Background: Personality measures in recruitment situations need to (1) cover the Big-Five model of personality and (2) focus on interpersonal requirements of jobs. We investigated the relationship between the JobMatchTalent test and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R). The JobMatchTalent consists of three areas (i.e., Stability Patterns, Action Patterns, and Relation Patterns) divided in 10 main scales providing a deeper picture of the employee (e.g., Work Structure, Tolerance).
Method: The participants (N = 390) were recruited from the professional network LinkedIn and completed online versions of both instruments. We used correlation analysis to investigate the construct validity of the JobMatchTalent test by identifying significant correlation coefficients no lower than ±.30 (i.e., convergent validity) and those with nonsignificant correlations (i.e., discriminant validity). Regression analyses were used to investigate the variance of the NEO PI-R dimensions that was explained by the JobMatchTalent test.
Results: Four of the NEO PI-R dimensions showed considerable overlap with the following JobMatchTalent main scales: (1) Work structure and Decision Characteristics, which both are measures of thoughtfulness, planning, and order (i.e., Conscientiousness); (2) Inner drive, Activity, Drive, Acting, and Communication, which represent different aspects of being outgoing and extrovert (i.e., Extraversion); (3) Tolerance and Social interest, which measure a person's interest and ability to create social relations (i.e., Agreeableness); and (4) Stress Index, a measure of emotional stability (i.e., the opposite of Neuroticism). All 5 NEO PI-R dimensions overlapped with the JobMatchTalent sub-scales.
Conclusions: The study suggests that 4 of the NEO PI-R dimensions are logically categorized along the JobMatchTalent main scales: (1) Order and Thoughtfulness, (2) Energy and Extraversion, (3) Social Adaptation and Interest, and (4) Emotion Control. Hence, it suggests substantial overlap between the instruments, but also that the two instruments cannot be considered as equivalent to assess individual differences in recruitment situations.