Frame-of-Reference Effects on Police Officer Applicant Responses to the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
Prior investigations of the frame-of-reference effect have compared personality inventory responses using contextualized (e.g., at work) versus standard non-contextualized frames-of-reference primarily under low-demand or simulated high-demand conditions. Results generally suggest that a context relevant instructional set may increase reliability and validity. These findings have not been studied using actual applicants under high-demand conditions such as personnel selection. In the present study, actual police officer applicants completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) using either an “at work” or a standard (no context) frame-of-reference under both high- and low-demand conditions. Results indicated significant demand effects on 3/5 NEO PI-R domain scores and 25/30 facet scores. Frame-of-reference, on the other hand, yielded no significant main effects. An “at work” frame-of-reference, relative to a standard context, had no influence on police officer applicant NEO PI-R responses, irrespective of demand. Context effects on job applicant responses may not be of concern regarding reliability or validity of responding under high-demand conditions such as personnel selection.
KeywordsFrame-of-reference effects Positive response bias Demand effects Police officer selection Revised NEO Personality Inventory
Paul Detrick serves as psychological consultant to numerous law enforcement agencies in the St. Louis, Missouri, area. John T. Chibnall is a research psychologist and professor of psychiatry at Saint Louis University School of Medicine.
- Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A (2008/2011) MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-2-restructured form): manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
- Black J (2000) Personality testing and police selection: utility of the “big five”. N Z J Psychol 29:2–9Google Scholar
- Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: sychological Assessment ResourcesGoogle Scholar
- Dilchert S, Ones DS, Viswesvaran C, Deller J (2006) Response distortion in personality measurement: born to deceive, yet capable of providing valid self-assessment? Psychol Sci 48:209–225Google Scholar
- Gilmore, P. (2011). Predicting law enforcement officer turnover using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northcentral UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Hilson Research (2006). Inwald personality inventory technical manual. Kew gardens, NY: AuthorGoogle Scholar
- McCrae R, Costa PT (2008) The five-factor theory of personality. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research, 3rd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 159–181Google Scholar
- Mischel W, Shoda Y (2008) Toward a unified theory of personality: integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing system. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research, 3rd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 208–241Google Scholar
- Mount MK, Barrick MR (1995) The big five personality dimensions: implications for research and practice in human resource management. Res Pers Hum Resour Manag 13:153–200Google Scholar
- Ostrich TM (2007) Biodata prediction of municipal police academy performance. Diss Abstr Int 68:1350Google Scholar