-Y L , g n r R 1 : 1 a 1 f f i PNUOICTING WORK PERFORMANCE THR.UGH SELECTI.N INTERVIE* RATINGS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT LIZIWE NZAMA EDCON South Africa MARIE DE BEER Depnrtment of Industrinl nnd Orgnnisntionnl psvcholoqv Uniuersity of South Africa South Africa DELENE VISSER Department of Industrial and Orgnnisational psVcholopv Uniaersity of South Africn South Africa Correspondence to: Mari6 de Beer e-mail: dbeerm@unisa.ac za ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to establish whether selection interviews used in conjunction withpsychological assessments of personality traits and cognitive functioning contribute to predictingwork performance' The sample consisteA of 702 managers who were appointed recently in a retailorganisation The independent variables were selectioi interview ."titifr-.ii"i"ed on the basis ofstrttctttred competency-based interview schedules by interviewing panels, five broad dimensions of f:t::ltll1"j* by the Five Factor Model as measured uy *re"u Facror euestionnaire (15Fe+),ano cognrtlve processing variables (current level of work, potential level of wirk , and 72pro."rj.[competencics) measured by the cognitive Process Profile (Cpp). w.* p".r.r-ance was measuredthrough annual performance ratingi that focused on measurable outpLlts of performance objectives.only two prcdictor variables corre"lated statistically significantly *itil tn" ..i".ion variable, namelyinterview ratings (r = 0 31) and CPP Verbal Abstiaction (r = 0.3a). Following multiple regression,only these variables contributed significantly to p."Ji.ti.,g work performa.,."lbr, only 17.8% of thevariance of the criterion was accounted for. 5#rl,$;::lr!::t?,T""tt psvchological assessment, personaliry trats, cognitive functioning, ].1::ltl"^y. ""d psychological assessmenr resrrtts for predicting worK pertormance w.rs explored in the current study. .J 1* NJ {_) : :i i:, al T U],{: ( ) : f i ' ? C N S S $ . ' l 3 , i : s < r r i r . : 1 ; 1 1 1 1 . ' l : 1 i 5 1 1 1 1 f - , t , r , . a - , : t l j e ; i c i r 7 N ! / - a m a . D * B e e r & V f s s e r organisations and this allowed organisations to employ anyone they wished without making the criteria for appointment known. The LRA specifies that organisations must have specific, objective criteria against which individuals are measured when they apply for positions The use of interviews and psychological tests are ways of measuring individuals against the objective criteria for specific jobs. The second actof importanceinthis contextwas theEmployment Equity Act (1998) (EEA). When the act was passed, there was much confusion in the I/O community regarding the use of psychological tests. The act clearly states that the use of tests is prohibited, unless the user can show that the tests being used ' are valid, reliable and fair Many individuals concluded that it would be unfair to use psychoiogical tests in the workplace. The resulting confusion was exacerbated by the lack of familiarity with the code of ethics that governs psychological testing. According to this code of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), organisations may use only tests that comply with the required psychometric properties which include reiiability, validity and fair use of tests (HPCSA,2007). The introduction of the LRA and EEA contributed to an increased focus on psychological assessment. In South Africa some of the current challenges deal with the discriminatory issues that plagued the country for decades One of the aims of the legislation is to redress the imbalances that were created by the Apartheid system. The EEA specifically makes provision for individuals who may not have had the opportunity to acquire skills and experience. Companies may not turn down prospective employees solely on the basis of lack of skills and experience. Individuals' abilities to acquire the required skills and experience within a reasonable period of time need to be taken into account and this is generally referred to as potential. The measurement of potential is a relatively new area in psychological assessment and there have been many initiatives to try and provide valid measures of potential, specifically in the cognitive domain. Organisations need to ensure that their selection processes comply with legal requirements, but also that these processes a1low for the selection of individuals who are able to perform specified tasks and contribute effectively to their organisations However, many organisations do not establish or continue to check the validity of the methods used to make selection decisions (Hoffman & McPhail, 1998) Using selection processes that have not been validated is not beneficial to organisations, because the value derived from these processes remains unknown Furthermore, the costs associated with selection strategies that do not work are high, and this relates to both monetary and non-monetary costs (Burnett & Motowidlo, 1998; Miner, 1992; Schmidt & Rader, 1999) It is against this background that the present study was undertaken to assess the validity of specific selection methods, namely structured interviews and psychometric tests. The project focused on the value of interviews and psychological assessment (by means of personality and cognitive testing) as used in the areas of resourcing and selection in order to predict job performance. Varying results have been obtained regarding the use of interviews and assessments in predicting work performance. Interviews are used to assess information about candidates in order to predict ftrture behaviour, but interviews alone are not good predictors of future behaviour (Cornelius, 2001). Research has shown that major differences in results have been obtained, depending on whether structured or unstructured interviews were used. Barrick, Patton and Haugland (2000) report that the more structured the interviews, the more valid the prediction of performance is likely to be. According to them, increased structLrre in interviews improves the psychometric properties of interviews and hence the improved validity Cortina et nl (2000) showed that despite the high predictive validity of cognitive tests, strLrctured interviews account for a significant proportion of the variance when incremental validity was examined, whereas unstructured interviews do not demonstrate any significant incremental validity when considered in conjunction with cognitive tests Results reported bySchmidtand Rader (1999) thatsupported the use ofstructured interviews for predicting job performance yielded a correlation of 0.40 between interview ratings and supervisor ratings. Similarly, in their meta-analysis McDaniel et al (1994) obtained a correlation of 0.44 between these variables for structured interviews, whereas the correlation was 0.33 for unstructured interviews. Structured interviews furthermore generally have higher face and content validity than unstructured interviews and are less open to bias Mount, Witt and Barrick (2000) support the notion that better prediction is achieved when more than one predictor is used, because of incremental validity. For instance, McManus and Kelly (1999) found overlap between biodata and personality, but concluded that the combination of these variables yielded better prediction of performance compared to when they were used individually. Various researchers have studied the relationship between personality and performance (Sackett, Gruys & Ellingson, 1998), but in South Africa this topic is still surrounded by controversy (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). Rothmann and Coetzer (2003) found that personality accounted tor 28"/,, of the variance in predicting success at management level In their study, conscientiousness did not feature as prominently as it did in the Barrick and Mount (1991) study, but the results nevertheless indicated that successful managers generally obtained high conscientiousness scores and were emotionally stable, open to experience and agreeable The study of Barrick and Mount (1991) was one of the first studies that demonstrated the strong links between personality (in particular, conscientiousness and extraversion) and work performance using the Five Factor Model. Barrick et al Q000\ concluded that conscientiousness and extraversion have high predictive validity for job performance across different jobs, but that the remaining factors of the Five Factor Model are relevant for predicting specific jobs. The Five Factor Model is based on the trait theory of personality and is built on the assumption that some personality traits are universal, consistent and stable over time. It is the most commonly used personality model across different countries, in different contexts and in different interventrons fudge Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999; Mount et a1.,2000; Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003; Schmidt, Kihm & Robie, 2000). It is also the most integrative model of personality (De Bruin, 2000). Despite support for it, the model has been criticised for being influenced by culture, and for being nomothetic (aimed at inter-individual comparison) instead of idiographic (for intra- individual comparison) in nature (Church, 2007; Schmidt ct ctl., 2000). Furthermore, the Five Factor Model does not account for all of the variance in personality (Paunonen & Jackson,2000) It is clear that ability alone is not the only requirement for being able to do a job well and that personality factors such as motivation are also important. According to McManus and Kelly (1999), personality tests are more predictive of contextual performance than task performance, whereas ability tests tend to be predictive of task performance These results reflect the multidimensional nature of work performance (Langdon, 2000; Mink, Owen & Mink, 1993) Organisations with selection processes that include ability and personality assessments should therefore be in a better position to predict job performance than ones that focus on one aspect only (Sackett et a\.,7998). Studies conducted after 1990 generally showed stronger relationships between personality and work performance than ones conducted prior to i990 (La Grange & Roodt 2001). The question arises whether personality can be P r e d t t ( e I ( S t 1 1 l b b (. u b o S ( t . L d o l (( 1 r q1 at In S C P. cc st 2A th c L ta' lo b e fa' 0 4 to ad (P, CX taf Th sol a n re( of m€ Tw cot P I ln cll S O th fo it€ Cr l n 1n SU crl h a C t- : :t -i: c "f, gi $ A T y j s i t r i i v i r E e l j r i ' l s i e i k L ; n d e V a l . 3 4 N o 3 p p 3 9 - 4 7 hltp:l,iwr,n;v; $fijip co za htti::ll'*r, Fr*d i li r: g i";L: it i:*i ii: r'*.' il r i:'l | :l ri'.rl t:r-,.,-,: ' #ffiW assessed by means of psychometric instruments only. Some of the factors of the Five Factor Model are not readily assessable by means of interviews, but Barrick et nl (2000) maintain that extraversion can be assessed in interviews Similarly, Cortina et nL (2000) conclude that some aspects of conscientiottsness m a y b e a c c e s s e d v i a i n t e n i e w > . One of the measuring instruments that enables one to obtain scores for the Five Factor Model is the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnairc (16PF) originally developed by Cattell in 1949 It has been criticiscd when used across cultttral grottps in Sonth Africa (Abrahams, 2002; Abrahams & Mauer, 1999), but other researchers claimed that its main shortcomings have been rectified in an adaptation, the 15 Factor Questionnaire (15FQ+), for industrial settings (Prinsloo & Ebersohn, 2002) The useflrlness of the 16PF and its adaptations has been endorsed by the fact that it is the most frequently used test in a study of 20 South African organisations (Van der Merwe, 2002). The second-order factors of the 15FQ+ were used to measure the factors of the Five Factor Model in the prcsent str"rdy. Like other self-rcport measures, the 15FQ+ is subject to social desirability responding Social desirability is a combination of impression management and self-deceptive enhanccment (Craziano & Tobin, 2002). To collnter the likclihood of individuals faking their responscs when comple ting personality questionnaires, most questionnaires snch as the 15FQ+ have social desirability scales about which respondents are warned at the outset In scvcral stndies correlations wcrc obtained between social dcsirability and some of thc five-factor dimensions. In particular, Stober (2001) found that agreeableness correlated with social desirability, whereas emotionai stabilitl' and c o n s c i e n t i o u s n c s s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i n o t h e r str-rdies (Graziano & Tobin, 2002; Visser, 2002; Visser & Du Toit, 2004). Visscr (2002) explained these results by indicating that of the five factors, only emotional stability and conscientiousness clearly have positive poles In the case of the remaining thrce factors it is under certain circumstances as acceptable to obtain low scores as it is to obtain hish scores. There would thcrefore be no rationale for faking answers to items tapping thcsc thrcc factors unlcss respondents suspect that particular personality profiles are being sought. Nevertheless, it is 1ike1y that the inflnence of social desirability overall is negligible under certain circtrmstances For instance, Mount ef nI (2000) report that social desirability had no impact on the predictive validity of the five drmcnsions, whereas McFarland, Ryan and Ellis (2002) for-rnd that faking behaviour decreased when thc questionnaire items are randomised, as is the case with the 16PF Cognitivc tests have been widely uscd ovcr several decades, but in Sor"rth Africa the introduction of the LRA resulted in a decline in their use for some yea rs Nevertheless, previous research has supported the validity of cognitive tests for predicting different criteria such as performance and trainability. Some researchers have found that cognitive tests are the best predictors of various aspects of performance, wrth mean validities of around 0 4 5 ( C o r t i n a e t a | , 2 0 0 0 ) I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e a p p r o a c h to cognitive testing that was used was cognitive processing adaptive testing, which also inclr-rdes learning potential (Prinsloo, 2000; Sewell, 1987) Process theories on cognition explain how individuals use their cognitive styles to perform tasks and adjust to the environment (Bergh & Theron, 1999) The theoretical model used here focuses on five problem- solving processes, namely exploration, analysis, categorisation and integration, logical and lateral reasoning, and retention and recall (Prinsloo, 2000) These processes were assessed by means of the Cognitive Process Profile (CPP), which also provides a measure of learning potential (Prinsloo, 2000). Two South African tools to measltre learning potential that are computerised and nse the dynamic assessment model arc thc CPP (Prinsloo, 2000) and the Learning Potential Computerised Adaptive Test (LPCAT) (De Beer, 2000) In both instruments the test-train-retest method of assessing potential is used, becattse individuals are testcd to establish their clrrrent problern- solvrng abilities, after which thcy are given instrlrctions on how to evaluate nonverbal cLrcs and tested again (De Beer, 2000; Prins1oo,2000). Learning potential on the CPP is reflected on two levels. The first level rcflccts individuals' learning potential as it refers to the various problem-solving styles and the second level is measured in the context within which the individual is working. The latter is also referred to as ievels of work (Jacqucs, 1998; Prinsloo, 2000) Levels of work are based on Jacques's (1998) stratified systems theory (SST) that identifies seven levels of work and the complexity attached to each level Stratified systems thcory is a holistic theory that incorporates four elements, namely thc capability of the individr-ral, series of higher levels of complexity in work, series of higher levels of complcxity rn organisational strllcture, and processes like managerial leadership practlces (Jacques, 1998) The theory is based on the assumption that it is important to match current and potential individual cognitive functioning to cutrent and potential work environments Performance is improved when there is a match between individuals' cognitive capabilities and the coenitive demands of the work environment that individuals Junction in (Jacques, 1998; Prinsloo, 2000). It was decided to employ the CPP in the present study, because it was evident that in South Africa cognitive testing had entercd a new era with a strong emphasis on testing for learning potential and the CPP is appropriate for measltring learning potential at managerial level The criterion that was predicted in the present stttdy was work performance Langdon (2000) indicated that contemporary approaches to the definition of performance management currently used in South Africa, as is evident from the literature, differ from traditional definitions that were based on organograms to reflect the way in which work is organised. These traditional approachcs are outdated, because they do not always show the relatronship between different departments or how work is performed According to De Lange, Fourie and Van Vuuren (2003), the traditional way of managing performance does not work in most modcrn organisations as organisations face changes that impact on organisational structures and the way in which work is organised The way work is conceptualised in an organisation naturally inflttences how it is measured In the current study work performance was defined as a multidimensronal constmct of how well one performs tasks at work, the initiativc taken and how one solves problems - and was measured in tcrms of a final ratins score obtained for each participant According to this model, work performance is seen as multidimensional and taking place at different levels, such as the business unit, core processes, individual jobs and work groups (Langdon, 2000) Work performance does not only deal with individuals' competence, because other factors can impact on work performance, such as the characterlstics of the job, personal circumstances, and the team and organisation individuals work in (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003) A multidimensional view of work performance results in greater alignment of work to organisatlons' overall objectives This approach also makes the performance review process more meaningful, because discussions between line managers and employees encompass all of thc performance dimensions ( L a n g d o n , 2 0 0 0 ) It is evident from the foregoing discussion that the cnterion- related validity of the predictors used in this study needed to be examined and that the study might shed light on the benefits of combining certain types of predictors of work performance The aim of the study was therefore to establish whether selection interviews used in conjunction with psychological assessments (psychometric tcsts) contribute to predicting work performance It was hypothcsrsed that selection intervier'v ,.ii:: r .i "i i* ,,i i;i l-. E t r ' i ; r i ' r c ? : { c s € i i c t r 7 l \ t ; a m a . D e E e * r & V i s * e r ratings, personality traits and cognitive functioning measures would correlate significantly with job performance ratings and that better prediction of job performance can be attained if scores on the three tvoes of oredictors are combined. RESEARCH DESIGN Research approach A research design that yielded quantitative data that was subsequently analysed statistically was employed The data consisted of scores on self-report maximal and typical performance psychometric tests as well as panel interview ratings and job performance ratings Patticipants The population used in the study was defined as all the persons who were appointed in a retail organisation in managerial positions from middle management to executive levels between January 2002 and September 2003. Before January 2002, psychometric testing had not been introduced at the retail company and therefore no assessment data was available. Another reason for choosing the specific time frame was to ensure that performance ratings would be available for all the participants at the time when the final data-collection process took place in June 2004. Performance reviews at the company were formally conducted at six-monthly intervals only. The sample consisted of all the persons of the population for whom interview ratings and cognitive assessment data were obtainable. Owing to the lack of an integrated Human Resource (HR) system, some information on specific individuals, particularly interview and performance ratings, was not recorded on the central system These individuals were omitted from the sample The final sample consisted of 102 individuals who had interview ratings and cognitive assessment data. One individual for whom personality data was not available was included in the sample and two individuals for whom performance ratings were not available were included. The mean age of the sample was 36.99 years (SD = 203), and 59 (5787.) were males. In terms of racial composition, there were 25 black participants, 68 white participants, 8 Indian participants and one coloured participant The majority of the participants were working in the merchandise department (55.887d and 20 59o/o were working in the operations department. Only 2.9% of the sample had not matriculated, whereas 677% of t}:.e participants held a tertiary qualification. Females tended to be better educated, because 37.20% of the females held degrees as against 27.00% of the males. Similarly, black participants had higher educational quaiifications than white participants, because 60% of them held degrees as against 22% of the white - - ^ * r : ^ : ^ ^ - r - P a r r r L r y a r r r r Measuring instruments The independent variables, nameiy interview ratings, personality trait assessments, and cognitive functioning were measured by means of structured competency-based interviews, the 15FQ+ (The 15FQ+ Technical Manual, 2002) and the CPP (Prinsloo, 2000). The dependent variable was work performance, which was measured through performance ratings by superiors of the participants. Compe te nc y -base d intera iezus Structured competency-based interview schedules that were designed for every managerial position to assess the knowledge and skills or experience attained by the applicants were utilised to obtain a single interview rating for every applicant. For instance, for the position of divisional planning rnanager,2T questions were compiled to assess 13 knowledge and skills competencies. Before the interviews took place, the interviewers or interviewing panels had to select certain questions from the schedule to ask, because the applicants were interviewed twice. It was preferable that questions should not be repeated, but the interviewers had to ensure that all the competencies were covered by the questions that they selected. All applicants were asked the same set of questions for specific jobs. The interviews consisted of behavioural questions that were asked about situations in which the applicants had been invoived in the past and how the situations had been handled. All the competencies were rated on a five-point scale where a score of 5 indicated an excellent answer that exceeded organisational standards Finally, a mean interview rating was calculated for every participant. 15 Factor Questionnoire (15FQ+) The 15FQ+ is a personality questionnaire designed for occupational use (The 15FQ+ Technical Manual, 2002). The questionnaire is based on the 16PF and was developed to overcome problems experienced with the use of the 16PF in industrial settings, as documented by Abrahams (2002) and Abrahams and Mauer (1999). The purpose of the 15FQ+ is to measure personality traits that were first defined by Cattell in 7946 (Gregory, 1996), using paper-and-pencil or computerised versions. Areas of personality that are of interest in predicting work performance are included in the 16 traits of personality measured. Measures of the broad dimensions of personality defined by the Five Factor Model may also be obtained when the 15FQ+ is administered. According to the 15FQ+ Technical Manual (2002), Cronbach's aipha reliabilities for a professional sample on the standard form ranged frorn077 to 083 for the 16 traits and 5 broad factors. Similarly, test-retest reliabilities varied from 0.77 to 0.89 (The 15FQ+ Technical Manual, 2002). Validity evidence for the 15FQ+ consists of correlations between its scales and the Bar-on EQI and Jung Type Indicator (The 15FQ+ Technical Manual, 2002). Furthermore, when comparing the 15FQ+ with its predecessor (the 15FQ), which measured personality factors based on Form A of the 16PF, substantial correlations between corresponding scales were obtained The corrected correlations ranged from 0.37 to unity. When the Five Factor Model dimensions were considered, correlations between the 16PF5 and the 15FQ+ broad dimensions ranged from 0 65 for Openness to Experience and 0.88 for Extroversion (The 15FQ+ Technical Manual, 2002). The 15FQ+ uses a self-report format and consists of 200 items. Respondents have to indicate on a three-point scale how closely the items describe their personal behaviour. The alternatives offered are "agree", "unsure" and 'disagree". The participants' responses are captured on a system that generates reports Apart from interpreting respondents' scores on the vanous personality traits, the reports also provide derived scores on team roles, leadership roles, subordinate roles, career themes and selling styles In the present study only the paper-and- pencil version of the 15FQ+ was used. The norms developed for South African managerial/professional positions by the test distributor were applied The following information from the reports were utilised in the present study: . Scores on each of the broad dimensions or global factors (factors of the Five Factor Model) measured on a sten scale. . Social Desirability scores measured on a sten scale were obtained as an indication of the extent to which the questionnaire had been answered honestly. Social desirability scores of 8 or higher were regarded as an indication that the profiles of the individuals concerned needed to be verified, because they may reflect deliberate distortions or unrealistically high self-images (The 15FQ+ Technical Manual, 2002). Cognitiae Process Profle (CPP) The CPP is a self-administered interactive comouter-based cognitive functioning instrument for measuring thinking trrsdi F l i Ji c p e n A I I I I r t T a I n bar ; I n t Pe Exl N E Op Agl C o Sor C o C u l Pot Anr Stn Strl S t n Loc Mel Mer J u d Lea Lea Per J u n }} i' s O O it t- il: E E s r: il a L} O v e SA i-vds, 0 5 0 ) A t l i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e c m c r g c d n i t h r c g . r r d t o t h c i r r t e r c o r r c l . r t i o n s . r m o n g t h c f i v c b r o . r d r l i m e n s i o n s o f p c r s o n a l i t y , b e c a l r s c t h e v a r i a b l e s w c r c g e n c r a I l y n o t s t r o u g l y c o r r c ' l . r t c c l E x l r i v c r s i o n c o r r e l a t e c l s i g n i f i c a n t l l n ' i t h N c t r n r t i c i s m ( r = - 0 3 2 , p = t ) 0 0 1 ) , O p e n n c s s t t r E x p e r i c r r c c ( r = 0 2 2 , f r = 0 0 2 7 ) a n c l A s r e c . r l r l c n e s s ( r = - 0 2 3 , p = 0 0 2 0 ) F t t r t h e r m o r e , N e r t r o t i c i s m c o r r c l a t c d n c g a t i v c l y r ' v i t h C o n s c i c r r t i o t t s r r e s s ( r = 0 2 4 , p - 0 0 l : l ) T h e r c m a i n d c r o f t h c i r r t c r c o r r e l a t i o r . r s b e t l r . c c u t h e F i v c F ; r c t o r c l i m c n s i o n s w ' e r e n o t s t . r t i s t i c a l h , s i g r - r i f i c a n t S o c i a l D c s i r a b i l i t v c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t , i t h N c - u r o t i c i s m ( r = - 0 2 9 , p = 0 0 0 3 ) a u c l A g r e e i r L r l c n e s s ( r = t ) 2 9 , p = 1 ; 9 1 1 3 ; I t s h o u l c l b c n o t c d t h a t r r o r r e o f t h c c o g n i t i v e . r . i r i . r b l e s c o r r c l ; r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l l l v i t h I r r t c r v i e n R a t i n g s , b u t I n t c r v i e w , R a t i n g s c o r r c l a t c c l s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h N e r - r r o t i c i s m ( r = 0 2 7 , p = 0 0 3 2 ) N o s t r o n g c o r r c l a t i o n s t h ; r t v i c l c l c c l ; r t l c a s t r n e d i u r l c f f c c t s i z c s r . v c r c o b t a i n c c l b c t l v c c n t h e p c r s o n a I i t v r ' . r r i a b l e s . r n c l t h e c o g n i t i v c i u n c t i o n i n g r ' . r r i a b l e s H o l v e v e r , i n t c r m s o f s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c c , t r ' r ' o v a r i . r b l c s r e a c h c c l s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i t i c : r u c c : r t t h c 0 0 1 l c r - c l , r r ; r m c l y t h c c o r r e l . i t i o n s b e t l v c c n E x t r a v o r s r o n .rutl Cttrrc'ut Lcvcl of Work (r = 0 26, p = 0 009) .rncl bctrt,ccn C o n s c i e r r t i o t r s r r c s s a n t l A n . r 1 1 ' t i c . r l ( n r l c t o c t r s ) r , v h e r c r w a s crlual to -0 2c) (p = 0 003) 'fhc finail stcp in thc .rrr.rh,'sis of thc c1.rt.r u,.rs to contluct .r s L c p r l v i s c m r r l t i p l c r e g r c s s i o l l a r r . r l t s i s t o p r r : c l i c t P e r f r r r n r r n c c l l a t i n g s A l l o f t h c i n c l c f r c n d c u t r i r r i . r b l e s r v c r c c n t e r e c l i r r k r t h c r c g r c s s i o n r n o r l c l a n d t h c o b t a i n c c l r e s n l t s l v c r e a s c x p c c t c c l i r o m t h c i n t c r c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t r r e c n t h e v a r i a b l c s , n a m c l r ' l h . r t o n l t ' I n t e ' r r i c r . r ' R a t i r . t g s a r - r d V c r b a l A b s t r : . r c t i o n c o n t r i b L r t c c l s i g n i f i c a n t l y b t h c p r c r l i c t i o n o f P c r f o r n r . r r r c c R . t t i r - r g s T h e r c s u l t s o f t h c r c g r e s s i o n . r n a l y s i s . r r c p r c s e n t c c l i n T a b l e 3 V c r b a l A b s t r . r c t i o r l \ i c l t l c d . r s t l r . r . r r e c l n ' r t r l t i p l c c o r r o l . r t l o r - r c o c f f i c i e n t o t 0 1 0 5 ( A d j L r s t e d R r = 0 0 9 6 ) ! V h e n I n t c r r i e r v I l a t i n g s w a s ; r c 1 c ' l e d t o t h c r e g r e s s i o n , R w a s c r l t r a l t o 0 - 1 2 : r n c ' l R s c l u a r e c l i n c r c . r s e c l k r 0 1 7 8 ( A c l j t r s t c d R r = 0 l ( r l ) C o n s i . l e r i n g t h c n u m b e r : r r r c l n a t t r r c o f t h e v a r i a r b l e s e n t c r c c l , t h c r r . g r c s s i o n r c s u l t s w e r c c l i s a p p o i n t i n g , b e c a t r s c o n l y 1 2 8 ' ) l , o f t h e v a r i ; r n c e o f t h c P c r f o r m a n c e R a t i n g s w a s a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e i n d c p c n d e n t v.r riables D I S C U S S I O N T h c m a i n a i m o f t h c s t t r c l y r r , a s t o e s t a b l i s h w h c t h e r c o m p e l e n c r - b a s c d s e l c c t i o n i n t e r v i c w , s l r s e c - l i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t c s t s o f cognitivc processillg anc'l lcarning potential .tncl me.rslrrcs of t h c F i v e F a c t o r m o d e l c o n t r i b u t c c l s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o p r c d i c t i n g w o r k p e r f o r m . r n c e T h c r c s u l t t h a t o n l y t w o o u t o f t w e n t y - t l v o p o s s i b l e p r e c l i c t o r s c o r r c l a t e c l s i g r r i f i c ; r n t l y v v i t h t h e c r i t c r i o n W o r k P e r f o r m a n c e \ \ r a s b o t h r , r n e x l r c c t e d a n c l d i s a p p o i n t i n g N o r r e o f t h c v a r i a b l c s o f t h e F i v e F . r c t o r m o c l c l o f p e r s o u ; r l i t v c o r r e l a t c d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t h ' w i t h W o r k P e r f o r n r a n c e O n l v I n t e r v i c w R a t i r r g s a n c l o n e o f t h e c o g n i t i r e p r o c c s s i n g s t y l e s o f t h c C P P ( V c r b a l A b s t r a c t i o r - r ) y i e l c l e c l m e d i t r m o f f e c t sizc correltrtions r'vith tl-rc critcrion V e f b a l A b s t r a c t o n R e g r e s s o n R e s i d u a l T o t a I I n t e r v r e w r a t r n g R e g r e s s r o n R e s i d u a l T o t a I 3 7 0 8 9 1 1 2 6 0 0 0 1 " 3 2 9 5 3 1 5 3 5 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 " 3 0 5 6 6 3 7 0 8 9 3 1 6 3 6 0 3 s 3 4 4 8 6 3 0 7 0 2 903 78 3 5 3 4 4 8 1 9 6 9 1 2 9 5 - p < 0 ( ] r ' . p < 0 1 . 1 1 T J N S T A N D A R D I S E D S T A N D A R D I S E D C O E F F I C I E N T S C O E F F I C I E N T S B S E B e t a 1 ) C o n s t a n t V e r b a l A b s t r a c t i o n 2 ) C o n s t a n t V e r b a l A b s t r a c t i o n I n t e f v i e w r a t i n g s 9 9 7 6 2 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 8 9 4 1 4 2 3 0 1 2 0 3 9 3 3 6 ' 1 1 5 4 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 . ' 3 3 6 0 0 0 1 - . 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 r - 3 1 7 0 0 0 2 r ' 2 9 2 0 0 0 4 ' - 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 2 7 P < 0 ( l j . . p < 0 0 1 I a n , r , r , . a r H e s e a r c n l'.ltzanra. De Beer & Visser Freciic[inr The correlations of interview ratings with the other variables demonstrated the value of using structured competency-based interviews for predicting work performance. Interview Ratings correlated substantially with the criterion, thereby supporting the findings of other researchers (McDaniel et nl., 7994; Pearlman, Schmidt & Hamner, 1983; Salgado & Moscoso, 2002; Schmidt & Rader, 1999). Furthermore, most of the correlations of Interview Ratings with the other predictors failed to reach statistical significance or at best represented small effect sizes In particular, Interview Ratings did not correlate with any of the cognitive variables, except for a small effect size correlation between Interview Ratings and Current Level of Work . These results are contrary to those obtained by Cortina et nl. (2000), who reported a correlation of 0.27 between structured interviews and cognitive ability, but our findings imply that interview ratings made a unique contribution to predicting the criterion According to the results for this sample and approach, the five factors of the 15FQ+ could not be regarded as predictors of work performance. These findings are similar to results reported by Sackett et al (1998), but are not in support of those found in several other studies (Barrick et al ,2000; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Cortina ef n1.,2000; La Grange & Roodt,2001; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon, 7994) that supported the predictive validity of personality factors. The obtained results cannot be ascribed to the use of clinical personality tests as similar results have been explained (Gatewood & Field, 1994), because the personality test used here, the 15FQ+, was developed for use in the workplace. A positive feature of the correlations was that the five dimensions of personality were generally not strongly intercorrelated, implying that the five factors constituted relatively independent measures. The results of the Social Desirability scale corroborated the findings of some previous research, because Social Desirability correlated statistically significantly with Agreeableness (Graziano & Tobin, 2002; Stciber, 2001) and Neuroticism (Graziano & Tobin,2002; Visser,2002; Visser & Du Toit, 2004). The correlation between Agreeableness and Social Desirability may possibly be linked to the impression management component of social desirability. It is possible that the respondents' scores on the personality dimensions were contaminated by socially desirable responding, because their mean score of 711 on the Social Desirability scale is an indication that the profiles of some of them are not valid (Graziano & Tobin, 2002; McFarland et al ,2002). This is a source of concern, because it implies that a portion of the hiring decisions made on the basis of these personality measures may have been incorrect. The strong intercorrelations between the cognitive variables point to a large degree of redundancy in measurement due to overlapping (common) variances. This problem may have been addressed by reducing the number of variables by means of factor analysis, but it remains doubtful whether any improvement in predictive validity will result from such a step This could be investigated through further research using larger samples. Certainly in this study the results for the cognitive measurements did not support the use of cognitive functioning as measured by the CPP as a predictor of work performance For instance, Work Performance did not correlate with Current or Potential Levels of Work. Verbal Abstraction was the only cognitive processing competency that showed a significant correlation with Performance Ratings. These findings are in direct contrast to previous research that has indicated that cognition may be regarded as the single best predictor of different aspects of performance as has generally been found in studies that included various meta-analyses (Cortrna et al , 2000; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & R o t h . 1 9 9 8 ) . A stepwise multiple regression confirmed the correlation results, because only two variables, Verbal Abstraction (CPP) and Interview Ratings, contributed significantly to the prediction of work performance. None of the personality variables added any value to the prediction. Considering the weak multiple regression coefficient obtained, the results of the present study was not encouraging. Apart from the contribution of the interview ratings, the personality and cognitive variables generally did not provide evidence for their predictive validity. A further cause for concern regarding the use of the CPP in the company involved in the study was noted. It was found that the average current level of work of the respondents was Level 2: Diagnostic Accumulation, which is linked to supervisory and specialist jobs in the organisation The average potential level of work for the resoondents was Level 3: Alternative Pathways, which is linked to middle and senior managerial responsibilities. Given that all the respondents were already in middle or senior management positions and had obtained satisfactory performance ratings, one would expect that they would currently be operating at Level 3 and not at Level 2. Furthermore, one would expect that their average potential level of work would have been Level 4: Parallel Processing, or Level 5: Pure Strategic. Clearly, the levels of cognitive complexity as measured by the CPP and as contextualised in the organisation do not match the conception of successful performance in the organisation at the managerial level Overall the present study highlighted the unique contribution that structured interviews make to the prediction of performance. This finding confirmed the conclusions of McDaniel et nl. (1994), Pearlman et al (7983) and Schmidt and Rader (1999) regarding the importance of structured interviews in the selection process, because these researchers also obtained substantial correlations between structured interview ratings and job performance. The disappointing results regarding the personality and cognitive variables may to some extent have been due to some shortcomings of the study and it is recommended that the study be repeated in a design that corrects possible shortcomings. Obvious shortcomings of the study were that the sample size was somewhat small for conducting multiple regression analyses and that restriction of range was present due to the homogeneous sample, because it consisted of individuals who were appointed into managerial positions. The relatively small standard deviation of the work performance scores is indeed an indication that restriction of iange possibly influenced the magnitude of the correlations. A further possible confounding factor is that the respondents were employed in several departments of the retail organisation, although the majority were attached to the merchandise deoartment. It mav be that the measures of work performance weie not directly comparable across the various departments Nevertheless, great care was taken to focus on measurable outDuts. REFERENCES Abrahams, A. & Mauer, KF. (1999). The comparability of the constructs of the 16PF in the South African context. Soufft African lournal of Psychology, 25(1), 53-59. Abrahams, F. (2002). The (un)fair usage of the 16 PF (SA 92) in South Africa: a response to CH Prinsloo and I Ebersijhn. Sottth African lournal of Psychology,32(3), 58-61. Barrick, M.R. & Mount. M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions of job performance: a meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1-26. Barrick, M.R, Patton, G.K. & Haugland, S.N. (2000). Accuracy of interviewer judgments of job applicant personality traits Pe rso nnel P sy chology, 53, 925-951. Bergh, Z.C. & Theron, A.L. (1999). Psychology in the zuork context. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Burnr di 1n Churr p ( Cornr pe Cortir S C S C De Be co p0 Ur De Br C( Iot De La of pe 39 Empk (1s Cateu Fo Grazit of Pet Grego apl Hoffn sul Pet HPCS, Prr ln HI Jacque Ha Judge, Th c a l 621 Labou 18i abi sal Langd sys Pfe McDar S T otr Prl McFar a p me 78( McMa bic val 52( Miner, M( Mink, pel Wt it O o a c- s : a::) D i0 I = c: { ti) SA Tydskrii'vir BedryfsieitrnL:Je r./ol. 3..i No 3 pp 39 - 47 hitp:lr"wlvv'i. saj ip cc za B u r n e t t , J R . & M o t o w i d l o , S J ( 1 9 9 8 ) R e l a t i o n s b e t w c c n different sourccs of information in the structurcd selection interview Pc rso t t t t c I P st 1 chol og v, 51, 963-983 C h u r c h , A T ( 2 0 0 1 ) P c r s o n a l i t y m c a s u r e m e n t i n c r o s s c t t l t t t r a l perspec tive. l o t r n n l oJ P a rs o n n l i t V, 69 (6), 979 -100s Cornelirrs, N (2001) Hutnntt ResotLrct's Mtnngantt'rtt: n rnnrngerttl perslttc t iu Lontlorr: Thomson C o r t i n a , J M , G o l c l s t c ' i n , N B , P a y r - r e , S C - , D a v i s o n , H K . & G i l l i l a n d , S W ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e i n c r e m e n t a l v a l i c l i t y o f i n t e r v i c w s c o r c s o v e r a n d a b o v c c o g n i t i v c ; t b i l i t y a n d c o n s c i e n t l o L l s n e s s scorcs Pr'rsonnal Psrlcltologtl, 53, 325-351 D e B e e r , M ( 2 0 0 0 ) T l t t ' c o t t s t r u c t i o t r r t t r d a t t l t t r t t i o t t o . f n d y t n t t t i c con1tutcrrzed ntltptii,t' tcst .for tltc ttrcasurrttn'tlt of lanrttittg ' potcntinl Unpr.rblished Doctor;rl Dissertation Pretoria: U n i v t ' r s i t y o f S o t r t h A f r i c . r . De Bruin, G P (2000) An rntcr battery factor analysis of thc C o m r c v p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s a n d t h e 1 6 P F q u c s t i o n n a i r c I ou r t r rt I o.f I tdtLs t r i o I P s y cl to I og 11, 26(3), 1-7. D e L a n g e , M , F o u r i e , L & V a n V t t t t r c n , L J ( 2 0 0 3 ) R e l i a b i l i t y o f c o m p e t e n c y b a s e d , m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n : r l , m l t l t i - r a t c r performance ratings A lourtnl of InLlustrinl Psvchology,29(2), 39-18 E m p b y m e n t E q u i t y A c t , N o 5 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) C o v e r n m c n t C a z e t t e , 4 0 0 (19370) Cape Town, 19 October 1998 Gatewo