Page 48 - Special Topic Session (STS) - Volume 4

STS560 Haniza Yon et al.
strong, and most of them fell short of statistical significance. Even to the extent
that the differences are real, they may be limited to Malaysia. Nonetheless, the
observed gender differences are interesting and present an opportunity for
further study.
Our instrument appears to yield reliable results when used on employees
in the financial services industry. Further validation of the instrument is
ongoing, and we aim to report the outcomes of this research in future
publications.

References
1. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
2. Bartram, D. & Burke, E. (2013). Industrial/Organisational testing case
studies. In J.A. Wollack & J.J. Fremer (Eds.), Handbook of Test Security
(pp. 313-332). New York: Routledge.
3. Bartram, D. & Tippins, N. (2017). The Potential of Online Selection. In
H.W. Goldstein, E.D. Pulakos, J.Passmore & C. Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Recruitment, Selection &
Employee Retention (pp.271-292). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and
contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
5. Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (2001).
Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of job search among
employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 54, 25–50.
6. Brown, A., & Bartram, D. (2009). Doing Less but Getting More: Improving
th
Forced-Choice Measures with IRT. Paper presented at the 24 Annual
conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
New Orleans.
7. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of 52 industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 1, pp. 687–731). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
8. Campbell, J. P., & Knapp, D. J. (2001). Exploring the limits in personnel
selection and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Costa, P. T., Jr., 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.
10. Drasgow, F., Stark, S, Chernyshenko, O. S., Nye, C. D., Hulin, C. L., & White,
L. A. (2012). Development of the Tailored Adaptive Personality
Assessment System (TAPAS) to support Army selection and classification
decisions (Technical Report No. 1311). Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

37 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9