Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 395–408 | Cite as

Intelligence, Personality and Performance on Case Studies

  • John Parkinson
  • Simon Taggar


Standard individual difference antecedents of two stages in the case study assessment process were determined in a sample of 305 students. We found that antecedents to the problem identification and analysis stages of case assessment differed. Specifically, we tested intelligence and personality traits as the predictors and found that openness to experience was significantly positively correlated with an individual’s score on problem identification and that general intelligence was significantly positively correlated with an individual’s score on analysis. Additionally, there was a positive relationship between extraversion and agreeableness and an individual’s analysis score and a significant negative relationship between conscientiousness and an individual’s score on problem identification. Moreover, intelligence and conscientiousness interacted to predict an individual’s analysis score with high conscientiousness partially compensating for an individual’s relatively low intelligence.


Problem Identification Five Factor Model General Intelligence Creative Problem Case Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amabile T. M., (1996), Creativity in contextWestview Press, Inc., Boulder, CoGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews L. W., Krathwohl D., (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectivesLongman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer J., (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task specific approach. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrick M. R., Mount M. K., (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis Personnel Psychology 44:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrick M. R., Mount M. K., (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance Journal of Applied Psychology 78:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 83:377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom B. S., Englehart M. D., Furst G. J., Hill W. H., Krathwohl D. R., (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The cognitive domainDavid Mckay Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyle E., Duff A., Donleavy K., (2003). The relationship between personality, learning style, emotional intelligence and academic performance of social science students in higher education Paper presented at the British Accounting Association Conference, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown T. C., (2003). The effect of verbal self-guidance training on collective efficacy and team performance Personnel Psychology 56:935–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler R., (1987). Task-involving ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance Journal of Educational Psychology 79:474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cambell J. E., Lewis W. F., (1991). Using cases in accounting classes Issues in Accounting Education 6:276–283Google Scholar
  12. Chrisman J. J., (1990). Writing a publishable case, some guidelines Case Research Journal, Spring 4–9Google Scholar
  13. Costa P. T., (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organisational psychology Applied psychology: An international review. Special issue: Work and personality 45:225–241Google Scholar
  14. Costa P. T., McCrae R. R., (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FLGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa P. T., McCrae R. R., (1993). Ego development and trait models of personality Psychological Inquiry 4:20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa P. T., McCrae R. R., Dye D. A., (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory Personality & Individual Differences 12:887–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devanna M. A., Tichy N., (1990). Creating the competitive organization of the 21st Century: The boundaryless corporation Human Resource Management 29:445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Digman J. M., (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model Annual Review of Psychology 41:25–36Google Scholar
  19. Duff A., Boyle E., Dunleavy K., Ferguson J., (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance Personality & Individual Differences 36:1907–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunn R., (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences Journal of Educational Research 88:353–362Google Scholar
  21. Erskine J. A., Leenders M. R., Mauffette-Leenders L. A., (1998). Teaching with casesIvey Publishing London, ONGoogle Scholar
  22. Garlinger D., Frank B., (1986). Teacher–student cognitive style and academic achievement. A review and mini meta-analysis Journal of Classroom Studies 21:2–8Google Scholar
  23. Gottfredson L. S., (1986). Social consequences of the G factor in employment Journal of Vocational Behavior 29:379–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gragg C. I., (1954). Because wisdom can’t be told. In McNair M. P., (Ed), The case method at harvard business school. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogan R. T., (1991). Personality & personality measurement. In Dunette M. D., Hough L. M., (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Consulting Psychologists Press Palo Alto, CA, 873–919Google Scholar
  26. Hogan R. T., Hogan J., Roberts B. W., 1996. Personality measurements and employee decisions: Questions and answers American Psychologist 51:469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunter J. E., (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance Journal of Vocational Behavior 29:340–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huttcuff A. I., McDaniel M. A., Roth P. L., (1996). A meta-analytical investigation of cognitive ability in employment interview evaluations: Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity Journal of Applied Psychology 81:459–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacob N. L., Reinmuth J. E., Hamada R. S., (1987). Final report of the AACSB task force on research American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business St Louis, MIGoogle Scholar
  30. Knechel W. R., (1992). Using the case method in accounting instruction Issues in Accounting Education Fall 205–217Google Scholar
  31. LePine J. A., Hollenbeck J. R., Ilgen D. R., Hedlund J., (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g Journal of Applied Psychology 82:803–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lubinski, D., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Aptitude, skills and proficiencies. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.) (pp. 1–60). Palto Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists PressGoogle Scholar
  33. McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., (1990). Personality in adulthood Guildford Press New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal American Psychologist 52:509–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchlistch J. F., Sidle M. W., (2002). Assessing student learning outcomes: A comparative study of techniques used in business school disciplines Journal of Education for Business 77:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naumes, W. (1989). Case writing, professional development and publishing standards: Guidelines for the Case Research Journal, Case Research Journal Spring, 1–7Google Scholar
  37. Parkinson, J. (1999). Differences in the assessment of case studies. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Case Method & Case Application, Caceres, SpainGoogle Scholar
  38. Piedmont R. L., (1994). Validation of the NEO PI-R observer form for college students: Toward a paradigm for studying personality development Assessment 1:259–268Google Scholar
  39. Ree M. J., Carretta T. R., Earles J. A., (1998). In top-down decisions, weighting variables does not matter: A consequence of Wilk’s theorem Organizational Research Methods 1:407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salgado J. F., Viswesvaran C., Ones D. S., (2001). Predictors used for personnel selection: An overview of constructs, methods and techniques. In Anderson N., Ones D. S., Sinangil H. K., Viswesvaran C., (Eds.) Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychologySageTrowbridge, WiltshireGoogle Scholar
  41. Shalley C. E., (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity Academy of Management Journal 38:483–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharplin A., (1990). Toward reasonable standards for publishable cases Case Research Journal Spring 10–16Google Scholar
  43. Spraakman G., Taggar S., & Kerr J. (2001). Three Stories on the death of Royal Trust. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference, London, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  44. Taggar S., (2002). A multi-level model of creativity in intact workgroups Academy of Management Journal 45:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wonderlic E. L., Associates 1992. Wonderlic personnel test and scholastic level examWonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. Libertyville, ILGoogle Scholar
  46. Young J. W., (1974), A technique for producing ideasCrain BooksChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York UniversityOntarioCanada
  2. 2.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityOntarioCanada
  3. 3.Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Professional StudiesYork UniversityOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations