A Matter of Context: A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of the Relative Validity of Contextualized and Noncontextualized Personality Measures

Abstract

The empirical evidence that has accumulated in support of the notion that personality is a valid predictor of employee performance is vast, yet debate on the matter continues. This study investigates frame‐of‐reference effects as they relate to the validity of self‐report measures of personality. Specifically, we compare the validities of general, noncontextualized personality measures and work‐specific, contextualized measures. The findings suggest that personality measures are a more valid predictor of performance when the scale items or instructions are framed specifically so as to reference work‐specific behaviors. We found that the validities for noncontextualized measures of personality ranged from .02 to .22, with a mean validity of .11. The validities for contextualized measures ranged from .14 to .30, with a mean of .24 . Additional moderator analyses were conducted in an effort to examine several alternate explanations for these validity differences. Specifically, we examined differences between the developmental purpose (general use vs. workplace use) and reliabilities of each type of personality measure. We also compared the validities from published studies to those from unpublished studies. Results suggest that these moderators did not have an impact on the validity differences between noncontextualized and contextualized measures.