PROFILE:MATCH Manual by Psychological Consultancy Limited

PROFILE:MATCH速 Manual G. Trickey and G. Hyde, Psychological Consultancy Ltd

Copyright ÂŠ 2006, 2009 by Geoff Trickey and Gillian Hyde, Psychological Consultancy Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Published in the United Kingdom in 2009 by Psychological Consultancy Limited, 8 Mount Ephraim, Tunbridge Wells, TN4 8AS T 01892 559540 F 01892 522096 E info@psychological-consultancy.com Printed in the United Kingdom.

CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction.............................................................................................1

What PROFILE:MATCH® Does........................................................................................................1

Evolutionary Psychometrics..............................................................................................................1

The Technology.................................................................................................................................1

chapter 2: What makes PROFILE:MATCH® different?........................................3

Beyond Psychometrics.....................................................................................................................3

Literal vs Inferential Interpretation...................................................................................................3

Combination vs Fragmentation........................................................................................................4

Competency Metrics (CM)...............................................................................................................5

Tailored Assessment.........................................................................................................................6

The Job Analysis Survey (JAS).......................................................................................................7

MATCH:UP™...................................................................................................................................7

User Interface....................................................................................................................................8

chapter 3: PROFILE:MATCH® USER Guide.....................................................................9

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................9

Section 1 - Getting Started..............................................................................................................10

Section 2 - Managing your Account...............................................................................................18

Section 3 - PROFILE:MATCH® Selection.........................................................................................21

Section 4 - PROFILE:MATCH® Development..................................................................................25

Section 5 - PROFILE:MATCH® 360º Feedback...............................................................................29

Section 6 - PROFILE:MATCH® Job Analysis Survey........................................................................41

chapter 4: MATCH:UP™ USER Guide..........................................................................45

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................45

Part 1 - Goal Setting........................................................................................................................46

Part 2 - Strategy..............................................................................................................................48

Part 3 - Clearing the Decks..............................................................................................................51

Part 4 - Implementation...................................................................................................................53

chapter 5: MATCH:UP 360™ USER Guide...................................................................57

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................57

Part 1 - Goal Setting........................................................................................................................58

Part 2 - Strategy..............................................................................................................................60

Part 3 - Clearing the Decks.............................................................................................................63

Part 4 - Implementation...................................................................................................................65

iii

Chapter 6: Scale descriptions & statistics.......................................................69

Measurement Quality of the Competency Ratings..........................................................................69

Description of the PROFILE:MATCH® Item Bank Scales .................................................................70

Item Construction & Item Analysis.................................................................................................76

Measurement Quality of the PROFILE:MATCH® Item Bank Scale Statistics................................77

Additional Scales – Beyond the FFM...............................................................................................80

Group Differences...........................................................................................................................81

Chapter 7: Reliability & validity.............................................................................83

Reliability........................................................................................................................................83

Internal Consistency Reliability.........................................................................................83

Test-Retest Reliability........................................................................................................83

Validity..........................................................................................................................................83

Criterion-Related Validity...................................................................................................84

Construct Validity..............................................................................................................89

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................97 APPENDIX.........................................................................................................................99

Norms for the Total Sample 2010.................................................................................................101

Norms for the Female Sample 2010.............................................................................................102

Norms for the Male Sample 2010.................................................................................................103

Norms for the Working Adult Sample 2010....................................................................................104

Norms for the University Student Sample 2010...........................................................................105

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES Table 2.1: Variable impact of Sociability scores on sales performance...............................................................6 Table 6.1: PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale means and SDs.....................................................................77 Table 6.2: Intercorrelations between PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales at the scale level...........................78 Table 6.3: Intercorrelations between PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales when re-scored as

FFM composites..............................................................................................................................78

Table 6.4: Factor analysis of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales..............................................................79 Table 6.5: Factor analysis of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales (Woods, 2009)......................................79 Table 6.6: Rational Scale mean, standard deviation and alpha coefficient (r)....................................................80 Table 6.7: Means, standard deviations and sample sizes by gender................................................................81 Table 6.8: Means, standard deviations and sample sizes by ethnicity..............................................................82 Table 6.9: Means, standard deviations and sample sizes by age.....................................................................82

Table 7.1: Internal consistency of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales....................................................83 Table 7.2: Test-retest reliability of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales....................................................83 Table 7.3: Correlations between competency metrics, as measured by personality

algorithms, and performance at HMRC...........................................................................................84

Table 7.4: PROFILE:MATCH® criterion-related validity compared to HPI, OPQ, 16PF5

and PAPI (from Woods, 2009).......................................................................................................85

Table 7.5: Correlations between personality based Competency Metrics (from

PROFILE:MATCH® ) and performance based competency ratings (from P:M360™).......................86

Table 7.6: Attention to Detail competency: Comparison of correlations between the Competency

Metric measurement and the contributing personality scale measurement with the 360º

performance based rating.................................................................................................87

Table 7.7: Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® scales and the HPI.....................................................89 Table 7.8: Viewing the relationships against FFM factor space...................................................................89 Table 7.9: Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® scales and the Big-Five Factor Markers.........................90 Table 7.10: Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and OPQ scales aligned with

the Five Factor Model.....................................................................................................................92

Table 7.11: Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and 16PF5 scales aligned with

the Five Factor Model.....................................................................................................................93

Table 7.12: Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and HPI scales aligned with

the Five Factor Model.....................................................................................................................94

Table 7.13: Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and PAPI scales aligned with

the Five Factor Model.....................................................................................................................95

FIGURES Figure 6.1: Frequency distribution of PROFILE:MATCH® competency ratings in HMRC sample n=1557........69 Figure 6.2: Histogram highlighting the distribution of the Rational scale n=200................................................80

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION What PROFILE:MATCH® does For any individual, personality has an impact on job success. PROFILE:MATCH® matches personality profiles with competency requirements, assessing the underlying temperament that accounts for the behavioural consistencies on which work effectiveness is based. Thus PROFILE:MATCH® indicates to what extent an applicant’s natural temperament is aligned with the requirements of the job, and to what extent they would have to adapt, modify or develop their natural temperament in order to succeed. By tapping into these fundamental individual differences in temperament, PROFILE:MATCH® helps decision makers to objectively evaluate how well any applicant will meet the temperamental and emotional demands of any role in an organisation. Uniquely, PROFILE:MATCH® creates a bespoke psychometric questionnaire around whichever combination of competencies the user defines as desirable for the vacancy in question. Expert reports that describe how well a candidate meets the specified criteria are generated within minutes, identifying ‘possible concerns’ and providing objective, finely incremented ‘match’ ratings for each competency.

Evolutionary Psychometrics PROFILE:MATCH® makes the objective power of psychometrics accessible through the everyday language of workplace competencies, enabling decision makers to be in control of the science. The power and precision come from advanced psychometric personality assessment technology, but the assessments are interpreted by the unique PROFILE:MATCH® expert system and expressed in terms of the defined competencies required for any specified job. The system has been in development for the past four years, during which time the PROFILE:MATCH® concept has developed from a bespoke service offering hand-crafted reports, to a fully interactive web enabled expert system. The common theme throughout has been the provision of personality assessment feedback within the framework of the client’s own competency framework.

The Technology PROFILE:MATCH® is an expert system based on psychometric and algorithmic technology. The psychometric underpinnings of the PROFILE:MATCH® competency ratings are provided by an item bank of personality test items structured around the taxonomy of the Five Factor Model (FFM). The algorithms use sophisticated mathematical models to make score interpretations that reflect the research relating performance and personality and the expert judgement of highly

experienced personality psychologists. The research to develop this instrument has involved more than 15 companies including several multi-nationals and ranging across engineering, education, logistics, banking, insurance, market research and recruitment in the private sector and, in the public sector, a local authority and a major government body.

CHAPTER 2 WHAT MAKES PROFILE:MATCH® DIFFERENT? Beyond Psychometrics With the emergence of the Five Factor Model (FFM) in the late 1980s and early 1990s, on the back of meta-analyses involving unprecedented volumes of data processing, personality assessment achieved a new coherence and consensus that has been further consolidated by the ensuing global research. The internet was on a parallel course. Following its commercialisation and the introduction of privately run Service Providers in the 1980s, it exploded into popular use in the 1990s, to deliver its dramatic and pervasive impact on culture and commerce – and, of course, on psychometric testing. In 1999 PCL became the first UK test publisher to put substantive personality questionnaires online, pioneering many of the features that are now industry standards. PCL has played an influential role within the field of online psychometric testing ever since. We had the experience of psychometrics and internet systems necessary to bring these two technologies together in PROFILE:MATCH®, providing the trigger for an evolution of a new generation in online assessments. PROFILE:MATCH® reflects the integration of state-of-the-art psychometric personality assessment with the power, flexibility and reach offered by the internet. The internet had transformed almost every aspect of psychometric assessment but, by 2006, the basic structure of the assessment process remained unchanged - personality questionnaires had simply been relocated from paper pages to web pages. Clearly, integration of these two powerful and rapidly evolving technologies was capable of delivering more than this. PROFILE:MATCH® was the result of some radical ‘blue sky’ thinking – a willingness to take everything back to basics and to rebuild from scratch. Many professional, service and technical issues were involved, but several intertwined themes emerged as of particular importance. These are each briefly introduced below under the headings Literal vs Inferential Interpretation, Combination vs Fragmentation, Competency Metrics, Tailored Assessment and User Interface.

Literal vs Inferential Interpretation There appears to be an important distinction amongst currently available occupational personality questionnaires in the extent to which their approach is predominantly either literal or inferential. This distinction is related to their rationale and whether any theory or model of personality is involved, with the former sometimes being described as ‘rationally derived’ (Baron,1996, Barrett & Hutton, 2000). Questionnaires in the literal camp tend to be made up of large numbers of work-place related scales (e.g. Data Rational or Detail Conscious) rather than scales related to any particular model or theory of personality. These scales often seem nearer to competency statements than to

personality per se; they use direct, transparent self-rating questions (e.g. “I enjoy numerical problem solving”), and report their results in the same way, closely reflecting the statements endorsed (“Sarah Sample likes working with numbers”). In this approach, little inference or interpretation is called for, and there is little or no emphasis on scale interactions. The interpretive approach questionnaires are typically based on a theory or model of personality, often associated with the broader context of personality research (e.g. trait theories, humanistic, psychodynamic or Jungian theory or, more recently, the Five Factor Model - FFM). The scales of these questionnaires (e.g. neuroticism or self-esteem) reflect a view about the structure of personality. They will often include questions that may seem only obliquely related, or even unrelated, to any scale (e.g. ‘I know why stars twinkle’), but which have been shown empirically to ‘work’ and to contribute to assessment of that characteristic. The use of this style of personality questionnaire relies, to a considerable degree, on skills of interpretation. Firstly, inferences may be drawn that reflect the wider understanding of the construct measured, but about which no specific questions may have been asked (e.g. that low scorers on a scale of Emotional Stability will be moody and sensitive to criticism). Secondly, inferences are required to link the personality characteristics measured to the world of work and their implications for different work roles (e.g. what might be the implications for a sales role of a low Extraversion score combined with a high Conscientiousness score?). Our impression is that literal style personality questionnaires are positioned closer to the work situation and have a survey like quality, while interpretive style questionnaires are positioned closer to the roots of personality theory and research.

Combination vS Fragmentation Another aspect of styles of personality assessment that particularly interested us was an apparent trade-off between numbers of items underpinning literal questionnaire scales (where the approach requires that the total domain should be fragmented into ever larger number of scales), compared to the number of items contributing to inferences drawn from interpretive questionnaires (where more questions underpinned each scale, and where the expectation was that inferences may be drawn from the combination of two or more scales). Our long association with the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) had added a decade of practitioner FFM experience. In research projects designed to capture the distinctions in personality between the best and the rest using the FFM based Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), we had the opportunity to explore fragmentation using criterion keying of small subtheme item clusters (referred to as HICs) on the basis of empirical studies with relatively small occupational samples. Our experience was that these relationships were often quite unstable, requiring frequent periodic review and adjustment as data accumulated. The alternative solution of making predictions on the basis of primary scale combinations (interactions) generally proved more robust, and benefited both from the numbers of items involved, the established stable properties of those scales and the accumulated knowledge and experience associated with the widely recognised personality variables involved. Our preference for combining scales over fragmentation of the personality domain, combined with our concerns about literal tests based on vague or arbitrary taxonomies, and measuring constructs remote from personality research led to the development of Competency Metrics (CM).

Competency Metrics (CM) The CM approach was a consequence of addressing client requirements for personality assessments to be mapped onto their own competency frameworks. This is an increasingly popular demand that has the benefit of feeding personality assessment results seamlessly into competency-based interviews, appraisals and assessment centres. A fuller discussion of Competency Metrics (CM) has been published (Trickey, 2007) and we restrict ourselves here to the main principles. CM is an objective, mathematical technique for generating inferences about competency by combining an individual’s scores on two or more personality scales. We have popularised reference to the FFM factors as ‘the primary colours of personality’ (Trickey & Hogan, 1998, Bartram & Brown, 2005, Trickey, 2007). This analogy with primary colours reflects the fact that, in the visual world, it is possible to digitally create more tones and hues than can be discerned by the human eye from just three primary colours. Similarly, we propose that the complexity of experienced personality is best replicated by combining scales, rather than by fragmenting the personality domain. In other words, by viewing the FFM factors as primary colours to be mixed, it is possible to build metrics for any aspect of personality – and in so doing to underpin that metric with reassuring amounts of self-report data. An example might be that, rather than writing a new set of items for a measure of Charisma, one combines responses to items for Sociability, Assertiveness and Agreeability. CM generates competency ratings from self-report personality questionnaire responses. The underpinning mathematical algorithms are designed to generate ratings that indicate the extent to which a person’s personality would be expected to impede or facilitate performance. Which personality scales are involved is determined initially by content analysis of competency definitions. The relationship (whether positive or negative, whether linear or curvilinear, and with what weighting) is then guided by a) existing research findings from FFM performance related studies, b) our own client based research over the past decade using FFM measures to predict performance, and c) criterion related research using PROFILE:MATCH®. Because their final application needs to be generalised and to have broad relevance, algorithm design for Competency Metrics necessarily combines research findings with expert judgement. However, because Competency Metrics are explicitly and numerically articulated, they become accountable in ways that are usually associated only with tests and questionnaires rather than with profile interpretation. In particular, the algorithmic approach to Competency Metrics means that profile interpretation is precise, objective, and consistent and can be subjected to ongoing reliability and validation research. The algorithmic approach of PROFILE:MATCH® also allows complex curvilinear relationships between personality and behaviour to be taken into account. The cases where a personality characteristic has a simple linear relationship with a behavioural or performance variable are rare. We have found that, in our organisational research, non-significant correlations may say more about the limitations of the statistical approach than about any lack of influence of the personality variables. For example, one might expect the personality variable of Sociability to correlate with performance in sales but, because in many cases, too much Sociability contributes to underperformance, a relationship that is actually strong but curvilinear yields a low, and possibly even negative, correlation. For example, research at PCL investigating very low correlations between the Sociability scale

of a Five Factor test and sales performance among recruitment consultants found a strong curvilinear relationship between these two variables. When the data was presented in an expectancy table it was very evident that the low negative correlation arose because both very high and low Sociability were associated with low sales performance, whilst the high performers scored in the average and above average range on Sociability (see Table 2.1). TABLE 2.1: Variable impact of Socialbility scores on sales performance ANNUAL REVENUE GENERATED SOCIABILITY SCORES

£0-50K

£51-100K

£101-200K

£201-300K

> 90th

66th-90th

35 -65

146,978

130,671

16th-34th

Average annual revenue in total sample = £133,185

£300K +

AVERAGE REVENUE 116,854

136,105

n=104

Correlation between Sociability & Annuall Revenue r=.17

In general, extreme high scores or extreme low scores on almost any personality scale are a warning signal and either can involve a decrement in performance. These relationships, lost when the emphasis is totally on correlation based techniques such as regression and factor analysis, can readily be reflected through CM algorithms. In summary, the benefits of the CM approach are that: • It converts self-report personality data to work-place performance predictions • It eliminates inconsistency (and inequality) from profile interpretation • It makes interpretation accountable to validation procedures • It makes inferences about competency based on not less than 40 items • It carries the psychometric properties of the questionnaire through to profile interpretation • It accommodates complex curvilinear relationships between personality and behaviour • It generates finely incremented competency ratings (T scores)

Tailored Assessment By ‘tailored assessment’ we mean the selection of those parts of a personality questionnaire that address the specific competencies that are considered essential in the role for which assessment is intended. Personality assessment within an occupational context often involves using the same questionnaire for a number of different roles. Typically, the questionnaire will address the whole personality domain and will capture the characteristics of candidates as defined by whichever model or theory of personality that particular questionnaire reflects. But, of course, the personality requirements of different jobs will not all be the same and the first requirement of profile interpretation is to distinguish the scales that are most relevant to the role from those that are unimportant. In other words, in this traditional approach, relevant and irrelevant findings are all mixed together and it is the job of the expert to sort out which is which. To the trained practitioner there may be advantages in this but at the cost of complicating the process of

interpretation and the accessibility of results that ultimately have to be conveyed to decision makers. One-off expert interpretations of profiles also face difficulties of consistency. However experienced the assessor, it will be impossible to guarantee a consistent focus and emphasis in the detailed interpretation of profiles across a group of shortlisted candidates. Any practitioner compiling reports individually must encounter these difficulties. In fact it was our experience in grappling with issues of consistency of interpretation that ultimately led to the development of PROFILE:MATCH®, Competency Metrics and Tailored Assessment. Summarising the advantages of Tailored Assessments: • Questionnaires presented only have as many items as they need to have • PROFILE:MATCH® users focus on the ‘what are we looking for?’ question from the outset • Decision makers cannot be side tracked by irrelevant, but appealing, information • All the results will be relevant to appointment decisions or development plans • Information dovetails cleanly with competency based interviews, ACs, DCs, reviews

The Job Analysis Survey (JAS) In PROFILE:MATCH® the most important task faced by the end user is to identify which of the competencies in the PROFILE:MATCH® competency library are critical for high performance or otherwise non-negotiable. Because these are the only decisions required to set up a PROFILE:MATCH® assessment, the system includes a Job Analysis Survey to assist the user.

MATCH:up™ MATCH:UP™ is a personal development planning tool designed to complement both the PROFILE:MATCH® Personal Development and 360º Feedback reports. Effective personal development starts with a deeper awareness of which attributes are at the unchangeable core of our being and which are adopted or acquired along the way. An understanding of this is key, because these elements can always be managed to better effect. The programme offers the opportunity to improve competencies and inter-personal performance, building on the sound foundation of informed self-awareness. MATCH:UP™ aims to identify priority areas for development and to set out a route map that will get the end user to where they need to be. There are four parts to the MATCH:UP™ programme: Part 1: Goal Setting Part 2: Strategy Part 3: Clearing the Decks Part 4: Implementation By working through each section, MATCH:UP™ will enable the end user to build their own step-by-step Personal Development Plan by setting specific goals that allow them to identify and harness the positive aspects of their temperament, and to manage less favourable aspects in accordance with desired development goals. The ultimate aim should be nothing less than Self Actualisation.

User Interface In the past, when there was little consensus about personality assessment, many different instruments were in use, based on different models, rationales and theories of personality. Within an occupational context, profile interpretation seems to have relied heavily on the skills of the individual HR or psychologist practitioner involved and interpretation was viewed more as art than science. Usage and attitudes varied considerably between the US, the UK and Europe and, in contrast to the current high levels of usage, there was widespread scepticism. The rediscovery of the Five Factor Model (FFM) at the end of the 1980s introduced an impressive new level of consensus about personality testing. Building on the established adoption of Thurstonian style aptitude testing that had consolidated and quietly established itself amongst assessment practitioners after the second world war, now both personality and ability psychometrics have achieved a new mantle of consensus. The issue of consensus is important. As technology becomes reliable and consensual it always becomes more widely understood, more accessible and easier to use. It goes through a ‘commoditisation’ process that takes it from the realms of complexity, specialisation and relative obscurity to the realms of everyday convenience and ease of use. The camera is a typical example. Originally an elaborate and unreliable process requiring considerable technical skill, it has now become a casual add-on to every mobile phone. All successful technology follows this route. Commoditisation puts the technology into the hands of those who want to use it, but who don’t necessarily need to understand it. Computers followed a similar route from near incomprehensibility to child friendliness via the development of the mouse and graphical user interface, launched first by Apple in 1984 and subsequently by Microsoft with Windows 1.0 in 1985. There is a potential parallel with psychometrics, although it is still at the early stages of commoditisation. Interpretation still requires high levels of skill, but access has been widened by the internet and by the use of product-specific training that obviates the need to understand the technology at the level required to develop psychometric instruments. We distinguish psychometricians and psychologists from other trained test users but many, and possibly most, of those who could benefit from the use of tests – those running small to medium size businesses who need to recruit staff, or families that need to employ cleaners, gardeners and child care and to bring them into their own homes – are still denied access, largely due to costs of training or of employing the specialist expertise required. It is inevitable though that, like the MS DOS operating system in early computers, the camera or the internet, psychometric systems will also be developed as user friendly utilities for use at work or at home. Today’s psychometric products already have more popular appeal than their predecessors and are less technical in their presentation and usage. However, there is room for far greater attention to user interface issues. In the original design of PROFILE:MATCH®, and in subsequent revisions of the website, every effort has been made to enhance access and ease of use. The decision to provide both a user interface and a reporting system entirely within the vernacular of competencies contributes to the accessibility and utility of PROFILE:MATCH®.

CHAPTER 3 PROFILE:MATCH® USER GUIDE INTRODUCTION PROFILE:MATCH® is an expert system that provides tailored, role specific assessments. Its accessible, user-friendly interface allows you to harness state-of-the-art psychometrics and to focus on key competencies that underpin high performance. This guide is intended to be used as an aid to those navigating around the PROFILE:MATCH® website, and is therefore written as though you are following each step on the website. The PROFILE:MATCH® system is split into four main sections;

- PROFILE:MATCH® Selection

- PROFILE:MATCH® Development

- PROFILE:MATCH® Job Analysis

- PROFILE:MATCH® 360° Feedback

This guide will take you through each section in turn, and outline the process involved from start to finish for each area. You will also find key information on the other resources available from the PROFILE:MATCH® website including free tailored sample reports, articles and testimonials.

SECTION 1 – GETTING STARTED The PROFILE:MATCH® website can be found at www.profilematchassessments.com and is the key link to using the online system. From the PROFILE:MATCH® homepage you can:

• Register for FREE as a PROFILE:MATCH® user and set up your account

• Find out more about the four different aspects of PROFILE:MATCH®

• Access FREE tailored sample reports

• Learn more about PROFILE:MATCH® from articles and testimonials

• Explore technical details and costs

• Book onto PROFILE:MATCH® workshops and training courses

• Login if you are already a registered user

Image 3.1 - Homepage

SAMPLE REPORTS The PROFILE:MATCH® website offers two main ways to access sample reports. For fast, downloadable PDF’s of existing sample reports simply navigate to the section box on the homepage (see Image 3.1). It is also possible to create tailored sample reports for both the Selection and Development features. Simply click on ‘FREE Tailored Sample Reports’ on the left hand side of the homepage (Image 3.2).

Image 3.2 – Free Sample Reports

You will now be asked to select which report you would like to view and once you have chosen you will be directed to the Competency Library. (Please note, 360° Feedback and Coaching reports are PDF downloads of existing sample reports and can not be tailored). Once in the Competency Library you can choose up to 10 competencies to include on the template. After clicking the ‘view free sample report’ link in the bottom right-hand corner of the page (see Image 3.3), you will be asked to enter an email address to send the report to, or you can click ‘continue’ to download the PDF on screen.

Image 3.3 – Competency Library

THE COMPETENCY LIBRARY The Competency Library allows you to choose which competencies you would like to select for each template that you make. For information on what each competency refers to, click on next to the competency title. This will bring up a small window in which you can view both the short and longer competency descriptions (see Image 3.4). These are designed to assist you in selection of your competencies. If you are a registered user you can save this configuration for future use as one of your PROFILE:MATCH® templates.

Image 3.4 - Competency Descriptions

If you have not completed the FREE registration for PROFILE:MATCH® and would like to save this configuration for future use please register by clicking the ‘FREE registration’ icon in the top left corner of the screen. You can choose up to 10 competencies to include on each template. These can be selected by ticking the appropriate box and using the large arrows to move the selected competencies across once they have been chosen. If you change your mind, you simply tick the appropriate box in the ‘remove’ column and click the large reverse arrow to return the competencies to the Library. From this page you can also download a PDF of all the competency descriptions in the Library or view a free sample report using your chosen competencies from this page.

Image 3.5 – Competency Library

REGISTRATION ON THE PROFILE:MATCH® WEBSITE Registration on the PROFILE:MATCH® website is completely free. All you need to do is click on ‘FREE Registration’ in the left column on the homepage and complete the registration form. To register you need to provide the details of your company name, your first name, surname, email address, password, address, postcode, country, telephone number and fax number. You will need to use your email address and password whenever you login. You will be sent an email confirming your registration details so it’s a good idea to keep this safe.

Image 3.6 – Registration page

You will also need to select whether you would like to have an invoiced account or whether you wish to pay by adding credits onto your account, purchasing them online through the PROFILE:MATCH® system. If you would prefer to be invoiced for your PROFILE:MATCH® usage once a month, select the YES button next to “Apply for an invoiced account”. Your application will then be processed and we will inform you by email of the outcome. Clicking NO means that you prefer to pay for PROFILE:MATCH® credits using your credit/debit card via the Protx system. Below is an example of the email you will receive if you say YES to applying for an invoiced account.

Dear Sophie Sample, Thank you for registering with PROFILE:MATCH®. Please keep this email safe as you may need to refer to it later. Company Name: ABC Limited Your Name: Sophie Sample Address: 8 Mount Ephraim Tunbridge Wells Kent Postcode: TN4 8AS Country: United Kingdom Telephone: 01892 559540 Fax: 01892 522096 Email: sophie@abc.com Password: sophiesample Your application for an invoiced account is being processed and a member of our team will be in contact with you shortly. In the meantime you may like to purchase credits using our secure online credit card payment facility. Logon at: http://www.profilematchassessments.com/myAccount/ Kind regards, PROFILE:MATCH® United Kingdom 8 Mount Ephraim, Tunbridge Wells, TN4 8AS 01892 559 540 | info@profilematchassessments.com

You can then use the email address and password in your version of this email to login immediately and begin using PROFILE:MATCH®.

Image 3.7 – Login page

Once you are logged into your account you will be able to access your personal account area at any time by clicking the ‘my account’ link in the left-hand column either on the main homepage or on the logged on main page. Starting from here, you will then be able to: • View a listing of all PROFILE:MATCH® Selection, Development, 360 or JAS templates that you have previously created (click on any template name to access full details.) • Create new PROFILE:MATCH® Selection templates or delete any that are no longer required. • Create new PROFILE:MATCH® Development templates or delete any that are no longer required. • Create new or delete PROFILE:MATCH® 360 Surveys. • Get help choosing competencies using the Job Analysis Survey. • Buy credits and check your credit status if you are not an invoiced client. • View your PROFILE:MATCH® usage. You will also still have access to all of the main resources on the website which you can access by clicking ‘Home’ in the left tool bar.

Image 3.8 – Account area

WORKSHOPS From the left hand tool bar on the main user page you can select to view information about upcoming PROFILE:MATCH® workshops. PROFILE:MATCH® familiarisation workshops are run throughout the year and upcoming courses are presented on the website here, where you can make a booking. To book onto a course simply click on ‘book now’ to complete a booking form.

Image 3.9 - Workshops

COSTS, ARTICLES AND TECHNICAL DETAILS From the homepage, using the toolbar on the left hand side, it is also possible to view further information on the PROFILE:MATCH® tool including costs, articles and technical details.

Image 3.10 - The Homepage

There are also testimonials, and further details on the benefits and uses of PROFILE:MATCH® (see Image 3.11).

Image 3.11 - Testimonials

SECTION 2 – MANAGING YOUR ACCOUNT With PROFILE:MATCH® you are in complete control of your account and your usage and these can be monitored easily from your ‘my account’ page.

BUYING PROFILE:MATCH® CREDITS Unless you have been set up as an invoiced customer, you will need to purchase sufficient credits to allow each of your candidates to take the online PROFILE:MATCH® assessment. Please note if you have insufficient credits on your account candidates will not be able to complete the assessment.

Image 3.12 – My Account Area

Registered PROFILE:MATCH® users can log in and buy credits in the My Account area by clicking on the ‘Credits’ link in the list on the left-hand side of Image 3.12.

Image 3.13 – Purchase credits

Enter the number of credits you wish to buy and then click ‘continue’. You will then be automatically directed to our secure payment site Protx (see Image 3.14, below). You can pay for your PROFILE:MATCH® credits using your credit/debit card. Remember, you must ensure you have sufficient credits before you send out the PsyKey guide to your candidates.

Image 3.14 – Protx credit purchase

Once you have purchased credits via Protx you will receive a confirmation email. Your credit/ debit card will be charged and you will receive a receipt through the post. An example receipt is shown below. Dear Sophie Sample This email is to confirm following transaction. Credits: 1000 Cost per credit: £1.00 (+ VAT) Total cost: £1,175.00 (inc VAT) You will receive an invoice by post for the above transaction in the next few days. Kind regards, PROFILE:MATCH® 8 Mount Ephraim Tunbridge Wells Kent TN4 8AS Tel: 01892 559540 info@profilematchassessments.com

MANAGING YOUR PROFILE:MATCH® USAGE

On the left-hand side of the page ‘Usage’ can be selected in order to look at all your PROFILE:MATCH® usage . As shown in Image 3.15 you can view a usage report by the Month and the Year (e.g. July 2008).

Image 3.15 - Usage

When you view a Usage Report you can further sort the information by: • Clicking on the ‘Candidate Name’. • Clicking on the name of your PROFILE:MATCH® template in the P:M column. • Clicking on ‘Date Comp’ to see when they completed it. This is a really useful ‘tracking’ device and will enable you to keep track of candidate completions and manage applicants to ensure assessments are completed on time. If you are an invoiced customer you will also be able to keep an eye on any upcoming payments.

SECTION 3 – PROFILE:MATCH® SELECTION A summary of the Selection tool can be found by clicking on the Selection segment on the main homepage (see Image 3.16).

Image 3.16 – PROFILE:MATCH® Selection

CREATING YOUR PROFILE:MATCH® SELECTION TEMPLATE In order to create a template and be able to save it, you must be logged in. Once logged in, the Selection section of the PROFILE:MATCH® website can be accessed by clicking the ‘P:M Selection’ button in the left hand tool bar on the main page.

Image 3.17 – Selection page

When creating your first template or new templates you need to click on the ‘create template’ button below the instructions. Once you have created a template it can be viewed and reactivated at any time by clicking on ‘my templates’.

Image 3.18 – PROFILE:MATCH® Selection - Competency Library

You can choose up to 10 competencies to include on your template. These can be selected by ticking the appropriate box and using the large arrows to move the selected competencies across once they have been chosen. If you change your mind, you can simply tick the appropriate box in the ‘remove’ column and click the reverse arrow to return that competency to the Library. From this page you can also download a PDF of all the competency descriptions in the Library or view a free sample report using your chosen competencies.

SAVING YOUR PROFILE:MATCH® SELECTION TEMPLATES Once you have selected your competencies you can save the template by clicking on ‘save’ in the bottom right-hand corner of the window (see Image 3.19). You will need to fill in each of the fields on this page and then click ‘save’. For more information on what is required in each field click on the tabs. Description of each of the fields: P:M Template Name This is the name of the competency template you have created, and it will help you to find it when you next want to use it. It is for your own purposes only, this name will not appear on the report. Candidate Job Title This is the name of the role you are assessing. It is important that you choose this carefully as it will appear on every page of the PROFILE:MATCH® report. Include Feedback Report Checking ‘yes’ will automatically generate a Candidate Feedback Report which will be emailed to the specified email address, along with the PROFILE:MATCH® report, as a PDF document

Image 3.19 – Save Selection template

(this will add an additional 10 credits to the cost of an assessment). Please note these reports can not be added at a later date. Access Code This is the code that the candidates will use to access the test. A random code is automatically generated and will appear in the box. Please note the access code can not be changed. Admin Name This is the name of the person who will receive the PROFILE:MATCH® report. The system will automatically put in the name of the registered client, but you can change this now or later. Admin Email This is the email address where the PROFILE:MATCH® report will be sent. The system will automatically put in the email address of the registered client, but this too can be changed when completing the set-up or at a later date. Company This is the name of the company that requires the assessment. Expiry Date This is the date that access to the PROFILE:MATCH® test expires. This date can be changed later and you can also re-activate the template once it has expired. Notes This section is space for you to make notes about this PROFILE:MATCH® template. Once you have saved this template a PsyKey Guide, providing instructions for your candidates on how to access the questionnaire, will be sent to the ‘Admin’ email address you have entered.

**BEFORE INSTRUCTING CANDIDATES Please note that if you are NOT an invoiced client, before you send out the candidate instruction sheets you MUST ensure that you have used your credit card to purchase sufficient credits to allow each of your candidates to take the online assessment. If you have insufficient credits your candidates will not be granted access to the online assessment when they log in to complete the questionnaire. NOTE - FIRST TIME USERS WISHING TO SAVE A TEMPLATE If you have not yet registered as a PROFILE:MATCH® customer the ‘Save’ option, seen in Image 3.19, will not be available to you. If you would like to save this set of competencies as a PROFILE:MATCH® template, you will need to register at this point (see FREE Registration link in the top left corner of Image 3.3). After registering, saving your PROFILE:MATCH® template will become an option.

SECTION 4 – PROFILE:MATCH® DEVELOPMENT A summary of the Development tool can be found by clicking on the Development section (green box) on the main homepage (see Image 3.20).

Image 3.20 – PROFILE:MATCH® Development

CREATING YOUR PROFILE:MATCH® DEVELOPMENT TEMPLATE In order to create a template and be able to save it, you must be logged in. Once logged in, the Development section of the PROFILE:MATCH® website can be accessed by clicking the ‘P:M Development’ button in the left hand tool bar on the main page.

Image 3.21 – Development page

Image 3.22 – PROFILE:MATCH® Development - Competency Library

You can choose up to 10 competencies to include in your template. These can be selected by ticking the appropriate box and using the large arrows to move the selected competencies across once they have been chosen. If you change your mind, you can simply tick the appropriate box in the ‘remove’ column and click the reverse arrow to return that competency to the Library. From this page you can also download a PDF of all the competency descriptions in the Library or view a free sample report using your chosen competencies.

SAVING YOUR PROFILE:MATCH® DEVELOPMENT TEMPLATES Once you have selected competencies you can save the template by clicking on ‘save’ in the bottom right-hand corner of the window (see Image 3.23). You will need to fill in each of the fields on this page and then click ‘save’. For more information on what is required in each field click on the tabs.

Image 3.23 – Save Selection template

Description of each of the fields: P:M Template Name This is the name of the competency template you have created, and it will help you to find it when you next want to use it. It is for your own purposes only, this name will not appear on the report. Access to MATCH:UP™ This allows candidates access to MATCH:UP™, the PROFILE:MATCH® online coaching tool (this will add an additional 45 credits to the cost of an assessment). Access Code This is the code that the candidates will use to access the test. A random code is automatically generated and will appear in the box. Please note the access code can not be changed. Email Report to Candidate? Checking yes will automatically send a Personal Development Report to the candidate, which will be sent, as a PDF document, to the email address they registered for the assessment with. Email Report to Client? Checking yes will automatically send a Personal Development Report to the client at the email specified as the Admin Email, as a PDF document. (It is possible to send a report to both the candidate and the client).

Admin Name This is the name of the person who will receive the PROFILE:MATCH速 report. The system will automatically put in the name of the registered client, but you can change this now or later. Admin Email This is the email address where the PROFILE:MATCH速 report will be sent. The system will automatically put in the email address of the registered client, but this too can be changed when completing the set-up or at a later date. Company This is the name of the employing company. Expiry Date This is the date that access to the PROFILE:MATCH速 test expires. This date can be changed later and you can also re-activate the template once it has expired. Notes This section is space for you to make notes about the PROFILE:MATCH速 template. Once you have saved this template a PsyKey Guide, providing instructions for your candidates on how to access the questionnaire, will be sent to the Admin Email address you have entered. **BEFORE INSTRUCTING CANDIDATES Please note that if you are NOT an invoiced client, before you send out the candidate instruction sheets you MUST ensure that you have used your credit card to purchase sufficient credits to allow each of your candidates to take the online assessment. If you have insufficient credits your candidates will not be granted access to the online assessment when they attempt to log in to complete the questionnaire.

SECTION 5 – PROFILE:MATCH® 360° FEEDBACK A summary of the PROFILE:MATCH® 360° Feedback tool can be found by clicking on the 360° Feedback section (pink box) on the main homepage (see Image 3.24).

Image 3.24 - PROFILE:MATCH® 360° Feedback page

SETTING UP A PROFILE:MATCH® 360° FEEDBACK SURVEY In order to set up a PROFILE:MATCH® 360° Feedback survey and be able to save it, you must be logged in. Once logged in, the 360° Feedback section of the PROFILE:MATCH® website can be accessed by clicking the ‘P:M 360’ button in the left hand tool bar on the main page. To begin, click on ‘create survey’ below the instructions (see Image 3.25).

Image 3.25 – PROFILE:MATCH® 360° Admin Area

STEP 1 – SURVEY SETUP Each survey you create needs to be setup using the ‘survey setup’ page. Each of the following criteria needs to be completed in the boxes provided (descriptions are given below):

Image 3.26 – PROFILE:MATCH® 360° survey setup

Survey Name This is the name of the survey you have created and is used to identify surveys in your ‘My Surveys’ area. Access to MATCH:UP 360 ™ This allows candidates access to MATCH:UP 360™, the PROFILE:MATCH® online coaching tool (this will add an additional 45 credits to the cost of an assessment). Company Name This is the name of your company. Admin Name This is the name of the administrator for this survey. The administrator is the person who will be the first point of contact for candidates and raters taking the survey in the case of any queries. The system will automatically input the name of the account holder, but this can be changed. Admin Email This is the email address of the administrator for this survey. The system will automatically input the email address of the account holder, but this can be changed. Expiry Date This is the date that access for each candidate and rater completing the assessment will expire. Please ensure that you allow enough time for the assessments to be completed. The expiry date can be changed at a later date. Once all of the above information has been entered, click on the ‘continue’ button to go to STEP 2 of the survey set up. Please note that these survey details can be changed once the survey has been set up by going to ‘my surveys’ and clicking on the ‘Survey Manager’ button for the survey you want to access.

STEP 2 – SELECTING COMPETENCIES From the Competency Library, select the competencies (maximum of 10) you want to assess in this survey and use the large arrow to move them to the right. Alternatively, you may prefer to use either the Generic10™ template or the Leadership template by selecting this option from the template menu (see Image 3.27). You can use the left and right arrows to select and deselect competencies to use in this survey. Click the information button by each competency for a competency description. Once you have made your selection decisions click the ‘continue’ button.

Image 3.27 – PROFILE:MATCH® 360° - Competency Library

STEP 3 – OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Each PROFILE:MATCH® 360° survey can include a number of selected Open-ended Questions (OEQs) or Extra Questions constructed by the survey manager. These are both optional extras.

Image 3.28 – Open-ended questions (OEQs)

After selecting ‘next’ you will be asked if you want to include open-ended questions to gain further information about the candidate. By selecting no, you will be taken straight to STEP 4. If you choose yes, you will be given the opportunity to overwrite or omit the question relating to each competency (see Image 3.29). Please note, answers to OEQs will only be included in the P:M360™ Coaching Report and not in the Feedback Report.

Image 3.29 – OEQs - yes

If you wish to include your own question, click on the ‘overwrite’ button to clear the space and enter your alternative question. Using the ‘default’ button will show the default competency question. Click the ‘omit’ button if you do not wish to include an OEQ for a particular competency. When you are finished, click the ‘continue’ button. STEP 4 – EXTRA QUESTIONS You can choose to give raters the opportunity to add more general comments about the candidate’s performance by asking Extra Questions (see Image 3.30). Again, responses to these questions will only appear in the P:M360™ Coaching Report, and not in the Feedback Report.

Image 3.30 – Extra Questions

After selecting ‘continue’ you will be asked if you want to include extra questions to gain further information about the candidate. By selecting no, you will be taken straight to STEP 5. If you choose yes, you will be given the opportunity to select which questions you wish to include. Once you have chosen your questions, click ‘continue’. STEP 5 - SURVEY SUMMARY The setup process has now been completed and this screen shows a summary of the details of your survey (see Image 3.31). Once all of the details are correct you can print this summary by selecting ‘print’ in the bottom right hand corner. When you click the ‘continue’ button you will move on to the ‘Add Candidates’ page. If you would like to edit any of the survey details, click on STEP 1, STEP 2 or STEP 3 or STEP 4 above to go back to this section to edit. Please note that these survey details can be changed once the survey has been set up by going to ‘my surveys’ and clicking on the ‘Survey Manager’ button for the survey you want to access.

Image 3.31 – Survey summary

ADDING CANDIDATES AND RATERS Adding Candidates To add candidates to the survey simply enter their name and e-mail address. You can add up to 50 candidates per survey. Tick the ‘Manage Raters’ option if you want the candidate to manage his or her own raters. This means that the candidate will select their own raters when they log into the PsyKey assessment system to take the assessments. Alternatively, if you would prefer to manage the raters on the candidate’s behalf, you do not need to select the ‘Manage Raters’ option. When you have entered each candidate’s details, click on the ‘Add’ button. Even if you choose for the candidate to manage their own raters, you will still be able to monitor rater progress and view rater details in the ‘Survey Manager’.

Image 3.32 – Add candidates

Both candidates and raters are emailed their instructions by the PROFILE:MATCH® system. The candidate email includes unique login details required to complete the assessments. If the candidate is adding their own raters, instructions explaining how to do this will automatically be sent to each candidate as you add them to the survey (see below). Dear Brian Arrangements have been made for you to complete the following two assessments online: PROFILE:MATCH® PROFILE:MATCH® 360 Quick Guide to PsyKey Online Assessments 1) Click on this link http://www.psy-key.com/PM360/ 2) If prompted, please enter the details below. Access code: 11-10075 User Name: brian@cottonsocks.com Password: WHo76unP2 3) Follow the on-screen instructions Each Assessment should take between 10 to 20 minutes so please ensure that you have sufficient time to devote to uninterrupted completion. In the unlikely event that you encounter any error messages when taking a test please visit our online FAQs at: http://www.psy-key.com/help/ Kind regards PsyKey Administration

When you have added all your candidates, click the ‘continue’ button to finish. If you are also managing raters for any of the candidates, you will be taken to the page where you can add raters.

Editing Candidate Details You can edit a candidate’s name, email address and whether they are managing their own raters by using Survey Manager; simply click on the ‘Edit’ symbol to the left of the candidate’s name. Once you have made any changes, click on the ‘save’ button. You can delete candidates by clicking on the ‘delete’ button. Please note that you can add additional candidates and edit candidate details once the survey has been set up by going to ‘my surveys’ and clicking on the ‘Survey Manager’ button for the survey you want to access. Adding Raters Please note, if you have chosen to manage raters for any candidate you will need to follow the instructions below. If all candidates are managing their own rater they will receive instructions to add raters when they login to complete their assessments. Even if the candidate is managing their own raters, you can still add raters yourself. If you selected for all of your candidates to manage their own raters you will be directed straight to the Survey Manager. If you have chosen to add the raters yourself, by clicking ‘continue’ you will be taken to the page where you can chose to add raters for each candidate (see Image 3.33).

Image 3.33 – Add raters

For each candidate, add raters to the survey by clicking on the ‘Add Rater’ button. An instruction email, with the rater’s unique login details to complete the assessments will automatically be sent to each rater as you add them to the survey (see below). When you have added the raters, click the ‘continue’ button to finish. Please note that you can add additional raters and edit rater details once the survey has been set up by going to ‘my surveys’ and clicking on the ‘Survey Manager’ button for the survey you want to access.

Dear Trudie Brian has requested that you complete the PROFILE:MATCH速 360 assessment. This process will provide Brian with feedback on their behaviour and the way that they actually perform in relation to job competencies. This electronic questionnaire will allow you to provide on-line confidential feedback. Your feedback, along with the other raters, will be entered into a personal report that will be given to Brian. When completing this assessment please be as open and honest as possible - your responses will be anonymous*. At the end of the assessment you may be asked open ended questions. It is very important that your comments are constructive so please think carefully about your responses. It is important that your online feedback is provided as soon as possible. If you are unable to complete this assessment or if you have any questions or concerns, please could you notify Brian immediately. Login to complete the assessment 1) Click on this link (or type into your browser) http://www.psy-key.com/PM360/ 2) If prompted, please enter the details below. Access code: 11-10075 User Name: trudie@cottonsocks.com Password: EPw27cvX5 3) Follow the on-screen instructions This Assessment should take between 10 to 20 minutes so please ensure that you have sufficient time to devote to uninterrupted completion. In the unlikely event that you encounter any error messages when taking a test please visit our online FAQs at: http://www.psy-key.com/help/ *Please note that manager ratings may not be anonymous. Kind regards PsyKey Administration

SURVEY MANAGER When you have completed setting up your survey, and have added candidates and raters (if required) you will be taken to Survey Manager. You can also access Survey Manager by going to the 360 homepage and clicking on ‘my surveys’. Then click Survey Manager next to the survey you want to access (see Image 3.34). Surveys are stored as ‘Archived’ or ‘Active’. You can change this by clicking on the ‘Archive’ or ‘Active’ buttons.

Image 3.34 – Survey Manager

Survey Manager allows you to manage your surveys and your candidate, you have the options to do the following: View and edit survey information Use Survey Manager to view survey details, candidate information and rater information. 1. To view the Survey Name, Company Name, Admin Name, Admin Email and the expiry date, click on the ‘Edit’ button next to the survey. 2. Edit details and click ‘save’. View and edit candidate information If you want to edit a candidate’s details or view rater information, click on the Edit button next to the candidate. If you want to delete a candidate, click on the Delete button next to the candidate. When a candidate registers to complete the assessments, they will be given the option to enter their Age, Gender and Ethnicity. These details will be shown in the Candidate Admin Area (see below).

Send Group Email You can send a message to all or some of your candidates by clicking on ‘Send Group Email’. You then need to select the recipient(s) of the email by clicking each candidate’s box, then write your message in the space provided and send. You may want to send a message reminding candidates to complete an assessment or to add more raters etc. Status PM This is the status of the PM assessment and shows whether the assessment is ‘Not Started’, ‘Pending’ or ‘Complete’. Manage Raters If this option was selected when the survey was set up, each candidate will manage their own raters. If this option is not selected, you will need to add raters for your candidates. Please note that even if a candidate is managing their own raters, you will still be able to view rater information and add new raters. Raters This is the number of raters that have been added for each candidate. To view rater information you will need to click on the ‘Edit’ button by each candidate. Re-send Candidate Instruction Email Click on the ‘Email’ button to re-send the Candidate Instruction Email. This contains the unique login details required by the candidate to complete the assessments and instructions about identifying raters (if the candidate is adding their own raters).

Candidate Admin Area Clicking on the ‘Edit’ button next to the candidate will take you to the Candidate Admin Area. Add Raters You can add raters, in the ‘Add a rater’ section at the bottom of the Candidate Admin Area. An instruction email, with the rater’s unique login details will automatically be sent to each rater as you add them to the survey. View and edit rater information View or edit rater information by clicking on the ‘Edit’ button next to the rater. Click on the ‘Delete’ button to delete a rater. When a rater registers to complete the assessment, they will be given the option to enter their Age, Gender and Ethnicity. These details will be shown in the Rater Admin Area. Status 360 This is the status of the P:M360 assessment taken by the candidate and shows whether the assessment is ‘Not Started’, ‘Pending’ or ‘Complete’.

GENERATE REPORTS AND VIEW SAVED REPORTS Generate reports When Candidates have completed the survey you need to: 1. From Survey Manager, click on ‘Generate Report’ (see Image 3.35) 2. Choose to generate a Feedback Report or a Coaching Report (only available to those with confirmed experience or training) (see Image 3.36) 3. Select the raters to be included in the report - you need to ensure that you have at least three Raters in each cateogory (apart from managers, where you can have two Raters). 4. Click the ‘Generate’ button to generate the report and you will be taken to a page where you can download your pdf report. IMPORTANT: Reports will only be saved on the system for one month. Please make sure you save reports to your desktop.

Image 3.35 – Survey Manager

Image 3.36 – Generate report

View saved reports Once reports have been generated you can view them on your account for one month: 1. From Survey Manager, click on ‘Saved Reports’. 2. Click on the report that you want to view to access the PDF report.

SECTION 6 - JOB ANALYSIS SUrVEY (JAS) The Job Analysis Survey (JAS) is a job analysis questionnaire designed to assist you in choosing your competencies. The questionnaire should be completed by people who have a particular interest in this appointment or who know the job role well. This would include people who do the job, line managers, people who recruit for the role etc. The JAS allows you to sample these views about what is considered most critical for success in this role. The questionnaire contains 110 statements about characteristics that may improve performance in any given job role. It usually takes between 15-20 minutes to complete. People taking the questionnaire need to rate how important they consider each characteristic to be for effective performance in the job they are rating. The characteristics are all generally desirable but, when completing the JAS raters need to prioritise and to identify those aspects that they feel are really essential for someone to perform well. It is important to remember that although the JAS is designed to assist in identifying key competencies, the results should be reviewed carefully to make your final selection. Clients should consider the competencies that are rated most highly and make their final decisions about priorities within the context of all the other information they have about the role. A summary of the Job Analysis tool can be found by clicking on the Job Analysis section (blue box) on the main homepage (see Image 3.37). Use of this service is currently FREE to all registered PROFILE:MATCH® users. It is accessed by clicking on the “P:M Job Analysis” link in the menu on the left of your ‘My Account’ page.

FImage 3.37 - Job analysis page

SETTING UP A JAS To set up a JAS project, go to My Account and click on ‘P:M Job Analysis’. Here you will find an introduction to the JAS and instructions for setting up a survey. To create a Job Analysis survey template you need to click on ‘Create Template’ shown at the bottom of the page. You can also view templates that you have already created by clicking on ‘My Templates’ shown at the bottom of Image 3.38.

Image 3.38 – Job analysis

You will then need to enter a JAS Template Name, a Job Title, the name of your organisation, your Admin Name, your Admin Email, the Expiry Date and your Access Code. When you click ‘Save Template’ a PsyKey Guide will be sent to your email address. This explains what participants have to do to access the JAS and to complete it online. You should forward this PsyKey Guide to all the people you would like to complete the JAS questionnaire.

Image 3.39 – JAS template setup

MANAGING A JAS You can monitor what is happening as your participants complete the JAS by clicking on ‘P:M Job Analysis’ in the list found on the left-hand side of your page. You then need to click on ‘My Templates’ to view your participants’ progression (see Image 3.40). As each contribution is received, details will appear in the table shown in Image 3.40.

Image 3.40 – JAS template progress

The ‘Completed’ column shows how many participants have been requested to complete the questionnaire and how many have completed it. By clicking on the Edit symbol in the ‘Edit’ column you can be reminded of your Admin Name, your Expiry Date and your Access Code for each individual template. When the questionnaires have been completed, the suggested competences resulting from the reponses can be viewed by clicking on the symbol shown in the ‘Results’ column (see Image 3.40).

Image 3.41 – JAS progress

To generate the Job Analysis Report you then need to select at least one respondent from the list shown in Image 3.41 and then click ‘continue’. You will then be allowed to download the Report in PDF format, as seen in Image 3.42.

Image 3.42 – JAS report generation

In the Job Analysis Report, all the PROFILE:MATCH® competencies will be listed in order of priority, along with the total number of ‘votes’ awarded by your raters to each competency during the project, as shown in Image 3.43. You can now use this as a guide to choosing your competencies in your PROFILE:MATCH® templates.

Image 3.43 – JAS report

CHAPTER 4 MATCH:UP™ USER GUIDE INTRODUCTION This guide is intended to be used by an individual planning their personal development and should be viewed alongside their own PROFILE:MATCH® Personal Development Report. MATCH:UP™ is an interactive personal development utility designed to make effective use of all the information in your PROFILE:MATCH® Personal Development Report. MATCH:UP™ will help you to harness the positive aspects of your temperament, as well as improving and developing the way that you manage other less favourable aspects. There are four parts to this programme: Part 1: Goal Setting Part 2: Strategy Part 3: Clearing the Decks Part 4: Implementation As you work through this programme, you will need to move backwards and forwards, cycling between these four parts as you build your own Personal Development Plan. For the tasks ahead you will need to refer to your own PROFILE:MATCH® Personal Development Report.

Image 4.1 – Homepage

THE MATCH:UP™ HOMEPAGE: When you have signed in to the MATCH:UP™ site you will be greeted by the homepage (see Image 4.1). This will tell you more about the role of MATCH:UP™. From here you can click on the links on the left hand side of the page (see Image 4.1) to access the different parts of the MATCH:UP™ programme, or you can log out of the site.

PART 1: GOAL SETTING To start your MATCH:UP™ programme, simply click on “Part 1: Goal Setting” on the left hand side of the homepage (see Image 4.1).

Image 4.2 - Part 1: Goal Setting

The aim of this section is to help you to familiarise yourself with your Personal Development Report and to decide what Personal Development Goals you will set yourself. On this first page you will be asked to select the competencies that you wish to consider for further development (see Image 4.3 below). You can then save these, and click “next” to continue.

Figure 3 – Task 1

On the following page you will be asked to look up the competency descriptions of those you have selected in your Personal Development Report and consider yourself against the characteristics involved in each competency. For Task 2 (see Image 4.4) you will need to click on each of the competencies listed in turn and write down any potential development points.

Image 4.4 – Task 2

When you click on a competency, a separate window will open up in which you can type your answer for Task 2 (see figure 5 below). You can then click “save” and close the window.

Image 5

You will need to do the same for both Task 3 and Task 4. Task 3 requires you to write down any skills, knowledge, training or experience that may contribute to your performance for each competency. And for Task 4 you will need to identify specific Personal Development Goals for each of the competencies. Please ensure that you click on “save” each time to ensure that none of your answers are lost. When you have completed Task 4, click on each of the competencies in turn and click “print” at the bottom of the pop-up window then click on “[close window]” (see figure 5). Now click “next” and proceed to the next page. Please note that you must answer all of the questions before you will be allowed to continue.

PART 2: STRATEGY This section will introduce you to the four fundamental strategies advocated in the MATCH:UP™ programme: A: Building on strengths, B: Extending your comfort zone, C: Compensating and working around, and D: Reining in excesses. You will be given the opportunity to consider how they might help you achieve your Personal Development Goals established at the end of Part 1. For each of the following tasks you will be asked to select one of your chosen competencies from the drop-down box to discuss further (see Image 4.6). To view a case study with an example of each strategy in action simply click “[Read case study…]” next to the appropriate heading.

Image 4.6 – Part 2: Strategy

A: Building on strengths This page is concerned with the importance of recognising your natural talents. Task 5 asks you to select from the drop-down box one of the competencies you have targeted and to identify your strengths in this competency, and how you might exploit them further (see Image 4.7). Once you have completed Task 5, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed.

Image 4.7 – Task 5

B: Extending your comfort zone On this page you will learn about the advantages of extending your comfort zone. Task 6 asks you to select one of the competencies you targeted in which you feel your performance is neither especially good nor bad, and to identify how you might extend your comfort zone in this competency (see Image 4.8). Once you have completed Task 6, click on “save” and then “next” to continue.

Image 4.8 – Task 6

C: Compensating and working around This page explains the importance of developing compensatory skills as a strategy to cope with areas where you might not show much natural aptitude. For Task 7 you will need to select one of the competencies, note down which characteristic in particular you might struggle with, and consider how you could work around it (see Image 4.9 below). Once you have completed Task 7, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed.

Image 4.9 – Task 7

D: Reining in excesses On this page you will learn about how strong personality characteristics and favoured strategies could cause you problems, and how important it is to be aware of these potential pitfalls. Task 8 asks you to select a competency and identify a characteristic or strategy related to this competency which might become counterproductive (see Image 4.10). Once you have completed Task 8, click on “save” and then “next” to continue.

Image 4.10 – Task 8

On the next page you will need to complete Task 9 (see Image 4.11 below). This involves establishing Development Goals for each of the competencies you selected in Task 1, and choosing from the drop-down box which strategy would be appropriate to achieve each goal. You can click on “[Click here for an example]” to get an idea of what you should write. If you have more than one Development Goal per competency simply click on “+ add development goal” under the appropriate table (see Image 4.11). Once you have completed Task 9, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed to Part 3: Clearing the Decks.

Image 4.11 – Task 9

PART 3: CLEARING THE DECKS In this part of the MATCH:UP™ programme you will be reviewing your attitudes, habits and values to ensure that they do not interfere with the success of your Personal Development Plan. To read an example of how changing values can affect someone simply click on “[Read case study]” (see Image 4.12).

Image 4.12 – Part 3: Clearing the decks

Attitudes In Task 10 (see Image 4.13) you will need to consider each Development Goal and note down any attitudes that might prevent you from achieving it, revise the goal if you feel it necessary, and decide whether or not the goal is still important to you. Once you have completed Task 10, click on “save” and then “next” to continue.

Image 4.13 – Task 10

Habits On the next page you will need to complete Task 11 (see Image 4.14). This will involve considering each Development Goal in turn and noting down any habits, assumptions or expectations that might interfere with your goal success, revising the goal if you feel it necessary, and deciding whether or not the goal is still important to you. Once you have completed Task 11, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed.

Image 4.14 – Task 11

Values In Task 12 (see Image 4.15) you will need to consider how your values might interfere with the success of your Personal Development Plan. First you will need to write down the names of 6 people with whom you share common interests, aspirations or ideals, which will help you to consider what values and principles are most important to you. You will then be asked to identify any values which might impede your goal success, revise the goal if you feel it necessary, and decide whether or not the goal is still important to you. Once you have completed Task 12, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed to Part 4: Implementation.

Image 4.15 – Task 12

PART 4: IMPLEMENTATION In this final part of the MATCH:UP™ programme you will be finalising your Personal Development Plan and monitoring your progress.

Image 4.16 – Part 4: Implementation

A: Prioritising Your first activity, Task 13, is to decide on the order in which you will implement your Development Goals (see Image 4.17 below). Once you have completed Task 13, click on “save” or “print” if you wish to have a copy of it, and then “next” to proceed to the following page.

Image 4.17 – Task 13

B: Behavioural Targets In this section you will need to consider what specific behaviours you should exhibit more often in order to succeed in your Development Goals. For Task 14 you will need to devise specific Behavioural Targets for each Development Goal, that is, what particular activities you will carry out in order to reach your ultimate goal (eg. “To have at least one verbal exchange with each person in my office before 9.30 am”).

Image 4.18 – Task 14

C: Feedback and Self-monitoring This section explains the importance of monitoring your progress and offers advice on how to do this. For Task 15 you will need to create your own daily observer record sheets which you can either give to someone you have asked to observe your behaviour, or fill out yourself for aspects that only you yourself can observe. Simply click on “+ Create New Record Sheet” (see Image 4.19) to open up a new page in which you can customise a new record sheet (see Image 4.20).

Image 4.19 – Task 15

Simply type in the observer’s name and the task they will carry out, and when you select the Development Goal their task relates to, your Behavioural Target established in Task 14 will automatically appear. Once you are happy with your new record sheet, click on “save” then “ok” to return to the previous page. On this page you can create more record sheets by clicking on “+ Create New Record Sheet”, edit those you have already created by clicking on the name of a particular record sheet, or print one by clicking on “[print record sheet]” next to the name of your chosen record sheet (see Image 4.19). You can then give a copy of the record sheet to the relevant observer so that they can easily log their observations of your behaviour. Once you are happy with your record sheets, click on “next” to proceed to the next section of the programme.

Image 4.20 – Create Record Sheet

D: Establishing baselines In this section MATCH:UP™ will help you to establish the current level for your Behavioural Targets – the baseline against which future progress will be measured - in order to ensure tangible evidence that progress is being made. For Task 16 (see Image 4.21) you will first need

to decide how you will establish your baseline for each Behavioural Target, perhaps you will need to set up an observation period so that someone can judge your performance, or maybe you already know your current level, either way you will need to write this under “First baseline arrangements”. Then once you have carried out the arrangements and have established your baseline for each Behavioural Target, simply note it down in the table, click on “save” and “next” to proceed to the following page.

Image 4.21 - Task 16

E: Setting time lines This section requires you to consider how long you will allow yourself to achieve your goals and how often you will ask your observers to rate your performance. Task 17 (see Image 4.22) asks you to write down how much time you will need to achieve each Behavioural Target, as well as when your observers will monitor your behaviour, and how often they will provide feedback. Once you have completed this, click on “save” and “next” to proceed to the next page.

Image 4.22– Task 17

F: Summary Sheets You have now arrived at the final page of the MATCH:UP™ website. All that is left for you to do is to start implementing the Goal Strategies and Behavioural Targets you have established, monitor your progress, and enjoy seeing significant improvements in your personal performance. As you go along you can log your observers’ comments on the appropriate summary sheets (see figure 23), save them, and print them for your records. By doing this you will be able to keep a close eye on your progress, and decide when you feel you have succeeded in your Development Goals.

Image 4.23 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Summary Sheets

Remember you can go back and create additional Summary Sheets as required simply by creating new observer record sheets in Task 15. See Image 4.24 below for an example of what a summary sheet might look like.

Image 4.24 - Example Summary Sheet

CHAPTER 5 MATCH:UP 360™ USER GUIDE INTRODUCTION This guide is intended to be used by an individual planning their personal development and should be viewed alongside their own PROFILE:MATCH® 360º Feedback Report. MATCH:UP 360™ is an interactive personal development utility designed to make effective use of all the information in your PROFILE:MATCH® 360º Feedback Report. MATCH:UP 360™ will help you to harness the positive aspects of your temperament, as well as improving and developing the way that you manage other less favourable aspects. There are four parts to this programme: Part 1: Goal Setting Part 2: Strategy Part 3: Clearing the Decks Part 4: Implementation As you work through this programme, you will need to move backwards and forwards, cycling between these four parts as you build your own Personal Development Plan. For the tasks ahead you will need to refer to your own PROFILE:MATCH® 360º Feedback Report.

Image 5.1 – Homepage

The MATCH:UP 360™ Homepage: When you have signed in to the MATCH:UP 360™ site you will be greeted by the homepage (see Image 5.1). This will tell you more about the role of MATCH:UP 360™. From here you can click on the links on the left hand side of the page (see Image 5.1) to access the different parts of the MATCH:UP 360™ programme, or you can log out of the site.

PART 1: GOAL SETTING To start your MATCH:UP 360™ programme, simply click on “Part 1: Goal Setting” on the left hand side of the homepage (see Image 5.1). The aim of this section is to help you to familiarise yourself with your 360º Feedback Report and to decide what Personal Development Goals you will set yourself. On this first page you are presented with a checklist of sections of your report that you should read, and of points to consider with relation to each competency discussed in your 360º Feedback Report (see Image 5.2). Please note that you must tick each of the boxes in order to progress to the next page.

Image 5.2 – Part 1: Goal Setting

Following this you will be asked to select the competencies that you wish to consider for further development (see Image 5.3 below). You can then save these, and click “next” to continue.

Image 5.3 – Task 1

On the following page you will be asked to look up the competency descriptions of those you have selected in your 360º Feedback Report and consider yourself against the characteristics involved in each competency. For Task 2 (see Image 5.4) you will need to click on each of the competencies listed in turn and write down any potential development points.

Image 5.4 – Task 2

When you click on a competency, a separate window will open up in which you can type your answer for Task 2 (see Image 5.5 below). You can then click “save” and close the window.

Image 5.5

You will need to do the same for both Task 3 and Task 4. Task 3 requires you to write down any skills, knowledge, training or experience that may contribute to your performance for each competency. And for Task 4 you will need to identify specific Personal Development Goals for each of the competencies. Please ensure that you click on “save” each time to ensure that none of your answers are lost. When you have completed Task 4, click on each of the competencies in turn and click “print” at the bottom of the pop-up window then click on “[close window]” (see Image 5.5). Now click “next” and proceed to the next page. Please note that you must answer all of the questions before you will be allowed to continue.

PART 2: STRATEGY This section will introduce you to the four fundamental strategies advocated in the MATCH:UP 360™ programme: A: Building on strengths, B: Extending your comfort zone, C: Compensating and working around, and D: Reining in excesses. You will be given the opportunity to consider how they might help you achieve your Personal Development Goals established at the end of Part 1. For each of the following tasks you will be asked to select one of your chosen competencies from the drop-down box to discuss further (see Image 5.6). To view a case study with an example of each strategy in action simply click “[Read case study…]” next to the appropriate heading.

Image 5.6 – Part 2: Strategy

A: Building on strengths This page is concerned with the importance of recognising your natural talents. Task 5 asks you to select from the drop-down box one of the competencies you have targeted and to identify your strengths in this competency, and how you might exploit them further (see Image 5.7). Once you have completed Task 5, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed.

Image 5.7 – Task 5

B: Extending your comfort zone On this page you will learn about the advantages of extending your comfort zone. Task 6 asks you to select one of the competencies you targeted in which you feel your performance is neither especially good nor bad, and to identify how you might extend your comfort zone in this competency (see Image 5.8). Once you have completed Task 6, click on “save” and then “next” to continue.

Image 5.8 – Task 6

C: Compensating and working around This page explains the importance of developing compensatory skills as a strategy to cope with areas where you might not show much natural aptitude. For Task 7 you will need to select one of the competencies, note down which characteristic in particular you might struggle with, and consider how you could work around it (see Image 5.9 below). Once you have completed Task 7, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed.

Image 5.9 – Task 7

D: Reining in excesses On this page you will learn about how strong personality characteristics and favoured strategies could cause you problems, and how important it is to be aware of these potential pitfalls. Task 8 asks you to select a competency and identify a characteristic or strategy related to this competency which might become counterproductive (see Image 5.10). Once you have completed Task 8, click on “save” and then “next” to continue.

Image 5.10 – Task 8

On the next page you will need to complete Task 9 (see Image 5.11 below). This involves establishing Development Goals for each of the competencies you selected in Task 1, and choosing from the drop-down box which strategy would be appropriate to achieve each goal. You can click on “[Click here for an example]” to get an idea of what you should write. If you have more than one Development Goal per competency simply click on “+ add development goal” under the appropriate table (see Image 5.11). Once you have completed Task 9, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed to Part 3: Clearing the Decks.

Image 5.11 – Task 9

PART 3: CLEARING THE DECKS In this part of the MATCH:UP 360™ programme you will be reviewing your attitudes, habits and values to ensure that they do not interfere with the success of your Personal Development Plan. To read an example of how changing values can affect someone simply click on “[Read case study]” (see Image 5.12).

Image 5.12 – Part 3: Clearing the decks

Attitudes In Task 10 (see Image 5.13) you will need to consider each Development Goal and note down any attitudes that might prevent you from achieving it, revise the goal if you feel it necessary, and decide whether or not the goal is still important to you. Once you have completed Task 10, click on “save” and then “next” to continue.

Image 5.13 – Task 10

Habits On the next page you will need to complete Task 11 (see Image 5.14). This will involve considering each Development Goal in turn and noting down any habits, assumptions or expectations that might interfere with your goal success, revising the goal if you feel it necessary, and deciding whether or not the goal is still important to you. Once you have completed Task 11, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed.

Image 5.14 – Task 11

Values In Task 12 (see Image 5.15) you will need to consider how your values might interfere with the success of your Personal Development Plan. First you will need to write down the names of 6 people with whom you share common interests, aspirations or ideals, which will help you to consider what values and principles are most important to you. You will then be asked to identify any values which might impede your goal success, revise the goal if you feel it necessary, and decide whether or not the goal is still important to you. Once you have completed Task 12, click on “save” and then “next” to proceed to Part 4: Implementation.

Image 5.15 – Task 12

PART 4: IMPLEMENTATION In this final part of the MATCH:UP 360™ programme you will be finalising your Personal Development Plan and monitoring your progress.

Image 5.16 – Part 4: Implementation

A: Prioritising Your first activity, Task 13, is to decide on the order in which you will implement your Development Goals (see Image 5.17 below). Once you have completed Task 13, click on “save” or “print” if you wish to have a copy of it, and then “next” to proceed to the following page.

Image 5.17 – Task 13

Image 5.18 – Task 14

C: Feedback and Self-monitoring This section explains the importance of monitoring your progress and offers advice on how to do this. For Task 15 you will need to create your own daily observer record sheets which you can either give to someone you have asked to observe your behaviour, or fill out yourself for aspects that only you yourself can observe. Simply click on “+ Create New Record Sheet” (see Image 5.19) to open up a new page in which you can customise a new record sheet (see Image 5.20).

Image 5.19 – Task 15

Simply type in the observer’s name and the task they will carry out, and when you select the Development Goal their task relates to, your Behavioural Target established in Task 14 will automatically appear. Once you are happy with your new record sheet, click on “save” then “ok” to return to the previous page. On this page you can create more record sheets by clicking on “+ Create New Record Sheet”, edit those you have already created by clicking on the name of a particular record sheet, or print one by clicking on “[print record sheet]” next to the name of your chosen record sheet (see Image 5.19). You can then give a copy of the record sheet to the relevant observer so that they can easily log their observations of your behaviour. Once you are happy with your record sheets, click on “next” to proceed to the next section of the programme.

Image 5.20 – Create Record Sheet

D: Establishing baselines In this section MATCH:UP 360™ will help you to establish the current level for your Behavioural Targets – the baseline against which future progress will be measured - in order to ensure tangible evidence that progress is being made. For Task 16 (see Image 5.21 below) you will first need to decide how you will establish your baseline for each Behavioural Target, perhaps you will need to set up an observation period so that someone can judge your performance, or maybe you already know your current level, either way you will need to write this under “First baseline arrangements”. Then once you have carried out the arrangements and have established your baseline for each Behavioural Target, simply note it down in the table, click on “save” and “next” to proceed to the following page.

Image 5.21 - Task 16

E: Setting time lines This section requires you to consider how long you will allow yourself to achieve your goals and how often you will ask your observers to rate your performance. Task 17 (see Image 5.22) asks you to write down how much time you will need to achieve each Behavioural Target, as well as when your observers will monitor your behaviour, and how often they will provide feedback. Once you have completed this, click on “save” and “next” to proceed to the next page.

Image 5.22– Task 17

F: Summary Sheets You have now arrived at the final page of the MATCH:UP 360™ website. All that is left for you to do is to start implementing the Goal Strategies and Behavioural Targets you have established, monitor your progress, and enjoy seeing significant improvements in your personal performance. As you go along you can log your observers’ comments on the appropriate summary sheets (see Image 5.23), save them, and print them for your records. By doing this you will be able to keep a close eye on your progress, and decide when you feel you have succeeded in your Development Goals.

Image 5.23 – Summary Sheets

Remember you can go back and create additional Summary Sheets as required simply by creating new observer record sheets in Task 15. See Image 5.24 below for an example of what a summary sheet might look like.

Image 5.24 - Example Summary Sheet

CHApTEr 6 SCAlE dESCrIpTIONS & STATISTICS Nearly 4000 PROFILE:MATCH® reports have been generated over the past four years, some 3000 of these in automated form over the internet in the past year. This experience has provided the data needed to verify the measurement characteristics of the system, the coherence and reliability of the resulting competency ratings and the relationship of these ratings to performance, assessment centre data, and other personality measures.

MEASurEMENT QuAlITy Of THE COMpETENCy rATINGS PROFILE:MATCH® generates equal interval competency ratings over a 15 point scale. In effect, these are standard scores that reflect the fine incrementation of the underlying psychometrics. Using the results from a talent identification study we conducted with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC), the distribution characteristics of these competency ratings were investigated with particular reference to normality. In the case of all seven HMRC competencies, the distribution of ratings was close to normal. The illustration below shows the distribution of overall ratings for 1557 participants in the Central Region HMRC sample. figure 6.1 - frequency distribution of PROFILE:MATCH® competency ratings in HMrC sample n=1557

Description of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales Underlying the measurement for the PROFILE:MATCH® system are the items contained in the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank. The core of this item bank contains personality test items structured around the taxonomy of the Five Factor Model (FFM). In the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank, each of the FFM scales has been divided into two on rational grounds in order to meet the requirements of the algorithmic processes that generate competency ratings. This is a pragmatic strategy intended to add to the scale interaction possibilities required to pursue the combination (vs fragmentation) strategy for scale interpretation. It is our contention that granulation in personality descriptions should be possible by recombining FFM elements, and that this is a better alternative than to proliferate scales or facets. Better, because it reflects the inferential nature of self-report personality assessment, and it means that inferences are based on far more data than is the case when new scales, based on homogenous item groups, are devised. The latter approach tends towards more literal and transparent personality assessment. The resulting structure of the scales is as follows: PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale FFM related dimension 1. Self-esteem

Emotional Stability

2. Composure

Emotional Stability

3. Sociable

Extraversion

4. Assertive

Extraversion

5. Sensitive

Agreeableness

6. Dependent

Agreeableness

7. Compliant

Conscientiousness

8. Perfectionistic

Conscientiousness

9. Imaginative

Openness/Culture

10. Studious

Openness/Culture

Self-esteem This scale is concerned with an individual’s self-esteem and the extent to which they are self-confident, upbeat and optimistic - or, conversely, are self-conscious, vulnerable and apprehensive. There is considerable evidence from personality research that the self-esteem construct overlaps substantially with Emotional Stability (Robins, Hendin & Trzesniewski, 2001; Keller, 1999; Graziano et al, 1997; Kwan et al, 1997; Jackson & Gerard, 1996; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; Costa et al, 1991). Typical correlations range from 0.70 to 0.39 with a weighted average of 0.61 (Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Gosling & Potter, 2001). Self-confidence and optimism are major themes in the interpretation of Adjustment/Neuroticism scales and these themes broadly define the first part of the FFM Emotional Stability dimension. Because they probably assume that other people will respond positively to them, high scorers are likely to be at ease with themselves, relaxed and self-assured. They should have few doubts about the value of their own views or their ability to communicate their ideas. They will probably

assume that others will be interested in what they have to say and they will not be afraid to voice their opinion or to make a contribution to a discussion. Extreme high scores may indicate that the individual is so at ease and self-confident that they may come across as smug, opinionated or arrogant. Low scorers on this scale are likely to be self-critical, mistrustful of others, generally worried, anxious and unsure of themselves. Because such people probably assume that others are not interested in what they have to say, they may dread being the centre of attention, and would probably worry about giving presentations or addressing a group. Very low scorers may at times be socially incapacitated by a fear of being embarrassed or making a fool of themselves.

Composure This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are even-tempered, unemotional and remain calm and steady in the face of change or the unexpected - or, conversely, display their emotions and react passionately to events. High scorers will be even-tempered and will generally take life’s ups and downs in their stride. They will seem comparatively calm in situations that unsettle most other people and their colleagues will appreciate their consistency of mood and their predictability. They will seem sensible and practical in their response and are unlikely to over-react to situations. Very high scorers may be so unreactive and placid that they may appear unconcerned or unaware of other people’s sensitivities – especially in dealing with the problems of others who are more emotional and who may be looking for empathy rather than for reasoned action plans. Low scorers on this scale are likely to feel strongly about things, to be intense in their desires and to be passionate and enthusiastic about any issues that engage them – whether in a positive or a negative way. Such people don’t cope well with disappointment, have difficulty in hiding the way that they feel and it is likely to be obvious to others when they disapprove, are apprehensive, or are irritated by or surprised about anything. Extremely low scorers will be rather intense and easily disturbed by events. They are likely to be more variable and unpredictable in their moods and may at times be touchy, irritable and difficult to deal with.

Sociable This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are outgoing, gregarious, and attracted towards opportunities for social interaction - or, conversely, are self-sufficient, happy with their own company and relieved to get away from the social scene. High scorers will have a need for company, for social interaction and for attention. They will especially enjoy working in a team situation and may be limited in the extent to which they can work in isolation. Such people are typically seen as friendly, talkative and engaging and they may also be socially competent. They enjoy being the centre of attention and like to think of themselves as socially skilled and entertaining.

Very high scorers are likely to have a very strong desire for the company of others and to be capable of relentless socialising. Such people are extravert and may seem overbearing and verbose in some situations, perhaps demanding too much attention from others. Although some low scorers on this scale may be socially skilled and able to work effectively with others, especially if the realisation of their ambitions requires it, in general low scorers will relish opportunities to be on their own. They will probably be quite reserved and self-contained, even though they may contribute well in a team situation. Such people tend to prefer a more restrained social life involving a small stable group of people and can feel uncomfortable if required to operate in more socially demanding situations. Their reticence means that they are unlikely to engage in behaviours that draw attention to themselves and would probably prefer to maintain a low social profile. Very low scores may indicate that the individual prefers their own company. They may be quite solitary by nature and reluctant to be drawn into settings where they need to interact with others on any regular basis.

Assertive

This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are determined to make their mark, are achievement oriented, competitive, assertive and energetic - or, alternatively, are relaxed, easy going and difficult to energise, other than in current areas of interest. High scorers have the desire to improve their position â&#x20AC;&#x201C; whether or not they are confident in their abilities (as assessed by the Self-esteem scale), and are very active and are uncomfortable when they are not occupied. They are opportunistic and persistent in pursuit of their goals and enjoy competitive situations and the opportunity to put their talents to the test. Their energy and ambition is likely to be reflected in their determination to raise their game and to address or compensate for any weaknesses that they are aware of to do what is necessary to succeed. Extreme high scorers may be so focused on getting ahead in life that their commitment may be towards their individual career goals rather than to their organisation. Such people will be planning the next steps in their rise to the top. Low scorers are leisurely and laid-back, or may be focused more on the content of their job than on advancing their status. They are likely to be relaxed and not particularly assertive or competitive. Some low scorers may well be concerned about advancing their knowledge and their expertise but others will be content to drift along while others are simply content with their job status and have no desire for further advancement. Very low scores suggest that the individual will be uncompetitive and may be reluctant to exert themselves. Unless they are getting something fulfilling from their role, they may be lethargic and difficult to enthuse. Their careers are likely to drift according to opportunities that present themselves, rather than to follow a considered plan.

Sensitive This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are warm, friendly, approachable, sympathetic, forgiving, tolerant and concerned about others - or, conversely, are more remote, cold, aloof, intolerant of othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; shortcomings and more task than people focused.

High scorers are considered to be people persons and will be warm, and friendly. Their demeanour will be open and receptive. They will smile easily and readily demonstrate their interest in others during conversations. Their approachability and concern for others will be evident in a sympathetic countenance and their forgiving and tolerant nature. Such individuals like people, are good listeners and enjoy putting their people skills into practice. They are generally liked by their colleagues who may be inclined to share worries and concerns with them. Depending on their social skills, they may seem empathic and quite engaging. Extreme high scorers are people for whom showing concern for others and expressing sympathy for others will be very important. Such people may sometimes let their concern for others interfere with accomplishing what needs to be done from an organisational perspective. Low scorers will not immediately appear friendly. They may even appear cold and distant at times. Their focus tends to be much more on their work or the specific tasks rather than on the needs and concerns of others. They do not appear to have a very positive disposition towards other people in general and may seem rather indifferent to the needs or sensibilities of others, perhaps believing that individuals should resolve their own problems without turning to others for help. Such people often seem unsympathetic, unforgiving and may be intolerant of or irritated by othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; shortcomings. They are reluctant to work closely with others and may not be very effective working in teams. They are not very interested in listening to others, unless they already know them well or have a specific reason to communicate with them. Very low scorers may seem aloof and difficult to get to know. They may have a generally low opinion of people or simply not be very interested in/ attracted to others. Such people have little time for anything but the most purposeful and functional communications, do not engage in small talk and probably do not suffer fools gladly.

Dependent This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals have a strong desire to be popular, are concerned about having harmonious relationships with others and are disinclined to criticise others or disagree with them - or, conversely, are outspoken, unconcerned about disagreeing with people, more able to live with conflict and openly express their personal point of view. High scorers are people for whom popularity and consensus will be very important. Such people dread being unpopular and may avoid contentious points of view or any form of conflict. Depending on their level of achievement-orientation, their need to be liked may make it difficult for such people to manage others or to address performance or disciplinary issues. Very high scorers may have difficulty deciding what their own views are and in making decisions. They may use extended processes of consultation to avoid the personal responsibility of making a final decision. Mid-range scorers should come across as socially appropriate, neither abrasive nor sycophantic. Able to present unpopular or controversial views, or deal with sensitive issues, but without seeming confronting. Low scorers are their own person and will not easily compromise their point of view. They are likely to be forthright in their views and be unconcerned about unsettling people by expressing views that may be in conflict with them. They may well be respected for this degree of independence and, in some cases, for the ability to stand their ground.

Extreme low scores suggest someone who is very independent in their views and not easily influenced by peer/ group pressures or by fashionable opinions.

Compliant This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are conforming, obedient, anxious to comply with rules, expectations and procedures - or, conversely, are individualistic, autonomous, unconventional, risk taking and non-conforming. High scorers make very good corporate citizens. They may be fairly restrained and cautious and will want to align themselves with the values of the organisation. They are therefore very accepting of the established procedures and readily conform to codes of conduct. Such people are reluctant to confront their managers and will usually take the establishment view. Extreme high scorers would be uncomfortable challenging corporate values and may be resistant to any sweeping changes. They would always be on the side of evolution rather than revolution. Low scorers are more impulsive and spontaneous. These are people who are individualistic in their outlook and who are irritated or dismissive about petty rules and regulations. They are more than happy to embrace change and enjoy alterations and diversions from routine. Such people expect the right to challenge established procedures and will readily confront the powers that be when they feel things are ineffective or unjust. Very low scorers may be quite difficult to supervise within any structured organisation. The sanctity of their individualism will always be more important to them than the organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rules and procedures. They will work best as entrepreneurs, sole traders or within a creative environment where individualism is a rite of passage.

Perfectionistic This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are thorough, planful, organised, attentive to detail and concerned about the quality of the detail of their work - or, conversely, are careless and disorganised or concerned that provisions should be sufficient rather than optimal. High scorers are very thorough and concerned to do everything to a high standard. They take pride in their work, pay careful attention to detail and are organised people with a high respect for craftsmanship. They will be offended by work that they consider to be careless or casual with the result that, at times, their products (whether services or physical entities) are often overengineered and costly. Such people will have difficulty in working approximately even when, as at the beginning of a project, rough outlines may be desirable. They may seem rather inflexible and fussy about their work and how it should be done. Extreme high scorers reflect high personal standards that may make such people critical of subordinates and difficult to please. Because they feel that few can be trusted to ensure the high quality that they demand of themselves, they have difficulty in delegating and tend to micromanage subordinates. They may also seem very rigid and set in their ways. Low scorers may well be concerned that tasks should be done as well as is appropriate, but are unlikely to be interested in the detailed finish. They are likely to place more emphasis on the big picture objectives of a task and whether they have been adequately met rather than worrying about whether the detail is correct. While they have a more flexible and adaptable approach to their work they are also likely to be less disciplined about how their work is organised.

Very low scores may indicate a casual regard for quality and a reluctance or lack of vigilance about meeting required standards but also a high degree of openness to different and new ways of doing things.

Imaginative This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are curious, questioning, imaginative and full of ideas but easily bored - or, conversely, are accepting, have narrow interests and can cope with repetitive routines. High scorers will be seen as bright, interesting and as making an important contribution to workplace problem resolution and innovation. They will be curious about the way things work (processes and procedures as well as appliances and mechanisms), and will always be prepared to question whether they are optimal for the purpose in hand. Such people are continually running â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;what ifâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; scenarios through their minds and considering alternative solutions. They have wide interests, enjoy discussing and debating issues and may become jaded if tasks are narrow and repetitive. Extreme high scorers will continually be seeing new perspectives on issues and may have so many ideas and interests that they have difficulty making decisions. Low scorers have a more practical outlook, being more inclined to focus on an immediate workable solution to a problem rather than enjoying weighing up the pros and cons of various alternative solutions. They tend to be unquestioning and accepting of the processes and procedures that define their work role. They are likely to have narrow interests and to be unadventurous in trying new things. Such people cope well with repetitive routines and may have little expectation that work will be stimulating or challenging. Very low scorers may follow work procedures well but will not want to rely on their own initiative in defining their contribution. They will probably be predictable and content to work at repetitive tasks.

Studious This scale is concerned with the extent to which individuals are prepared to subject themselves to the discipline of learning from others, whether they want to know a subject, to research issues and decisions and enjoy learning for its own sake - or, conversely, whether they are the sort of person who wants to find things out for themselves, are unreceptive to teaching or to advice, value learning only as a means to an end, may know a little about everything, and develop opinions and make decisions without thoroughly researching the issues. High scorers are likely to be life long learners, to have some current area of interest where they either read in depth or have a formal educational commitment. They are knowledge oriented and intuitively get into research mode in relation to work and life decisions. They probably use the internet, or more traditional reference resources, on a frequent basis to learn what they can about a topic of interest â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially before making decisions. This may embrace restaurant, book or theatre reviews, consumer information or travel guides. Generally, they are the kind of people who will want to stay up-to-date with developments in their field and who will make decisions on a solid basis of knowledge. High scorers will want to be informed and in a work context this is likely to mean that they will spend time preparing for meetings or researching topics of relevance to their work.

Extreme high scorers probably have multiple qualifications and have wide interests but may be too concerned to always do things ‘by the book’ and may also be intolerant of others’ lack of knowledge or understanding. Low scorers may not be immediately attracted to learning. They may well be bright, intelligent people who nevertheless have difficulty in submitting themselves to the disciplines of formal learning – except as a means to an end. Their disposition will be to acquire sufficient knowledge rather than to possess complete mastery of a subject. Such people may find it difficult to accept instruction from others except under ideal conditions or with inspirational teachers. They probably prefer to learn on the job or by experience. They will not naturally be vigilant about keeping abreast of developments in their field and may be prepared to rely on general rather than specific knowledge to impress others. Very low scorers may be quite resistant to formal learning and be proud of any achievements gained ‘doing it their way’. They are likely to have a strong preference for ‘street smarts’ over formal qualification and may have some aversion to being advised by others.

Item construction & item analysis Development of the items for the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank took place between 2004 and 2005.

Phase 1 The first tranche of 125 items was trialled with 198 graduate applicants between June and November 2004. At this point there were 20 Self-esteem & Composure items, 17 Assertive, 14 Sociable, 15 Sensitive & Dependent, 14 Compliant & Perfectionistic, 13 Imaginative, 10 Studious, and 12 Consistency items (the Consistency scale being a check on the validity of the responses rather than a personality scale per se) plus 8 additional trial items covering the realms of Sensitive & Dependent and Studious. After calculating alpha coefficients for each scale and item scale correlations, 17 items were substituted across the scales. This revised set of 125 items was used in Phase 2.

Phase 2 From December 2004 to May 2005 Phase 2 of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank was trialled with 975 graduate applicants. The 125 items contained items being scored against the main scales plus some additional items that were being trialled to see if they had superior item characteristics. Again alpha coefficients and item scale correlations were calculated for each scale and every item. After this analysis we removed 3 items from the Self-esteem & Composure scale, we removed one item from the Sensitive & Dependent scale and replaced it with one of the additional trial items, the Studious scale also had one item replaced, and the Consistency scale had two items removed. These items formed the basis of the questionnaire used in Phase 3 with additional trial items being replaced over time so that they covered all the 10 scales of the questionnaire.

Phase 3 Between May and September 2005 additional items were trialled for all 10 scales plus the Consistency scale in a rolling programme that cycled through Imaginative, then Studious, then Compliant & Perfectionistic and Sensitive & Dependent, then Self-esteem & Composure and

Assertive, then Studious again, and finally Sociable and the Consistency scale. The total number of test administrations carried out in this period was 1135. At the end of this phase we had a test with 7 major scales, 3 of which were composite scales and which had the following internal consistency reliabilities: 1. Self-esteem & Composure composite, 20 items, alpha .75 (sample n=255) 2. Assertive, 17 items, alpha .70 (sample n=255) 3. Sociable, 14 items, alpha .74 (sample n=675) 4. Sensitive & Dependent composite, 15 items, alpha .67 (sample n=152) 5. Compliant & Perfectionistic composite, 14 items, alpha .70 (sample n=152) 6. Imaginative, 13 items, alpha .72 (sample n=289) 7. Studious, 14 items, alpha .72 (sample n=60) 8. Consistency, 10 items, alpha .63 (sample n=71)

Phase 4 At this point we decided to split the remaining composite scales – Self-esteem & Composure, Sensitive & Dependent, and Compliant & Perfectionistic – and to write additional items for these scales. The result was a 206 item questionnaire that was initially trialled with 127 working adults. At the end of Phase 4 we had a 206 item test with the properties shown in Table 6.1.

Measurement Quality of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale Statistics The statistical properties of the scales in the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank are shown below in the various tables.

PROFILE:MATCH® scale statistics Table 6.1 lists the number of items per scale, the mean score for each scale and its standard deviation. All 10 personality scales are listed here plus the Consistency scale which checks for inconsistent or careless responding. Table 6.1 - PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale means and SDs SCALES

No. items

Mean

Self-esteem

14.54

5.01

Composure

11.26

4.65

Sociable

10.65

4.50

Assertive

11.62

4.48

Sensitive

15.66

2.99

Dependent

8.44

3.71

Compliant

8.80

3.23

Perfectionistic

13.14

4.22

Imaginative

9.91

3.24

Studious

12.26

3.17

Consistency

9.53

0.66

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=477 to 507

Table 6.2 - Intercorrelations between PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales at the scale level SCALES

Selfesteem

Composure

Sociable

Assertive

Sensitive

Dependent

Compliant

Pefectionistic

Imaginative

Studious

Self-esteem

.81**

.21*

.36**

.25**

-.20*

-.10

.06

-.11

.12

.34**

.27**

-.10

.04

-.11

.22**

.57**

.10

-.28**

-.13

.05

.11

.17*

-.01

-.49**

-.23**

.10

.21*

.25**

.28**

.08

.05

-.04

.01

.32**

-.07

-.15

-.09

.31**

-.41**

.11

-.25**

.12

Composure Sociable Assertive Sensitive Dependent Compliant Perfectionistic Imaginative

.15

Studious

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=140

Table 6.2 shows the intercorrelations between the 10 personality scales of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank. The intercorrelations between the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales are mostly in the expected direction in that most of the scales find their highest correlation with the scale that relates to the same Five Factor dimension. For example, Self-Esteem has its highest correlation with Composure, and Assertive has its highest with Sociability. Table 6.3 - Intercorrelations between PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales when rescored as FFM composites SCALES

FFM-EMO

FFM-EXT

FFM-AGR

FFM-CON

FFM-CUL

FFM-EMO

.31**

.04

-.02

.04

.29**

-.05

.27**

.13

-.12

FFM-EXT FFM-AGR FFM-CON

-.16

FFM-CUL

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=140 FFM-EMO=Five Factor dimension Emotional Stability measured by Self-Esteem & Composure FFM-EXT=Five Factor dimension Extraversion measured by Sociable & Assertive FFM-AGR=Five Factor dimension Agreeableness measured by Sensitive & Dependent FFM-CON=Five Factor dimension Conscientiousness measured by Perfectionistic & Compliant FFM-CUL=Five Factor dimension Culture measured by Imaginative & Studious

Intercorrelations were also calculated between the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales once they were re-scored in their Five Factor pairs. Table 6.3 shows the results and while there are some significant correlations between some of the different Five Factor scales none of them are of a size to indicate that any scale is redundant.

Table 6.4 - Factor analysis of the PROFILE:MATCH速 item bank scales SCALES

Factor 1-

Factor 2-

Factor 3-

Factor 4-

Factor 5-

Self-esteem

.91

Composure

.93

Sociable

.87

Assertive

.80

Sensitive

.89

Dependent

.61

Compliant

.75

Perfectionistic

.76

Imaginative

.35

Studious

.93

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=127 FACTOR LABELS: ES=Emotional Stability; E=Extraversion; A=Agreeableness; C=Conscientiousness; O=Openness

A Principal Components Analysis with a Varimax rotation, specifying 5 factors, was performed on the data from a sample of 127 working adults who had completed the questions in the PROFILE:MATCH速 item bank. The results are shown above in Table 6.4 and clearly support the expected Five Factor solution for the 10 personality scales in the core PROFILE:MATCH速 item bank. Table 6.5 - Factor analysis of the PROFILE:MATCH速 item bank scales (Woods, 2009) SCALES

Factor 1-

Factor 2-

Factor 3-

Factor 4-

Factor 5-

Self-esteem

.90

Composure

.94

Sociable

.90

Assertive

.79

Sensitive Dependent Compliant

-.35 .85

-.33

-.46

.63 .42

.66

Perfectionistic

.89

Imaginative

-.53

Studious

.64 .89

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=252 FACTOR LABELS: ES=Emotional Stability; E=Extraversion; A=Agreeableness; C=Conscientiousness; O=Openness

Subsequently, an independent factor analysis has been carried out by Woods (2009) as part of his study comparing a number of work-related personality inventories. Although an initial Principal Components Analysis indicated a four factor solution that when rotated displayed cross-loadings that deviated from our proposed five factor structure, when five factors were specified in the Principal Components Analysis a very similar result was obtained to the one carried out by us. The results of this second factor analysis are shown in Table 6.5.

AddITIONAl SCAlES – bEyONd THE fIvE fACTOr MOdEl rATIONAl SCAlE The Rational scale is the latest inclusion to the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank. This scale is concerned with the extent to which an individual approaches situations in a detached, rational and logical way. High scorers will prefer evidence over opinion and research to intuition. They frequently probe the proposals of others to find weaknesses in their arguments. Rational individuals are likely to enjoy this process of critical review and debating ideas with others. Low scorers will be open to many sources of influence, ranging from the arts to superstition and the mystical. They are more likely than high scorers to emphasise fate and luck in their understanding of things and, in some cases, to use commonly understood rituals as a safeguard against these influences.

STATISTICS Data was collected from 200 individuals that had completed the PROFILE:MATCH® questionnaire with the inclusion of the 15 Rational scale items. The Rational scale mean, its standard deviation and its internal consistency (alpha coefficient) are displayed in Table 6.6, whilst a histogram showing the normal distribution of the Rational scale is depicted in the image below. Table 6.6 - rational Scale mean, standard deviation and alpha coefficient (r) No. items

Mean

200

8.29

3.38

.76

figure 6.2 - Histogram highlighting the distribution of the rational scale n= 200

Group Differences Differences in the average scale scores between groups of interest that had taken PROFILE:MATCH® were examined. These were: Females and Males; Whites and Non-Whites; and those aged under 40 and those aged 40 and over. Data for this comes from the 2010 Total Sample norm group dataset (see Appendix).

Females and Males Examination of the average scores on each of the 10 primary PROFILE:MATCH® scales shown in Table 6.7 uncovered some differences between genders. Females scored lower than males on Self-Esteem and Composure. These scales both relate to the Five Factor Model’s (FFM) Neuroticism. This finding is consistent with the literature on gender differences in FFM scores. For example a study by Costa, Terracciano and McCrae (2001) with a participant sample of 23,031 from 26 different countries found females to score higher than males on Neuroticism. Table 6.7 - Means, standard deviations and sample sizes by gender Female

Male

Scale

Mean

S.D

Mean

S.D.

Assertive

11.10

4.30

3345

12.88

4.00

3160

Compliant

9.57

3.28

3298

9.32

3.35

3173

Composure

11.42

4.77

3287

13.37

4.02

3185

Dependent

8.64

3.65

3027

7.34

3.28

2904

Imaginative

9.17

3.22

3266

9.20

3.05

3100

Perfectionistic

14.18

4.19

3031

14.39

4.00

2861

Self-esteem

14.57

5.00

3048

16.47

4.21

2998

Sociable

10.38

4.35

3049

10.87

4.29

2909

Sensitive

16.33

3.12

3077

15.87

2.93

2999

Studious

12.34

3.15

2725

12.99

2.97

2719

No real differences were evident between genders on Sociable, however, males appeared to score higher than females on Assertive. This finding supports previous work by Costa et al. (2001), showing males to score higher than females on the Assertiveness facet of the Extroversion domain of the NEO PI-R. Looking at the PM scales that relate to Agreeableness, no real gender differences were apparent in the Sensitive scale. However, females scored higher on the Dependent scale. This is consistent with the Costa et al. (2001) study, which showed females to score higher on Agreeableness. Interestingly, the subdivision of the FFM Agreeableness factor adopted in PROFILE:MATCH® (split into Sensitive and Dependent) appears to isolate this gender difference within the Dependent part of the factor.

Whites and Non-whites Individuals not describing themselves as ‘White’ were coded as ‘Non-White’ for the purpose of the analysis. This was due to small sample sizes in the specific ethnicity groups and a larger combined group provided a more substantial sample for comparison with the White group. Looking at the mean scores for Whites and Non-Whites in Table 6.8, there were three scales for

which non-whites scored comparatively higher than whites. These were Assertive, Dependent and Perfectionistic. Table 6.8 - Means, standard deviations and sample sizes by ethnicity Whites

Non-Whites

Scale

Mean

S.D

Mean

S.D.

Assertive

11.05

4.44

942

12.47

3.85

245

Compliant

8.44

3.54

950

9.07

2.89

245

Composure

11.32

4.81

948

11.56

4.28

245

Dependent

7.57

3.67

909

9.22

3.31

215

Imaginative

9.17

3.34

937

9.88

2.84

245

Perfectionistic

12.24

5.20

872

14.77

3.80

245

Self-esteem

14.44

5.13

932

13.96

4.34

224

Sociable

10.04

4.37

921

10.87

4.25

215

Sensitive

14.66

4.48

920

15.41

2.61

215

Studious

11.88

3.34

853

12.60

2.97

223

The remaining scales showed minimum differences between the two groups. It is important to note that the size of the Non-White sample is relatively small, ranging from 215 to 245 and these differences may become less pronounced as this sample increases. Another point to make is that ethnicity is an optional field in the PROFILE:MATCH速 registration page and many respondents have left this field blank. The total sample is composed of 5,445 to 6,506 individuals depending on the scale, whilst the total number of this group that gave their ethnicity details ranged from 1,076 to 1,195.

Under 40 years of age and 40 years of age and over There was only one notable difference found on scores between the two age groups (see Table 6.9), with those under 40 having a higher mean score on the Sociable scale compared to those 40 or over. This finding is consistent with personality literature (e.g. McCrae, Costa, Ostendorf, Angleitner, Hrebickova, Avia et al., 2000) and was in fact the only difference found between those under 40 and those 40 or above in a UK sample on scores for a similar scale (Sociability) on the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hyde and Trickey, 1997). Table 6.9 - Means, standard deviations and sample sizes by age Under 40

40 & Above

Scale

Mean

S.D

Mean

S.D.

Assertive

11.05

4.44

942

12.47

3.85

245

Compliant

8.44

3.54

950

9.07

2.89

245

Composure

11.32

4.81

948

11.56

4.28

245

Dependent

7.57

3.67

909

9.22

3.31

215

Imaginative

9.17

3.34

937

9.88

2.84

245

Perfectionistic

12.24

5.20

872

14.77

3.80

245

Self-esteem

14.44

5.13

932

13.96

4.34

224

Sociable

10.04

4.37

921

10.87

4.25

215

Sensitive

14.66

4.48

920

15.41

2.61

215

Studious

11.88

3.34

853

12.60

2.97

223

CHAPTER 7 RELIABILITY & VALIDITY Reliability Internal Consistency Reliability The PROFILE:MATCH® item bank is structured around ten themes rooted in the taxonomy of the Five Factor Model. This ensures a balanced coverage of underlying temperament and creates the narrower elements required for the algorithmic transformations. Alpha coefficients for these ten themes range from 0.70 to 0.86, with an average alpha of 0.79. Table 7.1 - Internal consistency reliability of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale

PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale

Self-Esteem

0.86

127

Dependent

0.79

127

Composure

0.85

127

Compliant

0.71

127

Sociable

0.85

127

Perfectionistic

0.82

127

Assertive

0.85

127

Imaginative

0.70

127

Sensitive

0.72

127

Studious

0.72

127

Test-Retest Reliability A group of 38 people answered the questions in the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank twice. The interval between test administrations was at least 4 weeks. The results are given for each scale in the table below. The average test-retest reliability was very high at 0.84. Table 7.2 - Test-retest reliability of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale

PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scale

Self-Esteem

0.84

Dependent

0.72

Composure

0.78

Compliant

0.83

Sociable

0.88

Perfectionistic

0.89

Assertive

0.83

Imaginative

0.88

Sensitive

0.89

Studious

0.86

Validity The PROFILE:MATCH® item bank was built up over several years, primarily to provide a solution for clients where personality data from applicants for specific roles in specific sectors showed little variation, even on well validated personality questionnaires (an example would be graduate applicants for a direct selling role in the recruitment sector, where almost 50% scored above the 90th percentile on a well respected Ambition scale). Items were written and trialled with

the initial objective of achieving greater discrimination at the extremes of the distribution within these relatively homogeneous populations. Item characteristics were evaluated on the basis of a minimum of 200 and up to more than 3000 administrations. However good the scale properties are for any test in terms of their item characteristics, their reliability and so on, they still have to demonstrate their utility and ability to predict non-test behaviours. The validity studies presented here attest to both the construct and the criterionrelated validity of the PROFILE:MATCH速 scales.

Criterion-related validity STUDY 1: Establishing the criterion validity of competency metrics The HMRC study mentioned earlier (Trickey & Hyde, 2005) provided an opportunity to validate the algorithms created using our expert judgement to translate Five Factor personality scales into competency measurement i.e. the competency metrics system that underpins PROFILE:MATCH速. In this study we were tasked with finding a way to assess seven HMRC competencies that captured their definition of talent within the organisation. Using a Five Factor personality test and collecting data from 3000 participants we were able to define algorithms (i.e. blends and differential weightings of Five Factor scales) that successfully measured performance on the 7 competencies. The final versions of the algorithms were validated against a sample of 53 participants who had been rated as either high or low performers by their managers. These personality scale algorithms achieved highly statistically significant correlations in the expected direction against the various performance ratings i.e. the higher the competency metric score the higher the performance rating. All correlations between algorithmic competency metrics and rated performance across all 7 competencies are shown below in Table 7.3. In addition, we found that the higher performers had both a higher score on the Signature Total Rating (this was a composite score of all competencies, with competencies Relationship Management and Results Focus having a double weighting each) plus more competencies rated above average by their managers. Table 7.3 - Correlations between competency metrics, as measured by personality algorithms, and performance at HMRC Competency metric

Correlation with performance

Number personality scales in the competency metric

Number personality scales > sig correlated with performance than competency metric

Rating on Intellectual Capability

.35*

Rating on Self-awareness

.40**

Rating on Change

.42**

Rating on Resilience

.34*

Rating on Relationship Management

.46***

Rating on Inspirational

.36**

Rating on Results Focus

.36**

Signature Total Rating

.47***

n/a

No. Competencies Rated > Average

.49***

n/a

Composite scores

* p <.05 ** p < .01 *** p <.001 N=53

We also used these results to compare the differential efficacy of single personality scales versus Competency Metrics in terms of predicting performance at work. The third column of Table 7.3 indicates how many personality scales contribute to each of the 7 Competency Metrics and the final column says how many of these personality scales had a stronger correlation with job performance than the associated competency metric measurement. For most of the competencies only 1 scale was more predictive than the competency metric, and most significantly, no single personality scale was more predictive than either of the composite competency metric scores (Signature Total Rating and Number of Competencies Rated Above Average) in predicting performance. This last point is important because the performance measure for the sample was based on supervisors’ ratings of overall performance – across competencies – and so one would expect it to correlate more strongly with measurements that take all of the Competency Metrics into account rather than a single competency metric. STUDY 2: Criterion validity of PROFILE:MATCH® and four other workrelated personality inventories A study by Woods (2009) compared the criterion-related validity of a number of work-related personality questionnaires, including the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales. The criterion measure was a questionnaire that recorded self-reported behavioural acts across 5 scales; these scales were (a) Friendliness (e.g. started a conversation with others), (b) Drug Use (e.g. drank alcohol to make myself feel better), (c) Undependability (e.g. arrived at an event more than an hour late), (d) Creativity (e.g. played piano or other musical instrument), and (e) Good Work Habits (e.g. spent time to improve your job-related skills). There was an additional criterion measure for stress. The other tests included in the study were the HPI, OPQ, 16PF5 and PAPI. The results are shown in Table 7.4 below. Table 7.4 - PROFILE:MATCH® criterion-related validity compared to HPI, OPQ, 16PF5 and PAPI (from Woods, 2009) CORRELATION

HPI

OPQ

16PF5

PAPI

PROFILE:MATCH®

E & Friendliness

.38**

.46**

.43**

.56**

.39**

E & Drug Use

.44**

.25*

.46**

.30**

.42**

A & Friendliness

.43**

.34**

.23**

.08

.35**

C & Undependability

.21**

.43**

.40**

.39**

.38**

C & Drug Use

.21**

.25*

.40**

.32**

.33**

C & Good Work Habits

.07

.31**

.08

.38**

.16

ES & Stress

.57**

.59**

.60**

.19*

.54**

O & Creativity

.31**

.33**

.27**

.29**

.32**

Mean

.33

.37

.36

.31

.36

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N= between 211 and 235 depending on which questionnaire FACTOR LABELS: E=Extraversion; A=Agreeableness; C=Conscientiousness; ES=Emotional Stability; O=Openness.

The correlations between the PROFILE:MATCH® scales and the criterion measures are of a very similar magnitude to those for the other tests in the table and are all as expected. The lower correlation between the Conscientiousness scales of the PROFILE:MATCH® (Compliant and Perfectionistic) with Good Work Habits compared to the OPQ can be attributed to the Achievement scale of the OPQ which measures aspects of Conscientiousness not included in either PROFILE:MATCH® or the HPI or the 16PF5 – specifically an Achievement aspect of Conscientiousness. Overall the results provide strong support for the validity of PROFILE:MATCH®

as a predictor of behaviour related to the Five Factor Model of personality. The mean criterion validity coefficient for PROFILE:MATCH® was .36, and only 1 test had a marginally higher coefficient, the OPQ at .37. STUDY 3a: The relationship between PROFILE:MATCH® assessment of competencies – Competency Metrics - and 360° ratings of competencies It is important to establish whether the competencies as measured by the PROFILE:MATCH® system (i.e. Competency Metrics) relate to observer descriptions of an individual’s performance in the same competency. The following study aimed to establish these links by investigating the relationships between competency assessment as measured by the PROFILE:MATCH® personality questionnaire and behavioural competency ratings of performance obtained from PROFILE:MATCH® 360°, linking predictions from personality to a measure of performance. Table 7.5 - Correlations between personality based Competency Metrics (from PROFILE:MATCH®) and performance based competency ratings (from P:M360™) COMPETENCY METRIC

Correlation with performance competency rating from P:M360™ r

Analytic

.15*

230

Attention to detail

.42***

132

Commitment

.06

156

Communication Skills

.21***

373

Creative

.15*

264

Customer Focus

.21***

290

Delegating

.18**

300

Decision Making

.16***

531

Developing Others

.06

493

Flexibility

.24***

322

Information Management

.23*

115

Interpersonal Skills

.14**

612

Leadership Potential

.21***

487

Motivation

.24***

288

People Management

.06

331

Persuasive Communication

.23***

299

Planning and Organising

.16***

626

Problem Solving

.20***

319

Project Management

.14*

301

Resilience

.12*

392

Results Orientation

.15**

512

Self-Confidence

.36***

142

Strategic Awareness

.11*

508

Team Orientation

.21***

323

* p <.05 ** p< .01 *** p<.001

The data was obtained from a sample of participants from various organisations, sectors and job levels. Each participant’s Competency Metric assessment was correlated with their own self-rating of their performance, as well as ratings from their direct reports, managers, peers and clients. Because of the length of the 360° questionnaire, each participant was rated on only

10 out of a possible 24 competencies. However, we allotted different sets of 10 competencies to the participants and their raters in an attempt to cover all 24. The correlations between the two methods of competency assessment are presented in Table 7.5. Overall, the findings are very positive and support the validity of the PROFILE:MATCH® instrument to measure competencies. All correlations bar three were found to be significant and there are potentially a number of reasons why this is the case. Firstly, raters may find certain competencies harder to rate than others. For example, regarding Developing Others and People Management, the most accurate rating would come for those that have direct experience of the participant’s willingness to devote time to the development of their protégées, their direct reports. Only 23% of the sample for Developing Others and 28% of the sample for People Management consisted of direct report ratings. On the same theme, it would also be easier to rate performance on these two competencies for participants in a managerial position for whom these competencies would be most relevant, whilst the participants in this study were drawn from a general professional sample. Secondly, some competencies, such as Commitment, suffered from problems with variability of scores (as reflected in a very small standard deviation), which is known to have a detrimental effect on the chances of finding a significant correlation. Thirdly, the sample size for Commitment is comparatively small; this is a particular problem for all the competencies in this study because, although the sample seems quite large (the n in Table 7.5 varies from 115 to 626 depending on the competency), this is only true for the performance rating aspect of the study because both participants AND their raters are included in the n. The number of actual participants for whom we have personality data is as low as 21 for some competencies leading to limited variability in the personality/Competency Metric data. STUDY 3b: The relative predictive power of Competency Metrics vs Personality Scales For each competency, both the Competency Metric assessment and the individual personality scales that contributed to the Competency Metric were correlated with the performance ratings from the 360 questionnaire, to determine whether the predictive quality of the composite Competency Metrics is greater than any of the individual personality scales. Results found that for the majority of the competencies (62%) this was the case. For example, Table 7.6 highlights the results of one competency, Attention to Detail, showing the enhanced predictive quality of the composite Competency Metric (.42) over the individual personality scales (.33, .29 and -.21). Table 7.6 - Attention to Detail competency: Comparison of correlations between the Competency Metric measurement and the contributing personality scale measurement with the 360° performance based rating PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT of Attention to Detail

Correlation with 360° performance competency rating

COMPETENCY METRIC PROFILE:MATCH® competency metric

.42***

CONTRIBUTING PERSONALITY SCALES Perfectionistic

.33***

Compliance

.29***

Imaginative

-.21*

* p <.05 ** p < .01 *** p<.001 N = 132

The results of this study highlight the predictive qualities of the competencies assessed by PROFILE:MATCH®, showing positive correlations between personality based competency metrics and performance for the majority of competencies. However, in concluding, there are a number of caveats to take into account: Sample Size. Although the sample sizes are in many cases more than adequate for analysis, there are relatively few participants (those being rated) in each sample, meaning there is little variability in the personality data. For example, there were 230 performance ratings for Analytic, correlated against personality data for just 33 different candidates. Rater Bias. Performance ratings may be subject to rater bias, such as the ‘Halo Effect’, whereby a rater’s positive perception of an individual’s performance in one area may influence their perception of their performance in other areas and the ‘Liking Effect’, where the extent to which raters like or dislike a participant may influence their ratings. Differential Rater Perspective. In this study we collapsed all results from all raters for each participant. Given that these raters might include subordinates, peers and line managers, one group of raters (say managers) might be cancelling out the ratings of another (say peers) as it is likely that there will be different assessments of competence from different groups of rater. This is likely to be particularly noticeable on those competencies such as People Management, where the impact of an individual’s competence may be felt and observed very differently by the various rater groups. Because we merged the data from all raters, this study presented a particularly challenging context in which to demonstrate a relationship between raters’ assessment of competence and the PROFILE:MATCH® assessment of competence. Personality. Participants with certain personality characteristics may be more likely to have higher performance ratings in general, potentially skewing the results. For example, scores on the Assertive scale (being competitive, energetic and keen to take charge) were found to be related to higher performance ratings in just under half of the competencies assessed (46%), despite not actually being directly relevant for many of these competencies. Future avenues for research could therefore include larger sample sizes for the participants, and if using 360 instruments again, having a larger rater sample so that the different rater groups could be analysed separately. Other possibilities include using other more objective measures of work-based performance. We would expect to achieve stronger relationships in studies where the performance variable was more objective than here, for example, a performance measure of sales revenue could be correlated with the Persuasive Communication competency. When data is based on objectively quantifiable aspects of performance its inherent reliability is likely to contribute to higher validity coefficients than data derived from personal opinions as used in this study. This serves to emphasise the point made above that the correlations achieved in this study are, in fact, very reassuring given the challenging context in which they have had to demonstrate their efficacy. It is also apparent that we need to seek out opportunities to collaborate with PROFILE:MATCH® users to instigate further studies.

Construct validity Three studies exploring the relationship between PROFILE:MATCH® item bank themes and other measures of the Five Factor Model of personality are presented next. STUDY 1: The relationship between PROFILE:MATCH® and the HPI The sample in Table 7.7 was a mixed group of volunteers from the working population who had taken both the PROFILE:MATCH® and the HPI. All the relationships are as expected with each PROFILE:MATCH® scale having its highest correlation with its HPI equivalent. The largest overlap is between the PROFILE:MATCH® scale of Sensitivity and HPI Agreeability (.85) while the lowest is between the PROFILE:MATCH® scale of Dependence and HPI Agreeability (.26). Table 7.7 - Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® scales and the HPI SCALES

HPI-1

Self-esteem

0.56**

Composure

0.65**

Sociable

HPI-2

HPI-3

HPI-4

HPI-5

HPI-6

HPI-7

0.76**

Assertive

0.75**

Sensitive

0.85**

Dependent

0.26

Compliant

0.70**

Perfectionistic

0.47**

Imaginative

0.46**

Studious

0.55**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=50 HPI Scales: 1 = Adjustment, 2 = Ambition, 3 = Sociability, 4 = Agreeability, 5 = Prudence, 6 = Intellectance, 7 = Scholarship.

Table 7.8 - Viewing the relationships against FFM factor space PROFILE:MATCH® item bank composite scales

HPI-1

Self-esteem & Composure

0.65**

Sociable & Assertive Sensitive & Dependent Compliant & Perfectionistic Imaginative & Studious

HPI-2&3

HPI-4

HPI-5

HPI-6&7

0.86** 0.63** 0.70** 0.51**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=50

Using the same sample as before we collapsed the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank scales into 5 composite scales aligned with the FFM and also collapsed those HPI scales that divide up the FFM dimensions of Extraversion and Openness/Culture, and then re-ran the intercorrelations. Again, all the relationships are as expected with each PROFILE:MATCH® item bank composite scale having its highest correlation with its HPI-FFM equivalent. The largest overlap is between the PROFILE:MATCH® composite scale of Sociable and Assertive which correlates with extraversion as measured by the composite of HPI Ambition and Sociability at .86. The smallest relationship is between the composites that load on to the Openness/Culture factor of the FFM i.e. PROFILE:MATCH® item bank composite Imaginative & Studious correlates at .51 with the HPI composite of Intellectance & Scholarship.

STUDY 2: The relationship between PROFILE:MATCH® and the Big-Five Factor Markers A sample of 872 people answered all the core personality items in the PROFILE:MATCH® scales as well as 50 items from the Big-Five Factor Markers questionnaire (Goldberg, 1999) available via IPIP (International Personality Item Project). The Big-Five Factor Markers are defined as follows: Factor 1 is Extraversion Factor 2 is Agreeableness Factor 3 is Conscientiousness Factor 4 is Emotional Stability Factor 5 is Openness/Culture Table 7.9 - Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® scales and the Big-Five Factor Markers SCALES

Factor 4 Emotional Stability

Factor 1 Extraversion

Factor 2 Agreeableness

Factor 3 Conscientiousness

Factor 5 Openness/ Culture

Self-esteem

.79**

.43**

.13**

.27**

.20**

Composure

.77**

.26**

.09**

.35**

.17**

Sociable

.08*

.68**

.14**

-.04

.16**

Assertive

.26**

.59**

.04

.22**

.28**

Sensitive

.37**

.19**

.47**

.12**

.08*

Dependent

-.18**

(-.39**)

.03

-.07*

-.35**

Compliant

.10**

-.09**

.14**

.39**

-.10**

Perfectionistic

.23**

.05

.09**

.79**

.02

Imaginative

-.26**

.09**

.05

-.26**

.46**

Studious

.27**

.24**

.16**

.34**

.46**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=872

Scores on the 10 PROFILE:MATCH® scales were then correlated with scores on the Five Factor Markers and the results are presented in Table 7.9 above. Our predictions were that Assertiveand Sociable should have their highest correlation with Factor 1, that Sensitive and Dependent should have their strongest relationship with Factor 2, that Perfectionistic and Compliant should be most strongly correlated with Factor 3, that the scales Self-esteem and Composure should have their highest correlation with Factor 4, and that Imaginative and Studious should relate most strongly to Factor 5. In fact this was the case for 9 out of 10 possible correlations, providing strong evidence for the construct validity of the PROFILE:MATCH® item bank. The one clear exception was that the Dependent scale that did not have its largest correlation with Factor 2, nor did it have a significantly positive correlation with Factor 2. In fact the largest correlation between Dependent and the Five Factor markers was a negative correlation of -.39** with Factor 1, Extraversion (or Surgency). Clearly the introduction of the Dependent element of Agreeableness is a new departure in the Five Factor framework but it is an important differentiator of human behaviour. Looking at the relationship between Dependence and other scales in the P:M item bank we can see that the biggest overlap is a negative correlation of -.51** with Assertive. This, together with the relationship with Factor 1, supports the hypothesis that the Dependent scale assesses people who are more likely to acquiesce, to comply with others’ wishes, to

please others. Having this distinction between the Dependent aspect of Agreeableness and the caring, interested in people, sensitive side assessed by Sensitive, enables us to describe people as being both assertive and interpersonally sensitive, a combination that certainly does happen in practice. Without the dependent aspect of personality it can be impossible to say whether an individual would be both sensitive and assertive or sensitive and acquiescent – we would argue that this additional facet of Agreeableness introduced by the PROFILE:MATCH® item scales enables us to make a more insightful and more accurate assessment of an individual’s personality. STUDY 3: Convergent validities between PROFILE:MATCH® and four work-related personality inventories PROFILE:MATCH® has been the subject of a study by Woods (2009) in which it and four other work-related personality inventories were related to each other along Five Factor dimensions. This process evaluated the convergent validities of these instruments and, overall, the results provided strong support for the measurement characteristics of these questionnaires in relation to the Five Factor Model i.e. the convergent validities, or overlap, between the scales of the various tests when aligned along Five Factor dimensions were mostly in the expected direction and of a significant magnitude. For example, the PROFILE:MATCH® Assertive scale has a mean correlation of .41 with the other 19 scales included in this study that all relate to the Extraversion factor of the FFM. Indeed, Woods concludes that “The results indicate acceptable levels of convergence between the work-related scales from this study that purport to measure similar traits” (Woods, 2009). The other tests in the study were the HPI, the OPQ, the 16PF5 and the PAPI. The correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and each of these tests are shown in Table 7.10 through to Table 7.13. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that only PROFILE:MATCH® and the HPI were specifically created using the Five Factor Model as their underlying taxonomy. Woods (2009) has mapped the scales of the OPQ, PAPI and 16PF5 onto the Five Factor Model using the frameworks suggested in the OPQ Big Five Technical Supplement (Bartram & Brown, 2005), the PAPI manual (Anderson & Lewis, 1998), and in the case of the 16PF5, in a book chapter on measuring the Big Five using the 16PF5 (Hofer & Eber, 2002). Clearly, there is a less than perfect fit between the scales of these three tests and the Five Factor Model; one example of this, noted by Woods (2009) is the inclusion of an achievement theme in the scales of the OPQ and PAI that are purported to be related to the Big Five construct of Conscientiousness. This theme does not appear at all in those scales measuring Conscientiousness in PROFILE:MATCH®, the HPI, or the 16PF5. Hence there are a number of very low correlations between the Compliant and Perfectionistic scales of PROFILE:MATCH® and those scales of the OPQ and PAPI associated with the achievement theme, e.g. OPQ Vigorous and Achieving and PAPI Need to Achieve. (a) PROFILE:MATCH® and OPQ The relationships between the OPQ scales that map onto the Big Five and the scales of PROFILE:MATCH® are shown in Table 7.10 below. Overall there are a number of strong and significant relationships in the expected direction. For example, people who score high on the OPQ scale Worrying are very likely to score low on both the Self-esteem and Composure scales of PROFILE:MATCH®, while those who score high on OPQ Relaxed are also very likely to score high on the Self-esteem and Composure scales of PROFILE:MATCH®. In the Extraversion theme, the Assertive scale on PROFILE:MATCH® has a correlation of .75 with OPQ Controlling, while PROFILE:MATCH® Sociable correlates .68 with OPQ Outgoing. The differential pattern of relationships between the two PROFILE:MATCH® scales relating to Extraversion and the way that they relate to the OPQ scales of Extraversion provide support for the way in which PROFILE:MATCH® splits these two scales. Additionally, in the Agreeableness factor, the

PROFILE:MATCH® scale Dependent has a very strong relationship (-.62) with OPQ Independent Minded, providing more support for the inclusion of this second theme in the PROFILE:MATCH® assessment of Agreeableness. The relationships between both the PROFILE:MATCH® scales for Conscientiousness - Compliant and Perfectionistic - and the relevant OPQ scales clearly show that those OPQ scales associated with the achievement theme (Vigorous, Forward Thinking and Achieving) have little or no relationship with Conscientiousness as measured by PROFILE:MATCH®, while the more traditional scales of Conscientiousness and Detail Conscious have strong correlations with the PROFILE:MATCH® scales. In the Openness factor, we can see strong relationships as expected between PROFILE:MATCH® Imaginative and OPQ Innovative, Conventional (negatively), Conceptual and Variety Seeking. OPQ Conceptual also has a fairly strong relationship with PROFILE:MATCH® Studious. The only places where an OPQ scale does not achieve a correlation of .30 or greater with either of the relevant PROFILE:MATCH® scales for each of the Five Factors are the three scales previously mentioned in the Conscientiousness factor, plus OPQ Behavioural with PROFILE:MATCH® Studious and Imaginative. The OPQ Behavioural scale assesses whether people enjoy analysing the motives and behaviour of others or, at the other extreme, tend not to question people’s behaviour. While there is an analytical theme to this scale which one might hypothesise should be related to the Openness factor of the FFM, there is not an obviously strong overlap between the two. There are, perhaps, elements of trust or suspicion or even feelings towards other people rather than focusing on the analytical, problem solving behaviour which is more commonly associated with Openness, perhaps accounting for the low correlations with PROFILE:MATCH® Studious and Imaginative. Table 7.10 - Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and OPQ scales aligned with the Five Factor Model EMOTIONAL STABILITY

OPQ Worry

OPQ Relax

OPQ TghMi

OPQ SoCon

OPQ Opt

PM Self-esteem

-.50**

.66**

.55**

.51**

.60**

PM Composure

-.48**

.61**

.60**

.34**

.47**

EXTRAVERSION

OPQ Pers

OPQ SoCon

OPQ Out

OPQ EmCon

OPQ Cont

OPQ Affil

PM Assertive

.45**

.50**

.54**

-.23**

.75**

.25**

PM Sociable

.31**

.45**

.68**

-.42**

.33**

.58**

AGREEABLENESS

OPQ Caring

OPQ Demo

OPQ IndMin

OPQ Trust

OPQ Comp

PM Dependent

.23**

.27**

-.62**

.05

-.26**

PM Sensitive

.55**

.41**

-.34**

.41**

-.25**

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

OPQ Conscie

OPQ DetCo

OPQ Vig

OPQ FoThi

OPQ Ach

PM Compliant

.22**

.38**

.08

.27**

-.03

PM Perfectionistic

.61**

.72**

.17*

.22**

.07

OPENNESS

OPQ Innov

OPQ Conven

OPQ Conce

OPQ VarSe

OPQ Behav

PM Studious

.27**

-.18**

.33**

.21**

.14*

PM Imaginative

.45**

-.43**

.56**

.36**

.28**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=216 OPQ SCALE LABELS: Worry=Worrying; Relax=Relaxed; TghMi=Tough Minded; SoCon=Socially Confident; Opt=Optimism; Pers=Persuasive; Out=Outgoing; EmCon=Emotionally Controlled; Cont=Controlling; Affil=Affiliative; Demo=Democratic; IndMind=Independent Minded; Trust=Trusting: Comp=Competitive; Conscie=Conscientious; DetCo=Detail Conscious; Vig=Vigorous; FoThi=Forward Thinking; Ach=Achieving; Innov=Innovative; Conven= Conventional; Conce=Conceptual; VarSe=Variety Seeking; Behav=Behavioural

(b) PROFILE:MATCH® and 16PF5 Noteworthy relationships in the expected direction between the 16PF5 and PROFILE:MATCH® include negative 16PF5 Apprehension and positive 16PF5 Emotional Stability with both PROFILE:MATCH® scales that relate to Emotional Stability, 16PF5 Social Boldness correlating positively with both PROFILE:MATCH® Assertive and Sociable, 16PF5 Liveliness with PROFILE:MATCH® Sociable, 16PF5 Dominance correlating negatively with PROFILE:MATCH® Dependent, 16PF5 Rule consciousness with PROFILE:MATCH® Compliant, 16PF5 Perfectionism with PROFILE:MATCH® Perfectionistic, and 16PF5 Openness to Change with PROFILE:MATCH® Imaginative and Studious. There were no strong correlations between the 16PF5 scales associated with the Agreeableness factor of the FFM and the PROFILE:MATCH® Sensitive scale; we would suggest that the 16PF5 scale of Warmth would be more likely to be associated with this aspect of personality than with the Extraversion factor chosen by Hofer and Eber (Hofer & Eber, 2002). In fact we re-analysed the data provided by Woods and found that 16PF5 Warmth correlated .41** with the PROFILE:MATCH® scale Sensitive, a strongly significant and much higher correlation than that achieved with any of the PROFILE:MATCH® scale measuring the Extraversion factor. Another surprising alignment is the 16PF5 scale Openness to Change with the Agreeableness factor of the FFM and our doubts about this alignment are clearly borne out by the small relationships between this scale and the PROFILE:MATCH® scales Dependent and Sensitive. Finally, we would expect the 16PF5 scale Vigilance to be located closer to the Agreeableness factor than the Emotional Stability factor where it achieves only small insignificant correlations with Self-esteem and Composure. Again we re-analysed the data set supplied by Woods and found a correlation of -.26** between Vigilance and the PROFILE:MATCH® scale Sensitive. While this isn’t one of the most notable correlations it is clear that the Vigilance scale of the 16PF5 is more closely associated with the Agreeableness factor than with the Emotional Stability factor of the FFM. Table 7.11 - Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and 16PF5 scales aligned with the Five Factor Model EMOTIONAL STABILITY

16PF5 L Vig

16PF5 O App

16PF5 Q4 Tension

16PF5 C EmoStability

PM Self-esteem

-.14*

-.66**

-.36**

.68**

PM Composure

-.10

-.61**

-.56**

.63**

EXTRAVERSION

16PF5 A Warmth

16PF5 H SocBold

16PF5 F Liveliness

16PF5 N Private

16PF5 Q2 Self-rel

PM Assertive

.45**

.50**

.54**

-.23**

.75**

PM Sociable

.31**

.45**

.68**

-.42**

.33**

AGREEABLENESS

16PF5 E Dominance

16PF5 Q1 OpenChange

PM Dependent

-.65**

-.38**

PM Sensitive

-.15*

.06

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

16PF5 G RuleCon

16PF5 Q3 Perfec

16PF5 M Abstract

PM Compliant

.52**

.43**

-.46**

PM Perfectionistic

.43**

.83**

-.46**

OPENNESS

16PF5 I Sensitivity

16PF5 Q1 Open-Change

PM Studious

.14*

.38**

PM Imaginative

.23**

.54**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=218 16PF5 SCALE LABELS: Vig=Vigilance; App=Apprehension; EmoStability=Emotional Stability; SocBold=Social Boldness; Self-rel=Self-reliance; OpenChange=Openness to change; RuleCon=Rule Consciousness; Perfec=Perfectionism; Abstract=Abstractedness

(c) PROFILE:MATCH® and HPI The correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and the HPI in this sample are very similar to those found in our study (see p.32) on a smaller sample of just 50 people who had taken both tests. The size of the correlations reported here is larger than in our study for all factors except Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, although the correlations with the scales related to Conscientiousness are almost exactly the same. For Agreeableness the correlation between HPI Agreeability and PROFILE:MATCH® Sensitive is .77** here but was .85** in the earlier study, and the correlation with PROFILE:MATCH® Dependent is only .17* here but was .26 in our smaller study. All the relationships above are as expected and map on to the appropriate partner scale; the only lack of relationship being that between PROFILE:MATCH® Dependent and HPI Agreeability and the reasons for this are given in the result of our PROFILE:MATCH® and HPI study reported on page 87 of this manual. Table 7.12 - Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH® and HPI scales aligned with the Five Factor Model EMOTIONAL STABILITY

HPI Adjustment

PM Self-esteem

.73**

PM Composure

.75**

EXTRAVERSION

HPI Ambition

HPI Sociability

PM Assertive

.77**

.52**

PM Sociable

.45**

.83**

AGREEABLENESS

HPI Agreeability

PM Dependent

.17*

PM Sensitive

.77**

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

HPI Prudence

PM Compliant

.71**

PM Perfectionistic

.46**

OPENNESS

HPI Intellectance

HPI Scholarship

PM Studious

.38**

.62**

PM Imaginative

.50**

.26**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=223

(d) PROFILE:MATCH® and PAPI Noteworthy and expected relationships here are those between PAPI Emotional Restraint and PROFILE:MATCH® Composure (.55), PAPI Need to Control Others, Leadership Role, Need to be Noticed and PROFILE:MATCH® Assertive (.68, .65, .74), PAPI Need to be Noticed and Social Harmonizer with PROFILE:MATCH® Sociable (.69, .45), PAPI Need to be Forceful and PROFILE:MATCH® Dependent (-.71), PAPI Need for Rules & Supervision and Need to be Supportive and PROFILE:MATCH® Compliant (.50, .43), PAPI Organised Type, Integrative Planner and Attention to Detail with PROFILE:MATCH® Perfectionistic (.67, .56, .56), and PAPI Conceptual Thinker with both PROFILE:MATCH® Studious (.32) and Imaginative (.61) and finally, PAPI Need for Change and PROFILE:MATCH® Imaginative (.30). We would question the location of the PAPI scale Need to Belong to Groups and Need to Relate Closely to Individuals on the Extraversion factor as they might sit more happily on the Agreeableness factor. In fact, on re-analysing the data provided by Woods we found higher correlations of .37 and .41 with the PROFILE:MATCH® scale Sensitive. Similarly the .43), PAPI Organised Type, PAPI scale Need to Achieve might be more closely related to PROFILE:MATCH® Assertive within FFM Extraversion

than with the FFM Conscientiousness scales where it is currently located; again re-analysis of the data supported this hypothesis with a correlation of .43 with PROFILE:MATCH速 Assertive compared to virtually zero correlations with both scales associated with Conscientiousness. Finally, the PAPI scale Need to Finish a Task is curiously located on the Openness factor when it might be more suited to the Conscientiousness domain of the FFM. Data analysis supported this hypothesis with a correlation of .63 with PROFILE:MATCH速 Perfectionistic and .30 with Compliant compared to .07 and -.14 with Studious and Imaginative. Table 7.13 - Correlations between PROFILE:MATCH速 and PAPI scales aligned with the Five Factor Model EMOTIONAL STABILITY

PAPI E EmoRest

PM Self-esteem

.32**

PM Composure

.55**

EXTRAVERSION

PAPI P Control

PAPI L Leadership

PAPI X Noticed

PAPI S SocHar

PAPI B Groups

PAPI O Relate

PM Assertive

.68**

.65**

.74**

.19**

.10*

-.05

PM Sociable

.32**

.26**

.69**

.45**

.30**

.29**

AGREEABLENESS

PAPI K Forceful

PM Dependent

-.71**

PM Sensitive

-.28**

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

PAPI C Organised

PAPI H Integrative

PAPI D Detail

PAPI W Rules

PAPI G HardWork

PAPI F Supportive

PAPI A Achieve

PM Compliant

.23**

.36**

.27**

.50**

.28**

.43**

-.01

PM Perfectionistic

.67**

.56**

.44**

.42**

.21**

.05

OPENNESS

PAPI N Finish

PAPI Z Change

PAPI R Conceptual

PM Studious

.07

.16*

.32**

PM Imaginative

-.14*

.30**

.61**

* p <.05 ** p < .01 N=221 PAPI Scales: EmoRest = Emotional restraint; Control = Need to control others; Leadership = Leadership role; Noticed = Need to be noticed; SocHar = Social harmonizer; Groups = Need to belong to groups; Relate = Need to relate closely to individuals; Forceful = Need to be forceful; Organised = Organised type; Integrative = Integrative planner; Detail = Attention to detail; Rules = Need for rules & supervision; Hardwork = Role of the hard worker; Supportive = Need to be supportive; Achieve = Need to achieve; Finish = Need to finish a task; Change = Need for change; Conceptual = Conceptual thinker

REFERENCES Anderson, P. & Lewis, C. (1998). PAPI Technical Manual. London: PA Consulting. Baron, H. (1996), An evaluation of some psychometric parameters; A response to Barret, Kline, Paltiel and Eysenk. Journal of Occupational & Organisational Psychology, 69 1, 21-23. Barrett, P. & Hutton, R. (2000). Psychometrics and personality questionnaires. BPS Selection Development Review, vol. 16 No. 2, 5 – 9. Bartram, D. & Brown, A. (2005). Five Factor Model (Big Five) OPQ Technical Report. Thames Ditton, UK:SHL Group. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887– 898. Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331. Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five Factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s PEN model. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 7 – 35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Finch, J. F. (1997). The self as a mediator between personality and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 392– 404. Hofer, S.M. & Eber, H.W. (2002). “Second-Order Factor Structure of the Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire.” In De Raad, B. & Perugini, M. (Eds.) Big Five Assessment. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. (pp 397-409) Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (1997). Hogan Personality Inventory: UK Edition Manual. Tunbridge Wells, UK: Psychological Consultancy Limited. Jackson, L. A., & Gerard, D. A. (1996). Diurnal types, the ‘‘Big Five’’ personality factors, and other personal characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 273–283. Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 589– 607. Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038– 1051. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J.,& Sanchez-Bernados, M.L. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.

Robins, R.W., Hendin, H.M., & Trzesniewski, K.H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 463-482. Trickey, G. (2003) Prediction, temperament and performance. BPS Selection Development Review, vol. 19 No. 3, 20 – 22. Trickey, G. & Hogan, R. (1998) We don’t have a choice – personality matters! BPS Selection Development Review, vol. 14 No. 6, 12 – 13. Trickey, G. & Hyde, G. (2005) Validation of competency measurement via personality scale algorithms within HMRC. Unpublished consultancy project at Psychological Consultancy Ltd. Trickey, G. (2007) Competency Metrics, BPS Selection & Development Review, Volume 23, No 1, 3 – 6. Woods, S. A. (2009) The Structures and Validities of Five Work-related Personality Inventories. Unpublished Working Paper.

APPENDIX

100

NORMS FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE 2010 SCORE 0

ASS %ile

COMP %ile

COM %ile

DEP %ile

IMAG %ile

PERF %ile

SELF %ile

SOC %ile

SEN %ile

STUD %ile

6506

6472

6473

5932

6367

5893

6047

5959

6077

5445

Mean

11.96

9.45

12.38

8.00

9.19

14.28

15.51

10.62

16.10

12.66

4.25

3.32

4.52

3.53

3.14

4.10

4.72

4.33

3.04

3.07

% Females % Males

Age Range

16-70

Mean Age

34.19

34.09

34.15

33.80

34.19

34.20

34.00

33.95

34.05

34.26

% White

% Black

% Asian

% Other

SCALE LABELS: ASS - Assertive, COMP - Compliance, COM - Composure, DEP - Dependence, IMAG - Imaginative, PERF - Perfectionistic, SELF - Self Esteem, SOC - Sociability, SEN - Sensitivity, STUD - Studious

101

NORMS FOR THE FEMALE SAMPLE 2010 SCORE 0

ASS %ile

COMP %ile

COM %ile

DEP %ile

IMAG %ile

PERF %ile

SELF %ile

SOC %ile

SEN %ile

STUD %ile

3345

3298

3287

3027

3266

3031

3048

3049

3077

2725

Mean

11.10

9.57

11.42

8.64

9.17

14.18

14.57

10.38

16.33

12.34

4.30

3.28

4.77

3.65

3.22

4.19

5.00

4.35

3.12

3.15

Age Range

16-67

Mean Age

33.22

33.23

33.30

33.04

33.16

33.41

33.06

33.15

33.16

33.39

% White % Black

% Asian

% Other

102

NORMS FOR THE MALE SAMPLE 2010 SCORE 0

ASS %ile

COMP %ile

COM %ile

DEP %ile

IMAG %ile

PERF %ile

SELF %ile

SOC %ile

SEN %ile

STUD %ile

3160

3173

3185

2904

3100

2861

2998

2909

2999

2719

Mean

12.88

9.32

13.37

7.34

9.20

14.39

16.47

10.87

15.87

12.99

4.00

3.35

4.02

3.28

3.05

4.00

4.21

4.29

2.93

2.97

Age Range

16-70

Mean Age

35.24

34.99

35.03

34.61

35.28

35.03

34.96

34.80

34.98

35.15

% White

% Black

% Asian

% Other

103

NORMS FOR THE WORKING ADULT SAMPLE 2010 SCORE 0

ASS %ile

COMP %ile

COM %ile

DEP %ile

IMAG %ile

PERF %ile

SELF %ile

SOC %ile

SEN %ile

STUD %ile

6326

6290

6291

5765

6187

5712

5874

5792

5910

5277

Mean

12.00

9.46

12.44

7.96

9.17

14.30

15.58

10.61

16.10

12.67

4.24

3.32

4.51

3.53

3.14

4.10

4.69

4.32

3.04

3.08

% Females

% Males

Age Range

18-70

Mean Age

34.47

34.37

34.44

34.07

34.47

34.51

34.27

34.22

34.32

34.55

% White

% Black

% Asian

% Other

104

NORMS FOR THE UNIVERSITY STUDENT SAMPLE 2010 SCORE 0

ASS %ile

COMP %ile

COM %ile

DEP %ile

IMAG %ile

PERF %ile

SELF %ile

SOC %ile

SEN %ile

STUD %ile

124

122

118

124

122

124

117

118

122

Mean

10.20

9.37

9.85

9.89

10.03

13.55

12.48

10.23

16.05

12.34

4.35

3.23

4.43

3.41

3.10

3.75

5.04

4.52

2.66

3.03

% Females

% Males

Age Range

18-60

Mean Age

28.54

28.70

28.15

28.54

28.70

28.54

28.18

28.15

28.70

% White

% Black

% Asian

% Other

105