differentiating
biodata inventories from self-report personality assessments is by
relying upon Mael’s (1991) definition that biodata is historical in
nature (i.e., deals with past events) and avoids overly generalized
perceptions of oneself across many different types of situations.
Based on this, some items used in traditional personality inventories
clearly could be incorporated within biodata inventories (e.g., “I
talk to a lot of different people at parties” from the International
Personality Item Pool) and are incorporated in biodata inventories.
On the other hand, items such as “I radiate joy” would not constitute
as biodata. Thus, biodata inventories can be seen as similar to self-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
report personality inventories but narrowed in definition while also
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
capable of assessing a wider array of constructs.1
Taxonomy of Biodata Constructs
Different construct domains represent different clusters of
covarying behaviors, which in turn should relate differently to other
variables. Like other measurement methods (e.g., interviews—
Huffcutt et al., 2001; assessment centers—Meriac et al., 2008;
personality inventories—Barrick & Mount, 1991), construct domain
should impact both the construct validity and criterion-related
validity of biodata scores. However, one of the primary theoretical
voids in the biodata literature is failing to consider such construct
differences. To remedy this, a classification scheme to code biodata
instruments into construct domains was developed.
Before describing this effort, it should be emphasized that there
will never be a single agreed-upon taxonomy for which to address
biodata. Biodata can assess far too many constructs, and those
constructs vary substantially in terms of specificity. Nonetheless, we
created a taxonomy specifically for this study. In doing this, several
criteria were applied in efforts to describe the existing literature:
(a) the taxonomy should be capable of encompassing all forms of
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics and experi-
ences, (b) the taxonomy should be a moderate level of specificity so
to be comprehensive but parsimonious, (c) the taxonomy should
align both with past biodata research and with contemporary con-
ceptualizations of assessment and performance domains, and
(d) emphasis was given to job-related construct domains, ignoring
those with very distal conceptual relationships to job criteria
(e.g., parental warmth, fear, socioeconomic status). With those
criteria in mind, we began reviewing existing taxonomies (e.g.,
Mumford & Owens, 1987; Mumford et al., 1996; Oswald et al.,
2004; Sisco & Reilly, 2007), and the research team triangulated
communalities across them. Additionally, we consulted past efforts
to classify constructs from other assessment methods and relied
upon Huffcutt et al.’s (2001) interview construct taxonomy, which
has been used for other methods-based meta-analyses (Christian
et al., 2010). We also spoke with researchers and practitioners who
have used biodata inventories. After doing all this, a classification
scheme of 11 construct domains was specified, along with an
“other” category2 and an overall composite score category. Table 2
displays these classifications, with definitions and examples of
scales that would be coded within each category.
There are a few aspects to note regarding this classification
scheme. First, many domains come from well-known constructs
(e.g., conscientiousness). Because biodata inventories are often
5
developed to meet very specific job or company needs, other
domains reflect more generic categories that can encompass differ-
ent types of content, such as knowledge and procedural skills.
Although a researcher could try to code all individual types of
knowledge into separate domains, the process would become
unwieldy. Additionally, and to maintain parsimony, similar domains
such as emotional stability and self-confidence were grouped
together. The purity of this distinction is less than either by itself,
but evidence suggests the two constructs are highly related and in
fact often treated within the same construct space (Judge & Bono,
2001). Other categories are defined solely by the intended outcome
of prediction, assuming that the outcome has a well-defined con-
struct space, such as academic achievement.
Finally, overall composite scales are scales that incorporate items
from multiple construct domains into one measure. Overall composite
scores reflect a direct aggregation of biodata item scores into a single
overall composite or the aggregation of multiple biodata scale scores
into a composite. These overall scores are often used in practice within
larger inventories to facilitate work decisions (e.g., to hire applicants)
because they are designed to comprehensively sample behaviors from
the entire job domain. Thus, overall composite scores do not reflect a
single construct but rather serve as broad indices to predict work
outcomes. Overall composite scores share similarities to composite
scores used from other selection measures such as assessment centers
(i.e., overall assessment rating), interviews (i.e., composite score),
multidimensional personality inventories (i.e., job-relevant composite
or profile score), and multidimensional situational judgment tests
(i.e., composite score). Construct-related understanding is diminished
by collapsing across multiple construct domains, though this is offset
because the composite score more comprehensively spans the domain
of job-relevant variance and therefore should be the most predictive
biodata operationalization.
Considering how these domains will differ in terms of criterion-
related validity, assessments that capture a breadth of job-related
content should exhibit higher criterion-related validity for broad
outcomes like overall job performance, in line with bandwidth-
fidelity theory (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider et al.,
1996). This is because broad bandwidth measures are more likely to
assess the many KSAOs that are important at work. In addition to
overall job performance, we also examine relationships with
construct-aligned performance ratings that target the same behav-
ioral domain as the predictor. This has recently been advocated
(Christian et al., 2010), as it provides clarity regarding why pre-
dictors relate to outcome variables. In line with bandwidth-fidelity
theory and construct correspondence theory (e.g., Judge et al.,
2013), it is likely that narrow biodata domains will correlate
more strongly with construct-aligned performance ratings. Finally,
relationships with other performance outcomes (objective
1
The similarities between biodata inventories and self-report personality
inventories can be frustrating for researchers. Although Mael (1991) and
other biodata experts (e.g., Asher, 1972) seem to prefer that biodata be
objective and external, Mael and contemporary perspectives (Schmitt &
Golubovich, 2013) describe biodata using both “soft” and “hard” items
(Asher, 1972).
2
A reviewer indicated the “other” category is of little theoretical or
practical benefit. We agree results for this category are not greatly informa-
tive, and yet some researchers might prefer comprehensive coverage of all
biodata research within this meta-analysis. As such, we have placed biodata
results for the “other” category in Appendix B.
 6 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR

Table 2
Biodata Construct Domain Classifications

Construct domain Definition Example categorizations

Mental capacity
Knowledge and
procedural skills
Social skills/sociability
Agreeableness
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Demonstrates ability to use and manipulate information,
learn, and solve problems.
Possesses domain-specific knowledge (e.g., product
knowledge) or procedural and technical skills (e.g., can
use certain tools) through experience.
Demonstrates effective communication, the capacity to
influence others, persuasion, sociability, and interpersonal
competence.
Demonstrates tendency to work well with others, altruistic
behavior, compliance, and modesty.
Verbal skills (Reiter-Palmon & Connelly, 2000); learning
ability (Karas & West, 1999)
Knowledge (Oswald et al., 2004); technical knowledge
(Stokes et al., 1999)
Extraversion (Cucina et al., 2013); social adjustment
(Reiter-Palmon & Connelly, 2000)
Agreeableness (Cucina et al., 2013); focus on others
(Stokes et al., 1999)

Conscientiousness Demonstrates organization, tidiness, and deliberation; Conscientiousness (Cucina et al., 2013); need for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Emotional stability and
self-confidence
Openness to experience
Leadership
Academic achievement
Interests/preferences
Physical fitness
Other
Overall composite scale
Note. All biodata scales were classified into the taxonomy separately by two raters, with an agreement of 89%. Coders met to resolve any rating disagreements
by referring to the original article and then making a consensus decision.
hard-working, persistent, and driven by success.
Demonstrates positive view of self and abilities. Shows
tendencies to be calm, unworried, resistant to stress, and
has a positive self-concept.
Demonstrates an appreciation of art, music, and poetry;
curious, creative, imaginative, and considers new ideas.
Scale developed explicitly to assess leadership tendencies,
experiences, preferences, or propensity. Demonstrates
dominance and assertiveness; motivates others in a group.
Scale developed explicitly to measure academic achievement,
which includes succeeding in school and obtaining good
grades.
Shows an attitude or preference toward some specific activity,
object, or event.
Is physically fit (i.e., cardiovascular, physical strength,
flexible), exercises.
Any single-construct domain that does not fit into the
preceding categories.
Scale consisting of multiple or disparate construct domains
for the purposes of decision making (e.g., applicant
hiring).
achievement (Stricker & Rock, 1998)
Emotional stability (Cucina et al., 2013); calmness/self-
assurance (Stokes et al., 1999)
Openness to experience (Cucina et al., 2013); artistic
(Oswald et al., 2004)
Leadership (Uhlman & Mumford, 1993); leadership
(Karas & West, 1999)
GPA biodata key (Oswald et al., 2004); high-school
achievement/college achievement (Gandy et al., 1994)
Army identification (Wasko et al., 2019)
Fitness motivation (Putka & Bradley, 2008)
Health (Oswald et al., 2004); multicultural (Oswald
et al., 2004)
Individual achievement record (Gandy et al., 1994)

performance metrics, training performance, advancement potential)
were also examined. Taking an exploratory approach that focuses
on establishing empirical evidence across the many measured
biodata construct domains:
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between biodata
scores and work outcomes (by biodata construct domain)?
Item Format and Scoring
There is great variability in how biodata items are scored. Item
scoring can generally be differentiated into three broad types:
(a) rational keying, (b) empirical keying, and (c) hybrid blends of
the two. Rational keying uses expert judgments to assign points to
response options in efforts to assess specific constructs (e.g., Mumford
et al., 1996; Oswald et al., 2004; Reiter-Palmon & Connelly, 2000;
Stricker & Rock, 1998). Using Figure 1a as an example, if item
developers created this item to assess leadership, the third and fourth
options would receive points when scoring the item and the alternate
options would not; this ensures that only options theoretically
aligned to the targeted construct domain are awarded points.
Rational scoring may be beneficial because it produces a clearer
understanding of scale meaning.
This contrasts with empirical keying, which weighs item re-
sponses by how well they covary with important criteria (e.g., job
performance, turnover). The empirical weighting can occur at the
response option level (e.g., via point-biserial correlations with the
outcome), or by using empirical methods to remove or optimally
weight items via regression-based methods (Cucina et al., 2012;
Putka et al., 2018). Cucina et al. (2012) provide an overview of
various empirical scoring methods. Such methods work by assign-
ing more weight to response options or items that are more strongly
associated with desirable performance outcomes. Using the last
example, response choices from each option in Figure 1a would be
weighted by their correlations with the criterion (e.g., leadership
ratings) when using the point-biserial method described by Cucina
et al. (2012). Although empirical keying will score biodata inven-
tories in a purely empirical manner, best practice still incorporates
the development of questions based on job analysis or explicit
domain sampling (Fine & Cronshaw, 1994; Russell, 1994). Thus,
empirical keying does not preclude the presence of theory when
developing biodata inventories, and contextual considerations and
choice of criteria can further be incorporated to apply theoretical
justification to the practice of empirical keying (Speer et al., 2020).
Finally, hybrid methods incorporate aspects of each approach by
assigning weights to options that covary with important criteria or
constructs, but only doing so if the weighting scheme makes
conceptual or theoretical sense. Returning to Figure 1a as an
example, if the fourth option were negatively correlated with the
criterion but the test developers were trying to measure leadership,
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
they might assign a weight of zero instead of a negative value, given
this option is theoretically related to assertive leadership behaviors.
Hybrid scoring thus balances the power of empirical scoring with a
more theory-driven approach.
With a large enough sample to offset capitalizations on chance
(i.e., overfitting), empirically driven scoring should maximize
criterion-related validity in new settings. Nonetheless, many re-
searchers have criticized empirically scored biodata. There are
several reasons for this. First, there are challenges in inferring
construct validity when empirical scoring is used. Rational scales
are more interpretable and easier to communicate. Interpretability is
relevant in many contexts, though there are ways that researchers
can establish construct validity of empirically derived scales (Speer
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
et al., 2020). Second, past comparisons between rational and empir-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ical methods have sometimes suggested there is no difference in
criterion-related validity between these scoring methods (e.g.,
Hough & Paullin, 1994; Jackson, 1975; Schoenfeldt, 1999).
However, past work espousing that empirical scoring does not
improve prediction have methodological limitations. Chief among
them is that most past studies have not held confounding factors
constant when making comparisons, such as restricting item content
to be identical across comparisons, or by looking at different criteria
when making comparisons (Hough & Paullin, 1994; Jackson, 1975;
Schoenfeldt, 1999; Stokes & Searcy, 1999). In cases where the exact
same items are used and in the exact same contexts, evidence
generally supports empirical scoring as having higher criterion-
related validity, with Cucina et al. (2012) demonstrating this across
various calibration sample sizes. That said, current meta-analytical
evidence that contains data from multiple scales, jobs, organiza-
tions, and across a large sample does not exist to concisely summa-
rize these differences. Such data could greatly help guard against
false assumptions regarding scoring methods and provide definitive
guidance for researchers and practitioners.
Research Question 2: Does the criterion-related validity of biodata
scores vary by scoring method (by biodata construct domain)?
Construct Validity With Other Predictor Measures
An oft-overlooked but important issue is a measure’s correlations
with other predictors. Not only do assessment intercorrelations
provide meaningful evidence regarding that measure’s construct
validity in terms of convergent and discriminant correlations, but the
intercorrelations affect whether the hiring measure is likely to
explain incremental variance over and above other measures. If a
hiring assessment exhibits excessively large correlations with other
predictors, there is less available unique variance to improve
prediction of job performance. On the other hand, predictors that
exhibit less overlap are more capable of providing unique variance
over and above one another. For these reasons, it is important to
investigate the correlations between biodata scores and scores from
other commonly used prehire assessments.
Construct-related validity evidence is operationalized here by
convergent and discriminant correlations with nonbiodata measures.
The convergent assessments included as part of this study include
the FFM personality traits (labeled as personality assessments when
measured) and cognitive ability, as assessed via performance-based
tests. Although other constructs and assessments are used in prac-
tice, these were chosen because they are commonly used within
7
employee selection systems, they are constructs that have direct
relevance to many of the biodata construct domains examined in this
study, and because the included studies provided enough data in
order to assess relationships with the biodata scores.
Conceptual alignment between biodata construct domains and
external measures (i.e., expected stronger convergent correlations)
was determined based on rational construct linkages and the existing
literature. As a method of measurement, biodata can assess multiple
constructs and, in many cases, very close equivalents to the FFM
(e.g., Sisco & Reilly, 2007) or cognitive ability (Mount et al., 2000).
Listing where similar constructs are measured and therefore larger
correlations are expected: the biodata domain of mental capacity
overlaps conceptually with cognitive ability, the biodata domain of
social skills & sociability overlaps with FFM extraversion through the
enthusiasm facet of extraversion (DeYoung et al., 2007), the biodata
domain of agreeableness overlaps with FFM agreeableness, the
biodata domain of conscientiousness overlaps with FFM conscien-
tiousness, the biodata domain of emotional stability & self-confidence
overlaps with FFM emotional stability, and the biodata domain of
openness to experience overlaps with FFM openness to experience.
Though assessed via different methods, these sets of scores are
assumed to measure either the same or very similar constructs.
Regarding the other expected relationships, the biodata domain of
mental capacity should correlate with openness to experience,
given that many cognitive ability measures correlate with this trait
(e.g., Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). The biodata domain of
knowledge & skills should correlate with cognitive ability (e.g.,
Schmidt & Hunter, 2004). Furthermore, because conscientiousness
is also generally related to job knowledge (Huang et al., 2013;
McIlveen et al., 2013) and skill obtainment (e.g., Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998), the biodata domain of knowledge and skills is
also expected to be related to FFM conscientiousness. Social skills
(i.e., biodata domain of social skills/sociability) is expected to be
correlated with FFM emotional stability (Joseph et al., 2015), and
self-confidence (i.e., biodata domain of emotional stability & self-
confidence) is expected to be related to FFM extraversion via
extraversion’s dominance facet (Bosshardt et al., 1992). Openness
to experience (i.e. biodata domain of openness to experience) is
linked to cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). The
biodata domain of leadership should also be related to FFM
extraversion and emotional stability given the shared construct
overlap regarding the behavioral tendencies of assertiveness and
dominance (Bosshardt et al., 1992; Judge et al., 2002). Finally, the
biodata domain of academic achievement is expected to be corre-
lated with FFM conscientiousness and cognitive ability, two traits
commonly associated with academic success (Poropat, 2009).
Research Question 3: What are the relationships between
biodata scores (by construct domain) and scores from FFM
personality measures and cognitive ability tests?
Method
Literature Search Plan
Biodata Studies
Several rules were established to guide article inclusion for the
meta-analysis. As a summary, we refer the readers to Figure 2,
which contains a PRISMA style figure (Page et al., 2020)
 8 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
Figure 2
Study Inclusion Flowchart
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
documenting the decision process. We also refer readers to the
Online Supplemental Materials for lists of all effect sizes.
First, studies were restricted to measures that were labeled as
biodata and not mixed measures that incorporated other types of
assessments as well (e.g., situational judgment questions); for stud-
ies that provided example biodata items, this content had to adhere
to the definition of biodata outlined previously in this paper for
inclusion (see “What Is Biodata?” section). We excluded open-
ended resume data, or any information provided from other sources
(e.g., peer-provided biographical information). Second, we only
included biodata scales that contained at least seven items, like
Bliesener (1996). Scales with few items are unlikely to fully capture
intended construct domains, nor are they likely to be sufficiently
reliable. The requirement of at least seven items increases the
chances that a scale adequately reflects the intended construct, is
reliable, and therefore would be appropriate for use in practice.
Third, we only included scales that contained descriptions regard-
ing the content of the scale, which allowed sorting into construct
domains, and we only coded articles where information regarding
the coded variables was clear (e.g., what the outcome was, whether
the scale was biodata, what the construct domain was). In cases
where content, scoring method, or criterion were unclear, we opted
on the side of caution and did not code. In cases where the scoring
method could not be discerned but the scale was coded as biodata,
we recorded the scoring method label as “unsure.” Fourth, for any
scale that used empirical scoring (at the item or option level), we
only included results for holdout samples that were independent of
scale creation or revision. This is vital to ensure empirical methods
do not unfairly capitalize on chance (i.e., overfit) when calculating
empirical relationships. Note that internal scale analyses (e.g., cor-
rected item–total correlation analyses, factor analytically deter-
mined scale composites) are not empirical scoring in the
traditional sense, and thus these were not coded as such. Fifth,
given that some biodata studies explored multiple combinations of
items from the same item pool, we only incorporated the final scale
(within construct category) for any given study.
Sixth, our primary focus was on criterion-related validity with job
performance ratings. For this outcome, we only included studies
where ratings were provided by supervisors, and thus excluding any
self-report criteria or peer criteria, which can possibly be construed
with predictors themselves. Managerial performance ratings are
“among the most commonly used and appropriate measures of
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
performance” (p. 12, Principles for the Validation & Use of
Personnel Selection Procedures, 2018). Although other criteria
can be used for validation purposes (e.g., archival metrics, produc-
tion metrics), these are more likely to suffer from criterion defi-
ciency and contamination, and the construct they are targeting will
vary considerably from setting to setting. Nonetheless, we also
calculated criterion relationships with objective performance me-
trics, training performance, and advancement potential to provide a
more comprehensive account of biodata’s criterion-related validity
across work outcomes.
Seventh, we only coded zero-order correlations or statistics that
could be converted to observed correlations. In cases where a
biserial correlation or a corrected correlation could not be converted
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to the observed value, the study was not coded. Eighth, we only
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
coded primary effect sizes rather than papers that reported meta-
analytic summaries of consortium studies. In cases where consor-
tium studies were reported, attempts were made to contact authors
for access to individual study effects.
Criterion and Convergent Variables
Overall job performance ratings and construct-aligned perfor-
mance ratings were focused on as outcomes to compute criterion-
related validity. (a) Overall performance ratings were operationalized
as any single item overall performance judgment or any composite of
performance judgments broadly reflecting employee performance.
We only included job performance ratings from supervisors or
superiors. This was done for performance judgments and also for
(b) construct-aligned performance ratings. Aligned performance
ratings consist of any performance rating that was conceptually
aligned to the biodata construct domain of interest (e.g., for a biodata
scale assessing “leadership,” an example aligned performance rating
might be “leading others”). By incorporating aligned performance
ratings, this study assessed biodata relationships when predictors had
optimal theoretical alignment with criteria. As discussed by Christian
et al. (2010), this allows for optimal clarity regarding the relation-
ships between predictors and outcome constructs.
We also analyzed several additional criteria variables that
included objective performance metrics, training performance,
and advancement potential. Objective performance metrics include
regularly tracked performance measures such as counts, production
rates, sales, timeliness metrics, quality metrics, quantity metrics, and
financial metrics (Bommer et al., 1995; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011).
Training performance included instructor ratings, composite mea-
sures taken over a training period, or grades from training courses at
work. Advancement potential was operationalized as judgments
about the likelihood of employee advancement within the organi-
zation (e.g., leadership potential, potential to advance to senior
levels of the company).
FFM personality traits and cognitive ability were included
as convergent measures. Only self-report FFM measures were
included. External measures were labeled according to the FFM if
the scale was labeled as one of the FFM in the study (assuming no
other information was presented that made us question whether the
scale content did not reflect the construct domain). For personality
scales without a direct FFM label, we mapped those scales to the
FFM if enough information was available regarding the scale
definition or scale content. In these cases, we required that the
scale assess content relevant to both major facets of the FFM traits,
9
per DeYoung et al.’s (2007) 10-facet taxonomy. Thus, we required
that the measure broadly sampled from the larger FFM construct
domain for a mapping to occur. Paper and pencil or computer-
administered cognitive ability tests were incorporated as measures
of cognitive ability, including the ACT and SAT.
Article Search
We conducted a multipart search for relevant biodata articles
containing primary data. We first conducted a comprehensive
review of all studies published since Bliesener (1996), which
included biodata articles dating back to 1993, and then later
supplemented that with studies from Bliesener’s article list. In
the first stage of this, we began by reviewing seminal biodata papers
and their references. We also examined studies that cited those
papers. Second, we supplemented this by searching research data-
bases (e.g., PsycINFO, Google Scholar) for relevant articles from
1993 onward using terms including biodata, biographical data,
achievement record, weighted application blank, and life history.
Third, we conducted an electronic search of the ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses Global database to search for doctoral dissertations
that could be included. Fourth, we used the Defense Technical
Information Center (DTIC) to search online databases containing
research and technical reports sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Defense and other government agencies. Fifth, we reviewed con-
ference programs for the past 10 years of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology annual conference. We also con-
tacted consulting companies for any available technical reports.
Following this review of post-1992 studies, we examined and coded
articles from Bliesener. In addition to this, the Biodata Handbook
(Stokes et al., 1994) was inspected for remaining possible articles.
After accumulating a potential list of articles, the study authors
reviewed them to determine if they met study criteria. If so, articles
were assigned for review. In total, 180 independent samples of
criterion correlations were examined in this study, and 63 indepen-
dent samples were analyzed containing correlations with convergent
predictor correlations. We refer readers to the Online Supplemental
Materials for details regarding the included studies.
Coding Biodata Scales
Study authors coded biodata scales into the taxonomy provided in
Table 2. Two raters independently made judgments of each article.
All biodata scales were classified into the taxonomy separately
based on scale content (agreement = 89%). Coders met to resolve
any rating disagreements by referring to the original article and then
making a consensus decision.
It was common for studies to include multiple biodata scales;
many of these pertained to the same construct domain within
sample. When this occurred, composite correlations were computed
using the procedures outlined by Schmidt and Hunter (2015).
Composite scale reliability was estimated as stratified α (Webb
et al., 2006). In cases where multiple criteria or convergent mea-
sures were included in the same sample, composites were also
formed via composite formula. Simple averages were computed
when the same construct domain was scored with multiple empirical
keying methods. Meta-analyses were separately conducted within
each construct domain (separately within category listed in Table 2)
and within a scoring method (empirical, rational, hybrid) to avoid
 10 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
issues of sample dependence. When multiple biodata scores were
computed using different scoring methods within the same sample,
averages were computed. Note that few studies used hybrid scoring,
and thus meta-analytical results are rarely provided for this scoring
method.
Analyses
Criterion-Related Validity
We implemented Schmidt and Hunter’s (2015) meta-analysis
procedures. This computes average correlations and variance cor-
rected for sampling error and for study artifacts. Because biodata
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
scales are used to make hiring decisions, we calculated operational
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
validity coefficients that do not correct for predictor unreliability.
We corrected for range restriction and criterion unreliability using a
mixed meta-analysis approach with partial artifact information.
Only several studies reported normative data to account for range
restriction, with only a few being cases of direct range restriction.
We were able to locate an additional sample outside of our meta-
analytic database that provided population and sample standard
deviations for indirect range restriction (Rothstein et al., 1990) and
we combined with studies from our current meta-analysis to esti-
mate artifact distributions. From the created artifact database, the
sample weighted average u-ratio was .92 (SD = .040) for cases of
direct range restriction (k = 13, N = 13,344 incumbents).3 Of the
studies included in the current meta-analysis, only a handful were
coded as cases of direct range restriction. From the artifact database,
the sample weighted average u-ratio was .99 (SD = .004) for cases of
indirect range restriction (N = 12,800 incumbents). Thus, indirect
range restriction appears to have little effect on biodata variances.
This likely occurs due to weaker biodata relationships with other
selection tools, but also likely because applicant variance for self-
report measures is often reduced due to faking. Given these u-ratios,
only direct range restriction was corrected for. In studies where
restricted and unrestricted variance estimates existed, direct range
restriction corrections were implemented using study-specific va-
lues. In the handful of other studies in which direct range restriction
occurred but where the necessary descriptive statistics were not
published, the .92 average u-ratio described above was used.
Criterion unreliability was corrected for by using artifact dis-
tributions, hence making this a mixed meta-analysis. These artifact
distribution corrections were applied to the partially (direct range
restricted) corrected correlations. This involves correcting correla-
tions and variance estimates using the mean and variance of the
attenuation factor. Past meta-analytical estimates from Viswesvaran
et al. (1996) were used for job performance ratings. A mean
interrater reliability estimate of .52 (SD = .095) was used for overall
performance ratings, and an estimate of .53 (SD = .092) was used for
construct-aligned performance ratings.
Criterion reliability information was also sparsely reported for the
additional performance outcomes. Only a few studies included
reliability estimates of objective performance. Thus, we chose to
combine those estimates with 39 objective metric reliability coeffi-
cients reported in Hunter et al. (1990). A sample weighted average
of these yields a reliability estimate of .78 (SD = .089). This is
similar to other meta-analytic estimates used in previous studies
(Roth et al., 2003; Sturman et al., 2005; Van Iddekinge et al.,
2011). To assess the reliability of training performance, we
calculated a sample weighted average from eight individual reli-
ability estimates listed by McNatt (2000) as well as three estimates
from other studies (Lyons et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2005). The
sample weighted average of these was .78 (SD = .092). Finally, for
advancement potential, we calculated a sample weighted average
from six individual reliability estimates across four different studies
(Allen et al., 2014; Carlson et al., 1999; Gentry et al., 2012;
Gordon & Medland, 1965). The sample weighted average of these
was .86 (SD = .078).
Convergent Correlation Estimates
Fully corrected correlations were estimated between biodata
scores and convergent measures. Given that assessment measures
were usually completed at the same testing occasion and given the
previously discussed nonimpact of indirect range restriction, corre-
lations between assessment measures were not corrected for range
restriction. However, correlations were corrected for unreliability
for all variables at the individual study level. Most studies provided
reliability estimates for biodata scales and convergent measures, and
in other cases estimates could be found in the existing literature
(e.g., ACT/SAT). Mean construct-specific reliability values were
input for studies that did not have reliability information. Mean
reliability values for the biodata construct domains are shown here:
mental capacity (.79), knowledge and procedural skills (.69), social
skills/sociability (.75), agreeableness (.74), conscientiousness (.75),
emotional stability and self-confidence (.69), openness to experi-
ence (.80), leadership (.80), academic achievement (.79), interests/
preferences (.77), physical fitness (.76), other (.67), and overall
composite scale (.79).
Results
Criterion-Related Validity Estimates
Focusing on correlations with overall job performance (Table 3),
strong correlations were found for overall composite scales
(ρ = .37). However, validity coefficients were noticeably higher
validity for empirically derived scales (ρ = .44) than for rationally
derived scales (ρ = .24), with empirical validity being .20 (83%)
higher. The value of .44 for empirically derived overall composite
scores is higher than past meta-analytical estimates. The SDp of
empirical scores was also zero, suggesting that empirically scored
overall biodata scores exhibit consistently strong relationships with
overall job performance across contexts. On the other hand, ratio-
nally derived scales had more modest validity. The 95% confidence
intervals for rational overall composite scales (.21–.28) and empiri-
cal scales (.42–.46) did not overlap.
Although it is tempting to view these results and claim superiority
of the empirical scoring method, there is an important confound. As
discussed in the introduction, a pure comparison of rational to
empirical scoring requires that the exact same items be used in
the exact same settings, with the only manipulated factor being the
scoring method. Given the data set, we were able to isolate results to
3
The average u-ratio were calculated by weighting by study sample size.
The inputs for these calculations can be seen in Appendix A. Unrestricted
standard deviations came from applicant samples and restricted estimates
came from incumbent samples. Thorndike (1949) Case II formula was used
for direct range restriction.
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS 11

Table 3
Relationships Between Biodata Scores and Overall Job Performance Ratings

Construct domain k N r ρ SDp(r) 80% CV lower 80% CV upper

Overall composite scale 54 22,389 .27 .37 .00 (.06) .37 .37
Empirical 49 20,564 .31 .44 .00 (.06) .44 .44
Rational 22 16,279 .17 .24 .02 (.06) .21 .27
Conscientiousness 27 11,322 .14 .20 .07 (.10) .10 .29
Empirical 8 1,439 .27 .38 .00 (.08) .38 .38
Rational 26 9,565 .12 .17 .06 (.09) .09 .24
Academic achievement 3 614 .06 .08 .12 (.14) −.07 .23
Rational 3 614 .06 .08 .12 (.14) −.07 .23
Agreeableness 9 3,845 .12 .16 .09 (.11) .04 .28
Rational 8 2088 .02 .03 .00 (.05) .03 .03
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Social skills/sociability 19 7,879 .10 .15 .09 (.10) .04 .26

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Rational 17 5,381 .05 .06 .02 (.07) .03 .10

Emotional stability and self-confidence 16 7,896 .12 .17 .06 (.08) .09 .24
Rational 15 6,139 .08 .11 .00 (.05) .11 .11
Leadership 7 2,233 .18 .25 .06 (.09) .18 .33
Empirical 3 844 .33 .46 .00 (.00) .46 .46
Rational 7 2,233 .17 .23 .03 (.08) .19 .28
Openness to experience 7 3,983 .13 .18 .13 (.14) .01 .35
Rational 6 2,226 .02 .02 .08 (.09) −.08 .12
Knowledge and skills 6 1,420 .02 .03 .14 (.15) −.15 .21
Rational 4 1,165 −.04 −.06 .04 (.07) −.11 −.01
Mental capacity 14 4,555 .12 .17 .08 (.10) .07 .27
Rational 11 3,253 .09 .13 .03 (.07) .09 .17
Physical fitness 11 4,348 .19 .27 .10 (.12) .14 .40
Rational 11 4,348 .19 .27 .10 (.12) .14 .40
Interests/preferences 4 3,101 .07 .09 .07 (.09) .00 .19
Rational 4 3,101 .07 .09 .07 (.09) .00 .19
Single-construct domains—Empirical 16 3,411 .28 .40 .00 (.08) .40 .40
Single-construct domains—Hybrid 3 2,318 .20 .28 .07 (.09) .19 .37
Single-construct domains—Rational 42 12,545 .11 .15 .06 (.09) .07 .23
Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; ρ = operational validity coefficient corrected for range restriction and
criterion unreliability; SDp = standard deviation of true correlation and SDr = observed standard deviation; CV = 80% credibility interval. Only reporting
estimates where k ≥ 3. Results shown by construct domain (not separated by method) average across methods within construct and within sample, meaning
some samples scored the same content using different methods; this is why k for overall construct domain rows may be lower than the sum of the empirical and
rational totals. Hybrid results were included but there were few. “Single-Construct Domains” represent the average of all individual biodata construct domain
scales besides overall composite scales. For these analyses, all correlations were aggregated within each study setting. These “Single-Construct Domain”
analyses, in addition to all effects shown in this table, contain correlations from the “Other” biodata domain results, as shown in Appendix B.

only studies that used the exact same biodata content in the exact
same settings (k = 18). Thus, we were able to perform a pure meta-
analytic comparison of scoring method. Table 4 displays these
results. When isolating to the same samples and exact same item
content, large differences remained for overall biodata composite
scales scored using empirical versus rational scoring, with empirical
scoring exhibiting stronger validity.
Table 3 also contains average validity coefficients with the
overall performance for the narrow biodata domains. Conscien-
tiousness biodata scales had the most effect sizes, and only
conscientiousness and leadership had enough studies to compare
rational to empirical scoring, though the comparison for leader-
ship is based on a small number of studies. In each case, empirical
scoring produced higher validity coefficients than rational scoring
(.38 vs. .17 for conscientiousness; .46 vs. .23 for leadership). To
further investigate the importance of scoring method, an additional
analysis was conducted to compare empirical to rational scoring
using an aggregated operationalization across all narrow biodata
domains. All narrow scales were aggregated within scoring method
within each sample. Although this muddles exactly what constructs are
being compared, this approach results in a larger number of samples
and larger sample sizes to compare the effect of scoring method.

Table 4
Comparing Scoring Method Validity With Overall Job Performance Ratings in Same Settings and Same Biodata Items

Construct domain k N r p SDp(r) CV

Overall composite scale—Empirical 18 13,907 .33 .45 .00 (.04) .45, .45
Overall composite scale—Rational 18 15,076 .17 .23 .01 (.06) .22, .25
Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; p = estimated true score correlation. Only included studies that
compared empirical to rational scoring using the same samples and same set of items, with the only manipulated variable being scoring method. SDp = standard
deviation of true correlation and SDr = observed standard deviation; CV = 80% credibility interval.
 12 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR

As shown at the bottom of Table 3, empirically keyed narrow
biodata scales were most strongly related to overall job performance
(ρ = .40), followed by hybrid scales (ρ = .28) and then by rational
scoring (ρ = .15).
To more thoroughly compare individual domains, we isolated
results to only rational scoring, where most domains had small-to-
moderate validity coefficients, with the strongest effect sizes occur-
ring for physical fitness (ρ = .27), leadership (ρ = .23), and
conscientiousness (ρ = .17). Most single-construct domains exhib-
ited large credibility intervals, suggesting such scales are likely to be
useful selection tools in certain settings but not in others. This
highlights the importance of performing job analysis to link job
demands to targeted construct domains.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the strongest loadings on general performance factors (Viswesvaran
et al., 2005). Empirically sored keys will ultimately assess the
constructs most related to job performance, assuming the biodata
items possess content validity relevant to those constructs
(Speer et al., 2020). Because conscientiousness-related variance
is relevant across most job duties, it is not surprising that the
effects do not differ much when comparing correlations with overall
performance versus specific, aligned performance competencies.
For leadership, there were only three studies involved in each
comparison, and thus we are hesitant to overinterpret. However,
Viswesvaran et al. (2005) also found that leadership performance
ratings have among the highest loadings on a general performance
factor, likely resulting in a similar effect as that found for

Table 5 contains correlations with aligned performance ratings conscientiousness.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

made by employees’ superiors, providing a more comprehensive
understanding of biodata construct validity. The number of studies
and the total sample sizes are smaller though, and as such results
should be interpreted with caution. As seen in Table 5, correlations
between biodata scores and theoretically aligned performance ratings
were moderate for all construct domains. As expected, correlations
were higher with aligned performance ratings (Table 5) than when
correlated with overall job performance (Table 3) for all comparisons
besides empirically scored conscientiousness and empirically scored
leadership. Regarding the former effect, conscientiousness variance is
saturated among nearly all work tasks. Reflecting this, performance
dimensions related to conscientiousness (e.g., effort) exhibit among
As before, in addition to individual effect sizes, we also show
results where all narrow scales were aggregated within scoring
method within each sample to provide more stable effect sizes. There
was little difference in effect sizes between empirical (ρ = .34) and
rational scoring (ρ = .32) when correlating scores with construct-
aligned performance ratings. Thus, whereas empirical scoring was
superior when predicting overall job performance, rational scoring
seems capable of capturing targeted and specific performance vari-
ance. However, it should be noted that validity for empirical scales
predicting construct-aligned performance ratings was consistent
across settings (SDp = .00), whereas there was more validity fluctua-
tion for rational scales. Finally, hybrid scoring exhibited the strongest

Table 5
Relationships Between Biodata Scores and Aligned Job Performance Ratings

Construct domain k N r p SDp(r) 80% CV lower 80% CV upper

Conscientiousness 9 3,125 .22 .30 .09 (.11) .19 .42

Empirical 3 242 .27 .37 .11 (.16) .23 .50
Rational 7 2,976 .21 .29 .09 (.11) .18 .41
Agreeableness 6 2002 .21 .29 .05 (.09) .23 .36
Rational 5 1915 .22 .31 .04 (.08) .26 .36
Social skills/sociability 14 4,104 .24 .34 .05 (.09) .28 .40
Empirical 6 1,027 .29 .40 .00 (.09) .40 .40
Rational 11 3,810 .22 .32 .05 (.09) .25 .38
Emotional stability and self-confidence 7 2,865 .23 .31 .13 (.15) .15 .48
Empirical 3 254 .16 .22 .07 (.14) .13 .31
Rational 4 1,375 .09 .12 .03 (.07) .08 .16
Leadership 5 1959 .21 .28 .02 (.07) .26 .31
Empirical 3 1,230 .19 .26 .05 (.08) .20 .32
Rational 3 1,281 .24 .34 .00 (.03) .34 .34
Openness to experience 7 1,063 .31 .42 .10 (.13) .30 .54
Empirical 5 381 .28 .39 .12 (.17) .24 .55
Rational 4 863 .27 .37 .11 (.14) .23 .51
Knowledge & skills 6 1,011 .29 .40 .00 (.04) .40 .40
Empirical 4 329 .34 .46 .00 (.04) .46 .46
Rational 4 863 .28 .39 .00 (.02) .39 .39
Mental capacity 10 1,779 .20 .27 .11 (.14) .13 .40
Empirical 6 1,027 .30 .41 .02 (.10) .39 .44
Rational 5 924 .20 .27 .00 (.07) .27 .27
Single-construct domains—Empirical 12 2,104 .25 .34 .00 (.08) .34 .34
Single-construct domains—Hybrid 3 1885 .31 .42 .17 (.18) .21 .64
Single-construct domains—Rational 13 4,539 .23 .32 .06 (.09) .24 .39
Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; p = operational validity coefficient corrected for range restriction and
criterion unreliability; SDp = standard deviation of true correlation and SDr = observed standard deviation, CV = 80% credibility interval. Only reporting
estimates where k ≥ 3. Results shown by construct domain (not separated by method) average across methods within construct and within sample, meaning
some samples scored the same content using different methods; this is why k for overall domain rows may be lower than the sum of the empirical and rational
totals. Hybrid results are included but there were few. The “Single-Construct Domain” analyses, in addition to all effects shown in this table, contain correlations
from the “Other” biodata domain results, as shown in Appendix B.
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
correlation with construct-aligned performance ratings (ρ = .42),
though this effect was based on only three studies.
Correlations With Additional Performance Outcomes
Table 6 displays correlations with other work outcomes. There
were fewer correlations available for these outcomes. Thus, we keep
our discussion of these results brief. As seen, overall composite
scales correlated .22 with objective performance. Rational scales
exhibited stronger validity (ρ = .38), though this was based on only
three studies, compared to 22 studies for empirical scales (ρ = .28).4
Leadership biodata scales were among the strongest narrow pre-
dictors of this outcome (ρ = .20). Overall composite scale correla-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tions were higher for the outcome of training performance (ρ = .33),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with conscientiousness biodata scales (ρ = .25) and physical fitness
scales (ρ = .32) exhibiting the next strongest relationships with this
outcome. Finally, overall composite scale correlations were strong
in the prediction of advancement potential (ρ = .46), though this was
only based on four studies. Physical fitness biodata scales (ρ = .24),
mental capacity biodata scales (ρ = .23), and conscientiousness
biodata scales (ρ = .20) exhibited moderate relationships with
advancement potential. Collectively, biodata scales are valid pre-
dictors of multiple work outcomes.
Convergent Validity Estimates
Tables 7 and 8 provide convergent validity estimates between
biodata scores and other external assessment measures. The bolded
and underlined cells in Tables 7 and 8 reflect relationships that were
expected to be stronger (i.e., convergent correlations). Several find-
ings are noteworthy. First, in many cases the credibility intervals are
quite large for many of the correlations between biodata scores and
external measures. Thus, the relationships between these assessments
are likely to vary in practice, even when taking into account the
moderators of this study. Second, overall composite scales correlated
most strongly with externally measured conscientiousness (ρ = .68).
This large correlation is driven in part by a sample of over 10,000
respondents from McElreath et al. (2007), using hybrid scoring. As
seen in Table 8, the correlations are .50 with empirically scored
overall composites and .43 with rational scoring. Thus, the relation-
ship with FFM conscientiousness is strong, but these two types of
measures capture unique aspects of human behavior. Overall com-
posite scores also correlated strongly with emotional stability (ρ =
.52), though this was once again driven by the McElreath et al.’s
study, which had very large correlations with personality. Without
considering this study, emotional stability correlates only .18 with
empirical overall composite scores and .36 with rational overall
composite scores. Overall composite scores also correlated strongly
with extraversion (ρ = .46). There was a pattern of modest correla-
tions with other external measures, ranging from .22 to .27 (cognitive
ability = .22, openness = .25, agreeableness = .27).
When considering these results, perhaps the most interesting
observation is just how low the correlation between cognitive ability
and biodata is (ρ = .22). The low correlation with cognitive ability is
remarkable because past seminal research has assumed a correlation
of .50 between cognitive ability and biodata scores (Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998). Using the Schmidt and Hunter (1998) estimated
intercorrelation would therefore inappropriately cap the combined
predictive ability of a composite of biodata and cognitive ability,
13
which was estimated with a multiple R of .52 in Schmidt and
Hunter’s research. Based on the improved biodata construct validity
estimates from this meta-analysis, the multiple R for empirically
derived overall composite biodata scales and cognitive ability (using
Schmidt & Hunter’s .51) is .61, and it is .63 if the empirical estimate
for the biodata-cognitive ability relationship from this study is used.
These findings make empirically scored biodata and cognitive
ability one of the highest performing predictor pairs available to
selection practitioners.
Evidence was also generally supportive of the construct validity
of single domain biodata scores, with an average convergent
correlation of .44 across all constructs, compared to an average
discriminant correlation of .25. The most pronounced differences
existed for biodata domains such as leadership, which converged
strongly with extraversion (ρ = .66) and had modest relationships
with other external measures, including both conscientiousness (ρ =
.34) and cognitive ability (ρ = .10). Conscientiousness biodata also
exhibited strong evidence of construct validity, with an average
convergent correlation of .65 and an average discriminant correla-
tion of .28. On the other hand, scores from several biodata domains
did not exhibit strong evidence of construct validity. These include
the biodata domains of mental capacity and agreeableness, such that
each domain had higher discriminant validity than convergent
validity. Specifically, mental capacity biodata scores exhibited
weak correlations with cognitive ability (ρ = .17). Agreeableness
biodata scores correlated strongly with external measures of agree-
ableness (ρ = .49), but these scores also correlated quite strongly
with external measures of conscientiousness (ρ = .57) and emotional
stability (ρ = .52). Although these three constructs are related when
assessed via other methods (van der Linden et al., 2010), such
evidence casts doubt on the construct validity of agreeableness
biodata scores and mental capacity biodata scores.
All together though, the pattern of convergent correlations shown
in Tables 7 and 8 (ρ̄ convergent = .44, ρ̄ discriminant = .25)
provides evidence that biodata measures differ in expected ways in
their relationships with other external psychological assessments,
though as mentioned before, a great deal of variability still exists in
the relationships between biodata scores and external measures.
Combined with updated criterion-related validity estimates, these
findings should help researchers better design comprehensive and
maximally predictive selection batteries when using biodata.
Testing Context as a Moderator of Criterion-Related
Validity
We also conducted an ad hoc moderator analysis of testing
context by breaking context into the applicant and incumbent
samples, focusing on overall performance ratings. Given that bio-
data inventories are self-report, they are susceptible to faking
(Becker & Colquitt, 1992). As such, validity may be attenuated
in applicant contexts where respondents are motivated to appear
favorable. Table 9 provides these analyses. Although validity esti-
mates were comparable for overall biodata composites between
applicant samples (ρ = .39) and incumbent samples (ρ = .38), there
4
For several of the studies included in these analyses, some of the biodata
scales could not be coded according to scoring method (or were hybrid with
fewer than three total studies), and hence why the overall k is larger than the
sum of rational and empirical k.
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

14

Table 6
Relationships Between Biodata Scores and Other Work Outcomes

Objective performance Training performance Advancement potential

Construct domain k N r p SDp(r) CV k N r p SDp(r) CV k N r p SDp(r) CV

Overall composite scale 29 33,373 .18 .22 .09 (.10) .10, .33 28 44,056 .29 .33 .06 (.08) .25, .40 4 9,099 .43 .46 .09 (.10) .35, .57
Empirical 22 15,906 .24 .28 .09 (.12) .16, .40 16 31,053 .27 .31 .05 (.08) .24, .38
Rational 3 1,083 .33 .38 .16 (.17) .18, .58
Hybrid 3 7,516 .48 .51 .00 (.02) .51, .51
Conscientiousness 4 2,595 .14 .16 .06 (.08) .09, .23 4 8,102 .22 .25 .00 (.04) .25, .25 6 3,762 .18 .20 .15 (.16) .01, .39
Rational 4 2,595 .14 .16 .06 (.08) .09, .23 3 2,288 .25 .28 .04 (.07) .22, .33 6 3,762 .18 .20 .15 (.16) .01, .39
Social skills/sociability 6 2,937 .15 .17 .11 (.13) .03, .32
Rational 6 2,937 .15 .17 .11 (.13) .03, .32
Emotional stability and self-confidence 5 1889 .09 .10 .00 (.04) .10, .10 4 3,660 .14 .16 .04 (.06) .11, .20 5 4,143 .06 .06 .02 (.04) .04, .09
Rational 4 1,795 .08 .09 .00 (.02) .09, .09 3 2,568 .12 .13 .04 (.06) .09, .18 5 4,143 .06 .06 .02 (.04) .04, .09
Leadership 3 1,324 .18 .20 .00 (.04) .20, .20
Rational 3 1,324 .18 .20 .00 (.04) .20, .20
Academic achievement 3 634 .07 .08 .08 (.11) −.02, .19
Rational 3 634 .07 .08 .08 (.11) −.02, .19
Physical fitness 4 2,866 .28 .32 .05 (.08) .26, .38 4 4,000 .22 .24 .11 (.12) .09, .38
Rational 4 2,866 .28 .32 .05 (.08) .26, .38 4 4,000 .22 .24 .11 (.12) .09, .38
Mental capacity 3 1,204 .21 .23 .05 (.08) .16, .30
Interests/preferences 3 3,063 .09 .09 .00 (.03) .09, .09
Rational 3 3,063 .09 .09 .00 (.03) .09, .09
Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; p = estimated true score correlation. Only reporting estimates where k is ≥ 3. Correct ions were made for range restriction and criterion unreliability.
For several of the studies included in these analyses, some of the biodata scales could not be coded according to scoring method, and hence why in some cases the overall k is not followed by corresponding
method moderator analyses of matching sample sizes. Results for the “other” biodata domains that did not fit into any of these categories can be found in Appendix B. SDp = standard deviation of true correlation
SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR

and SDr = observed standard deviation; CV = 80% credibility interval.

 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 7
Relationships Between Biodata Scores and External Measures of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability

Extraversion Agreeableness Emotional stability

Construct domain k N r p SDp(r) CV k N r p SDp(r) CV k N r p SDp(r) CV

Overall comp scale 4 2,849 .36 .46 .03 (.05) .42, .50 10 9,265 .21 .27 .20 (.15) .00, .53 8 21,120 .42 .52 .19 (.15) .28, .77
Empirical 3 1,281 .39 .46 .05 (.06) .40, .53 3 1,181 .20 .24 .01 (.01) .24, .24 3 1,281 .14 .18 .04 (.06) .12, .23
Rational 8 9,105 .22 .28 .21 (.16) .00, .55 5 7,914 .28 .36 .20 (.16) .10, .62
Academic achievement 4 1,661 .09 .12 .08 (.10) .01, .22 4 1,661 .15 .21 .15 (.12) .02, .40 4 1,661 .08 .10 .04 (.05) .06, .15
Rational 3 820 .11 .15 .12 (.11) .00, .30 3 820 .20 .29 .19 (.15) .04, .53 3 820 .11 .15 .03 (.06) .12, .19
Conscientiousness 12 7,078 .28 .35 .15 (.16) .16, .54 11 6,815 .20 .25 .18 (.14) .03 (.48) 11 19,468 .32 .43 .20 (.14) .18, .68
Rational 9 5,217 .29 .37 .15 (.14) .18, .56 9 5,217 .21 .27 .20 (.16) .02 (.52) 8 17,607 .32 .44 .20 (.14) .18, .70
Agreeableness 4 2,382 .15 .19 .10 (.11) .07, .31 4 2,382 .36 .49 .14 (.09) .31, .66 5 15,328 .40 .52 .09 (.07) .40, .64
Rational 3 1,625 .15 .20 .12 (.09) .05, .35 3 1,625 .39 .54 .14 (.09) .35, .72 4 14,571 .41 .53 .09 (.07) .42, .64
Social skills/sociability 9 4,261 .31 .40 .21 (.22) .14, .67 12 4,943 .20 .28 .18 (.14) .04, .51 9 4,550 .32 .44 .19 (.13) .20, .68
Rational 7 3,358 .34 .46 .20 (.15) .20, .72 10 4,040 .19 .27 .20 (.16) .01, .53 7 3,647 .33 .46 .20 (.14) .21, .72
ES & self-confidence 8 4,491 .25 .35 .12 (.13) .19, .51 8 4,491 .11 .13 .25 (.18) −.19, .45 8 4,491 .42 .59 .13 (.12) .43, .76
Rational 7 3,734 .28 .40 .08 (.06) .29, .50 7 3,734 .08 .10 .26 (.19) −.24, .44 7 3,734 .44 .64 .10 (.12) .51, .76
Leadership 5 2,320 .54 .66 .04 (.05) .61, .70
BIODATA META-ANALYSIS

Empirical 3 844 .50 .63 .00 (.03) .63, .63

Rational 4 1,479 .55 .66 .06 (.06) .58, .73
Openness to experience 3 1,775 .15 .18 .02 (.05) .16, .20 3 1,775 .19 .24 .05 (.06) .18, .30 3 1,775 .19 .23 .10 (.10) .10, .37
Mental capacity 3 618 .41 .51 .00 (.06) .51, .51 3 618 .04 .05 .00 (.04) .05, .05 3 618 .31 .38 .00 (.04) .38, .38
Interests/preferences 3 1805 .24 .32 .21 (.21) .05, .58 3 1805 −.09 −.14 .10 (.08) −.26,−.01 3 1805 −.05 −.07 .00 (.05) −.07,−.07
Note. k = number of sample; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; p = estimated true score correlation; ES = emotional stability. Only reporting estimates where k is ≥ 3. Bolded and
italicized values are expected, theoretically aligned convergent relationships. Results shown by construct domain (not separated by method) average across methods within construct and within sample,
meaning some samples scored the same content using different methods; this is why k for overall domain rows may be lower than the sum of the empirical and rational totals. Hybrid results are included but there
were few. Results for the “other” biodata domains that did not fit into any of these categories can be found in Appendix B. SDp = standard deviation of true correlation and SDr = observed standard deviation,
CV = 80% credibility interval.
15
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

16

Table 8
Relationships Between Biodata Scores and External Measures of Conscientiousness, Openness, and Cognitive Ability

Conscientiousness Openness Cognitive ability

Construct domain k N r p SDp(r) CV k N r p SDp(r) CV k N r p SDp(r) CV

Overall comp scale 9 21,214 .54 .68 .20 (.18) .42, .93 4 2,849 .20 .25 ,12 (.11) .09, .41 14 27,701 .18 .22 .09 (.08) .10, .34
Empirical 4 1,375 .42 .50 .01 (.05) .49, .52 3 1,281 .31 .38 .06 (.06) .30, .45 10 12,691 .13 .16 .06 (.06) .09, .24
Rational 5 7,914 .32 .43 .06 (.08) .35, .51 3 2064 .15 .17 .06 (.07) .09, .25
Academic achievement 4 1,661 .22 .29 .26 (.21) −.04, .62 4 1,661 .16 .22 .15 (.12) .02, .41 5 68,148 .32 .41 .03 (.03) .36, .45
Rational 3 820 .24 .33 .37 (.29) −.14, .79 3 820 .11 .16 .20 (.17) −.10, .43 3 832 .10 .12 .00 (.03) .12, .12
Conscientiousness 14 20,247 .48 .65 .10 (.08) .52, .78 10 6,696 .27 .36 .09 (.08) .25, .47 12 26,987 .11 .15 .13 (.09) −.02, .31
Rational 11 18,386 .49 .66 .10 (.08) .52, .79 8 5,098 .27 .36 .10 (.09) .23, .48 9 19,311 .14 .19 .12 (.09) .03, .35
Agreeableness 5 15,328 .45 .57 .12 (.10) .42, .73 4 2,382 .13 .17 .26 (.21) −.17, .51
Rational 4 14,571 .45 .57 .13 (.10) .41, .73 3 1,625 .03 .05 .24 (.19) −.26, .37
Social skills/sociability 10 4,736 .25 .33 .12 (.11) .18, .48 8 4,079 .19 .26 .08 (.08) .16, .37 8 9,183 .07 .09 .07 (.06) −.01, .18
Empirical 3 6,701 .08 .10 .04 (.03) .06, .15
Rational 8 3,833 .21 .28 .08 (.08) .18, .38 6 3,176 .17 .23 .07, .07 .15, .32 5 2,482 .04 .04 .12 (.11) −.11, .19
ES and self-confidence 9 4,978 .22 .30 .14 (.13) .12, .47 8 4,491 .12 .17 .18 (.14) −.06, .39 5 5,212 .08 .10 .04 (.05) .04, .16
Rational 8 4,221 .18 .25 .10 (.09) .13, .37 7 3,734 .08 .11 .15 (.11) −.08, .30 5 5,212 .08 .10 .04 (.05) .04, .16
Leadership 3 1,776 .28 .34 .16 (.13) .14, .54 6 5,962 .10 .10 .08 (.08) −.01, .21
Rational 3 3,595 .12 .14 .02 (.03) .11, .16
Openness to experience 3 1,775 .23 .27 .24 (.21) −.03, .58 4 2029 .45 .58 .16 (.09) .38, .79 5 5,142 .24 .26 .07 (.07) .16, .35
Rational 3 1,272 .50 .68 .14 (.06) .50, .86 3 3,616 .22 .24 .07 (.07) .15, .33
Knowledge & skills 5 4,529 .23 .29 .07 (.06) .19, .38
Rational 3 3,460 .22 .28 .08 (.07) .16, .38
Mental capacity 4 1,105 .23 .28 .16 (.14) .08, .49 3 618 .49 .64 .06 (.07) .57, .72 5 9,661 .15 .17 .04 (.04) .12, .22
Empirical 3 6,701 .14 .16 .05 (.04) .10, .22
Rational 3 959 .20 .24 .13 (.12) .07, .41
Physical fitness 3 1857 .02 .03 .00 (.04) .03, .03
Rational 3 1857 .02 .03 .00 (.04) .03, .03
Interests/preferences 4 2,292 .20 .27 .10 (.09) .15, .40 3 1805 −.02 −.02 .00 (.03) −.02,−.02 3 3,581 .08 .09 .09 (.09) −.03, .21
SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR

Rational 3 2,146 .19 .26 .09 (.09) .14, .38

Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; p = estimated true score correlation; ES = emotional stability. Only reporting estimates where k is ≥ 3. Bolded and
italicized values are expected, theoretically aligned convergent relationships. Results shown by construct domain (not separated by method) average across methods within construct and within sample,
meaning some samples scored the same content using different methods; this is why k for overall domain rows may be lower than the sum of the empirical and rational totals. Hybrid results are included but there
were few. Results for the “other” biodata domains that did not fit into any of these categories can be found in Appendix B. SDp = standard deviation of true correlation and SDr = observed standard deviation;
CV = 80% credibility interval.
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS 17

Table 9
Relationships Between Biodata Scores and Overall Job Performance Ratings by Study Context

Construct domain Context k N r p SDp(r) CV

Overall composite scale Applicant predictive 4 2,102 .26 .39 .00 (.03) .39, .39
Overall composite scale Incumbent sample 50 20,287 .27 .38 .00 (.06) .38, .38
Conscientiousness Applicant predictive 6 3,305 .05 .08 .00 (.04) .08, .08
Conscientiousness Incumbent sample 19 7,785 .18 .25 .06 (.09) .17, .32
Agreeableness Incumbent sample 9 3,845 .12 .16 .09 (.11) .04, .28
Social skills/sociability Applicant predictive 3 1,003 .11 .16 .07 (.09) .08, .25
Social skills/sociability Incumbent sample 14 6,644 .11 .15 .09 (.11) .03, .26
Emotional stability & self-confidence Applicant predictive 8 3,569 .07 .09 .00 (.05) .09, .09
Emotional stability & self-confidence Incumbent sample 8 4,327 .16 .22 .06 (.08) .15, .30
Leadership Incumbent sample 6 2,139 .19 .26 .06 (.09) .18, .34
−.01,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Openness to experience Incumbent sample 6 2,953 .13 .19 .16 (.17) .39
−.16,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Knowledge & procedural skills Incumbent sample 5 1,333 .00 .01 .13 (.14) .17
Mental capacity Applicant predictive 5 1,797 .12 .18 .13 (.14) .01, .35
Mental capacity Incumbent sample 9 2,758 .12 .17 .00 (.05) .17, .17
Physical fitness Applicant predictive 6 3,306 .17 .23 .09 (.11) .12, .34
Physical fitness Incumbent sample 5 1,042 .28 .39 .10 (.13) .26, .51
Single-construct domains—Rational Applicant predictive 8 3,568 .06 .08 .00 (.04) .08, .08
Single-construct domains—Rational Incumbent sample 32 8,745 .12 .17 .07 (.10) .08, .26
Single-construct domains—Hybrid Incumbent sample 3 2,318 .20 .28 .07 (.09) .19, .37
Single-construct domains—Empirical Applicant predictive 3 888 .22 .33 .00 (.04) .33, .33
Single-construct domains—Empirical Incumbent sample 13 2,523 .31 .42 .00 (.08) .42, .42
Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; p = estimated true score correlation. Results are collapsed across scoring
methods. Only reporting estimates where k is ≥ 3. “Single-Construct Domains” represent the average of all individual biodata construct scales besides overall
composite scales. For these analyses, all correlations were aggregated within each study setting. Note there were not enough predictive studies set in incumbent
samples to separate incumbent into purely concurrent and purely predictive. The “Single-Construct Domain” analyses, in addition to all effects shown in this
table, contain correlations from the “Other” biodata domain results, as shown in Appendix B. SDp = standard deviation of true correlation and SDr = observed
standard deviation, CV = 80% credibility interval.

were only four applicant samples in this comparison. When com-
paring narrow biodata domains, validity was generally higher within
incumbent samples, with this occurring for conscientiousness,
emotional stability and self-confidence, and physical fitness. Valid-
ity coefficients were similar between applicant and incumbent
contexts for mental capacity and social skills and sociability.
Given the conflicting findings, results were aggregated across all
individual construct domains (i.e., all except overall biodata com-
posites), which allows for a more comprehensive comparison.
Aggregations were made across all scales within study setting
and by scoring method where possible, given the strength of scoring
method as a moderator. Table 9 also displays these results, showing
that when comparing rationally scored scales across applicant
(k = 8, ρ = .08) and incumbent samples (k = 32, ρ = .17), validity
was marginally higher within incumbent settings. Empirical scales
in incumbent samples (k = 13, ρ = .42) also had higher validity than
empirical scales in applicant samples (k = 3, ρ = .33), but it should
be noted that validity estimates are moderate-to-high in both set-
tings. Thus, there seems to be some attenuation of validity when
biodata scales are used in applicant settings, though not to a degree
that diminishes the usefulness of biodata scores.
Item Format as a Moderator of Criterion-Related
Validity
We also considered other possible moderators of biodata inventory
validity, including the format of biodata items (e.g., Mael, 1991).
Some primary studies have examined narrow item features (e.g.,
Becker & Colquitt, 1992; Graham et al., 2002). However, studies do
not generally compute scale scores composed of only one narrow item
format. Thus, we thought it may be possible to broadly differentiate
biodata content in terms of whether the scale was composed of hard or
soft items (Asher, 1972), or a combination of the two. A hard item is
verifiable (e.g., “How many speeding tickets have you received in
your life?”), whereas a soft item is unverifiable with responses often
expressed abstractly (e.g., “How often do you speed when driving
automobiles?”). Unfortunately, many studies in the meta-analytic
database did not clearly indicate the format of all biodata items
included. We required that a study explicitly state whether all items
were hard or soft (or have access to all the items to make this
determination), resulting in no studies categorized by fully soft items.
Most studies were coded as mixed or as “unclear,” and there were too
few studies, holding biodata construct domain constant, to reliably
examine this moderator. With little clarity in the composition of item
types at the scale level, meaningful meta-analytic analyses could not
be performed for this moderator.
Job as a Moderator of Criterion-Related Validity
Where enough studies existed, criterion-related validity was also
examined within jobs, focusing on overall performance ratings.
Such information is useful for practitioners who wish to identify job-
relevant biodata content within specific work settings. As such, the
study authors reviewed job titles and grouped them into similar job
categories.5 Because this meta-analysis shows it is important to
5
As suggested by an expert review, even though we were able to examine
validity by broad job types, there may be benefits to further examining
validity by specific job demands or challenges. This was beyond the present
study and there were not enough data to reliably make such distinctions, but
this is an area for future research.
 18 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR

separate biodata scales by construct domain and scoring method, Table 10

results are presented individually by domain and by scoring method Relationships Between Biodata Scores and Overall Job Perfor-
where possible. Table 10 provides the results. Cells are sparse as mance Ratings by Job
expected given the many moderators already considered. Thus,
results should be interpreted with caution. Technical and science Job/domain/method k N r p SDp(r) CV
jobs (e.g., scientists, nurses) and military jobs had results for the Technical and Science
most construct domains. Overall biodata composite scores exhibited Overall composite scale 7 1,604 .30 .43 .07 (.11) .34, .53
meaningful correlations with overall job performance for every job. Empirical 5 1,315 .29 .42 .09 (.13) .31, .54
Conscientiousness 5 408 .14 .19 .20 (.24) −.07, .45
In technical and science jobs, mental capacity (ρ = .33) and
Rational 5 408 .14 .19 .17 (.21) −.06, .38
conscientiousness scale scores (ρ = .19) were most related to Agreeableness 3 228 .07 .10 .00 (.11) .10, .10
performance, though there were no empirically scored conscien- Rational 3 228 .07 .10 .00 (.11) .10, .10
tiousness measures. Military jobs solely used rational scoring, and Social skills/sociability 4 969 .12 .18 .03 (.08) .14, .22
the most predictive domain was physical fitness (ρ = .27). Rational 3 228 −.01 −.02 .01 (.05) −.04, .00
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Openness to experience 3 228 −.02 −.03 .02 (.02) −.05,−.01

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Rational 3 228 −.02 −.03 .02 (.02) −.05,−.01

Knowledge & skills 3 228 .09 .12 .00 (.04) .12, .12
Discussion Rational 3 228 .09 .12 .00 (.04) .12, .12
Mental capacity 4 969 .22 .33 .08 (.11) .22, .44
Because biodata inventories are a measurement method, control- Rational 3 228 .03 .04 .00 (.04) .04, .04
ling for construct domain is vital to understanding biodata validity. Military
Conscientiousness 9 5,001 .09 .12 .03 (.06) .08, .16
However, past biodata review studies have failed to do this, resulting Rational 9 5,001 .09 .12 .03 (.06) .08, .16
in a major gap in biodata knowledge. From a theoretical perspective, Social skills/sociability 3 1,587 .12 .16 .00 (.05) .16, .16
it hampers our understanding of the types of constructs biodata Rational 3 1,587 .12 .16 .00 (.05) .16, .16
inventories can reasonably assess or how predictive biodata scores ES & self-confidence 9 5,066 .09 .13 .00 (.04) .13, .13
Rational 9 5,066 .09 .13 .00 (.04) .13, .13
are. It also muddles efforts to establish a nomological network. Mental capacity 6 2,721 .09 .13 .05 (.08) .07, .19
Practically, this chiasm makes it challenging to identify how any Rational 6 2,721 .09 .13 .05 (.08) .07, .19
given biodata inventory will generalize to new contexts and whether Physical fitness 11 4,348 .19 .27 .10 (.12) .14, .40
that biodata assessment will explain unique variance in work out- Rational 11 4,348 .19 .27 .10 (.12) .14, .40
Interests/preferences 3 2,891 .06 .09 .08 (.09) −.01, .18
comes over and above alternate preemployment assessments. There
Rational 3 2,891 .06 .09 .08 (.09) −.01, .18
is also the challenge that biodata scores differ based on scoring Managers
approach, and prior to this study it was unclear the degree to which Overall composite scale 14 2,647 .31 .43 .00 (.04) .43, .43
empirical versus rational scoring affect validity. This study thus Empirical 13 2,531 .31 .44 .00 (.04) .44, .44
simultaneously examined two major moderators of biodata validity Sales
Overall composite scale 4 154 .39 .55 .00 (.12) .55, .55
(construct domain, scoring method) and established updated and Empirical 4 154 .39 .55 .00 (.12) .55, .55
nuanced estimates of biodata validity, both in terms of criterion- Conscientiousness 4 993 .20 .28 .00 (.03) .28, .28
related validity and also importantly in terms of correlates with other Empirical 3 522 .20 .27 .00 (.04) .27, .27
commonly used assessments. Several findings from this meta- Rational 4 993 .22 .31 .00 (.05) .31, .31
Manual labor
analysis are particularly noteworthy. Conscientiousness 3 756 .23 .32 .00 (.07) .32, .32
First, overall biodata composites exhibited moderate-to-strong Rational 3 756 .22 .31 .00 (.07) .31, .31
correlations with overall job performance ratings (ρ = .37), as well Call center
as meaningful correlations with other performance criteria. How- Overall composite scale 5 1,375 .26 .36 .00 (.07) .36, .36
ever, these findings are not stable across all biodata composite Empirical 3 540 .23 .32 .02 (.09) .29, .35
Individual contributor (other)
scales, as empirically derived scales (ρ = .44) had larger validity Overall composite scale 7 7,519 .24 .33 .00 (.04) .33, .33
coefficients than rationally derived scales (ρ = .24) when predicting Empirical 7 7,519 .30 .42 .00 (.04) .42, .42
job performance ratings. These findings situate the validity of Rational 3 6,545 .15 .21 .00 (.01) .21, .21
empirically scored biodata composites among other highly predic- Conscientiousness 3 1,253 .13 .18 .00 (.02) .18, .18
Rational 3 1,253 .13 .18 .00 (.02) .18, .18
tive selection tools such as structured interviews, work samples, and Social skills/sociability 4 1,463 .02 .02 .00 (.04) .02, .02
cognitive ability tests (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Rational 4 1,463 .02 .02 .00 (.04) .02, .02
Second, this study showed that the criterion-related validity of Mixed sample
biodata depends upon what biodata scales are developed to assess. Overall composite scale 17 9,090 .27 .38 .00 (.04) .38, .38
Empirical 17 8,505 .33 .46 .00 (.04) .46, .46
With the exception of empirically scored leadership and conscien-
Rational 16 8,783 .18 .25 .04 (.07) .20, .30
tiousness biodata, there was a great range in narrow domain validity
coefficients, with most construct domains exhibiting small-to- Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected
correlation; p = estimated true score correlation; ES = emotional stability. Only
modest correlations and possessing moderately wide credibility
reporting estimates where k is ≥ 3. Results shown by construct domain (not
intervals. This suggests that specific biodata measures will only separated by method) average across methods within construct and within
be related to overall job performance in certain job contexts, which sample, meaning some samples scored the same content using different
falls in line with traditional practices of job analysis and the methods; this is why k for overall domain rows may be lower than the sum
of the empirical and rational totals. Hybrid results are included but there were few.
matching of KSAOs to job demands (e.g., Brannick et al., 2007; Results for the “other” biodata domains that did not fit into any of these categories
Tett & Christiansen, 2007). When narrow biodata domain scores can be found in Appendix B. SDp = standard deviation of true correlation and
were correlated with theoretically aligned performance ratings, SDr = observed standard deviation, CV = 80% credibility interval.
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
correlations were expectedly stronger, and this occurred for both
empirical and rational scoring.
Third, this is the first meta-analysis to broadly establish the
convergent and discriminant validity of biodata measures by con-
struct domain. Once again, this has implications regarding the
nomological network of biodata and practical implications regard-
ing biodata’s use in larger selection batteries. Across all construct
domains, the average theoretically aligned convergent correlation
was .44, and the average discriminant correlation was .25. This
finding speaks to the flexibility of biodata to assess specific con-
structs. For example, certain biodata domains such as leadership are
more capable of measuring socially oriented traits, whereas domains
such as conscientiousness are more related to hard work and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attention to detail. More generally, overall biodata composite scales
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
exhibited moderate-to-high overlap with the FFM but only modest
overlap with cognitive ability. Unfortunately, it is challenging to
compare these biodata findings to other assessment methods, as
there are few meta-analyses that have explored the relationships
between other popular assessment methods (e.g., selection inter-
views, assessment centers, situational judgment tests) and job-
related traits (e.g., FFM) broken down by construct domain. The
lack of such comparisons speaks to the comprehensiveness of the
current work.
Fourth and as already mentioned briefly, biodata scoring methods
matter greatly. Despite past assumptions that rational and empirical
scoring produce equivalently predictive biodata measures (e.g.,
Hough & Paullin, 1994; Jackson, 1975; Schoenfeldt, 1999), this
study found that empirical scoring was superior in terms of criterion-
related validity when predicting overall job performance. This
makes sense, as empirical methods are explicitly designed to
maximize prediction. The only instances in which empirical keys
would be expected to result in lower validity would be if calibration
sample sizes are small, or if the calibration sample differs greatly
from the context in which operational biodata scales are to be used
(Speer et al., 2020). The findings from this study should provide
closure to the debate as to which method of biodata scoring will
result in the highest criterion-related validity when predicting
overall performance ratings. However, our results do suggest that
rational scales can be effective at targeting specific performance
domains, and thus rationally scored biodata might be useful if
combined with other biodata scales or measures that collectively
capture the full performance domain.
Although findings were favorable regarding empirical scoring,
researchers may still have concerns over using empirical methods in
practice. The major downside to empirically scored biodata inven-
tories is lessened interpretability, which may be important in some
settings. A perceived lack of interpretability may raise legal con-
cerns. However, we must remember that validity is a unitarian
concept (Binning & Barrett, 1989), and when biodata scores corre-
late with external criteria and expected convergent measures, this
provides evidence for test validity. As outlined by Speer et al.
(2020) Model of Empirically Scored Biodata (MESBI), empirical
biodata scores can exhibit expected patterns of construct validity
that can be theorized a priori. The crux is the biodata content that is
input into the empirical keying step.
We suggest only using biodata content that is first rationally
developed so as to sample from the targeted job domain (as opposed
to strict dustbowl empiricism). Empirically scored biodata scales
should still be developed with theoretical considerations in mind.
19
For example, items can be written to target specific domains of the
job (e.g., job knowledge, customer service experience) and then
maximally weighted (i.e., empirically keyed) to predict work crite-
ria. Content should be created based on job analysis or a study of the
job. By doing this, scales obtain some level of content validity
evidence. According to MESBI, the empirical key will then capture
any construct variance that is related to job performance, but which
can be elicited from the item stimuli. Thus, if test developers restrict
the item content to only that which is job relevant, concerns over
interpretability and job relevance should subside.
This said, we do advocate for a mix between empirical and
rational scoring by using hybrid scoring, which either adjusts
scoring to fall in line with theory or removes items with nonintuitive
empirical weights. This balances the predictive advantages of
empirical scoring with the interpretability of rational scoring and
is likely preferable in litigious environments. Although we found
few studies that claimed to use hybrid scoring, we anecdotally know
of many consulting companies that use this method, and there is
little reason to suspect validity will drastically differ from strict
empirical scoring. It is also a possibility that some of the coded
empirical studies may have adjusted nonintuitive empirical weights
without describing that in the manuscript, meaning some empiri-
cally coded scales may have actually been hybrid.
We have several additional recommendations regarding empirical
or hybrid scoring. (a) Sample sizes should be large enough to
produce stable empirical keys. Cucina et al. (2012) provide helpful
sample size guidelines for practitioners to follow. Putka et al. (2018)
also provide guidance for sample size requirements to score when
using machine learning. (b) The calibration sample should be similar
to the intended holdout sample. This applies to the types of
respondents, the criteria used to perform keying, and the job context
(Speer et al., 2020). Although various studies have shown that
empirical biodata keys are fairly generalizable (e.g., Carlson
et al., 1999; Rothstein et al., 1990), validity is higher when calibra-
tion sample features are close in similarity to the holdout context
(Speer et al., 2020). When these conditions are met, empirically
scored biodata inventories are capable of exhibiting strong levels of
validity.
Additional Practical Implications
The current findings have major implications for biodata inven-
tories and personnel selection. Overall, findings suggest that biodata
inventories are one of the most predictive employment assessments
available. In addition to biodata’s strong criterion-related validity
(and evidence of construct-related validity), biodata scales are cheap
to develop and easy to administer relative to other selection methods
(e.g., interviews, assessment centers, work samples). Despite this,
biodata inventories are less frequently used to hire applicants (König
et al., 2010). Taken together, this represents a missed opportunity,
and biodata scales should be used more frequently in practice when
making personnel decisions. We hope this meta-analysis encourages
researchers and practitioners to apply biodata inventories more in
their work.
Beyond the important implications regarding empirical scoring
discussed previously, findings also help guide test development and
implementation decisions. Results from Tables 3 and 5 suggest that
biodata inventories can be developed to address specific perfor-
mance factors at work. For example, a biodata scale designed to
 20 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
measure knowledge and procedural skills is likely to exhibit strong
correlations with performance behaviors associated with job knowl-
edge and procedural skills. Tables 7 and 8 also provide evidence for
which constructs can reasonably be targeted by biodata inventories.
Work analysis should always guide scale content, and these meta-
analytic findings can help steer the possibilities and limits of
biodata-based measurement.
Of the construct domains, leadership and conscientiousness
appear to be good candidates for measurement via empirically
scored biodata inventories based on their strong convergent correla-
tions and high criterion-related validity. On the other hand, biodata
scales might not be particularly well equipped to assess cognitive
characteristics (e.g., cognitive ability), given the weak convergence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
with performance-based cognitive ability measures. This finding is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
particularly useful when considering how to fill-in or complete
missing components from a selection battery. Because of the low
correlation with cognitive ability, biodata inventories will add
incremental validity when these measures are used together. In
fact, this study reveals that a selection battery composed of empiri-
cally scored biodata and a cognitive ability measure is among the
best possible combinations of selection assessments (multiple
R = .63). This is noteworthy, given many researchers rely on
findings from Schmidt and Hunter (1998) that estimated the multiple
R as only .52. Given these new findings, biodata should be given
much more attention from selection researchers.
The low correlation between biodata scores and cognitive ability
scores also has implications to other goals of employee selection,
such as fairness and diversity. Although this study did not examine
adverse impact, it is commonly believed that biodata scores have
weaker group differences than other common selection assessments,
such as cognitive ability tests. Hough et al. (2001) concluded there
were moderate differences in biodata scores between white and
black people and negligible differences between other groups (e.g.,
genders). Other research indicates a fluctuating pattern of results
between demographic groups (Breaugh, 2014; Breaugh et al., 2014;
Oswald et al., 2004; Stricker & Rock, 1998), which is likely due in
part to comparing biodata scales that differ by construct domain.
Nonetheless, the high validity from this research coupled with low to
moderate adverse impact from the aforementioned studies speaks to
additional possible benefits of using biodata inventories. However,
future research should conduct updated meta-analyses on demo-
graphic group differences of biodata scores by construct domain and
scoring method to help clarify these assumptions.
Additional Limitations and Areas for Future Research
There are other limitations to this research, as well as additional
areas for future research. For one, although we created a taxonomy
by which to categorize biodata scales, there were many possible
ways to do this. Our approach was similar to past meta-analytic
efforts to code disparate measures into broader categorizations
(e.g., Christian et al., 2010; Huffcutt et al., 2001). We are not
suggesting this taxonomy be used to describe all biodata scales.
In discussing this taxonomy with other biodata experts, some
suggested potentially adopting the O*NET taxonomy (National
Center for O*NET Development, 2017). We agree this might be
a useful operationalization, though the O*NET taxonomy is tre-
mendously larger and more complex than the taxonomy we used.
Furthermore, we did not believe there is great conceptual alignment
between typical biodata scales and many O*NET constructs. Thus,
we felt our taxonomy would better reflect existing biodata scales and
would help to advance future biodata research. Support for the
developed classification scheme can be found in our results showing
that biodata domains correlated with theoretically aligned external
measures. Furthermore, a high agreement was found between raters
when categorizing biodata scales into the taxonomy. Nonetheless,
future research might consider scrutinizing and possibly expanding
this taxonomy further.
It is possible other moderators might be important to biodata than
those listed here. Some of these have already been discussed (e.g.,
format of biodata item). However, there was a challenge to con-
ducting additional moderator analyses beyond those performed
here. Specifically, this study focused on two major moderators—
biodata domain and scoring method—and each had substantial
effects on biodata validity. Examining other moderators without
considering the construct domain or scoring method of biodata
simultaneously would not be particularly helpful given the impact of
biodata domain and scoring method. After accounting for these
moderators within our study, there are too few samples for addi-
tional partitioning in a meaningful way. However, future research
might consider additional combinations of moderating factors,
should additional data become available.
Additionally, this research focused on self-report biodata inven-
tories. However, biographical information can be obtained in many
ways, including interviews with knowledgeable peers, coding
resume information, or even new methods of data mining that
leverage “big data.” Plenty of examples already exist for creative
ways to capture behavioral data from electronic sources (Bleidorn &
Hopwood, 2019; Landers, 2019; Sajjadiani et al., 2019; Speer,
2018). Future research might compare how different methods of
obtaining biodata information impacts the construct validity
of biodata scores, with a particular focus on big data methods of
data obtainment and scoring.
Finally, another limitation is that there was incomplete data for
many empirical scoring estimates. For some construct domains, the
only method of scoring was rational, making it impossible to
separate validity differences due to the method of scoring or due
to differences in construct domain. The small number of samples for
several of the effect sizes also reduces the stability of observed
effects. This was especially the case for the secondary performance
outcomes. Thus, more data are likely necessary to firmly understand
biodata relationships for certain construct/method partitions and for
certain criteria. Additional data would also be helpful that examines
the relationship between biodata scores and job performance within
applicant samples. Unfortunately, there were many more incumbent
validation studies than applicant validation studies. During our article
search we contacted consulting companies for technical documentation
of their biodata scales, with little luck. To establish a larger database of
applicant biodata validation studies, it is likely that consulting compa-
nies using biodata inventories will have to release more of their
validation reports. If possible, future research should pursue this.
Conclusion
Biodata inventories have long been used to hire job applicants,
and yet there have been major conceptual limitations to our under-
standing of the construct validity and utility of biodata measures.
The present study helped clarify our understanding of biodata at
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
work by partitioning effect sizes by biodata construct domain and
scoring method, coming away with several major conclusions.
(a) Biodata scales are not all the same, as there are meaningful
differences by construct domain and by scoring method. (b) Biodata
assessments exhibit meaningful levels of convergent validity with
theoretically aligned external assessment measures, thus supporting
their construct validity. (c) Given the correlations between biodata
and other external assessment methods, biodata assessments can add
incremental validity when used with other selection measures.
(d) Biodata assessments have strong criterion-related validity and
especially when scoring keys are empirically derived. We hope that
this work encourages more frequent use of biodata inventories in
selection contexts and future research aimed at understanding the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
contextual factors that determine when specific biodata measures
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
will be most successful.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-
analysis
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and
interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2),
219–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
*Allen, M. T., Bynum, B. H., Oliver, J. T., Russell, T. L., Young, M. C., &
Babin, N. E. (2014). Predicting leadership performance and potential in
the US Army Officer Candidate School (OCS). Military Psychology,
26(4), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000056
*Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct‐oriented biodata: Capturing
change‐related and contextually relevant future performance. Interna-
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(2), 97–111. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00110
*Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (2000). Job requirements biodata as a predictor
of performance in customer service roles. International Journal of Selec-
tion and Assessment, 8(3), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00142
Asher, J. J. (1972). The biographical item: Can it be improved? Personnel
Psychology, 25(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1972
.tb01102.x
*Baehr, M. E., & Williams, G. B. (1968). Prediction of sales success from
factorially determined dimensions of personal background data. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 52(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020587
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1),
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Becker, T. E., & Colquitt, A. L. (1992). Potential versus actual faking of a
biodata form: An analysis along several dimensions of item type. Person-
nel Psychology, 45(2), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570
.1992.tb00855.x
*Becton, M. C., Matthews, M. C., Hartley, D. L., & Whitaker, D. H. (2009).
Using biodata to predict turnover, organizational commitment, and job
performance in healthcare. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 17(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00462.x
*Becton, M. C., Matthews, M. C., Hartley, D. L., & Whitaker, L. D. (2012).
Using biodata as a predictor of errors, tardiness, policy violations, overall
job performance, and turnover among nurses. Journal of Management
& Organization, 18(5), 714–727. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012
.18.5.714
*Berkeley, M. H. (1953). A comparison between the empirical and rational
approaches for keying a heterogeneous test (No. RB-53-24). Air Force
Personnel and Training Research Center.
Bleidorn, W., & Hopwood, C. J. (2019). Using machine learning to advance
personality assessment and theory. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 23(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318772990
21
Bliesener, T. (1996). Methodological moderators in validating biographical
data in personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 69(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996
.tb00603.x
Binning, J. F., & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A
conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(3), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.74.3.478
Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of
a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predic-
tors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 561–589. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00172.x
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie,
S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective
measures of employee performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 48(3), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01772.x
Bosshardt, M. J., Carter, G. W., Gialluca, K. A., Dunnette, M. D., &
Ashworth, S. D. (1992). Predictive validation of an insurance agent
support person selection battery. Journal of Business and Psychology,
7(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013930
Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job and work
analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource man-
agement. Sage Publications.
Breaugh, J. A. (2009). The use of biodata for employee selection: Past
research and future directions. Human Resource Management Review,
19(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.02.003
Breaugh, J. A. (2014). Predicting voluntary turnover from job applicant
biodata and other applicant information. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 22(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12080
*Breaugh, J. A., Frye, K., Lee, D., Lammer, V., & Cox, J. (2014). The value
of biodata for selecting employees: Comparable results for job incumbent
and job applicant samples? Journal of Organizational Psychology, 14(1),
40–51.
*Brown, S. H. (1981). Validity generalization and situational moderation
in the life insurance industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6),
664–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.6.664
*Brown, S. H., Stout, J. D., Dalessio, A. T., & Crosby, M. M. (1988).
Stability of validity indices through test score ranges. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73(4), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.736
*Buel, W. D. (1964). Voluntary female clerical turnover: The concurrent and
predictive validity of a weighted application blank. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 48(3), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043613
*Buel, W. D. (1965). Biographical data and the identification of creative
research personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(5), 319–321.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022518
*Buel, W. D., Albright, L. E., & Glennon, J. R. (1966). A note on the
generality and cross-validity of personal history for identifying creative
research scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(3), 217–219.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023364
*Caputo, P. M., Cucina, J. M., & Sacco, J. M. (2010, April). Approaches to
empirical keying of international biodata instruments [Paper presenta-
tion]. Annual Conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
*Carlson, K. D., Scullen, S. E., Schmidt, F. L., Rothstein, H., & Erwin, F.
(1999). Generalizable biographical data validity can be achieved without
multi‐organizational development and keying. Personnel Psychology,
52(3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00179.x
*Carraher, S. M., Mendoza, J. L., Buckley, M. R., Schoenfeldt, L. F., &
Carraher, C. E. (1998). Validation of an instrument to measure service-
orientation. Journal of Quality Management, 3(2), 211–224. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(99)80114-X
*Chait, H. N., Carraher, S. M., & Buckley, M. R. (2000). Measuring service
orientation with biodata. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(1), 109–120.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604297
 22 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
*Chaney, F. B. (1966). A cross-cultural study of industrial research perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(3), 206–210. https://doi.org/10
.1037/h0023418
*Childers, O. (2016). Biodata: A thing of the past? Examining the predictive
validity and user reactions of rationally-selected, empirically keyed
biodata [Doctoral dissertation, University of Huston]. ProQuest Theses
and Dissertations Global.
*Chirico, K. (2005). Predicting objective measures of performance
[Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational
judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-
related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 83–117. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01163.x
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
*Cline, V. B., Tucker, M. F., & Anderson, D. R. (1966). Psychology of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
scientist: XX. Cross-validation of biographical information predictor keys
across diverse samples of scientists. Psychological Reports, 19(3),
951–954. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.3.951
*Cline, V. B., Tucker, M. F., & Mulaik, S. A. (1966). Predicting factored
criteria of performance measures of pharmaceutical scientists. SA Journal
of Industrial Psychology, 4(1), 8–15.
*Consulting Firm Technical Report. (2004). Validation of law enforcement
test: Validity report.
*Conte, J. M. (1998). Time orientation, biodata, and personality predictors
of multiple performance criteria [Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania
State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Converse, P. D., Oswald, F. L., Imus, A., Hedricks, C., Roy, R., & Butera,
H. (2008). Comparing personality test formats and warnings: Effects on
criterion‐related validity and test‐taker reactions. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 16(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1468-2389.2008.00420.x
*Cooper, L. A. (1999). An investigation of the relationship between the ASA
model and biodata [Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia]. Pro-
Quest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological
tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0040957
*Cucina, J. M., Caputo, P. M., Thibodeaux, H. F., & MacLane, C. N. (2012).
Unlocking the key to biodata scoring: A comparison of empirical, rational,
and hybrid approaches at different sample sizes. Personnel Psychology,
65(2), 385–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01244.x
*Cucina, J. M., Caputo, P. M., Thibodeaux, H. F., MacLane, C. N., &
Bayless, J. M. (2013). Scoring biodata: Is it rational to be quasi-rational?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(2), 226–232.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12032
*Dalessio, A. T., & Silverhart, T. A. (1994). Combining biodata test and
interview information: Predicting decisions and performance criteria.
Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1994.tb01726.x
*Dean, M. A. (1999). On biodata construct validity, criterion-related
validity, and adverse impact [Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State
University and Agricultural & Mechanical College]. ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses Global.
*Dean, M. A. (2004). An assessment of biodata predictive ability across
multiple performance criteria. Applied H.R.M. Research, 9(1), 1–12.
*Dean, M. A. (2013). Examination of ethnic group differential responding on
a biodata instrument. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(9), 1905–
1917. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12212
*Dean, M. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). An examination of biodata theory‐based
constructs in a field context. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 13(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00308.x
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and
domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
*Drakeley, R. J., Herriot, P., & Jones, A. (1988). Biographical data, training
success and turnover. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(2),
145–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00278.x
*Ducey, A. J. (2016). The cross-national generalizability of biographical
data: An examination within a multinational organization [Doctoral
dissertation, University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
*Edgerton, H. A., Feinberg, M. R., & Thomson, K. F. (1957). Prediction of
the “Human Relations” Effectiveness of Industrial Supervisors 1. Person-
nel Psychology, 10(4), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570
.1957.tb01614.x
*Fetzer, M. S. (2004). An examination of the construct validity, criterion-
related validity, and adverse impact of the Cognitive Behavior Inventory
(CBI) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Fine, S. A., & Cronshaw, S. (1994). The role of job analysis in establishing
the validity of biodata. In M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata
handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in
selection and performance prediction (pp. 39–64). CPP Books.
*Fiske, D. W. (1947). Validation of naval aviation cadet selection tests
against training criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31(6), 601–614.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054274
*Frei, R. L. (1998). Fake this test! Do you have the ability to raise your score
on a service orientation inventory? [Doctoral dissertation, The University
of Akron]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Funder, D. C. (2016). The personality puzzle (8th ed.). W.W. Norton.
Gandy, J. A., Dye, D. A., & MacLane, C. N. (1994). Federal government
selection: The individual achievement record. In M. D. Mumford & W. A.
Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biograph-
ical information in selection and performance prediction (pp. 275–310).
CPP Books.
Gentry, W. A., Gilmore, D. C., Shuffler, M. L., & Leslie, J. B. (2012).
Political skill as an indicator of promotability among multiple rater
sources. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 89–104. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.740
Gessner, T. L., O’Connor, J. A., Clifton, T. C., Connelly, M. S., & Mumford,
M. D. (1993). The development of moral beliefs: A retrospective study.
Current Psychology, 12(3), 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686806
Gordon, L. V., & Medland, F. F. (1965). The cross-group stability of peer
ratings of leadership potential. Personnel Psychology, 18(2), 173–177.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00275.x
Graham, K. E., McDaniel, M. A., Douglas, E. F., & Snell, A. F. (2002).
Biodata validity decay and score inflation with faking: Do item attributes
explain variance across items? Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(4),
573–592. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015454319119
*Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good
predictor of job performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 12(3), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004
.278_1.x
*Grösch, N. (2004) Validation of biodata inventory for expatriate selection.
Assessing cross-cultural adaptability [Doctoral dissertation, Auburn
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Harold, C. M., McFarland, L. A., & Weekley, J. A. (2006). The validity of
verifiable and non-verifiable biodata items: An examination across appli-
cants and incumbents. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
14(4), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00355.x
*Harrington, C. (1969). Forecasting college performance from biographical
data. Journal of College Student Personnel, 10(3), 156–160.
*Hawes, S. R. (2001). A comparison of biodata, ability, and a conditional
reasoning test as predictors of reliable behavior in the workplace [Doc-
toral dissertation, The University of Tennessee]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
*Helmreich, R., Bakeman, R., & Radloff, R. (1973). The life history
questionnaire as a predictor of performance in Navy diver training.
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0037126
*Hilliard, P. A. (2002). Comparison of the predictive validity of a written
test, an integrity test, a conscientiousness questionnaire, a structured
behavioral interview and a personality inventory in the assessment of job
applicants’ background investigations, and subsequent task and contex-
tual job performance [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Hinrichs, J. R., Haanperä, S., & Sonkin, L. (1976). Validity of a biographi-
cal information blank across national boundaries. Personnel Psychology,
29(3), 417–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb00425.x
*Hoffman, R. R., III, Muraca, S., Heffner, T. S., Hendricks, R., & Hunter,
A. E. (2008). Selection for accelerated basic combat training (No. ARI-
TR-1241). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a494811.pdf
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
*Hoiberg, A., Booth, R. F., & Berry, N. H. (1977). Non-cognitive variables
related to performance in Navy “A” schools. Psychological Reports,
41(2), 647–655. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.41.2.647
*Horgen, K. E., Kubisiak, U. C., Connell, P. W., White, L. A., Bruk-Lee,
V. B., Penney, L. M., Borman, W. C., Kaufman, J. D., & Bowles, S. V.
(2005). Station commander job analysis and preliminary test validation
results (Research No. 2006-01). U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/
a440172.pdf
Hough, L. M. (2010). Assessment of background and life experience: The
past as prologue. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace assessment: Evidence-based practices for selecting and devel-
oping organizational talent (pp. 109–139). Jossey-Bass.
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants,
detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection
procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 152–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1468-2389.00171
Hough, L., & Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: The
rational approach. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford, & W. A. Owens
(Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical
information in selection and performance prediction (pp. 109–145).
CPP Books.
Huang, Y. M., Chen, C. C., & Lai, S. Y. (2013). Test of a multidimensional
model linking applicant work experience and recruiters’ inferences about
applicant competencies. International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, 24(19), 3613–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013
.777935
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001).
Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs
measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(5), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.897
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative
predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72–98.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Judiesch, M. K. (1990). Individual
differences in output variability as a function of job complexity. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.75.1.28
Jackson, D. N. (1975). The relative validity of scales prepared by naive item
writers and those based on empirical methods of personality scale con-
struction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35(2), 361–370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447503500214
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does
self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-
analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2),
298–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037681
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations
traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and
23
emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R.
(2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality
in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks
with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6),
875–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
*Karas, M., & West, J. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata development for
selection to a differentiated performance domain. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 7(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00109
*Kilcullen, R. N. (1995). The development and use of rationally-keyed
background data scales to predict leader effectiveness [Doctoral disserta-
tion, George Mason University]. ProQuest Dissertations and These
Global.
*Kilcullen, R., Goodwin, J., Chen, G., Wisecarver, M., & Sanders, M. (2002).
Identifying agile and versatile officers to serve in the objective force. U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
*Kilcullen, R. N., Putka, D. J., & McCloy, R. A. (2007). Validation of the
rational biodata inventory (RBI): Concurrent validation of experimental
army enlisted personnel selection and classification measures (contractor
report). Human Resources Research Organization.
*Knapp, D. J., & Heffner, T. S. (2010). Expanded enlistment eligibility
metrics (EEEM): Recommendations on a non-cognitive screen for new
solider selection (Report No. 1267). U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/
a523962.pdf
König, C. J., Klehe, U. C., Berchtold, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Reasons
for being selective when choosing personnel selection procedures. Inter-
national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(1), 17–27. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00485.x
Landers, R. N. (2019). The Cambridge handbook of technology and
employee behavior. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10
.1017/9781108649636
*Laurent, H. (1970). Cross-cultural cross-validation of empirically validated
tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(5), 417–423. https://doi.org/10
.1037/h0029920
*Law, K. S., Mobley, W. H., & Wong, C. (2002). Impression management
and faking in biodata scores among Chinese job-seekers. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 19(4), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1020521726390
*Lefkowitz, J. (1972). Differential validity: Ethnic group as a moderator in
predicting tenure. Personnel Psychology, 25(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1972.tb01100.x
*Legree, P. J., Kilcullen, R. N., Putka, D. J., & Wasko, L. E. (2014).
Identifying the leaders of tomorrow: Validating predictors of leader
performance. Military Psychology, 26(4), 292–309. https://doi.org/10
.1037/mil0000054
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2017). The effects of predictor method factors
on selection outcomes: A modular approach to personnel selection
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1), 43–66. https://
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000160
*Lyons, T. J., Bayless, J. A., & Park, R. K. (2001). Relationship of cognitive,
biographical, and personality measures with the training and job perfor-
mance of detention enforcement officers in a federal government agency.
Applied H.R.M. Research, 6(1), 67–70.
*MacLane, C. N., Cucina, J. M., Busciglio, H. H., & Su, C. (2019).
Supervisory opportunity to observe moderates criterion‐related validity
estimates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(1),
55–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12267
 24 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
Mael, F. A. (1991). A conceptual rationale for the domain and attributes of
biodata items. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 763–792. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00698.x
*Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata,
organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel
Psychology, 48(2), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995
.tb01759.x
*Mael, F. A., & Hirsch, A. C. (1993). Rainforest empiricism and quasi-
rationality: Two approaches to objective biodata. Personnel Psychology,
46(4), 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01566.x
*Manley, G., Benavidez, J., & Dunn, K. (2007). Development of a
personality biodata measure to predict ethical decision making. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 22(7), 664–682. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02683940710820091
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
*Marler, L. E. (2008). Proactive behavior: A selection perspective [Doctoral
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
dissertation, Louisiana Tech University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
*Matteson, M. T. (1978). An alternative approach to using biographical data
for predicting job success. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51(2),
155–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1978.tb00410.x
*McDaniel, M. A. (1989). Biographical constructs for predicting employee
suitability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 964–970. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.964
*McElreath, J. (1999). Development of a biodata measure of leadership
skills [Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University]. ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses Global.
*McElreath, J., Cucina, J. M., Busciglio, H., & Reilly, S. M. (2007).
Construct validity of competency-based biodata scales in an enforcement
occupation [Paper presentation]. 22nd meeting of the Society for Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology, New York, New York, United
States.https://doi.org/10.1037/e518532013-165
*McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across
noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 812–
821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management:
A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2),
314–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.314
McIlveen, P., Beccaria, G., & Burton, L. J. (2013). Beyond conscientious-
ness: Career optimism and satisfaction with academic major. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013
.05.005
*Mead, A. D. (2000). Properties of a resampling validation technique for
empirically scoring psychological assessments [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
Meriac, J. P., Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., & Fleisher, M. S. (2008). Further
evidence for the validity of assessment center dimensions: A meta-analysis
of the incremental criterion-related validity of dimension ratings. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1042–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.93.5.1042
*Michael, W. B., & Colson, K. R. (1979). The development and validation of
a life experience inventory for the identification of creative electrical
engineers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39(2), 463–470.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447903900228
*Mitchell, T. W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1982). Is it rational to be empirical?
A test of methods for scoring biographical data. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67(4), 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.4.411
*Mock, S. J. (1947). Biographical data. In J. P. Guilford (Ed.), Printed
classification tests (pp. 767–795). Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology
Program Research Reports.
*Moffett, R. G., III. (1997). Relationship between the Big Five personality
factors and biodata factors [Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of
empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality
constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 299–323. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00203.x
Mumford, M. D., Barrett, J. D., & Hester, K. S. (2012). Background data:
Use of experiential knowledge in personnel selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 353–
382). Oxford University Press.
Mumford, M. D., Costanza, D. P., Connelly, M. S., & Johnson, J. F. (1996).
Item generation procedures and background data scales: Implications for
construct and criterion-related validity. Personnel Psychology, 49(2),
361–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01804.x
Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (1987). Methodology review: Principles,
procedures, and findings in the application of background data measures.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10
.1177/014662168701100101
Mumford, M. D., Stokes, G. S., & Owens, W. A. (1990). Patterns of life
history: The ecology of human individuality. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., & Hanscom, M. E. (2018). Performance
appraisal and management. Sage Publications.
National Center for O*NET Development. (December 7th, 2017). O*NET-
SOC Taxonomy. https://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy.html
Nickels, B. J. (1994). The nature of biodata. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford,
& W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of
biographical information in selection and performance prediction (pp. 1–
16). CPP Books.
*O’Connell, M. S., Hattrup, K., Doverspike, D., & Cober, A. (2002). The
validity of “mini” simulations for Mexican retail salespeople. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 16(4), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1015406420028
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in
personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 17(6), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199611)17:6<609::AID-JOB1828>3.0.CO;2-K
*Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A.
(2004). Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory
as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 89(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187
*Owens, W. A. (1969). Cognitive, noncognitive, and environmental corre-
lates of mechanical ingenuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(3 part 1),
199–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027378
Owens, W. A., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1979). Toward a classification of
persons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 569–607. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.569
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., &
Mulrow, C. D. (2020). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline
for reporting systematic reviews. MetaArXiv.
*Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., Holtz, B. C., & Kemp, C. (2003). Web-
based and paper-and-pencil testing of applicants in a proctored setting: Are
personality, biodata and situational judgment tests comparable? Personnel
Psychology, 56(3), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003
.tb00757.x
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality
and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
*Prasad, J. J., Showler, M. B., Schmitt, N., Ryan, A. M., & Nye, C. D.
(2017). Using biodata and situational judgment inventories across cultural
groups. International Journal of Testing, 17(3), 210–233. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15305058.2016.1218338
Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures.
(2018). Industrial and organizational psychology: Perspectives on
science and practice, 11(Suppl. 1), 2–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop
.2018.195
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS
*Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for
reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity.
Human Performance, 9(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327043hup0903_4
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management
broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 4(2), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2011.01315.x
*Putka, D. J. (2009). Initial development and validation of assessments for
predicting disenrollment of four-year scholarship recipients from the
reserve officer training corps (Report No. 2009-06). U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps
.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a495510.pdf
*Putka, D. J., Beatty, A. S., & Reeder, M. C. (2018). Modern predic-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tion methods: New perspectives on a common problem. Organiza-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tional Research Methods, 21(3), 689–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094428117697041
Putka, D. J., & Bradley, K. M. (2008). Relations between Select21 predictor
measures and first term attrition (Research Note No. 2008–02). U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
*Reeder, M. C., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Motivational and judgment predictors
of African American academic achievement at PWIs and HBCUs. Journal
of College Student Development, 54(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/
csd.2013.0006
Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative
employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35(1), 1–62.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02184.x
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Connelly, M. S. (2000). Item selection counts: A
comparison of empirical key and rational scale validities in theory-based
and non-theory-based item pools. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1),
143–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.143
*Ritchie, R. J., & Boehm, V. R. (1977). Biographical data as a predictor of
women’s and men’s management potential. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 11(3), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(77)90031-8
*Roenicke, C. C. (2013). Extending the frame of reference effect beyond
conscientiousness [Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Ethnic group differences in
measures of job performance: A new meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.694
Rothstein, H. R., Schmidt, F. L., Erwin, F. W., Owens, W. A., & Sparks,
C. P. (1990). Biographical data in employment selection: Can validities be
made generalizable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 175–184.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.175
Russell, C. J. (1994). Generation procedures for biodata items: A point of
departure. In M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook:
Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and
performance prediction (pp. 17–38). CPP Books.
*Russell, C. J., Kanntrowitz, T., Tuzinski, K., & Reddock, C. (2015, April).
Novel research and advances in biodata. In Dunleavy, E. & Cucina, J.
(Chairs), Crafting biographical information items to predict network
leadership [Symposium]. Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial
and Organizational Psychologists, Philadelphia, PA.
*Russell, T. L., Paullin, C. J., Legree, P. J., Kilcullen, R. N., & Young, M. C.
(2017). Identifying and validating selection tools for predicting officer
performance and retention (Research No. 2017-01). U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/
tr/fulltext/u2/1038674.pdf
Sajjadiani, S., Sojourner, A. J., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Mykerezi, E.
(2019). Using machine learning to translate applicant work history into
predictors of performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
104(10), 1207–1225. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000405
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of
25
85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of
work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.86.1.162
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis (Third Edition).
Sage Publications.
Schmitt, N., & Golubovich, J. (2013). Biographical information. In K. F.
Geisinger (Ed.), Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 437–455). APA Handbook of Testing and
Assessment in Psychology Psychological Association.
*Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T. J., Billington, A. Q.,
Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009). Prediction of 4-year college student
performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact
on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 94(6), 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016810
*Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Imus, A., Merritt, S., Friede, A., &
Shivpuri, S. (2007). The use of background and ability profiles to predict
college student outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 165–179.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.165
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by
broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1099-1379(199611)17:6<639::AID-JOB3828>3.0.CO;2-9
*Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1999). From dust bowl empiricism to rational constructs
in biographical data. Human Resource Management Review, 9(2), 147–
167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00016-9
*Scollay, R. W. (1957). Personal history data as a predictor of success.
Personnel Psychology, 10(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570
.1957.tb00763.x
*Sinha, R., Oswald, F., Imus, A., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Criterion-focused
approach to reducing adverse impact in college admissions. Applied
Measurement in Education, 24(2), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08957347.2011.554605
*Sisco, H., & Reilly, R. R. (2007). Development and validation of a Biodata
Inventory as an alternative method to measurement of the five-factor
model of personality. The Social Science Journal, 44(2), 383–389. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2007.03.010
*Solomonson, A. L. (1999). Development and evaluation of a construct-
oriented biodata measure for predicting positive and negative contextual
performance [Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Speer, A. B. (2018). Quantifying with words: An investigation of the validity
of narrative‐derived performance scores. Personnel Psychology, 71(3),
299–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12263
*Speer, A. B., Siver, S. R., & Christiansen, N. D. (2020). Applying theory to
the black box: A model for empirically scoring biodata. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10
.1111/ijsa.12271
Stokes, G. S. (1994). Introduction and history. In M. D. Mumford & W. A.
Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biograph-
ical information in selection and performance prediction (pp. xv–xix).
CPP Books.
*Stokes, G. S., & Cooper, L. A. (2001). Content/construct approaches in life
history form development for selection. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 9(1–2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00170
Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds.). (1994). Biodata
handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in
selection and performance prediction. CPP Books.
*Stokes, G. S., & Searcy, C. A. (1999). Specification of scales in biodata
form development: Rational vs. empirical and global vs. specific. Inter-
national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(2), 72–85. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1468-2389.00108
 26 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR
*Stokes, G. S., Toth, C. S., Searcy, C. A., Stroupe, J. P., & Carter, G. W.
(1999). Construct/rational biodata dimensions to predict salesperson
performance: Report on the U.S. department of labor sales study. Human
Resource Management Review, 9(2), 185–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1053-4822(99)00018-2
*Stricker, L. J., & Rock, D. A. (1998). Assessing leadership potential with a
biographical measure of personality traits. International Journal of Selec-
tion and Assessment, 6(3), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00087
Sturman, M. C., Cheramie, R. A., & Cashen, L. H. (2005). The impact of job
complexity and performance measurement on the temporal consistency,
stability, and test-retest reliability of employee job performance ratings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.90.2.269
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
*Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1967). Biographical predictors of scientific
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
performance. Science, 155(3766), 1075–1080. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.155.3766.1075
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic
review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(4), 692–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692
*Tears, R. S. (2002). Development and evaluation of a construct-oriented
biodata measure for predicting organizational citizenship behaviors
[Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
*Telonson, P. A., Alexander, R. A., & Barrett, G. V. (1983). Scoring the
biographical information blank: A comparison of three weighting tech-
niques. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/
10.1177/014662168300700110
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads:
A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and
Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 967–993. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00098.x
Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement
techniques. Wiley.
*Tucker, M. F., Cline, V. B., & Schmitt, J. R. (1967). Prediction of creativity
and other performance measures from biographical information among
pharmaceutical scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2), 131–138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024428
(Appendices follow)
Uhlman, C. E., & Mumford, M. D. (1993). Application of background data
to the selection of State Department foreign service officers. U.S.
Department of State.
van der Linden, D., Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor
of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a
criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality,
44(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003
*Van Iddekinge, C. H., Ferris, G. R., & Heffner, T. S. (2009). Test of A
multistage model of distal and proximal antecedents of leader perfor-
mance. Personnel Psychology, 62(3), 463–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1744-6570.2009.01145.x
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Putka, D. J., & Lanivich, S. E. (2011). Are
you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests
and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(6), 1167–1194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024343
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis
of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 81(5), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.557
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general
factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for
disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90
.1.108
*Wasko, L. E., Putka, D. J., Legree, P. J., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2019).
Validation of measures for predicting leader development and assessment
course performance (Technical Report No. 1375). U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/
tr/fulltext/u2/1080161.pdf
Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Haertel, E. H. (2006). 4 reliability
coefficients and generalizability theory. Handbook of Statistics, 26, 81–
124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(06)26004-8
*Whitney, D. J., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Relationship between culture and
responses to biodata employment items. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.113
*Wollowick, H. B., & McNamara, W. J. (1969). Relationship of the
components of an assessment center to management success. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0028102
 BIODATA META-ANALYSIS 27

Appendix A
Studies Used to Establish Range Restriction Estimates

Study Type N uSD rSD u

Brown (1981)—Company 1 Direct selection 3,590 4.98 4.71 0.95
Brown (1981)—Company 2 Direct selection 768 5.07 4.61 0.91
Brown (1981)—Company 3 Direct selection 949 5.20 4.37 0.84
Brown (1981)—Company 4 Direct selection 1,606 4.78 4.64 0.97
Brown (1981)—Company 5 Direct selection 752 5.13 4.74 0.92
Brown (1981)—Company 6 Direct selection 893 5.14 4.48 0.87
Brown (1981)—Company 7 Direct selection 606 4.93 4.79 0.97
Brown (1981)—Company 8 Direct selection 793 5.02 4.46 0.89
Brown (1981)—Company 9 Direct selection 771 4.92 4.24 0.86
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Brown (1981)—Company 10 Direct selection 658 5.12 4.56 0.89

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Brown (1981)—Company 11 Direct selection 661 4.98 4.44 0.89

Brown (1981)—Company 12 Direct selection 406 4.80 4.37 0.91
Becton et al. (2009) Direct selection 891 16.62 14.83 0.89
Ployhart et al. (2003) Indirect selection 425 10.15 10.22 1.01
Rothstein et al., 1990 Indirect selection 11,332 4.72 4.68 0.99
Consulting company data Indirect selection 1,043 0.15 0.15 1.00

Note. N = sample size; uSD = unrestricted standard deviation, determined as an applicant sample; rSD = restricted standard deviation; u = the restricted
standard deviation divided by the unrestricted standard deviation. N is based on an incumbent sample.

Appendix B
Meta-Analytical Results for “Other” Biodata Category

If multiple “other” measures existed within the same sample,
simple averages were computed for the “other” biodata cate-
gory when composites needed to be formed; this reflects a
randomly chosen measure from this undefined construct
domain.
It should be noted that because the “other” category is composed of
heterogenous scale domains and has no psychological meaning, results
should be interpreted with caution. Findings regarding overall validity,
scoring method, and comparisons by other moderators are confounded
by the lack of clarity in this category of biodata scales.

(Appendices continue)
 28 SPEER, TENBRINK, WEGMEYER, SENDRA, SHIHADEH, AND KAUR

Table B1
Meta-Analytical Results for the “Other” Biodata Domain

Category k N r p SDp(r) 80% CV lower 80% CV upper

Overall job performance ratings
Other 22 8,969 0.01 0.01 .07 (.08) −.08 .10
Rational 19 7,667 −0.01 −0.02 .05 (.07) −.08 .05
Applicant predictive 9 4,311 0.02 0.04 .07 (.08) −.06 .13
Incumbent 13 4,658 −0.01 −0.01 .06 (.08) −.09 .06
Aligned job performance ratings
Other 14 4,499 0.28 0.39 .15 (.17) .21 .58
Empirical 9 1,374 0.23 0.32 .00 (.09) .32 .32
Hybrid 3 1885 0.35 0.48 .19 (.21) .23 .73
Rational 3 1,792 0.24 0.34 .09 (.11) .23 .45
Objective performance
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Other 6 2,710 0.06 0.07 .00 (.05) .07 .07

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Rational 4 2,567 0.05 0.06 .00 (.03) .06 .06

Training performance
Other 8 10,920 0.18 0.20 .07 (.09) .10 .29
Rational 5 3,034 0.04 0.04 .00 (.03) .04 .04
Advancement potential
Other 8 5,117 0.06 0.06 .13 (.14) −.10 .23
Rational 6 4,556 0.04 0.04 .12 (.13) −.15 .19
Extraversion
Other 12 4,843 0.09 0.11 .21 (.22) −.16 .37
Rational 10 4,434 0.09 0.12 .21 (.17) −.15 .38
Agreeableness
Other 11 4,580 0.16 0.22 .08 (.10) .12 .33
Rational 10 4,434 0.16 0.23 .08 (.08) .12 .33
Emotional stability
Other 12 18,557 0.16 0.34 .12 (.06) .18 .50
Rational 9 16,824 0.16 0.35 .12 (.05) .20 .50
Conscientiousness
Other 15 18,576 0.15 0.30 .13 (.09) .13 .46
Rational 13 18,167 0.16 0.31 .09 (.06) .19 .43
Openness
Other 11 4,580 0.11 0.15 .15 (.12) −.05 .34
Rational 10 4,434 0.11 0.15 .15 (.13) −.05 .34
Cognitive ability
Other 15 93,931 0.05 0.09 .19 (.09) −.15 .34
Empirical 5 74,156 0.02 0.02 .02 (.02) −.01 .04
Rational 9 18,754 0.17 0.39 .27 (.13) .05 .74

Note. k = number of samples; N = combined sample size; r = uncorrected correlation; p = corrected validity coefficient corrected for range restriction and
criterion unreliability for performance outcomes and corrected for measurement error in both predictors for convergent correlations; SDp = standard deviation of
true correlation and SDr = observed standard deviation; CV = 80% credibility interval.

Received July 1, 2020

Revision received July 26, 2021
Accepted July 31, 2021 ▪

View publication stats