the trait self descriptive (tsd) inventory: a facet-level examination · 2012. 8. 3. · factors...

The Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) Inventory: A Facet-level Examination Wendy Darr Selection and Assessment Directorate Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis

DGMPRA TM 2009-010February 2009

Defence R&D Canada

Director General Military Personnel Research & Analysis

Chief Military Personnel

The Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) Inventory: A Facet-level Examination

Wendy Darr Selection and Assessment Directorate of Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis

Director General Military Personnel Research & Analysis Technical Memorandum DGMPRA TM 2009-010 February 2009

Author

(Original signed by) Wendy Darr, PhD

Approved by

(Original signed by)

Douglas Pelchat, BA

Section Head – Personnel Generation Research

Approved for release by

(Original signed by)

Kelly Farley, PhD

Chief Scientist – Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as the official position of the Canadian Forces, nor of the Department of National Defence.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2009.

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2009.

Abstract ……..

The objective of this paper was to examine the facet representation of each of the five personality factors assessed by the 75-item Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) personality inventory. An empirical analysis of data from a small sample of NCMs who completed the TSD and the NEO-Personality Inventory, and a review of the literature with respect to criterion-related validity of personality facets was undertaken. Findings suggest that the TSD may more appropriately represent a narrow bandwidth measure of personality, in which some facets are better represented in the measure than others. Areas for improving the TSD are identified and discussed.

Résumé ….....

Ce document avait pour but d’étudier la représentation des facettes de chacun des cinq facteurs de la personnalité évalués par l’inventaire en 75 points appelé « Trait Self Descriptive » (TSD). On a effectué une analyse empirique des données tirées d’un petit échantillon de militaires de rang ayant répondu au TSD et au NEO-Personality Inventory, ainsi qu’une analyse documentaire concernant la validité des facettes de la personnalité relativement aux critères. Les résultats obtenus portent à croire que le TSD pourrait représenter plus adéquatement une mesure de la personnalité de faible amplitude, dans laquelle certaines facettes sont mieux représentées que d’autres. On présente et on analyse également des améliorations possibles au TSD.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 i

This page intentionally left blank.

ii DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Executive summary

The Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) Inventory: A Facet-level Examination:

Wendy Darr; DGMPRA TM 2009-010; Defence R&D Canada – DGMPRA; February 2009.

The Trait Self Descriptive Inventory (TSD) which was originally designed to assess the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality has undergone several changes to improve its psychometric properties and feasibility prior to operational use in selecting applicants to the CF. Most pertinent to this paper is the reduction of the original 164-item measure to the current 75-item version of the TSD. The resulting 75-item TSD, with 15 items assigned to each factor, is likely to assess factors that tap into some facets more fully than others. Such a measure may more adequately represent a facet- rather than factor-level measure of personality. Proponents of the use of narrow bandwidth measures (i.e., facets) of personality argue that broad bandwidth measures (i.e., factors) are too heterogeneous, attenuating validity if one or more underlying facets are unrelated or negatively related to outcomes (Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995). The use of narrow bandwidth measures encourages a confirmatory approach to validity examinations in which substantive linkages between a particular facet and some outcome are examined and specified in advance, increasing true predictor-criterion associations (Hough, 1992; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003).

The primary objective of the present paper was to take a closer look at each factor purportedly assessed by the 75-item TSD to identify the underlying facet(s) most represented by it. A second objective was to examine conceptual linkages between personality facets and performance-related outcomes by exploring relevant literature on the topic. Using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) as a benchmark measure of the five factor model (FFM) of personality, the convergent validity of the TSD with each personality facet of the NEO PI-R was examined. In addition, a literature review on criterion-related evidence, focussing on examinations involving the NEO PI-R, was undertaken to identify personality facets most frequently identified as predictors of relevant criteria.

Findings from this examination suggest that the current TSD Agreeableness scale largely captures the facet of altruism. While altruism has been linked to important team-related behaviours, literature suggests that tendermindedness, trust, and straightforwardness are more frequent predictors of relevant criteria than altruism. Further refinements to this TSD scale might, therefore, focus on the incorporation of items that tap into these particular facets. The criterion-related validity of the TSD Conscientiousness scale could benefit from increased representation of items tapping into achievement striving, and a reduction of items tapping into the facet of deliberation which is an inhibited aspect of Conscientiousness and which appeared to be the least frequent predictor of work outcomes.

Of the Extraversion facets captured by the TSD (i.e., assertiveness, gregariousness, and activity), the facets of gregariousness and activity emerged more frequently in the literature as being linked to relevant work outcomes. The facet of positive emotions, which appears to be an equally frequent predictor, was found to have a moderate association with the TSD total score on the

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 iii

Extraversion scale (r = .537), suggesting that current TSD items do capture some aspect of positive emotions as well.

With respect to Neuroticism, the TSD assesses facets of anxiety, depression, and vulnerability to a greater extent than it does the other facets. Of these, vulnerability has been more frequently linked in the literature as being relevant to team work outcomes. The present version of the TSD Neuroticism scale has strong internal consistency, and does converge to a moderate degree with the other NEO PI-R facet of impulsiveness (r = .516) that literature suggests may be equally important. With respect to Openness, the facet of ideas was the most frequently linked to outcomes relevant to work performance. This facet captures Openness to intellectual pursuits, and is well represented in the present version of the TSD.

The results of this examination suggest that the TSD would benefit from revisions to some factor scales, which might consequently improve its ability to predict relevant criteria. Overall, this paper contributes to a greater understanding of the nature of the current version of the TSD, and facilitates a substantive approach in further refining this tool for use with CF samples.

iv DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Sommaire .....

The Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) Inventory: A Facet-level Examination:

Wendy Darr; DGMPRA TM 2009-010; R & D pour la défense Canada – DRASPM; Février 2009.

On a apporté plusieurs changements au Trait Self Descriptive Inventory (TSD), conçu au départ pour évaluer le modèle de la personnalité en cinq facteurs, afin d’améliorer ses propriétés psychométriques et sa faisabilité avant d’en faire un usage opérationnel pour sélectionner les candidats à des postes dans les FC. Fait plus pertinent dans le cadre de ce document, la version originale du TSD en 164 points a été réduite à une version en 75 points. Il est probable que cette nouvelle version, dans laquelle chaque facteur compte 15 points, évalue des facteurs qui feront ressortir plus entièrement certaines facettes que d’autres. Un tel outil pourrait représenter plus adéquatement une mesure de la personnalité fondée sur les facettes plutôt que sur les facteurs. Les partisans du recours à des outils de faible amplitude (fondés sur les facettes) soutiennent que les outils de vaste amplitude (fondés sur les facteurs) sont trop hétérogènes, ce qui en atténue la validité lorsqu’une ou plusieurs facettes sous-jacents ne sont pas reliées ou sont reliées négativement à des résultats (Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995). Le recours à des outils de faible amplitude favorise une approche corroborative des analyses de validité, dans laquelle les liens significatifs entre une facette donnée et un certain résultat sont étudiés et précisés à l’avance, ce qui accroît les véritables associations entre les facteurs prédictifs et les critères (Hough, 1992; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003).

Le présent document visait principalement à étudier plus attentivement chacun des facteurs soi-disant évalués par le TSD en 75 points afin de dégager les facettes sous-jacentes les mieux représentées par cet outil. Comme deuxième objectif, on voulait également se pencher sur les liens conceptuels entre les facettes de la personnalité et les résultats au niveau du rendement, en étudiant la littérature pertinente sur le sujet. En utilisant le Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) comme mesure de référence du modèle de la personnalité en cinq facteurs, la validité convergente du TSD avec chaque facette de la personnalité du NEO PI-R a été étudiée. En outre, une analyse documentaire sur les données probantes liées aux critères, axée sur les examens mettant en cause le NEO PI-R, a été menée pour dégager les facettes de la personnalité les plus fréquemment relevées comme facteurs prédictifs des critères pertinents.

Les résultats de cet examen portent à croire que l’échelle actuelle du TSD concernant le caractère agréable représente largement la facette de l’altruisme. Tandis que l’altruisme a été associé à d’importants comportements de travail d’équipe, la littérature semble indiquer que la douceur, la confiance et la droiture sont des facteurs prédictifs des critères pertinents plus fréquents que l’altruisme. Pour améliorer davantage cette échelle du TSD, on pourrait par conséquent se concentrer sur l’intégration de points qui font ressortir ces facettes particulières. La validité liée aux critères de l’échelle du TSD concernant le caractère consciencieux pourrait bénéficier d’une représentation accrue des points faisant ressortir la facette de la recherche de réussite et d’une représentation moindre des points faisant ressortir la facette de la délibération, laquelle est un aspect inhibé du caractère consciencieux, qui est apparue comme le facteur prédictif des résultats au niveau professionnel le moins fréquent.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 v

Parmi les facettes de l’extraversion mesurées par le TSD (c.-à-d. assertivité, grégarité et activité), la grégarité et l’activité sont plus souvent liées à des résultats pertinents dans la littérature. Les émotions positives, qui semblent un facteur prédictif aussi fréquent sur l’échelle de l’extraversion (r = 0,537), se sont avérées avoir une association modérée avec le score total du TSD sur l’échelle de l’extraversion, ce qui porte à croire que les points actuels du TSD mesurent également un certain aspect des émotions positives.

Pour ce qui est du névrosisme, le TSD évalue davantage les facettes de l’anxiété, de la dépression et de la vulnérabilité que les autres facettes. Parmi ces facettes, c’est la vulnérabilité qui est le plus souvent liée dans la littérature à des résultats au niveau du travail d’équipe. La version actuelle de l’échelle du névrosisme du TSD présente une forte consistance interne, et converge modérément avec l’autre facette de l’impulsivité du NEO PI-R (r = 0,516) qui pourrait être d’une importance égale si l’on en croit la littérature. Pour ce qui est de l’ouverture, la facette des idées est celle qui était le plus souvent liée à des résultats au niveau du rendement au travail. Cette facette mesure l’ouverture à la recherche intellectuelle, et est bien représentée dans la version actuelle du TSD.

Les résultats de cet examen portent à croire qu’en modifiant les échelles de certains facteurs du TSD, on pourrait améliorer la capacité prédictive de cet outil quant à certains critères pertinents. Dans l’ensemble, cet examen permet de mieux comprendre la nature de la version actuelle du TSD et favorise une approche corroborative en vue de perfectionner cet outil pour un usage auprès d’échantillons des FC.

vi DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Table of contents

Abstract …….. ................................................................................................................................. i Résumé …..... ................................................................................................................................... i Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ iii Sommaire ........................................................................................................................................ v Table of contents ........................................................................................................................... vii List of tables ................................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Personality and Performance ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Measuring Personality in the CF ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2

2 Methodology............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Sample ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Measures........................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Procedure....................................................................................................................... 3

3 Facet-level Analysis of the TSD............................................................................................... 5 3.1 Agreeableness................................................................................................................ 5

3.1.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Agreeableness........................................................... 5 3.1.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Agreeableness Facets ..................................... 7 3.1.3 Refining the TSD Agreeableness Scales......................................................... 8

3.2 Conscientiousness.......................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Conscientiousness .................................................... 8 3.2.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Conscientiousness Facets ............................. 10 3.2.3 Refining the TSD Conscientiousness Scale .................................................. 12

3.3 Extraversion................................................................................................................. 12 3.3.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Extraversion............................................................ 12 3.3.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Extraversion Facets ...................................... 15 3.3.3 Refining the TSD Extraversion..................................................................... 16

3.4 Neuroticism ................................................................................................................. 16 3.4.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Neuroticism ............................................................ 16 3.4.2 Criterion-related Validity Evidence for Neuroticism.................................... 18 3.4.3 Refining the TSD Neuroticism Scale ............................................................ 20

3.5 Openness to Experience (Referred to as Openness below) ......................................... 20 3.5.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Openness ................................................................ 20 3.5.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Openness ...................................................... 23 3.5.3 Refining the TSD Scale for Openness .......................................................... 24

4 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 25

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 vii

5 Limitations.............................................................................................................................. 28 6 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 29 References ..... ............................................................................................................................... 30 Annex A .. Annotated List of TSD Validation Research in the Canadian Forces ......................... 37 Distribution list.............................................................................................................................. 41

viii DGMPRA TM 2009-010

List of tables

Table 1: Link between TSD Agreeableness Items and Facets ........................................................ 5 Table 2: Associations between TSD and NEO Agreeableness ....................................................... 6 Table 3: Link between TSD Conscientiousness Items and Facets .................................................. 9 Table 4: Associations between TSD and NEO Conscientiousness ............................................... 10 Table 5: Link between TSD Extraversion Items and Facets ......................................................... 13 Table 6: Associations between TSD and NEO Extraversion ........................................................ 14 Table 7: Link between TSD Neuroticism Items and Facets .......................................................... 17 Table 8: Associations between TSD and NEO Neuroticism......................................................... 18 Table 9: Link between TSD Openness Items and Facets .............................................................. 21 Table 10: Associations between TSD and NEO Openness ........................................................... 22 Table 11: Link between Performance Dimensions and Personality Facet .................................... 26

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 ix

x DGMPRA TM 2009-010


1 Introduction

1.1 Personality and Performance

Although Barrick, Mount and Judge’s (2001) quantitative review of 15 meta-analytic studies reiterated support for the validity of the five factors of personality in predicting job performance, they highlighted the need to enhance an understanding of the personality-performance link by exploring validities of lower-level personality facets. Not surprisingly, Rothstein and Goffin’s (2006) recent review of personality research for personnel selection purposes identified an increasing volume of empirical examinations into associations between personality facets and performance outcomes. Their summary suggests that personality facet associations with performance criteria tend to be higher than factor associations (e.g., Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003), and that facets within the same factor can have differential validities with performance criteria (e.g., Griffin & Hesketh, 2004).

Proponents of the use of narrow bandwidth measures (i.e., facets) of personality argue that broad bandwidth measures (i.e., factors) are too heterogeneous, attenuating validity if one or more underlying facets are unrelated or negatively related to outcomes (Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995). The use of narrow bandwidth measures encourages a confirmatory approach to validity examinations in which substantive linkages between a particular facet and some outcome are examined and specified in advance, increasing true predictor-criterion associations (Hough, 1992; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett et al., 2003).

1.2 Measuring Personality in the CF

In the context of personality research within the Canadian Forces (CF), the Trait Self Descriptive Inventory (TSD) which was originally designed to assess the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality has undergone several changes to improve its psychometric properties and feasibility prior to operational use in selecting applicants to the CF [see Boyes (2006) for an overview]. Most pertinent to this paper is the reduction of the original 164-item measure to the current 75-item version of the TSD. As described in Boyes (2006), retained items were selected primarily on the basis of the strongest item-factor loadings and to some degree on content, focusing on the inclusion of items from facets that were found to be significantly associated with performance in a previous study conducted by Jones, Uggerslev, Paquet, Kline, Sulsky (2000b).

The resulting 75-item TSD, with 15 items assigned to each factor, is likely to assess factors that tap into some facets more fully than others. A measure such as this may more adequately represent a facet- rather than factor-level measure of personality. This possibility is somewhat supported through a review of validity findings conducted in the CF over the past decade (see Annex A). In particular, Neuroticism was found to have a moderate association with non-commissioned member (NCM) training performance (r = -.40) in O’Keefe’s (1998) examination using the 165-item TSD, but only a small association with the same criterion in Skomorovsky’s (2007) examination (r = -.15, averaged across continuous criteria for which a significant association was observed) using the 75-item version of the TSD. Perhaps, the removal of items from the original Neuroticism measure resulted in the removal of facet content most relevant to the prediction of NCM training performance.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 1

1.3 Objectives

Given the above, the primary objective of the present paper is to take a closer look at each factor purportedly assessed by the 75-item TSD to identify the underlying facet(s) most represented by it. Specifically, associations between TSD personality factor scores and another measure of personality facets are examined. High associations between a TSD factor and a personality facet would provide evidence for the convergent validity of the TSD with respect to personality facets. A second objective is to conduct a literature review around the criterion-related validity of personality facets. Criterion-related validity refers to the association between a predictor (in this case, personality facet) and relevant performance outcomes. Such a review will provide insight into the conceptual or theoretical linkages between personality facets and performance-related outcomes. Findings from these examinations will contribute to a greater understanding of the nature of the current version of the TSD and facilitate a substantive approach in further refining this tool for use with CF samples.

2 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

2 Methodology

2.1 Sample

An NCM sample of recruits (N = 159) completing Basic Recruit Training at the CF Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS) was used in this examination. Respondents ranged between 17 to 51 years of age, with the average age being 26.04 years. Seventy-five percent of the respondents were male.

2.2 Measures

The Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) Inventory is a 75-item measure of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience), which was adapted from the United States Air Force Self Descriptive Inventory (AFSDI). Respondents are required to rate the extent to which 28 adjectives and 45 statements are characteristic of themselves. A 7-point Likert rating scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic to 7 = extremely characteristic) is used for this purpose. The TSD has been used for research purposes in the CF for about 10 years, and has been demonstrated to have acceptable levels of reliability, ranging from .88 for Agreeableness to .93 for Neuroticism (e.g., Jones, Uggerslev, Paquet, Kline, & Sulsky, 2000a). Reliability estimates for the sample used in this study ranged between .87 (Agreeableness) and .91 (Openness to Experience).

The Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) is a 240-item measure of the FFM of personality. Respondents rate the extent to which they agree with each statement, using a 5-point Likert rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The NEO PI-R (referred to as the NEO in the remainder of this report) is considered to be the gold standard measure of the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1995), and can be scored at the personality factor as well as the facet level. Each factor is made up of 6 facet scales. As reported in Costa and McCrae (1994, p.44), reliability estimates for the factors range between .86 (Agreeableness) to .92 (Neuroticism), and that for the facets range between .56 (A6-tender-mindedness) to .81 (N3-depression). Facet-level reliability estimates for the present sample ranged from .48 (O6-values) to .87 (O5-ideas).

2.3 Procedure

The TSD and the NEO, which were completed as part of Skomorovsky’s (2007) validation study, were re-analyzed as per the objectives of the present examination. Prior to examining the convergence between the TSD and the NEO, a content analysis of the TSD items for each personality factor was conducted, to trace the link of each item to the facet it was originally designed to assess. Boyes (2006, Annex A) and Christal and Driskill (1994) were the two sources used for information pertaining to item-facet links. When facet nomenclature differed in both sources, nomenclature contained in the more recent source (i.e., Boyes, 2006) was used.

In examining the convergent validity of the TSD with the NEO, each TSD personality factor score was correlated with the facet scales of the corresponding personality factor assessed by the NEO. The literature review on criterion-related evidence of personality facets focussed on


associations involving the NEO or other measures demonstrated to have convergence with the NEO. This focus was necessary to maximize interpretation and minimize confusion, as a variety of personality measures often have common factor and facet labels but measure different aspects of personality.


3 Facet-level Analysis of the TSD

Results, using the methodology described earlier, are presented and discussed below for each Big Five factor assessed by the TSD.

3.1 Agreeableness

3.1.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Agreeableness As presented in Table 1 below, a content examination of the items pertaining to Agreeableness revealed that approximately 67 percent of the items (10 out of 15) linked to two main facets labelled “considerate” and “warm and sympathetic.” The remaining 5 items represented a heterogeneous mix of three facets labelled “friendly”, “helpful”, and “energetic and cheerful.”

Table 1: Link between TSD Agreeableness Items and Facets Corrected Coefficient

Alpha if Item Deleted

Item-scale Item Item-scale Number TSD Item TSD Facet Correlation Correlation

a09 Friendly A1 – friendly .643 .534 .858

s28 I try to be kind to everyone I know.

A2 – considerate .617 .519 .858

s38 I always treat other people with kindness.

A2 – considerate .758 .689 .850

s42 I try to be pleasant in every situation.

A2 – considerate .627 .532 .857

s46 Even if I don’t like them, I try always to be considerate of others.

A2 – considerate .458 .336 .870

s05 I like to help others when they are down on their luck. A4 – helpful .632 .521 .858

s33 I am always generous when it comes to helping others. A4 – helpful .764 .708 .848

a04 Pleasant A5 – warm and sympathetic .644 .533 .858

a12 Warm A5 – warm and sympathetic .566 .437 .862

a14 Generous A5 – warm and sympathetic .672 .612 .853

a20 Sympathetic A5 – warm and sympathetic .634 .509 .859

a22 Kind A5 – warm and sympathetic .688 .580 .856

a25 Affectionate A5 – warm and sympathetic .579 .434 .863

a17 Cheerful A6 – energetic and cheerful .548 .467 .861

a27 Helpful A6 – energetic and cheerful .615 .437 .862

Note: N = 150 a= adjective; s = statement


When the associations between TSD Agreeableness total score and NEO Agreeableness facets were examined (see Table 2 below), the highest convergence was observed with the NEO Agreeableness facets of altruism (r = .633), followed by tendermindedness (r = .435). These associations appear to make sense, given that adjective correlates such as “warm”, “kind”, and “soft-hearted” are used to describe the NEO facets of altruism and tendermindedness (Costa & McCrae, 1994, p. 49).

Table 2: Associations between TSD and NEO Agreeableness

75-item TSD NEOA1 NEOA2 NEOA3 NEOA4 NEOA5 NEOA6 TSD total A score .161 .277* .633* .216* .160 .435*

s33 .143 .172 .525* .127 .016 .286* a04 .328* .298* .503* .284* .102 .371* a09 .214* .196 .499* .265* .109 .252* a22 .004 .103 .494* .128 .083 .278* s38 .094 .230* .487* .277* .066 .412* s05 .081 .274* .485* .114 .139 .273* a20 .086 .112 .452* .125 .344* .353* s46 .184 .257* .416* .353* .243* .517* s28 .094 .316* .414* .296* .170 .234* a14 .049 .164 .397* .038 .089 .291* a27 -.022 .071 .349* .038 .040 .076 s42 .185 .091 .328* .220* .039 .269* a12 .089 .131 .272* -.001 -.074 .143 a25 -.127 .061 .193 -.146 .001 .117 a17 .177 .090 .189 .023 .024 .104

Avg item-facet .105 .171 .400* .143 .093 .265*

Note: A1=trust A2=straightforwardness A3=altruism A4=compliance A5=modesty, A6=tendermindedness

* significant at the .05 alpha level

93 ≥ N ≤ 100

At the item level, the average item-facet (TSD-NEO) correlation was highest for the facet of altruism (r = .400). The average item-facet correlation for tendermindedness was much lower (r = .265). A closer examination of the correlations reveals that three TSD items (a12, a25, and a17) appear to have relatively lower correlations with all the NEO facets of Agreeableness. The removal of these three items from the TSD Agreeableness scale yields an internal consistency reliability estimate of .862, a negligible difference from that for the 15-item measure (alpha = .867). Given the above, the present measure of Agreeableness using the TSD may be seen as capturing an individual’s altruistic tendencies.


3.1.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Agreeableness Facets

Of the five personality factors, Agreeableness remains the least well understood construct (Jensen-Campbell; Graziano, 2001); consequently, research exploring the theoretical underpinnings of the Agreeableness facets is limited. At the factor level, Agreeableness is conceptualized as an interpersonal dimension of personality (Wiggins, 1979), particularly concerned with the quality of social interactions (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). Not surprisingly, Agreeableness has been meta-analytically summarized to have the strongest association with teamwork (Barrick et al., 2001).

The early work of Wiggins (1979) and McCrae and Costa (1989) suggest that individuals high in Agreeableness are primarily motivated to maintain positive relations with others. Graziano and Eisenberg’s (1997) review of the theoretical perspectives on Agreeableness suggests that there may be at least two distinct, but related, bases for this motivation. The first pertains to the “effortful control” or self-regulation of emotions. For example, Ode and Robinson (2007) discussed links between Agreeableness and self-control of intrapsychic urges, negative emotionality, and anger. The second basis for high agreeable individuals’ motivation to maintain positive emotions pertains to their tendency to give to others (status or love). This tendency is also discussed in terms of social responsiveness or prosocial behavior which is defined as “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another” (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997, p. 808).

The positive association between Agreeableness and teamwork is perhaps a product of agreeable individuals’ ability to control negative feelings or emotions experienced in response to a conflict or adverse situation, and their natural tendency to help, empathize, and share with other members of the group. Even though there is some evidence for the differential validity of Agreeableness facets, there has been virtually no examination probing the theoretical underpinnings of the facets. Perhaps, some facets better capture one’s ability to self-regulate emotions, whereas other facets better reflect the tendency to help others. The minimal amount of relevant facet-level research is reviewed below in the hope of identifying important facets and uncovering their underlying basis.

Furnham (1996b) examined interpersonal orientation to find that the NEO Agreeableness facets of trust, altruism, and tendermindedness had significant positive associations with the need to express affection and include others, but the need to control was inversely related to the facets of modesty and compliance. Using overall evaluations, Detrick and Chibnall (2006) compared 10 percent of the top and bottom distribution of recent police academy trained graduates to find significant differences in the NEO Agreeableness facets of trust and tender mindedness, which they explained reflected a capacity for empathy/sympathy. In Akrami and Ekehammar’s (2006) examination of social dominance orientation (low scores reflecting a preference for equality in groups), five of the NEO facets of Agreeableness had significant negative associations with this construct, with tendermindness being the strongest predictor followed by trust and straightforwardness.

LePine and VanDyne (2001) examined two contrasting forms of contextual performance on a simulated group task, to find that the NEO Agreeableness facets of trust, straightforwardness, and altruism had small but positive associations with cooperative behaviours (which support interpersonal relations), whereas the facets of compliance and tendermindedness had negative associations with voice behaviours (which can upset interpersonal relationships). Miller, Lynam, & Leukefeld, (2003) reported all facets, except modesty, to be inversely related to the variety and


stability of one’s past counterproductive behaviours, with straightforwardness and compliance having the strongest associations. Finally, in an examination of transformational behavior which involves inspiring, stimulating, and supporting the needs of followers, the facets of straightforwardness, trust, altruism, and tendermindedness were found to have small but positive associations with this form of leadership.

An examination of the outcomes (i.e., need for control, voice, and counterproductive behaviours) with which Agreeableness facets were found to have negative associations suggests that “effortful control” or regulation of certain emotions/actions may explain the basis for such associations. In other words, all these outcomes involve withholding the need to control others, refraining from saying something that would create interpersonal tension, or refraining from behaving in a counterproductive manner. Similarly, an examination of outcomes (i.e., need to include others and express affection, capacity for empathy/sympathy, preference for equality in groups, cooperative behavior, transformational leadership behavior) having positive associations with Agreeableness facets, on the other hand, suggests that the tendency to help others might be the viable link between these outcomes and Agreeableness facets. If this analysis is accurate, then the facets most likely to capture the “effortful control” aspect of Agreeableness would be compliance, modesty, tendermindedness, and straightforwardness, whereas the facets most reflective of the tendency to help others are likely those of trust, altruism, tendermindedness, and straightforwardness, with recurring facets likely to capture both aspects of Agreeableness. Regardless, the facets of tendermindedness and trust, followed by straightforwardness, were most frequently linked to work-related outcomes of interest.

3.1.3 Refining the TSD Agreeableness Scales

The empirical analyses reported above suggest that the current TSD Agreeableness scale largely captures altruism and to a lesser extent tendermindedness. While altruism has been linked to important team-related behaviours, the literature review suggests that tendermindedness, trust, and straightforwardness appeared as predictors of performance-relevant outcomes more frequently than altruism. Further refinements to this TSD scale might, therefore, focus on the incorporation of items that tap into these particular facets. For example, the three items (i.e., a12, a25, and a17) mentioned earlier might be possibly replaced with ones that clearly tap into tendermindedness.

3.2 Conscientiousness

3.2.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Conscientiousness As presented in Table 3 below, a content examination of TSD items pertaining to Conscientiousness revealed that approximately 87 percent of the items (13 out of 15) linked to two main facets labelled “efficient and dependable” and “organized” The other two items (s06 and s18) were linked to a facet labelled “hardworking.”


Table 3: Link between TSD Conscientiousness Items and Facets Corrected Item-scale

Correlation

Coefficient Alpha if

Item Deleted Item TSD Item-Scale

Correlation Number TSD Item Facet C1 – efficient and dependable a05 Thorough .461 .341 .880

a10 Precise C1 – efficient and dependable .706 .643 .868

a15 Careful C1 – efficient and dependable .405 .287 .882

a18 Efficient C1 – efficient and dependable .680 .621 .869

a23 Responsible C1 – efficient and dependable .509 .422 .877

s06 I always try to do more than is expected of me. C2 – hardworking .539 .490 .874

s18 If I start something I work until it is finished to my satisfaction.

C2 – hardworking .633 .551 .872

a08 Disorganized C3 – organized .713 .617 .868

a13 Orderly C3 – organized .719 .641 .867

a21 Perfectionist C3 – organized .581 .439 .879

a26 Organized C3 – organized .814 .764 .861

a28 Neat C3 – organized .665 .591 .870

s12 I like to keep all my belongings neat and organized.

C3 – organized .785 .731 .863

s24 I like to have a place for everything and everything in its place.

C3 – organized .553 .448 .878

s29 I try to set a schedule for accomplishing tasks and stick to it.

C3 – organized .633 .544 .872

Note: a= adjective; s = statement N = 151

When the associations between TSD Conscientiousness total score and NEO Conscientiousness facets were examined (see Table 4 below), convergence was relatively strong (r > .50) across all the NEO Conscientiousness facets with the strongest convergence observed with the facet of order (r = .691), followed by self-discipline (r =.598) and dutifulness (r = .577).

Average Conscientiousness item-facet (TSD-NEO) correlations followed the same pattern, being highest for order (r = .414) followed by self-discipline (r = .380) and dutifulness (r = .369), and lowest for achievement striving (r = .309). This pattern is expected given that items from within the NEO itself appear to have an average correlation of .31 with facets not directly assessed by those items. In addition, the underlying structure of Conscientiousness (discussed in section 3.2.2) is still being explored in the literature (cf. Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, and


Goldberg, 2005), suggesting that a clear cut delineation among the Conscientiousness facets may not yet exist.

Table 4: Associations between TSD and NEO Conscientiousness

75-item TSD NEOC1 NEOC2 NEOC3 NEOC4 NEOC5 NEOC6 TSD total C score .519* .691* .577* .490* .598* .544*

a26 .379* .628* .416* .381* .486* .405* a28 .156 .565* .261* .231* .298* .332* a08 .271* .558* .222* .352* .414* .297* s29 .340* .510* .413* .325* .408* .400* a13 .376* .463* .258* .217* .235* .244* a10 .515* .460* .458* .359* .486* .370* s24 .047 .454* .193 .182 .207* .313* a21 .357* .422* .391* .348* .362* .373* a18 .552* .395* .515* .346* .530* .426* s18 .417* .332* .607* .492* .520* .360* s06 .327* .254* .412* .416* .412* .296* a05 .437* .241* .392* .282* .266* .290* a23 .409* .193 .444* .294* .379* .189 a15 .154 .083 .156 .049 .233* .410*

avg. item- facet .335* .414* .369* .309* .380* .340*

Note: C1=compliance C2=order C3=dutifulness C4=achievement striving C5=self-discipline, C6=deliberation


94 ≥ N ≤ 100

A notable observation with respect to the two TSD items that were identified as being linked to a third TSD facet (“hardworking”) is that these items are amongst those having the lowest associations with the NEO order facet. These same items also have moderate correlations with the facet of self-discipline. The removal of three items (a05, a23, a15) that have low associations (<.40) with both order and self-discipline would result in an internal consistency estimate of .881 (12-item measure) as opposed to .880 (all 15 items intact). Using common adjective correlates of both these facets (cf. Costa & McCrae, 1994), Conscientiousness items in the current version of the TSD may be seen as assessing an individual’s tendency to be organized, thorough, and efficient.

3.2.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Conscientiousness Facets

In a comprehensive examination of the structure of Conscientiousness, Roberts et al. (2005) uncovered a hierarchical taxonomy of 36 lower-order Conscientiousness scales. At the highest level, Conscientiousness facets were categorized into two main groups, and at the lowest level of the taxonomy six facets were identified. One group captured proactive aspects

10 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

of Conscientiousness which are reflected in one’s capacity to work hard and to do whatever it takes to succeed at some goal. Two (labelled industriousness and order) of the six lowest level facets represented proactive aspects of Conscientiousness. The NEO facets of competence, achievement striving, self discipline, dutifulness, and order were found to capture proactive aspects of Conscientiousness.

The other taxonomic category captured inhibited aspects of Conscientiousness that have to do with self-control or behaving in a way that upholds personal and social standards. Again, two of Roberts et al.’s lowest-level facets (labelled responsibility and virtue) represented this category. None of the NEO facets were found to capture inhibitive aspects of Conscientiousness. Finally, the remaining two lowest-order facets uncovered by Roberts et al., labelled self-control and traditionalism, appeared to capture both, proactive and inhibitive aspects of Conscientiousness. With respect to the NEO facets, deliberation was found to load on the lowest-level facet of self-control.

A review of facet-level research reveals that a variety of relevant criteria are predicted by some Conscientiousness facets better than others. With respect to the prediction of academic achievement in a university or training setting, it appears that all NEO facets capturing proactive aspects of Conscientiousness are relevant. For example, Paunonen and Ashton (2001) reported NEO facets of achievement striving, self-discipline, competence, and dutifulness as contributing significantly to the prediction of university students’ grade point average; however, their results do not identify the facet(s) accounting for the most variance. Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham’s (2003) findings, however, revealed that that dutifulness (r = .38) and achievement striving (r = .35) had the strongest associations with average university student examination grades, followed by self-discipline (r = .22). Major, Turner, and Fletcher (2006) found competence and achievement striving to be significantly and positively related to one’s motivation to learn; dutifulness also emerged as a significant predictor, but it had a negative association with the motivation to learn. Finally, law enforcement training course results were significantly predicted by Vasilopolous, Cucina, and Hunter’s (2007) measure of dependability which correlated highly with the NEO facets of order and self-discipline. However, they also presented evidence for a slight curvilinear relationship, such that course performance tended to decline at higher levels of dependability.

With respect to job performance, Lounsbury, Gibson and Hamrick (2004) reported a strong correlation between the NEO facet of achievement striving and their measure of work drive which was found to have strong convergence with measures of work ethic and workaholism. Interestingly, Stewart (1999) found that the NEO facet of order predicted job success for employees during the transition phases (i.e., starting a job), but it was achievement striving that predicted success later (i.e., maintenance phase of a job). They explained that high order individuals have a tendency to plan, organize, manage time, and impose structure on one’s environment which is essential to success during early phases of a job. On the other hand, high achievement striving individuals are diligent, hard working, and internally committed towards goals that are self-set or assigned, traits that motivate on-going performance once the transition period has ended.

Tett et al. (2003) used the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) as a predictor of performance in a sample of field technicians who installed television-related equipment to find that the HPI scale of Adjustment [which has strong convergence (r > .40) with the NEO Conscientiousness facets

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 11

of competence and self-discipline (Costa & McCrae, 1995)] had small but significant associations with flexibility, stress tolerance, persuasiveness, and interpersonal skills on the job. The HPI scale of Prudence [strong convergence (r > .40) with order and dutifulness (Costa & McCrae, 1995)] also had small but significant associations with stress tolerance, self-motivation, and organization skills on the job.

Finally, the Conscientiousness facets have also been linked to anti-social behaviour. For example, Miller et al. (2003) reported the NEO facets of deliberation, dutifulness, and competence to have stronger negative associations with the variety of counter productive acts (e.g., stealing, fighting) exhibited throughout a young adult’s past (grade 6 though age 21). These same facets also had negative associations with recent (previous 3 months) aggressive acts demonstrated by individuals aged 20-21.

In summary, it appears that all Conscientiousness facets (with the exception of deliberation) emerged frequently enough to be considered important predictors of relevant work outcomes; however, achievement striving and dutifulness were at the top of the list in terms of their frequency.

3.2.3 Refining the TSD Conscientiousness Scale

Empirical analyses suggest that the current TSD captures proactive aspects of Conscientiousness facets. With respect to the specific proactive facets identified through the literature review as being important, the TSD appears to tap into dutifulness (in addition to order and self-discipline) to a greater extent than it taps into achievement striving. In fact, some items on the TSD capture the facet of deliberation (which is an inhibited aspect of Conscientiousness and which appeared to be the least frequent predictor of work outcomes) more strongly than they capture achievement striving. Further refinements to the current TSD scale might, therefore, focus on the replacement of items that have higher associations with the NEO facet of deliberation than they do with the proactive facets of dutifulness and achievement striving (e.g., items s24, a15). Previously, it was suggested that three items (i.e., a05, a23, and a15) that had the lowest associations with the NEO facet of order, with which the TSD Conscientiousness total score has the highest convergence, be removed without affecting the reliability of the scale. However, based on the review above, it appears that the criterion-related validity of the TSD Conscientiousness scale might benefit from increased representation of items tapping into achievement striving. If this aim is to be fulfilled, then other items (e.g., a28, a08, a13, s24) that have low convergence with this facet of the NEO should be re-examined for possible revision or replacement.

3.3 Extraversion

3.3.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Extraversion

As presented in Table 5, a content examination of TSD items pertaining to Extraversion revealed that approximately 67 percent of the items (10 out of 15) linked to two main facets labelled “shy and bashful” and “talkative.” The remaining 5 items represented a heterogeneous mix of three facets labelled “socially active”, “assertive”, and “unsociable.”

12 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Table 5: Link between TSD Extraversion Items and Facets Corrected Item-scale

Correlation


Item Deleted Item

Number Item-scale

Correlation TSD Item TSD Facet E1 – shy and bashful a11 Quiet .726 .658 .874

E1 – shy and bashful a16 Reserved .598 .500 .881

a19 Silent E1 – shy and bashful .692 .624 .876

s15 I am uneasy when I am the centre of attention.

E1 – shy and bashful .670 .607 .877

s25 My friends consider me to be bashful.

E1 – shy and bashful .372 .276 .890

s35 I am a very shy person. E1 – shy and bashful .788 .733 .870

a06 Talkative E2 – talkative .683 .636 .876

a24 Verbal E2 – talkative .648 .598 .879

s30 I like to strike up conversations with strangers. E2 – talkative .522 .432 .884

s39 Most of my friends would describe me as a ‘talker’. E2 – talkative .696 .365 .875

s02 I like parties, where there are a lot of people.

E3 – socially active .493 .434 .884

s09 If things get too boring at a party I try to get things going.

E3 – socially active .561 .529 .880

s21 In meetings, I tend to let others do most of the talking.

E4 – assertive .546 .446 .883

a02 Withdrawn E5 – unsociable .615 .563 .879

s44 I tend to be a loner. E5 – unsociable .670 .595 .877

Note: a=adjective; s = statement N = 146

When the associations between TSD Extraversion total scores and NEO Extraversion facets were examined (see Table 6 below), convergence was strongest for the facets of assertiveness (r = .729), gregariousness (r = .699), and activity (r = .646). The average TSD item- NEO facet correlations mirrored this pattern; assertiveness (r = .470), gregariousness (r =.443), and activity (r = .413). However, only about half the TSD items had strong associations (r > .40) with activity. Surprisingly, items s02, s09, s21, a02, and s44, which were identified as representing a heterogeneous mix of three facets other than “shy and bashful” and “talkative”, had strong associations (.444 ≥ r ≤ .651) with the main NEO facet identified above (i.e., assertiveness). In addition, items a16, a19, and s25 which had the lowest associations with assertiveness (.301 ≥ r ≤ .370) were all linked to the TSD facet “shy and bashful”. Of these, a19 and a16 had the highest convergence with the NEO activity facet, whereas s25 did not correlate strongly with any facet.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 13

Table 6: Associations between TSD and NEO Extraversion

75-item TSD NEOE1 NEOE2 NEOE3 NEOE4 NEOE5 NEOE6 TSD E total score .425* .699* .729* .646* .459* .537*

s21 -.011 .347* .651* .397* .282* .165 s35 .270* .547* .631* .524* .294* .354* s15 .160 .503* .562* .466* .298* .451* s09 .254* .453* .537* .327* .315* .326* s39 .378* .581* .532* .355* .405* .425* a11 .293* .355* .471* .563* .436* .355* s02 .251* .548* .463* .287* .362* .326* s44 .449* .655* .460* .587* .402* .430* a02 .376* .447* .444* .419* .215* .404* s30 .370* .476* .442* .256* .224* .344* a24 .261* .310* .416* .309* .259* .301* a06 .298* .400* .409* .304* .308* .368* a19 .351* .386* .370* .551* .350* .276* a16 .321* .402* .364* .572* .296* .441* s25 .066 .236* .301* .281* -.018 .203*

avg. item-facet .272* .443* .470* .413* .295* .345*

Note: E1=warmth E2=gregariousness E3=assertiveness E4=activity E5=excitement seeking, E6=positive Emotions * significant at the .05 alpha level

94 ≥ N ≤ 100

Further analyses suggest that item s25 (“My friends consider me to be bashful”) may be influenced by verbal ability. Using a median split on the verbal skills subscale of the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test, the correlation between item response on this particular item and total Extraversion score was lower for the low verbal skills group (r = .296) compared to the high verbal skills group (r = .490). No such difference was noted for the other two items. As the term “bashful” is not typically used in everyday language, it is likely that individuals might not fully understand the meaning of this word when responding to the item. Replacement of the term “bashful” could possibly enhance the performance of this item. Removal of this particular item from the scale would result in an internal consistency estimate of .887 (14-item measure) as opposed to .886 (all 15 items intact), whereas the removal of all three items (a16, a19, s25) items from the scale would result in an internal consistency estimate of .874 (12-item measure).

Given the above, a review of the content of the items in the TSD Extraversion measure and adjective correlates of the NEO facets of assertiveness and gregariousness (cf. Costa & McCrae, 1994) suggests that Extraversion as measured by the current version of the TSD most likely assesses an individual’s tendency to be sociable, outgoing, and self-confident.

14 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

3.3.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Extraversion Facets

In comparison to Conscientiousness and Openness, the construct of Extraversion continues to be explored in an effort to understand the central feature that holds all its facets together. Some researchers believe that the facets of Extraversion reflect a preference for social interaction that draws attention to oneself (e.g., Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002). However, others argue that Extraversion captures an underlying sensitivity to rewards (e.g., Lucas & Diener, 2001), such that extraverts are thought to engage in social situations because such situations are pleasant and hence rewarding to such individuals.

With respect to criterion-related validity, meta-analytic evidence reveals that Extraversion tends to have the strongest association with training performance in comparison to other work-related criteria (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001). There has been little theoretical reasoning for this association in the literature; however, it can be argued that reward sensitivity might play more of a role in this association, especially if training involves a group setting. According to Gray’s (1970) theory, extraverts are more sensitive to signals of rewarding situations which manifest as increased information processing and positive emotions. Elevated levels of information processing and positive emotions may, in turn, facilitate the motivation to learn and perform in a group training environment. There is some indirect evidence for these assertions; for example, Fornaciari and Mathews (2000) found that students with an Introverted personality type (measured using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI) were more likely to enrol in distance learning courses. Given that MBTI Introverted scores are strongly negatively correlated with all facets of the NEO Extraversion scale (Furnham, 1996a), it is strongly possible that extraverted students prefer collective learning environments. In their examination of interpersonal orientation and learning styles, Furnham (1996b) revealed that extraverts tend to have a strong need for inclusion and affection rather than for control; Extraversion was also positively related to active learning, suggesting that extraverts are open-minded and willing to immerse themselves fully in training situations, particularly ones that satisfy their innate need for interpersonal inclusion.

With respect to facet-level examinations, it is still unclear whether some facets capture sociability or reward sensitivity. On one hand, Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, and Shao’s (2000) findings suggest that their facet measures of affiliation (which converged strongly with the NEO facet of warmth) and ascendance (strong convergence with the NEO facet of assertiveness) reflect reward sensitivity. In addition, venturesome (strong convergence with the NEO facet of excitement seeking) appears to reflect sociability, whereas the NEO facet of gregariousness appears to reflect both sociability and reward sensitivity. Ashton et al. (2002), however, demonstrated that these same measures of affiliation, ascendance, and venturesome had stronger associations with a measure of social attention, but their results also show moderate associations with two proxy measures of reward sensitivity. In a closer examination of sensitivity to reward and sensitivity to punishment, Mitchell, Kimbrel, Hundt, Cobb, Nelson-Gray, & Lootens (2007) found that the NEO facets of excitement seeking and gregariousness had the highest positive associations with the former, while assertiveness and gregariousness had the highest negative associations with the latter. Furnham’s (1996a) facet-level associations with interpersonal orientation suggests that warmth and gregariousness have the strongest associations with the need for affection and inclusion, where as assertiveness and activity were more strongly associated with the need for control.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 15

As reflected above, some facet measures of Extraversion might reflect both sociability and reward sensitivity. As Lucas and Diener (2001) pointed out, Extraversion scale items tend to be written broadly, and might possibly reflect both aspects of the construct. Consequently, facet level criterion-related validity associations do not paint any clearer a picture. Major et al. (2006) found that of all the NEO Extraversion facets, positive emotions and activity were the only two that were significantly positively related to the motivation to learn. However, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003) reported gregariousness and activity to be significant negative predictors of exam grades. Other criteria such as counterproductive work behaviours have been found to have negative associations with the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire’s (MPQ) measure of social closeness (which corresponds closely to the NEO facets of warmth, gregariousness, and positive emotions) and a positive association with MPQ social potency (close convergence with NEO assertiveness) (Church, 1994; Roberts, Harms, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2007). The facets of assertiveness, positive emotions, and activity, on the other hand, were found to predict transformational leadership behaviour in Judge and Bono’s (2000) examination. Field technicians’ level of persuasiveness, interpersonal skills, and stress tolerance were also predicted by HPI’s Sociability scale that has a strong convergence with the NEO Extraversion facets of warmth and gregariousness (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Tett et al., 2003).

The pattern of findings above suggests that gregariousness, activity, and positive emotions tend to be most frequently linked to outcomes of interest. The negative association between exam grades and gregariousness and activity observed in one study, which could be a random finding, is noted.

3.3.3 Refining the TSD Extraversion

Empirical analyses suggest that the current TSD captures the NEO Extraversion facets of assertiveness, gregariousness, and activity to a greater extent than it does the other facets. Of these, gregariousness and activity have emerged more frequently in the literature as being linked to relevant outcomes. The facet of positive emotions, which appears to be an equally frequent predictor, was found to have a moderate association with the TSD total score on the Extraversion scale (r = .537), suggesting that current TSD items do capture some aspect of positive emotions. With the exception of revisiting item s25, no further changes to the current version of the TSD Extraversion scale may be required at the present time.

3.4 Neuroticism

3.4.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Neuroticism

As presented in Table 7, a content examination of TSD items pertaining to Neuroticism revealed that approximately 67 percent of the items (10 out of 15) were linked to a facet labelled “nervous and stressed out.” Of the remaining items, four tapped into a facet labelled “worrying.” Therefore, 93 percent of the items on the current TSD measure of Neuroticism represent these two facets.

16 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Table 7: Link between TSD Neuroticism Items and Facets Corrected Item-scale

Correlation


Item Deleted Item

Number Item-scale

Correlation TSD Item TSD Facet Sometimes I get so upset I feel sick inside.

N1 – nervous and stressed out s08 .656 .584 .905

N1 – nervous and stressed out s11 I often feel jittery and tense. .744 .692 .901

s14 When I am under stress I often feel that I am about to breakdown.

N1 – nervous and stressed out .714 .656 .902

s20 My feelings are easily hurt. N1 – nervous and stressed out .706 .663 .902

s23 I often feel tired and run down. N1 – nervous and stressed out .689 .636 .903

s27 I am often sad and depressed. N1 – nervous and stressed out .642 .574 .905

s34 There are times when I feel sorry for myself.


s37 I’m often fearful that I will fail to reach my goals


s40 I often have headaches when things are going wrong.


s43 Sometimes I feel discouraged and simply want to give up.


a01 Self-pitying N2 – worrying .542 .456 .908

s04 I often worry about the future. N2 – worrying .557 .472 .909

s17 I am often nervous and tense. N2 – worrying .751 .692 .901

s32 I worry more than most people. N2 – worrying .708 .631 .903

s01 I tend to get upset very easily. N3 – irritable .616 .565 .905

Note: a =adjective; s = statement N = 153

When the associations between TSD Neuroticism total scores and NEO Neuroticism facets were examined (see Table 8 below), convergence was strongest with the facets of anxiety (r = .807), depression (r = .735), and vulnerability (r = .714). At the item level, a similar pattern was observed Adjective correlates of these three NEO facet scales overlap to some degree (see Costa & McCrae, 1994, p.49), suggesting that they do perhaps measure similar attributes. All TSD items had high correlations (r > .444) with the anxiety facet of the NEO. The internal consistency estimate of reliability for these 15 items is .910. Therefore, using common adjective correlates of the three NEO facets mentioned above (cf. Costa & McCrae, 1992), Neuroticism as measured by the current version of the TSD most likely assesses an individual’s tendency to worry, be anxious, and lack confidence.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 17

Table 8: Associations between TSD and NEO Neuroticism

75-item TSD NEON1 NEON2 NEON3 NEON4 NEON5 NEON6 TSD N total score .807* .500* .735* .619* .516* .714*

s32 .699* .339* .593* .498* .424* .534*

s20 .650* .204* .478* .581* .324* .424*

s15 .642* .369* .557* .482* .334* .588*

s40 .618* .381* .557* .514* .340* .446*

s17 .610* .385* .526* .455* .365* .556*

s23 .607* .388* .543* .591* .448* .669*

s08 .596* .203* .512* .492* .363* .483*

s37 .593* .355* .508* .439* .340* .520*

s14 .584* .541* .538* .414* .523* .623*

s43 .570* .282* .535* .463* .350* .473*

s34 .549* .381* .583* .378* .357* .477*

a01 .536* .295* .587* .353* .263* .483*

s04 .508* .239* .338* .361* .246* .341*

s27 .470* .519* .597* .322* .372* .513*

s01 .444* .565* .420* .261* .451* .489*

avg. item-facet .578* .363* .525* .440* .367* .508*

Note: N1=anxiety N2=angry hostility N3=depression N4=self-consciousness N5=impulsiveness N6=vulnerability. * significant at the .05 alpha level 93 ≥ N ≤ 99

3.4.2 Criterion-related Validity Evidence for Neuroticism

Among the various work-related outcomes examined in Barrick et al’s (2001) meta-analysis, Neuroticism had the strongest association with teamwork, and a small association with overall job performance. In understanding how Neuroticism influences these outcomes, Judge and Ilies’ (2002) findings suggest that Neuroticism influences outcomes primarily through performance motivation related to goal setting, expectancies of achieving outcomes, and a general sense

18 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

of self-efficacy. Indeed, Gerhardt, Rode, and Peterson (2007) found that individuals high in Neuroticism were less likely to undertake self-management practices and perceived more situational constraints, which in turn influenced their academic self-efficacy and performance. With respect to team effectiveness, Barrick et al. (1998) found that teams comprising individuals of higher emotional stability were more cohesive, had flexible members who did their fair share of work, communicated openly and had fewer conflicts with each other.

At the present time, little is known about how the facets of Neuroticism relate to some of the criteria discussed above. In fact, there is still debate about the underlying structural makeup of this personality factor. For example, Endler, Rutherford and Denisoff’s (1997) examination failed to replicate Costa and McCrae’s six facet structure, leading the authors to conclude that the underlying facets may not be “mutually exclusive or maximally distinct aspects of N (p. 139)”. On the other hand, Judge and Bono (2001) and Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002) presented evidence for strong convergence between Neuroticism, self-esteem, internal locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy, supporting the authors’ advancement of a common core construct that they labelled positive core self-evaluations. Judge et al. (2002) suggest that Neuroticism should be broadly measured to comprise two main aspects: positive core self-evaluations, explained as reflecting one’s sense of competence, capability, self-worth, or control over one’s environment, and trait anxiety to which they referenced hostility, anxiety, and stress.

In their conceptual examination of personality and team effectiveness, Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, and O’Shea (2006) elaborated on specific aspects of personality and their links to team effectiveness. With respect to Neuroticism, they identified areas labelled “adjustment” and “self-esteem” as being most relevant. Their description of these aspects of Neuroticism appear to correspond well with Judge et al’s (2002) descriptions of trait anxiety and positive core self-evaluations, respectively. An examination of their list of dimensions of teamwork suggests that task activities (e.g., adaptability performance monitoring, task coordination, team management, and decision making) and interpersonal activities (e.g., conflict resolution, providing assistance, cooperation, seeking and providing information) capture the bulk of teamwork. Criteria that are somewhat related to these activities are explored below in relation to the facets of Neuroticism.

Relevant to many of the task activities mentioned above is trait procrastination. Trait procrastination which is said to involve task aversiveness, fear of failure, difficultly making decisions, dependency, lack of assertion, risk taking, rebellion against control was found to have the strongest associations with NEO Neuroticism facets of depression, vulnerability, self-consciousness, and impulsiveness (Watson, 2001). Using a different measure of trait procrastination, Schouwenburg and Lay (1995) reported impulsiveness to have the strongest association, followed by vulnerability, depression, and self-consciousness. Impulsiveness was also found to be the only significant facet related to another relevant concept known as proactive personality which has been conceptualized as the ability to identify problems, show initiative and preserve. Research on academic or course performance (which has been linked to procrastination) has been found to be inversely related to anxiety and impulsiveness (Chamorrow-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003), anxiety, angry-hostility, depression, and vulnerability (Detrick & Chibnall, 2006), depression, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (Detrick, Chibnall, & Luebbert, 2004), and anxiety and vulnerability (Vasilopulous et al., 2007).

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 19

With respect to interpersonal activities relevant to teamwork, LePine and VanDyne (2001) examined cooperative and constructive voice behaviours to find that angry hostility and vulnerability were the only significant predictors. Miller et al. (2003) examined past aggressive encounters in young adults to find that angry hostility had the strongest association, followed by self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability. Roberts et al’s (2007) found that counterproductive work behaviours, in particular conflicts with one’s boss and arguments at work, were significantly predicted by the MPQ’s Aggression scale which has strong convergence with the NEO Neuroticism facet of angry hostility (Church, 1994).

Consolidating the findings above, it appears that the NEO Neuroticism facets of vulnerability and impulsiveness have been more frequently linked to task-relevant constructs or behaviours. Vulnerability, along with angry hostility, also appears to be relevant to interpersonal behaviours similar to that required for effective team work.

3.4.3 Refining the TSD Neuroticism Scale

Empirical analyses suggest that the current TSD captures the NEO Neuroticism facets of anxiety, depression, and vulnerability to a greater extent than it does the other facets. Of these, vulnerability has been more frequently linked in the literature as being relevant to team work outcomes. The present version of the TSD Neuroticism scale has strong internal consistency, and does converge to a moderate degree with the other NEO facet of impulsiveness (r = .516) that literature suggests may be equally important. At the present time, no further revisions to the TSD Neuroticism scale may be necessary. Should further research dictate the need to revise the TSD, it might be worthwhile to increase item content with respect to the facet of impulsiveness and lower that of anxiety, as existing facet-level research using CF samples suggests that of all the NEO Neuroticism facets, impulsiveness was the only one that significantly predicted NCM training performance, job performance, and self-reported workplace interpersonal deviance (Scholtz, 2003).

3.5 Openness to Experience (Referred to as Openness below)

3.5.1 TSD Facet Analysis for Openness

As presented in Table 9, a content examination of TSD items pertaining to Openness revealed that approximately 80 percent of the items (12 out of 15) were linked to TSD facets labelled “philosophical” and “scientific interest”. The remaining three items represented the facets “reflective” and “cultured”.

20 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Table 9: Link between TSD Openness Items and Facets Corrected Item-scale

Correlation


Item Deleted Item Item-scale

Correlation Number TSD Item TSD Facet

a03 Philosophical O1 – philosophical .708 .657 .908

a07 Introspective O1 – philosophical .368 .300 .914

s10 I find intellectual things more interesting than sports. O1 – philosophical .631 .566 .907

s22 I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. O1 – philosophical .708 .653 .905

s31 I feel that I am more intellectual than most of my friends.

O1 – philosophical .525 .434 .911

s36 I like to spend time in intellectual discussions with my friends.

O1 – philosophical .755 .699 .903

s47 Philosophical discussions bore me. O1 – philosophical .770 .744 .901

s03 I would enjoy being a theoretical scientist.

O2 – scientific interest .742 .700 .902

s16 I am fascinated with the theory of evolution.


s19 I often think about the wonders of nature.


s41 I have thought a lot about the origins of the universe.


s45 I am highly interested in all fields of science.


s07 I spend a lot of time analyzing the motives behind the actions of others.

O4 –reflective .469 .408 .912

s26 I spend a lot of time in meditation and deep thought. O4 –reflective .753 .701 .902

s13 I enjoy visiting art museums. O5 – cultured .605 .550 .908

Note: a =adjective; s = statement

N = 146

When the associations between TSD Openness total scores and NEO Openness facets were examined (see Table 10), convergence was comparatively strongest for the facet of ideas (r = .804) and aesthetics (r = .646). The average TSD item-NEO facet correlations were r = .556 for ideas and r = .440 for aesthetics. Item correlations with the ideas facet ranged from a low of .367 to a high of .696. The item with the lowest correlation was s10 (“I find intellectual things more interesting than sports.”). The removal of this item from the scale does not appear to improve the internal consistency reliability estimate of the scale (alpha = .907 as opposed to .911 using all 15 items). Nevertheless, the item in its current wording (i.e., having individuals choose between intellectual things versus sports) represents a multi-barrelled item that may be seen as assessing two different things (Fowler, Jr., & Cosenza, 2008). In other words, it is unclear whether a high score on this item represents an interest in intellectual things

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 21

and/or a disinterest in sports. Rewording of this item (e.g., “I find intellectual things interesting”) is likely to make responding to this item less complex, and possibly improve its effectiveness.

Given the above and using common adjective correlates of the two NEO facets (c.f., Costa & McCrae, 1994) that have stronger associations with TSD Openness items, the current measure of Openness may be regarded as assessing an individual’s tendency to be imaginative, inventive, and original.

Table 10: Associations between TSD and NEO Openness

75-item TSD NEOO1 NEOO2 NEOO3 NEOO4 NEOO5 NEOO6 TSD total O score .416* .646* .335* .351* .804* .300*

a03 .300* .434* .316* .280* .696* .289*

s41 .334* .471* .206* .288* .664* .228*

s36 .258* .446* .220* .238* .662* .269*

s03 .300* .422* .129 .263* .641* .140

s47 .230* .441* .172 .341* .626* .175

s26 .360* .577* .276* .283* .624* .275*

s45 .226* .346* .260* .217* .613* .187

s22 .358* .413* .256* .230* .590* .085

s13 .201* .649* .292* .386* .539* .165

a07 .252* .310* .112 .278* .491* .356*

s16 .329* .395* .217* .199 .468* .248*

s31 .389* .392* .189 .150 .467* .121

s19 .229* .550* .296* .245* .463* .223*

s07 .320* .319* .201* .122 .436* .163

s10 .250* .429* .232* .121 .367* .183

avg. item-facet .289* .440* .225* .243* .556* .207*

Note: O1=fantasy O2=aesthetics O3=feelings O4=actions O5=ideas O6=values


90 ≥ N ≤ 99

22 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

3.5.2 Criterion-related Evidence for Openness

A small, but emerging body of research suggests that Openness is bi-dimensional. Some facets are said to capture openness to external versus internal experiences (e.g., Griffin & Hesketh, 2004), or openness to intellectual pursuits versus emotional ones (e.g., Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, & Sheppard, 2002). Consequently, different labels such as “intellect-emotion” (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2004), “objective-general” (e.g., Gignac, 2005) have been used to represent these two dimensions. Although there is no definite consensus on the actual facets that make up each dimension, Griffin and Hesketh (2004) factor analyzed the Openness facets of the NEO to find that the facets of actions, ideas, and values loaded on one factor whereas the facets of fantasy, feelings, and aesthethics loaded on a second factor. They referred to the first factor as Openness to the external environment, explaining that individuals scoring high on these facets have a willingness to experience new activities, new ideas, intellectual interests, and values. Some of these facets are also said to reflect an individual’s tendency to be motivated by intellectual subject areas (Colquitt et al., 2004). The second factor is referred to as Openness to the internal environment and high scorers on these facets are said to be more receptive to imagination and artistic pursuits, and tend to consider emotions and inner feelings as important. Some of these facets appear to reflect an individual’s tendency to thrive on emotional subject areas (Colquitt et al., 2004).

A review of facet-level research suggests that facets tapping into Openness to the external environment are invariably related to outcomes related to learning ability. For example, grade point average was predicted by the Openness facet of ideas in addition to those of Conscientiousness discussed earlier (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). They also reported that general knowledge, measured by the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery, was best predicted by the Openness facets of ideas, values, actions, and aesthetics. Hough’s (1992) synthesis of criterion-related validities of various personality constructs found that HPI’s Intellectance (which has a high convergence with the NEO Openness facet of ideas, Costa & McCrae, 1995) had the strongest (albeit small) association with technical proficiency (i.e., job knowledge and technical competence) in comparison to the other personality constructs examined.

Using a computer simulated task to track performance deviations following some manipulated change, LePine, Colquitt, and Erez (2000) reported somewhat stronger and significant associations between an individual’s ability to correct performance following changes to the task and the Openness facets of actions and ideas (.30 ≤ r ≤.33), although the facet of feelings also had equally strong correlations with this criterion. The facets of ideas and values were also the only Openness facets related to the motivation to learn in Major et al.’s (2006) examination. In his examination of learning strategies, Blickle (1996) found that of all the Openness facets, ideas had the strongest association (r = .59) with a composite of learning strategies that involved critical analysis and a deeper comprehension of study material.

In addition to learning ability outcomes, the NEO Openness facets of actions and ideas have been found to be related to an individual’s receptiveness to change (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004). A small association was also reported between Intellectance (similar to the NEO Openness facet of ideas, Costa & McCrae, 1995) and irresponsible behaviour (Hough, 1992).

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 23

3.5.3 Refining the TSD Scale for Openness

As evident above, the facet of ideas was the most frequently linked to outcomes relevant to work performance. This facet captures Openness to intellectual pursuits, and is well represented in the present version of the TSD. With the exception of one item mentioned earlier (s10) that should be revisited, no further changes should be necessary to the TSD Openness scale. However, given that the current TSD Openness scale was also found to have a strong association with the facet of aesthetics, believed to capture another aspect of Openness (i.e., openness to emotional or artistic pursuits), it might be worthwhile to consider lowering item content pertaining to aesthetics while at the same time increasing content relevant to other facets known to capture openness to intellections pursuits (e.g., actions or values).

24 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

4 Discussion

The primary objective of this paper was to explore the current version of the TSD as a measure of the FFM of personality. As demonstrated through the analysis above, the TSD may more appropriately represent the measurement of only some aspects (or facets) of each personality factor. In its current or improved form, the TSD may best be seen as a narrow trait measure of the five personality factors. As Stewart (1999) concludes, narrow trait measures are most beneficial when they are conceptually aligned with a desired performance criterion. A secondary objective of this paper was, therefore, to shed light on the validity of personality facets as they pertain to relevant workplace outcomes.

The resulting findings suggest that the current TSD Agreeableness scale largely captures the facet of altruism. While altruism has been linked to important team-related behaviours, literature suggests that tendermindedness, trust, and straightforwardness are more frequent predictors of relevant criteria than altruism. Further refinements to this TSD scale should, therefore, focus on the incorporation of items that tap into these particular facets. The criterion-related validity of the TSD Conscientiousness scale might benefit from increased representation of items tapping into achievement striving, and a reduction of items tapping into the facet of deliberation which is an inhibited aspect of Conscientiousness and which appeared to be the least frequent predictor of work outcomes.

Of the Extraversion facets captured by the TSD (i.e., assertiveness, gregariousness, and activity), the facets of gregariousness and activity emerged more frequently in the literature as being linked to relevant outcomes. The facet of positive emotions, which appears to be an equally frequent predictor, was found to have a moderate association with the TSD total score on the Extraversion scale (r = .537), suggesting that current TSD items do capture some aspect of positive emotions as well. With respect to Neuroticism, the TSD assesses facets of anxiety, depression, and vulnerability to a greater extent than it does the other facets. Of these, vulnerability has been more frequently linked in the literature as being relevant to team work outcomes. The present version of the TSD Neuroticism scale has strong internal consistency, and does converge to a moderate degree with the NEO facet of impulsiveness (r = .516) that literature suggests may be equally important. With respect to Openness, the facet of ideas was the most frequently linked to outcomes relevant to work performance. This facet captures Openness to intellectual pursuits, and is well represented in the present version of the TSD.

As described above, there is room for improving the TSD. As a predictor, the current and/or improved version of the TSD is likely related to performance criteria, as long as CF performance outcomes are relevant to those reviewed in this paper. However, equal attention must be paid to understanding the criterion. To date, there has been a lack of a substantive approach to TSD validation research in the CF. In other words, little attempt is made to justify or explain, a priori, why a particular personality dimension should be related to some outcome. An exception is noted in the case of Grandmaison (2006) who attempted to conceptually explore personality links to contextual versus task performance. Invoking a motivational link to personality, he hypothesized that personality factors would have stronger associations with contextual performance, while cognitive ability measures would be more strongly related to task performance. Although his data provided mixed support for this hypothesis, such a priori approaches to validation are likely to enhance a substantive understanding of the links between personality and performance outcomes.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 25

To encourage a substantive approach to future validation research, the following table presents possible links between military-relevant performance criteria and personality. Findings from Syed and Klammer’s (2002) review of TSD research in TP3 military organizations are used to identify the kinds of performance variables most relevant to a military setting. These variables appear to map well onto existing performance frameworks as presented below. In addition, various NEO facets (i.e., those frequently occurring predictors in the review undertaken in this paper) are mapped against these dimensions to illustrate their likely relevance and potential contribution in predicting related behaviours.

Table 11: Link between Performance Dimensions and Personality Facet

Common Criterion Outcomes Examined in TSD Research Performance Dimensions

(adapted from Catano et al., 1997) Possibly Relevant

NEO Facets (Syed & Klammer, 2002) Job Task Behaviors (job-specific task proficiency, non-job-specific task proficiency, leadership/supervision, management/administration)

job performance, training performance, leadership potential

N – vulnerability, N – impulsiveness; E – gregariousness, E – activity;

C – achievement striving, C – dutifulness; O – actions, O – ideas;

Contextual Behaviours (written and oral communication, maintaining peer and team performance, demonstrating effort)

coping, motivation, commitment (to training), social fit (during training)

N – vulnerability, N – angry hostility; E – gregariousness, E – positive emotions; A – tendermindedness, A – trust, A – straightforwardness.

Counterproductive Behaviours (maintaining personal discipline)

Turnover

C – dutifulness

The table above provides a framework for organizing present and future TSD validation efforts. Barrick et al. (2001) recommend a similar approach, which allows researchers to formulate specific research hypotheses and cumulate findings. For example, based on the literature review provided in this study, one might hypothesize that Agreeableness is more predictive of teamwork in comparison to task performance or counter productive behaviours. To further an understanding of the link between Agreeableness and teamwork, researchers may also explore the theoretical underpinnings of this association to determine whether social responsiveness or self regulation of emotions mediates the association. As discussed in LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul (2008), teamwork may also be examined in terms of transitional, action, and interpersonal processes. Consequently, hypotheses around possible differential associations across these criteria and Agreeableness may be advanced and tested. Such approaches to validation would be more likely to uncover associations between personality and relevant criteria, allow for theoretically rooted modifications to the TSD, and advance knowledge in the field.

26 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

In designing their validation studies, researchers must also be mindful of the influence that situations and criteria can have on resulting findings. For example, there is consensus that the validity of personality traits is situationally (and by extension, criterion-) specific (Barrick et al., 2001; Tett et al.,1991). Consequently, personality is not expected to be related to all outcomes in all situations. Tett et al. (1991), for example, found the associations between personality and outcomes to be stronger for longer tenured workers. They explained that longer tenure allows increased opportunities for the demonstration and observation of performance, which increases the validity of personality with respect to this outcome. The same argument, along with Mischel’s (1968) discussion on “strong” versus “weak” situations, can be extended to performance in a training context. The influence of personality on behaviour is most likely in situations that impose a few external constraints. Training contexts tend to constrain behaviour such that individuals are likely to behave in accordance with prescribed rules and regulations. Consequently, the associations between personality and behaviours exhibited in a training context are likely to be attenuated. Therefore, future validation research must be carefully designed to increase the likelihood of uncovering relationships, particularly when theory suggests that they should exist.

In summary, there remains a need to make further revisions to the TSD items, to accumulate criterion-related validity around an organized framework, and to facilitate an understanding of the theoretical processes underlying personality-criterion associations.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 27

5 Limitations

One of the main limitations of this paper is the small, single sample of data that the empirical analyses are based upon. There remains, therefore, a need to replicate these findings using data from another sample. A second limitation is that the review of criterion-related evidence for the validity of NEO facet scales focussed on the frequency, rather than effect size, of these facets as predictors of relevant criteria. Nevertheless, the review provided herein is a step forward in enhancing an understanding of the substantive linkages between personality measures and outcomes. Although the sample used in the present study comprised of NCMs undergoing Basic Recruit Training as opposed to CF applicants, the findings obtained in the present examination are not likely to be much different had an applicant sample been used, as possible restriction in the range of scores would apply to both measures (TSD and NEO), having little effect on their association with each other. Using data from an applicant sample to replicate the analyses of this report would help address any related concerns.

28 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

6 Recommendations.....

With respect to further revisions to the TSD, it is recommended that:

a. The analyses conducted in the present examination be replicated using another larger relevant sample;

b. Revisions to the TSD English version be based on a consolidation of findings from the present and replicated examinations; and

c. An examination similar to the one conducted in the present study be undertaken with the French version of the TSD to determine the extent to which potential changes can be applied without adversely affecting its psychometric properties.

With respect to future validation research using the TSD, it is recommended that:

a. Validation research be conducted in a way that advances an understanding of the substantive basis for associations between certain TSD personality dimensions and relevant criterion outcomes.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 29

References .....

[1] Krami, N. & Ekehammar, B. (2006). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Their roots in Big-Five Personality Factors and facets. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 117-126.

[2] Ashton, M.C., Jackson, D.N., Paunonen, S.V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M.G. (1995). The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific facet scales. Journal of Research in Personality 29, 432-442.

[3] Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., Vernon, P.A., & Jang, K.L. (2000). Fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and the openness/intellect factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 198-207.

[4] Ashton, M.C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.

[5] Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S.V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?: Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245-251.

[6] Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., & Mount, M.K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.

[7] Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., Judge, T.A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.

[8] Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal of Personality, 10, 337-352.

[9] Boyes, F.A.J. (2006). The Trait Self Descriptive Inventory: An examination of the psychometric properties and exploration of an abbreviated version. Technical Note 2006-02). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Director of Human Resources Research and Evaluation.

[10] Boyes, F.A.J. (2005). Personality as a predictor of military performance and counterproductive behaviour. Unpublished master’s thesis. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

[11] Catano, V.M., Cronshaw, S.F., Wiesner, W.H., Hackett, R.D., & Methot, L.L. (1997). Recruitment and Selection in Canada. Scarborough, Ontario: ITP Nelson.

[12] Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237-250.

30 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

[13] Christal, R.E. & Driskill, W. (1994). Research and development summary report. Contract Delivery Order 0010. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: Armstrong Laboratory, Human Resources Directorate.

[14] Church, A.T.(1994). Relating the Tellegen and five-factor models of personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 898-909.

[15] Colquitt, J.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., LePine, J.A., & Sheppard, L. (2002). Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: The moderating effect of openness to experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 402-410.

[16] Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1994). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

[17] Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R.(1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50.

[18] Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., & Dye, D.A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.

[19] Detrick, P., Chibnall, J.T., & Luebbert, M.C. (2004). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory as Predictor of Police Academy Performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 676-694.

[20] Detrick, P.,& Chibnall, J.T. (2006). NEO PI-R personality characteristics of high-performing entry-level police officers. Psychological Services, 3, 274-285.

[21] Driskell, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & O'Shea, P.G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249-271.

[22] Endler, N.S., Rutherford, A., & Denisoff, E. (1997). Neuroticism: How does one slice the PI(e)? European Journal of Personality, 11, 133-145.

[23] Fornaciari, C.J., & Mathews, C.S. (2000). Student personality types and predispositions towards distance education. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, B1-B6.

[24] Fowler, F.J., Jr. & Cosenza, C. (2008). Writing effective questions. In E.D. de Leeuw, J.J. Hox, & D.A. Dillman (2008). International Handbook of Survey Methodology. New York: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

[25] Furnham, A. (1996a). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 303-307.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 31

[26] Furnham, A. (1996b). The FIRO-B, the Learning Style Questionnaire, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 285-299.

[27] Gerhardt, M.W., Rode, J.C.,& Peterson, S.J. (2007). Exploring mechanisms in the personality–performance relationship: Mediating roles of self-management and situational constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1344-1355.

[28] Gignac, G.E. (2005). Openness to experience, general intelligence and crystallized intelligence: A methodological extension. Intelligence, 33, 161-167.

[29] Gignac, G.E., Stough, C., Loukomitis, S. (2004). Openness, intelligence, and self-report intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 133-144.

[30] Grandmaison, L.J. (2006). Assessing the incremental validity of personality on direct leadership in the Canadian Forces. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

[31] Grandmaison, L.J. (1998). Predicting job performance and training outcomes with the Trait self-descriptive (TSD) Inventory. Unpublished course report, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[32] Gray, J.A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behavior Research and Therapy, 8, 249-266.

[33] Graziano, W.G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

[34] Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A.,& Hair, E.C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835.

[35] Griffin, B.& Hesketh, B. (2004). Why Openness to Experience is not a Good Predictor of Job Performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 243-251.

[36] Hough, L.M. (1992). The 'Big Five' Personality Variables--Construct Confusion: Description Versus Prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.

[37] Hutchinson, J.G., & Williams, P.G. (2007). Neuroticism, daily hassles, and depressive symptoms: An examination of moderating and mediating effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1367-1378.

[38] Jenkins, M. & Griffith, R. (2004). Using Personality Constructs to Predict Performance: Narrow or Broad Bandwidth. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 255-269.

[39] Jensen-Campbell, L.A. & Graziano, W.G.(2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-362.

32 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

[40] Jones, D., Uggerslev, K., Paquet, S. Kline, T., & Sulsky, L. (2000a). Validation of the Trait Self Descriptive Inventory factors using basic and advanced MOC course results and self-reported job performance. Contractors Report 00-08. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[41] Jones, D., Uggerslev, K., Paquet, S. Kline, T., & Sulsky, L. (2000b). Validation of the Trait Self Descriptive Inventory facets using basic and advanced MOC course results and self-reported job performance. Contractors Report 00-09. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[42] Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.

[43] Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits--self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.

[44] Judge, T.A. & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.

[45] Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.

[46] Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., & de Vries, R.E. (2005). Predicting Workplace Delinquency and Integrity with the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of Personality Structure. Human Performance, 18, 179-197.

[47] LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593.

[48] LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Jackson, C.L. Mathieu, J.E., & Saul, J.R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.

[49] LePine, J.A. & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.

[50] Lounsbury, J.W., Gibson, L.W., & Hamrick, F.L. (2004). The development and validation of a personological measure of work drive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 427-451.

[51] Lucas, R.E. & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts' enjoyment of social situations: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 343-356.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 33

[52] Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E.M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of Extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452-468.

[53] Major, D.A., Turner, J.E., & Fletcher, T.D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 927-935.

[54] McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595.

[55] Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.,& Leukefeld, C. (2003). Examining antisocial behavior through the lens of the five factor model of personality. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 497-514.

[56] Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., & Jones, S. (2008). Externalizing behavior through the lens of the Five-Factor Model: A focus on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 158-164.

[57] Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. NewYork: Wiley.

[58] Mitchell, J.T., Kimbrel, N.A., Hundt, N.E., Cobb, A.R., Nelson-Gray, R.O., & Lootens, C.M. (2007). An analysis of reinforcement sensitivity theory and the five-factor model. European Journal of Personality, 21, 869-887.

[59] Ode, S. & Robinson, M.D. (2007). Agreeableness and the self-regulation of negative affect : Findings involving the neuroticism/somatic distress relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2137-2148.

[60] O’Keefe, D.F. (1999). Development of an optimal Trait Self Descriptive inventory (TSD) profile for military police applicants. Technical Note 99-2. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[61] O’Keefe, D.F. (1998). Investigating the use of occupational personality measures in the Canadian Forces Selection System. Technical Note 98-14. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[62] Paunonen, S.V.& Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.

[63] Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L.R. (2005). The structure of Conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139.

[64] Roberts, B.W., Harms, P.D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2007). Predicting the counterproductive employee in a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1427-1436.

34 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

[65] Rothstein, M.G. & Goffin, R.D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16, 155-180.

[66] Scholtz, D.C. (2003). The validity of psychological screening measures across the performance domain in the Canadian Forces. Sponsor Research Report 2003-03. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[67] Schouwenburg, H.C. & Lay, C.H. (1995). Trait procrastination and the Big Five factors of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 481-490.

[68] Schwartz, S. (1999). Validation of the Trait Self Descriptive inventory against Basic Recruit Training and Basic Officer Training Course results. Technical Note 99-15. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[69] Skomorovsky, A. (2007). The 75-item Trait Self Descriptive Personality Inventory (TSD-PI) English version: Examining Convergent and Predictive Validity in a Sample of Privates. Technical Note under review. Directorate of Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[70] Skomorovsky, A. (2008). Structured Interview Questionnaire: Examining convergent and predictive validity in a sample of privates. Technical Note under review. Directorate of Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[71] Stewart, G.L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959-968.

[72] Syed, F. & J.D. Klammer (2002). The Trait Self Descriptive Inventory: An examination of the Issues. Technical Panel HUM-TP3 Report. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[73] Tett, R.P., Jackson D.N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.

[74] Tett, R.P., Steele, J.R., & Beauregard, R.S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both sides of the personality-job performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335-356.

[75] Vasilopoulos, N.L., Cucina, J.M., & Hunter, A.E. (2007). Personality and training proficiency: Issues of bandwidth-fidelity and curvilinearity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 109-131.

[76] Watson, D.C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet level analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149-158.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 35

[77] Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412.

36 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Annex A Annotated List of TSD Validation Research in the Canadian Forces

O’Keefe. D.F. (1998) Investigating the use of occupational personality measures in the Canadian Forces Selection System. Technical Note 98-14. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

This study examined the criterion-related validity of the TSD using the 163-item version on two samples comprising non-commissioned military personnel (NCM, n = 48) and officers (n = 53). Estimates of internal consistency reliability for each of the five factors of personality assessed by the TSD ranged between .90 and .94. Of the five factors of personality assessed by the TSD, Neuroticism was the only one that had a significant association (r = -.40) with a Basic Recruit Training (BRT) composite criterion and Basic Officer Training Course (BOTC) results comprising instructor ratings on leadership, communication, and five technical skill areas. In addition, Extraversion was also related to BOTC ratings (r = .29).

Grandmaison, L.J. (1998) Predicting job performance and training outcomes with the Trait self-descriptive (TSD) Inventory. Unpublished course report, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

This criterion-related validity examination explored associations between the 163-item version of the TSD and self-report criterion measures (last course grade, standing, and last annual day-today performance rating, overall performance rating, and promotion recommendation).Data was obtained from a sample of 780 CF members across various rank levels and occupations, as part of the Omnibus survey. Simultaneous regression analyses revealed that Conscientiousness significantly accounted for variance in course standing, day-to-day performance, and promotion recommendation. Extraversion contributed to variance in course standing and daily performance, whereas openness was the only personality dimension to explain variance in course grade. Variance explained, either individually or jointly by personality dimensions, ranged between two and 10 percent.

O’Keefe, D.F. (1999) Development of an optimal Trait Self Descriptive inventory (TSD) profile for military police applicants. Technical Note 99-2. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

This study examined the criterion-related validity of the TSD using a military police sample (n = 381) and a self-report measure of one’s performance evaluation rating for the last three years. Significant but small associations were found between performance ratings and Conscientiousness (r = .17), Extraversion (r = .17), and Neuroticism (r = -.19). Facet level correlations were also explored, and were found to be slightly higher for some facets (C1Efficient: r = .21; C2Hardworking: r = .20; N2Worrying: r = -.24; E5Assertive: r =.23).

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 37

Schwartz, S. (1999) Validation of the Trait Self Descriptive inventory against Basic Recruit Training and Basic Officer Training Course results. Technical Note 99-15. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

This study attempted to replicate O’Keefe’s (1999) findings using the 163-item TSD with a sample of recruits undergoing training (n = 378 NCMs and n = 76 officer cadets). Neither training criterion [Basic Recruit Training (BRT) and Basic Officer Training Course (BOTC) results] was significantly related to any of the personality factors. However, some facet-level correlations were significantly correlated with BRT (C3-organized: r = .141; E3-socially active: r = -.194) and BOTC (E4-assertive: r = .308; O3-creative: r = .248). Significant average factor score differences were also noted (on Conscientiousness, Neuroticism Extraversion, and Agreeableness) between those who successfully completed training and those who did not, for reasons pertaining to poor performance, voluntary attrition, illness and/or injury.

Jones, D., Uggerslev, K., Paquet, S. Kline, T., & Sulsky, L. (2000a) Validation of the Trait Self Descriptive Inventory factors using basic and advanced MOC course results and self-reported job performance. Contractors Report 00-08. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Using the 163-item TSD and a randomly distributed sample of 1108, this study examined the criterion-related validity of the TSD. Estimates of internal consistency reliability for each of the five factors ranged between .88 to .93. Results of regression analyses identified Conscientiousness and Extraversion as having significant associations with self-reported job performance ratings provided on one’s most recent PER (higher scores representing lower performance), particularly day-to-day performance (Conscientiousness: r = -.33; Extraversion: r: -.229). Conscientiousness also predicted overall performance (r = -.22). Although Conscientiousness and Extraversion did have small significant correlations with self-reported training performance (i.e., most recent course grade and course standing), neither factor emerged as a significant predictor (p >.001) when entered into a regression equation.

Jones, D., Uggerslev, K., Paquet, S. Kline, T., & Sulsky, L. (2000b) Validation of the Trait Self Descriptive Inventory facets using basic and advanced MOC course results and self-reported job performance. Contractors Report 00-09. Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Using the same sample as in Jones et al. (2000a), this study explored the criterion-related validity of the 163-item TSD at the facet level, to find that day-to-day performance was significantly explained by the Conscientiousness facets C1-efficient and dependable and C2-hardworking, the Extraversion facets E4-assertive and E5-unsociable, the Openness facet O3-creative, and the Neuroticism facet N1-nervous/stressed out. With respect to overall job performance, only E3-assertive appeared to be significant. E4-assertive was also significant when predicting overall job performance. With respect to training performance, the Openness to Experience facet O1-philosophical emerged as the only significant predictor of course standing.

38 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Boyes, F.A.J. (2005) Personality as a predictor of military performance and counterproductive behaviour. Unpublished master’s thesis. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

This study examined the convergent and criterion-related validity of several versions of the TSD (50-item, 60-item and 75-item) using two samples of non-commissioned members (NCM, n = 515) and Officers (n = 124). All dimensions of personality, across the three TSD versions, demonstrated reliabilities in the range from .86 to .93. Moderate to strong convergence was also observed between corresponding personality dimensions of the TSD (for all three versions) and the NEO-PI and HEXACO measures. With respect to the criterion-related validity of the 75-item TSD using criteria gathered during training, Conscientiousness significantly explained between seven and 15 percent of the variance in counter-productive workplace behaviours (in particular, self-reported measures of organizational deviance in officers and NCMs, as well as interpersonal deviance in NCMs), after controlling for demographic variables and cognitive ability (i.e, CFAT). For the NCM sample, Conscientiousness was also found to significantly explain between two and five percent of incremental variance in other criterion variables (i.e., course grade, and supervisor ratings of overall performance, job task proficiency, and contextual performance). None of these associations were evident for the Officer sample.

Grandmaison, L.J. (2006) Assessing the incremental validity of personality on direct leadership in the Canadian Forces. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

This study examines the convergent and criterion-related validity of the 163-item TSD, using multiple samples of various sizes. Strong convergence (.69 ≥ r ≤ .87; N = approx. 700) was observed between corresponding personality factors of the TSD and the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) which is a publicly available and widely used measure of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Internal consistency reliability estimates for each personality factor assessed by the TSD ranged between .89 and .94. With respect to the incremental predictive validity of the TSD (beyond cognitive ability and demographics), Conscientiousness and Extraversion, together, explained between five and seven percent of the variance in task and contextual performance assessed during leadership training (N = approx. 190); however, the direction of the association for Conscientiousness was negative. At the facet level, the facets O4-reflective, A2-considerate, C1-efficient and dependable, and E1-shy and bashful significantly explained variance in task performance (R2=.138), but O4 and C1 had negative associations with this criterion. When contextual performance was examined, these same facets, with the exception of O4, accounted for 7.4 percent of the variance in this criterion.

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 39

Skomorovsky, A. (2007) The 75-item Trait Self Descriptive Personality Inventory (TSD-PI) English version: Examining Convergent and Predictive Validity in a Sample of Privates. Technical Note under review. Directorate of Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

This study examined the criterion-related validity of the 75-item version of the TSD, using a sample of 338 non-commissioned members undergoing basic training. Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged between .88 to .90. Openness to Experience and (to a lesser degree) Neuroticism emerged as consistent predictors of several technical skill areas (e.g., military regulations, personal weapons, general safety) assessed during Basic Recruit Training. Between 4.3 and 7.5 percent of the variance was explained by these personality dimensions after controlling for cognitive ability using the CFAT.

40 DGMPRA TM 2009-010

Distribution list

Document No.: DGMPRA TM 2009-010

LIST PART 1: Internal Distribution by Centre 1 CMP List 1 1 DG Air Pers 1 DG Air FD 1 DG Land Staff 1 DG MPR 1 CFLI (Kingston) 1 RMC (Kingston) 1 CFC (Toronto) 1 DG CORA 1 DRDC CORA Chief Scientist 2 DRDC CORA Library 2 DRDKIM Library 1 DRDC/DGSTO/DSTP 1 DGMPRA 1 DGMPRA – Chief Scientist 1 DGMPRA – Deputy DG 1 DGMPRA – Personnel Generation Research – Section Head 1 DGMPRA – Personnel and Family Support Research – Section Head 1 DGMPRA – Organizational and Operational Dynamics – Section Head 1 DGMPRA – Team Leaders 1 CMS/D Mar Strat 2-6 1 SJS DOSS Pers Ops 1 DRDC (Toronto) 1 CFHA 1 D Mar Pers 1 DLPM/G1 1 D Air Pers Mgt 1 VAC LO

30 TOTAL LIST PART 1

LIST PART 2: External Distribution by DRDKIM 1 Library and Archives Canada

1 TOTAL LIST PART 2

31 TOTAL COPIES REQUIRED

DGMPRA TM 2009-010 41

42 DGMPRA TM 2009-010


DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in section 8.) DGMPRA 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (Overall security classification of the document including special warning terms if applicable.)

UNCLASSIFIED

3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.) The Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) Inventory: A Facet-level Examination:

4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc. not to be used) Darr, W.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.) February 2009

6a. NO. OF PAGES (Total containing information, including Annexes, Appendices, etc.)

56

6b. NO. OF REFS (Total cited in document.)

77 7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report,

e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.) Technical Memorandum

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.) DGMPRA 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.)

10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.) DGMPRA TM 2009-010

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)

Unlimited

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))

13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)

The objective of this paper was to examine the facet representation of each of the five personality factors assessed by the 75-item Trait Self Descriptive (TSD) personality inventory. An empirical analysis of data from a small sample of NCMs who completed the TSD and the NEO-Personality Inventory, and a review of the literature with respect to criterion-related validity of personality facets was undertaken. Findings suggest that the TSD may more appropriately represent a narrow bandwidth measure of personality, in which some facets are better represented in the measure than others. Areas for improving the TSD are identified and discussed.

14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.)

DRDC CORA

www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca

the trait self descriptive (tsd) inventory: a facet-level examination · 2012. 8. 3. · factors...

Documents