No description available.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the personality trait elevation between honest and applicant contexts that has been widely seen throughout the personality and selection research is merely universal, blatant trait elevation, or whether something else is underlying this faking behavior. By obtaining both honest and applicant context personality responses in which respondents were provided with focal job knowledge, this study determined that while there is near-universal trait elevation across seven personality traits, there is, in fact, some trait differentiation between jobs. As such, this study provided some evidence of knowledgeable faking, defined as distortion of personality test responses based on knowledge of the job being applied to, within applicant contexts.

Content validity methods, such as matching matrices, have been used to assist in the design and evaluation of training programs. In the present study, the Water Training Institute (WTI) curriculum was evaluated using a content validation approach. The purpose of the study was to identify topics that were being under-emphasized, over-emphasized, or receiving the correct amount of emphasis in the curriculum. A Job Knowledge Survey was developed and administered to subject matter experts to determine the importance of topics to the jobs that WTI graduates would most likely enter after graduation; the importance ratings were used as the criterion for the study. Subject matter experts in a Course Content Workshop indicated the amount of emphasis placed on each topic in four WTI courses. Matching matrices plotting job importance against course emphasis were created for each of the four target jobs for WTI graduates. These matrices did not identify any hits (i.e., topics receiving correct amount of emphasis). However, there were a number of deficiencies that were near hits. These findings will assist WTI in developing future courses and in redesigning their currently offered courses.

Numerous factors are likely to influence response patterns to situational judgment tests, including agreeableness, leadership style, impression management, and job and organizational experience. This research presents background information and research on situational judgment tests and several constructs hypothesized to influence situational judgment test responses. A situational judgment test and manipulations to influence response patterns were developed and piloted with a small sample of management professionals and undergraduate students. Larger samples of management professionals and undergraduate students participated in the experimental research. Participants were asked to imagine that they are applying for a job. Each participant was presented with background information about a fictitious company, describing a company as either highly Participative/Supportive or highly Directive/Achieving in its leadership culture. A third description provided no information about leadership culture to serve as a control. Participants responded to a situational judgment test consisting of some commercially developed items and some new items. Then participants responded to an inventory comprised of items that measure the factors hypothesized to influence response patterns, specifically Agreeableness and Experience. Significant differences in response patterns were determined to be attributable to the Agreeableness and Experience variables, and the Leadership Culture manipulations, as well as the interaction between Experience and the Leadership Culture manipulations. No significant differences were clearly attributable to the Agreeableness by Leadership Culture interaction. The ramifications of these findings are discussed and recommendations for future research are presented.