INTERNATIONAL

OPProOCCUPATIONALPERSONALITY PROFILEtechnical manual

ONTENTS1 THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

2 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR OPP DIMENSIONS

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE OPP DIMENSIONS

4 THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE OPP

5 ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS

6 REFERENCES

c

2

31 Standardisation Sample Composition (age rounded up to nearest year)2 OPPro Gender Differences3 Age Effects on OPPro scores4 A Comparison of Ethnic Group Scores with the Genesys Norm5 OPPro scale internal consistencies & Item Total Correlations (ITCs)6 OPPro scale Alpha & ITC’s for various standardisation samples.7 OPPro Test-retest Reliability Over Two Different Time Periods8 Product-moment Correlations between OPPro Sub-scales (n = 988)9 Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form A Factors10 Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form 5 Factors11 Correlations between OPPro & 15FQ12 Multiple Regressions predicting the OPPro from OPQ™ Factor 5 (N = 41)13 Correlations Between OPPro & JTI14 Correlations between OPPro dimensions, EPQR and I7 (n = 158)15 Correlations Between the OPPro & NEO (N=107)16 Correlations Between the OPPro & PPQ (N=144)17 Correlations Between the OPPro & VMI (N=59)18 Correlations Between the OPPro & MAPP (N=59)19 Correlations Between OPPro & GSIV (N=375)20 Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Work Needs (N=108)21 Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Interests (N=108)22 Correlations Between OPPro & VPI (N=108)23 Correlations between OPPro Dimensions & External Criteria (n = 59)24 Relationship between OPPro and Clerical Performance Criteria25 Correlations between OPPro & Service Engineer Performance26 Correlations Between OPPro & Printer Performance Criteria (N=70)27 Correlations between OPPro/Reasoning & Telesales Performance Criteria28 Correlations between OPPro & Retail Staff Performance29 Correlations Between OPPro & Sales Consultant Performance30 OPPro Correlations with Performance Ratings of Car Dealership Managers31 Correlations between OPPro & Successful Applicant for Component Course32 Correlations Between OPPro & Effective Sales Managers33 TQI’s & TCI’s for a Number of Different Tests

OPQ™ is a trademark of Saville & Holdsworth Ltd.

LIST OF TABLES

4

1THEORETICALOVERVIEW

A major reason for usingpsychometric tests to aid selection

decisions is that they provideinformation that cannot be obtainedeasily in other ways. If such tests are

not used then what we know aboutthe applicant is limited to the

information that can be gleanedfrom an application form or CV, aninterview and references. If we wish

to gain information about a person’sspecific aptitudes & abilities andabout their personality, attitudes

and values then we have little optionbut to use psychometric tests. In fact,psychometric tests can do more than

simply provide additionalinformation about the applicant.

They can add a degree of reliabilityand validity to the selection

procedure that it is impossible toachieve in any other way. How they

do this is best addressed byexamining the limitations of the

information obtained throughinterviews, application forms and

references and exploring how someof these limitations can be overcome

by using psychometric tests.

1 THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS

IN PERSONNEL ASSESSMENT

2 MEASURING PERSONALITY

3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE OPP

4 CRITERIA FOR ITEM-GENERATION AND ITEM SELECTION

5 ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING OF

THE OPP

6

THE ROLE OFPSYCHOMETRIC TESTS INPERSONNEL ASSESSMENTWhile much useful information canbe gained from the interview, whichclearly has an important role in anyselection procedure, it does nonethe-less suffer from a variety ofweaknesses. Perhaps the mostimportant of these is that the inter-view as been shown to be a veryunreliable way to judge a person’scharacter. This is because it is anunstandardised assessment proce-dure. That is to say, each interviewwill be different from the last. This istrue even if the interviewer isattempting to ask the same questionsand act in the same way with eachapplicant. It is precisely this aspectof the interview that is both its mainstrength and its main weakness. Theinterview enables us to probe eachapplicant in depth and discover indi-vidual strengths and weaknesses.Unfortunately, the interview’sunstandardised, idiosyncratic naturemakes it difficult to compare appli-cants, as it provides no base lineagainst which to contrast intervie-wees’ differing performances. Inaddition, it is likely that differentinterviewers may come to radicallydifferent conclusions about the sameapplicant. Applicants will responddifferently to different interviewers,quite often saying very differentthings to them. In addition, what anyone applicant might say will beinterpreted quite differently by eachinterviewer. In such cases we have toask which interviewer has formedthe correct impression of the candi-date? This is a question to which

there is no simple answer.A further limitation of the inter-

view is that it only assesses thecandidate’s behaviour in one setting,and with regard to a small numberof people. How the candidate mightact in different situations and withdifferent people (e.g. when dealingwith people on the shop floor) is notassessed, and cannot be predictedfrom an applicant’s interview perfor-mance. Moreover, the interviewprovides no reliable informationabout the candidate’s aptitudes andabilities. The most we can do is askthe candidate about his strengthsand weaknesses, a procedure thathas obvious limitations. Thus therange and reliability of the informa-tion that can be gained through aninterview are limited.

There are similar limitations onthe range and usefulness of the infor-mation that can be gained fromapplication forms or CV’s. Whilework experience and qualificationsmay be prerequisites for certainoccupations, in and of themselvesthey do not determine whether aperson is likely to perform well orbadly. Experience and academicachievement is not always a goodpredictor of ability or future success.While such information is importantit may not be sufficient on its own toenable us to confidently choosebetween applicants. Thus aptitudeand ability tests are likely to play asignificant role in the selectionprocess as they provide informationon a person’s potential and not just

7their achievements to date. Moreover,application forms tell us little abouta person’s character. It is often acandidate’s personality that willmake the difference between anaverage and an outstanding perfor-mance. This is particularly truewhen candidates have relativelysimilar records of achievement andpast performance. Therefore, person-ality tests can play a major role inassisting selection decisions.

References do provide some usefulinformation but mainly for verifica-tion purposes. While pastperformance is undoubtedly a goodpredictor of future performancereferences are often not good predic-tors of past performance. If the nameof the referee is supplied by theapplicant, then it is likely that theyhave chosen someone they expect tospeak highly of them. They willprobably have avoided supplying thenames of those who may have a lesspositive view of their abilities.Aptitude and ability tests, on theother hand, give us an indication ofthe applicant’s probable performanceunder exam conditions. This is likelyto be a true reflection of the person’sability.

What advantages do psychometrictests have over other forms of assess-ment? The first advantage they haveis that they add a degree of reliabilityto the selection procedure thatcannot be achieved without their use.Test results can be representednumerically making it easy both tocompare applicants with each other,

and with pre-defined groups (e.g.successful vs. unsuccessful jobincumbents). In the case of personal-ity tests the test addresses the issueof how the person characteristicallybehaves in a wide range of differentsituations and with different people.Thus psychometric tests of personal-ity, aptitude and ability tests providea range of information that is noteasily and reliably assessed in otherways. Such information can fillimportant gaps which have not beenassessed by application forms, inter-views and references. It can also raisequestions that can later be directlyaddressed in the interview. It is forthis reason that psychometric testsare increasingly being used inpersonnel selection. Their use adds adegree of breadth to assessment deci-sions which cannot be achieved inany other way.

8 MEASURING PERSONALITYInterest in the measurement ofpsychological characteristics(psychometrics) can be traced backto the second world war. During thewar there was a great need to selectmilitary personnel for air crew train-ing which led to the development ofa number of psychometric tests bothhere and in the United States. Themain interest at this time was in thedevelopment of IQ tests, or tests ofmental ability as they used to becalled, rather than in the develop-ment of personality tests. While thepsychological theory, trait theory,which underlies personality testinghad been developed by Allport in the1930’s it was some time before thiswas used in an attempt to constructpersonality measures. It was notuntil after the Second World Warthat such work came to fruition.

There were probably two mainfactors responsible for the develop-ment of personality tests. Firstly, thedevelopment of electronic computersmade it possible to calculate thestatistics that form the basis ofpsychometric testing on largesamples, with relative ease. Whilemuch of the statistical theory whichunderlies test construction had beendeveloped before the war it had beenalmost impossible to perform thesecomplex analyses on sufficientlylarge samples prior to the advent ofcomputers. Thus work in this areaburgeoned after the war, when manyof today’s tests were developed (e.g.the 16PF, CPI, EPI etc.). The secondfactor that awakened interest inpersonality measurement was the

realisation that if psychologists wereto make similar advances in thescientific understanding of humanbehaviour, to those that naturalscientists had made in understandingthe physical world, then it would benecessary to develop techniques formeasuring those psychological char-acteristics that would enable us topredict human behaviour. Fromthese two considerations theoreticalapproaches to the measurement ofpersonality, and the relationshipbetween personality and behaviour,were developed from Allport’s earlywork. The most extensive of thesetheories is probably that describedby Cattell (1965) in his book: TheScientific Analysis of Personality.

Cattell’s book is particularly diffi-cult to understand. It is full ofalgebra, and in his attempt toprovide a complete theory of humanpersonality and motivation, he hasinvented many new and abstruseconcepts (e.g. ergs, Q methodologyetc.). In practice, the basic principlesthat underlie personality measure-ment are not as complex as theymight first appear. A personality testsimply consists of a collection ofquestions, or “items”, which assessan individual’s characteristic ways ofthinking, feeling and acting in differ-ent situations. It is important to notehowever, contrary to some recentsuggestions, that there is no reasonthese items should be transparent.That is, items do not have to directlyask a person how he typicallybehaves (e.g. I am a warm, friendlyperson). All that is needed for an

9item to work is for people to respondto it in a consistent way. Thus goodpersonality tests can be reliable, yetcontain items that are not transpar-ent. In the area of occupationalselection and assessment it is in factbest not to use transparent items,thus making it harder to fake testresults.

Personality tests take items thatmeasure different aspects of thesame personality characteristic andcombine them to form subscales ordimensions. By asking questionswhich address many different facetsof a person’s character, personalityquestionnaires attempt to get abroad picture of how the applicantusually acts in different settings andwith different people (e.g. withfriends, at work, at formal socialengagements etc.). What psycholo-gists mean when they talk aboutpersonality, is an individual’s charac-teristic way of thinking, feeling andacting across a broad range ofsettings. Thus when we say a personis extraverted we mean that he issociable, lively, outgoing andfriendly: that he usually seeksvariety, change and excitement andhas a great need for others’ company.Besides addressing those characteris-tics which are extreme oroutstanding, personality tests alsoassess those ways in which a personis typical of a particular group.

In assessment and selection we areoften as interested to find that aperson is average on a certain trait aswe are to identify their most notableor extreme characteristics. For

example having an average score ona particular trait, say assertiveness,may better fit the demands of the jobthan being either highly assertive orhighly unassertive. Average scorescan describe a balanced and flexibleposition, where the person is capableof displaying the strengths that arefound at both of the extreme ends ofthe personality dimension. In thecase of a person who has averagelevels of assertiveness for example,they are likely to strive to achieve abalance between being task focusedand achieving results yet being sensi-tive to others’ needs and avoidinginterpersonal conflicts.

bkThe OPPro is a personality testdeveloped for use in industrial andorganisational settings. The test wasdeveloped in the UK on a largesample of applicants drawn from awide range of occupational groups.The OPPro measures nine differentpersonality dimensions in addition tothe distortion scale. Each of the ninedimensions measured by the OPProare bi-polar. That is to say high orlow scores on each dimensionmeasure opposite personality charac-teristics (e.g. extraversion vintroversion, tough-minded v tender-minded etc.). The personalitycharacteristics which are measuredby the OPPro have been selected fortwo reasons. Firstly, for their rele-vance to personnel assessment andselection decisions, and secondly,because of extensive researchevidence demonstrating their valid-ity. Thus the test user can beconfident that the OPPro is measur-ing meaningful aspects of thecandidate’s personality.

The personality scales measuredby the OPPro were designed to be asshort as possible while at the sametime achieving a high level of relia-bility and construct validity. Ingeneral these two demands runcounter to each other in that themore items a test contains the morereliable that test will usually be. Inaddition the more varied the testitems are, the more likely it is that

the test will be measuring broadpersonality constructs. However, ifitems are fairly varied, and thusmeasure broad constructs, moreitems are typically required for thetest to reach acceptable levels of reli-ability, than if the items are verysimilar to each other. Thus there is aneed to balance the length of a testagainst the need for it to be validand reliable. The OPPro attempts toachieve an optimal balance betweenthese two conflicting demands,seeking to be short and reliable, yetmeasure broad, meaningful person-ality constructs. For this reason wechose to use a five-point responsescale rather than the more usualthree-point scale (i.e. strongly agreeto strongly disagree rather than true,uncertain, false). Five-point scaleshave the advantage of increasingitem variance with the result thatfewer items are needed to achieve thesame level of reliability.

CONSTRUCTIONOF THE OPP

The principal aim in generating theitems was to achieve a balancebetween adequate coverage of theconstruct (breadth) whilst maintain-ing acceptable levels of scalecohesiveness (internal consistency)and minimum overlap with otherscales (noise).

The above was operationalisedwith the following criteria:● Items would correlate substantially

higher with the target, keyed scalethan any other. It was not consid-ered acceptable to have the item tokeyed scale correlation onlymarginally higher than the nextbest item to non-keyed scalecorrelation as this wouldcontribute to a complex structureas defined by Barrett, Kline etc.

● Items should as far as possible becross-culturally generalisable. Allitems that referred to parochial orculturally specific activities,concepts or behaviours not consid-ered prevalent in other countriesor cultures were avoided.

● Wherever possible items were tobe limited to a single principalclause that was simple and unam-biguous for readers havingreached a high school level ofeducation.

● Items that correlated highly withthe social desirability scale were tobe removed to minimise the likeli-hood of motivation distortion inselection settings.

● All gender specific pronouns andconcepts were removed.

bl

CRITERIA FOR ITEM-GENERATION AND ITEMSELECTION

bmThe reliability of a test depends verymuch on how it is administered andscored. Detailed administration andscoring instructions are provided inthis manual for the OPPro and it isstrongly recommended that these befollowed to the letter.

The OPPro is provided withGeneSys® Integrated AssessmentSoftware. GeneSys® will administerthe OPPro and related aptitudebatteries or it will accept scores fromthe answer-sheets when using thetests in paper and pencil format. Ineither case, GeneSys® will score thetest and will provide the user with aselection of interpretative reportsand occupational groups to use asthe norm. Full instructions foradministering and scoring tests areprovided with the GeneSys®manual.

COMPUTERISED TESTINTERPRETATION

The Occupational Personality Profile(OPPro) has been designed to beadministered and scored by computer.As well as printing scaled scores foreach dimension GeneSys® integratedassessment software provides adetailed narrative report which inter-prets the personality profile andhighlights the candidate’s majorstrengths and weaknesses. In additionto reporting the candidate’s scores oneach of the fifteen personality dimen-sions measured by the OPProGeneSys® also has the facility toprint criterion scores for Belbin’steam-roles and Holland’s careerthemes. Given that it is not alwayspossible to administer a test bycomputer the OPPro has an addi-tional option which enables the test tobe administered in a ‘paper andpencil’ format which is subsequentlyscored by computer.

ADMINISTRATION ANDSCORING OF THE OPPro

2THEORETICALBASIS FOR OPPDIMENSIONS

This section of the OccupationalPersonality Profile (OPPro) User

Guide describes the theoretical basisof the personality dimensions

measured by the questionnaire. Aswas noted earlier the personality

traits which this test measures wereselected for two reasons. Firstly,

because of their relevance to personnelselection and assessment decisions,

and secondly, because of the extensiveresearch literature demonstrating thatthese dimensions measure meaningfuland stable personality characteristics.

A thorough review of the researchliterature and discussions with many

personnel professionals led us todevelop the nine scales which form theOPPro. Thus the empirical support for

the theoretical constructs which theOPPro measures is large and we

believe that each of these personalityfactors are salient to a wide range of

selection decisions. A brief summary ofthe research evidence which supportsthese dimensions is presented below.

1 ACCOMMODATING - ASSERTIVE

2 DETAIL-CONSCIOUS - FLEXIBLE

3 CYNICAL - TRUSTING

4 EMOTIONAL - PHLEGMATIC

5 RESERVED - GREGARIOUS

6 GENUINE - PERSUASIVE

7 COMPOSED - CONTESTING

8 OPTIMISTIC - PESSIMISTIC (INTERNAL

- EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL)

9 ABSTRACT - PRAGMATIC

10 THE DISTORTION SCALE (SOCIAL

CONFORMITY)

bo THE NINE SCALES OF OPP

ACCOMMODATING –ASSERTIVE

Many psychologists have considereddominance or assertiveness to be animportant personality characteristic(McDougall 1932, Guilford 1958,Cattell 1965). Moreover the impor-tance of this trait is clearly supportedby our everyday experience. We haveall made the observation that somepeople find it much easier to assertthemselves, and get what they want,than others. For some their lack ofassertiveness may be such a problemthat it will cause them to complywith others, even if this runs counterto their own needs, simply becausethey are unable to say no.Furthermore, our everyday experi-ence also indicates the importance ofassertiveness at work. In organisa-tional settings a high level ofassertiveness will form the basis ofan authoritarian, task-orientatedleadership style, with low levels ofassertiveness forming the basis of ademocratic, person-centred style.These are the two leadership styleswhich were first identified by Bales(1958) and have since formed thebasis of most leadership research.Given the relevance of this personal-ity dimension to occupationalassessment, and its clear psychologi-cal importance, it has been includedin the OPPro.

DETAIL-CONSCIOUS – FLEXIBLE

This personality dimension has along and distinguished history inpsychology. The first person to iden-tify this trait was Sigmund Freudwho termed it the anal, or obses-sional personality (see Kline, 1968).While Freud’s suggestion that apsychologically rigid, obsessionalcharacter is due to fixation at theanal stage of psycho-sexual develop-ment is now questioned by mostpsychologists. Nonetheless, manyaccept the existence of this importantpersonality trait. Not only is itsimilar to the well documentednotion of the authoritarian personal-ity (Adorno et al 1950) but with itsemphasis on impulse control it issimilar in many ways to Factor G inthe 16PF. More importantly Kline(1968) has gone on to develop apersonality scale to measure thischaracteristic. Working from theideas originally expounded by Freudhe has shown that such people aretypically fastidious in their attentionto detail. Rigidly adhering to setprocedures and rules they are gener-ally well organised individuals whosupport traditional values anddislike innovation and change.Happy to attend to fine detail andfollow set systems and proceduresthis personality dimension is clearlyimportant for many occupations.

1 2

bp

CYNICAL –TRUSTING

This dimension has been developedfrom the work of Christie and Geis(1970) who over a number of yearshave explored the so calledMachiavellian personality.Examining the strategies whichMachiavelli suggests that successfulpoliticians should employ, they havedeveloped a personality question-naire which assesses a cynical,suspicious and fundamentally scepti-cal attitude to human relationships.Lacking faith in other people’shonesty and trustworthiness,Machiavellians believe that it isimportant to act in an expedient ormanipulative way, expecting thatother people will try to take advan-tage of them if they give them thechance. Some have suggested thatthis cynicism may be based on earlychildhood experiences, with theMachiavellian person having beenrepeatedly let down by importantothers. Conversely it may simply bea realistic response to the demands ofa challenging world. Either wayMachiavellians are not inclined to begullible or easily misled, alwaysquestioning others’ motives andwondering what their real intentionsmay be. With its emphasis on ‘politi-cal’ expediency, this dimension hasbeen included in the OPPro.

EMOTIONAL –PHLEGMATIC

Our every day experience tells usthat while most people experiencesome anxiety in certain situationsthere are some people who consis-tently experience high levels ofanxiety in a broad range of settings.Similarly there are other people whorarely experience mood swings,remaining calm and constant acrosssituations. Thus we might argue thatanxiety, or the lack of it, is a person-ality trait. A considerable amount ofresearch exists to support thishypothesis. Eysenck & Eysenck(1969) has shown that anxiety, orneuroticism, is a stable personalitycharacteristic. He not only arguesthat it is one of the most importantpersonality factors, but also suggeststhat it might have a biological basis.Its clear importance as a personalitydimension is demonstrated by thenumber of psychologists who haveconstructed scales to measure thisfactor, amongst them Eysenck(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969), Cattell(1965) and Thurstone (1950). Withits clear implications for the waypeople deal with stress, and for theirlikely degree of emotional resilience,it would have been a major omissionnot to have included this factor inthe OPPro.

RESERVED –GREGARIOUS

Any observation of friends andacquaintances will tell us that somepeople have a much greater need forcompany than do others. In the mostextreme case such people mayactively dislike being on their ownand, greatly needing others’ affec-tion, may have difficulty resistinggroup pressure. Thus it is notsurprising that psychologists haverecognised the importance of thispersonality dimension for some time.In the early part of this centuryMcDougall (1932) wrote about thegregarious instinct and more recentlyMaslow (1970) has suggested that‘the need for affiliation’ is one of themost basic human motives.Considerable research in the area ofpersonality has supported thesehypotheses, demonstrating thatgregariousness is one of the mostimportant and stable aspects of thehuman character. This idea iscontained in Eysenck’s (Eysenck &Eysenck, 1969) concept of extraver-sion and in Cattell’s 16PF thesociability dimensions form one ofthe major factor clusters. With itsclear relevance to many occupations,the failure to include such a dimen-sion in the OPPro would have been amajor omission.

3 4 5

bqGENUINE –PERSUASIVE

This dimension has been derivedfrom Snyder’s (1979) concept ofself-monitoring. The idea behind thisnotion is simply that people tend tobase their behaviour either upon thedemands of the situation or upontheir own attitudes and opinions.Snyder (1979) has developed aquestionnaire to measure thisconcept and has termed those peoplewho generally base their behaviourupon the demands of the situation ashigh self-monitors. Such people aregood actors and are generallypersuasive. Being sensitive to socialcues and expectations their behav-iour will vary greatly betweensituations. Low self-monitors bycontrast are not very responsive tothe demands of the setting and theirbehaviour tends to be consistentacross different situations. Sincereand open, their behaviour is usuallya reflection of their own attitudesand opinions. Consequently theymay find it difficult to hide their truefeelings and beliefs from others,possibly lacking tact and diplomacyin some situations. With its clearimplications for sales positions andall those occupations which requiretact and diplomacy it was felt thatthis recently developed personalitydimension should be included in theOPPro because of its relevance tomany selection decisions.

COMPOSED –CONTESTING

This dimension has been derivedfrom work on the coronary pronepersonality. Considerable evidencenow exists demonstrating that peoplewho are prone to stress relatedhealth problems have a particularlytense, competitive and hard drivingapproach to work. Jenkins et al(1979) have termed this personalitysyndrome Coronary Type ABehaviour. This is characterised by achallenging, tense approach towardswork which expresses itself mostclearly in the inability to believe thatothers will meet your own high stan-dards. While such an approach maysuperficially appear to be associatedwith success at work, on closerinspection such a personality orien-tation may at times be self defeating.With their inability to delegate andtendency to take on more work thanthey can handle, Type A people may,in the long run, fail to be as effectiveas someone who is more composed intheir working style.

6 7

brOPTIMISTIC –PESSIMISTIC(INTERNAL –EXTERNAL LOCUSOF CONTROL)

This dimension has been developedfrom the work of Rotter (1966) whocoined the term Locus of Control todescribe people’s expectations thattheir actions determine the outcomeof events. The idea behind thisdimension is simply that while somepeople feel in control of the coursetheir life is taking, believing thattheir actions will determine whathappens to them, others feel thattheir lives are fundamentally out oftheir control and that their actionswill have no influence on theoutcome of events. Research hasdemonstrated that these expectationshave many implications for behav-iour. For example, people whobelieve that their actions will deter-mine the outcome of events are morelikely to persevere after an initialfailure, anticipating future success.Moreover, they approach life in amore positive, optimistic way andare less likely to suffer from depres-sion. In recent years the concept oflocus of control has received aconsiderable amount of researchattention, and although it is a rela-tively new concept in personalitytheory it is increasingly felt to be animportant one. With its clear impli-cations for self-motivation it was feltthat it was important to include thispersonality dimension in the OPPro.

ABSTRACT –PRAGMATIC

This dimension has its origin inJung’s (1921) concept of Thinking-Introversion versusThinking-Extraversion; a conceptwhich was latter developed by Caineet al.(1981). Jung argued thatThinking-Introverts were inner-directed in their thinking style andwould thus be abstract, intellectual,aesthetically sensitive people. Thestereotypical artist, or academic,they are inclined to be creative andimaginative, yet may often be soinvolved in thought that they givelittle weight to practical realities.Thinking-Extraverts by comparisonhave an outer directed thinking style.Practical and pragmatic, Jung char-acterised such people as thestereotypical engineer, who alwaysasks whether things work ratherthan why they work, as Thinking-Extraverts. Having little time fortheorising and lacking aestheticsensitivity they will prefer to focus onconcrete, practical matters and mayat times even be a little ‘black andwhite’ in their thinking style. With itsemphasis on a theoretical, abstractapproach to problems versus a prac-tical, pragmatic approach, and itsconcern with artistic and aestheticsensitivity, this dimension will berelevant to many selection decisions.

THE DISTORTION SCALE(SOCIAL CONFORMITY)

The distortion scale was developedfrom the work of Crowne andMarlow (1964). After extensivelyexploring the factors which influencethe image people choose to present ofthemselves to others, these authorsinvented the concept of the socialdesirability motive. They suggestthat people who have high levels ofsocial desirability have a strong needto seek social approval.Consequently they attempt topresent an unrealistically positiveimage of themselves to others, inorder to gain their approval. That isto say, they do not admit to havingany of the weaknesses or foibleswhich make us human. Instead theyare motivated to pretend to beparagons of virtue having no flaws ordefects of character, however small.Crowne and Marlow (1964) havedeveloped a questionnaire whichmeasures social desirability and thishas subsequently formed the basis ofthe distortion scales which are usedin most modern personality ques-tionnaires (e.g. the OPQ† series oftests). Simply put, these scalesmeasure a person’s desire to presentan unrealistically positive picture ofthemselves and as such measuremotivational distortion.

8 9 † OPQ is a registered trademark of SHL

bs

3DESCRIPTION OF THEOPP DIMENSIONS

The personality dimensions whichare measured by the OPPro are

described on the following pages.These descriptions only indicate the

most salient characteristics of peoplewho score at the extreme ends of

each dimension and do not provideany interpretation of the overall

personality profile. The significanceof each dimension will be modified

for those candidates whose scores areless extreme, and to this end the user

is referred to the detailed narrativereport which is produced by the

GeneSys® Integrated AssessmentSoftware System.

In addition, interactions betweenthese dimensions will significantly

modify the meaning of eachindividual factor. As such, no

personality dimension should beinterpreted in isolation, but its

meaning should always beconsidered in the context of a

candidate’s total personality profile.Such interactions are dealt with in

the narrative report which isproduced by GeneSys®.

1 ACCOMMODATING – ASSERTIVE

2 DETAIL-CONSCIOUS – FLEXIBLE

3 CYNICAL – TRUSTING

4 EMOTIONAL – PHLEGMATIC

5 RESERVED – GREGARIOUS

6 GENUINE – PERSUASIVE

7 COMPOSED – CONTESTING

8 OPTIMISTIC – PESSIMISTIC

9 ABSTRACT – PRAGMATIC

ckACCOMMODATING –ASSERTIVEACCOMMODATING ASSERTIVE

Empathic DominantPeople orientated Task orientatedAccepting ChallengingSensitive to people’s feelings Unconcerned about others’

feelingsAvoid confrontation Confrontative

Low scorers are likely to be sensi-tive to others’ needs and will usuallyavoid criticising other people for fearof upsetting them. Sensitive andunassuming, they are likely to havedifficulty in being forceful andassertive with colleagues and mayprefer to go along with people ratherthan confront them. Consequentlythey may find it difficult to supervisesubordinates’ work as they will oftenplace their colleagues’ needs abovethe demands of the task. They willdislike having to discipline juniorsand may find it difficult to ensurethat work is completed on time.Finding it easy to empathise withothers and understand their perspec-tives, they are likely to be goodlisteners. Colleagues will find it easyto discuss their problems with them,feeling that they understand. Theirinterpersonal sensitivity and aware-ness of others’ needs places them in agood position to help smooth overinterpersonal conflicts which arethreatening to damage working rela-tionships.

High scorers are inclined to beforceful and brash. Knowing theirown mind they will push others toagree with their point of view andwill often get their own way. Notoverly concerned about upsettingother people they may at times beconfrontative and pushy. Ratherinsensitive to others’ feelings, theywill put the demands of the taskabove the personal needs of friendsand colleagues. Concerned withgetting results, they may at timesupset people while trying to achievetheir own ends. If they feel thatsomething needs to be said they willusually say it, even if this may upsetpeople. Given their forthrightapproach and tendency to be taskorientated, they will be good atmaking sure that things get done. If,however, they are to avoid creatingdiscord within the organisation theymay need to temper their character-istically assertive style with a greatersensitivity to others’ feelings.Inclined to be overly critical and tomake smart sarcastic comments atothers’ expense, they are not goodlisteners and colleagues are not likelyto take their problems to them.

clDETAIL-CONSCIOUS –FLEXIBLEDETAIL-CONSCIOUS FLEXIBLE

Deliberating SpontaneousControlled Lack self-discipline and

self-controlRigid FlexibleEnjoy attending to detail Dislike attending to detailConscientious Disregard rules and obligations

Low scorers are controlled andpunctilious in their dealings withothers, greatly respecting authorityand the status quo. They believe it isimportant to follow accepted proce-dures and conventions and at timesothers may see them as somewhatobsessional and pedantic. By natureextremely tidy and meticulous ineverything they do, they have a fineeye for detail. Happy to rigidlyfollow set procedures and systems,and work within well defined struc-tures, they always ensure that thingsare done in a correct and proper way.Extremely conservative by nature,they are inclined to distrust the newand radical in favour of the tried andtested. Being very traditional theydislike change which they are likelyto try to resist. Believing that it isimportant to plan well ahead, theyare inclined to prevaricate and mayhave difficulty in situations whichrequire decisive action. Respectful ofauthority and traditional values, andinclined to be concerned aboutstatus, they are always careful to actin a correct and proper way. Havinga strong sense of self-discipline, theywill persevere even with the mostboring, repetitive tasks and can betrusted to see a project through tothe end.

High scorers are spontaneous andlacking self-control they often act inan unplanned, impromptu way.Disinclined to plan ahead, they tendto take life as it comes.Extemporaneous and casual in theirattitude and not having a rigid,disciplined nature, they are inclinedto be radical and unconventional.They will dislike having to adhere toset rules and procedures and willhave difficulty persevering withtedious, repetitious tasks. Moreover,they do not like attending to detailand may be prone to make carelessmistakes. Not in the least fastidiousor fussy, they are not concerned withformalities or etiquette. Some peoplemay see them as overly casual orinformal in their attitude whileothers may find that their informal-ity makes them feel at ease. Flexibleand adaptable in their thinking stylethey are attracted by new and innov-ative ideas. Not in the leastconservative, they will not cling tothe past but instead will embrace thefuture as providing new and excitingopportunities.

cm CYNICAL – TRUSTINGCYNICAL TRUSTING

Suspicious TrustingCynical PhilanthropicInclined to question others motives Takes people at face valueSceptical Have faith in others’ honestyMay distrust other people Sometimes a little credulous

Low scorers are suspicious andsceptical. Having a fundamentallycynical view of human nature, theybelieve that most people are onlymotivated by self-interest.Consequently they tend to questionothers’ motives and not take peopleat face value. They are generallycautious and guarded in their deal-ings with colleagues as theyanticipate that they will take advan-tage of them if they give them thechance. Not inclined to be the leastphilanthropic or benevolent, theyexpect that people will only help ifthey stand to gain something forthemselves by doing so. Their lack offaith in other people may in the mostextreme cases prompt them to para-noia. Always wary and circumspectin their dealings with others, theywill only let their guard down withthe most intimate of friends. Rarelyrevealing their true motives and aimsthey will ‘play their cards close theirchest’. Sceptical and lacking faith inothers’ veracity they will try to avoidrelying on colleagues. Only after theyhave put friends and colleagues tothe test will they be prepared to trustthem. Consequently people may findit difficult to get close to them.

High scorers have an honest andtrusting nature. Believing that peopleare basically sincere and good-hearted, they will expect others to bereliable and trustworthy and willtake people at face value. Whilesome may view their attitude asunduly credulous or naïve, it issimply that they see no reason whythey should not trust other people.Having a basic faith in humannature they will not usually questionother people’s motives, not expectingthem to be dishonest. Philanthropicand charitable, they will try to helpfriends and colleagues when possi-ble, expecting others to help themwhen they are in need. Usually oblig-ing and considerate towards others,they will expect those around themto be dependable. If people takeadvantage of their trust and goodwill, or let them down, they arelikely to feel hurt, seeing such behav-iour as a personal insult.Straightforward and open in theirdealings with other people, they willhave to be repeatedly let downbefore their faith in human nature isshaken and they come to doubtothers’ sincerity.

cnEMOTIONAL PHLEGMATIC

Prone to worry Self-assuredMoody Emotionally stableInclined to be anxious in

social settings Socially confidentTroubled by feelings of anxiety

and self-doubt SecureEasily take offence Resilient

Low scorers are moody andemotional. Prone to suffer from feel-ings of anxiety and self doubt, theymay have difficulty coping underpressure. Quick to take offence, theywill not find it easy to acceptconstructive criticism in the spirit inwhich it was meant. Instead, they arelikely to take such criticism as apersonal attack, unless it is cast inthe most sensitive and delicate ofways. Temperamental and prone toemotional outbursts, they are likelyto be touchy and somewhat volatile.They may react to demanding andstressful situations in an unpre-dictable, emotional way and will notcope well under pressure. Labile andinclined to mood swings, they will attimes feel full of energy and on otheroccasions feel flat and lifeless for noobvious reason. Their tendency toworry about the future and doubttheir own abilities may howevermotivate them to work hard in orderto forestall anticipated problems andfears.

High scorers are emotionally stableand have a mature outlook on life.They are not easily upset and takemost things in their stride.Consequently they will be able toaccept constructive criticism withoutseeing it as a personal attack. Notinclined to emotional outbursts, theyare stable, self-assured and secure.Coping well under pressure, they willusually have sufficient energy andenthusiasm to deal effectively withdemanding situations. Not prone tofeelings of self-doubt or insecurity,they will not worry unduly aboutpast failures or future events. Self-confident and secure, they will notsuffer from feelings of anxiety orpanic. Resilient and not prone toviolent mood swings, they will bemore than able to meet life’sdemands. Well anchored and stead-fast, and not in the leasttemperamental, some people may seethem as rather lacking in emotion.

EMOTIONAL – PHLEGMATIC

co RESERVED – GREGARIOUSRESERVED GREGARIOUS

Reserved Outgoing and sociableCool and introspective Lively and talkativePrefers to work alone Enjoy working with othersEnjoy own company High need for affiliationAloof and detached Warm and participating

Low scorers are reserved and intro-spective and have little need for thecompany of others. They will be reti-cent when talking to strangers and,happy to work on their own, theywill try to avoid jobs which requirecontinually meeting new people.Lacking social confidence they arelikely to dislike having to talk tolarge groups of people. While theymay at first sight appear reservedand cool, even aloof, they are not‘stand-offish’. It is simply that theyrequire time to get to know newpeople. With close friends they canbe as warm and socially involved asanyone. Given their natural reservethey are likely to slip into the back-ground at social events and they mayhave difficulty mingling with a largegroup of strangers. Inclined to ‘takea back seat’ in meetings, they mayneed others to bring them out ofthemselves before they can showtheir full potential. Preferring thecompany of one or two close friendsto that of a crowd, they are likely tofocus on developing a few close rela-tionships rather than manyacquaintances.

High scorers are sociable andoutgoing. Having a strong need forothers’ company they will want to besurrounded by warm, supportivefriends and colleagues. They arelikely to become somewhat tense andrestless if they have to be on theirown for long periods of time.Consequently they will seek outoccupations which bring them intoregular contact with other people.Lively and talkative, they are likelyto take centre stage and may unwit-tingly over-shadow their morereticent colleagues. Socially bold,they will come to the fore at meet-ings and social events. Not feelingthe least inhibited on such occasions,they will freely strike up conversa-tions with strangers. Warm andsocially uninhibited they will beinterested in others and consequentlythey are likely to be popular. Theirfriends will be very important tothem and they will devote much timeto developing and maintainingpersonal relationships. Because oftheir strong need to belong they may,in the most extreme cases, have somedifficulty functioning independentlyfrom group norms and expectations.

cpGENUINE PERSUASIVE

Base behaviour on own Behaviour is determined by thefeelings and attitudes demands of the situation

Forthright DiplomaticHonest and open Manipulative and expedientGenuine and sincere Shrewd and calculatingMay lack tact and diplomacy Sensitive to ‘political’ issues

GENUINE – PERSUASIVE

Low scorers are genuine and open intheir dealings with others. Unable tohide their true feelings, they cannoteasily convince people of views whichthey do not personally believe in.Basing their behaviour upon theirown attitudes and opinions, andhaving little awareness of thedemands of the situation, they willfind it difficult to deal with others inan expedient and calculating way.They will find it hard to hide thetruth from friends and colleagues whoare likely to see through them.Lacking social awareness, they maymake the occasional faux pas. Theirbehaviour tends to be an expressionof their true attitudes and opinionsand consequently, is fairly consistentacross different social settings. Otherswill see them as sincere and genuine,feeling that they know where theystand with them. Not in the leastshrewd or astute in their dealings withcolleagues, they may at times lacktact and diplomacy. Being somewhatinsensitive to social expectations, theyare not likely to be successful in situa-tions which require a degree of tact orcalculated behaviour.

High scorers tend to be good actorsand are likely to be persuasive andinfluential speakers. Acutely awareof the demands of the situation, theywill tailor what they say so as to takeadvantage of others’ needs andexpectations. Able to convincepeople of a particular point of vieweven if they do not believe it them-selves, they are likely to be sociallyskilled and somewhat calculating.Able to hide their true feelings, theywill act in a shrewd and expedientway when they deem it necessary.Sensitive to the demands of the situ-ation and to others’ expectations,their behaviour is likely to varygreatly from situation to situation. Inthe most extreme case theircolleagues may wonder what theirown views really are. Socially astute,they will be successful in occupationswhich call for a high degree of tactand diplomacy. Able to laughconvincingly at others’ jokes, even ifthey are not funny, more perceptivecolleagues may doubt their sincerity.Almost social chameleons, othersmay view them as Machiavellian ormanipulative in their dealings withcolleagues. They, however, are likelysimply to see themselves as shrewdgame players.

cq COMPOSED – CONTESTINGCOMPOSED CONTESTING

Calm and composed Ambitious and competitiveAble to delegate May take on too much workKeep work separate from

home life Work long hoursAble to unwind and relax Have difficulty relaxingTolerant ImpatientAble to distance themselves May be prone to stress related

from work pressures illnesses

Low scorers are generally calm andcomposed with regard to work. Theydislike having to continually meetclose deadlines, preferring instead tohave time to take things at a steadypace. They do not have an aggres-sive, competitive attitude towardswork and, being tolerant of others,are not likely to be irritated by slowor indecisive people. Seeing thebenefits which are to be gained bynot rushing to complete work withinexcessively short deadlines, they willdislike being put under pressure.They like to keep their work separatefrom their social life and enjoyhaving free time in which to relax.Not tense and hard driving, they arehappy to use their free time simplyto unwind, having no need to rusharound achieving self-imposed goals.Not having a particularly challeng-ing and competitive attitude towardswork, they will give colleagues creditwhere it is due. Believing that othersare as capable as themselves, theywill be happy to delegate work.Lacking a hard-driven, competitiveedge, they will not be particularlychallenging or contesting withcolleagues.

High scorers are tense and compet-itive having an ambitious andchallenging approach towards work.Expecting things to be doneinstantly, they are likely to be intol-erant of slow, indecisive people.Moreover, their competitive naturemay cause them to become irritatedwith people who get in their way.They often work long hours, underextreme pressure, and will have diffi-culty divorcing themselves from theirwork. Believing themselves to beindispensable, they may take onmore work than they can manage.Often rushing to meet deadlines,they are likely to believe that otherswill not produce work which meetstheir own high standards.Consequently they may find it diffi-cult to delegate tasks. They hate tobe kept waiting and are prone to beimpatient. They are likely to havedifficulty separating their work formtheir personal life and will often takework home with them. Unable to puttheir work behind them when theyget home they are likely to havedifficulty relaxing. In the mostextreme cases they may have somuch difficulty separating them-selves from their work that they willnot know what to do with their timeif they are not working.

crOPTIMISTIC – PESSIMISTICOPTIMISTIC PESSIMISTIC

Achieving and striving ResignedBelieve their own actions

determine outcomes Prone to feelings of helplessnessPositive approach to set-backs Inclined to pessimismOptimistic FatalisticBelieve they are in control of Have little faith in their ability

their own destiny to determine events

Low scorers have a fundamentalfaith in their own ability to deter-mine the course their life takes. As aconsequence they generally approachproblems in a constructive and opti-mistic way. Actively striving toovercome difficulties, they will antic-ipate success in most things.However, at times their optimismmay be a little misplaced. They arelikely to persevere in the face offailure, having learnt from pastexperience that they can usually finda solution to their problems. Takingset-backs as a challenge, they willstrive to overcome them. Others arelikely to respect their positiveapproach to problems and to begiven confidence by their optimism.They may, however, continue tostruggle to overcome a problem,unable to accept defeat, when itwould have been wiser to have givenup, investing their energies else-where. Taking charge of their lifeand working to actively shape theirfuture, they are likely to believe thateffort usually pays off in the end.

High scorers tend to be pessimisticand may be inclined to occasionalbouts of depression. Not believingthat their actions will shape futureevents, they may feel resigned andhelpless when things go wrong.Consequently they are likely to giveup at the first sign of failure and mayneed much support and encourage-ment if they are to be persuaded topersevere. In the most extreme casetheir expectation of failure may evenstop them from initiating action. Theyshould nonetheless be capable oftaking a fairly positive approachtowards life when things are goingwell, although this may quickly turninto resigned pessimism if things gowrong. Inclined to accept their lotrather than strive to change theircircumstances they may appear some-what fatalistic. Lacking a basic beliefin their own ability to shape thecourse their life takes, they are likelyto feel helpless in the face of whatthey may see as the enormity of life’sproblems. For many this lack of faithin their own ability to control eventsmay be based on past experiences.Consequently even when things aregoing well they may be inclined toremember the past and wonder whatis likely to go wrong next.

cs ABSTRACT – PRAGMATICABSTRACT PRAGMATIC

Imaginative Down to earth and concreteAesthetically sensitive Not interested in artistic mattersCreative and artistic Practical and realisticAbstract and intellectual PragmaticHave a theoretical orientation More concerned with

‘how than why’

Low scorers have an abstract,theoretical approach to problems.More concerned with their ownthoughts and designs than withpractical realities, they will want tohave the ideas and let others putthem into practice. In the mostextreme case they may become sointerested in the theoretical nuancesof a problem that they lose sight oftheir overall goal. Greatly interestedin the arts and other creative activi-ties, they will have a strong sense ofaesthetics and will appreciate gooddesign. Having an intellectual orien-tation, they will enjoy thinkingthrough a problem, particularly ifthey have the freedom to approach itin an innovative and radical way.Not always giving sufficient regardto practical matters, they willquickly become engrossed in thecreative aspects of a task. Greatlyappreciating the arts, and believingthat they enrich life, they will enjoyexpressing their creativity.Aesthetically sensitive, they will havea strong sense of the beauty whichsurrounds them.

High scorers are realistic and prag-matic in their approach to problems.They are not interested in artistic,creative activities and have littleawareness of aesthetic issues.Consequently they are likely to viewthe arts as a waste of time and maybe disparaging of such things, notappreciating the finer points ofdesign. Approaching problems in avery ‘black and white’ way, they arelikely to actively avoid jobs whichrequire creativity, imagination andinnovation. Having little time for thetheoretical nuances of a problem,their strengths lie more in theirability to bring a realistic, practicalapproach to problem solving. Seeingtheorising as a waste of time, otherswill appreciate their tendency tofocus on the concrete aspects of atask. More interested in how to makethings work, rather than in trying tounderstand why things work as theydo, they are likely to stop othersfrom following an impractical courseof action. Theirs will be the voicewhich will always be heard asking,but will it work in practice?

NOTE This dimension is a measure of cognitive style and does not assessthe candidate’s level of intellectual functioning. While this dimension willindicate whether a person has an abstract or concrete intellectual orienta-tion, that is to say prefers practical or creative activities, it does not indicatethe quality of the candidate’s work. To this end it is necessary to assess thecandidate’s aptitudes and abilities.

4THE PSYCHOMETRICPROPERTIESOF THE OPP

This chapter will present detailsconcerning the psychometric

properties of the OccupationalPersonality Profile. The aim will be

to show that the OPPro fulfils varioustechnical requirements, in the areas

of standardisation, reliability andvalidity, which ensure the

psychometric soundness of the test.

1 INTRODUCTION

2 STANDARDISATION PROCEDURES AND

NORMATIVE DATA

3 OPP GENDER DIFFERENCES

4 AGE AND OPP

5 ETHNIC ORIGIN AND OPP

6 RELIABILITY

7 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

8 CRITERION VALIDITY

9 OPP TEST QUALITY ANALYSIS

dk INTRODUCTIONstandardisation : normativeNormative data allows us tocompare an individual’s score on astandardised scale against thetypical score obtained from a clearlyidentifiable, homogeneous group ofpeople.

RELIABILITY

The property of a measurementwhich assesses the extent to whichvariation in measurement is due totrue differences between people onthe trait being measured, or tomeasurement error.

In order to provide meaningfulinterpretations, the OPPro was stan-dardised against a number ofrelevant groups. The constituentsamples which make up the OPPronorm base are fully described later.Standardisation ensures that themeasurements obtained from a testcan be meaningfully interpreted inthe context of a relevant distributionof scores. Another important techni-cal requirement for apsychometrically sound test is thatthe measurements obtained fromthat test should be reliable.

Reliability is generally assessedusing two specific measures, onerelated to the stability of scale scoresover time, the other concerned withthe internal consistency, or homo-geneity of the constituent items thatform a scale score.

reliability : stabilityAlso known as test-retest reliability,an assessment is made of the similar-ity of scores on a particular scaleover two or more test occasions. Theoccasions may be a few hours, days,months or years apart. NormallyPearson correlation coefficients areused to quantify the similaritybetween the scale scores over the twoor more occasions.

Stability coefficients provide animportant indicator of a test’s likelyusefulness of measurement. If thesecoefficients are low (< approx. 0.6)then it is suggestive that either thebehaviours/attitudes being measuredare volatile or situationally specific,or that over the duration of the retestinterval, situational events havemade the content of the scale irrele-vant or obsolete. Of course, theduration of the retest intervalprovides some clue as to which effectmay be causing the unreliability ofmeasurement. However, the secondmeasure of a scale’s reliability alsoprovides valuable information as towhy a scale may have a low stabilitycoefficient. The most commonmeasure of internal consistency isCronbach’s Alpha. If the items on ascale have high inter-correlationswith each other, and with the totalscale score, then coefficient alphawill be high. Thus a high coefficientalpha indicates that the items on thescale are measuring very much thesame thing, while a low alpha wouldbe suggestive of either scale itemsmeasuring different attributes or thepresence of error.

reliability : internal consistencyAlso known as scale homogeneity, anassessment is made of the ability ofthe items in a scale to measure thesame construct or trait. That is, aparameter can be computed thatindexes how well the items in a scalecontribute to the overall measure-ment denoted by the scale score. Ascale is said to be internally consis-tent if all the constituent itemresponses are shown to be positivelyassociated with their scale score.

The fact that a test has high inter-nal consistency & stabilitycoefficients only guarantees that it ismeasuring something consistently. It

dlprovides no guarantee that the test isactually measuring what it purportsto measure, nor that the test willprove useful in a particular situation.Questions concerning what a testactually measures and its relevancein a particular situation are dealtwith by looking at the test’s validity.Reliability is generally investigatedbefore validity, as the reliability of atest places an upper limit on a test’svalidity. It can be mathematicallydemonstrated that a validity coeffi-cient for a particular test can notexceed that test’s reliability coeffi-cient.

VALIDITY

The ability of a scale score to reflectwhat that scale is intended tomeasure. Kline’s (1993) definition is‘A test is said to be valid if itmeasures what it claims to measure’.

Validation studies of a test investi-gate the soundness and relevance ofa proposed interpretation of thattest. Two key areas of validation areknown as criterion validity andconstruct validity.

validity : criterion validityCriterion validity involves translat-ing a score on a particular test into aprediction concerning what could beexpected if another variable wasobserved.

The criterion validity of a test isprovided by demonstrating thatscores on the test relate in somemeaningful way to an external crite-rion. Criterion validity comes in twoforms – predictive & concurrent.Predictive validity assesses whether atest is capable of predicting anagreed criterion which will be avail-able at some future time – e.g. can atest predict the likelihood of someonesuccessfully completing a training

course. Concurrent validity assesseswhether the scores on a test can beused to predict a criterion measurewhich is available at the time of thetest – e.g. can a test predict currentjob performance?

validity : construct validityConstruct validity assesses whetherthe characteristic which a test isactually measuring is psychologi-cally meaningful and consistent withthe test’s definition.

The construct validity of a test isoften assessed by demonstrating thatthe scores from the test are consis-tent with those from other majortests which measure similarconstructs and are dissimilar toscores on tests which measure differ-ent constructs. Construct validationshould ideally go beyond simplycorrelating tests with each other asthis could prove to be circular. Oftenself and peer ratings are correlatedwith tests scores as this providesnon-test evidence about the sound-ness of the scales. Essentially,construct validation is demonstratedwhen a large number of hypothesesrelating to the associated real worldbehaviours are confirmed.

dm

STANDARDISATIONPROCEDURES ANDNORMATIVE DATAThe standardisation sample is based on 1900+ UK adults, almost equallydistributed between males and females. This ensures that the user of theOPPro can be confident that the norm comparison is a good representation ofthe general population. As well as the general population norm theGeneSys® software includes a number of more specialised norm groups.These include sales staff, undergraduates, technical trainees, personnelmanagers, trainers etc. documented below. In addition the GeneSys® soft-ware allows users to establish their own in-house norms to allow morefocused comparison with profiles of specific groups. As the OccupationalPersonality Profile is scored purely via the GeneSys® system, PsytechInternational does not publish separate norm tables. The GeneSys® OPProinstallation contains all Psytech International norms as an integral part of thesoftware. These norms are available for on-screen viewing. The total normbase of the OPPro is made up of the following constituent samples:

Sample 1: Retail sales staffA total sample of 371 retail sales staff were obtained from two sources. 302were sales assistants with one of the UK’s leading and most prestigiousdepartment stores and 69 with a major furniture retail company. Both groupswere participating in validation studies to assess the predictive validity of theOPPro scales. 41% were males and 59% female.

Sample 2: UndergraduatesThe undergraduate sample of 158 consists of Business Studies students fromthree UK universities. Of the total undergraduate sample, approximately onethird were male and two thirds female.

Sample 3: Personnel/Training professionalsA sample of 137 Personnel and Training Professionals were obtained fromtest training courses organised by Psytech International Limited.Approximately 60% were in personnel roles, 25% in training roles and theremaining 15% were management, guidance or outplacement consultants.Approximately 60% were female and 40% male.

Sample 4: Management applicantsA total Management/graduate applicant sample of 166 was obtained fromthe following sources: 83 were applicants for senior executive positions withNHS Trusts, 51 were management applicants with a major internationalbank, 20 applicants with a County Council and 12 with a ManagementConsultancy firm. Within the total sample, approximately three quarterswere male and one quarter female.

Samples by male/female

● male● female

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

dnSample 5: Telesales applicantsA sample of 199 applicants for a major insurance group were assessed aspart of a selection procedure. The sample consisted of 66% females and 34%males.

Sample 6: Technical staffA total of 319 applicants for technical roles (e.g. service, engineers, techni-cians, plant assembly workers, printing technicians etc.). These groups weresourced from a major heavy lifting equipment servicing company, a numberof training organisations and a national local newspaper group. Over 90%were male, with less than 10% female in this sample.

Sample 7: General applicantsA total of 197 applicants for variety of non-technical, non-managerial roles.This sample group was obtained from a large number of companies acrossthe UK who had agreed to help in the standardisation of the OPPro. Thesample consisted of approximately 66% males and 33% females.

Males Females

Sample ID1234567

Total

Number1251555358

237300131

Mean Age39233722293529

Range28-4718-4029-5618-4322-3822-4923-51

Number41

21684

1004611968

Mean Age35213621272726

Range27-4017-4131-4418-3220-4121-3522-45

1059 31 18-56 989 28 18-45

Table 1: Standardisation Sample Composition (age rounded up to nearest year)

do OPP GENDER DIFFERENCESGender differences on the OPPro were examined by comparing results of1194 males with 1395 female respondents. Table 2 provides mean scores formales and females on each of the OPPro dimensions as well as the t-value formean score differences.

Of the ten OPPro dimensions, seven yield statistically significant genderdifferences. However, it should be noted that with sample sizes above 1000for each group, even a raw score difference of one is statistically significantbut is unlikely to generate meaningful differences in interpretation. Thelargest obtained difference between males and females is on the Abstract-Pragmatic dimension with males emerging as significantly more Pragmaticthan females. Females in turn are more Composed, Genuine, Empathic,Emotional and Trusting than males. They are also more Pessimistic (externallocus of control) than males. No statistically significant differences werefound on the Flexible-Rigid, Reserved-Gregarious and Distortion scales.Finally, it is noteworthy that on the basis of a smaller sample on whomcentral Tendency data were available, a fairly large absolute difference wasobserved between females and males (61 to 34). This may have the effect ofgenerating marginally less extreme profile scores among female than malerespondents.

AGE AND OPP To assess the relationship between age and OPPro scores, the OPPro resultsof 2392 respondents were correlated with their age. The age range of thesample was 16-64 with a mean of 31 and SD of 10.5, which is representativeof the target audience for the OPPro.

In general, as attested by Table 3, seven of the OPPro dimensions registersignificant correlations with age. However, as with the gender differences,with such a large sample even very small obtained correlations are statisti-cally significant. Of the seven that are statistically significant, only oneOPPro personality dimension reveals a substantial age effect, namelyReserved-Gregarious. This suggests that those who are older in the sample,tend to have lower scores i.e. are more Reserved. This is not totally surpris-ing, given the nature of the OPPro Reserved-Gregarious dimension and itsfocus on social activities, which perhaps tend to be more prominent inyounger years.

The response style indicator for Central Tendency shows a most notableage effect (r=.49). This would point strongly to older respondents being lessprepared to endorse the more extreme item responses. The practical conse-quence of this will be to generate less extreme, more moderate profiles. Thiswill require further investigation as Age does not have a substantial directeffect on the individual test scores, but may have a moderating effect.

ETHNIC ORIGIN & OPProA UK personal development organisation who target their services at ethnicminorities gave their course participants the OPPro to complete as part of adevelopment exercise. Table 4 contains data for Black, Asian, Other and'Norm' groups. Note that the Norm group is the Genesys Undergraduatenorm group, which is a suitable comparison group.

dp

OPPro Scale

AssertiveFlexibleTrustingPhlegmaticGregariousPersuasiveContestingPessimisticPragmaticDistortionCentral Tendency

Table 2: OPPro Gender Differences

MeanFemale

MeanMales t-value p level

Valid N Female

Valid NMale

29.1727.9235.5435.7734.3323.4728.4821.5426.5021.1060.58

30.9227.9934.7538.8833.8825.8225.9719.5529.3821.2333.91

-7.93-.312.72

-10.281.85

-10.0110.378.97

-11.96-.764.55

.000

.757

.007

.000

.065

.000

.000

.000

.000

.447

.000

1395139513951395139513951395139513951395

77

1194119411941194119411941194119411941194234

Table 3: Age Effects on OPPro scores

OPPro Scale

AssertiveFlexibleTrustingPhlegmaticGregariousPersuasiveContestingPessimisticPragmaticDistortionCentral Tendency

r-value N P-value

-.08.07.07

-.08-.28-.12.00.07

-.02-.00.49

2392239223922392239223922392239223922392294

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

.000

.820

.000

.321

.892

.000

Black Asian Other NormOPPro Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDAssertive 31.06 5.93 30.30 6.15 28.55 7.20 30.45 6.35Flexible 27.65 6.31 29.61 5.41 29.00 5.22 30.37 6.24Trusting 31.40 8.46 33.00 7.27 33.65 7.44 30.70 7.35Phlegmatic 36.21 8.58 36.21 6.96 33.45 8.40 32.80 7.36Gregarious 34.08 6.36 36.72 5.28 34.80 5.32 31.84 6.27Persuasive 27.84 5.42 28.00 5.74 27.70 7.09 25.59 5.90Contesting 27.79 6.06 26.90 5.30 27.85 5.07 28.19 6.40Pessimistic 18.73 5.02 18.90 5.48 21.50 6.58 21.96 5.93Pragmatic 26.12 5.44 26.27 6.71 26.20 6.90 25.72 6.14Distortion 20.08 4.18 19.61 3.69 20.55 3.63 19.38 4.33

Black (N=52) Asian (N=71) Other (N=20) Norm (N=236)Table 4: A Comparison of Ethnic Group Scores with the Genesys Norm

dq RELIABILITYINTERNAL CONSISTENCY

Internal consistency reliabilities(Cronbach’s Alpha) were computedfor an OPPro sample of 942, as wellas separately for each of the sexes.Table 5 provides these coefficients,number of items per scale and mean‘corrected’ item-total correlations(ITC’s) for each scale. The ITC’sindicate the mean associationbetween the constituent items withina scale and the scale score itself, eachindividual item-scale score coeffi-cient is corrected for the inflation ofthe coefficient due to the items inclu-sion in the scale score.

All the OPPro dimensions havereliability coefficients above .60 forboth males and female groups indi-cating that the test meets anacceptable standard of reliability.The reliability of these scalescompares very favourably with thereliability coefficients reported in theuser manuals for both the OPQ and16PF. As a number of authors havenoted, many of the 16PF factors arevery unreliable with few of the alphacoefficients being greater than .7 andmany in fact being lower than .5. Aswill be noted, SEMs for the internalconsistencies (expressed in Stanines)are all below 1.17.

Table 6 reports internal consis-tency estimates for three differentsamples (described above) retailsales staff, undergraduates andpersonnel and training delegates.These estimates indicate that theOPPro reliability remains fairlyconsistent with only relatively smallfluctuations in alpha values overdiverse occupational groups. Theuser can therefore be confident thatthe OPPro should provide consistentmeasurement for diverse groups.

drMales

(N=323)Females(N=619)

Total Sample(N = 942)

OPPro Scale

AssertiveFlexibleTrustingPhlegmaticGregariousPersuasiveContestingPessimisticPragmaticDistortion

Alpha AlphaNo. of Items Alpha ITC

1010111289

10798

0.670.780.850.760.650.660.770.770.720.68

0.720.750.800.750.690.760.740.730.670.66

0.710.770.830.750.670.750.750.710.700.66

0.370.440.500.400.370.430.410.420.380.36

Table 5: OPPro scale internal consistencies & Item Total Correlations (ITCs)

Sample 1(N=371)

Sample 2(N=158)

Opp Scale

AssertiveFlexibleTrustingPhlegmaticGregariousPersuasiveContestingPessimisticPragmaticDistortion

Alpha ITCNo. of Items Alpha ITC

1010111289

10798

0.630.690.770.690.640.740.650.680.670.61

0.150.180.230.160.180.240.160.290.190.17

0.730.750.680.720.740.740.660.680.610.67

0.220.240.160.180.270.250.160.240.150.20

Table 6: OPPro scale Alpha & ITC’s for various standardisation samples.

Sample 3(N = 137)

Alpha ITC

0.700.770.810.760.680.740.680.750.680.66

0.200.250.280.210.180.250.180.270.170.19

SEM

1.080.960.821.001.151.001.001.081.101.17

ds STABILITY

Test-retest estimates of reliabilitywere obtained for two periods, oneand three months respectively. Thethree month test-retest data wasobtained from a sample of 260working professional adults and theone month data from a sample ofundergraduates. Results in Table 7indicate that OPPro remains highlyconsistent over both time periodswith all coefficients above 0.7 and onaverage above 0.8. This suggeststhat the OPPro results are stableover time periods of up to at leastthree months.

One notable finding is that theundergraduate data over the onemonth period is slightly less stablethan that of the working adults overa period twice as long. This mayreflect somewhat more variable testtaking motivation and/or stability inpersonality disposition among theundergraduate group.

CONCLUSION: RELIABILITY

The above internal consistency andstability estimates of reliabilitydemonstrate that the OPPro is highlyreliable internally and over the timeperiods covered. These reliabilitiescompare very favourably with othermodern personality measures. Thuswe can conclude that the OPPro hasachieved its aim of being both quickto complete yet reliable whencompared with other commonly usedpersonality questionnaires.

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OFTHE OPPro

The inter-correlations between thevarious dimensions of a test are ofinterest as it is important that a test’ssub-scales are relatively independentof each other, thus demonstratingthat they are measuring distinctconstructs.

Table 8 demonstrates that thecorrelations between the OPPro sub-scales are modest in size, indicatingthat the ten dimensions measured bythe test assess different personalitycharacteristics. There are, however,some interesting patterns of correla-tions between the OPPro factors.One is the moderately high correla-tion between Assertive andPersuasive. This suggests thatassertive people are likely to be moremanipulative in their dealings withothers. This is clearly consistent withour definition of this scale. In addi-tion the OPPro dimension Trusting isnegatively correlated with both theContesting and Pessimistic dimen-sions. This is consistent with alldimensions measuring differentaspects of anxiety. People who aretrusting tend to be more composed,phlegmatic and confident that theirefforts will result in positiveoutcomes. Such a finding is consis-tent both with our expectations andwith research which suggests that aninternal locus of control is associatedwith positive mental health. That isto say that more optimistic people,who believe they are in control of thedirection their life is taking, are moreemotionally stable and less prone tomood swings.

dt

Table 7: OPPro Test-retest Reliability over two different time periods

OPPro Dimension

AssertiveFlexibleTrustingPhlegmaticGregariousPersuasiveContestingPessimisticPragmaticMotivational Distortion

3 Months (N=260)

1.5 Months(N=77)

3 MonthsSEM

1.5 monthsSEM

0.850.880.840.860.890.910.880.800.910.79

0.830.840.820.760.820.880.730.800.880.76

0.770.690.80.750.660.60.690.890.60.92

0.820.80.850.980.850.691.040.890.690.98

Table 8: Product-moment Correlations between OPPro Sub-scales (n = 988)

OPPro Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.00-.02-.18.29.08.49.16

-.24-.09.07

-.021.0.26.06.04.12

-.28-.34-.27-.27

-.18.26

1.00.25.24.01

-.37-.38-.13.13

.29

.06

.251.00.29.31

-.24-.45.02.32

.08

.04

.24

.291.00.29

-.12-.21-.11.05

.49

.12

.01

.31

.291.00.08

-.32-.22.04

.16-.28-.37-.24-.12.08

1.00.29.03.08

-.24-.34-.38-.45-.21-.32.29

1.00.17

-.05

-.09-.27-.13.02

-.11-.22.03.17

1.00.03

.07-.27.13.32.05.04.08

-.05.03

1.00

1 Assertive2 Flexible3 Trusting4 Phlegmatic5 Gregarious6 Persuasive7 Contesting8 Pessimistic9 Pragmatic10 Distortion

ekTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro DIMENSIONS ANDTHE 16PF FACTORS

A sample of 136 applicantscompleted both the OPPro and 16PFForm A as part of a selectionprocess. The resultant correlationmatrix is displayed in Table 9.

While good support is found formost, if not all OPPro dimensions,this is moderated by the low reliabil-ity of 16PF Form A which has theeffect of suppressing resultant corre-lations. OPPro dimensions for whichthere are no clear 16PF equivalentfactors provide an interesting patternof results. OPPro Persuasive corre-lates with both 16PF Factor F andH, which are undoubtedly aspects ofthe ‘social-chameleon’ behaviourassociated with self-monitors. OPProPessimistic (Internal Locus-of-Control) picks up aspects of anxietyas measured by 16PF but alsoSeriousness (F) and Shrewdness (N).The latter is an unusual relationship,but in so far as N on Form A of the16PF appears to reflect an aspect ofthreat-sensitivity and the polar-opposite of Forthrightness, this maymake more sense. OPPro Contesting,a measure of Type-A behaviour, isnot well represented in 16PF, withonly Q4 registering a modest .3correlations. Finally, OPProTrusting-Cynical, a measure of theMachiavellian personality type, ispoorly represented within the 16PF,with maximum correlations of only.31 and .30 with Tough-minded andSuspicious.

Using the sample of 136 appli-cants, multiple regression was usedto predict OPPro dimensions from16PF. Those 16PF factors includedin the equation and the multipleregression coefficient R are providedin Table 9.

The multiple correlations demon-strate that most of the OPPro

dimensions can be predicted with ahigh degree of accuracy from the16PF factors. This provides clearevidence of the validity of the major-ity of the OPPro dimensions. Thereare, however, a number of exceptionsto this general rule. Firstly, as wasnoted above, the OPPro dimensionsContesting and Pessimistic are notpredicted well from the 16PF. Theconcepts of the Coronary Type APersonality and Locus of Controlhad not been developed when the16PF was constructed and thus thesepersonality dimensions are notdirectly measured by this personalityquestionnaire. Similarly the notion ofthe Machiavellian Personality wasnot conceived until the 1960’s andconsequently this personality charac-teristic has not been included in the16PF. This accounts for our inabilityto predict the OPPro dimensionTrusting vs. Cynical from the 16PF.That Machiavellians lack aestheticsensitivity (tough-minded) andinterpersonal warmth is however notsurprising. This is consistent with thefinding that the OPQ dimensionEmpathy is negatively correlatedwith Machiavellianism.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro DIMENSIONS ANDTHE 16PF-5 FACTORS

A sample of 102 personnel andtraining professionals attendingPsytech training courses completedboth the OPPro and 16PF-5 ques-tionnaires as part of the courserequirement (see Table 10).

One interesting observation fromthe studies with both old and newforms of the 16PF is that generallythe observed correlations with 16PF-5 are of a higher order. This wouldbe expected by virtue of the higherreliability associated with 16PF-5.Once again, it can be noted thatOPPro scales Contesting and

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

el

Table 9: Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form A Factors

Table 10: Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form 5 Factors

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

R

.50

.71

.48

.65

.74

.62

.44

.56

.69

.52

R

.68

.72

.75

.77

.82

.69

.49

.57

.77

.71

16PF correlations with each OPPro Scale

Assertive (E) .36, Forthright (N) .32

Expedient (G) .56, Radical (Q1) .41, Undisciplined (Q3) .48

Tender-minded (I) .31, Trusting (L) .31

Calm-stable (C ) .50, Socially-Bold (H) .3, Self-assured (Q2) .42, Relaxed (Q4) .40

Warmth (A) .38, Enthusiastic (F) .59, Socially-Bold (H) .49, Group-orientated (Q2)

Enthusiastic (F) .46, Socially-bold (H) .41,

Tense-driven (Q4) .30, Calm-stable (C ) .25, Apprehensive (O) .24

Sober-serious (F) .3, Shrewdness (N) .31, Tense-driven (Q4) .37

Tough-minded (I) .55, Practical (M) .31

Conscientious (G) .34, Fake-good (FG) .42

16PF-5 correlations with each OPPro Scale

Dominant (E) .57, Socially-bold (H) .31

Expedient (G) .53, Sensitive (I) .38, Abstract (M) .45, Open to Change (Q1) .42, Flexible (Q3) .53

Trusting .75

Stability (C ) .54, Dominance (E) .37, Socially-Bold (H) .41, Utilitarian (I) .35,Self-assured (O) .60, Relaxed (Q4) .38, Impression-Mgt (IM) .34

Warm (A) .48, Stable (C ) .43, Lively (F) .54, Forthright (N) .52,Group-oriented (Q2) .72 Relaxed (Q4) .37

Dominant (E) .31, Lively (F) .36, Socially-bold (H) .55, Group-oriented (Q2) .30

Vigilant (L) .37, Tense (Q4) .22, Emotional (C ) .26

Emotional (C ) .32, Vigilant (L) .40, Apprehensive (O) .30, Tense (Q4) .34

Utilitarian (I) .67, Vigilant (L) .33, Concrete (M) .48, Traditional (Q1) .42

Trusting (L) .32, Tense (Q4) .45, Impression-Mgt (IM) .57

em Pessimistic have relatively weakoverlap with 16PF-5 factors withmultiple correlations reaching only.49 and .57 respectively. The OPProdimension Trusting-Cynical nowcorrelates .75 with 16PF-5 Factor L(Vigilance), when it only correlated.31 with 16PF Form A Factor L(Suspicious). This reflects veryclearly the lack of equivalencebetween the old and new form as faras Factor L is concerned. In fact, thecorrelation between old and newform of the 16PF is reported as 0.15and 0.38 for the UK and US formsrespectively.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro DIMENSIONS AND 15FQ SCALES

A sample of 158 volunteerscompleted both the OPPro and the15FQ as part of a test validationexercise. These comprised primarilypersonnel and training delegatesattending Psytech courses but also agroup of undergraduate BusinessStudy students who completed bothtests as part of a course in PersonnelSelection. Table 11 provides a list ofOPPro dimensions correlating witheach 15FQ scale.

What is evident from the tableabove is that there is a significantamount of overlap between the twomeasures. Equally it indicates whichof the OPPro dimensions are notadequately covered by the 15FQ.The OPPro Assertive dimensioncorrelates best with the 15FQAssertive dimension and substan-tially with the 15FQ Direct scale,suggesting that high Assertive scorerson OPPro tend to be both dominantand direct (unrestrained) in theirdealings with others. The Flexibledimension of the OPPro correlates

substantially with the 15FQDisciplined (-), Detail-Conscious (-),Radical and Restrained (-) dimen-sions, pointing to high scorers beingundisciplined, expedient, unre-strained and spontaneous. TheOPPro Trusting dimension correlates-0.68 with 15FQ Suspicious whichstrongly suggests that both scales aremeasuring the same underlyingpersonality trait. The OPProPhlegmatic dimension correlateswith all three 15FQ anxiety dimen-sions, Calm-stable, Self-doubting (-)and Tense-Driven (-), indicating thatthe Phlegmatic dimension is a goodgeneral measure of stability. OPProGregarious is also significantlyrelated to all the 15FQ Extraversiondimensions, Outgoing, Enthusiastic,Socially Bold, and Self Sufficient (-).The OPPro Persuasive dimensionwhile correlating with the same15FQ Extraversion dimensions has ahigher degree of overlap with the15FQ dimensions Enthusiastic,Socially Bold and Assertive andRestraint (-) suggesting that highscorers on Persuasiveness tend to beless empathic and warm-hearted.Locus of Control (Pessimistic)appears to span a number of 15FQdimensions covering Extraversion,Anxiety and Independence. Thiswould suggest that individuals whohave internal locus of Control(Optimistic), tend to be moreresilient, enthusiastic, venturesome,direct and self-assured. ThePragmatic dimension of the OPProhas very strong inverse relationshipswith both the Intuitive andImaginative dimension of the 15FQ.The only OPPro dimension whichappears to have no direct equivalentin 15FQ is the Type-A measure,Contesting, which correlates moder-

en

Table 11: Correlations between OPPro & 15FQ

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

R

.73

.72

.75

.77

.82

.69

.49

.57

.77

.71

15FQ correlations with each OPPro Scale

Dominant (FE) .65, Direct (FN) .45

Expedient (FG) .52, Direct (FN) .37, Radical (FQ1) .45, Informal (Q3) .57

Trusting (FL) .68, Informal (FQ3) .32

Stability (FC) .44, Dominance (FE) .33, Direct (FN) .32, Confident (FO) .48, Relaxed (Q4) .34

Outgoing (FA) .59, Enthusiastic (FF) .37, Socially-Bold (FH) .40,Group-orientated (FQ2) .56

Enthusiastic (FF) .45, Socially-bold (FH) .56

Self-doubting (FO) .33, Suspicious (FL) .28, Tense (Q4) .44

Temperamental (FC) .31, Restrained (FN) .36, Self-doubting (FO) .29,Retiring (FA) .25

Retiring (FA) .31, Reserved (FH) .31, Factual (FI) .63, Practical (FM) .64, Conventional (FQ1) .31

Suspicious (FL) .32, Distortion (FMD) .50

eoately with Suspicious and modestlywith Self-doubting and Tense-driven.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPRO & THE OPQFACTOR5

Below we present multiple regres-sions predicting each of the OPProdimensions from the OPQ† Factor 5.As noted in Table 12, these multiple-correlations (linear regressions)clearly demonstrate that the person-ality characteristics measured by theOPPro are consistent with thosemeasured by the OPQ.

The multiple-correlations indicatethat with the exception of the OPProdimensions Contesting andPessimistic, all the dimensions whichare measured by this test are wellpredicted by the OPQ. Moreover, thispattern of results is consistent withthe underlying meaning of each ofthese dimensions. Although thepattern of results predictingContesting and Pessimistic is consis-tent with the meaning of thesedimensions the multiple-correlationswith the OPQ are low. This is proba-bly because these two OPProdimensions are not directly measuredby the OPQ. For example, the OPQscale Optimism is measuring anaspect of emotional stability, thetendency to feel depressed andlethargic for no real reason.

The OPPro dimension Optimisticvs. Pessimistic on the other hand isassessing a person’s sense that theyare in control of their life. Althoughthis construct is associated with bothdepression and emotional instabilityit is nonetheless a distinct personalityconstruct, as these results demon-strate. Similarly the OPQ does not

attempt to measure the CoronaryType A Personality and for thisreason it can only poorly predict theOPPro dimension Composed vs.Contesting.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro SCALES AND JUNGTYPE INDICATOR

A sample of 95 volunteers completedboth the OPPro and the JTI as partof a test validation exercise. Thesecomprised primarily personnel andtraining delegates attending Psytechcourses but also a group of under-graduate Business Study studentswho completed both tests as part of acourse on Personnel Selection.

Table 13 suggests good overlapwith OPPro dimension and JTI withsimple correlations with each of theJTI scales and a single OPPro dimen-sion ranging from .57 to .73. Themost notable relationships existbetween Gregarious and EI (-.62),Pragmatic and SN (-.66),Phlegmatic and TF (-.32) andFlexible with JP (.45). In addition tobeing linked to anxiety, TF is alsorelated to empathy and imagination.With the levels of overlap reportedhere, the OPPro could provide fairlyaccurate estimates of type.

† OPQ is a registered trademark of SHL

ep

Table 12: Multiple Regressions predicting the OPPro from OPQ Factor 5 (N = 41)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

R

.65

.58

.64

.61

.58

.66

.44

.43

.53

.53

OPQ predictors for each OPPro Scale

-Empathy, Influence, Contesting, Gregarious

-Detail-conscious, -Planful, -Conservative

Empathy, -Contesting

Phlegmatic, Relaxed, Optimistic, Social-confidence

Gregarious, Social-confidence

Influence, Gregarious

-Relaxed, Contesting, Active, -Phlegmatic

-Optimistic, Planful, Contesting

-Imaginative, Planful, Detail-conscious, -Empathy

Social Desirability

OPPro Scale

ASSERTIVE -.29 .01 -.17 .06FLEXIBLE -.01 .43 .11 .45TRUSTING -.04 .09 .18 .02PHLEGMATIC -.12 .14 -.32 .17GREGARIOUS -.62 -.11 .15 -.03PERSUASIVE -.50 .34 .02 .18CONTESTING -.11 .04 .08 .06EXTERNAL .16 -.23 .12 -.24PRAGMATIC -.11 -.66 -.24 -.25CONFORMING .02 .07 .12 .02CENTRAL -.11 .03 .06 -.11

Course Delegates (n=95)

EI SN TF JP

Table 13: Correlations Between OPPro & JTI

eqTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro AND EYSENCK’S EPQR AND I7 SCALES

A sample of 158 professionalworking adults completed both theOPPro and the EPQR and I7 as partof a test validation exercise. Fromthe results presented in Table 14, weare able to discern that the OPProcorrelates well with the EPQRExtraversion and Anxiety factorsand reasonably well with the I7Empathy factor. Both OPPro dimen-sions Gregarious and Persuasivehave strong correlation withExtraversion with more modest asso-ciation being observed with OPProAssertive and Phlegmatic. In OPProterms, an Extravert will tend to begregarious and outgoing, not onlyenjoying company of others but alsobeing in the social spot-light. Theywill be able to perform to the gallery,often taking the lead in meetings andsocial events and generally having adegree of confidence and will nottypically suffer from stage-fright.EPQR Neuroticism has a stronginverse association with the OPProdimension Phlegmatic and a moder-ate positive association with OPProPessimistic or external locus ofcontrol.

Psychoticism is not well measuredby OPPro as would be expected.Only modest associations are foundwith EPQR Psychoticism with highscores on OPPro Assertive andFlexible and low scores on Trusting.Whereas the I7 measure ofImpulsiveness does not relate to anyOPPro dimension, Venturesomenessis moderately related to OPProPersuasive, Phlegmatic, Optimisticand Assertive. Empathy appears toprovide support for the OPProAssertive dimension in that highscorers on I7 Empathy tend to bemore accommodating. Equally high

scorers on I7 Empathy tend to beless phlegmatic in OPPro terms.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro AND THE NEO

A sample of 107 delegates onPsytech training courses completedboth the OPPro and the NEO shortform. Results were correlated andthe extent to which the ‘big-five’ asmeasured by the NEO could bepredicted by OPPro was estimatedvia multiple regression.

Most notable in Table 15 are thevery high multiple R achieved ineach case by a relatively smallnumber of OPPro dimensions. Thiswould tend to demonstrate thatOPPro has excellent coverage of the‘Big-Five’ and would more thanjustify using OPPro to predict ‘Big-Five’ scores.

Taking each in turn, Neuroticism(N) correlates most highly (-) withOPPro Phlegmatic, but also registersa notable correlation with Pessimistic(Locus-of-control). The modest rela-tionship with OPPro Suspicious is notsurprising as this is generally consid-ered to reflect an aspect of anxiety.Extraversion correlates most highlywith OPPro Gregarious but also to alesser extent, Persuasive. The modestnegative correlations with Pessimisticand Pragmatic only serve to suggestthat Extroverts perhaps tend to besomewhat more Internal andAbstract-minded. Openness registersa very notable correlation with OPProAbstract-Pragmatic, with Flexibleand Trusting correlating moremodestly. The NEO factor forAgreeableness is perhaps most hard topin down, at least as far as OPPro isconcerned, with no bi-variate correla-tion exceeding .5. However thepicture that emerges from the foursignificant correlations is that thosehigh on Agreeableness (as expressed

er

Table 14: Correlations between OPPro dimensions, EPQR and I7 (n = 158)

Table 15: Correlations Between the OPPro & NEO (N=107)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Multiple R

N

-.44

-.31

-.70

.58

E

.52

.38

-.33

-.30

O

.43

.35

-.67

A

-.38

.47

.38

-.35

C

.33

-.47

.52

-.38

.75 .73 .74 .74 .71

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

EPQRPsych

.34

.32

-.29

EPQRExtra

.38

.37

.56

.55

-.42

EPQRNeurot

-.60

.32

EPQRLie

.56

17Impul

17Vent

.32

.35

.27

.46

-.31

17Emp

-.44

-.42

-.27EPQR-Psych PsychoticismEPQR-Extra ExtraversionEPQR-Neurot NeuroticismEPQR-Lie Social-DesirabilityI7-Impul ImpulsivityI7-Vent VenturesomenessI7-Emp Empathy-Sensitivity

N NeuroticismE ExtraversionO OpennessA AgreeablenessC Conformity

esby NEO) tend to be more trusting andaccommodating, are more aware ofthe feelings of others (Persuasive) andfinally more Abstract. The highestsingle correlation with NEOConformity is obtained with OPProPhlegmatic, which would point tosome lack of convergence between thetwo measures. However, examinationof the correlation between NEO Nand C reveal the single highest inter-correlation (-.42) suggesting thatsome of the overlap is inherent withinthe NEO itself. In addition, to thisperhaps surprising result, less unex-pected was the -.47 correlation withOPPro Flexibility-Rigidity.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro DIMENSIONS AND LINE’S PPQ

A sample of 144 volunteerscompleted both the OPPro and thePPQ as part of a test validation exer-cise.

Table 16 provides some evidenceto suggest that the OPPro dimen-sions cover the measurement spaceof the ‘Big-Five’ factors as measuredby the PPQ. The PPQUnconventional factor correlatespositively with Flexible and nega-tively with Pragmatic as would beexpected. The most substantialcorrelation is between the PPQConscientious Factor and the OPProFlexible vs. Detail-Conscious.Tender-Minded individuals asmeasured by the PPQ tend to bemore Accommodating and Abstractas measured by the OPPro.

There are some unexpected find-ings. Whereas we would expect PPQInsecurity to correlate substantiallywith the OPPro Anxiety measure,Phlegmatic, the correlation (-.31) isonly modest in size. More substantialcorrelations are obtained with the

Genuine end of the Persuasive scaleand the Pessimistic (External Locusof Control) scale. Whereas the latteris generally consistent with Locus ofControl being an indicator of positivemental health, the former correlationwould suggest a significant socialanxiety element to the PPQInsecurity Factor. The second unex-pected finding is the failure of theOPPro Gregarious dimension tocorrelate significantly with PPQExtraversion. Modest correlations areobtained with OPPro dimensionsPersuasive and Internal Locus ofControl and PPQ Extraversion.Given that these OPPro dimensionsare relatively independent, correlat-ing only at -.32, this would onceagain point to some degree ofoverlap between the Insecurity andExtraversion Factors of the PPQ.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro AND THE VALUES & MOTIVES INVENTORY (VMI)

A group of 59 undergraduatePsychology students volunteered toparticipate in a test validation exer-cise which involved completing bothOPPro and two Values question-naires, VMI and MAPP. For theirco-operation, they were all offeredan interpretation of their results.

While VMI is strictly a measure ofpersonal values, the degree of overlapthat was observed with OPPro is note-worthy. Two very substantialcorrelations were observed. The firstOPPro Pragmatic-Abstract and VMIAesthetics (-.71) would suggest thatthese two scales are virtually inter-changeable. That is, the measure ofhow important you consider Aestheticsto be, is hardly different to how inter-ested you are in Abstract andImaginative pursuits as self-reported ina trait based questionnaire (in this case

et

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

PPQUnconventional

.33

-.36

PPQConscientious

-.56

.31

.28

PPQExtraversion

-.36

-.35

PPQTender-minded

-.36

-.38

PPQInsecure

-.31

-.43

.40

Table 16: Correlations Between the OPPro & PPQ (N=144)

fkOPPro). An alternative explanationmay be that if you are highly abstractand imaginative, you are likely toconsider such pursuits as highly impor-tant. This may also apply to the othersubstantially elevated correlationbetween Affiliative Needs as measuredby VMI and OPPro Gregarious (.73). Ifyou are gregarious, you tend to havehigh affiliation needs.

Some other interesting althoughless significant trends emerge. Highscorers on OPPro assertive tend toplace less emphasis on traditionalvalues, having higher needs forAchievement and Financial Status.Those with high scores on Flexibleappear less concerned with Tradition,Ethics, Morality and high achieve-ment, placing greater value onindependence and aesthetics. OPProTrusting-Cynical correlates mosthighly with Altruism and Affiliation.Interestingly, the negative correlationsobserved between OPPro Phlegmaticand VMI Safety and Ethics wouldsuggest that those who are concernedabout safety are more likely to beanxious as measured by OPPro andthat those who emphasise spiritualvalues also tend to be marginallymore anxious than those who do not.This ties in with the correlationbetween Locus of Control and VMIEthics which suggests that somedegree of fatalism may be attached tosuch beliefs. The VMI relationshipswith OPPro Persuasive are also inter-esting. Here the suggestion is thatthose who are more likely to ‘play tothe gallery’ and be ‘political’ if needbe are less likely to hold strongpersonal beliefs and at the same timeare likely to have a stronger need forachievement. It should be pointed outthat these correlations are modest.OPPro Contesting, which registers

fairly modest correlations with othermeasures, registers .35 with Need forAchievement which is entirely consis-tent with the go-getting freneticism ofthe Type-A personality.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro AND MAPP VALUES

The same sample of 59 Psychologyundergraduates described abovecompleted OPPro and MAPP. Theresults are presented in Table 18.

While the two measures are notdesigned to cover the same constructs,nonetheless some meaningful patternsemerge which provide further insightsinto the nature of the OPPro dimen-sions. For example, the results suggestthat people who value Responsibilityare more likely to be Assertive inOPPro terms. MAPP Empathy andOPPro Empathic (low Assertive)correlate quite well (0.46) suggestingthat those who value EMpathic behav-iour are more likely to express it aswell. The more Detailed they are (ielow on Flexibility) the more emphasisis placed on Security, PersonalAuthority and Results whereas higherscores on Flexibility are associatedNovelty and Levity. Higher scores onGregariousness are associated with anemphasis on Intimacy and the OPProContesting is strongly associated withMAPP Competition, Results andResponsibility. Those high on OPProContesting appear to place lessemphasis on Levity, which suggeststhat they are perhaps inclined to takethings quite seriously. A very strongrelationship was registered betweenOPPro Abstract and MAPP Self-expression (0.63) supporting thefinding observed with the VMI thattrait expressions of Abstract-thinkingare no more than an expression of anorientation or preference.

fl

Table 18: Correlations Between the OPPro & MAPP (N=59)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

MAPP correlations with each OPPro Scale

Responsibility .36, Novelty .33, Altruism -.46

Results -.35, Pers Authority -.53, Novelty .34, Levity .42,Security -.41

Altruism .48, Intimacy .34

Security -.26, Work .27

Intimacy .47

Responsibility .32, Intellect .28, Results .27

Competition .50, Results .44, Pers Authority .34, Responsibility .40, Levity -.41

Recognition .37, Responsibility -.34, Intellect -.30

Novelty -.36, Self-expression -.63

Material Wealth -.34, Altruism .46

Nach = Need forAchievement

Table 17: Correlations Between the OPPro & VMI (N=59)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

VMI correlations with each OPPro Scale

Traditional (-.32), Nach (.30), Financial Status (.33)

Traditional (-.58), Moral (-.32), Independence (.52), Ethics (-.32), Nach (-.37), Aesthetics (.33)

Moral (.34), Altruism (.51), Affiliation (.37), Affection (.31) Financial Status (-.32), Aesthetics (.32)

Ethics (-.32), Safety (-.33)

Affiliation (.73), Affection (.47)

Ethics (-.32), Nach (.27)

Nach (.35)

Ethics (.32)

Independence (-.32), Aesthetics (-.71)

Moral (.46), Altruism (.37)

fmTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE OPPro AND GORDON’SSURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES

A sample of 375 volunteerscompleted both the OPPro and theSurvey of Interpersonal Values(GSIV) as part of a test validationexercise. The sample comprisedprofessional working adults, under-graduate students, lecturers andacademic administrative staff.

The GSIV measures individuals’values by assessing what theyconsider important in relationshipswith others for the purpose of selec-tion, placement, counselling andresearch. As the GSIV assesses valuesand not personality traits, it wouldbe expected that the overlap betweenthe two tests would be fairly modest.However, results on Table 19 indi-cate that there may be some sizeablerelationships between personalitypredisposition and what we considerimportant in our inter-personal rela-tionships. The most strikingcorrelation is between OPPro dimen-sion Flexible and the GSIV Need forConformity. This correlation is at thelevel that would be expected as areliability estimate of an individualscale and suggests that these twodimensions are covering essentiallythe same measurement space. GSIVNeeds for Recognition andBenevolence are not well measuredby the OPPro with only very modestcorrelations obtained. Need forIndependence correlates well withOPPro dimension Assertive andNeed for Leadership with Assertiveand Persuasive, suggesting thatpeople who want to take the lead intheir inter-personal relationships alsotend to have assertive and fairlypersuasive characters.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENOPPro AND THE OCCUPATIONAL INTEREST PROFILE (OIP)

A sample of 108 undergraduatePsychology students completed theOPPro, Occupational Interest Profile(OIP) and the VPI (VocationalPreference Inventory) as part of avalidation exercise.

While it might not be expectedthat personality trait scales correlatewith vocational interests, the OIPWork Needs reflect in part personalqualities that are relevant in theworld of work. As such (see Table20) OIP Stability correlates veryhighly with OPPro Phlegmatic (.74)and OIP People with OPProGregarious (.74). Also notable is thestrong observed relationship betweenOIP Control and OPPro Assertive,both of which reflect a desire to takea dominant role in inter-personalsituations. Less significant butnonetheless noteworthy, OIP Change,which reflect a preference for varietyat work as opposed to routine, corre-lates .51 with OPPro Flexible-Rigid.The OIP Variety scale which in factassesses a preference for excitementand risk-taking as opposed to safetyand security, only registers amarginal(-.28) correlation for Locus-of-Control. This suggests that there is asmall tendency for risk-takers tohave a more internal Locus-of-Control –hardly remarkable.

fn

Table 19: Correlations Between OPPro & GSIV (N=375)

GSIV-Support – Support

GSIV-Confor – Conformity

GSIV-Recog – Recognition

GSIV-Indep – Independence

GSIV-Benev – Benevolence

GSIV-Leader – Leadership

Table 20: Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Work Needs (N=108)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

GSIVBenev

.21

GSIVLeader

.50

.49

.25

-.25

GSIVIndep

.40

.22

-.26

GSIVRecog

.21

-.21

.27

.20

-.27

GSIVConfor

-.72

.31

.21

GSIVSupport

-.39

-.31

Variety

-.28

Stability

.41

.74

-.30

-.42

.36

Change

.51

-.31

People

.32

.74

.44

Control

.65

.30

.31

.47

OIP WORK NEEDS

VARIETY Need for ExcitementSTABILITY Need for StabilityCHANGE Need for ChangePEOPLE Need for PeopleCONTROL Need for Leadership

foAs suggested above, there is less

expectation for personality traits tooverlap for vocational interest scalesand by and large this is the case withOPPro and the OIP interest scales(see Table 22). There are one or twonotable exceptions. The OIP prefer-ence which reflects activitiesincluding selling and persuading(Persuasive) registers a very highcorrelation with OPPro Persuasive(.72). Equally, the observed correla-tion between OPProPragmatic-Abstract and OIP Artisticis exceptionally high (.82), suggest-ing that expressed interest asmeasured by OIP is hardly distinctfrom expressed behaviour asmeasured by OPPro. OIP Scientificinterest hardly registers with OPPro,other than to suggest that people whoare generally more interested inScientific pursuits are marginallymore stable and internal. OIPPractical appears to have no coveragewithin OPPro, whereas OIPAdministrative/Clerical appears tolink with OPPro Pragmatic-Abstractand Flexible-Rigid, although onlymarginally. The OIP Nurturing scaledoes correlate with OPPro Gregariousand Composed. This reflects that theOPPro Gregarious does coverempathy, concern, as well patience,as far as other people are concerned.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENOPPro AND HOLLAND’SVOCATIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY (VPI)

A sample of 108 undergraduatePsychology students completed theOPPro, Occupational Interest Profile(OIP) and the VPI (VocationalPreference Inventory) as part of avalidation exercise.

The Holland VPI covers not only

vocational interests but alsomeasures a number of personalitycharacteristics, based on the selec-tion of job titles. The VPI three lettercode, based on the three highestrecorded interests, can provide thebasis for a job-search for whichnumerous references are available.

Other than the very high correla-tion with OPPro Abstract-Pragmaticwith VPI Artistic, only modest corre-lations were observed (see Table 22).This is not surprising as OPPro andVPI set out to measure differentcharacteristics. Once again asobserved with the relationshipbetween OPPro and OIP, a verystrong link appears to be confirmedbetween expressed interest inArtistic/Creative activities andAbstract/Imaginative behaviour.This same finding is evident from theOPPro/MAPP and OPPro/VMI rela-tionships which suggest equally thatpersonality and values are lessdistinguishable than might ideally bethe case. Preference for Realisticprofessions registers only a marginal.27 correlation with OPProPragmatic, whereas personalityappears to have little to do withinterest in the Scientific area. Social(nurturing) professions are morelikely to be endorsed by higherscorers on OPPro Gregarious, reflect-ing the concern for people aspectwithin this OPPro scale. The VPIEnterprising scale appears to bemarginally related to OPPro flexibil-ity, suggesting that individuals whoare more set in their ways are lessinclined to opt for roles whichdemand demonstrable businessoutcomes. Perhaps a little surprising,VPI Conventional scale does notregister at all with OPPro Rigid-Flexible (r=-.09) and only

fp

Table 21: Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Interests (N=108)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

Pers

.50

.72

SCI

.26

-.29

PRA ADM

-.30

.30

NUR

.44

-.32

ART

-.29

-.82

LOG

.28

.32

Table 22: Correlations Between OPPro & VPI (N=108)

OPPro Scale

Assertive

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic

Gregarious

Persuasive

Contesting

Pessimistic

Pragmatic

Distortion

R

.27

I S

.34

E

-.34

.30

A

-.29

.34

-.66

C

.27

OIP VOCATIONAL INTERESTS

R RealisticE EnterprisingI InvestigativeA ArtisticS ScientificC ConventionalSC Self-ControlM/F Masculinity

FemininityStatus Status CapacityInfreq Infrequency

PERS PersuasivePRA PracticalSCI ScientificLOG LogicalADM ClericalNUR NurturingART Artistic

SC

.24

M/F

.38

Status

.30

-.39

-.34

Infreq

-.27

fqmarginally with Abstract-Pragmatic(.27).

While stronger relationshipsmight be expected with VPI person-ality scales, this is only partly thecase. The VPI personality scales werenot designed to provide a definitive,comprehensive measure of personal-ity and do not conform to anyparticular theory of behaviour. Assuch there is no measure ofExtraversion or Anxiety, which areconsidered to be the most importantof personality factors. In spite of this,some interesting relationships wereobserved.

The Masculinity-Femininity scaleof the VPI registers a notable 0.38correlation with OPPro Abstract-Pragmatic, suggesting that thosewho tend to select masculine occupa-tions tend to be more Pragmatic asmeasured by the OPPro. As the VPIMasculinity-Femininity scale iscapable of classifying males andfemales fairly accurately, this mightpoint to a possible sex difference onthis OPPro scale. Capacity for statuscorrelates with OPPro Assertive,Persuasive and Abstract.

VALIDITY STUDY USINGEXTERNAL CRITERION SCALES

A concurrent validity study wasperformed correlating a number ofthe OPPro dimensions with thespecific external criterion scales onwhich they were based:

RigidityThe OPPro dimension Flexible –Detail -Conscious was validatedagainst Gough and Sandford’s(1952) Rigidity scale. This scalemeasures an individual’s resistanceto change with high scorers beingdetail conscious, persevering and

fastidious and low scorers having aconservative, traditional nature.

Self-MonitoringThe OPPro dimension Persuasive –Genuine was validated againstSnyder’s (1974) Self monitoringscale. This scale measures a person’stendency to base their behavioureither upon the demands of the situ-ation or upon their own attitudesand values.

Extraversion, Neuroticism andSocial DesirabilityThe Extraversion and Neuroticismscales from Eysenck’s PersonalityInventory (EPI) and EPQR wereused to validate the OPPro scalesGregarious –Reserved and Anxious–Phlegmatic respectively. In additionthe brief lie scale which is includedin the EPI was correlated with theOPPro Distortion scale.

Social DesirabilityGiven the brevity of the EPI andEPQR lie scales, and hence their lowreliabilities, the OPPro Distortionscale was also validated against alonger and more reliable measure ofSocial Desirability (SD). Thus TheOPPro Distortion scale was also vali-dated against Strahan and Gerbasi’s(1972) short homogeneous versionsof the Marlow-Crowne SD scale.

MachiavellianismThe OPPro scale Cynical –Trusting,which attempts to measure theMachiavellian personality, was vali-dated against Christie and Geis’s(1962) Machiavellianism scale.

Type A behaviourThe OPPro dimension Composed-Contesting was validated against May

fr and Kline’s (1987) shortened form ofthe Jenkins Activity Survey. This scalemeasures Coronary Type A Behaviourwhich consists of the following facets:impatience, hard-driving/competi-tiveness, speed/haste and unrepressedexpression of emotion.

Locus of ControlThe OPPro dimension Optimistic–Pessimistic was validated againstLevenson’s (1973) Internal-ExternalLocus of Control scale. This consistsof three sub-scales which measurerespectively the beliefs that: powerfulpeople control your life (PowerfulOthers), that your life is controlled bychance events (Chance) and that youare in control of your life (Internal).

Direction of InterestThe OPPro dimension Abstract–Concrete was validated againstCaine et al.’s (1982) Direction ofInterest Questionnaire (DIQ). Thisquestionnaire measures a person’s‘thinking style’, assessing whetherthe person has a practical, concrete

and realistic approach to problems oran abstract, theoretical, imaginativeapproach.

The first thing that inspection ofTable 23 below reveals is that all butone of the criterion scales are highlycorrelated with their respectiveOPPro dimension. With the excep-tion of the correlation between theOPPro dimension Trusting and itscriterion scale, Machiavellianism, allthese correlations are in excess of.58. This suggests that each of thesedimensions is measuring theconstruct it was designed to measure.

The relatively low correlation(r=.38) between the OPPro dimen-sion Trusting-Cynical and itscriterion scale (Machiavellianism)suggests that while this OPProdimension shares something incommon with its criterion scale, it ismeasuring something different fromMachiavellianism. The modest corre-lation between this dimension andthe Powerful Other subscale of theLocus of Control scale (r= -.33) is,however, consistent with the idea

that this dimension is measuring ageneral distrust of others, which isbased on the belief that others mayattempt to control you. Clearly morework is required to fully validate thisscale. A final point of interest is thatonly the chance subscale ofLevenson’s (1973) Locus of Controlscale was strongly correlated with theOPPro dimension Optimistic–Pessimistic (r=.59). While one maynot have expected the PowerfulOthers subscale to be correlated withthis dimension, one would haveexpected the Internality subscale tobe strongly correlated, if this OPProdimension were measuring a uni-dimensional concept of Locus ofControl. Thus the present resultssuggest that this OPPro dimension ismeasuring the fatalistic belief thatone’s life is controlled by chance.

External Measure

Rigidity

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Self Monitoring

Type A

Machiavellianism

External Locus of Control

EPI Lie Scale

MC (20)

OPPro Dimension

Flexible -.78 Concrete .60

Phlegmatic .60

Gregarious .62

Persuasive .59

Contesting .58

Trusting .38

Pessimistic .59

Distortion .51 (.56 EPQR)

Distortion .68

Table 23: Correlations between OPPro Dimensions & External Criteria (n = 59)

fsIn this section, we provide details ofnumber of studies in which theOPPro has been used as part of apilot study on a sample of jobincumbents on whom performancedata was available. Whilst it is notspecifically recommended thatpersonality measures be used asdirect measures on future job perfor-mance, these studies are intended toreflect the manner in which person-ality measures may shed light onsome of the personality determinantsof job performance.

CLERICAL PERFORMANCE

This investigation was carried out onbehalf of a highly successful financialservices group based in Hertfordshire.The aim of the study was to examinethe extent to which the results of anumber of tests including OPPro wererelated to measures of job perfor-mance. A sample of 75 junior clericalstaff were tested and their perfor-mance rated on criteria elicited fromthe objective job analysis.Correlations with OPPro dimensionsand performance criteria aredisplayed in Table 24.

SERVICE ENGINEERS

A U.K. leading Crane & heavy liftingequipment servicing company tested asample of 46 service engineers on theOPPro GRT2 battery (see GRT2Technical Manual). Their overallperformance was rated by supervisors.

FINANCIAL SERVICES:

A major financial services organisa-tion administered the OPPro to newrecruits in a sales role at the begin-ning of a residential training courseas a validation exercise. It washypothesised that as the sellingprocess relies on interpersonal char-acteristics, there would becorrelations between sales perfor-mance and OPPro dimensions. Sales

performance was separated intoissued and written business.

Issued business refers to the seller’sactual earnings; policies that havebeen bought by the customer. Writtenbusiness is a measure of what theseller declares as potentially soldbefore the business is issued; it is seenas a measure of the seller’s potentialearnings. It was hypothesised thatpoor sellers might have a highwritten, but low issued business levelbecause they are selling to customerswho have no intention of taking uppolicies, or they are not completingtheir paperwork properly.

Gregariousness, Persuasivenessand Conscientiousness registeredstatistically significant positive corre-lations with issued sales – overall,15% of the variability in issued saleswas accounted for. Written salesdemonstrated fewer correlations, withPersuasiveness being the only predic-tor variable to achieve a modestcorrelation. This supported the notionthat more Persuasive sales consultantsmay be better at obtaining initialinterest, whilst Conscientiousness maycontribute to closure of the sale. Thiscould lend credence to the hypothesisthat poor sellers did not completepaperwork properly.

PRINTERS

A major local newspaper group withthe largest number of local titles in theUnited Kingdom sought to examinewhether tests could predict the jobperformance of experienced printers.A sample of 70 completed the OPProGRT2 battery as well as the MRT2(Mechanical Reasoning Test). Each ofthe group were assessed on a numberof performance criteria by supervisors.In addition, test data were correlatedwith the results of a job sample printtest which was administered at selec-tion stage. Table 26 displayed theresults of this study.

CRITERION VALIDITY

ftCriterion OPPro Dimension

Overall Performance Assertive -.26 Conforming .18

Attitude towards work Contesting -.17

Communication Skills Flexible -.34 Persuasive -.32 Phlegmatic -.24 Pragmatic .22 Assertive .22

Attention to detail Assertive -.36

Table 24: Relationship between OPPro and Clerical Performance Criteria

OPPro/GRT Measure Overall Performance

Verbal .46Conforming .30Abstract .28Numerical -.24Contesting .15

Table 25: Correlations between OPPro & ServiceEngineer Performance

Table 26: Correlations Between OPPro & Printer Performance Criteria (N=70)

Criterion

Overall Performance

Performance Job Sample

Initiative

Time keeping

OPPro Dimension

Abstract .36 Numerical .28 Verbal .26

MRT2 .42 Abstract .41 Verbal .33 Numerical .30Pessimistic -.31 Contesting -.25

Abstract .56 Numerical .44 Verbal .40 MRT2 .39Pessimistic -.32 Flexible .27 Contesting -.27 Phlegmatic .25

Abstract -.32 Pessimistic .30 MRT2 -.29 Flexible -.25

gkTELESALES STAFF

A sample of 30 existing telesales stafffrom a motor insurance companycompleted the OPPro GRT2 battery.Their overall performance was ratedby their supervisors.

As can be seen the OPPro dimen-sion flexible correlated fairly highlywith overall performance, suggestingthat the more detail-conscious staffwere highly rated by their supervi-sors (see Table 27).

DEPARTMENT STORE SALESSTAFF

A major London department storeused the OPPro to investigate thepossibility of using personalitymeasures to help predict futureperformance at the selection stage oftheir recruitment process. A total of231 of their sales staff completed theOPPro and supervisor appraisalratings were used as an overallperformance measure. As can beseen from Table 28 three of theOPPro dimensions showed signifi-cant correlations with the criterionmeasure. Subsequent analysisdemonstrated that these threedimensions identified 77% of thegood performers in the sample.

SALES CONSULTANTS IN THEFURNISHING TRADE

A major furniture retail companyused the OPPro to help identify themost important personality charac-teristics for successful salespeople. Atotal sample of 69 sales consultantswas used for the study.

As Table 29 shows there were afew interesting correlations with theperformance criteria. Sales consul-tants who were fairly practical, calmand not too cynical tended to achievethe most orders. Sales consultantswho achieved the highest monetarysales performance tended to be moreextraverted and accommodating.

PREDICTION OF JOBPERFORMANCE RATINGS FORCAR DEALERSHIP MANAGERS

A sample of 24 car dealershipmanagers were assessed by theirsupervisors on a range of perfor-mance criteria. The correlationsbetween their scores for these criteria(averaged to form a single compe-tency rating) and their OPProdimensions are shown in Table 30.

TRAINING APPLICANTS FORCAR COMPONENT TRAININGCOURSE

A large training company used theOPPro + General Reasoning Test toinvestigate the profiles of success-ful/non-successful applicants fortraining on a car components assem-bly task. A sample of 150 applicantswas used for the study. It was foundthat a number of OPPro dimensionsprovided significant correlations withsuccessful applicants.

The important OPPro determinersfor successful applicants were flexi-bility and an internal locus of controlboth qualities which are probablynecessary if one is to successfullylearn a new skill. Successful appli-cants also tended not to be toophlegmatic nor prone to give sociallydesirable answers (see Table 31).

WHOLESALE ELECTRICALGOODS RETAILER

A major electrical goods wholesalerused the OPPro to identify predictorsof effective performance amongbranch managers. A randomlyselected sample of 30 branchmanagers were asked to complete theOPPro during a training course. Anumber of OPPro scales were relatedto a rating of job performance madeby Regional Managers.

The more effective managerstended to be quite practical andpragmatic in their approach tosolving problems. They were alsomore likely to be fairly anxious andnot as self-assured as their less effec-tive colleagues, but were morecompetitive. For this company, atleast, extremely calm, self-confidentmanagers did not seem to be particu-larly effective sales managers (seeTable 32).

gl

Table 29: Correlations Between OPPro & Sales Consultant Performance Criteria

Criterion

Net OrdersConverting leads to salesAverage value of sales

OPPro Dimension

Pragmatic .23 Phlegmatic .19 Trusting .17Phlegmatic .26 Contesting -.25 Pessimistic -.22 Trusting -.16Gregarious .29 Assertive -.16 Pragmatic -.13

OPPro Scale Overall Performance

Trusting .17Phlegmatic .17Pessimistic -.23

Table 28: Correlations between OPPro & Retail StaffPerformance

OPPro Scale Success

Flexible .29Phlegmatic -.17Pessimistic -.16Conforming -.18Verbal .27Numerical .16Abstract .30

Table 31: Correlations between OPPro & SuccessfulApplicant for Component Course

OPPro Scale Success

Pragmatic .45Phlegmatic -.28Contesting .23Pessimistic .28

Table 32: Correlations Between OPPro & Effective SalesManagers

OPPro/GRT Measure Overall Performance

Verbal .37Conforming -.30

Table 27: Correlations between OPPro/Reasoning &Telesales Performance Criteria

OPPro Predictor Correlation CoefficientAccommodating – Assertive -.53Cynical – Trusting .36Emotional – Phlegmatic .34Composed – Contesting -.56Optimistic – Pessimistic -.34

Table 30: OPPro Correlations with Performance Ratings ofCar Dealership Managers

gmTest quality analysis (TQA) is a quan-titative assessment of the quality ofmeasurement of test items and scales.Quality of measurement is defined inthe following analyses, with a singlequality index –TQI, being providedby the equations in Barrett, Kline,Paltiel, and Eysenck (1993).

ITEM COMPLEXITY

For each scale, the items which arenot part of that scale are correlatedwith the scale score. The number ofitems correlating higher than a givenbound value are noted. If more than5 such items correlate at this level,they are treated as a scale and thecorrelation between the target scalescore and the new scale score iscomputed, as is the new internalconsistency coefficient. This analysishighlights items which are signifi-cantly related to non-keyed scales. Itis a mandatory feature of the OPProthat no item correlates higher thanthe mean item-total correlation(ITC) for any non-keyed scale. Thisis generally a more restrictive analy-sis than the usual constraint of everyitem correlating higher with its ownscale score than on any other scalescore. For example, given an itemcorrelates 0.5 with its own scalescore and 0.43 with another non-keyed scale, the conventionalanalysis would accept this item.However, if the mean ITC for thenon-keyed scale is 0.40, this itemwould be flagged accordingly in theanalysis. This analysis is sensitive tothe size of the specified bound value(mean ITC or some other value) butinsensitive to an item that maycorrelate 0.2 with its own scale and0.3 with another scale. The nextanalysis addresses this situation.

SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO OFITEMS

The normalised ratio of keyed scaleITC (the ITC for an item on its spec-ified scale) to the average non-keyedscale ITCs reduced in size by acorrection factor that takes intoaccount the quantity of this item’snon-keyed ITCs that are two-thirdsgreater than the mean ITC on everynon-keyed scale. This ratio iscomputed for each item in the test. Itthus provides a highly constrainedparameter that takes into accountthe size of the non-keyed scale ITCsfor an item. Essentially it indexes thecapacity of an item to provide ameasure which is unique to a partic-ular scale. A value of 1 indicates anitem with no measurement noise orcross-talk. A value of 0 indicates anitem that is incapable of making ameasure that is not significantlyconfounded by associations withother scale scores in the test.

SCALE (TEST) QUALITY INDEX(TQI)

This parameter indexes the measure-ment quality of a scale of items as awhole, taking into account the scale-item complexity, signal to noise ratioof the scale, and the disparity ofmean ITCs below the mean ITCwithin a scale. This latter correctionguards against the number of itemsin a scale that might have low ITCs,but where the mean ITC is biasedupwards by the greater number ofhigher ITCs in the scale. Forexample, in a scale with 10 items,the first 5 items have ITCs of 0.5 thenext 3 have ITCs of 0.42 and the last2 items have an ITC of 0.15. Themean ITC for that scale is 0.41which might otherwise appear to

OPPro TEST QUALITYANALYSIS

meet accepted standards andobscures two ITCs of marginalconceptual significance. The correc-tion applied is sensitive to thequantitative level of disparity fromthe mean scale ITC value.

The global TQI varies between 0and 1, a value of 0 indicating no testquality of measurement and a valueof 1 denoting perfect measurement.Values between 0.6 and 0.8 indicatemoderate to good measurementquality with values above 0.8 indi-cating excellent measurementcharacteristics.

MEASUREMENT COMPLEXITY

A measure of the measurementcomplexity or unwanted measure-ment noise in a test can also bemade, using the results from signalto noise ratio analyses noted above.The Test Complexity Index (TCI) iscomputed by summing the numberof items with complexity ratios lessthan 0.5 (greater than the measure-ment noise of an item) and dividingthis quantity by the total number ofitems in the test. A value of 0%would indicate no measurementcomplexity or crosstalk at all, a valueof 100% indicates that no item in thetest is capable of making a measureof a trait that is not confounded byits simultaneous measurement ofseveral other trait characteristics.TCIs greater than about 20% indi-cate low factorial simplicity (Kaiser1974) and poor rotational simplestructure and factorial signal-to-noise ratios (Barrett et al, 1996).

Table 33 provides the Test QualityIndices (TQI) and Test ComplexityIndices (TCI) for the OPPro ques-tionnaire, in comparison with thosecomputed over the Kline & Lapham

PPQ, Saville & Holdsworth Concept5.2, Eysenck’s PersonalityQuestionnaire –Revised (EPQR ) andI7 scales, Gordon’s Survey ofInterpersonal Values (normativeform) and two samples of the SixteenPersonality Factor Questionnaire(16PF) form A. The OPQ samplewas provided by 621 mixed sex,applicant respondents aged between10 and 50. The 16PF data wasprovided by a sample of 1898 mixedsex applicants and a second sampleof 922 mixed sex graduate manager-ial applicants.

As can be seen from this table, theOPPro has a TQI value of 0.71, indi-cating a good measurement quality.Its complexity is about 16% –thiscompares very favourably with an

OPQ TQI of 0.60 & TCI of 27.8%.As Barrett et al have indicated, this isdue to extreme overlap betweensome of the OPQ scales. Of signifi-cance in this table is theextraordinarily low parameter valuesfor the 16PF. These values indicatethat the 16PF is not capable ofdiscrete measurement across many ofits scales. That is, most of the itemsin the test are not only contributingto their own scale measures but alsoto many others in the same test, thusmaking it impossible to ascertainexactly which trait is being indexedby any one item.

gn

SHL OPQ Concept 5.2

Psytech’s OPPro

Kline & Lapham PPQ

Eysenck EPQR

Eysenck I7

Gordon SIV

Cattell 16PF (N=1898)

Cattell 16PF (N=922)

Table 33: TQI’s & TCI’s for a Number of Different Tests

TQI

0.60

0.71

0.64

0.79

0.80

0.73

0.12

0.08

TCI(%)

27.84

15.98

17.65

5.00

0.00

15.56

75.84

69.01

go

5BEFORE STARTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Put candidates at their ease by giving information about yourself, the purposeof the questionnaire, the timetable for the day, if this is part of a wider assess-ment programme, and how the results will be used and who will have accessto them. Ensure that you and other administrators have switched off mobilephones etc.

The instructions below should be read out verbatim and the same scriptshould be followed each time the OPPro is administered to one or more candi-dates. Instructions for the administrator are printed in ordinary type.Instructions designed to be read aloud to candidates incorporate a greyshaded background, italics and speech marks.

If this is the first or only questionnaire being administered, give an introduc-tion as per or similar to the following example:

“From now on, please do not talk among yourselves, butask me if anything is not clear. Please ensure that anymobile telephones, pagers or other potential distractions areswitched off completely. We shall be doing theOccupational Personality Profile which has no time limit,however most people take about 15 minutes. During thetest I shall be checking to make sure you are not makingany accidental mistakes when filling in the answer sheet. Iwill not be checking your responses.”

WARNING: It is most important that answer sheets do not go astray. Theyshould be counted out at the beginning of the test and counted in again at theend.

ADMINISTRATIONINSTRUCTIONS

gqContinue by using the instructions EXACTLY as given. Say:

DISTRIBUTE THE ANSWER SHEETS

Then ask:

“Has everyone got two sharp pencils, an eraser, some roughpaper and an answer sheet.”

Rectify any omissions, then say:

“Print your surname, first name and title clearly on the lineprovided, followed by your age and sex. Please inserttoday’s date which is [ ] on the ‘Comments’ line”

Walk around the room to check that the instructions are being followed.

WARNING: It is vitally important that test booklets do not go astray. Theyshould be counted out at the beginning of the session and counted in again atthe end.

DISTRIBUTE THE BOOKLETS WITH THE INSTRUCTION:

“Please do not open the booklet until instructed.”

Remembering to read slowly and clearly, go to the front of the group and say:

“Please open the booklet and follow the instructions for thistest as I read them aloud.” (Pause to allow booklets to beopened).

This is a questionnaire concerning your interests, prefer-ences and feelings about a range of things.

You are asked to rate yourself on a scale from 1 to 5 oneach question. When you have chosen the answer appro-priate for YOU, record this by blackening thecorresponding box on the answer sheet.

For example:

Ratings:

1 2 3 4 5Strongly Agree In Disagree Strongly

Agree between Disagree

1. I like to watch the news on TV.

If you strongly agreed with this statement, you would fullyblacken box 1 against question 1 on your answer sheet.”

Check for understanding of the instructions so far, then say:

“When answering the questions, please remember thefollowing:

1. Do not spend too much time pondering over the answerto each question. The information given in a questionmay not be as full as you would wish, but answer asbest you can.

2. Please try to avoid the middle (In between) answerwherever possible.

3. Be as honest and truthful as you can. Don’t give ananswer just because it seems to be the right thing to say.

4. Make sure you answer every question, even those whichdo not seem to apply to you.

5. If you wish to change an answer, please erase it andinsert your new answer.”

Then say very clearly:

“Is everybody clear about how to do this test?”

Deal with any questions appropriately, then say:

“Please turn over the page and begin”

Answer only questions relating to procedure at this stage, but enter in theAdministrator’s Test Record any other problems which occur. Walk aroundthe room at appropriate intervals to check for potential problems. Wheneverybody has completed the questionnaire:

COLLECT ANSWER SHEETS & TEST BOOKLETS, ENSURING THATALL MATERIALS ARE RETURNED (COUNT BOOKLETS & ANSWERSHEETS)

Then say:

“Thank you for completing the Occupational PersonalityProfile.”

gr

gs

5REFERENCESAdorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswick,E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N.(1950). The AuthoritarianPersonality. New York: Harper &Row

Barrett P., Kline P., Paltiel L. &Eysenck H.J. (1996) An evaluationof the psychometric properties of theConcept 5.2 OccupationalPersonality Questionnaire, Journalof Occupational & OrganisationalPsychology, 69, 1-19.

Belbin, R.M. (1984). ManagementTeams: Why they succeed or Fail.Heineman, London.

Bondorowicz, S (1992) GeneSys®Assessment & Profiling SystemManual. Bedfordshire: PsytechInternational Ltd.

Budd, R. J. (1992) The OIPTechnical Manual. Bedfordshire:Psytech International Ltd.

Budd, R. J. (1992) 15FQ TechnicalManual. Bedfordshire: PsytechInternational Ltd.

Budd R. (1991) The OPProTechnical Manual. Bedfordshire:Psytech International Ltd.

Christie, R., and Geis, F.L. (1970).Studies in Machiavellianism. NewYork: Academic Press

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficientalpha and the internal structure oftests. Psychometrica, 16, 297-334

Crowne, D.P. and Marlow, D.(1964). The approval motive. NewYork: Wiley

Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G.(1969). Personality structure andmeasurement. London:RKP.

Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G.(1992). Manual to the EysenckPersonality Questionnaire andI7scales. London:RKP.

Gordon, L.V. (1985) Manual for theSurvey of Interpersonal Values.Henley, UK: Science ResearchAssociates.

5

hkGough, H.G., and Sanford, R.N.(1952). Rigidity as a psychologicalvariable. Unpublished manuscript.University of California, Institute ofPersonality Assessment Research.

Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometricmethods (2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Jenkins, C.D. (1971). Psychologicaland social precursors of coronarydisease. New England Journal ofMedicine, 284, 244-255.

Jung, C.G. (1921). PsychologicalTypes, Vol. 6, the collected works ofC.G. Jung. London: RKP

Kline, P. (1968). An experimentalstudy of the anal character.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Manchester.

Kline, P. and Lapham S. (1991) TheProfessional PersonalityQuestionnaire. London:Psychometric Systems Ltd.

Levenson, H. (1973).Multidimensional Locus of Control inPsychiatric Patients. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology,41, 397-404

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivationand personality. New York: Harper& Row.

May, J. and Kline, P. (1987).Extraversion, neuroticism, obsession-ality and the Type A behaviourpattern. British Journal of MedicalPsychology, 60, 253-259.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalisedexpectancies for internal versusexternal control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80,whole issue.

Saville, P. and Blinkhorn S. (1981).Reliability, Homogeneity & TheConstruct Validity of Cattell’s 16PF.Person. individ. Diff, 2. 325-333

Saville, P. Holdsworth, R., Nyfield,G. Cramp, L. and Mabey, W. (1984)Occupational PersonalityQuestionnaires Manual. London:Saville & Holdsworth Ltd.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self Monitoringof Expressive Behaviour. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,30, 526-537

Snyder, M. (1979). Self MonitoringProcesses. In L. Berkowitz (ed.)Advances in experimental socialpsychology. New York: AcademicPress

Strahan R. and Gerbasi K. (1972).Short, Homogeneous Versions of theCrowne-Marlow Social DesirabilityScale. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 28, 191-193.