path personality questionnaire - technical manual - v2
Post on 14-Jan-2017
246 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PATH Personality Questionnaire Technical Manual Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
CONTENTS
1 Introduction
1.1 About this Manual .....................................................................................................................................3
1.2 About Talegent ..........................................................................................................................................3
1.3 How Talegent Differs ...............................................................................................................................3
Solutions by Industry and Job Family ...........................................................................................4
Screening and Selection Tools .......................................................................................................4
1.4 Introduction to Psychometric Assessment .........................................................................................5
2 PATH Personality
2.1 Introduction to the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire ....................................................9
2.2 Descriptions of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire ................................................. 10
Interpersonal ................................................................................................................................... 11
Temperament ................................................................................................................................. 21
Thinking ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Execution ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Drive ................................................................................................................................................. 37
Self Presentation ............................................................................................................................ 41
2.3 Response Style Indicators ..................................................................................................................... 42
Receptive ......................................................................................................................................... 42
Self-Aware ....................................................................................................................................... 43
Comparison between the PATH Personality Questionnaire and other leading
personality assessments ............................................................................................................ 43
2.4 Talegent Competency Model .............................................................................................................. 45
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 45
Introduction to Competencies ................................................................................................... 46
2.5 Competency Descriptions .................................................................................................................... 48
3 Applications
3.1 Applications of the Talegent PATH Personality Product ............................................................. 55
Selection .......................................................................................................................................... 55
On-Boarding Needs ...................................................................................................................... 55
Training and Development .......................................................................................................... 55
Team Development ...................................................................................................................... 55
Misapplications of the Talegent PATH Personality Product ............................................... 55
Target Users ................................................................................................................................... 56
4 Administration
4.1 The “WHO” of Administration .......................................................................................................... 59
4.2 The “WHAT” of Administration ........................................................................................................ 60
Prior to the administration ......................................................................................................... 61
4.3 Creating Campaigns and Setting up Candidates ............................................................................. 63
4.4 Accessing Reports .................................................................................................................................. 67
4.5 Candidate Experience ........................................................................................................................... 70
4.6 Confidentiality ......................................................................................................................................... 74
4.7 Security of Administration ................................................................................................................... 75
Some of The Security Precautions We Take .......................................................................... 76
4.8 Administration under Special Circumstances .................................................................................. 77
5 Providing Feedback
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 79
5.2 Ethics ......................................................................................................................................................... 79
5.3 Preparing for Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 80
5.4 Interpreting Results................................................................................................................................ 81
Personality results ......................................................................................................................... 81
5.5 The Feedback Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 81
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 81
Contextual Information ............................................................................................................... 82
Discussion of Results .................................................................................................................... 82
Concluding the Discussion .......................................................................................................... 83
5.6 Essential Qualities to Portray During the Feedback Discussion ................................................. 84
5.7 Linking Scales in the PATH PQ ........................................................................................................... 85
6 Reports
6.1 Talegent’s PATH Reports ..................................................................................................................... 87
6.2 PATH Personality Profile ...................................................................................................................... 87
6.3 PATH Personality Report ..................................................................................................................... 87
Roles and Uses of the PATH Profile and Personality Report ............................................. 88
6.4 PATH Competency Profile .................................................................................................................. 88
6.5 PATH Competency Detail Report ..................................................................................................... 89
Roles and Uses of the PATH Competency Profile and Detail Report ............................. 89
6.6 PATH EQ Report ................................................................................................................................... 89
Roles and Uses of the PATH EQ Report ................................................................................ 89
6.7 PATH Leadership Report ..................................................................................................................... 90
Roles and Uses of the PATH Leadership Report .................................................................. 90
6.8 PATH Personal Feedback Report ....................................................................................................... 90
Roles and Uses of the PATH Personal Feedback Report .................................................... 90
7 Norm Groups
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 93
7.2 Standard Scores ...................................................................................................................................... 93
Z Score ............................................................................................................................................. 93
Sten Score ....................................................................................................................................... 93
Percentile ......................................................................................................................................... 94
Standard Error of the mean ........................................................................................................ 94
7.3 Available Norm Groups ........................................................................................................................ 96
Choosing the appropriate norm ................................................................................................ 96
7.4 Admin Norm (2015) .............................................................................................................................. 97
Description ...................................................................................................................................... 97
Demographic Information ........................................................................................................... 97
Norm Table................................................................................................................................... 101
7.5 Graduate Norm (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 103
Description ................................................................................................................................... 103
Demographic Information ......................................................................................................... 103
Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 108
7.6 Professional Norm (2015) .................................................................................................................. 110
Description ................................................................................................................................... 110
Demographic Information ......................................................................................................... 110
Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 115
7.7 Managerial Norm (2015) .................................................................................................................... 117
Description ................................................................................................................................... 117
Demographic Information ......................................................................................................... 117
Table ............................................................................................................................................... 122
7.8 Executive Norm (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 124
Description ................................................................................................................................... 124
Demographic Information ......................................................................................................... 124
Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 129
7.9 Incumbent Norm (2015) .................................................................................................................... 131
Description ................................................................................................................................... 131
Demographic Information ......................................................................................................... 131
Norm Table .................................................................................................................................. 136
8 Development Framework
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 139
8.2 Development Framework .................................................................................................................. 139
9 Substantive Validity
9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 143
9.2 Early Development ............................................................................................................................... 143
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 143
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 143
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 144
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 144
9.3 Substantive Pilot.................................................................................................................................... 145
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 145
Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 145
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 145
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 145
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 147
9.4 Substantive Validity Summary ............................................................................................................ 147
10 Structural Validity
10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 149
10.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................... 149
10.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Study ................................................................................................... 150
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 150
Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 150
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 150
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 151
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 153
10.4 Reliability ................................................................................................................................................. 153
10.5 Reliability Study ..................................................................................................................................... 154
Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 154
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 154
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 155
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 156
10.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis............................................................................................................ 157
10.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study ................................................................................................ 158
Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 158
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 158
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 159
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 162
10.8 Structural Validity Summary ............................................................................................................... 163
11 External Validity
11.1 External Validity .................................................................................................................................... 165
11.2 Criterion-Related Validity .................................................................................................................. 165
11.3 Predictive Criterion Validity Study ................................................................................................... 165
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 165
Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 165
Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 166
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 168
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 168
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 171
12 Adverse Impact
12.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 175
12.2 Mean Differences between Demographics .................................................................................... 175
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 175
12.3 Adverse Impact Study.......................................................................................................................... 176
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 176
Subjects .......................................................................................................................................... 176
Method ........................................................................................................................................... 177
Demographic Groupings ............................................................................................................ 177
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 180
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 193
13 References and Recommended Readings
14 Appendix A
14.1 PATH Personality Profile .................................................................................................................... 201
14.2 PATH Personality Report ................................................................................................................... 202
14.3 PATH Competency Profile ................................................................................................................ 215
14.4 PATH Competency Detail Report ................................................................................................... 216
14.5 Emotional Intelligence Report ........................................................................................................... 228
14.6 Leadership Growth Potential Report .............................................................................................. 239
14.7 Personal Feedback Report ................................................................................................................. 250
15 Appendex B
15.1 Mplus Input Syntax ............................................................................................................................... 265
15.2 Mplus Sample Output .......................................................................................................................... 265
1 Introduction
This manual is intended to provide the users of the Talegent PATH
Personality Questionnaire with technical information about its purpose,
development, reliability and validation.
3All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
1.1 About this Manual
This manual is intended to provide the users of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire with
technical information about its purpose, development, reliability and validation. The manual also
provides information on the applications and functions of the PATH Personality Questionnaire.
1.2 About Talegent
Talegent was founded by veterans of the world’s largest assessment providers who believed that
online recruitment poses new challenges and opportunities, but that there were not sufficiently
innovative assessment products to take advantage of these possibilities. So from inception, Talegent
set out to create a new kind of assessment product, specifically optimised to meet the unique
environment of hiring in the digital age by harnessing next generation technologies, tools and best
practices. And built its own technology platform from scratch. That’s a major advantage. Having an
architecture based on latest technical capabilities allowed Talegent to quickly and easily customise to
different organisations’ requirements. Further, Talegent’s technology platform allows the
achievement of scalability without issue and with no perceptible outages or downtime. This is
reflected by the fact that historically Talegent’s platform has had over 99.8% uptime.
We also developed was an entirely new suite of pre-employment screening and selection
assessments including a personality questionnaire, cognitive tests and skills assessments. Built to take
advantage of the greater computing power now available, Talegent’s solutions have set new standards
of speed even at immense Internet volumes with no sacrifice in predictive accuracy.
1.3 How Talegent Differs
Talegent is the first talent assessment provider that’s top-to-bottom designed for the new digital
staffing reality.
This new digital era brings a whole new set of challenges and tools to hiring. Talegent was founded
for the specific purpose of helping organisations take advantage of the latest emerging tools to meet
these new challenges.
The online Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire will allow:
1. Management of exponentially larger applicant pools expediently and cost efficiently
2. Integration of job boards, and organisation’s Human Resources Applicant Tracking System
(HR ATS)
3. Engagement of a more informed, media-savvy and distractible generation
4. Differentiation of the candidate experience to win the competition for top talent
Using psychometric measures to objectively and accurately predict performance is the heart of what
Talegent does, in which it is not unique. But, powered by the proprietary Talegent PATH platform
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 20154
and innovativeness to meet the different organisations’ needs, the process is faster, more efficient,
and with better results.
1. Stacked Rank Results – From the screening stage through full-blown assessments, candidates
are ranked to speed up the selection process.
2. Super-Fast Scoring – All test results are delivered within 24 hours, and most, instantaneously.
3. Shorter, More Engaging Tests – Measures are consolidated in a single short test without
sacrificing accuracy, and employ dynamic 3D simulations, branching video-based situational
judgment tests and other immersive new technologies to keep candidates engaged.
4. Users’ Brand Building – Organisations’ recruitment campaigns are aligned with their
employment value proposition to create a candidate experience that differentiates each
organisation.
5. Plug & Play with any ATS – Rapid integration with each organisation’s Applicant Tracking
System (ATS).
6. Easy Scalability & Upgrade-ability – Talegent’s platform is built with the latest technology,
meaning enhancements are easy to implement.
7. We’ll Build Whatever Easy customisations and new builds – Talegent routinely does
customisations easily and quickly.
8. Comprehensive Local Support – Talegent has local teams that are ready to respond to
organisations’ needs rapidly.
SOLUTIONS BY INDUSTRY AND JOB FAMILY
Talegent offers many off-the-shelf online recruitment solutions using the assessment test platform
already pre-configured for specific industries or hiring applications. These solutions are customised
specific to include competency sets and tests that are continuously updated to ensure relevancy to
latest job requirements. The norm sets are validated from real life job performance data. Fast & easy
customisation to organisations’ specific needs.
SCREENING AND SELECTION TOOLS
Talegent PATH brings together an ensemble of new and innovative personality, cognitive ability and
skills tests under a single powerful and flexible, integrated system that allows test users to easily
5All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
configure, administer, and access results and reporting. Those who use it are able to more quickly,
efficiently, and accurately determine the expected performance of an individual within a given role to
improve new hires or internal appointments.
1.4 Introduction to Psychometric Assessment
Occupational assessment refers to the application of psychometric assessment to workplace
decision-making. Information derived from occupational assessment can predict a person’s likely
future performance in the workplace. When this information is mapped to job requirements, it can
be used to inform employment-related decisions such as selection, training and development, and
career planning.
Cattell (1986) defined psychometric tests as:
“a standard, portable stimulus situation, containing a standard instruction and mode of response, in
which a consenting subject is measured on their response in a predefined way, the measure being
designed and used to predict other behaviour elsewhere”.
There are several key attributes of psychometric assessments:
1. They are systematically constructed and employed. This means that they are rigorously designed
for a particular purpose and they are used for this purpose only. As a requirement of their
‘rigorous construction,’ these assessments must be valid and reliable (the qualities of Talegent
PATH Personality Questionnaire are discussed later in the manual).
2. They are standardised. This means that, as far as practically possible, the tests are administered
and scored in exactly the same way each time. This helps to reduce the occurrence of
random error, increasing the reliability and validity of results. Standardisation requires that:
3. Each test taker completes the same questions or activities as everyone else who sits the
same assessment.
4. Everyone is given the same instructions so that no one has an unfair advantage.
5. The test is conducted in the same or a very similar setting for every candidate.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 20156
6. Test results are scored and interpreted in the same way every time.
7. They elicit behavioural responses which are measurable. It is these measurable responses which
are used to predict likely future performance on similar tasks to those which are completed
during the assessment.
2 PATH Personality
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire gives employers deep insight
into what motivates and drives individuals, the way they think, how they
relate to others, their preferred work style, and more.
9All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
2.1 Introduction to the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire gives employers deep insight into what motivates and
drives individuals, the way they think, how they relate to others, their preferred work style, and
more. These measures can be analysed in relation to the key role competencies exhibited by top
performers for a given role.
The assessment is fast and easy to set up with an intuitive interface where employers can create
profiles specific to their job-roles and organisations.
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire has 202 questions measuring 32 behavioural traits.
There is no time limit for the assessment but it is expected to take most candidates about 20
minutes to complete.
Talegent PATH personality questionnaire has been developed as an international assessment product
based on work competencies. These competencies predict work performance in terms of efficacy of
key behaviours and overall job performance.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201510
2.2 Descriptions of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire
The PATH personality scales are spread across six domain clusters, Interpersonal, Temperament,
Thinking, Execution, Drive, and Self Presentation. The scales were allocated to their cluster
intuitively to help aid in interpretation and understanding. These clusters and the scale mappings are
shown in Table 1. Each scale in described in detail in Table 2 with information about work behaviour
likely to be exhibited by low, moderate and high scoring respondents.
Table 1
Scale mappings to the six intuitive clusters
Interpersonal Temperament Thinking Execution Drive Self
Presentation
Influential Self-Confident Data Driven Compliant Energetic Receptive
Directing Adaptable Intuitive Risk Tolerant Competitive Self Aware
Motivating Composed Analytical Work
Focused
Driven
Amiable Optimistic Strategic Meticulous Decisive
Empathetic Theoretical Reliable
Collaborative Innovative
Sociable Learning
Focus
Socially Aware
Trusting
Accepting
11All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
INTERPERSONAL
Table 2
Descriptions of the Talegent PATH Personality Scales
INFLUENTIAL
The tendency to exert influence over the thoughts and actions of others.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Doubts ability to persuade
others.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most to exert
influence over the thoughts and
actions of others.
DESCRIPTION
Confident in powers of
persuasion.
TYPICAL ITEM
I’m not good at changing other
people’s minds.
TYPICAL ITEM
TYPICAL ITEM
I am a natural influencer.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers do not place much
faith in their ability to influence
the thoughts and feelings of
other people. As a result, they
may feel they are less effective
than most other people at
changing people’s opinions or
influencing their behaviour. Low
scorers may feel that people do
not tend to listen to their ideas.
They may be somewhat
reluctant to share their ideas
with other people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers feel that they
are about as good as most at
influencing the thoughts and
feelings of other people. They
are likely to attempt to change
other people’s opinions in areas
that they are most passionate
about. Moderate scorers
generally feel that they are
effective at persuading other
people to see things from their
point of view, and of getting
other people to do what they
want them to do some of the
time.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are highly
confident in their ability to
influence the thoughts and
feelings of other people. They
are likely to find it fairly easy to
communicate with other people
and ask them to support their
ideas in the workplace. High
scorers consider themselves to
be highly effective at persuading
other people to see things from
their point of view, and of
getting people to do what they
want them to do.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201512
DIRECTING
The tendency to take charge of situations and assert one’s perspective.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefers to follow the lead of
others.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most to take charge
of situations and assert their
perspectives.
DESCRIPTION
Prefer to take charge and lead.
TYPICAL ITEM
I prefer to let others lead.
TYPICAL ITEM
I prefer to take charge of a
situation rather than let others
direct themselves.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may prefer not to
lead a group or to take charge
of the situation. They are likely
to come across as being less
assertive than most other
people. They are likely to
prefer to let others lead,
instead taking on more of a
follower role. They may
struggle when required to
direct the behaviour of other
people and may avoid having to
get others to listen to them.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
enjoy leading a team or
directing others to a similar
extent as most other people.
They are likely to be
comfortable leading others
when they feel that they are the
best person to do so. Moderate
scorers tend to work well in
either a leadership position or
following the guidance of other
people, depending on the
situation. They may put
themselves in a leadership
position when they are
especially interested in a given
area or when they feel that it is
an area of expertise.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to really
enjoy taking on leadership
opportunities and directing
other people. They are
expected to volunteer for
leadership roles in the
workplace and are likely to feel
comfortable defending their
authority, no matter who
challenge it. High scorers are
likely to come across a highly
assertive and to regularly
express their opinion.
13All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
MOTIVATING
The tendency to place importance on being able to motivate others and the belief that they have an
ability to do so through understanding how to influence and drive others’ performance.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Regard themselves as being less
effective at inspiring others.
DESCRIPTION
As confident as most in their
ability to motivate and inspire
others.
DESCRIPTION
Confident in ability to motivate
others.
TYPICAL ITEM
Motivating others is not
enjoyable for me.
TYPICAL ITEM
I think it is important to help
others stay motivated.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers don’t tend to
concern themselves with
understanding what motivates
other people. They are less
likely than most of their peers
to attempt to inspire their
colleagues or subordinates in
their workplace. They may
prefer to let other people drive
their own performance.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
believe that they are about as
good as most people at
motivating others. On occasion
they are likely to attempt to
inspire their colleagues or
subordinates in the workplace.
At other times, they may prefer
to let other people drive their
own performance.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers tend to be
confident in their ability to
motivate others. They are
expected to dedicate time and
effort into attempting to
motivate those around them.
High scorers are likely to
believe that different people are
motivated by different things
and act to determine what
motivates each person. They
are also expected to enjoy
motivating or inspiring others
to perform at their best.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201514
AMIABLE
The tendency to easily connect with others, and to value how others regard them.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Require more time to form
bonds.
DESCRIPTION
Find it as easy as most in
connecting with others and
being friendly.
DESCRIPTION
Friendly, easily connects with
others, and wants to make a
good impression.
TYPICAL ITEM
It doesn't really bother me if I
don’t make the best first
impression.
TYPICAL ITEM
I like to make sure other
people feel at ease around me.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may require more
time than others to get to
know new people.
They may not be as concerned
as most others with creating a
strong impression.
They are not expected to
dedicate very much effort into
ensuring that other people feel
at ease around them.
Low scorers should
demonstrate a lesser tendency
than most of their peers to
engage in behaviours that
encourage the formation of
relationships in the workplace.
As a result, they may take
longer than others to build
relationships.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be as sociable and friendly as
most others.
Although they are likely to feel
most comfortable when
maintaining a relationship with
those they are familiar with,
they should require a moderate
amount of time to get to know
new people.
They should be as concerned as
most of their peers with the
first impression they make.
Moderate scorers demonstrate
a fair tendency to engage in
behaviours that encourage the
formation of bonds with other
people, such as by making a
degree of eye contact during
social interactions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
more sociable and outgoing
than most other people. They
are expected to be concerned
with creating a strong first
impression, being held in high
regard, and should dedicate a
high level of time and effort
into ensuring that other people
feel at ease around them, such
as by making appropriate eye
contact during social
interactions.
They should be relatively
approachable in the way they
build relationships with staff,
colleagues and key
stakeholders, and show interest
in building a broad network.
High scorers are likely to take
the initiative to introduce
themselves to new people and
put effort into building
relationships.
15All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
EMPATHETIC
The tendency to show deep concern with how others feel, and observe behavioural and verbal cues
in order to understand others.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Less observant of others’
behavioural cues, and may show
less concern for others’
feelings.
DESCRIPTION
As receptive as most of others’
behavioural cues, and shows
reasonable interest in how
others feel.
DESCRIPTION
Interested in and observant of
others’ behavioural and verbal
cues, and shows concern for
others’ feelings.
TYPICAL ITEM
Hearing about other people’s
feelings makes me feel
uncomfortable.
TYPICAL ITEM
I care strongly about other's
feelings when I am making
decisions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers don’t tend to
concern themselves with
observing others’ non-verbal
cues.
They may not show as much
concern as most others for
people’s thoughts and feelings
in the workplace, placing more
emphasis on task-related
behaviours.
They may feel uncomfortable
when others discuss their
feelings with them.
They aren’t expected to
dedicate much time to
considering how their decisions
might impact upon people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be as interested in the thoughts
and feelings of others as most
of their peers.
They are expected to feel
moderately comfortable when
others discuss their feelings
with them.
Moderate scorers should
dedicate the usual amount of
time towards considering how
their decisions might impact
upon other people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers tend to be
interested in and observant of
others’ behavioural and verbal
cues.
They are likely to be more
interested than most of their
peers in understanding others’
thoughts and feelings. High
scorers value feeling what
another person is experiencing
from within the other’s frame
of reference.
They are also expected to feel
really comfortable when others
discuss their feelings with them,
and should actively seek out
conversations about feelings
with other people.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201516
COLLABORATIVE
The tendency to co-operate with others and be accommodating.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefers to work
independently.
DESCRIPTION
As cooperative and
accommodating as most
DESCRIPTION
Enjoys working closely with
others.
TYPICAL ITEM
If someone asks me to do
something I usually try to find
an excuse so I don’t have to.
TYPICAL ITEM
I always try to find ways of
helping people
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers have a fairly
strong preference for working
alone rather than in team
situations. They may be less
inclined to prioritise the needs
of others ahead of their own
objectives. As a result they
may come across as being less
cooperative than most others.
They may prefer to compete
against others rather than
working collaboratively. They
may feel demotivated when
required to work in team
situations. They are likely to
be most satisfied when
working independently to
achieve a personal goal.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are
expected to work as well as
most others in team situations.
In a team setting they should
generally prioritise the needs
of a team ahead of their own
objectives. They are likely to
come across as being
cooperative and fairly flexible
in most team situations. They
are expected to be
comfortable working in either
a team situation or
independently, depending on
what is required of them.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are expected to
really enjoy opportunities to
work with a team. In a team
situation, they are expected to
prioritise the needs of the
team ahead of their own
objectives. High scorers are
likely to come across as being
highly cooperative and flexible
when working with others.
They report really enjoying
collaborating with others
towards achieving a group
goal, and to help a team
achieve success.
17All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
SOCIABLE
The tendency to enjoy talking to others, participating in social events and exchanges, and be
outgoing.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefers less interaction, seems
quiet.
DESCRIPTION
Enjoys some interaction and is
as outgoing as most people.
DESCRIPTION
Enjoys speaking and driving
interactions.
TYPICAL ITEM
I try to avoid social events.
TYPICAL ITEM
I really enjoy situations where I
get to meet lots of new people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers prefer less social
interactions than most. In the
work place, they are likely to
interact with other people in a
professional, rather than
friendly, manner. They may feel
uncomfortable when interacting
with others and may be
reluctant to put forward their
own ideas. They may be more
reticent than many others
about social networking. Low
scorers may experience social
fatigue when they spend a great
deal of time interacting with
others.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are about as
sociable as most. They are
likely to enjoy some interaction
with others in the workplace
although not to an extent that
is likely to distract them from
work. They are expected to
come across as being about as
friendly and outgoing as most
other people. They may be
slightly uncomfortable
approaching new people or
groups, but should warm up as
they get to know people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers profile as being
highly sociable and come across
as being very outgoing. They
are expected to really enjoy
opportunities to interact with
other people at work and be
motivated by opportunities for
interaction. They are likely to
feel confident in most social
situations and are expected to
feel comfortable initiating
conversations with strangers or
speaking during meetings. High
scorers are expected to be
effective networkers. They may
feel lonely if they do not
receive a high level of social
interaction.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201518
SOCIALLY AWARE
The tendency to be interested in understanding the behaviour of others and have confidence in
one’s ability to adapt their actions to suit different situations or people.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Consistent style across
situations
DESCRIPTION
As interested in understanding
others’ behaviours as most, and
adapting one’s own to suit.
DESCRIPTION
Adapts behaviour to suit the
situation
TYPICAL ITEM
I never adapt the way I act to
suit a situation
TYPICAL ITEM
I am really good at
understanding how others are
feeling from their actions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers do not tend to
concern themselves with
understanding others
behaviour. When interacting
with others they are likely to
behave in a consistent manner,
rather than adapting their
behaviour to suit the situation
and the person they are
interacting with. They may find
it less preferable than most to
focus on picking up social cues
such as people’s body language
or tone of voice. They are
expected to have a tendency to
take things at face value rather
than considering the underlying
message.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are expected
to be moderately concerned
with understanding the
behaviour of other people.
When interacting with others
they are likely to adapt their
behaviour slightly to suit the
situation and the person they
are interacting with. Moderate
scorers are expected to
generally pick up on social cues
such as people’s body language
or tone of voice, and to adapt
their own behaviour most of
the time.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are highly
interested in understanding the
behaviour of others. When
interacting with people, they
are expected to readily change
their behaviour on the basis of
the situation and who they are
interacting with. There are
expected to consistently focus
on social cues such as people’s
body language or tone of voice,
and adapt their behaviour
accordingly. They tend to be
very confident in their ability to
understand why people behave
in the ways that they do.
19All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
TRUSTING
The tendency to believe that others will be honest and to trust the intentions of other people.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Sceptical – questions others’
intentions
DESCRIPTION
As trusting of others as most
people.
DESCRIPTION
Believes others are essentially
honest.
TYPICAL ITEM
I often worry that people are
not being honest with me.
TYPICAL ITEM
I place a lot of faith in the
honesty of others.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may be less
trusting than most people.
They may require other
people to prove that they are
trustworthy before they will
put trust in them. They may
take longer than most to trust
others. As a result of their
tendency to be cautious of
others they are unlikely to be
taken advantage of by other
people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be as trusting as most other
people. They are likely to
believe that the majority of
people are generally honest
and trustworthy, whilst also
being aware that people can
be dishonest. When someone
proves themselves to be
dishonest, they are expected
to be less likely to trust them
in the future. Moderate
scorers are expected to trust
that other people have good
intentions, unless they have
proved themselves to be
untrustworthy.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
more trusting than most other
people. They are likely to put
trust in other people more
quickly than most other
people do. They are likely to
believe that most people are
inherently good and that they
aren’t attempting to deceive
them. As a result of this highly
trusting nature, high scorers
may be at risk of being
deceived or taken for granted
by other people.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201520
ACCEPTING
The tendency to appreciate other people’s personal views, beliefs and lifestyles.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefers people similar to self.
DESCRIPTION
As open and appreciative of the
views, beliefs and lifestyles of
others as most.
DESCRIPTION
Appreciates and embraces
diversity.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don’t enjoy spending time
with people who are very
different from me.
TYPICAL ITEM
Every culture has good things
about it.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are not very open
to the views, beliefs and
lifestyles of other people. They
are likely to prefer to interact
with people who are similar to
themselves in terms of values
and background. They may find
it difficult to establish common
ground with people who are
quite different to themselves.
Low scorers are likely to hold
on to their personal beliefs
strongly and not be open to
considering a number of
different beliefs and ideas.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be similar to most in how open
they are to the views, beliefs
and lifestyles of other people.
Although they are expected to
get along best with those who
are quite similar to themselves,
they are likely to generally
enjoy interacting with people
with different ideas and
perspectives. Moderate scorers
are likely to be prefer to
establish common ground with
people who differ from
themselves. They are likely to
hold on to certain personal
beliefs reasonably strongly but
be open to considering a
number of different beliefs and
ideas.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are highly open to
and appreciative of the views,
beliefs and lifestyles of other
people. They are likely to really
enjoy interacting with people
from different backgrounds and
cultures. They are expected to
easily establish common ground
with people who are different
to themselves. High scorers are
expected to get along well with
those with different beliefs to
their own.
21All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
TEMPERAMENT
SELF-CONFIDENT
The tendency to be self-assured and to have a strong belief in one’s abilities and judgements.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Underestimates self and
capabilities
DESCRIPTION
As self-assured and confident
in their own abilities and
judgements as most other
people.
DESCRIPTION
Strongly believes in own
capabilities.
TYPICAL ITEM
I sometimes find it difficult to
overcome obstacles.
TYPICAL ITEM
I can complete most tasks
well.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may be very
humble or quick to highlight
their weaknesses when
evaluating challenges. They are
likely to prefer not to attempt
new things without clear
guidance or direction from
others and they may prefer a
few practices before being
required to try something new
on their own. Low scorers
may require substantial
encouragement to step
outside of their “comfort
zone”.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are
expected to approach new
things with a similar level of
self-confidence as that of their
peers. They may highlight their
inexperience with regard to
new challenges. However, they
are likely to be more self-
assured when faced with
situations that they have
previously experienced
success in or that they are
excited about. Moderate
scorers may require some
encouragement to step
outside of their “comfort
zone”.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are expected to
approach new things with
greater confidence than their
peers. They may come across
as being highly assured of their
abilities even when facing
novel challenges. They are
unlikely to experience self-
doubt and should not be put
off by the prospect of a new
challenge. High scorers are
expected to need little
encouragement to step
outside of their “comfort
zone”.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201522
COMPOSED
The tendency to remain calm and composed when dealing with stressful situations or negative
events.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
More affected by stress than
others.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most to remain
calm and composed when
faced with stressful situations
or negative events.
DESCRIPTION
Calm and relaxed in the face
of stress.
TYPICAL ITEM
I get flustered when I am
under pressure.
TYPICAL ITEM
I can stay calm under great
amounts of pressure.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are more inclined
than their peers to find it
difficult to maintain
composure during stressful
situations. They are expected
to openly demonstrate an
emotional response to
situations. Low scorers are
more likely than their peers to
be affected by the stressors in
their life and they may be
reluctant to persevere through
stressful situations.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers tend to find
it as challenging as most to
maintain composure during
difficult situations. They are
expected to maintain some
poise in stressful situations but
may look to others for
support. Moderate scorers are
as likely as their peers to be
affected by the stressors in
their life. They may attempt to
persevere through stressful
situations but may need
encouragement from others at
times.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
able to maintain composure
during difficult situations. They
are expected to conceal
emotion in response to
difficult situations. High
scorers are less likely than
most to be affected by the
stressors in their life and they
are likely to prefer to
persevere through stressful
situations.
23All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
ADAPTABLE
The tendency to be receptive to changes in routine, environments and processes.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Resist change – prefer routine.
DESCRIPTION
As flexible towards changes in
routine, environment and
processes as most.
DESCRIPTION
Embraces change, adapts
quickly.
TYPICAL ITEM
I dislike having to change my
routine.
TYPICAL ITEM
When things change in my life it
helps me grow as a person.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are likely to be
inflexible to changes in their life
and are likely to crave
consistency. They are expected
to be reluctant to accept
imposed changes in their work
environment. Low scorers are
more likely than most of their
peers to highlight the reasons
against change and they are
unlikely to initiate change in the
workplace.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be open to changes in life but
may prefer that these are well
justified. They are expected to
accept imposed changes in their
work environment. Moderate
scorers are as likely as their
peers to see the potential
problems with change but
should be able to see past these
and not impede improvements.
They may occasionally initiate
change in the workplace.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are expected to
readily accept imposed changes
in their work environment.
High scorers are less likely than
their peers to see the potential
problems with change and are
more inclined to highlight the
positives that will arise. They
may frequently initiate change
in the workplace.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201524
OPTIMISTIC
The tendency to express positive statements and experience events positively.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Tend to be critical and to focus
on the negatives.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as their peers to
express positive statements and
experience events positively.
DESCRIPTION
Have a positive outlook and
focus on the upside.
TYPICAL ITEM
I tend to focus on the negative
things in my life.
TYPICAL ITEM
I always seek out positive things
in my life.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are likely to be
less optimistic than most of
their peers. They may have a
tendency to be cautious about
the future. Low scorers are
expected to be excellent at
identifying the potential risks in
situations, but may be less
effective at pointing out the
potential benefits. They may be
less inclined to express a
positive outlook than most
other people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be about as optimistic as most
of their peers. They are likely
to take a balanced approach
between unflagging optimism
and being overly cautious about
situations. Moderate scorers
are likely to consider both the
negatives and positives of
situations and they are likely to
be fairly pragmatic in their
evaluations of the future. They
are expected to come across as
being about as positive and
enthusiastic as most other
people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
significantly more optimistic
than most of their peers. They
are expected to be very
positive about the future and
are expected to highlight the
potential benefits of any
situation, potentially at the
expense of considering the
potential risks. High scorers are
likely to come across as being
really positive and enthusiastic,
a tendency that is likely to help
boost the morale of those they
work with.
25All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
THINKING
DATA DRIVEN
The tendency to employ empirical analysis when making decisions and look to numerical data to
inform them of the best option.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Dislike utilising numbers and
statistics.
DESCRIPTION
About as likely as most other
people to employ empirical
analysis and utilise numerical
information when making
decisions.
DESCRIPTION
Prefer to solve problems using
metrics.
TYPICAL ITEM
You can still make good
decisions without analysing all
the facts first.
TYPICAL ITEM
I put a great deal of emphasis
on the hard data when making
decisions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are less interested
than most other people in
working with numbers and
figures. They are not expected
to feel comfortable or enjoy
using empirical information to
solve problems. Low scorers
may have a tendency to avoid
situations where they would be
expected to work with facts
and figures. They may struggle
to make effective decisions due
to their reluctance to consider
using empirical information.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be similar to most other people
in terms of how much they
enjoy working with numbers
and figures. They are expected
to generally be comfortable
dealing with empirical data in
the workplace. Moderate
scorers are not expected to
avoid situations where they
would be expected to work
with facts and figures and they
are unlikely to be concerned if
required to solve problems
using numerical information as
part of their role.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
highly interested in working
with numbers. They are
expected to really enjoy using
empirical information to solve
problems. High scorers are
likely to prefer to make
decisions based on factual data
including numerical information.
They may struggle to make
effective decisions if they do
not have access to empirical
information.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201526
INTUITIVE
The tendency to employ one’s intuition when making decisions.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Need facts and data to be
convinced.
DESCRIPTION
About as likely as their peers to
utilise intuition when making
decisions.
DESCRIPTION
Trust gut instinct and
experience.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don’t trust my instincts when
making decisions.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am a very intuitive person.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are less inclined
than most other people to use
personal intuition when making
decisions. They are not
expected to trust in their “gut
feelings”, instead preferring to
rely on tangible information.
Low scorers are likely to work
through problems in a careful,
systematic manner. They may
have a tendency to hold
subjective information in low
esteem when making decisions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Similar to most others,
moderate scorers are likely to
take intuition into account
some of the time when making
decisions. They are expected to
utilise a balance of intuition and
other factors when solving
problems. During the decision-
making process, moderate
scorers are likely to take “gut
feelings” into account, but are
expected to also consider the
relevant facts and figures.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to
strongly trust in their personal
insight and intuition. They are
expected to utilise their
intuition and instinct when
making decisions. High scorers
may have a tendency to think
that empirical data doesn’t hold
all the answers by itself, when
solving problems, and that
personal insight plays a part
too.
27All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
LEARNING FOCUSED
The tendency to be motivated by learning new things, and belief in one’s ability to learn quickly.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Satisfied with current
knowledge.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most to enjoy
learning new skills and ideas.
DESCRIPTION
Driven to develop skills and
knowledge.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am not an intellectually
curious person.
TYPICAL ITEM
I have a strong desire for
knowledge.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are likely to be
less motivated than most to
learn new information related
to their job and/or skills, and
are unlikely to spend time
learning new information in the
workplace. They are likely to
prefer roles that don’t involve
continually developing
knowledge or staying up to
date with industry trends and
developments. Low scorers are
not likely to place much
importance on being
knowledgeable about new
trends.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are about as
motivated as most of their
peers to learn new information
and/or skills related to their
job. They are likely to enjoy
learning new things in the
workplace, particularly relating
to areas that they are most
interested in. Although they are
not expected to regularly seek
out new information to add to
their knowledge, they are likely
to be open to learning new
information some of the time.
May dedicate some of their free
time to learning in areas that
they find interesting.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
more motivated than most of
their peers to learn new job-
related information and/or
skills. They may tend to seek
out jobs that involve continually
developing their knowledge and
learning new things. High
scorers are likely to dedicate
time and energy into keeping
up to date with industry trends
and developments. They are
likely to place a great deal of
importance on being
knowledgeable in their area of
work.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201528
ANALYTICAL
The tendency to critically evaluate information or decisions to assess both the strengths and
limitations of arguments or decisions.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Accept data at face value.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most other people
to critically evaluate
information.
DESCRIPTION
Evaluate information critically.
TYPICAL ITEM
I usually accept what people tell
me as the truth.
TYPICAL ITEM
I often critically analyse
information before I believe it.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
not to rely on doing a critical
analysis when making decisions.
As they are not expected to
spend much time probing data,
they are unlikely to hold up the
decision making process.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
have a similar level of interest
in critically evaluating
information as the majority of
their peer group. They are
likely to accept data at face
value when pressed for time,
but given sufficient time and
resources, may dedicate more
time into investigating the
underlying factors. Moderate
scorers are expected to utilise
a balance of surmise and careful
analysis when making decisions
or solving problems. They are
likely to dedicate an
appropriate amount of time to
analysing data, given the time.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are significantly
more likely than most others to
enjoy evaluating arguments or
decisions. They are likely to
analyse issues with care and
take the time to investigate the
underlying factors. High scorers
are expected to take a highly
critical perspective when
making decisions and are likely
to be excellent at highlighting
potential sources of risk when
planning. In less contentious
situations, their highly analytical
approach may mean that they
hinder agile decision making.
29All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
STRATEGIC
The tendency to be focused on the long term outcome of decisions.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Short-term, immediate focus.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most to take a long-
term, strategic approach.
DESCRIPTION
Focus on big picture, long-term
impact.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am less interested in
developing strategies than
others.
TYPICAL ITEM
Developing long-term strategies
is enjoyable.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers tend to take a
shorter-term perspective than
most other people, and are
likely to be less concerned with
planning for the future. They
are more likely to be most
interested in maximising short-
term outcomes rather than
long-term outcomes; and they
may relinquish long-term
outcomes to maximise
immediate pay-offs.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are expected
to be about as concerned with
long-term outcomes as most
other people. They are likely to
balance maximising short-term
outcomes and long-term
outcomes as much as possible.
In contentious situations,
moderate scorers may be more
concerned with the short-term
implications of their decisions.
They are likely to put as much
effort into preparing for future
events as most people.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers tend to take a
longer-term and wider bird’s-
eye perspective than most
other people. They are likely to
be most interested in
maximising long-term
outcomes, and dedicate more
time than most others to
planning for future events. High
scorers may have a tendency to
relinquish immediate pay-offs to
maximise long-term outcomes.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201530
THEORETICAL
The tendency to enjoy working with abstract theoretical concepts over more practical and concrete
issues.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefer dealing with tangible
issues.
DESCRIPTION
Enjoy working with abstract
and theoretical concepts about
as much as most other people.
DESCRIPTION
Enjoy applying abstract
concepts.
TYPICAL ITEM
I like working with real-world
things rather than thinking
about theories.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am interested in the theory
behind why things happen.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are expected to
be less interested than most
others in working with abstract
ideas. They prefer to work
using practical ideas and
tangible things rather than
dealing in the intangible. Low
scorers may prefer to avoid
intellectual debates about
abstract concepts, in
preference to taking a
practical, matter-of-fact
approach.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be similar to most others in
terms of how much they enjoy
working with theoretical
information. They are expected
to generally be comfortable
dealing with theoretical
information in the workplace,
and may occasionally generate
or apply theories to explain
information. But at other times
moderate scorers may be less
interested in doing so. They are
expected to prefer taking a
theoretical approach as much
as a practical approach,
depending on what is most
relevant for the circumstance.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to really
enjoy working with abstract
theoretical concepts. They are
expected to be motivated by
opportunities where they are
required to learn about the
underlying principles and
theories in a given subject area.
High scorers are likely to be
intellectually curious, and are
expected to really enjoy
generating and applying
theories to explain phenomena,
as well as building on others’
theories.
31All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
INNOVATIVE
The tendency to enjoy generating new and innovative approaches to solving problems.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefer existing, proven
solutions.
DESCRIPTION
Enjoy generating new and
innovative approaches to
solving problems as much as
most other people.
DESCRIPTION
Seeks new and creative
solutions.
TYPICAL ITEM
I tend to rely on other people’s
solutions rather than create my
own.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am good at coming up with
lots of ways to solve a problem.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are expected to
view themselves as less creative
than most other people. They
are likely to prefer to stick with
tried-and-tested ways of doing
things rather than generating
new methods. They do not
expect themselves to come up
with many new or innovative
ideas in the workplace. Low
scorers may require more
evidence of misfit between
existing solutions and
requirements before they think
about an innovative approach.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are expected
to be about as creative as most
other people. They are likely to
suggest some innovative ideas
for change in the workplace,
particularly in areas in which
they are most interested. The
ideas that moderate scorers
generate are likely to be
balanced between being highly
innovative and being practical
and potentially implementable.
They are likely to consider
existing solutions before
suggesting innovative or
untested options.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are expected to
view themselves as being
significantly more creative than
most other people. They are
likely to really enjoy coming up
with new, innovative ideas and
approaches for getting things
done and are expected to
generate a number of ideas in
the workplace. High scorers
are likely to favour creating
new approaches to solving
problems, sometimes at the
expense of proven, existing
solutions.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201532
EXECUTION
COMPLIANT
The tendency to follow rules and guidelines.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Challenges rules, poses
alternatives.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most other people
to enjoy following rules and
guidelines.
DESCRIPTION
Follows rules, guidelines and
consensus.
TYPICAL ITEM
I prefer to do work my own
way rather than follow
standard procedures.
TYPICAL ITEM
Rules make work better.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may be less likely
than other people to follow
rules closely. They may have a
tendency to challenge the
value and importance of
existing rules and regulations,
and are likely to look for
alternative methods of getting
things done rather than
following existing guidelines.
They are expected to prefer
to work without strict
guidelines.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are
expected to follow rules and
guidelines to a similar degree
to most of their peers. While
they are expected to generally
be accepting of most rules,
they may sometimes challenge
the value and importance of
regulations that seem to be
unnecessarily restrictive. They
are likely to consistently
follow the rules that they
consider to be the most
important. Moderate scorers
are not expected to be
concerned with working to
guidelines.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to
enjoy following rules and
guidelines more than most
other people, and very unlikely
to challenge the value of
existing rules and regulations.
They are expected to follow
rules and regulations closely,
and to take care to ensure
that they are up-to-date on all
details of regulations. They are
expected to prefer to work
with guidelines in place to
guide their behaviour.
33All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
RISK TOLERANT
The tendency to be comfortable with taking calculated risks.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Cautious – seek safety and
certainty.
DESCRIPTION
As comfortable as most others
when taking calculated risks.
DESCRIPTION
Takes risks – at ease with
uncertainty.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don’t like taking risks.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don’t mind taking risks if
there is a possible benefit.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers tend to be less
comfortable than most other
people with taking calculated
risks in the workplace, and are
likely to back the option
involving the least uncertainty.
They may be unwilling to take
risks, even when the expected
payoff is likely to be high. They
are expected to support the
least risky option when
planning.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be about as comfortable as
most other people with taking
calculated risks in the
workplace. They are likely to
weigh up the pros and cons of
their decisions, and are
expected to be willing to take
small to moderate risks when
they expect the benefits to
outweigh the potential costs.
They are expected to be
moderately comfortable with
some uncertainty in their
decisions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers tend to be
significantly more comfortable
than most other people with
taking calculated risks in the
workplace. They are likely to
enjoy taking the risky decision
options, and are expected to
take risks readily, even when
the expected pay-off is not
likely to be especially great.
They are likely to feel
comfortable with uncertainty
in their decisions.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201534
WORK FOCUSED
The tendency to be engaged with work, to focus on work tasks and not be distracted from work.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Do not get engrossed in work
tasks.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most other people
to be focused on their tasks.
DESCRIPTION
Highly engaged in work tasks.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don’t usually find my work
very engaging.
TYPICAL ITEM
Nothing can distract me from
my work.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may be less
focused on their work than
many other people. They may
have a tendency to get
distracted from tasks, and may
work best when their
performance is being
monitored. They are expected
to get less engrossed in their
work than most other people
do, particularly when tasks are
mundane or repetitive.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be as focused on work as most
people. They may have a
tendency to get distracted
when completing mundane or
routine tasks, but should
generally be prefer to keep on
track, even with minimal
supervision. Moderate scorers
are likely to get engrossed
when working on tasks relating
to areas that they are most
interested in.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers tend to be more
focused on their work than
most other people. They are
likely to become highly
engrossed in work tasks and
not be easily distracted from
tasks. High scorers are likely to
work well without supervision,
even on mundane tasks, but
they may find it difficult to stop
working and take a break.
35All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
METICULOUS
The tendency to be interested in the details of problems and tasks, enjoy focusing on minute details
and be meticulous.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Holistic approach, avoids
details.
DESCRIPTION
As interested in working with
details as most other people.
DESCRIPTION
Methodical, organised and
detail-focused.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don’t like doing work which
requires me to keep track of
lots of small details.
TYPICAL ITEM
I like everything to be perfect.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are expected to
generally take a bigger picture
approach rather than being
interested in working with the
finer details of a task. They may
be more likely than other
people to overlook details and
may miss errors in their work.
Low scorers may not be
engaged by tasks that require
them to focus on minute
details, and may prefer to
delegate detail-focused tasks.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be similar to most other people
in terms of their detail-focus.
They are expected to balance a
bigger-picture approach with a
detail-oriented approach.
Moderate scorers are likely to
be enjoy working at a fairly high
level of attention to detail,
particularly when directed to
do so. They are expected to
focus on completing work with
few errors the majority of the
time.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are expected to
enjoy working with the finer
details of tasks, and are likely to
be better than most other at
working with details. They are
likely to produce high-quality
work with few errors, even if
this takes slightly longer than
other people to complete tasks,
as they are ensuring that they
do an excellent job.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201536
RELIABLE
The tendency to follow through with agreed actions, be reliable and dependable.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Treats deadlines and promises
as flexible.
DESCRIPTION
Follow through with agreed
actions and can be depended
on to the same extent as most
other people.
DESCRIPTION
Makes fulfilling promises a
priority.
TYPICAL ITEM
It doesn’t bother me if I let
people down.
TYPICAL ITEM
When I say that I will do
something I always follow
through.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are expected to
view themselves as being less
reliable than most of their
peers. They are likely to view
promises and deadlines as being
flexible, and may be more
relaxed than many other people
about following through on
agreed actions. Low scorers
may sometimes find it difficult
to fulfil all of their
commitments, and may require
a higher degree of
accountability in order to
ensure that they deliver on
their commitments.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are expected
to be similar to most other
people in terms of their
reliability levels. They are
expected to generally follow
through on promises, although
when their schedule is
especially busy, they may not
deliver. Moderate scorers
consider it fairly important to
meet deadlines and are likely to
deliver work as promised the
majority of the time.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are expected to
view themselves as being more
reliable than most of their
peers. They are likely to place a
high level of importance on
fulfilling promises, and are
expected to put in additional
effort to ensure that they
consistently meet deadlines.
High scorers are unlikely to
make promises that they do not
feel that they will be able to
complete.
37All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
DRIVE
ENERGETIC
The tendency to be self-assured and to have a strong belief in one’s abilities and judgments.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Prefers a relaxed, unpressured
pace.
DESCRIPTION
About as energetic as most
other people
DESCRIPTION
Thrive on a fast pace and full
workload.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am not an energetic person.
TYPICAL ITEM
I enjoy a fast paced life.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may be less
energetic than most other
people. They are expected to
be most comfortable working
at a reasonably slow and steady
pace. Low scorers are likely to
enjoy a relaxed work
environment where they are
not expected to rush to
complete tasks. They may be
slower at completing tasks than
their peers.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be about as energetic as most
other people. They are
expected to be comfortable
working at most paces of work,
and are likely to adjust the
amount of energy they expend
on the basis of what is required
of them. Moderate scorers are
likely to be okay with working
on high pressure tasks some of
the time, but are likely to be
most content working at a
moderate pace. They are
expected to complete tasks
with a reasonable degree of
energy.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
significantly more energetic
than most other people. They
are likely to thrive when
working at a fast pace. High
scorers are expected to really
enjoy completing tasks that are
urgent and working towards
tight deadlines. They may have
a tendency to become bored
when things are less busy in the
workplace and they are likely
to present as a high-energy
individual.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201538
COMPETITIVE
The tendency to enjoy competing with others, having one’s performance compared to that of others
and striving to outperform peers.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Avoid comparison with others.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most others to
enjoy competing and winning.
DESCRIPTION
Likes to compete, loves to win.
TYPICAL ITEM
Competing with other people
makes me feel uncomfortable.
TYPICAL ITEM
I get a thrill from competing
with others.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are likely to be
less competitive than most
other people. They are likely to
prefer to work in collaboration
with other people, rather than
in competition with them. Low
scorers may feel uncomfortable
when required to compare
their performance against the
performance of others. They
are not expected to try and
outdo the others’
achievements.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be about as competitive as
most other people. They are
expected to be comfortable
competing against others or
working in collaboration with
them, depending on what is
required. Moderate scorers
may sometimes wish to
compare their performance
against the performance of
others especially in areas that
they feel are their strengths.
Similarly, they are likely to
occasionally attempt to outdo
the performance of other
people in areas that they are
most passionate about.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
significantly more competitive
than most other people. They
are expected to really enjoy
competing against other people
and find competitions highly
exciting. High scorers are
expected to consistently
compare their performance
against the performance of
others. Similarly, they are likely
to attempt to outperform
other people in the workplace.
39All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
DRIVEN
The tendency to strive to achieve goals and persist in the face of obstacles.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Sets modest goals for self.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most other people
to strive to achieve goals and
persist in the face of obstacles.
DESCRIPTION
Highly motivated to achieve.
TYPICAL ITEM
If a goal is too difficult I
sometimes just give up.
TYPICAL ITEM
I have a relentless drive to
achieve goals.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are not especially
driven to achieve goals. When
setting goals for themselves,
they are likely to set modest
goals that they feel they can
achieve without too much
difficulty. Low scorers may
benefit from encouragement to
really push themselves to get
the most out of them. They
may seek out support when
faced with obstacles in the
workplace.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are likely to
be about as driven as most
other people. They are
expected to set reasonably
challenging goals for
themselves. Although moderate
scorers are expected to push
themselves reasonably hard in
the workplace, they may still
benefit from encouragement to
really challenge themselves
some of the time. They should
prefer to face most workplace
obstacles without requiring
additional support.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to be
highly driven to achieve success
in the workplace. When setting
goals for themselves, they are
likely to set challenging ones
and to strive to achieve them.
High scorers are unlikely to
require encouragement to push
themselves harder. Instead, the
concern may be that they are in
danger of burnout or
overworking themselves. They
are expected to be prefer to
face workplace obstacles
without requiring additional
support.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201540
DECISIVE
The tendency to make decisions quickly and with conviction.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Uncertain decisions, seek
guidance.
DESCRIPTION
About as comfortable making
quick decisions as most other
people.
DESCRIPTION
Make decisions quickly and with
confidence.
TYPICAL ITEM
Sometimes I doubt my
decisions.
TYPICAL ITEM
I am a very good decision
maker.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
and form opinions. They may
prefer to leave important
decisions to other people, and
may have less confidence than
most in their ability to make
good decisions. The opinions
that low scorers hold are likely
to be fairly malleable.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are expected
to take about as long as most
people to make decisions. They
should generally feel
comfortable making decisions in
the workplace, although they
may seek guidance when
making especially important
decisions. Generally, moderate
scorers are likely to be fairly
confident in their ability to
make good decisions. They are
likely to be prefer to form
opinions reasonably quickly,
and these should be moderately
malleable.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to make
decisions and form opinions at
a significantly faster pace than
most other people. They are
likely to be highly confident in
the decisions that they make,
and are expected to feel
comfortable making important
decisions on their own. High
scorers are also likely to have
an almost unwavering
conviction for their
perspectives.
41All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
SELF PRESENTATION
RECEPTIVE
The tendency to seek out and be open to feedback from others.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Lower tendency to seek out
feedback or discuss their
developmental needs.
DESCRIPTION
As likely as most other people
to respond positively to
feedback and critiques.
DESCRIPTION
Highly motivated to listen to
and respond positively to
feedback and critiques.
TYPICAL ITEM
If people know about my
weaknesses they might think
less of me.
TYPICAL ITEM
I like it when other people give
me development suggestions.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers may be
significantly less interested than
their peers in discussing their
developmental needs.
They are likely to avoid having
others critique their
approaches to dealing with
situations and people.
They may respond defensively
to feedback on their
performance, such as by quickly
providing excuses and
explanations.
They may be unlikely to realise
the developmental potential
afforded by feedback
opportunities, viewing these as
personal rather than a source
of helpful information.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are as likely
as most of their peers to
discuss their developmental
needs, and may sometimes
encourage others to offer
constructive criticism or
feedback regarding their
approach at work.
Moderate scorers will likely
respond positively towards
feedback on their performance,
provided it is presented in a
constructive way.
They are likely to recognise the
developmental value of
feedback, particularly when it
pertains to aspects of their
performance which they are
interested in improving.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to enjoy
hearing other people’s appraisal
and to be very open to
criticism.
Profiling as being highly
interested in self-improvement,
high scorers are likely to be
very receptive to feedback and
developmental suggestions.
They will usually seek out
feedback on their performance,
to frequently ask for more
information, and are very likely
to realise the developmental
potential afforded by feedback
opportunities.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201542
SELF-AWARE
The tendency to understand one’s own strengths and weaknesses, and to consider the influence of
their own values, perspectives and motivations on their actions.
LOW SCORERS MODERATE SCORERS HIGH SCORERS
DESCRIPTION
Less likely to understand their
own strengths and weaknesses.
DESCRIPTION
Moderately open to
understanding their own
strengths and weaknesses.
DESCRIPTION
A strong awareness of their
strengths and limitations.
TYPICAL ITEM
I don't like to admit that I have
flaws.
TYPICAL ITEM
Everyone has ways in which
they could improve.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Low scorers are less likely to
admit their strengths and
limitations, than most other
people.
They may not have a strong
understanding of their values,
motivations and perspectives,
or to consider how these may
impact upon their actions and
choices.
They may not be aware of the
majority of their strengths and
weaknesses, although they may
be less likely to disclose
negative traits when they wish
to impress.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
Moderate scorers are expected
to have a reasonable level of
awareness concerning their
strengths and limitations.
They should have a moderate
understanding of their values,
motivations and perspectives,
and to consider how these may
influence their actions and
choices.
They are likely to be aware of
the majority of their strengths
and weaknesses, although they
may be less likely to disclose
negative traits when they wish
to impress.
TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR
High scorers are likely to have
a very keen awareness of their
strengths and limitations.
They are likely to possess a
strong understanding of their
values, motivations and
perspectives, and to consider
how these might shape their
actions and choices.
They are expected to
understand and be open about
their weaknesses and
limitations.
2.3 Response Style Indicators
RECEPTIVE
The Receptive scale reflects the degree to which test takers seek out and are open are receptive to
feedback. Low scorers on this scale may tend to resist developmental suggestions, avoid seeking
input on their approach to situations and may be more defensive when faced with feedback on their
performance or criticism. Low scorers may also be more likely to distort their responses in a
defensive manner than high scorers.
High scoring individuals are likely to seek out feedback on their performance, be receptive to
development suggestions and encourage others to criticise their approach to situations.
43All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
SELF-AWARE
The Self-Aware scale assesses the degree to which test takers are aware of their own strengths and
limitations, and to consider the influence of their values, perspectives and motivations on their
actions. Low scorers on this scale are more likely to have a limited understanding of their own
strengths and limitations, while being less likely to consider how their actions might be influenced by
their values, drivers and viewpoints. Therefore, their responses may be unintentionally distorted and
may not accurately reflect the respondent’s true nature.
This is the tendency to be aware of one’s own strengths and limitations. High scoring individuals are
likely to maintain an accurate understanding of their own strengths and limitations while actively
considering how their actions might be influenced by their values, motivations and perspective. Low
scoring individuals are likely to be less aware of their own strengths and limitations.
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PATH PERSONALITY
QUESTIONNAIRE AND OTHER LEADING PERSONALITY
ASSESSMENTS
In developing their personality assessment, Talegent included coverage of existing personality
constructs from literature, while also developing scales that weren’t covered by other personality
scale that could be beneficial for organisations. The purpose of the questionnaire was to ensure
coverage of the constructs and to ensure that gaps didn’t occur. For a comparison of the PATH
personality questionnaire to other commercially available personality questionnaires please see Table
3.
Table 3
Comparison of the Talegent PATH Personality Assessment Against Other Comparative Personality
Assessments
Talegent PATH Saville Wave OPQ GPI
Interpersonal
Influential Convincing Persuasive, Outspoken Influence
Directing Directing, Challenging Controlling Taking charge
Motivating Empowering
Amiable Outgoing
Empathetic Attentive Empathy
Collaborative Involving Affiliative, Democratic Consideration,
Interdependence
Sociable Interactive Socially Confident Sociability
Socially Aware Behavioural, Adaptable Social Astuteness
Trusting Trusting Trust
Accepting Accepting Caring Openness
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201544
Talegent PATH Saville Wave OPQ GPI
Engaging, Articulate Modest (-ve),
Independent Minded
Debilitating Leadership
Temperament
Self-Confident
Self-assured Self confidence
Adaptable Change Oriented,
Receptive
Adaptable, Variety
Seeking
Adaptability
Composed Composed Relaxed, Worrying (-
ve), Emotionally
Controlled
Emotional Control,
Stress Tolerance
Optimistic Positive
Optimistic
Negative Affectivity (-
ve), Optimism
Resolving, Dynamic
Tough Minded
Initiative
Thinking
Data Driven
Factual Data Rational
Intuitive
Rational Data Rational
Analytical
Analytical Evaluative Thought Focus
Strategic
Strategic Forward Planning Vision
Theoretical Abstract
Practically Minded (-ve)
Conceptual
Innovative
Insightful, Inventive Innovative Innovativeness,
Creativity
Learning Focused
Learning Oriented Thought Agility
Execution
Compliant Conforming Conventional, Rule
Following
Dutifulness
Risk Tolerant
Risk Taking
45All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Talegent PATH Saville Wave OPQ GPI
Work Focused
Work Focus
Meticulous
Meticulous, Organised Detail Conscious Attention to Detail
Reliable Reliable
Conscientious Responsibility
Principled
Drive
Energetic
Activity Oriented Vigorous Energy Level
Competitive
Enterprising Competitive Competitiveness
Driven
Striving Achieving Desire for
Achievement
Decisive
Purposeful Decisive Independence
Self Presentation
Receptive
Accepting Adaptable
Self-Aware
Self-Promoting (-ve) Impressing
2.4 Talegent Competency Model
INTRODUCTION
The Talegent competency model underlies all of Talegent’s industry specific assessments. The model
informs the output reports of the assessments, providing a logical, practical, and consistent approach
to describing candidates’ results and effectively summarising the types of behaviours candidates are
likely to display in the workplace. To do this, each competency is made up of specifically selected
scales from the PATH personality questionnaire that have been grouped together in a meaningful way
to translate candidates’ results into a series of more meaningful and relevant statements. For
example, an individual’s scores on the PATH personality scales of Compliant, Reliable and Meticulous
can be grouped together to give an overall picture of their Adherence, one of the PATH
competencies. In doing so, the PATH Competency Framework can offer an advantageous indication
of whether an individual is likely to succeed in a particular role. The PATH competency model
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201546
comprehensively covers a wide range of job relevant competencies including those from Talegent’s
previous models, models previously developed for organisations, and other existing models.
INTRODUCTION TO COMPETENCIES
It is generally accepted that competencies are reflected in observable behaviours (Leigh et al, 2007)
which, when measured with tools such as the PATH personality questionnaire, can distinguish
between high and low performers in the workplace (Rodriguez, Patel, Bright, Gregory &Gowing,
2002).
Competencies relate to how a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and abilities, along with personal
attributes and tendencies, are used in role performance and how they are broadly applied in the
context of a particular set of job requirements (Figure 1).
In contrast, knowledge, skills, and abilities are generally specific learned capabilities that are acquired
through practice or training and relate to carrying out a task well.
Figure 1 Competency make-up
Talegent describes competencies as underlying measurable characteristics of an individual that are
evident in observable behaviours and actions, which in turn drive successful performance in the
workplace.
The Talegent PATH competency model comprises a comprehensive collection of 25 competencies,
grouped into 5 clusters (Table 4). It is an integrative model that can be applied across all levels and
areas of any organisation and all aspects of measurement in the employee lifecycle.The competency
47All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
model brings together particular knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are well known to relate to
individual performance and organisational success, and translates them into competencies which are
clearly relevant and meaningful for organisations. Use of the model allows senior management to
openly communicate which organisational behaviours are important, and can be used to link work
behaviours to the strategic directions and goals of the business.
Table 4
Overview of Talegent’s Competency Model
Leading Relating Solving Organisation Being
Supervision Interpersonal
Sensitivity
Critical Thinking Implementation Resilience
Command Skills Teamwork Numerically
Minded
Adherence Flexibility
Negotiation Customer Focus Business Acumen Achievement Self-Insight
Strategic Agility Building
Relationships
Judgement Mental Power
Communication Ingenuity Sales Focus
Competencies are helpful because they allow senior management to openly communicate which
behaviours are important, they help to differentiate the performance of individuals, they can be used
to link behaviours to the strategic directions and goals of the business, and they can provide an
integrative model that is relevant across many positions and situations.
There are a number of benefits and applications for using the Talegent PATH Competency model.
The model:
1. Is cost and time effective
2. Produces a more consistent and high quality product for organisations.
3. Can be easily and effectively tailored to provide bespoke competency models for
organisations with specific briefs, such as for particular job families, levels, and industries.
4. Is useful for all aspects of the employee lifecycle including selection, self- development,
professional development, performance appraisals, and succession planning processes.
5. Can help HR professionals to summarise a range of useful leadership behaviours which can
then be used in selecting or developing new leaders.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201548
2.5 Competency Descriptions
The scales of the PATH Personality Questionnaire feed into 25 competencies to form Talegent’s
Competency Model. The competencies are defined in Table 5
Table 5
Competency Definitions for Talegent’s Competency Model
Cluster Competency Competency Descriptors
LEADING Supervision
PATH Scales:
Influential
Motivating
Self-Confident
Provides guidance, development opportunities
and feedback to direct reports. Manages conflicts
within the team quickly and efficiently.
Command Skills
PATH Scales:
Directing
Motivating
Driven
Trusting
Is confident in giving direction and willing to
accept responsibility for the decisions and actions
of the team. Drives action and progress through
motivating team members and delegating
appropriately.
Negotiation
PATH Scales:
Influential
Sociable
Self-Confident
Is effective in influencing the thoughts and actions
of others. Successfully negotiates and persuades
others to align with their goals.
Strategic Agility
PATH Scales:
Logical Reasoning
Strategic
Meticulous (-ve)
Risk Tolerant
Innovative
Takes a big-picture, long-term view when
planning and anticipating potential impacts on the
business. Weighs up options and implications,
identifies strategies and plans, and is comfortable
with managed risk.
RELATING Interpersonal Sensitivity
PATH Scales:
Accepting
Empathetic
Socially Aware
Is sensitive to the needs and emotions of others.
Practices perceptive listening, understands non-
verbal cues and responds appropriately.
49All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Cluster Competency Competency Descriptors
Teamwork
PATH Scales:
Collaborative
Competitive (-ve)
Accepting
Empathetic
Reliable
Supports and collaborates with team members to
achieve targets. Appreciates the benefits of
diversity and works well with a variety of people.
Customer Focus
PATH Scales:
Reliable
Accepting
Socially Aware
Driven
Amiable
Empathetic
Is motivated by exceeding customer expectations
and fulfilling obligations to others. Interacts with
customers in a friendly, considerate manner,
responding to social cues appropriately. Treats all
customers equally.
Emotional Intelligence
PATH Scales:
Self-Aware
Receptive
Socially Aware
Empathetic
Composed
Adaptable
Collaborative
Accepting
Influential
Motivating
Perceives and manages emotions in self and
others. Relates well to others, and has strong
interpersonal skills.
Building Relationships
PATH Scales:
Sociable
Amiable
Accepting
Socially Aware
Trusting
Initiates and maintains relationships with
colleagues, is socially confident and quick to build
rapport. Tends to create a positive first
impression and affiliate well with individuals at all
levels, both internal and external to the
organisation.
Communication
PATH Scales:
Verbal Reasoning
Influential
Socially Aware
Self-Confident
Communicates in a clear, confident and articulate
manner. Is effective at influencing others to see
things a given way. Adapts communication style
to be appropriate to the audience or group they
are presenting to.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201550
Cluster Competency Competency Descriptors
SOLVING Critical Thinking
PATH Scales:
Logical Reasoning
Analytical
Data Driven
Critically analyses and evaluates information in a
logical way when solving complex problems.
Breaks down problems into smaller components
and seeks to identify underlying causes.
Numerically Minded
PATH Scales:
Numerical Reasoning
Analytical
Data Driven
Is comfortable with interpreting numerical
information and using this to aid in problem
solving. Has a preference for using numbers and
hard data when solving problems.
Business Acumen
PATH Scales:
Verbal Reasoning
Numerical Reasoning
Logical Reasoning
Analytical
Strategic
Learning Focused
Risk Tolerant
Adaptable
Understands the wider business context and
seeks to maximise returns in a business
environment. Is future-orientated and strategic,
and seeks areas for business improvement.
Judgement
PATH Scales:
Logical Reasoning
Data Driven
Decisive
Intuitive
Risk Tolerant
Is confident making judgements based on the
information available, even if it is not complete,
or the situation is ambiguous.
Ingenuity
PATH Scales:
Strategic
Innovative
Learning Focused
Risk Tolerant
Generates and implements new and innovative
solutions, ideas, and approaches to problems. Is
strategically minded, future-orientated and
anticipates issues before they arise. Takes a broad
perspective and is open to taking calculated risks.
51All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Cluster Competency Competency Descriptors
DOING Organisation
PATH Scales:
Driven
Analytical
Meticulous
Reliable
Strategic
Is organised and tends to take a structured
approach to tasks/ goals. Plans effectively and
manages resources and execution appropriately
to ensure projects are delivered on time.
Implementation
PATH Scales:
Work Focused
Reliable
Meticulous
Compliant
Is reliable, detail-focused and meticulous. Follows
through on plans to ensure they are carried out
accordingly.
Adherence
PATH Scales:
Compliant
Reliable
Meticulous
Adaptable (-ve)
Values rules, guidelines and set procedures, and
adheres to these closely. Consistently follows
through with deliverables in a timely manner.
Achievement
PATH Scales:
Driven
Competitive
Energetic
Work Focused
Demonstrates a strong focus on high
performance standards and personal
achievement. Sets self-stretch goals and works
persistently to achieve them. Displays high work
focus, high levels of energy, and goes above and
beyond to exceed expectations. Is ambitious and
constantly seeks to advance their career.
Mental Power
PATH Scales:
Logical Reasoning
Learning Focused
Theoretical
Analytical
Has a desire to learn more and is able to learn
new information and skills quickly. Is able to apply
learnt information to new problems. Quick to
pick up technical concepts.
Sales Focus
PATH Scales:
Driven
Energetic
Self-Confident
Sociable
Influential
Is persuasive, energetic, and engaging while
guiding customers toward sales. Puts effort into
meeting and exceeding sales targets and is
motivated, not daunted by challenging goals.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201552
Cluster Competency Competency Descriptors
BEING Resilience
PATH Scales:
Driven
Self-Confident
Optimistic
Adaptable
Composed
Remains calm, composed, and optimistic in
stressful or high pressure situations. Perseveres in
the face of obstacles or setbacks and carries on
with the task at hand. Strong drive to finish tasks,
will actively seek to overcome potential hurdles.
Flexibility
PATH Scales:
Adaptable
Composed
Highly open and adaptable to change. Responds
to change in an enthusiastic manner and adjusts
quickly, with little disruption to workload in the
process.
Self-Insight
PATH Scales:
Self-Aware
Receptive
Learning Focused
Is aware of own strengths and weaknesses and
actively seeks out opportunities for new learning
and growth. Strives to keep abreast of the latest
industry trends and technologies.
3 Applications
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire in selection can help make the
process more effective and fair. The assessment can also identify likely
preferred learning-styles and the best approach to on-boarding.
55All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
3.1 Applications of the Talegent PATH Personality Product
The following section outlines some key applications of the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire.
SELECTION
Using psychometric tools such as the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire in selection can help
make the process more effective and fair (Spector, 2006). Information generated by the tool can be
used to validate information obtained from other sources during selection. If the assessments are
administered prior to interviews, the selection process can be made more efficient because an
employer can choose to spend time interviewing only those whose assessment results indicate a
desirable person-job fit. Furthermore, the results can make the interview process more objective and
effective by identifying key areas to probe during a structured interview (Smith & Smith, 2005).
ON-BOARDING NEEDS
Information from the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire can inform potential on-boarding
needs which could be addressed during induction for successful candidates. The assessment can also
identify likely preferred learning-styles and the best approach to on-boarding. The personal insight
that test takers can gain from the assessment process can act as a motivator and improve willingness
to engage in on-boarding activities.
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire can also support training and development by
providing insight into potential development areas. If training needs are identified, the assessment can
also pin point preferred learning styles and motivations, which can guide the structure and approach
to training so as to increase its efficacy. Furthermore, the results of this tool can provide personal
insight which can motivate individuals to engage in self-improvement and development.
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
The PATH personality questionnaire can be used to assist team development. It can provide valuable
information about the likely interactions between different team members and how they can best
work together to get the most out of the team structure.
MISAPPLICATIONS OF THE TALEGENT PATH PERSONALITY
PRODUCT
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire is not intended for use among certain populations or
for certain purposes. These include:
Clinical Diagnosis
The PATH personality questionnaire is not appropriate for use in a clinical setting. The personality
questionnaire has not been developed with the intention of assisting the diagnosis of mental health
disorders and should not be used for such purpose.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201556
Forensics
The assessments are not intended for use in a forensic capacity. Results derived from the Talegent
PATH personality questionnaire should not be used as forensic evidence.
Scholastic Assessment
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire is intended for use among managers and professionals
(18 years and over) in a workplace context. It is not suitable for use with children or adolescents in a
scholastic context. It should not be used for purposes such as determining eligibility for entrance into
particular schools or classrooms.
Turnover Decisions
The Talegent PATH personality questionnaire should never be used to assist turnover decisions such
as terminating problem employees or making redundancies. Use of the Talegent PATH personality
questionnaire under these circumstances is likely to result in poor business decisions because they
have not been designed for this purpose.
In Isolation
Information derived from Talegent PATH personality questionnaire should not be used as the sole
basis of any decision. Results should be considered in the context of other relevant information, not
in isolation (New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011).
Non-Work Settings
The PATH personality questionnaire is used to measure preferences in a work setting, and not to
assess personality or attitudes or motivations in non-work settings.
TARGET USERS
Target users include: admin / entry-level staff, graduates, professionals, managers, executives and
incumbents. Please see Table 7on page 96for a list of available norm groups and brief descriptions.
4 Administration
The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire is administered online.
Follow step-by-step procedures to administer the PATH Personality
Questionnaire.
59All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
4.1 The “WHO” of Administration
Psychometric assessments should be administered only by qualified, competent persons who are fully
aware of the limitations of these assessments (International Test Commission, 2000; New Zealand
Psychologists Board, 2011). The Talegent PATH suite of products will be made available for
administration and interpretation only to those who have completed accreditation with Talegent.
Competent users will recognise when their skills need to be refreshed and will act on this skill
deficiency by enrolling in additional training programs. Upcoming training dates and registration will
be available at www.talegent.com
In addition to ensuring that they use the Talegent PATH suite of products ethically, trained users are
responsible for guaranteeing that the assessment materials are kept secure and are not made
available to unqualified persons (Australian Psychological Society, 2004; British Psychological Society,
2011; New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011). If too much detail regarding the assessment is
publically revealed, this can impair the effectiveness and integrity of the assessment. To maintain
security of the materials, administrators should prevent test respondents from retaining the test
materials once they have sat the assessment, and ensure that no assessment materials are sent via
post or other publically accessible means (International Test Commission, 2000).
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201560
4.2 The “WHAT” of Administration
The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire is administered online. Figure 2 demonstrates the
step-by-step procedure to administer the PATH Personality Questionnaire.
Figure 2 - How to administer the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire
Preparing candidates
When interacting with test takers, administrators should not be overly formal nor overly familiar in
their approach. Maintain professionalism whilst showing empathy and doing as much as feasible to
control any test taker’s anxieties.
All instructions should be given to candidates in a standardised way. While it is important to give test
takers the opportunity to ask questions, do not answer these in any way that will give them an unfair
advantage over others, e.g. don’t answer item or specific test-related questions.
61All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATION
For ALL tests:
1. Inform the test taker of the purpose of the assessment and how the results will be used to
advise employment decisions. Here, reiterate that the results are only one part of the
selection criteria when it comes to making employment decisions. Also remind them that
personality assessments are intended to identify behavioural preferences not behavioural
ability, and that no response is good or bad; what matters is the fit between behavioural
preferences and job requirements.
2. Inform test takers of the confidentiality of their test responses and results.
3. Ensure that test takers consent to completing the assessments.
4. Provide test takers with practice assessments. These can be accessed at www.talegent.com
5. Provide potential test takers with an opportunity to disclose any disabilities or special
requirements early on so that the administrator has a chance to seek expert advice on how
to ensure this person is treated fairly in the testing process and to organise any modifications
or alternate forms of assessment as required (British Psychological Society, 2007). For more
information see the below section: Testing under special circumstances.
For personality assessments:
Encourage test takers to answer honestly. Advise test takers that this particular assessment
has measures in place to detect distortion of results.
Inform test takers that there will be an opportunity for feedback once they have completed
the assessments. This may have the effect of reducing the likelihood of distortion (Smith &
Smith, 2005).
Let them know that there is no time limit for the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire,
but encourage them to answer the questions quickly to maximise the accuracy of their
results.
As an administrator of Talegent PATH assessments, it is likely that you will most often interact with
test takers via email. See an exemplar email below for guidance.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201562
Example Email
Hi Name of Candidate,
Congratulations on your recent job application with Company Name.
As part of their recruitment process you have now been asked to complete the following psychometric assessment online:
Personality Profiling
Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire: this looks at your preferred working style, and will take approximately 30 minutes (untimed).
It would be great if you could complete the assessments within the next few days but please let me know if this is not possible.
If you have any disabilities or special requirements that you think may affect your performance on the assessments, please disclose them before you sit the assessments. This is to ensure each person is treated fairly and allows time for any modifications to the testing process.
After you have completed your assessments, I will give you verbal feedback on your results. Please email me with a good time to do this.
Some tips for completing these assessments from home include:
The personality questionnaire is untimed, but please try to go through it as quickly as you can – your first reaction is usually the best answer and please think about a work context when answering the questions
Ensure you eat/ drink something beforehand
Ensure you will not be distracted by people or telephones whilst completing the assessments for optimal concentration.
How to complete the online assessments:
Before you start your assessments you may want to do some practice assessments. You can find those here: enter link
Once you have completed the practice questions, please click on the following link to access your online assessments: enter link
Follow the online instructions on how to complete your online assessments.
Please try to do the best you can and remember to work in an area that is free from distraction.
If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to call me on enter contact number here.
Please note:
By completing this psychometric testing you are consenting to the subsequent use of this information to inform selection and development decisions. Your results will be confidential and only accessible to those involved in the decision-making process.
Thank you for participating in this process.
Kind Regards,
63All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
4.3 Creating Campaigns and Setting up Candidates
1. Log in to the system
2. Click ‘Campaign’ and click ‘Create New’
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201564
3. Enter a name for your campaign
4. Select the PATH PQ and any other components for the assessment
65All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
5. Optional step:
You can add prospects at this stage. Alternatively, you can add prospects later on, or use a multi-use
link which doesn’t require setting up candidates.
6. Confirm your selections and click ‘Submit’
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201566
7. Setting up Candidates
You can schedule candidates to go through the assessment. To do this, click ‘Scheduled’, then click
‘Add’ along the top of the screen.
8. Fill in the candidates details
67All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
9. Alternatively, you can email candidates a multi-use link to go through the campaign
4.4 Accessing Reports
1. Log in to the system.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201568
2. Click on the campaign that you wish to review the results of
This will take you into the campaign.
3. Hover your mouse over ‘Reports’, and youwill see the last few types of report you have chosen
for the campaign.
You can simply click one of these, or click on ‘Reports…” to be taken to the report wizard.
The report wizard shows you all the available report options, with a description of the report and a
sample image. On the report wizard screen, you can also choose the comparison group.
69All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
4. Run Report
Clicking OK will generate the report in a new window.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201570
4.5 Candidate Experience
1. The candidate logins in to the assessment, entering their details. Note: If they have been
scheduled to complete the assessment, they will not have to complete this step.
71All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
2. They are presented with the terms of the assessment, which they must agree to in order to
complete the assessment.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201572
3. They are taken to a screen outlining the assessment components for them to sit. The candidate
can complete the assessments in any order that they wish.
73All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
4. The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201574
5. Candidates respond on a six-point Likert scale.
4.6 Confidentiality
Assessment results, like all personal information, must be treated with confidentiality and only
disclosed to persons whom it is reasonable to do so given the specific purpose of the assessment.
Determining whom it is ‘reasonable’ to divulge results to will depend on the particular circumstances
in which the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire is being used.
In any case, the disclosure of results to third parties must be consistent with what has been
communicated to the test taker before they completed the assessment, and relevant consent must
be obtained before releasing information (International Test Commission, 2000; New Zealand
Psychologists Board, 2011). Importantly, regardless of consent, raw results should not be disclosed to
persons who are not trained in the interpretation of these. Always communicate results in an
interpreted form to such persons (New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011).
To help ensure confidentiality, users of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire should have
strict policies about the storage of results. Results should not be stored in files that are accessible by
untrained persons (New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011). If results are to be stored, users must
obtain permission to do so, and remember that results have a limited “shelf-life”. Talegent
recommends that results are not used for decision-making purposes more than 6-12 months after
testing was completed.
Furthermore, if a person’s employment role has changed since the time of assessment, it is not
advisable to use the assessment results for any subsequent decisions regardless of the amount of
75All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
time that has passed since the assessment was administered. Any results which have been archived
for research purposes should be stored without personal identifiers such as names (International
Test Commission, 2000; New Zealand Psychologists Board, 2011).
4.7 Security of Administration
The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire has been constructed as an online form of personality
assessment. As such, two modes of administration are available for the PATH Personality
Questionnaire: individual online assessment, supervised assessment.
Our hosting and service delivery infrastructure ensures the highest level of security. This is
supported by a world-class network, data and physical security environment. Security is an ongoing
process, not a singular event - we continuously evaluate and reinforce our security policy and
practices.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201576
SOME OF THE SECURITY PRECAUTIONS WE TAKE
Hosting
Talegent’s assessment platform is hosted by Amazon.
Backups
Backups are held securely in Amazon’s S3 cloud storage. As a secondary measure the databases are
backed up daily to servers located on premise at Talegent.
Administrative Access
Administrative access to our hosted servers and data is restricted to key employees – who can
access the environment only from Talegent offices using a sophisticated two-phase authentication
process.
Firewall
The Amazon EC2 firewall is used to protect the Talegent virtual servers from unauthorised external
access. Internet access through the firewall is restricted to website access only.
Disaster Recovery
The Talegent assessment platform takes advantage of the global reach of Amazon Web Services for
disaster recovery.
Logging & monitoring
Access at the system level is logged using "read only" and tamper-proof logs, whilst application level
access is logged in the database. Logs are checked on a regular basis.
Change control
Routine, emergency, and configuration changes to the Talegent assessment platform are authorised,
logged, tested, approved, and documented in accordance with industry norms for similar systems.
Updates to the Amazon hosting infrastructure are done to minimise any impact on the customer and
their use of the services.
Intrusion Detection/ Prevention
Amazon’s monitoring tools are used to detect unusual or unauthorized activities and conditions at
ingress and egress communication points. These tools monitor server and network usage, port
scanning activities, application usage, and unauthorized intrusion attempts.
In addition to monitoring, regular vulnerability scans are performed on the host operating system,
web application, and databases in the environment using a variety of tools.
Virus Protection
Anti-virus solutions are installed and maintained on all Talegent systems. Direct connection between
the Amazon hosted environment and Talegent’s operational computing environment is strictly
controlled.
77All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
4.8 Administration under Special Circumstances
There are some exceptional circumstances in which the assessment process may need to be
modified in order to ensure that certain test takers are not disadvantaged (British Psychological
Society, 2007). Potential examples include testing persons with a disability and testing individuals in a
language other than their primary language.
It is important to remember that the effectiveness of psychometric assessments relies on them being
administered in a standardised way. Any modifications have the potential to jeopardise their
effectiveness so it is critical to proceed with caution under these special circumstances (British
Psychological Society, 2010). Talegent recommends that you seek advice, either from a Talegent
Account manager or from an independent expert, each and every time that you are faced with
potential exceptional circumstances.
5 Providing Feedback
This chapter outlines best practice for providing feedback to test takers.
Feedback sessions are two-way conversations. Test administrators share
their interpretation of the results with a test taker and allow the test taker
to provide insight and clarity with regard to the meaning of their results in
terms of typical workplace behaviour.
79All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
5.1 Overview
This chapter outlines best practice for providing feedback to test takers. Feedback sessions are two-
way conversations. Test administrators share their interpretation of the results with a test taker and
allow the test taker to provide insight and clarity with regard to the meaning of their results in terms
of typical workplace behaviour. Ideally feedback should be provided in a face to face setting, however
in the interest of time and practicality it may be provided via telephone.
In any case, all test takers should be provided with the opportunity to receive timely feedback,
because:
1 It promotes transparency and fairness. If the results of the Talegent PATH Personality
Questionnaire are to be used to inform employment decisions it is only fair that test takers
have some insight into what the results suggest about their typical workplace behaviour.
2 It allows test takers to gain insight into their own behavioural tendencies and this can prompt
personal or professional development.
3 The discussions had with test takers during feedback sessions can help to improve test
administrators’ interpretation skills and their general understanding of human behaviour in
the workplace.
4 It is a good Public Relations strategy. Many people are perturbed by psychometric testing and
its use in employment contexts. Their anxiety can often be calmed through the feedback
process.
It is advisable to inform test takers prior to sitting the assessment that there will be an opportunity to
discuss results during a feedback session. Knowing beforehand that the results will be discussed can
motivate individuals to take the assessments more seriously than they otherwise might. It can also
discourage intentional distortion of results.
5.2 Ethics
Ethics requires that:
1. Feedback is only ever provided by a qualified Talegent PATH administrator who is fully aware
of the limitations of psychometric assessments.
2. Test administrators treat the feedback process with due sensitivity. The testing process can
be very unsettling for some people and the test taker is in a vulnerable situation. Therefore,
those providing feedback need to do so with empathy and tact.
3. At the beginning of the feedback session test takers are assured of the confidentiality of their
test results and the content of the forthcoming conversation. Subsequently, this confidentially
must be honoured.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201580
5.3 Preparing for Feedback
An essential part of quality feedback is good preparation (Smith & Smith, 2005). To be well prepared
for a feedback session the test administrator must:
1. Have thorough knowledge of the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire, including:
1. The meaning of each scale
2. Appropriate interpretation of results on each scale, and how they may manifest as
workplace behaviours
3. The limitations of this assessment tool, and of psychometric assessment in general
2. Have thorough knowledge of the Talegent PATH cognitive assessments including: what they
measure and how to interpret percentiles.
3. Have thorough knowledge of the results scored by the relevant test taker - it is a good idea
for administrators to keep these in front of them.
4. Have an understanding of the relevant job requirements. The administrator should use these
to contextualise and objectively evaluate individual results.
5. Have an idea of some important areas to probe and appropriate questions to ask.
6. Set aside sufficient time so that they can provide feedback without interruptions. As a guide,
feedback should take around 30 minutes although it can change depending on particular
circumstances.
7. Ensure due privacy of the conversation.
81All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
5.4 Interpreting Results
PERSONALITY RESULTS
It is important for administrators to be consistent in the way that they provide feedback. Using
particular wording for different scores can help to maintain consistency. The following provides a
guideline of appropriate language:
Sten Comparative language
1-2 or 9-10 Highly likely, Strong tendency, Far more/less
likely
3 or 8 Likely, Show a tendency toward
4 and 7 Slight tendency, Somewhat more/less likely
5 and 6 As likely as most
5.5 The Feedback Discussion
Once fully prepared, the administrator can conduct the feedback discussion at a time agreed upon
with the test taker. The following section outlines the ideal structure of a feedback session and
important considerations along the way.
INTRODUCTION
It is essential that the following things are covered during the introduction:
1. The first thing to do is to ensure that it is still an appropriate time for the test taker and that
they are unlikely to be interrupted. Administrators should also check that the test taker has a
pen and paper available in case they want to take notes.
2. Let them know who you are and why you are qualified to have this conversation with them
(i.e., confirm that you are a registered psychologist, and/or qualified to administer and
interpret the Talegent PATH assessments).
3. Remind the test taker of the purpose of the assessments and how the results will be used to
advise employment decisions. Here, reiterate that the results are only one part of ‘the
selection criteria when it comes to making employment decisions. Also remind them that
psychometric assessments are intended to identify behavioural preferences not behavioural
ability, and that no response is good or bad – what matters is the fit between behavioural
preferences and job requirements.
4. Inform the test taker of the purpose of the feedback session. Let them know that it is
intended to be a two-way conversation in which both parties openly discuss the results and
what they suggest about workplace behaviour. Remind the test taker that personality
assessments are never 100% accurate, and that this is an opportunity to question any results
which they think are inaccurate.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201582
5. Ensure the test taker of the confidentiality of their results and the content of the feedback
discussion.
6. Remind them of the specific test(s) they sat and which ones will be discussed in this feedback
session.
7. Inform the test taker of the norm group with which their results have been compared, and
clarify what this means.
8. With regard to their personality results, explain that Talegent PATH Personality
Questionnaire results are grouped under five key areas – Interpersonal, Temperament,
Thinking, Execution, Drive - and briefly outline what each of them relates to.
CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
To help contextualise a test taker’s results, ask them a few questions regarding:
1. Their previous experience with psychometric assessments.
2. How they found these particular assessments. This could reveal distractions, computer
problems, stress/anxiety, and other things which may have had a significant impact on results.
3. Their current employment situation and how this may have influenced their responses.
4. Other personal circumstances or recent events which may have impacted upon testing
performance.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Most administrators will begin by providing brief feedback about their cognitive results then moving
on to discuss their personality results. When providing feedback on personality assessments,
administrators should do so in a systematic fashion. This will help to encourage fairness and hopefully
prevent administrators from skipping over important information. There are several different ways
that an administrator may prefer to present results. These include:
1. Describing scales and asking test takers to estimate where they might fall in a particular scale.
This allows the administrator to gauge a person’s expectations and therefore, how they
should disclose the actual result. It also means that discrepancies between the test taker’s
expectations and the actual results are open for discussion (Smith & Smith, 2005).
2. Discussing results in terms of their implications for relevant job competencies. Do they
represent strengths or potential development areas in the context of a specific job (Smith &
Smith, 2005)?
3. Linking scales to create a more holistic picture.
83All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Other things to remember during this discussion:
1. Avoid jargon. For example, use the term “comparison group” instead of “norm group”
because the latter may be meaningless to some people.
2. Tailor the discussion to a level appropriate to each individual’s level of understanding (British
Psychological Society, 2008).
3. Do not just document the results; discuss their implications as well (British Psychological
Society, 2008).
4. Avoid dominating the conversation (Smith & Smith, 2005). Try and encourage the test taker
to participate. In an ideal situation, the conversation will be dominated by the test taker, not
the administrator.
5. Welcome disagreement. If a test taker indicates that a result does not reflect their typical
workplace behaviour, probe for more information (e.g. ask for examples of how they have
behaved under certain circumstances). Reiterate that results are never 100% accurate so
their insight is valuable.
6. Be objective and contextualise results to relevant job characteristics.
7. Do not refer to numeric sten scores or percentiles. Use the adverbs discussed earlier.
CONCLUDING THE DISCUSSION
At the end of the discussion:
1. Summarise the major themes emerging from their profile and implications for the relevant
job context (Smith & Smith, 2005). Butcher (2009) suggests that it is a good idea to get the
test taker to summarise these key points themselves. This provides an opportunity to gauge
their understanding and acceptance of the results.
2. If the testing has been done for selection purposes:
1. Inform the test taker of the next steps in the selection process (if known).
2. Wish them luck.
3. If the testing has been done for the purpose of training and development:
1. Identify possible development needs: This can include deficits as well as strengths to
nurture possible untapped potential.
2. Agree on some objectives for the training and development process going forward
(an action plan).
4. Where appropriate create tangible records of any action plans that are made during this
discussion so that they can be referred to at a later date.
5. Confirm that the test taker has no outstanding queries.
6. Thank the test taker for taking the time to go through their results.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201584
5.6 Essential Qualities to Portray During the Feedback Discussion
Throughout the feedback discussion administrators should practise these essential interpersonal
skills:
1. Building Rapport. Test takers are likely to be more open and honest in the feedback
discussion if they perceive a positive connection or rapport between themselves and the test
administrator. The more open and honest the conversation, the more effective it is likely to
be for both parties. It is also important to remember that the test respondent is in a
vulnerable position so it is important to put them at ease as much as possible.
2. Active Listening. Test administrators need to actively attend to what the respondent is
saying during the feedback session. This is critical for two reasons. Firstly, it will help the
administrator to get the most information possible out of the discussion. Secondly, it is
important that the test respondent feels as though they are being listened to. Administrators
can demonstrate that they are listening by paraphrasing what the respondent has said, or, if
they are in a face-to-face setting, they can use non-verbal indications such as maintaining eye
contact and nodding.
3. Conveying Empathy. The testing process can be daunting so it is important that
administrators are empathetic in their approach to feedback. Respondents should never feel
that they are being judged by the administrator. Sitting the assessments themselves can help
administrators to relate to the feelings experienced during the testing process.
4. Effective Questioning. In feedback sessions, the test respondent should do the majority of
the talking. To encourage this, test administrators need to be skilled in their use of questions.
Questions should be short and succinct. They should only probe one issue at a time and
should require open responses from the respondent, rather than simple yes/no responses.
5. Objectivity. Remember that there are no right or wrong (good or bad) answers to the
Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire. What matters is the fit between behavioural
preferences and the requirements of a job. It is therefore important that those giving
feedback reserve their own personal, subjective judgement about the results and always
present the results in an objective way, free from value judgements.
6. Sensitivity. Test takers can experience and portray a wide range of emotions in response
to feedback. It is important for the administrator to approach these emotional reactions with
sensitivity, attempting to control, rather than exacerbate the situation. It can help to use the
personality information provided in the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire results to
predict how test takers might respond to certain feedback.
7. Openness. It is important to be open and honest about the results. In turn, this should elicit
openness from the respondent. Being open and honest includes talking about results that
have the potential to provoke a negative emotional response from the test taker. Avoiding
these sensitive topics means that the discussion is not based on full disclosure.
85All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
5.7 Linking Scales in the PATH PQ
To gain greater understanding of the personality of the test taker, it is recommended to link relevant
scales to provide a more holistic picture of the test taker.
If cognitive tests are taken, then both personality scales and cognitive results feed into competencies.
Which scales and cognitive scores influence each other depends on the competency that is being
measured as well as on the context of the job.
It may be appropriate to link scales within the same set of scales, e.g. Interpersonal, or between
scales, e.g. Drive and Execution. Some combinations of scales set up natural linkages, e.g. Meticulous
and Reliable/ Strategic and Meticulous / Data Driven and Theoretical; while others though not
obvious, can yield interesting information, e.g. Competitive and Collaborative.
6 Reports
Talegent has a number of Off-The-Shelf reports utilising its cognitive
numerical, verbal and logical test reasoning tests and the PATH Personality
Questionnaire. Some reports are succinct while others are detailed to suit
the purpose for which the assessment report is being utilised.
87All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
6.1 Talegent’s PATH Reports
Talegent has a number of Off-The-Shelf reports utilising its cognitive numerical, verbal and logical test
reasoning tests and the PATH Personality Questionnaire. Some reports are succinct while others
are detailed to suit the purpose for which the assessment report is being utilised.
The different reports available are many and varied, but the following represents the mainly utilised
assessment reports.
PATH Personality Profile
PATH Personality Report
PATH Competency Report
PATH Competency Detail Report
PATH EQ Report
PATH Leadership Report
PATH Personal Feedback Report
6.2 PATH Personality Profile
The PATH Personality Profile provides at-a-glance understanding of a candidate’s personality to help
the hirer/ manager make faster, better-informed talent decisions. The one-page summary graphically
displays a candidate’s scores on each of 30 key personality measures and 2 response scales, clearly
explaining what scales and high and low measures mean for a candidate in a job role.See the sample
report on Page 201in Appendix A.14.1
6.3 PATH Personality Report
This is the most popular report for trained PATH users.
The PATH Personality Report provides in-depth descriptions of a candidate’s score on each of the
30 key personality measures and 2 response scales. The candidate’s results are interpreted, with the
report outlining in a clear and jargon-free manner what each score means and how the candidate is
likely to behave at work. This report includes a PATH Personality Profile. See the sample report on
Page 202 in Appendix A.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201588
ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH PROFILE AND PERSONALITY
REPORT
The PATH Profile and Personality Reports are linked to the PATH Personality Questionnaire scales.
The Profile provides a graphic summary, while the report provides in-depth descriptions of the
scales.
The roles that the PATH Personality Profile and Report can be used for are:
Admin/ Entry Level
Graduates
Professionals
Managers
Executives
Incumbents
6.4 PATH Competency Profile
The PATH Competency Profile enables the hirer/ managerto quickly and objectively assess a
candidate in relation to key role competencies exhibited by top performers. The one-page summary
graphically displays a candidate’s scores on each on the 13 Talegent PATH competencies, clearly
explaining competencies and what high and low measures mean for a candidate in a job role. See the
sample report on Page 215 in Appendix A.
The Talegent PATH personality competencies model,comprising of a comprehensive collection of 23
competencies grouped into 5 clusters, has been previously described. The PATH Competency
Profile and Report can be applied across all levels and areas of any organisation and all aspects of
measurement in the employee lifecycle.
89All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
6.5 PATH Competency Detail Report
The Talegent PATH competency detail report is based on the PATH Personality Questionnaire, and
optionally, PATH verbal, numerical, and logical reasoning. This report gives the hirer/ manager deep
insight into the competencies the organisation has chosen as key to the role being selected for. See
the sample report on Page 216 in Appendix A.
ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH COMPETENCY PROFILE AND
DETAIL REPORT
The roles that the PATH Competency Profile and Detail Report aregenerally used for include:
Admin/ Entry Level
Graduates
Professionals
Managers
Executives
Incumbents
6.6 PATH EQ Report
The Talegent EQ Report measures emotional intelligence theability to perceive and manage emotions
in both the self and in others aswell as some of the effective attributes associated with the construct.
This report identifies how individuals score on the key personality characteristics associated with
emotional intelligence. See the sample report on Page 228 in Appendix A
ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH EQ REPORT
The roles that the PATH EQ Report are generally used for include:
Professionals
Managers
Executives
Incumbents
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201590
6.7 PATH Leadership Report
The Talegent Leadership (Potential)Report gives the hirer/ managerthe tools to quickly and
effectively identify those people with the cognitive abilities and personality characteristics that best
predict successful performance in a leadership role. See the sample report on Page 239 in Appendix
A
ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH LEADERSHIP REPORT
The roles that the PATH Leadership Report are generally used for include:
Managers
Executives
6.8 PATH Personal Feedback Report
The PATH Personal Feedback Report is designed to be given to test takers to provide them with
feedback and insight into the analysis of their responses on the PATH Personality Questionnaire.
Their results are discussed in the context of the 28 key personality measures. No graphic
representation or numerical interpretation of scores is provided with this report. See the sample
report on Page 239 in Appendix A
ROLES AND USES OF THE PATH PERSONAL FEEDBACK REPORT
The roles that the PATH Personal Feedback Report aregenerally used for include:
Admin/ Entry Level
Graduates
Professionals
Managers
Executives
Incumbents
7 Norm Groups
PATH Personality Scale results are expressed in comparative terms. When
using the Talegent PATH assessments to make employment decisions it is
critical that an appropriate norm group is used so that meaningful results are
elicited.
93All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
7.1 Introduction
The usage and understanding of norms is essential in the interpretation of psychological assessments.
Test scores which are expressed as a ‘raw score’ (e.g., the number of correct answers as a
proportion of the total number of questions) are of limited practical value (Smith & Smith, 2005). In
order to make test scores meaningful, it is necessary to know how well a person scored on a test
relative to the scores of others on the same test. This is what the process of norming achieves (Smith
& Smith, 2005). PATH Personality Scale results are expressed in comparative terms, for
example,Person X scored above average on scale Y compared to norm group Z.When using the
Talegent PATH® assessments to make employment decisions it is critical that an appropriate norm
group is used so that meaningful results are elicited.
7.2 Standard Scores
Z SCORE
The simplest standardised score is a z score which describes the distance an applicant’s score is from
the mean in terms of the standard deviation. If the z score is negative the score is less than the mean
and if the z score is positive the applicants score is greater than the mean. The equation to calculate
a z score is shown in Equation 1with the applicant’s score , the sample mean , and the sample
standard deviation .
Equation 1
STEN SCORE
Closely related to a z score another common standardised score is a standard ten score or sten
score which places an applicant’s score on a ten point scale with the centre at 5.5. Sten scores are
commonly used when reporting the results from personality questionnaires. The equation to
calculate a sten score is shown in Equation 2 with the applicant’s score , the sample mean , and the
sample standard deviation .
Equation 2
When interpreting a sten score reported by a personality questionnaire it is worth noting that the
reported sten score actually represents the range of scores that the actual score falls within. For
example, a sten score of 3 could be anywhere in the range of 2.5 to 3.4 and sten scores are actually
ordinal categories given numerical labels for ease of interpretation.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201594
PERCENTILE
Another way of interpreting personality questionnaire scores is through how the applicant has
scored in term of the proportion of the comparison group who scored less than them. This is known
as a percentile score and is often used when interpreting the results of cognitive ability assessments
or competency based assessments. Percentile scores are often easier to interpret then either sten
scores or z scores but harder to calculate. Percentile scores are usually calculated by assessment
systems or read for norm tables. The relationship between z scores, sten scores, percentiles is
shown in Table 6 for a normal distribution.
Table 6
The relationship between z scores, sten scores, and percentiles
Z Score Sten Percentile
-3 to -2 1 1
-2 to -1.5 2 4
-1.5 to -1 3 11
-1 to -0.5 4 23
-0.5 to 0 5 40
0 to 0.5 6 60
0.5 to 1 7 77
1 to 1.5 8 89
1.5 to 2 9 96
2 to 3 10 99
STANDARD ERROR OF THE MEAN
The standard error of the mean (SEMean) is a measure of how close your sample mean is likely to be
to the population or true mean. The true population mean is 95% likely to fall within ±1.96 x SEMean.
The smaller the SEMean the more precise the estimate of the population mean and conversely the
larger the SEMean the less accurate the estimate of the population mean. The equation for calculating
the standard error of the mean is given in Equation 3 with the sample standard deviation , and the
sample size .
Equation 3
The SEMean is closely related to the size of the sample, and as the sample size increases the standard
error of the mean decreases. This is often the argument for larger norm group sample sizes; some
publishers recommend having sample sizes of 10,000 or more. However practically, once the sample
size is larger than 100 or 200, adding additional individuals has a minimal effect on the standard error
of the mean (as can be seen in Figure 3). In general, larger norm groups are certainly better.
However once a norm group has reached an appropriate size, it is often more important that the
norm group shows high representativeness.
95All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Figure 3- Line graph showing the standard error of the mean as a function of sample size for a scale with a
standard deviation of 3.23
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
20
40
60
80
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
10
00
15
00
20
00
25
00
30
00
50
00
10
00
0
Sta
nd
ard
Err
or
of
the M
ea
n
Sample Size
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201596
7.3 Available Norm Groups
CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE NORM
The PATH personality questionnairehas six representative norm groups available which span from
Admin/ Entry level to Managers, and Executives. It is important to choose the norm group which
matches your requirements so that the norm group is representative of your target population.
Please refer to Table 7 to help identify the appropriate norm group to use for your application. In
general, you should choose the norm group whose description closely matches the population that
will be completing the personality questionnaire. To help confirm your selection review the example
role titles under the norm sections below for similarities.
Table 7
Norm group description and sample size of 2015 update
Norm Group Title Description Sample Size (2015)
Admin/ Entry Level Applicants without university
backgrounds, without
management experience or
executive experience.
N=963
Graduates Applicants with a university
degree and less than two years’
experience.
N=4254
Professionals Applicants holding a university
degree, with more than two
years of experience, but less
than two years management
experience.
N=414
Managers Applicants with a university
background, more than two
years of experience, more than
two years management
experience and less than two
years executive experience
N=357
Executives Applicants with more than two
years of executive experience.
N=525
Incumbent Those currently employed and
completing the assessment for
personal interest.
N=944
97All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
7.4 Admin Norm (2015)
DESCRIPTION
This sample is comprised of 963 job applicants without university backgrounds, without management
experience or executive experience. The sample is characterised as moderately young (Median age
= between 36 and 40), with limited education but higher levels of experience in current career with
90% having two or more years worth of experience in their current careers.
Example Role Titles
Administrative Assistant
Secretary
Entry level sales representative
Customer Service Representative
Entry level account manager
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Gender
The Admin/Entry Level sample was comprised of 653 Males and 307 Females which is shown
graphically in Figure 4.
Figure 4 - Gender breakdown of the admin/entry level sample (N=963)
68%
32%
Male Female
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 201598
Age
The age of the admin/entry level sample ranged from 20 years of younger to 61 years and older with
a median age of between 36 and 40. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen
graphically in Figure 5.
Figure 5 - The frequency of applicants falling within age ranges (N =963)
26
58
13
7
17
6
14
8
14
9
12
1
91
32
15
6
99All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Country of Origin
The majority of the admin/entry level sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=612) with a
smaller number being born in New Zealand (N=220), the United Kingdom (N=68), South Africa
(N=48) or other countries (N=48). This can be seen graphically in Figure 6.
Figure 6 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the admin/entry level norm group (N=963)
Ethnicity
The majority of the admin/entry level sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=605) with a
smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=176), British (N =38), New
Zealand Maori (N=33), New Zealand European/Maori (N=19), and a combination of other ethnicities
(N=92).This can be seen graphically in Figure 7.
64%
23%
7%
2%
5%
Australia New Zealand United Kingdom South Africa Other
63%
18%
4%
3%
2% 10%
Australian New Zealand European
British New Zealand Maori
New Zealand European/Maori Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015100
Figure 7 - Ethnicity breakdown of the admin/entry level sample (N= 963)
Primary Language
The vast majority of the admin/entry level sample reported English as their primary language (N =
947) with only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 16).
This can be seen graphically in Figure 8.
Figure 8 - Primary language breakdown for the admin/entry level sample (N=963)
Highest Qualification Attained
The majority of the admin/entry level sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved
was completing high school (N=521) was a slightly smaller number completing some tertiary study
(N=442). This can be seen graphically in Figure 9.
Figure 9 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the admin/entry level sample (N=963)
98%
2%
English Other
54%
46%
Completed secondary school Some tertiary
101All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Years of Experience in Current Career
The majority of the admin/entry level sample had been working in their current career for ten years
or more (N = 456). A smaller proportion had been working in their current career for between five
and ten years (N=253), between three and five years (N=118), between two and three years (N =
47), between one and two years (N=43), or less than one year (N=46). This can be seen graphically
in Figure 10.
Figure 10 - Amount of experience in current career breakdown for the admin/entry level sample (N=963)
NORM TABLE
The norm information of the admin/entry level sample is presented in Table 8 with the sample mean,
standard deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true
population mean.
Table 8
Norm information for the admin/entry level sample 2015 (N=963)
Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Accepting 30.99 3.40 0.11 30.77 31.20
Adaptable 29.74 3.23 0.10 29.54 29.95
Amiable 31.06 2.75 0.09 30.88 31.23
1% 1%
3% 4%
5%
12%
26%
47%
1%
Less Than Three Months Three to Six Months
Seven Months to One Year One Year to Two Years
Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years
Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More
MISSING
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015102
Analytical 26.50 3.25 0.10 26.30 26.71
Collaborative 31.69 2.55 0.08 31.53 31.85
Competitive 26.14 5.60 0.18 25.79 26.50
Compliant 29.08 3.71 0.12 28.84 29.31
Composed 29.85 3.48 0.11 29.63 30.07
Data Driven 20.12 3.57 0.12 19.90 20.35
Decisive 24.44 2.78 0.09 24.27 24.62
Directing 29.68 3.44 0.11 29.46 29.89
Driven 25.07 2.88 0.09 24.89 25.26
Empathic 42.07 4.89 0.16 41.76 42.38
Energetic 24.31 3.02 0.10 24.12 24.50
Influential 21.69 2.80 0.09 21.51 21.87
Innovative 23.63 2.79 0.09 23.45 23.81
Intuitive 20.67 3.05 0.10 20.48 20.86
Learning Focused 25.55 2.69 0.09 25.38 25.72
Meticulous 29.25 3.28 0.11 29.04 29.46
Motivating 26.10 2.50 0.08 25.94 26.26
Optimistic 31.75 3.08 0.10 31.56 31.95
Receptive 25.90 2.36 0.08 25.75 26.05
Reliable 24.70 3.30 0.11 24.49 24.90
Risk Tolerant 18.39 6.58 0.21 17.97 18.80
Self Aware 22.14 3.57 0.11 21.92 22.37
Self Confident 25.20 2.52 0.08 25.04 25.36
Sociable 25.04 2.99 0.10 24.85 25.22
Socially Aware 27.84 3.61 0.12 27.62 28.07
Strategic 24.90 2.72 0.09 24.73 25.07
Theoretical 29.56 3.19 0.10 29.36 29.76
Trusting 24.17 3.64 0.12 23.94 24.40
Work Focus 23.55 3.00 0.10 23.36 23.74
103All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
7.5 Graduate Norm (2015)
DESCRIPTION
This sample is comprised of 4,254 applicants for graduate roles. The sample is characterised as
relatively young (Median aged = between 21 and 25), well educated with 92% holding at least a
bachelors degree or diploma. The sample has relatively little experience in their current career with
75% having less than 2 years worth of experience.
Example Role Titles
Graduate
Graduate accountant
Law Intern
Graduate Engineer
Intern Technician
Summer Clark
Cadet/Scholarship Roles
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Gender
The graduate sample was comprised of 2167 Males and 1895 Females which is shown graphically in
Figure 11.
Figure 11 - Gender breakdown of the graduate sample (N=4254)
53%
47%
Male Female
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015104
Age
The age of the graduate sample ranged from 20 years of younger to 61 years and older with a median
age of between 21 and 25. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in
Figure 5.
Figure 12 - The frequency of applicants falling within age ranges (N =4254)
24
7
21
59
88
4
40
3
18
2
19
5
52
10
4
26
105All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Country of Origin
Thevast majority of the graduate sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=3636) with a smaller
number being born in New Zealand (N=278), China (N=36) or other countries (N=261). This can be
seen graphically in Figure 13.
Figure 13 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the graduate sample(N=4254)
Ethnicity
The vast majority of the graduate sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=4069) with a
smaller number reporting their ethnicity as Chinese (N=50), New Zealand European (N=27), and a
combination of other ethnicities (N=37). This can be seen graphically in Figure 14.
Figure 14 - Ethnicity breakdown of the graduate sample (N= 4254)
86%
7%
1% 6%
Australia New Zealand China Other
96%
1% 1% 2%
Australian Chinese New Zealand European Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015106
Primary Language
The vast majority of the graduate sample reported English as their primary language (N = 4170) with
only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 84). This can
be seen graphically in Figure 15.
Figure 15 - The primary language breakdown for the graduate sample (N= 4254)
98%
2%
English Other
107All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Highest Qualification Attained
The majority of the graduate sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was
completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=2555), a large proportion of the sample reported
to having completed a masters degree (N=906) with smaller numbers completing advanced diploma
(N=257) or doctoral degrees (N=27). A small number of the graduate sample reported completing
secondary school (N= 176) or some tertiary study (N=189) as their highest qualification. This can be
seen graphically in Figure 16.
Figure 16 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the graduate sample (N=4254)
4% 4%
60%
3%
6%
21%
1%
Completed secondary school Some tertiary
Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Postgraduate diploma or certificate
Advanced diploma or diploma Masters degree
Doctoral degree
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015108
Years of Experience in Current Career
The vast majority of the graduate sample had been working in their current career for less than two
years (N=3201) with 1107 individuals having been in their career for less than three months, 324
individuals for between three months and six months, 689 for between seven months and one year
and 1080 individuals for between one year and two years. A small proportion of the graduate sample
had been working in their current career for between two and three years (N =338), between three
and five years (N =203), between five and ten years (N=297) or for ten years or more (N=216). This
can be seen graphically in Figure 17.
Figure 17 - Amount of experience in current career breakdown for the graduate sample (N=4254)
NORM TABLE
The norm information of the admin/entry level sample is presented in Table 9with the sample mean,
standard deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true
population mean.
Table 9
Norm information for the Graduate sample 2015 (N=4254)
Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Accepting 31.14 3.63 0.06 31.03 31.25
Adaptable 31.04 3.31 0.05 30.94 31.14
Amiable 31.48 2.78 0.04 31.39 31.56
26%
8%
16%
25%
8%
5%
7% 5%
Less Than Three Months Three To Six Months
Seven Months To One Year One Year to Two Years
Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years
Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More
109All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Analytical 28.79 3.17 0.05 28.70 28.89
Collaborative 31.69 2.83 0.04 31.61 31.78
Competitive 27.42 5.14 0.08 27.27 27.58
Compliant 27.38 3.71 0.06 27.27 27.49
Composed 29.55 3.98 0.06 29.43 29.67
Data Driven 21.74 3.40 0.05 21.64 21.84
Decisive 23.45 3.24 0.05 23.35 23.55
Directing 30.32 3.49 0.05 30.21 30.42
Driven 26.00 2.78 0.04 25.91 26.08
Empathic 43.93 5.40 0.08 43.76 44.09
Energetic 25.17 3.30 0.05 25.07 25.27
Influential 22.36 3.15 0.05 22.26 22.45
Innovative 23.87 3.18 0.05 23.78 23.97
Intuitive 19.16 3.22 0.05 19.07 19.26
Learning Focused 27.18 2.49 0.04 27.10 27.25
Meticulous 30.05 3.26 0.05 29.95 30.14
Motivating 26.46 2.65 0.04 26.38 26.54
Optimistic 31.99 3.19 0.05 31.89 32.08
Receptive 26.99 2.33 0.04 26.92 27.06
Reliable 23.97 3.72 0.06 23.86 24.09
Risk Tolerant 23.20 4.08 0.06 23.07 23.32
Self Aware 21.83 3.70 0.06 21.72 21.95
Self Confident 24.63 2.93 0.04 24.54 24.72
Sociable 25.41 3.38 0.05 25.31 25.51
Socially Aware 29.40 3.66 0.06 29.29 29.51
Strategic 25.87 2.82 0.04 25.79 25.96
Theoretical 30.68 3.22 0.05 30.58 30.78
Trusting 24.09 3.97 0.06 23.97 24.20
Work Focus 23.96 3.17 0.05 23.86 24.05
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015110
7.6 Professional Norm (2015)
DESCRIPTION
This sample is comprised of 414 applicants holding a university degree, with more than two years of
experience, but less than two years management experience. This sample is characterised by being
relatively young with a medium age of between 31 and 35, well educated with a 85% having a
bachelors degree , diploma, or postgraduate diploma, and with a moderate to high degree of
experience in their current career with two years or more worth of experience.
Example Role Titles
Accountant/Auditor
Lawyer/Solicitor
Analyst
Engineer/Technician
Professional/Individual Contributor
Consultant
HR Consultant
PR Consultant
Business Analyst
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Gender
The professional sample was comprised of 215 Males and 199 Females which is shown graphically in
Figure 18.
Figure 18 - Gender breakdown of the professional sample (N=414)
52%
48%
Male Female
111All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Age
The age of the professional sample ranged from 20 years of younger to 60 years with a median age of
between 31 and 35. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in Figure 19.
Figure 19 - The frequency of applicants falling within age ranges (N =414)
Country of Origin
The majority of the professional sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=221) with a smaller
number being born in New Zealand (N=58), The United Kingdom (N=36), India (N = 12), China
(N=11), Singapore (N=11) or other countries (N=65). This can be seen graphically in Figure 20.
Figure 20 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the professional norm group (N=414)
2
57
13
4
97
57
30
21
7
5
4
53%
14%
9%
3%
3%
3%
16%
Australia New Zealand United Kingdom
India China Singapore
Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015112
Ethnicity
The majority of the professional sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=203) with a smaller
number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=56),Chinese (N=31), British (N=27),
Indian (N=17), New Zealand European/Maori (N=5), South African European (N=5) and a
combination of other ethnicities (N=70). This can be seen graphically in Figure 21.
Figure 21 - Ethnicity breakdown of the professional sample (N= 414)
49%
14%
7%
7%
4%
1%
1% 17%
Australian New Zealand European
Chinese British
Indian New Zealand European/Maori
South African European Other
113All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Primary Language
The vast majority of the professional sample reported English as their primary language (N = 374)
with only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 40). This
can be seen graphically in Figure 22.
Figure 22 - Primary language breakdown for professional sample (N=414)
90%
10%
English Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015114
Highest Qualification Attained
The majority of the professional sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was
completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=216), with a smaller proportion of the sample
reported to having completed a masters degree (N=54), advanced diploma (N=70) or doctoral
degrees (N=1). This can be seen graphically in Figure 23.
Figure 23 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the professional sample (N=414)
Years of Experience in Current Career
The majority of the professional sample had been working in their current career for five or more
years (72%) with 153 individuals in their career for between five and ten years and 97 individuals
having ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A large proportion of
individuals had between three and five years worth of experience (N=103) with a small portion with
between two and three years worth of experience (N =55). This can be seen graphically in Figure 24.
62%
3%
20%
15%
0%
Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Postgraduate diploma or certificate
Advanced diploma or diploma Masters degree
Doctoral degree
115All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Figure 24 - Experience in current career breakdown for the professional sample (N=414)
NORM TABLE
The norm information of the admin/entry level sample is presented in Table 10with the sample mean,
standard deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true
population mean.
Table 10
Norm information for the Professional sample 2015 (N=414)
Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Accepting 30.20 3.57 0.18 29.85 30.54
Adaptable 29.45 3.33 0.16 29.13 29.77
Amiable 30.67 2.79 0.14 30.40 30.94
Analytical 27.58 3.11 0.15 27.28 27.88
Collaborative 31.04 2.56 0.13 30.79 31.28
Competitive 25.54 5.53 0.27 25.00 26.07
Compliant 26.73 3.82 0.19 26.37 27.10
Composed 28.50 3.60 0.18 28.16 28.85
Data Driven 20.65 3.42 0.17 20.33 20.98
Decisive 22.82 2.96 0.15 22.53 23.10
13%
25%
38%
24%
Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years
Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015116
Directing 28.42 3.44 0.17 28.09 28.75
Driven 24.44 2.94 0.14 24.16 24.73
Empathic 42.22 5.05 0.25 41.73 42.71
Energetic 23.77 3.34 0.16 23.45 24.09
Influential 21.55 2.94 0.14 21.26 21.83
Innovative 23.01 3.00 0.15 22.72 23.30
Intuitive 19.49 2.91 0.14 19.21 19.77
Learning Focused 25.63 2.62 0.13 25.38 25.89
Meticulous 28.78 3.33 0.16 28.46 29.10
Motivating 25.53 2.79 0.14 25.26 25.80
Optimistic 31.35 3.13 0.15 31.04 31.65
Receptive 25.90 2.39 0.12 25.67 26.13
Reliable 23.56 3.36 0.17 23.23 23.88
Risk Tolerant 22.18 4.20 0.21 21.78 22.59
Self Aware 21.43 3.35 0.16 21.11 21.76
Self Confident 24.04 2.67 0.13 23.79 24.30
Sociable 24.48 3.50 0.17 24.14 24.81
Socially Aware 28.24 3.59 0.18 27.89 28.58
Strategic 24.44 2.98 0.15 24.15 24.72
Theoretical 29.87 3.16 0.16 29.56 30.17
Trusting 23.95 3.30 0.16 23.63 24.26
Work Focus 22.66 3.00 0.15 22.37 22.95
117All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
7.7 Managerial Norm (2015)
DESCRIPTION
This sample is comprised of 357 applicants with a university background, more than two years of
experience, more than two years management experience and less than two years executive
experience. This sample is characterised by being relatively young with a medium age of between 36
and 40, well educated with a 90% having a bachelors degree , diploma, or postgraduate diploma, and
with a moderate to high degree of experience in their current career with 84% having five years or
more worth of experience.
Example Role Titles
Sales Manager
Team Leader/Manager
Senior Consultant
Line Manager
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Gender
The managerial sample was comprised of 227 Males and 130 Females which is shown graphically in
Figure 25.
Figure 25 - Gender breakdown of the manager sample (N=357)
Age
The age of the manager sample ranged from between 21 years to 60 years with a median age of
between 36 and 40. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in Figure 26.
64%
36%
Male Female
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015118
Figure 26 - The frequency of applicants falling within age ranges (N =357)
Country of Origin
The majority of the manager sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=192) with a smaller
number being born in New Zealand (N=63), The United Kingdom (N=30), India (N = 17), South
Africa (N=12), or other countries (N=43). This can be seen graphically in Figure 27.
Figure 27 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the manager sample (N=357)
0
12
46
65
79
63
43
28
13
2
54%
18%
8%
5%
3%
12%
Australia New Zealand United Kingdom India South Africa Other
119All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Ethnicity
The vast majority of the manager sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N=182) with a
smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=60),British (N=19), Indian
(N= 19), South African European (N=11), English (N=9) and a combination of other ethnicities
(N=59). This can be seen graphically in Figure 21.
Figure 28 - Ethnicity breakdown of the manager sample (N= 357)
51%
17%
5%
5%
3%
3%
16%
Australian New Zealand European Indian
British South African European English
Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015120
Primary Language
The vast majority of the manager sample reported English as their primary language (N = 326) with
only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 17). This can
be seen graphically in Figure 22.
Figure 29 - Primary language breakdown for manager sample (N=357)
91%
9%
English Other
121All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Highest Qualification Attained
The majority of the manager sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was
completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=138), an advanced diploma or diploma (N = 108)
with a smaller proportion of the sample reported to having completed a masters degree (N=33),
postgraduate diploma (N=75) or doctoral degrees (N=3). This can be seen graphically in Figure 30.
Figure 30 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the manager sample (N=357)
39%
30%
21%
9%
1%
Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Advanced diploma or diploma
Postgraduate diploma or certificate Masters degree
Doctoral degree
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015122
Years of Experience in Current Career
The majority of the manager sample had been working in their current career for five or more years
(83%) with 109 individuals in their career for between five and ten years and 184 individuals having
ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A smaller proportion of individuals
had between three and five years worth of experience (N=48) with a small portion with between
two and three years worth of experience (N =16). This can be seen graphically in Figure 31.
Figure 31- Experience in current career breakdown for the manager sample (N=357)
TABLE
The norm information of the admin/entry level sample is presented in Table 11with the sample mean,
standard deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true
population mean.
Table 11
Norm information for the manager sample (N=357)
Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Accepting 30.66 3.57 0.19 30.29 31.03
Adaptable 29.48 3.27 0.17 29.14 29.82
Amiable 30.67 2.75 0.15 30.38 30.95
Analytical 27.60 3.12 0.17 27.28 27.92
Collaborative 31.26 2.47 0.13 31.01 31.52
Competitive 25.78 5.21 0.28 25.24 26.32
Compliant 27.40 4.05 0.21 26.98 27.82
4%
13%
31%
52%
Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years
Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More
123All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Composed 29.80 3.28 0.17 29.45 30.14
Data Driven 20.50 3.66 0.19 20.12 20.88
Decisive 24.25 2.48 0.13 24.00 24.51
Directing 30.24 3.01 0.16 29.93 30.55
Driven 24.76 2.68 0.14 24.48 25.04
Empathic 41.78 4.97 0.26 41.27 42.30
Energetic 24.33 3.06 0.16 24.01 24.64
Influential 22.20 2.64 0.14 21.93 22.48
Innovative 23.50 2.90 0.15 23.20 23.81
Intuitive 19.63 3.02 0.16 19.32 19.95
Learning Focused 25.61 2.63 0.14 25.34 25.89
Meticulous 29.00 3.30 0.17 28.66 29.35
Motivating 26.03 2.54 0.13 25.76 26.29
Optimistic 31.71 2.77 0.15 31.42 32.00
Receptive 25.73 2.27 0.12 25.49 25.96
Reliable 24.23 3.37 0.18 23.88 24.58
Risk Tolerant 20.89 5.44 0.29 20.32 21.45
Self Aware 21.80 3.59 0.19 21.43 22.18
Self Confident 24.92 2.38 0.13 24.67 25.17
Sociable 24.40 3.28 0.17 24.06 24.74
Socially Aware 28.09 3.50 0.19 27.73 28.46
Strategic 25.13 2.46 0.13 24.88 25.39
Theoretical 29.60 2.87 0.15 29.30 29.90
Trusting 24.11 3.82 0.20 23.72 24.51
Work Focus 23.24 2.83 0.15 22.95 23.54
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015124
7.8 Executive Norm (2015)
DESCRIPTION
This sample is comprised of 525 applicants with a university background, more than two years of
experience, more than two years management experience and more than two years executive
experience. This sample is characterised by being more senior with a medium age of between 41 and
45, well educated with a 40% having a master degree, post graduate diploma, or doctoral degree. The
sample was highly experienced with 75% having been in their current career for ten years or more.
The executive norm has two years or more worth of experience as a strategic leader as a head of
department or c level executive.
Example Role Titles
Chief Executive Officer
Head of Department
Director
Chief Financial Officer
Chief People Officer
Managing Director
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Gender
The professional sample was comprised of 358 Males and 164 Females which is shown graphically in
Figure 32.
Figure 32 - Gender breakdown of the executive sample (N=525)
69%
31%
Male Female
125All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Age
The age of the executive sample ranged from between 21 years to 60 years with a median age of
between 41 and 45. The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in Figure 33.
Figure 33 - The frequency of executive applicants falling within age ranges (N =525)
Country of Origin
The majority of the executive sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=290) with a smaller
number being born in New Zealand (N=81), The United Kingdom (N=57), South Africa (N=17), or
other countries (N=33). This can be seen graphically in Figure 34.
Figure 34 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the executive sample (N=525)
0 6
35
58
87
12
0
85
67
40
10
55%
15%
11%
3%
15%
Australia New Zealand United Kingdom
South Africa Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015126
Ethnicity
The vast majority of the executive sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N= 289) with a
smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=71),British (N=50), South
African European (N=16), and a combination of other ethnicities (N=99). This can be seen
graphically in Figure 35.
Figure 35 - Ethnicity breakdown of the executive sample (N= 525)
55%
14%
10%
3%
19%
Australian New Zealand European
British South African European
Other
127All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Primary Language
The vast majority of the manager sample reported English as their primary language (N = 495) with
only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 30). This can
be seen graphically in Figure 36.
Figure 36 - Primary language breakdown for executive sample (N=525)
94%
6%
English Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015128
Highest Qualification Attained
The majority of the executive sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was
completing a bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=163), an advanced diploma or diploma (N = 150)
with a smaller proportion of the sample reported to having completed a masters degree (N=105),
postgraduate diploma (N=97) or doctoral degrees (N=10). This can be seen graphically in Figure 37.
Figure 37 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the executive sample (N=525)
31%
29%
20%
18%
2%
Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree Advanced diploma or diploma
Masters degree Postgraduate diploma or certificate
Doctoral degree
129All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Years of Experience in Current Career
The majority of the executive sample had been working in their current career for five or more
years (92%) with 86 individuals in their career for between five and ten years and 392 individuals
having ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A smaller proportion of
individuals had between three and five years worth of experience (N=31) with a small portion with
between two and three years worth of experience (N =12). This can be seen graphically in Figure 38
Figure 38- Experience in current career breakdown for the executive sample (N=525)
NORM TABLE
The norm information of executive sample is presented in Table 12with the sample mean, standard
deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true population mean.
Table 12
Norm information for the executive sample (N=525)
Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Accepting 30.69 3.28 0.14 30.41 30.97
Adaptable 29.68 3.03 0.13 29.42 29.94
Amiable 30.51 2.81 0.12 30.27 30.75
Analytical 27.98 2.86 0.12 27.74 28.23
Collaborative 31.00 2.62 0.11 30.77 31.22
Competitive 26.29 5.23 0.23 25.84 26.74
Compliant 26.11 4.38 0.19 25.74 26.49
Composed 30.19 3.32 0.14 29.91 30.48
2%
6%
17%
75%
Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years
Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015130
Data Driven 19.84 3.49 0.15 19.54 20.14
Decisive 24.89 2.51 0.11 24.67 25.10
Directing 31.23 2.77 0.12 30.99 31.47
Driven 25.05 2.61 0.11 24.82 25.27
Empathic 41.87 5.02 0.22 41.44 42.30
Energetic 24.87 2.90 0.13 24.63 25.12
Influential 22.92 2.73 0.12 22.69 23.16
Innovative 24.07 2.72 0.12 23.84 24.31
Intuitive 19.87 2.94 0.13 19.62 20.12
Learning Focused 25.46 2.55 0.11 25.24 25.68
Meticulous 27.94 3.60 0.16 27.64 28.25
Motivating 26.58 2.41 0.11 26.38 26.79
Optimistic 31.69 2.97 0.13 31.43 31.94
Receptive 25.74 2.27 0.10 25.54 25.93
Reliable 24.26 3.01 0.13 24.00 24.52
Risk Tolerant 22.68 4.74 0.21 22.28 23.09
Self Aware 21.92 3.29 0.14 21.64 22.20
Self Confident 25.26 2.41 0.11 25.05 25.46
Sociable 24.86 3.08 0.13 24.59 25.12
Socially Aware 28.83 3.44 0.15 28.53 29.12
Strategic 26.09 2.58 0.11 25.87 26.31
Theoretical 29.85 2.88 0.13 29.60 30.10
Trusting 24.41 3.50 0.15 24.11 24.71
Work Focus 23.44 2.83 0.12 23.20 23.68
131All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
7.9 Incumbent Norm (2015)
DESCRIPTION
This sample is comprised of 944 individuals currently employed and completing the assessment for
personal interest or development. This sample is characterised by being relatively young with a
medium age of between 36 and 40, with mixed levels of education. The sample was highly
experienced with 82% having been in their current career for three years or more.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Gender
The incumbent sample was comprised of 581 Males and 357 Females which is shown graphically in
Figure 39.
Figure 39 - Gender breakdown of the incumbent sample (N=944)
Male Female
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015132
Age
The age of the incumbent sample’s age ranged from 20 years or younger to 61 yearsor older (Median
= between 36 and 40). The distribution of age ranges of the sample can be seen graphically in Figure
40.
Figure 40 - The frequency of the incumbent sample falling within age ranges (N =944)
Country of Origin
The majority of the incumbent sample had a country of origin of Australia (N=511) with a smaller
number being born in New Zealand (N=127), Indonesia (N=103), The United Kingdom (N=55), India
(N=24), or other countries (N=123). This can be seen graphically in Figure 41.
Figure 41 - The Country of Origin breakdown of the incumbent sample (N=944)
5
81
14
1 1
57
14
6
12
7
12
2
10
2
42
15
6
54%
13%
11%
6%
3% 13%
Australia New Zealand Indonesia United Kingdom India Other
133All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Ethnicity
The vast majority of the incumbent sample reported their ethnicity as Australian (N= 494) with a
smaller number reporting their ethnicity as New Zealand European (N=99),British (N=30), Indian
(N=27), and a combination of other ethnicities (N=48). This can be seen graphically in Figure 21.
Figure 42 - Ethnicity breakdown of the incumbentsample (N= 944)
52%
10%
7%
3%
3%
24%
Australian New Zealand European
Indonesian British
Indian Other
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015134
Primary Language
The vast majority of the incumbent sample reported English as their primary language (N = 790) with
only a very small proportion reporting other languages as their primary language (N = 154). This can
be seen graphically in Figure 43.
Figure 43 - Primary language breakdown for Incumbent sample (N=944)
84%
16%
English Other
135All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Highest Qualification Attained
In general, the incumbent sample showed a wide variety of educational attainment. The majority of
the development sample reported that the highest qualification they achieved was completing a
bachelors (undergraduate) degree (N=228). Roughly equal proportions of the development sample
reported attaining an advanced diploma or diploma (N=122), postgraduate diploma or certificate
(N=138), and masters degree (N=130). A proportion completed some tertiary study (N=136) with
smaller proportions completing high school (N=127) or leaving prior to completing high school
(N=42). This can be seen graphically in Figure 44.
Figure 44 - Highest qualification attained breakdown for the incumbent sample (N=944)
4%
13%
14%
24%
13%
15%
14%
2% 1%
Left prior to completing secondary school Completed secondary school
Some tertiary Bachelors (Undergraduate) degree
Advanced diploma or diploma Postgraduate diploma or certificate
Masters degree Doctoral degree
MISSING
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015136
Years of Experience in Current Career
The majority of the incumbent sample had been working in their current career for five or more
years (69%) with 239 individuals in their career for between five and ten years and 403 individuals
having ten years or more worth of experiences in their current career. A smaller proportion of
individuals had between three and five years worth of experience (N=119) with a small portion with
between two and three years worth of experience (N =74). The remaining 11% of the development
sample had two years or less worth of experience in their current career. This can be seen
graphically in Figure 45.
Figure 45- Experience in current career breakdown for the incumbent sample (N=944)
NORM TABLE
The norm information of incumbent sample is presented in Table 13with the sample mean, standard
deviation and standard error of the mean and a 95% confidence interval of the true population mean.
Table 13
Norm information for the incumbent sample (N=944)
Scale Mean SD SEMean 95 % Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Accepting 28.80 4.57 0.15 28.51 29.09
Adaptable 28.74 3.85 0.13 28.50 28.99
Amiable 29.81 3.32 0.11 29.60 30.02
2% 1%
3% 5%
8%
13%
26%
43%
Less Than Three Months Three to Six Months
Seven Months to One Year One Year to Two Years
Two Years to Three Years Three Years to Five Years
Five Years to Ten Years Ten Years or More
137All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Analytical 26.42 3.55 0.12 26.19 26.64
Collaborative 30.19 3.37 0.11 29.98 30.41
Competitive 25.66 6.18 0.20 25.27 26.06
Compliant 26.62 4.58 0.15 26.33 26.91
Composed 28.06 4.60 0.15 27.77 28.36
Data Driven 19.53 3.75 0.12 19.29 19.77
Decisive 23.07 3.58 0.12 22.84 23.29
Directing 29.01 3.90 0.13 28.76 29.26
Driven 23.60 3.56 0.12 23.37 23.83
Empathic 40.70 5.69 0.19 40.34 41.06
Energetic 23.13 4.00 0.13 22.87 23.38
Influential 21.39 3.30 0.11 21.18 21.60
Innovative 22.56 3.41 0.11 22.34 22.77
Intuitive 20.06 3.15 0.10 19.86 20.26
Learning Focused 24.65 3.26 0.11 24.44 24.85
Meticulous 27.24 4.20 0.14 26.97 27.51
Motivating 25.09 3.06 0.10 24.90 25.29
Optimistic 30.49 3.84 0.12 30.25 30.74
Receptive 24.79 2.86 0.09 24.61 24.97
Reliable 22.40 4.16 0.14 22.14 22.67
Risk Tolerant 21.71 5.60 0.18 21.35 22.07
Self Aware 20.50 4.10 0.13 20.24 20.76
Self Confident 23.68 3.20 0.10 23.47 23.88
Sociable 23.33 4.24 0.14 23.06 23.60
Socially Aware 27.77 3.77 0.12 27.53 28.01
Strategic 23.90 3.57 0.12 23.67 24.13
Theoretical 28.55 3.66 0.12 28.32 28.78
Trusting 23.98 3.77 0.12 23.74 24.22
Work Focus 21.55 4.00 0.13 21.30 21.81
8 Development Framework
The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire was designed as a tool for
selection in the population of graduates, managers, professionals, executives
and all other job families. The assessment aims to provide a comprehensive
overview of the personality characteristics that are relevant to performance
in the workplace, and furthermore, to predict the work performance of job
applicants.
139All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
8.1 Introduction
The primary goal of the PATH personality questionnaire is to accurately and efficiently predict work
performance. The Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire was designed as a tool for selection in
the population of graduates, managers, professionals, executives and all other job families. The
assessment aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the personality characteristics that are
relevant to performance in the workplace, and furthermore, to predict the work performance of job
applicants. In addition to being a reliable and valid tool in the selection process, it was also vital that
the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire be fair, reliable and free of bias. Through its validity,
reliability, and fairness, the Talegent PATH Personality Questionnaire will be of real usefulness and
value to the organisations that use it. This value will be achieved through increasing performance, job
satisfaction and productivity and decreasing turnover. Other goals were to create a simple, visually-
appealing and technically stable candidate experience, coupled with aesthetically-pleasing, jargon-free
reports.
8.2 Development Framework
In light of the preceding, Simms and Watson (2009) offer an approach to personality scale
construction that follows a robust validation process compromising of three general phases. This
development framework is shown graphically in Figure 46. The framework suggested by Simms and
Watson (2009) is considered an exhaustive process for investigating and demonstrating the
psychometric quality of personality questionnaires. The first phase is centred on developing a clear
conceptualisation of the target construct, and the creation of the initial item pool from which scales
will be extracted. The second phase concerns the psychometric evaluation of items and the
development of an item selection strategy. The third and final phase involves convergent,
discriminant and criterion-related validity analyses to evaluate whether the target construct is
adequately measured and in line with its theoretical foundations. Overall, this method balances
theory and empirical work in the construction of scales as well as an integrative framework for
constructing objective measures under the broad umbrella of construct validity.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015140
Figure 46 - Development framework followed during the development, refinement and validation of the PATH
personality questionnaire.
Following the recommendations of Simms and Watson (2009), the structure of the Talegent PATH
personality questionnaire scales was determined on the basis of a combination of rational and
theoretical justifications, and factor analytic and internal consistency methods.
Simms and Watson (2009) asserted that combining these methods of scale construction is essential
in order to develop sound measures with adequate construct validity.
The development of the PATH Personality Questionnaire involved three key stages with each stage
building on the results of the last phase.
The substantive validity phase is concerned with describing a theoretical model consisting of
the key constructs and their hypothesised relationships with each other and to observable
criteria and building measures of the constructs identified by theory.
The structural validity phase involves investigating the internal structure of the personality
scales created during the substantive validity phase and demonstrative the reliability and
factorial validity of the measures.
The external validity phase involves empirically testing the hypothesised relationships
between the constructs and observable criteria.
9 Substantive Validity
The substantive validity phase of the development process is the starting
point for developing the scales and items of the PATH personality
questionnaire. The substantive validity phase is an exploratory and creative
process focused on the conceptualisation of the personality constructs of
interest and generating items to measure those constructs.
143All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
9.1 Introduction
The substantive validity phase of the development process is the starting point for developing the
scales and items of the PATH personality questionnaire. The substantive validity phase is an
exploratory and creative process focused on the conceptualisation of the personality constructs of
interest and generating items to measure those constructs. An important part of conceptualising the
constructs of interest is specifying the work behaviours which should relate to the constructs of
interest. This homological network forms the basis of the external validity phase where these
theoretical relationships between the personality constructs and work behaviour are empirically
tested. The substantive validity phase can be subdivided into four sub phases; conceptualising the
personality constructs of interest, developing personality items to measure the construct of interest,
critically reviewing the item pools against established item writing principals, and finally piloting a
refined item set with a representative population to help identify any problematic items. This can be
seen graphically in Figure 47.
Figure 47 - The four components of the substantive validity phase followed during the development of the
PATH personality questionnaire
9.2 Early Development
INTRODUCTION
In this study, the first three parts of the substantive validity phase are undertaken. The starting point
of the development of the PATH personality questionnaire was defining the personality constructs of
interest which are to be measured by the personality questionnaire. Once the personality constructs
are defined and operationalised an initial item pool can be created, reviewed, and refined. Study 1
describes this process and the resulting item pool. The objective of this process is to arrive at a pool
of items which are easy to understand, answer, and demonstrate a high degree of face validity.
METHOD
Defining Construct of Interest
Aware that common method biases in study design threaten the validity of inferences from a
measure, we took several precautions to avoid measurement errors in the creation of our
personality questionnaire. First, we performed an extensive literature review of studies on
occupational personality questionnaires designed for selection purposes. This is important to identify
previous attempts to measure and conceptualise work-relevant personality constructs. Based on the
literature review we assembled a comprehensive list of personality constructs divided across the Big
Five personality dimensions. This list served as our criteria of work-relevant personality constructs.
See Table 2for the list of the personality constructs and their definitions.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015144
Item pool generation
A large pool of items was created for each construct of interest. Items were written to specifically
measure the construct of interest and only that construct. This pool was an over-inclusive sampling
of items that went over and above the personality constructs we identified. This over-inclusive
approach is fundamental to ensure representativeness of the constructs of interest. In writing the
items we deliberately used simple, concise and straightforward language. This is necessary to avoid
item complexity and to facilitate respondents’ comprehension (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003; & Watson, 2009). Similarly, we avoided double-barrelled questions and the use of
technical jargon because this may result in idiosyncratic interpretations, random responding or
systematic response tendencies (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Social desirability bias was also considered by
avoiding writing items that could reflect socially desirable behaviours or perceptions.
Response Scale Selection
In terms of scale values/anchors, each item was a statement followed by a 6-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with no midpoint (neutral) in the response options.
This format leads respondents to provide an answer with a clear direction and less cognitive effort
for the interpretation of values/anchors (Wivagg, 2008). Furthermore, it offers plenty of choice,
without overwhelming respondents or having unnecessary subtle distinctions between options
(Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005).
Expert Review
In order to establish conceptual boundaries and reduce the pool into a more suitable form for
practice applications we organised a team of industrial and organisational psychologists, experts in
psychometrics, and experienced professionals in the use of personality questionnaires, hereafter
referred to as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). This team made decisions about keeping or rejecting
items based on their face validity and clarity. Overall, an over-inclusive initial pool of items and SMEs’
expertise is fundamental in establishing the conceptual and empirical boundaries and determining the
theoretical meaningfulness of a test. These are content-oriented validation strategies that have
important implications in the acceptability of testing, and the transparency of test development and
validation (Murphy, 2009).
RESULTS
The literature review led to the identification of 32 personality constructs spanning the Big Five.
Based on this, an initial sample of 2497 items was created and reviewed by SMEs. Items that showed
conceptual confounds, lack of relevance or lack of clarity, were edited or removed. As a result, the
initial pool was reduced to 897 items, distributed across the 32 scales/constructs including two
response style indicators. All of the remaining items had been independently rated by three subject
matter experts and found to be face valid and likely to measure the construct of interest (and only
the construct of interest).
DISCUSSION
In this study, the personality constructs of interest were defined and operationalised. Following this
an initial item pool designed to measure the constructs was generated and reviewed by a panel of
experts for key criteria including the item quality and the degree that the item demonstrated face
validity or appeared to measure the construct of interests (and only that construct). The resulting
refined item pool consisted of 897 items which demonstrate strong face validity as rated by
independent subject matter experts. This refined item pool will serve as the basis of a pilot in the
next study.
145All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
9.3 Substantive Pilot
INTRODUCTION
Having demonstrated the face validity of the refined pool of items during the previous study, in the
substantive pilot, the refined item pool was piloted with a small sample of convenience to help
identify any problematic items. One hundred and seventy three participants completed an early
version of the PATH personality questionnaire online. The item pool was further refined base on the
results of inter-item correlations and reliability analysis. The item pool was reduced from 897 to 197
items which appear to measure the same underlying construct of interest.
SUBJECTS
One hundred seventy-three participants completed an online version of the provisional personality
questionnaire at their convenience. Participants were graduates, professionals, managers and
executives of Australia and New Zealand. The participants were recruited online and provided with
feedback on their personality to help incentivise completion and honest responding.
METHOD
The general statistics package SPSS 20 was utilised for performing the correlations and reliability
analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha as the reliability statistic of choice.
Inter-item correlation
The Pearson’s correlations between items within the same scale were calculated. Items which were
not sufficiently correlated with several items within the same scale (r < .50) or that correlated too
high (r > .9) were eliminated to avoid poor factor loadings and multi ollinearity respectively (Field,
2009). Combinations of positively and negatively keyed items were retained to help reduce response
bias. As a result, the pool was reduced from 897 to 197 items.
Reliability
Reliability analysis was performed on each scale individually with the scale items being entered into
the analysis of their own scales only. The scale mean and standard deviations were taken from the
SPSS output from the reliability statistic. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated
using Equation 6 using the scale variance and reliability coefficient. The SEMean was calculated using
Equation 3.
RESULTS
The results from the reliability analysis of the refined scales is summarised in Table 14. The internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for all of the PATH scales fell between 0.7 and 0.9 with a median
reliability of 0.82. Although reliability is affected by several variables including scale length, breath, as
well as quality, the general consensus is that personality scales should have estimates of reliability
which approximately fall between 0.7 and 0.9.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015146
Table 14
Summary of the Reliability analysis of the refined item pool.
Scale Items M SD SEMean α SEM
Accepting 7 33.63 5.02 0.38 0.83 2.07
Adaptable 6 28.96 3.82 0.29 0.81 1.67
Amiable 6 25.92 2.53 0.08 0.73 1.31
Analytical 6 25.69 3.82 0.29 0.78 1.79
Collaborative 6 30.12 3.59 0.27 0.87 1.29
Competitive 6 24.20 5.91 0.45 0.87 2.13
Compliant 6 26.53 4.15 0.32 0.81 1.81
Composed 6 27.27 4.68 0.36 0.88 1.62
Data Driven 5 19.38 3.47 0.26 0.74 1.77
Decisive 6 26.27 4.23 0.32 0.81 1.84
Directing 6 28.13 4.45 0.34 0.89 1.48
Driven 6 29.24 4.00 0.30 0.82 1.70
Energetic 5 23.51 4.06 0.31 0.86 1.52
Empathic 6 13.63 3.91 0.13 0.80 1.75
Influential 6 26.47 3.74 0.29 0.76 1.83
Intuitive 6 24.95 4.26 0.32 0.76 2.09
Innovative 6 26.72 4.05 0.31 0.82 1.72
Learning Focused
5 24.63 3.73 0.28 0.88 1.29
Meticulous 7 32.62 4.24 0.32 0.78 1.99
Motivating 6 29.73 3.90 0.30 0.86 1.46
Optimistic 6 30.50 4.05 0.31 0.85 1.57
Receptive 6 29.27 3.64 0.28 0.74 1.86
Reliable 6 27.81 4.50 0.34 0.79 2.06
Risk Tolerant 6 27.01 4.38 0.33 0.85 1.70
Self Aware 6 25.25 4.00 0.30 0.72 2.12
Self Confident 6 27.83 3.71 0.28 0.79 1.70
Sociable 6 29.19 4.74 0.36 0.89 1.57
Socially Aware 6 27.53 3.81 0.29 0.79 1.75
Strategic 6 27.82 4.20 0.32 0.87 1.51
Theoretical 7 31.62 4.57 0.35 0.82 1.94
Trusting 7 29.14 4.09 0.31 0.72 2.16
147All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Work Focused 6 27.34 4.06 0.31 0.76 1.99
Mean 6.03 27.12 4.10 0.30 0.81 1.75
Median 6 27.43 4.06 0.31 0.81 1.75
Min 5 13.63 2.53 0.08 0.72 1.29
Max 7 33.63 5.91 0.45 0.89 2.16
DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to pilot the refined item pool of PATH personality items with a
representative sample to help identify potentially problematic items. It is important that problematic
items are identified early in the development of the PATH personality questionnaire to reduce the
cost to respondents during later stages of development. One hundred seventy-three participants
completed an online version of the provisional personality questionnaire at their convenience. The
inter-item correlations between items within the same scale were analysed to identify problematic
items. These were subsequently removed. The resulting scales demonstrated appropriate levels of
internal consistency suggesting that participants generally understood the items and items should be
measuring the same underlying construct. The results of the pilot build on the findings from the
expert review and together suggest that the PATH personality scales demonstrate a high level of face
validity and appear to measure the construct of interest.
9.4 Substantive Validity Summary
The substantive validity phase of the development process is the starting point for developing the
scales and items of the PATH personality questionnaire. The substantive validity phase involves
defining the constructs of interest and the work behaviours those constructs should theoretically
relate to, followed by generating, reviewing and refining the item pools which measure those
constructs of interest (Figure 47). This process was undertaken through two independent studies. In
the early development, the constructs of interest were defined and operationalised, large over-
inclusive item pools were generated to measure the constructs of interest, and these item pools
were critically reviewed and refined by subject matter experts. In the substantive pilot, the refined
item pools were further refined through a small scale pilot where items which did not appear to
relate to other items within the same scale were removed. The results from study 1 and 2 suggest
that the PATH personality scales should be face valid, measure the construct of interest (and only
the construct of interest), are easily understood by applicants, and do not show content overlap.
During the structural validity phase of the development this is explicitly and rigorously tested
through appropriate statistical methods.
10 Structural Validity
Having established the substantive validity of the scale items, we can
establish that the scale items appear to measure the construct of interest
and only the construct of interest, should be easily understood by the
population of interest, and should not show overlap in item content.
149All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
10.1 Introduction
Having established the substantive validity of the scale items, we can establish that the scale items
appear to measure the construct of interest and only the construct of interest, should be easily
understood by the population of interest, and should not show overlap in item content. The next
phase in establishing the construct validity of the PATH personality scales as suggested by the Simms
and Watson (2009) framework is to establish the structural validity of the personality scales (Figure
46). Structural validity refers to the degree that the structural relations between scale items match
the theoretical relations of the model underlying the construct of interest (Simms and Watson,
2009). In personality scale development this means that the scale items should all measure a single
underlying factor (unidimensional), the measure should be relatively free from error (reliable), and
the residual item error should be independent and uncorrelated with the residual error of other
items (conditionally independent).
The general process for demonstrating the structural validity of a personality scale begins with
generating a structural model through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). This is followed by assessing
the degree of reliability of a scale. The strictest test of the structural validity of a personality scale is
to perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). These independent analyses are viewed as
complementary to each other and together provide independent evidence for the structural validity
of the PATH scales. This process can be seen graphically in Figure 48. To demonstrate the structural
validity of the PATH personality questionnaire scales, three independent studies were undertaken
with three large independent samples. The first study generated the factor structure for the PATH
scales and established the unidimensionality of the scales through exploratory factor analysis. The
second study assessed the degree of reliability shown by the PATH personality scales. The final study
confirmed the factor structure generated during the EFA through confirmatory factor analysis with
an independent sample. These studies are presented in this chapter.
Figure 48.Graphical representation of process for demonstrating the structural validity of PATH
personality scales
10.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis is the statistical process of identifying an underlying structural model
which explains the relationships between scale items. Ideally, the structural model will be
substantively meaningful and parsimonious in that it contains the lowest number of factors required
to explain as much of the variance in the item responses as possible. When developing a personality
scale, the aim is to create a scale where the items load strongly on a single factor and have that
factor explain a large proportion of the variance in the item responses. Establishing that a single
underlying factor explains the variance seen in item responses is imperative for interpreting the
results from reliability analyses and should be established before progressing on to that stage of
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015150
analysis. The factor structure generated during the exploratory factor analysis is also supplied a priori
during the confirmatory factor analysis stage and its fit with an independent sample explicitly tested.
The results from the factor analysis will be used to inform the understanding of the underlying factor
structure of the scale.
10.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Study
INTRODUCTION
In this study, we investigated the factor structure underlying each PATH scale through exploratory
factor analysis with a large sample (N=1,213) of job applicants who are likely to be representative of
the population of interest for the PATH personality questionnaire. We conducted the exploratory
factor analyses with the intent of extracting a single underlying factor which accounts for a large
proportion of the variance in item responses. This would demonstrate that the PATH scales are
unidimensional and that it is appropriate to create aggregate scale scores to describe where an
individual scores on the underlying factor. Unidimensional scales are an assumption of classical test
theory and a prerequisite for reliability analysis.
SUBJECTS
Twelve hundred and thirteen applicants (1,213) for graduate roles (667 men, 546 women) aged from
20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 21 and 25 years old) from Australasia completed the
full PATH personality questionnaire as part of the recruitment process for employment. The
majority of participants were from Australia (86.14%) with a smaller proportion from New Zealand
(6.59%) or other countries of origin (7.27%). The majority of participants spoke English as their
primary language (72.81%) with a smaller proportion speaking Mandarin (14.74%) or another
language (12.45%) as their primary language.
METHOD
Exploratory factor analysis was performed on each scale individually with the scale items being
entered into the analysis of their own scales only. The general statistics package SPSS 20 was utilised
for performing the exploratory factor analyses with the maximum likelihood method of extraction.
The maximum likelihood extraction was used as it provides the most accurate representation of the
underlying factor structure without over estimating the degree of variance contributed by individual
items. Scree plot analysis was the primary method for determining the number of factors to extract.
The analyst looks for the position on the Scree plot where there is a noticeable reduction in the
variance accounted for by extracting further factors. Kline (1994) proposed that Scree analysis as one
of the best methods for determining the number of factors to extract. The oblique rotation direct
oblimin was applied in the case where multiple factors were extracted to aid in the interpretation of
factor loadings. Oblique rotations such as direct oblimin allow for factors to be correlated which is
often the situation when developing personality scales. Another advantage of an oblique rotation
over orthogonal rotations is that oblique rotations can accommodate situations where the factors
are uncorrelated (orthogonal) but orthogonal rotations can’t accommodate situations where the
factors are correlated.
151All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
RESULTS
The results from the exploratory factor analyses are presented in Table 15. To ensure that it was
appropriate to move forward with exploratory factor analysis the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy was reviewed for each scale. The KMO of the scales ranged from 0.67
to 0.91 (Table 15) with the KMO values being well above the acceptable limit of 0.50 (Kaiser, 1974;
Field 2005). Scree plot analysis found that all scales showed a noticeable reduction in the variance
accounted for after extracting the first factor without noticeable secondary break points, thus
suggesting that a single factor is the most appropriate solution to account for the variance seen in the
items. An example Scree plot is shown in Figure 49.Notice the sharp reduction in the variance in
Eigenvalues accounted for after the first factor with each subsequent factor accounting for a very
small proportion of additional variance. This pattern suggests that a single underlying factor accounts
for a large proportion of the variance in item responses and that items are likely to load strongly on
that factor with minimal loading on other secondary factors (unidimensional).
Figure 49.Example Scree plot from an exploratory factor analysis of PATH personality scale
The variance accounted for by the extracted factor ranged from 40.45% to 66.01% with a median of
50.00% (Table 15).This is in line with what might be considered appropriate by Lee and Ashton
(2007) although no cut-off is specified by the authors. The item factor loadings ranged from 0.11 to
0.86. The vast majority of scales had factor loadings which were all above the generally accepted
minimum cut-off of 0.3. Four scales (Analytical, Amiable, Data Driven, & Self Aware) had items which
loaded weakly on their extracted factors suggesting that these items might only be weakly related to
the other items in the scale and may be contaminating the factor scores with error. This will be
investigated during the reliability analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015152
Table 15
Summarised Results from Exploratory Factor Analyses of PATH Personality Scales
Scale Items KMO Median
Communality
Factors VAC Item Factor Loadings
Min Median Max
Accepting 6 0.82 0.33 1 43.60% 0.36 0.58 0.71
Adaptable 6 0.86 0.44 1 52.65% 0.47 0.66 0.81
Analytical 6 0.77 0.33 1 41.61% 0.11 0.58 0.79
Amiable 6 0.80 0.36 1 41.24% 0.18 0.60 0.69
Collaborative 6 0.80 0.38 1 42.07% 0.36 0.53 0.78
Competitive 6 0.91 0.61 1 66.01% 0.69 0.80 0.82
Compliant 6 0.82 0.39 1 46.33% 0.34 0.62 0.75
Composed 6 0.88 0.48 1 57.72% 0.58 0.69 0.85
Data Driven 5 0.75 0.38 1 47.11% 0.28 0.62 0.78
Decisive 5 0.81 0.44 1 53.65% 0.56 0.66 0.72
Directing 6 0.85 0.48 1 52.98% 0.45 0.69 0.73
Driven 5 0.78 0.35 1 47.28% 0.36 0.60 0.72
Empathy 6 0.86 0.48 1 52.14% 0.30 0.69 0.83
Energetic 5 0.83 0.47 1 58.25% 0.55 0.69 0.86
Influential 5 0.75 0.37 1 45.46% 0.41 0.61 0.70
Innovative 5 0.80 0.39 1 55.85% 0.41 0.62 0.85
Intuitive 5 0.67 0.33 1 40.45% 0.37 0.58 0.63
Learning Focused 5 0.81 0.41 1 51.83% 0.50 0.64 0.76
Meticulous 6 0.83 0.37 1 45.34% 0.43 0.61 0.78
Motivating 5 0.81 0.44 1 50.77% 0.45 0.67 0.67
Optimistic 6 0.81 0.42 1 50.79% 0.49 0.65 0.80
Receptive 5 0.77 0.39 1 45.13% 0.36 0.62 0.66
Reliable 5 0.81 0.42 1 54.18% 0.39 0.65 0.82
Risk Tolerant 5 0.82 0.46 1 54.56% 0.55 0.67 0.75
Self Aware 5 0.76 0.41 1 49.22% 0.26 0.64 0.83
Self Confident 5 0.73 0.31 1 45.05% 0.49 0.55 0.61
Sociable 5 0.81 0.44 1 51.86% 0.44 0.58 0.78
Socially Aware 6 0.85 0.55 1 51.78% 0.14 0.74 0.83
153All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Strategic 5 0.84 0.52 1 58.12% 0.47 0.72 0.80
Theoretical 6 0.80 0.28 1 45.42% 0.45 0.53 0.81
Trusting 6 0.81 0.31 1 42.87% 0.32 0.56 0.73
Work Focus 5 0.73 0.37 1 48.78% 0.42 0.61 0.80
Mean 5.47 0.80 0.41 1 49.69% 0.40 0.63 0.76
Median 5 0.81 0.4 1 50.00% 0.42 0.62 0.78
Min 5 0.67 0.28 1 40.45% 0.11 0.53 0.61
Max 6 0.91 0.61 1 66.01% 0.69 0.80 0.86
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the factor structure of the PATH personality scales
using a large sample of job applicants who are likely to be representative of the population of interest
for the PATH personality questionnaire. The scales were independently analysed through
exploratory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimator with an oblique rotation. The
results suggested that each scale was unidimensional and that a single underlying factor explained an
appropriately large proportion of the variance in item responses. The vast majority of scales showed
strong factor loadings across all items suggesting that all items meaningfully contributed to the
underlying factors. A small number of scales showed lower than optimal factor loadings and these
scales will be given closer scrutiny during the subsequent studies.
10.4 Reliability
Reliability reflects the consistency or repeatability of test results. A test or questionnaire is reliable if
it is consistent and precise in its measurements of the underlying factor of interest and reflects the
respondent’s true score. In order for an assessment to be valid, it needs to be reliable, and generally
speaking the reliability of a scale sets the upper bound of its validity. The reliability of personality
questionnaires can be assessed in multiple ways. The most commonly reported measure is the
internal consistency, which measures the degree to which the items that make up a personality scale
measure a single underlying construct and are free from random error. Ideally the reliability of
personality scales should be greater than 0.7 demonstrating that the scale is relatively free of
measurement error and less than 0.90 suggesting that the scale is measuring an adequately broad
factor of interest.
Conceptually a scale score’s variance can be partitioned into two separate portions, the variance
contributed by the true score variance and the error variance. This can be expressed mathematically
in Equation 4 with scale score variance , true score variance
, and error variance . Generally
speaking, an individual’s score on a personality measure is the results of the individual’s true level of
the underlying factor and a degree of random error and those two factors only.
Equation 4
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015154
The reliability of a scale is the proportion of the scale score variance which can be contributed to the
true score variance. Or inversely, the degree that the scale score is free of random error. The
equation for calculating the scale reliability can be expressed mathematically in Equation 5 with the
reliability coefficient , scale score variance , true score variance
.
Equation 5
The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) describes the degree of accuracy that can be expected
for a given scale with smaller SEM being more precise. Using the SEM we can place confidence
intervals around the scale score which describe the probability that a candidate will score in the
defined range if the test is retaken. For example, with 95% certainty, if a candidate retook the test
they would score within ±1.96 x SEM of the initial scale score. The equation for calculating the SEM
for a personality scale is shown in Equation 6 with reliability coefficient , and scale score variance
.
Equation 6
10.5 Reliability Study
In this study, we build on the findings from the exploratory factor analysis study where we
demonstrated that all scales were unidimensional with one single factor explaining the item
responses. In study 4, we investigate the reliability of the PATH personality scales using a large
independent sample (n =1,252) of job applicants representative of the population of interest for the
PATH personality questionnaire. The reliability of the PATH personality scales provides an estimate
of the proportion of the scale score which is attributable to the underlying factor of interest and the
proportion which is due to random error. Ideally scales should be relatively free of error (high
reliability) providing an accurate estimate of a respondent’s score on the factor of interest.
SUBJECTS
Twelve hundred and fiftytwo applicants (1,252) for graduate roles (638 men, 614 women) aged
between 20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 21 and 25 years old) from Australasia
completed the full PATH questionnaire as part of the recruitment process for employment. The
majority of participants were from Australia (86.14%) with a smaller proportion from New Zealand
(6.59%) or other countries of origin (7.27%). The majority of participants spoke English as their
primary language (72.81%) with a smaller proportion speaking Mandarin (14.74%) or another
language (12.45%) as their primary language.
METHOD
Reliability analysis was performed on each scale individually with the scale items being entered into
the analysis of their own scales only. The general statistics package SPSS 20 was utilised for
155All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
performing the reliability analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha as the reliability statistic of choice. The scale
mean and standard deviations were taken from the SPSS output from the reliability statistic. The
standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated using Equation 6 using the scale variance and
reliability coefficient.
RESULTS
The results of the reliability analyses are shown in Table 16. The vast majority of scales have
reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) of between 0.70 and 0.90 with the median reliability of
0.78. Two scales fell outside this range; Intuitive had a slightly lower reliability coefficient of 0.65 and
Competitive which had a slightly higher reliability coefficient of 0.91. The slightly lower than ideal
reliability of the Intuitive scale is somewhat concerning, however the results from the EFA suggest
strong structural validity with acceptable factor loadings across all items. The structural validity of the
Intuitive scale is something to investigate further during the confirmatory factor analysis. The slightly
higher reliability coefficient of the Competitive scale may suggest that items have overlapping content
which is inflating the reliability of the scale. This will be assessed further during the confirmatory
factor analysis.
Table 16
Psychometric Properties of the PATH Personality Scales Including the Number of Items, Mean, Standard
Deviation, Standard Error, and Cronbach's Alpha.
Scale Items M SD α SEM
Accepting 6 31.15 3.56 0.74 1.82
Adaptable 6 31.08 3.31 0.83 1.36
Amiable 6 31.48 2.77 0.71 1.49
Analytical 6 28.86 3.22 0.72 1.70
Collaborative 6 31.81 2.80 0.73 1.45
Competitive 6 27.44 5.16 0.91 1.55
Compliant 6 27.16 3.51 0.75 1.76
Composed 6 29.55 3.99 0.87 1.44
Data Driven 5 21.62 3.42 0.71 1.84
Decisive 5 23.47 3.18 0.78 1.49
Directing 6 30.40 3.50 0.85 1.36
Driven 5 26.07 2.76 0.74 1.41
Energetic 5 25.15 3.31 0.81 1.44
Empathic 6 29.42 3.83 0.83 1.58
Influential 5 22.42 3.19 0.82 1.35
Intuitive 5 19.16 3.21 0.65 1.90
Innovative 5 23.89 3.20 0.82 1.36
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015156
Learning Focused 5 27.19 2.44 0.78 1.14
Meticulous 6 29.99 3.21 0.75 1.61
Motivating 5 26.51 2.66 0.79 1.22
Optimistic 6 31.99 3.20 0.83 1.32
Receptive 5 27.03 2.30 0.72 1.22
Reliable 5 24.03 3.60 0.78 1.69
Risk Tolerant 5 23.70 3.37 0.80 1.51
Self Aware 5 21.94 3.59 0.70 1.97
Self Confident 5 24.69 2.93 0.72 1.55
Sociable 5 25.41 3.41 0.80 1.52
Socially Aware 6 29.44 3.71 0.79 1.70
Strategic 5 25.83 2.86 0.84 1.14
Theoretical 6 30.72 3.12 0.76 1.53
Trusting 6 23.99 4.06 0.75 2.03
Work Focused 5 24.00 3.12 0.73 1.62
Mean 5.47 26.77 3.30 0.78 1.53
Median 5 26.77 3.215 0.78 1.52
Min 5 19.16 2.3 0.65 1.14
Max 6 31.99 5.16 0.91 2.03
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of the PATH personality scales using a
large sample of job applicants who are representative of the population of interest for the PATH
personality questionnaire. The vast majority of the PATH personality scales demonstrated
appropriate reliability with the exception of Intuitive which fell slightly below 0.70. The results from
the EFA for this scale suggested a strong factor structure but further analysis was suggested to
identify the potential cause of this lower reliability estimate. These results build on the evidence from
the exploratory factor analysis and in combination suggest that the PATH personality scales are
unidimensional, measuring a single underlying factor, and that the scores are relatively free from
error. The four scales identified as potentially problematic during the exploratory factor analysis
(Analytical, Amiable, Data Driven, & Self Aware) all showed acceptable levels of reliability. This
suggests that the low factor loadings seen with these scales are not affecting their reliability and may
not be of psychometric concern. However, the structural validity of these scales will be analysed
further through confirmatory factor analysis which is considered the strictest analysis of structural
validity.
157All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
10.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis is the statistical process of explicitly testing the degree of fit between a
sample of data and a structural model supplied a priori from exploratory factor analysis or
substantive theory. Please see Hoyle (2009), Lee and Ashton (2009) and Byrne (2012) for more
information about confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Generally, a structural model
is generated through exploratory factor analysis with one sample of data and then that model is
explicitly tested through confirmatory factor analysis with an independent sample of data (Hurley et
al, 1997). In confirmatory factor analysis the number of factors and which factor items load on to is
explicitly stated a priori and tested. Confirmatory factor analysis is generally considered a stricter
assessment of the structural validity of a personality scale than exploratory factor analysis (Hurley et
al, 1997). The exploratory factor analyses phase suggested that all of the scales could be well
explained by single factor models (unidimensional). The ideal structure of a personality scale is
unidimensional with conditional independence between items. This is shown graphically in Figure 50
with all items (item1 to itemn) loading on one factor F1 with no covariance between item residuals (r1
- rn).
Figure 50.Graphical representation of a unidimensional factor model without covariance terms between item
residuals
A less ideal but somewhat acceptable factor structure is shown in Figure 51. This structure shows
the situation where the scale is unidimensional but not completely conditionally independent. Not
the covariance term between the residuals of items 2 and 4 (dependency). This suggests that even if
the factor is taken into account there is still systematic variance which should be taken into account
in the residual of these two items. This suggests that the content of these two items has significant
overlap and showing a degree of redundancy. In confirmatory factor analysis this dependency is often
resolved by removing one of the items or parcelling items together. See Little, Cunningham, Shahar &
Widaman (2002) for a full explanation of item parcelling.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015158
Figure 51. Graphical representation of a unidimensional factor model with covariance terms between item
residuals
10.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study
In this study, we build on the results of the exploratory factor analysis and reliability studies which
demonstrated that the scale scores were unidimensional and relatively free from error. In this study,
we confirm the unidimensional factor structures suggested by the exploratory factor analysis by
explicitly testing the degree of fit between this model supplied a priori and a large independent
sample of job applicants (n=1,262). Confirmatory factor analysis also allows the investigation of
sources of misfit with the ideal unidimensional model which will help identify why some scales might
be showing lower factor loadings during the EFA stage or lower reliability. Confirmatory factor
analysis also allows researchers to test the conditional independence of scales by identifying
significant covariance between item residuals.
SUBJECTS
Twelve hundred and sixty two applicants (1,262) for graduate roles (714 men, 548 women) aged
from 20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 21 and 25 years old) from Australasia
completed the full PATH questionnaire as part of the recruitment process for employment. The
majority of participants were from Australia (86.14%) with a smaller proportion from New Zealand
(6.59%) or other countries of origin (7.27%). The majority of participants spoke English as their
primary language (72.81%) with a smaller proportion speaking Mandarin (14.74%) or another
language (12.45%) as their primary language.
METHOD
The structural equation modelling program M-Plus version 6.12 (Muthen & Muthen, 2001) with the
Maximum Likelihood estimator was used to perform all confirmatory factor analyses with items
modelled as continuous indicator variables. The analysis was broken into two distinct phases. The
159All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
first phase of the analysis was a strictly confirmatory phase where the structural model generated by
the exploratory factor analysis of the personality constructs was tested using an independent sample
of data. During this phase all items were specified to load onto a single latent factor with no
covariance terms between the residuals of items as described by Figure 50 (see Appendex B for
example input syntax).
The criteria for interpreting the fit of the model are taken from Hu and Bentler (1999) and presented
in Table 17. TheΧ2 and p-value are presented for convention but are rarely interpreted due to the
tendency of the Χ2statistic to be overly sensitive to misfit when sample sizes are large, as is the case
the current study. Generally, the combination of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TFI) are interpreted to establish the
fit of the specified model to the sample data. A model was said to show tenable fit if the combination
of RSMEA, CFI and TFI suggest at least a moderate fit between the specified model and the data.
Table 17
Fit Statistics Commonly Employed to Assess Model Fit During Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Generally
Accepted Criteria for Good, Moderate, and Poorly Fitting Models.
Fit Statistic Good Fit Moderate Fit Poor Fit Notes
Χ2 /df 0.00 - 3.00 3.00 - 5.00 > 5.00 Lower is better
p –value > 0.05 Higher is better
RMSEA 0.00 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.10 > 0.10 Lower is better
CFI 1.00 - 0.95 0.94 - 0.90 0.89 - 0.80 Higher is better
TFI 1.00 – 0.95 0.94 – 0.90 0.89 – 0.80 Higher is better
In the second phase, scales which were showing untenable fit between the a priori model and the
data were systematically re-specified using the modification indices to find a model which provided
adequate fit while not violating any assumptions. Modification indices are provided by analysis
programs (M-Plus) to help identify sources of misfit between the specified model and the sample
data. The fit of a model can be improved by re-specifying the model utilising the modification indices,
this re-specification process is acceptable, however must be undertaken with caution as some
modifications may be unacceptable from a psychometric position. In general, adding covariance terms
between items which load onto the same factor is acceptable but adding cross loadings between
items is unacceptable. This model specification is shown graphically in Figure 51. During the re-
specification phase, the model was modified term by term using the modification indices until at least
a moderate level of fit was achieved.
RESULTS
Strictly Confirmatory Phase
During the strictly confirmatory phase the degree of fit between a single factor model with no
covariance terms between item residuals was explicitly tested. The fit statistics which describe the
degree of fit between a single factor model and the sample data for each scale individually are
summarised in Table 18. Based on the fit statistics and the thresholds provided by Hu and Bentler
(1999) an overall fit interpretation was performed which summarises the RMSEA, CFI and TFI
statistics. Based on the thresholds suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) the majority of scales showed
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015160
a good or moderate fit (tenable) with a single dimensional factor model with no covariance terms
between item residuals.
Table 18
Summarised Results From the Strictly Confirmatory Phase of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Each Scale
Scale Χ2 df Χ2/df P-Value RMSEA CFI TFI Interpreted
Overall Fit
Accepting 34.49 9 3.83 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good
Adaptable 20.37 9 2.26 0.02 0.03 0.99 0.99 Good
Analytical 35.93 9 3.99 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good
Amiable 38.81 9 4.31 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.96 Good
Collaborative 34.00 9 3.78 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good
Competitive 33.80 9 3.76 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.99 Good
Compliant 41.12 9 4.57 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.97 Good
Composed 40.15 9 4.46 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.98 Good
Data Driven 72.92 5 14.58 0.00 0.11 0.94 0.89 Poor
Decisive 51.66 5 10.33 0.00 0.09 0.97 0.94 Moderate
Directing 65.67 9 7.30 0.00 0.07 0.98 0.97 Moderate
Driven 22.89 5 4.58 0.00 0.05 0.98 0.96 Good
Energetic 4.160 5 0.83 0.53 0.00 1.00 1.00 Good
Empathy 45.13 9 5.01 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.97 Good
Influential 26.21 5 5.24 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.96 Good
Innovative 39.43 5 7.89 0.00 0.08 0.98 0.97 Moderate
Intuitive 120.34 5 24.07 0.00 0.14 0.86 0.72 Poor
Learning Focused 40.56 5 8.11 0.00 0.08 0.97 0.96 Moderate
Meticulous 48.69 9 5.41 0.00 0.06 0.97 0.96 Good
Motivating 29.76 5 5.95 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.96 Good
Optimistic 220.12 9 24.46 0.00 0.14 0.91 0.85 Poor
Receptive 19.62 5 3.92 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.97 Good
Reliable 40.89 5 8.18 0.00 0.08 0.98 0.96 Moderate
Risk Tolerant 61.49 5 12.30 0.00 0.10 0.96 0.93 Moderate
Self Aware 34.96 5 6.99 0.00 0.07 0.98 0.95 Moderate
Self Confident 65.75 5 13.15 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.88 Moderate
Sociable 20.16 5 4.03 0.00 0.05 0.99 0.98 Good
161All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Socially Aware 43.396 9 4.82 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.97 Good
Strategic 30.46 5 6.09 0.00 0.06 0.98 0.98 Good
Theoretical 108.32 9 12.04 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.90 Moderate
Trusting 19.08 9 2.12 0.02 0.03 0.99 0.99 Good
Work Focus 208.04 5 41.61 0.00 0.18 0.87 0.73 Poor
Re-specification Phase
A small number of scales (Data Driven, Intuitive, Optimistic, and Work Focus) showed an untenable
fit with a single factor model with no covariance terms between item residuals. During the re-
specification phase the structural model for these four scales were systematically modified with
terms added as suggested by the modification indices. The number of modifications required to
reach a tenable fit and the resulting fit statistics are presented in Table 19.
The Data Driven, Intuitive, and Work Focus scales required the addition of a single covariance term
between the residuals of two items to reach a tenable level of model fit. The Optimistic scale
required two covariance terms to be added between two separate sets of items to reach an
acceptable level of item fit. When there is strong support for the addition of covariance terms
between the residuals of items it suggests that the item content of these items may be closely related
and this is causing a degree of dependence even when the factor of interest is accounted for. Four of
the scales required one or more covariance terms between item residuals suggesting that these items
may not show conditional independence and may require items to be removed or parcelled to
account for the dependency.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015162
Table 19
Summarised results from the re-specification phase of the confirmatory factor analysis for the scales which
had untenable fit during the strictly confirmatory phase
Scale Χ2 df Χ2/df P-
Value
RMSEA CFI TFI Interpreted
Overall Fit
Modifications
Required
Data Driven 39.86 4 9.97 0.00 0.09 0.97 0.92 Moderate Covariance
between 2nd
and 4th Item
Residuals
Intuitive 12.07 4 3.02 0.02 0.04 0.99 0.98 Good Covariance
between 2nd
and 4th Item
Residuals
Optimistic 64.70 7 9.24 0.00 0.08 0.98 0.95 Moderate Covariance
between 4th
and 6th Item
Residuals,
Covariance
between 1st
and 2nd Item
Residuals,
Work Focus 1.80 4 0.45 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 Good Covariance
between 2nd
and 4th Item
Residuals
DISCUSSION
As the strictest assessment of the structural validity of a personality scale, confirmatory factor
analysis provides a statistical process for explicitly testing the degree of fit between an a priori model
and a data sample. If the confirmatory factor analysis shows an acceptable level of fit between the
specified model and the sample of data then there is strong evidence for the structural validity of the
personality scale. The vast majority of scales in the Talegent PATH personality questionnaire showed
acceptable fit with the model generated during the exploratory factor analysis phase. This
demonstrates that the PATH personality scales are unidimensional and show conditional
independence as required by classical test theory.
Four of the scales required one or more covariance terms between item residuals suggesting that
these items may show a degree of conditional dependence. This conditional dependence is often the
result of items which have similar content creating a sub-factor which is not accounted for by the
factor of interest. Although this conditional dependence is a violation of classical test theory it can be
accommodated by removing items or parcelling the items together to account for the
dependency(See Little, Cunningham, Shahar & Widaman (2002) for a full explanation of item
parcelling).Further analysis is required to confirm the conditional dependence between these items
before removing items or modifying the scales.
Overall the results from the confirmatory factor analyses provide strong support for the structural
validity of the PATH personality scales. The findings from the confirmatory factor analysis study build
163All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
on the results from the exploratory factor analysis and reliability study and in combination suggest
that the PATH personality scales demonstrate structural validity.
10.8 Structural Validity Summary
The objective of the structural validity phase is to demonstrate that the structural relations between
scale items match the theoretical relations (Simms & Watson, 2009). For personality scales this
generally requires demonstrating that the scale measures a single underlying factor while being
relatively free of error (reliable) and conditionally independent. The results of these three
independent studies show that the PATH personality scales are unidimensional, measuring one and
only one underlying factor each, are relatively free from error (adequately reliable), and are generally
conditionally independent. With the structural validity of the PATH personality scales established we
will now move onto the third phase of Simms and Watson (2009) framework where we investigate
the external validity of the PATH personality scales.
11 External Validity
Having demonstrated the substantive, and structural validity of the PATH
personality scales, the final element of the construct validation framework is
external validity. External validity is concerned with establishing the
relationships between the PATH personality questionnaire scales and other
constructs of interest.
165All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
11.1 External Validity
Having demonstrated the substantive, and structural validity of the PATH personality scales, the final
element of the construct validation framework suggested by Simms and Watson (2009) is the
external validity. External validity is concerned with establishing the relationships between the PATH
personality questionnaire scales and other constructs of interest.
11.2 Criterion-Related Validity
Criterion related validity refers to the degree that scores on a measure relate to or predict non-test
criteria deemed relevant by theory (Simms and Watson, 2009). For example, theory suggests that the
scores for a measure of the personality construct Sociability should predict how outgoing and
gregarious an individual is. For personality questionnaires used for the purpose of recruitment to
have criterion-related validity, scores on the questionnaire should relate to or predict relevant work
performance or other work outcomes. Most researchers distinguish between predictive and
concurrent criterion related validity based on the delay between the individual completing the
assessment and their work performance being measured. A predictive criterion related validity study
measures the individual’s personality, separated by a meaningful period of time, and then measures
their work performance. A concurrent criterion related validity study measures the individual’s
personality and work performance at approximately the same point in time.
11.3 Predictive Criterion Validity Study
INTRODUCTION
In this study, the criterion related validity of the PATH personality questionnaire was investigated
through a predictive validity study. Fifty eight (N=58) applicants for professional and leadership roles
completed the PATH personality questionnaire and, following three months of working for the
partner organisation, their managers rated their comprehensive work performance across twenty
nine areas. The correlation between the PATH scale score and relevant area of work performance
was analysed to investigate the predictive criterion related validity of individual PATH scales and the
PATH questionnaire as a whole. The results from this study build on the findings from the studies
conducted during the substantive and structural validity phases.
SUBJECTS
Fifty eight (N=58) applicants for technical professional and leadership roles were assessed during the
recruitment process with their managers providing ratings of their subsequent work performance
following three months of working for the client organisation. The subjects were comprised of 32
men and 26 women aged from 20 or younger to 61 years or older (Median = between 31 and 35
years old). The majority of the subjects stated that New Zealand was their country of origin (62%)
with the remaining subjects stating that they came from South Africa (6%), The United Kingdom
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015166
(6%), a combination of other countries (21%), or did not state a country of origin (5%). The vast
majority of the subjects spoke English as their primary language (82%), with the remaining, either not
providing a primary language (5%) or identified another language as their primary language (13%).
MEASURES
Personality
The applicant’s personality was measured by the PATH personality questionnaire which is a work
styles personality questionnaire designed to measure work relevant personality constructs. The
version of the questionnaire utilised in this study contained 29 scales measuring work relevant
personality at a facet level (the most recent version contains 32). Applicants are presented with
individual statements about themselves in a work context and required to indicate their level of
agreement/disagreement with that statement on a six point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree – Strongly
Agree). The items are scored and aggregated to create the individual’s score on each scale. The
structural validity evidence of the PATH personality questionnaire is presented in Studies 1 through
3. In general the PATH scales are appropriately reliable and structurally sound to act as the predictor
in the current study.
Criterion
The non-test criterion of interest in the current study was the applicant’s work performance as rated
by their manager. Manager ratings of performance are commonly used as the criterion of interest
during validation studies. The applicant’s manager rated the performance of the applicant using a
structured performance rating questionnaire. The performance rating questionnaire consists of 100
items which ask the manager to rate their employee’s ability in a specific work performance area.
The performance rating questionnaire covers 29 personality areas and 3 cognitive ability areas. Each
performance area is measured by a number of items which are aggregated (unit weighting) into an
overall criterion score. Example criterion scales are presented in Table 20. Each item was preceded
by the stem “Compared to the role requirements, how would you rate this employee's ability to”.
Managers were asked to rate their employee’s performance on a six point scale ranging from “Much
Worse than Required” to “Much Better than Required”. The psychometric properties for the 29
performance scales used in the current study are presented in Table 20.
Table 20
Criterion Criterion
Items
Criterion
Mean
Criterion
SD
Criterion
Reliability
Criterion
SEM
Embracing Diversity 3 14.13 2.00 0.93 0.53
Variety Seeking 3 14.29 2.59 0.96 0.52
Evaluating Information 3 13.38 2.41 0.89 0.80
Helping Others 3 14.25 2.12 0.93 0.56
Surpassing Others 3 12.27 2.42 0.96 0.48
Following Rules 3 13.76 2.82 0.94 0.69
Stress Tolerance 3 13.34 3.45 0.98 0.49
Empirically Minded 3 13.27 2.81 0.91 0.84
Confident with Decisions 3 12.64 2.64 0.95 0.59
167All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Taking Control 3 12.78 3.02 0.94 0.74
Achievement Striving 3 12.96 2.40 0.94 0.59
Enthusiasm 3 14.05 2.61 0.90 0.83
Getting Buy-in 3 12.65 2.42 0.94 0.59
Creative Thinking 3 12.96 2.94 0.96 0.59
Enjoys Learning 3 14.47 3.00 0.94 0.73
Attention to Detail 3 14.09 2.72 0.89 0.90
Transformational Leader 3 12.05 2.18 0.94 0.53
Positive Attitude 3 13.67 2.74 0.96 0.55
Handles Feedback 3 13.04 2.78 0.95 0.62
Dependability 3 14.42 2.67 0.91 0.80
Seizes Opportunity 3 12.51 2.36 0.92 0.67
Development Oriented 3 12.70 2.53 0.88 0.88
Assured 3 13.95 2.39 0.90 0.76
Socially Confident 3 13.49 2.67 0.93 0.71
Emotionally Intelligent 3 12.95 2.62 0.95 0.59
Future Focused 3 12.45 2.62 0.94 0.64
Conceptual 3 13.31 2.71 0.91 0.81
Believes in others 3 13.38 2.39 0.97 0.41
Task Orientated 3 13.53 2.80 0.92 0.79
Mean 3 13.34 2.61 0.93 0.66
Median 3 13.34 2.62 0.94 0.64
Min 3 12.05 2.00 0.88 0.41
Max 3 14.47 3.45 0.98 0.90
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015168
Example Performance Criterion Scales With Items
Criterion Ability Rating Item
Empirically Minded Make decisions based on the facts and figures
rather than feelings.
Ignore emotional reactions to situations and
make decisions based on data.
Make decisions objectively based on evidence.
Confident with Decisions Make decisions without hesitation.
Be confident in their decisions.
Take responsibility for making tough decisions.
METHOD
All analyses for the study were conducted with the general statistical analysis package SPSS 20 by
IBM. To assess the psychometric properties of the criterion the reliability of the performance
criterion scales was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha. Following this, an aggregate performance
criterion score was constructed by summing the raw ratings from the three items which comprised
each scale. The mean, and standard deviation of the performance criterion scores was produced
through the “Explore Variable” function of SPSS. To investigate the relationship between the PATH
personality scale and the corresponding performance criterion of interest, Pearson’s correlations
were performed between the PATH personality scale score and the performance criterion scale
score and the single tailed significance tested. A singled tailed test for significance was performed as
we had a strong theoretical bases to assume that the relationships between the PATH performance
scales and the corresponding performance criterion scale is likely to be positive if it exists.
RESULTS
The psychometric properties of the performance criterion scales are presented in Table 21. The
performance criterion scales showed strong reliability with reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha)
ranging from 0.88 to 0.98 with a median reliability coefficient of 0.94. This high reliability suggested
that the criterion scales were highly homogenous and may show degree of redundancy in the scale
items. The performance criterion scores showed appropriate levels of variance with standard
deviations ranging from 2.00 to 3.45 with a median standard deviation of 2.62. This suggested that
the performance criterion scales are showing an adequate amount of variance to be predicted by the
personality scores.
Table 21
Psychometric Properties of the Performance Rating Criterion Scales Used In the Validation
Criterion Criterion
Items
Criterion
Mean
Criterion
SD
Criterion
Reliability
Criterion
SEM
Embracing Diversity 3 14.13 2.00 0.93 0.53
Variety Seeking 3 14.29 2.59 0.96 0.52
169All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Evaluating Information 3 13.38 2.41 0.89 0.80
Helping Others 3 14.25 2.12 0.93 0.56
Surpassing Others 3 12.27 2.42 0.96 0.48
Following Rules 3 13.76 2.82 0.94 0.69
Stress Tolerance 3 13.34 3.45 0.98 0.49
Empirically Minded 3 13.27 2.81 0.91 0.84
Confident with Decisions 3 12.64 2.64 0.95 0.59
Taking Control 3 12.78 3.02 0.94 0.74
Achievement Striving 3 12.96 2.40 0.94 0.59
Enthusiasm 3 14.05 2.61 0.90 0.83
Getting Buy-in 3 12.65 2.42 0.94 0.59
Creative Thinking 3 12.96 2.94 0.96 0.59
Enjoys Learning 3 14.47 3.00 0.94 0.73
Attention to Detail 3 14.09 2.72 0.89 0.90
Transformational Leader 3 12.05 2.18 0.94 0.53
Positive Attitude 3 13.67 2.74 0.96 0.55
Handles Feedback 3 13.04 2.78 0.95 0.62
Dependability 3 14.42 2.67 0.91 0.80
Seizes Opportunity 3 12.51 2.36 0.92 0.67
Development Oriented 3 12.70 2.53 0.88 0.88
Assured 3 13.95 2.39 0.90 0.76
Socially Confident 3 13.49 2.67 0.93 0.71
Emotionally Intelligent 3 12.95 2.62 0.95 0.59
Future Focused 3 12.45 2.62 0.94 0.64
Conceptual 3 13.31 2.71 0.91 0.81
Believes in others 3 13.38 2.39 0.97 0.41
Task Orientated 3 13.53 2.80 0.92 0.79
Mean 3 13.34 2.61 0.93 0.66
Median 3 13.34 2.62 0.94 0.64
Min 3 12.05 2.00 0.88 0.41
Max 3 14.47 3.45 0.98 0.90
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015170
The result of the analysis for each scale is shown in Table 22 with summary statistics of the average,
min, and max validity coefficients. Overall, the PATH personality questionnaire demonstrated strong
predictive validity with a median uncorrected correlation of 0.27 between personality scores and
relevant workplace performance. The majority of scales (62%) showed significant positive
relationships between the PATH personality scale and the performance criterion of interests at the
0.05 level of significance. This suggested that these scales successfully measure the personality area
that they were designed to measure. Furthermore, these significant positive relationships suggested
that the PATH personality scales can be used in recruitment settings to predict an applicant’s future
performance on the job. A further 10% of scales showed a positive relationship between the PATH
personality scales and the performance criteria of interest at the 0.10 level of significance. This
suggested that these scales are likely to measure the personality constructs of interest and should be
able to be used during recruitment to predict future work performance but further research was
required to provide stronger evidence. The remaining 28% of scales did not show significant positive
relationships between the PATH scales and the performance criterion of interests. This suggested
that for these roles there was unlikely to be a meaningful relationship between the PATH personality
scales and work performance.
Table 22
Validity statistics for the PATH personality scales. Note. rc is the validity coefficient corrected for attenuation
due to measurement error in the criterion only.
PATH
Personality Scale
(Predictor)
Relevant Criterion of Interest Uncorrected
Validity
Coefficient
(r)
P Value of
Uncorrected
Validity
Coefficient
Validity
Coefficient
Corrected for
Criterion
Unreliability
(rc)
Accepting Embracing Diversity -0.03 0.43 -0.03
Adaptable Variety Seeking 0.08 0.28 0.08
Analytical Evaluating Information 0.27 0.02 0.29
Collaborative Helping Others 0.20 0.08 0.21
Competitive Surpassing Others 0.23 0.05 0.24
Compliant Following Rules 0.49 0.00 0.51
Composed Stress Tolerance 0.39 0.02 0.40
Data Driven Empirically Minded 0.28 0.02 0.29
Decisive Confident with Decisions 0.06 0.32 0.06
Directing Taking Control 0.41 0.00 0.42
Driven Achievement Striving 0.35 0.01 0.33
Energetic Enthusiasm 0.04 0.38 0.04
Influential Getting Buy-in 0.22 0.05 0.23
171All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Innovative Creative Thinking 0.35 0.01 0.36
Learning Focused Enjoys Learning 0.00 0.49 0.00
Meticulous Attention to Detail 0.14 0.16 0.15
Motivating Transformational Leader 0.20 0.07 0.22
Optimistic Positive Attitude 0.27 0.03 0.28
Receptive Handles Feedback 0.32 0.01 0.33
Reliable Dependability 0.25 0.04 0.27
Risk Tolerant Seizes Opportunity 0.13 0.17 0.14
Self Aware Development Oriented 0.33 0.01 0.41
Self Confident Assured 0.38 0.00 0.42
Sociable Socially Confident 0.28 0.02 0.31
Socially Aware Emotionally Intelligent -0.05 0.38 -0.05
Strategic Future Focused 0.36 0.01 0.37
Theoretical Conceptual 0.27 0.03 0.28
Trusting Believes in others 0.49 0.00 0.50
Work Focused Task Orientated 0.18 0.09 0.19
Mean 0.24 0.11 0.25
Median 0.27 0.03 0.28
Min -0.03 0.00 -0.05
Max 0.49 0.49 0.51
DISCUSSION
The criterion related validity of the PATH personality scales was investigated through a predictive
study. Fifty eight (N=58) applicants completing the PATH personality assessment during the
recruitment process and their performance rated by their managers following 3 months of working
in professional and leadership roles. The relationship between the PATH personality scale and the
relevant work performance area was analysed with a Pearson’s correlation with a single tailed test
for significance. Overall the PATH personality assessment demonstrated appropriate levels of
criterion related validity with a median correlation of 0.27. The majority of scales (72%) showed
significant positive correlations with their relevant area of work performance at either the 0.05 or
the 0.10 level of significance. The remaining 28% of scales did not show significant relationships with
their corresponding areas of work performance.
There are a number of reasons that the study failed to find significant relationships between the
PATH personality scales and the relevant area of work performance. Firstly, the PATH personality
scale may not be measuring the personality construct of interest. Secondly, the performance rating
questionnaire may not be capturing the performance criterion of interest. Thirdly, the performance
criterion of interest may not be readily observable by managers with the study population
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015172
(professionals and managers). Lastly, the small sample size of the current study may be limiting the
power of the analysis to detect a relationship when one does exist. Further research with a larger
sample is required to further investigate the criterion related validity of these scales.
These results build on the findings from the previous studies conducted to demonstrate the
substantive and structural validity of the PATH personality scales. Together, they suggest that the
PATH personality scales are measuring the personality construct they were designed to measure and
are appropriately accurate and precise in doing so. This supports the use of the PATH personality
questionnaire for recruitment.
12 Adverse Impact
Of primary importance when utilising an assessment method for recruitment
or development is that the method doesn’t disadvantage protected
demographics and the assessment is performing equally across the different
demographic groups of interest.
175All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
12.1 Introduction
Of primary importance when utilising an assessment method for recruitment or development is that
the method doesn’t disadvantage protected demographics and the assessment is performing equally
across the different demographic groups of interest (Civil Rights Act, 1964;Equality Act, 2010;
Human Rights Act, 1993; Racial Discrimination Act, 1975; Sex Discrimination Act, 1984; Age
Discrimination Act, 2004; Australian Human Rights Commission Act, 1986). For example, the
assessment scores should not be affected by the gender, ethnicity, primary language, or country of
origin of a respondent and no group should be systematically advantaged or disadvantaged. If male
respondents score considerably higher in a measure of sociable then males may be more likely to
endorse items related to the measure of sociable than females regardless of their actual level of the
personality construct. This tendency to endorse items regardless of the true level of an underlying
construct it termed construct irrelevant variance and the higher the degree of construct irrelevant
variance the higher the degree of bias included in the measure. There are a number of methods for
assessing the degree of adverse impact of a selection method ranging in rigour and statistical
complexity.
A simple method is to compare the mean differences in assessment scores across demographic
groups. This will identify if a protected group is scoring considerably lower than the majority group.
Generally, in western cultures, the majority group is considered European, men (Hacker, Helen
Mayer, 1951; Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979),
between the ages of 30 and 40 years old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 1967). If a
protected group is scoring considerably lower than the majority group it may be evidence to suggest
that the protected group could be adversely impacted by the use of the selection or development
method. For example, if women are scoring considerably lower than men on a measure of sociability
then this may be adversely impacting their selection for roles where being outgoing and sociable are
important. Therefore, both the degree of difference between the majority group and the protected
group and the direction of the difference is important when investigating whether the use of the
assessment method could be adversely impacting a protected group.
12.2 Mean Differences between Demographics
INTRODUCTION
The degree of difference between two groups is often measured by Cohen’s d which is the absolute
differences between the means of both groups expressed in terms of the pooled standard deviations
of the two groups. Cohen’s d is expressed mathematically in Equation 7 with the mean of sample 1
, the mean of sample 2 , and the pooled standard deviation calculated through Equation 8.
Equation 7
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015176
Equation 8
Although Cohen (1988) generally empathised considering the practical implications of effect sizes he
also provided benchmark thresholds to aid in interpreting the difference between two groups (Table
23). To help understand the practical implication of the differences the percentile standing of each
threshold is included in Table 23. The percentiles standing shows where the average person (50th
percentile) from the “advantaged” group would fall on the “disadvantaged” group’s distribution given
an effect size.
Table 23
Benchmark thresholds for interpreting Cohen's d
Cohen’s d Percentile Standing Effect size threshold
0.2 58th Small
0.5 69th Medium
0.8 78th Large
This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might come
from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the construct
of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of the
personality construct.
12.3 Adverse Impact Study
INTRODUCTION
The adverse impact of using the PATH personality scale was investigated by analysing the mean
differences between protected groups and the majority group. Two thousand seven hundred and
thirteen (N=2713) applicants took part in the study. The difference between the majority group and
protected groups was analysed to identify scales which might disadvantage the protected group
during recruitment.
SUBJECTS
Two thousand seven hundred and thirteen (n = 2713) applicants (1725 men, 988 women) aged
between 20 years or younger to 60 years (M = between 31 and 35 years old) from Australasia
completed the full PATH questionnaire as part of the recruitment process for employment. The
majority of participants were from Australia (57.98%) with a smaller proportion from New Zealand
(19.42%), the United Kingdom (7.89%) or other countries of origin (14.71%). The majority of
participants spoke English as their primary language (94.32%) with a smaller proportion speaking
another language (5.68%) as their primary language.
177All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
METHOD
The applicant sample was partitioned by gender, ethnicity and age according to the applicant’s
responses to optional demographic questions asked prior to completing the assessments.
DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPINGS
Gender
The sample was partitioned based on the applicants’ response to their gender with 988 applicants
identifying with the female gender and 1725 applicants identifying with the male gender. During the
adverse impact analysis the male gender was treated as the majority group and the female gender as
the protected group.
Gender Sample Size
Female 988
Male 1725
Ethnicity
The sample was partitioned based on their response to the ethnicity demographic question and
intuitively grouped into larger demographic clusters (African, African American, Asian, Eastern
European, European, Indian, Middle Eastern, Pacific, South American).The ethnicity clusters of Asian,
European, Indian, and Pacific were included in the adverse impact analysis with makeup of the
clusters presented in Table 24 to Table 27. During the adverse impact analysis the ethnicity cluster
European was considered the majority group and was compared to the other protected groups pair
wise.
Asian
Table 24
The demographic breakdown for the Asian ethnicity cluster
Ethnicity Sample Size
Chinese 62
Indonesian 10
Singaporean Chinese 8
Filipino 7
Vietnamese 5
Korean 3
Malaysian Chinese 3
Papua New Guinean 2
Malay 2
Taiwanese 1
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015178
Thai 1
Mauritian 1
Total 105
European
Table 25
The demographic breakdown for the European ethnicity cluster
Ethnicity Sample Size
Australian 1522
New Zealand European 446
British 148
New Zealand European/Maori 44
South African European 44
English 39
Irish 20
Dutch 10
Greek 10
German 8
Scottish 6
Polish 3
United States Creole 2
Welsh 2
Eurasian 2
Total 2306
Indian
Table 26
The demographic breakdown of the Indian ethnicity cluster
Ethnicity Sample Size
Indian 60
Indian Tamil 5
179All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Sri Lankan 4
Bangladeshi 2
Pakistani 2
Sri Lankan Tamil 1
Hong Kong Chinese 1
Cambodian Chinese 1
Anglo Indian 1
Total 77
Pacific
Table 27
The demographic breakdown of the Pacific ethnicity cluster
Ethnicity Sample Size
New Zealand Maori 54
Australian Aboriginal 16
Fijian 12
Samoan 8
Fijian Indian 4
Niuean 3
Tongan 1
Torres Strait Islander 1
Cook Island 1
Rarotongan 1
Tuvaluan 1
Cook Islands Maori 1
Total 103
Age
The sample was partitioned based on the applicants’ responses to the age ranger demographic
question. The demographic breakdown of the sample is presented in Table 28. The Age ranges were
intuitively clustered into four bins of roughly 10 years each. During the adverse impact analysis the
age cluster of Between 31 and 40 was treated as the majority group based on the both the mode and
median age falling in this range (Mode = Between 31 and 35, Median = Between 36 and 40) and was
compared to the other protected age clusters pairwise.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015180
Table 28
The demographic breakdown of the sample based on the age range of the respondent
Age Range Age Range Cluster Sample Size
20 or younger 20 or Younger to 30 36
Between 21 and 25 20 or Younger to 30 224
Between 26 and 30 20 or Younger to 30 441
Between 31 and 35 Between 31 and 40 478
Between 36 and 40 Between 31 and 40 431
Between 41 and 45 Between 41 and 50 412
Between 46 and 50 Between 41 and 50 309
Between 51 and 55 Between 51 and 60+ 212
Between 56 and 60 Between 51 and 60+ 98
61 and Over Between 51 and 60+ 40
RESULTS
Gender
The mean for the male and female samples is shown in Table 29 with Cohen’s d expressing the
difference between the male and female means in terms of their pooled standard deviation. Overall,
the PATH personality scales show minimal differences between the mean of males and females with a
median Cohen’s d of 0.16. The majority of scales (62.5%) showed trivial differences between males
and females with Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful
difference between the male and female samples. Of the 12 scales which showed differences between
the means of the male and female samples, 11 had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small
differences (less than one single sten score), only 1 scale had a Cohen’s d of greater than 0.5
suggesting a moderate difference in the means of males and females (between one and two sten
scores).
While some scales show differences between the male and female samples it is also important to
analyse the direction of the difference to understand whether these differences may disadvantage
women during recruitment or development. Of the 12 scales with meaningful difference between
males and females 5 scales may adversely impact females to a small degree during recruitment. Males
rate themselves as slightly more Analytical, Competitive, Data Driven, Decisive, and Intuitive than
females in general. Females tend to rate themselves as more Accepting, Adaptable, Amiable,
Empathic, Motivating, Risk Tolerant, and Socially Aware. It is important to remember that although
there does appear to be some differences between males and females this difference is small (less
than a single Sten Score) and only likely to disadvantage female applicants in very limited cases.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
181All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
Table 29
Scale means for male and female sample with Cohen's d for each scale
Scale Male Female Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.32 31.42 0.32
Adaptable 29.31 30.17 0.26
Amiable 30.38 31.57 0.43
Analytical 27.41 26.71 0.22
Collaborative 31.12 31.61 0.19
Competitive 26.82 24.54 0.43
Compliant 27.90 27.40 0.12
Composed 29.78 29.19 0.17
Data Driven 20.50 19.70 0.23
Decisive 24.42 23.56 0.30
Directing 29.99 29.35 0.19
Driven 24.89 24.88 0.01
Empathic 41.19 43.36 0.43
Energetic 24.26 24.38 0.04
Influential 21.98 21.92 0.02
Innovative 23.72 23.30 0.15
Intuitive 20.40 19.64 0.25
Learning Focused 25.42 25.76 0.13
Meticulous 28.75 29.05 0.09
Motivating 25.81 26.47 0.25
Optimistic 31.44 31.91 0.15
Receptive 25.74 26.00 0.11
Reliable 24.21 24.32 0.04
Risk Tolerant 19.08 22.59 0.61
Self Aware 21.91 21.79 0.03
Self Confident 25.02 24.66 0.14
Sociable 24.59 25.12 0.16
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015182
Socially Aware 27.64 28.98 0.37
Strategic 25.22 24.77 0.16
Theoretical 29.71 29.56 0.05
Trusting 24.05 24.26 0.06
Work Focused 23.34 23.26 0.03
Mean 26.45 26.60 0.19
Median 25.58 25.44 0.16
Min 19.08 19.64 0.01
Max 41.19 43.36 0.61
Ethnicity
Pacific
The mean for the European and Pacific samples is shown in Table 30 with Cohen’s d expressing the
difference between the European and Pacific sample means in terms of their pooled standard
deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show minimal differences between the mean of the
European and Pacific samples with a median Cohen’s d of 0.15. The majority of scales (65.6%)
showed only trivial differences between European and Pacific peoples with Cohen’s d of less than 0.2
suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful difference between the European and Pacific
samples. Of the 11 scales which showed differences between the means of the European and Pacific
samples, all had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than a single sten
score). As with the previous adverse impact analysis the direction of the difference is important for
understanding whether the protected group (Pacific) is adversely affected by the difference. Of the 11
samples with small differences all of them were in the direction of the Pacific sample suggesting that
Pacific people are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the use of the PATH scales for recruitment.
In general, Pacific people rate themselves as more Adaptable, Amiable, Compliant, Driven, Intuitive,
Learning Focused, Motivational, Optimistic, Receptive, Self Aware, and Sociable than European
people.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
Table 30
Scale means for European and Pacific sample with Cohen's d for each scale
Scale European Pacific Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.76 31.20 0.14
Adaptable 29.54 30.46 0.29
Amiable 30.83 31.46 0.23
183All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Analytical 27.08 26.60 0.15
Collaborative 31.35 31.81 0.18
Competitive 25.98 26.92 0.17
Compliant 27.67 29.31 0.43
Composed 29.57 30.11 0.15
Data Driven 20.01 20.13 0.04
Decisive 24.17 24.18 0.00
Directing 29.82 29.30 0.15
Driven 24.83 25.86 0.37
Empathic 41.81 42.56 0.16
Energetic 24.23 24.66 0.14
Influential 21.99 21.70 0.10
Innovative 23.57 23.44 0.04
Intuitive 20.26 20.88 0.21
Learning Focused 25.43 26.34 0.35
Meticulous 28.78 29.08 0.09
Motivational 26.01 26.75 0.29
Optimistic 31.60 32.43 0.28
Receptive 25.77 26.49 0.32
Reliable 24.32 24.16 0.05
Risk Tolerant 20.14 19.72 0.09
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015184
Self Aware 21.76 22.62 0.25
Self Confident 24.90 25.17 0.10
Sociable 24.75 25.65 0.29
Socially Aware 28.13 27.98 0.05
Strategic 25.05 25.28 0.08
Theoretical 29.71 29.44 0.09
Trusting 24.10 24.32 0.07
Work Focused 23.29 23.69 0.14
Mean 26.48 26.87 0.17
Median 25.60 26.41 0.15
Min 20.01 19.72 0.00
Max 41.81 42.56 0.43
Asian
The mean for the European and Asian samples is shown in Table 31 with Cohen’s d expressing the
difference between the European and Asian means in terms of their pooled standard deviation.
Overall, the PATH personality scales showed small differences between the mean of European and
Asian people with a median Cohen’s d of 0.24. A proportion of scales (43.75%) showed only minor
differences between European and Asian peoples with Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for
these scales there is no meaningful difference between the European and Asian samples. Of the
eighteen scales which showed differences between the means of the European and Asian samples,
fifteen had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than a single sten
score). Only three scales had Cohen d of greater than 0.5 suggesting that European and Asian
people show moderate differences in these scales (between one and two sten scores).
As with previous differences the direction of the difference is important for understanding whether
the protected group (Asian) is adversely affected by the difference. Of the fifteen scales with small
differences twelve of them were in the direction of the European sample suggesting that Asian people
may be adversely impacted by the use of these PATH scales for recruitment. Of particular concern
were the three scales Accepting, Intuitive, and Reliable which showed moderate differences between
the European and Asian samples in the direction of the European sample. This finding suggests that
these three scales may be likely to adversely impact Asian applicants to a moderate degree when
used in recruitment.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
185All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Table 31
Scale means for European and Asian sample with Cohen's d for each scale
Scale European Asian Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.76 28.52 0.66
Adaptable 29.54 29.43 0.03
Amiable 30.83 29.65 0.42
Analytical 27.08 28.11 0.33
Collaborative 31.36 30.15 0.47
Competitive 25.98 24.69 0.24
Compliant 27.68 26.70 0.24
Composed 29.57 28.43 0.33
Data Driven 20.01 21.70 0.49
Decisive 24.17 22.70 0.53
Directing 29.81 28.38 0.43
Driven 24.83 24.32 0.18
Empathic 41.81 42.54 0.15
Energetic 24.23 24.01 0.07
Influential 21.98 21.19 0.28
Innovative 23.57 22.90 0.23
Intuitive 20.26 18.77 0.50
Learning Focused 25.43 25.89 0.18
Meticulous 28.78 28.99 0.06
Motivational 26.01 25.63 0.15
Optimistic 31.60 30.44 0.39
Receptive 25.77 25.79 0.01
Reliable 24.32 22.22 0.64
Risk Tolerant 20.14 22.63 0.42
Self Aware 21.76 21.78 0.00
Self Confident 24.90 24.00 0.36
Sociable 24.75 23.45 0.41
Socially Aware 28.13 28.14 0.00
Strategic 25.05 24.60 0.16
Theoretical 29.71 29.23 0.16
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015186
Trusting 24.10 24.46 0.10
Work Focused 23.29 22.73 0.19
Mean 26.48 26.00 0.27
Median 25.60 25.16 0.24
Min 20.01 18.77 0.00
Max 41.81 42.54 0.66
Indian
The mean for the European and Indian samples is shown Table 32 with Cohen’s d expressing the
difference between the European and Indian sample means in terms of their pooled standard
deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show small differences between the mean of
European and Indian sample with a median Cohen’s d of 0.27.
The majority of scales (62.5%) showed minor differences between the means of the European and
Indian samples with Cohen’s d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than one sten
score). A small proportion for scales (9.38%) showed moderate differences between the means of
the European and Indian sample with Cohen’s d of between 0.5 and 0.8 which would practically
translate into a 1 or 2 sten score difference on average.
As with previous differences the direction of the difference is important for understanding whether
the protected group (Indian) is adversely affected by the difference. Of the 23 scales with meaningful
differences 21 of them were in the direction of the Indian sample suggesting that Indian people are
unlikely to be adversely impacted by the use of the PATH scales for recruitment. The two scales
which had a meaningful difference and were in the direction of the European sample were Intuitive
which showed a moderate difference (between one and two sten scores) and Theoretical which
showed a small difference (less than one sten score). This suggested that Indian applicants may be
disadvantaged by these two scales to some degree.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
Table 32
Scale means for European and Indian sample with Cohen's d for each scale
Scale European Indian Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.76 31.09 0.10
Adaptable 29.54 30.99 0.45
Amiable 30.83 31.61 0.28
Analytical 27.08 28.16 0.34
Collaborative 31.35 31.35 0.00
Competitive 25.98 26.77 0.15
187All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Compliant 27.67 28.07 0.10
Composed 29.57 30.46 0.26
Data Driven 20.01 22.69 0.78
Decisive 24.17 24.81 0.23
Directing 29.82 30.80 0.30
Driven 24.83 25.59 0.27
Empathic 41.81 43.76 0.39
Energetic 24.23 25.78 0.51
Influential 21.99 22.51 0.19
Innovative 23.57 24.42 0.30
Intuitive 20.26 18.39 0.62
Learning Focused 25.43 26.69 0.48
Meticulous 28.78 30.24 0.43
Motivational 26.01 26.66 0.25
Optimistic 31.60 32.15 0.18
Receptive 25.77 26.68 0.39
Reliable 24.32 25.03 0.22
Risk Tolerant 20.14 23.14 0.50
Self Aware 21.76 22.70 0.27
Self Confident 24.90 25.54 0.25
Sociable 24.75 25.96 0.38
Socially Aware 28.13 28.22 0.02
Strategic 25.05 25.59 0.20
Theoretical 29.71 29.01 0.23
Trusting 24.10 24.77 0.19
Work Focused 23.29 24.16 0.30
Mean 26.48 27.31 0.30
Median 25.60 26.67 0.27
Min 20.01 18.39 0.00
Max 41.81 43.76 0.78
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015188
Age
Between 20 or Younger and 30
The mean for the “Between 20 or Younger and 30”and “Between 31 and 40” samples is shown in
Table 33 with Cohen’s d expressing the difference between the male and female means in terms of
their pooled standard deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show trivial differences
between the mean of the age clusters with a median Cohen’s d of 0.10.
The majority of scales (90.63%) showed trivial differences between the two age cluster groups with
Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful difference between
the two samples. Of the 3 scales which showed differences between the means of the two samples,
all had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than one single sten score).
While some scales show differences between the two age group samples it is also important to
analyse the direction of the difference to understand whether these differences may disadvantage
younger applicants during recruitment or development. Of the 3 scales with meaningful difference
between the two age group samples only Learning Focused was in the direction of the younger
sample (Between 20 or younger and 30), the two scales Directing, and Decisive both show small
differences in the direction of the older sample (Between 31 and 40) suggesting that younger
applicants may be slightly disadvantaged when apply for roles. The difference is likely to be small and
practically translates into a difference of less than one sten score during interpretation.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
Table 33
Scale means for “Between the 20 or Younger and 30”and the “Between 31 and 40” age cluster samples
with Cohen's d for each scale
Scale Between 31 and 40 Between 20 or Younger
and 30
Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.89 30.99 0.03
Adaptable 29.75 30.16 0.12
Amiable 30.94 31.36 0.15
Analytical 27.14 27.20 0.02
Collaborative 31.42 31.67 0.10
Competitive 26.28 26.37 0.02
Compliant 27.97 27.89 0.02
Composed 29.77 29.40 0.11
Data Driven 20.35 20.62 0.07
Decisive 24.32 23.51 0.28
Directing 29.92 29.10 0.24
189All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Driven 25.10 25.41 0.11
Empathic 42.07 42.69 0.12
Energetic 24.50 24.53 0.01
Influential 22.10 21.75 0.12
Innovative 23.80 23.42 0.13
Intuitive 20.19 19.98 0.07
Learning Focused 25.70 26.25 0.21
Meticulous 29.10 29.44 0.10
Motivational 26.18 26.08 0.04
Optimistic 31.60 31.96 0.12
Receptive 25.97 26.43 0.19
Reliable 24.45 24.12 0.10
Risk Tolerant 20.03 20.74 0.12
Self Aware 21.92 21.78 0.04
Self Confident 25.10 24.65 0.17
Sociable 24.81 25.25 0.14
Socially Aware 28.34 28.42 0.02
Strategic 25.18 24.91 0.10
Theoretical 29.66 30.01 0.11
Trusting 24.09 23.98 0.03
Work Focused 23.32 23.38 0.02
Mean 26.62 26.67 0.10
Median 25.84 26.17 0.10
Min 20.03 19.98 0.01
Max 42.07 42.69 0.28
Between 41 and 50
The mean for the “Between 31 and 40” and “Between 41 and 50” age group samples is shown in
Table 34 with Cohen’s d expressing the difference between the male and female means in terms of
their pooled standard deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show trivial differences
between the mean of the age clusters with a median Cohen’s d of 0.09.
The majority of scales (87.5%) showed trivial differences between the two age cluster groups with
Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful difference between
the two samples. Of the 4 scales which showed differences between the means of the two samples,
all had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than one single sten score).
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015190
While some scales show differences between the two age group samples it is also important to
analyse the direction of the difference to understand whether these differences may disadvantage
older applicants (Between 41 and 50) during recruitment or development. Of the 4 scales with
meaningful difference between the two age group samples all were in the direction of the younger
age group (Between 31 and 40) suggesting that older applicants may be slightly disadvantaged when
applying for some roles. The difference is likely to be small and practically translates into a difference
of less than one sten score during interpretation.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
Table 34
Scale means for the “Between 31 and 40” and the “Between 41 and 50” age group samples with Cohen's d
for each scale
Scale Between 31 and 40 Between 41 and 50 Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.89 30.50 0.12
Adaptable 29.75 29.16 0.18
Amiable 30.94 30.35 0.21
Analytical 27.14 27.10 0.01
Collaborative 31.42 30.94 0.18
Competitive 26.29 25.65 0.12
Compliant 27.97 27.61 0.09
Composed 29.77 29.70 0.02
Data Driven 20.35 19.74 0.17
Decisive 24.32 24.32 0.00
Directing 29.92 30.04 0.04
Driven 25.10 24.53 0.20
Empathic 42.08 41.34 0.15
Energetic 24.49 24.07 0.14
Influential 22.11 22.06 0.02
Innovative 23.81 23.57 0.08
Intuitive 20.20 20.15 0.01
Learning Focused 25.71 25.09 0.23
Meticulous 29.11 28.43 0.20
Motivational 26.18 25.94 0.09
191All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Optimistic 31.60 31.53 0.03
Receptive 25.97 25.40 0.25
Reliable 24.45 24.25 0.06
Risk Tolerant 20.04 20.22 0.03
Self Aware 21.92 21.87 0.01
Self Confident 25.10 24.97 0.05
Sociable 24.81 24.46 0.11
Socially Aware 28.34 27.88 0.13
Strategic 25.18 25.08 0.04
Theoretical 29.66 29.44 0.07
Trusting 24.09 24.23 0.04
Work Focused 23.32 23.39 0.02
Mean 26.63 26.34 0.10
Median 25.84 25.25 0.09
Min 20.04 19.74 0.00
Max 42.08 41.34 0.25
Between 51 and 61+
The mean for the “Between 31 and 40” and “Between 51 and 61+” age group samples is shown in
Table 35 with Cohen’s d expressing the difference between the male and female means in terms of
their pooled standard deviation. Overall, the PATH personality scales show trivial differences
between the mean of the age clusters with a median Cohen’s d of 0.12.
The majority of scales (84.38%) showed trivial differences between the two age cluster groups with
Cohen’s d of less than 0.2 suggesting that for these scales there is no meaningful difference between
the two samples. Of the 5 scales which showed differences between the means of the two samples,
all had Cohen d of between 0.2 and 0.5 suggesting small differences (less than one single sten score).
While some scales show differences between the two age group samples it is also important to
analyse the direction of the difference to understand whether these differences may disadvantage
older applicants (Between 51 and 61+) during recruitment or development. Of the 5 scales with
meaningful difference between the two age group samples all were in the direction of the younger
age group (Between 31 and 40) suggesting that older applicants may be slightly disadvantaged when
applying for some roles. The difference is likely to be small and practically translates into a difference
of less than one sten score during interpretation.
Note: This method will not be able to identify the source of this difference. The difference might
come from one group being more likely to endorse an item regardless of their actual level of the
construct of interest. The difference might be due to a true meaningful difference in the mean level of
the personality construct. Further statistical analysis to investigate the source of this difference will
be conducted once the sample sizes permit.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015192
Table 35
Scale means for the “Between 31 and 40” and the “Between 51 and 61+” age group samples with Cohen's
d for each scale
Scale Between 31 and 40 Between 51 and 61+ Cohen’s d
Accepting 30.89 30.22 0.19
Adaptable 29.75 29.25 0.15
Amiable 30.94 30.41 0.19
Analytical 27.14 27.22 0.02
Collaborative 31.42 31.07 0.13
Competitive 26.29 25.51 0.15
Compliant 27.97 27.23 0.17
Composed 29.77 29.28 0.14
Data Driven 20.35 20.14 0.06
Decisive 24.32 24.39 0.03
Directing 29.92 30.13 0.06
Driven 25.10 24.16 0.33
Empathic 42.08 41.59 0.10
Energetic 24.49 23.91 0.19
Influential 22.11 21.92 0.07
Innovative 23.81 23.38 0.15
Intuitive 20.20 20.17 0.01
Learning Focused 25.71 24.76 0.36
Meticulous 29.11 28.05 0.31
Motivational 26.18 25.92 0.10
Optimistic 31.60 31.12 0.15
Receptive 25.97 25.30 0.29
Reliable 24.45 24.05 0.12
Risk Tolerant 20.04 20.44 0.07
Self Aware 21.92 21.96 0.01
Self Confident 25.10 24.77 0.13
Sociable 24.81 24.58 0.07
Socially Aware 28.34 27.52 0.24
Strategic 25.18 25.04 0.05
193All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Theoretical 29.66 29.48 0.06
Trusting 24.09 24.18 0.02
Work Focused 23.32 23.13 0.06
Mean 26.63 26.26 0.13
Median 25.84 25.17 0.12
Min 20.04 20.14 0.01
Max 42.08 41.59 0.36
DISCUSSION
The adverse impact of using the PATH personality scale was investigated by analysing the mean
differences between protected groups and the majority group. Two thousand seven hundred and
thirteen (n=2713) applicants took part in the study. The difference between the majority group and
protected groups was analysed to identify scales which might disadvantage the protected group
during recruitment. The analyses found that overall very few differences exist between protected and
majority groups. Any differences which may adversely impact protected groups are small and are
likely to make very small practical difference in the interpretation of the PATH personality scales.
This suggests the PATH personality scales are appropriate for use in recruitment and development
across genders, ethnicity and age groups.
13 References and
Recommended Readings
195All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (2004). Retrieved from
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00256
American Psychological Association.(2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Australian Psychological Society.(2004). Code of ethics. Melbourne, VIC: Author.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural Equation Modelling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming. New York, NY: Routledge
British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Ethics and Conduct: BPS. Retrieved from
http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf
Cattell, R. B., & Johnson, R. C. (1986). Functional Psychological Testing: Principles and Instruments.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Chong, E. (2008). Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American and East
Asian managers. Journal of Business Research, 61, 191–200.
Chong, E. (2013). Managerial competencies and career advancement: A comparative study of
managers in two countries. Journal of Business Research, 66, 345-353.
Civil Rights Act (1964). Retrieved from http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-
files/PPL_CivilRightsAct_1964.pdf
Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979). Retrieved
from http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/cedaw_en.pdf
Cronbach, L. J., &Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin, 52,
281-302.
Cronbach, L.J. (1971). Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp.
443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domain: 10 aspects of the
Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.
Equality Act (2010) Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex, drugs and rock'n'roll (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015196
Hayton, J.C., & Kelley, D.J. (2006).A competency-based framework for promoting corporate
entrepreneurship.Human Resource Management, 45(3), 407–427.
Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W., &Silzer, R.F. (2006). Theoretical and practitioner letters: Leadership
competency models. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 398–413.
Hoyle, R. H. (2009). Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Personality Research. In R. W.
Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Frueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp.
444-460). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hu, L., &Bentler, P. M. (2009).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria verses new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Human Rights Act (1993). Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., &
Williams, L. J. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and
alternatives, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 667-683.
International Test Commission (2010) ITC Guidelines on Test Use: ITC. Retrieved from
http://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_use.pdf
International Test Commission (2001). International Guidelines for Test Use, International Journal of
Testing, 1(2), 93-114.
John. O. P.,& Soto. C. J. (2009). The Importance of Being Valid: Reliablity and the process of
Construct Validation. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Frueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research
Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 461-494). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974).An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36
Kaplan, R. M., &Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005).Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
Kline, P. (1994).An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge
Knapp, T. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2010).Reliability and validity of instruments. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O.
Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 337-341). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Laher, S., (2010). Using exploratory factor analysis in personality research: Best-practice
recommendations, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36 (1), 1-7.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2009).Factor Analysis in Personality Research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley,
& R. F. Frueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 424-443). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
197All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
Leigh, I.W., Smith, I.L., Bebeau, M.J., Lichtenberg, J.W., Nelson, P.D., Portnoy, S., Rubin, N.J., Kaslow,
N.J. (2007).Competency Assessment Models.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 463-473.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., &Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to Parcel:
Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
Loevinger, J. The attenuation paradox in test theory, Psychological Bulletin, Vol 51(5), Sep 1954, 493-
504
Loevinger, J. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
1957
Markus, L.H., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., &Allpress, K.N. (2005). Confounded by competencies? An
evaluation of the evolution and use of competency models.New Zealand Journal of Psychology,
34(2),117-126.
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further Intercultural comparisons. In R. R.
McCrae & J. Alik.(Eds.), The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125). New
York: Kluwer Academic Publisher
Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 453-464. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01173.x
New Zealand Psychologists Board (2011) Code of Ethics: For Psychologists Working in
Aotearoa/New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologistsboard.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=235
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., &Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Putka, D. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Reliability and validity.In J. L. Farr, N. T. Tippins, J. P. Campbell &
F. J. Landy (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 9-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Racial Discrimination Act (1975) Retrieved from https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00014
Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. &Gowing, M. K., Developing Competency Models to
Promote Integrated Human Resource Practices.Human Resource Management, 41(3), 309-324, 2002
Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 65-
88. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
262-274.
Sex Discrimination Act (1984). Retrieved from https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00275
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015198
Simms, L. J., & Watson, D. (2007).The construct validation approach to personality scale
construction. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in
personality psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schmitt, N., Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 4, 350-353,
1996.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). "Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex
differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 94 (1): 168–182.
Smith, M. C., & Smith, P. (2005) Testing People at Work: Competencies in Psychometric Testing.
New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1-25.
Sireci, S. G., & Sukin, T. (2013). Test validity. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J. Hansen,
N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise & M. C. Rodriguez (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in
psychology, vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. (pp.
61-84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14047-004
Spector, P. E. (2009).Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, 4th ed. New York, NY:
John Wiley.
Wivagg, J. (2008). Forced choice. In P. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of survey research methods (pp.
290-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412963947.n193
14 Appendix A
201All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
14.1 PATH Personality Profile
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015202
14.2 PATH Personality Report
203All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015204
205All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015206
207All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015208
209All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015210
211All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015212
213All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015214
215All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
14.3 PATH Competency Profile
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015216
14.4 PATH Competency Detail Report
217All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015218
219All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015220
221All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015222
223All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015224
225All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015226
227All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015228
14.5 Emotional Intelligence Report
229All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015230
231All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015232
233All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015234
235All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015236
237All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015238
239All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
14.6 Leadership Growth Potential Report
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015240
241All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015242
243All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015244
245All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015246
247All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015248
249All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015250
14.7 Personal Feedback Report
251All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015252
253All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015254
255All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015256
257All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015258
259All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015260
261All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015262
15 Appendex B
265All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
15.1 Mplus Input Syntax
TITLE:
Competitive CFA
DATA:
FILE IS "data.dat";
VARIABLE:
NAMES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;
USEVARIABLES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;
ANALYSIS:
ESTIMATOR=ML;
MODEL:
Compete BY Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;
OUTPUT:
MODINDICES (ALL);
PLOT:
TYPE = PLOT3;
15.2 Mplus Sample Output
Mplus VERSION 6.12
MUTHEN & MUTHEN
05/26/2015 2:48 PM
INPUT INSTRUCTIONS
TITLE:
Competitive CFA
DATA:
FILE IS "data.dat";
VARIABLE:
NAMES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;
USEVARIABLES ARE Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;
ANALYSIS:
ESTIMATOR=ML;
MODEL:
Compete BY Cptv02 Cptv10 Cptv14 Cptv15 Cptv16 Cptv18;
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015266
OUTPUT:
MODINDICES (ALL);
PLOT:
TYPE = PLOT3;
INPUT READING TERMINATED NORMALLY
Competitive CFA
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Number of groups 1
Number of observations 1205
Number of dependent variables 6
Number of independent variables 0
Number of continuous latent variables 1
Observed dependent variables
Continuous
CPTV02 CPTV10 CPTV14 CPTV15 CPTV16
CPTV18
Continuous latent variables
COMPETE
Estimator ML
Information matrix OBSERVED
Maximum number of iterations 1000
Convergence criterion 0.500D-04
Maximum number of steepest descent iterations 20
Input data file(s)
data.dat
Input data format FREE
THE MODEL ESTIMATION TERMINATED NORMALLY
267All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
MODEL FIT INFORMATION
Number of Free Parameters 18
Loglikelihood
H0 Value -8655.940
H1 Value -8639.040
Information Criteria
Akaike (AIC) 17347.879
Bayesian (BIC) 17439.576
Sample-Size Adjusted BIC 17382.400
(n* = (n + 2) / 24)
Chi-Square Test of Model Fit
Value 33.799
Degrees of Freedom 9
P-Value 0.0001
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation)
Estimate 0.048
90 Percent C.I.0.031 0.066
Probability RMSEA <= .05 0.549
CFI/TLI
CFI 0.993
TLI 0.989
Chi-Square Test of Model Fit for the Baseline Model
Value 3741.813
Degrees of Freedom 15
P-Value 0.0000
SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual)
Value 0.014
MODEL RESULTS
Two-Tailed
Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value
COMPETE BY
CPTV02 1.000 0.000 999.000 999.000
CPTV10 1.027 0.044 23.560 0.000
CPTV14 1.204 0.051 23.725 0.000
CPTV15 1.234 0.049 24.946 0.000
CPTV16 1.370 0.052 26.199 0.000
All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015268
CPTV18 1.311 0.052 25.119 0.000
Intercepts
CPTV02 4.846 0.028 175.875 0.000
CPTV10 4.906 0.027 183.287 0.000
CPTV14 4.526 0.031 146.476 0.000
CPTV15 4.476 0.030 147.849 0.000
CPTV16 4.495 0.032 141.904 0.000
CPTV18 4.553 0.032 141.370 0.000
Variances
COMPETE 0.446 0.033 13.329 0.000
Residual Variances
CPTV02 0.469 0.021 21.844 0.000
CPTV10 0.393 0.019 21.159 0.000
CPTV14 0.504 0.024 20.910 0.000
CPTV15 0.425 0.021 20.025 0.000
CPTV16 0.372 0.021 18.132 0.000
CPTV18 0.483 0.024 19.963 0.000
QUALITY OF NUMERICAL RESULTS
Condition Number for the Information Matrix
0.596E-02
(ratio of smallest to largest eigenvalue)
MODEL MODIFICATION INDICES
Minimum M.I. value for printing the modification index 10.000
M.I.E.P.C.Std E.P.C. StdYX E.P.C.
ON Statements
CPTV02 ON CPTV14 11.935 -0.114 -0.114 -0.128
CPTV02 ON CPTV18 13.426 0.128 0.128 0.149
CPTV14 ON CPTV02 11.934 -0.123 -0.123 -0.109
CPTV18 ON CPTV02 13.427 0.131 0.131 0.112
WITH Statements
CPTV14 WITH CPTV02 11.935 -0.057 -0.057 -0.118
CPTV18 WITH CPTV02 13.425 0.062 0.062 0.130
SAMPLE STATISTICS FOR ESTIMATED FACTOR SCORES
SAMPLE STATISTICS
Means
COMPETE COMPETE_
269All rights reserved. /Version 2.0 - 10 Aug 2015
________ ________
1 0.000 0.213
Covariances
COMPETE COMPETE_
________ ________
COMPETE 0.401
COMPETE_ 0.000 0.000
Correlations
COMPETE COMPETE_
________ ________
COMPETE 1.000
COMPETE_ 999.000 1.000
PLOT INFORMATION
The following plots are available:
Histograms (sample values, estimated factor scores, estimated
values)
Scatterplots (sample values, estimated factor scores, estimated
values)
Beginning Time: 14:48:41
Ending Time: 14:48:42
Elapsed Time: 00:00:01
MUTHEN & MUTHEN
3463 Stoner Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Tel: (310) 391-9971
Fax: (310) 391-8971
Web: www.StatModel.com
Support: Support@StatModel.com
Copyright (c) 1998-2011 Muthen&Muthen
Auckland, New Zealand
Level 1, 18 Shortland Street, Auckland City 1010
PO Box 105429 Auckland City 1143
0508 ASSESS (277 377) or (09) 282 4739
Sydney, Australia
Level 3, 3 Spring Street, Sydney, NSW 2000
PO Box 1827, North Sydney, NSW 2059
1800 689 937
Brisbane, Australia
Davidson HR Solutions
Level 8, 344 Queen Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
1 800 689 937
Melbourne, Australia
Level 6, 350 Collins Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
1 800 689 937
Philippines
OrtigasCenter, Pasig City 1605 Philippines
email inquiry@talegent.com.ph
tel (+63 2) 949-7003
London
Partners: Talent Innovations
Monaco House
Station Road, Kings Langley WD4 8LQ
T: (+44) 845 3623269
United States
20 Pond Park Road, Suite 109
Hingham, MA 02043
tel +1 781 836 4600
top related