H O G A N P E R S O N A L I T Y I N V E N T O R Y M A N U A L RobeRt Hogan, PH.D. Joyce Hogan , PH.D. www.hoganpress.com HOGAN PERSONALITY INVENTORY MANUAL RobeRt Hogan, PH.D. Joyce Hogan, PH.D. Hogan Personality Inventory Manual Third Edition Robert Hogan, Ph.D. Joyce Hogan, Ph.D. Hogan Assessment Systems Tulsa, OK 74114, USA 2007 © 2007 Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied or transferred to any other form or expression without the expressed written consent of Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc. TM Hogan Personality Inventory TM Hogan Development Survey TM Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory TM Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory are the exclusive registered trademarks of Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc. www.hoganassessments.com ISBN 978-0-9840969-5-4 C O N T E N T S Contents 1. Introduction 8 1.1 Applying Socioanalytic Theory to Performance at Work 8 1.2 Measurement: Personality Assessment and the Five-Factor Model 10 1.3 Measurement: Assessing Job Performance using Multidimensional Models 11 1.4 A Viewpoint on Measurement 12 1.5 What to Measure 13 2. Inventory Construction, Reliability, And Confirmation 15 2.1 Early Development 15 2.2 Later Development 16 2.3 Most Recent Technical Developments 17 2.4 Definitions of the Scales 19 2.5 Composition of the Personality Scales; The 1992 Factor Analysis 20 2.6 Composition of the Personality Scales: The 2007 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 26 2.7 HPI Scale Distributions and Reliability 31 2.8 HPI Test-Retest Reliability 37 3. Validity 42 3.1 Correlations With Other Tests 43 3.2 Interpretive Summaries of the HPI Scale Correlations with Other Tests 64 3.3 HPI Correlates of Organizational Behavior 69 3.4 HPI Validity for Personnel Selection in Seven Job Families 78 3.41 Managers & Executives Job Family 83 3.42 Professionals Job Family 88 3.43 Technicians & Specialists Job Family 91 3.44 Operations & Trades Job Family 94 3.45 Sales & Customer Support Job Family 97 3.46 Administrative & Clerical Job Family 101 3.47 Service & Support Job Family 103 4. Interpretation 107 4.1 Adjustment 108 4.2 Ambition 109 4.3 Sociability 110 4.4 Interpersonal Sensitivity 111 4.5 Prudence 112 4.6 Inquisitive 113 4.7 Learning Approach 114 4.8 Adjectival Correlates of HPI Scale Scores 115 3 C O N T E N T S 5. Administering the HPI 121 5.1 Key Features of the Web-Based Platform 121 5.2 Completing the HPI Using the Online Internet System 122 5.3 Participant’s Informed Consent 125 5.4 Using International Translations of the HPI 127 5.5 Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities 130 5.6 Frequently Asked Questions 130 5.7 Alternative Testing Solutions 131 6. Compilation Of Norms 132 6.1 Characteristics of the 2005 HPI Norming Sample 132 6.2 Demographics of the Norming Sample 137 6.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Norming Sample 138 7. References 143 Appendix A: 2005 HPI Norming Sample Scale Scores 157 Appendix B: 1995 HPI Norms (N=21,573) 166 Appendix C: References For Transportability Of Validity Within Job Families 167 Appendix D: Correlations of HPI Scales With Adjectival Descriptions By Observers 175 4 TA B L E S & F I G U R E S Tables & Figures Table 1.1 Components of the Five-Factor Model 9 Table 2.1 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix for HPI HIC 22 Table 2.2 The Constituent HICs for the Seven HPI Scales 25 Table 2.3 Intercorrelations Between HPI Observed Scale Scores and Latent Factor Scores 27 Figure 2.1 HIC-Level Confirmatory Factor Model for the HPI 28 Figure 2.2 Histogram of Standardized Residuals for the Oblique Factor Model with Maximum Likelihood 29 Parameter Estimation Table 2.4 CFA factor Loadings for the HPI HICs 30 Table 2.5 Classical Item and Scale Statistics for the HPI 35 Table 2.6 Composite Alphas and Standard Errors of Measurement for the Seven HPI Scales 36 Table 2.7 Hypothetical Scores on a Personality Scale Over Two Test Occasions 37 Figure 2.3 Hypothetical Scores and Test-Retest Reliabilities for a Personality Scale Over Two Test 38 Occasions Table 2.8 Short-Term (14-21 day interval) Test-Retest Stability Indices for the HPI 40 Table 2.9 Long-Term (8 years interval) Test-Retest Stability Indices for the HPI 41 Table 3.1 Correlations Between the ASVAB Composites and the HPI Scales 44 Table 3.2 Correlations Between the PSI Basic Skills Tests and the HPI Scales 44 Table 3.3 Correlations Between GATB (Form E) and the HPI Scales 45 Table 3.4 Correlations Between WGCTA (Form B) and the HPI Scales 46 Table 3.5 Correlations Between BMCT and the HPI Scales 46 Table 3.6 Correlations Between HBRI and the HPI Scales 46 Table 3.7 Correlations Between the MBTI and the HPI Scales 48 Table 3.8 Correlations Between the SDS and the HPI Scales 48 Table 3.9 Correlations Between the MVPI the HPI Scales 48 Table 3.10 Correlations Between the IAS and the HPI Scales 50 Table 3.11 Correlations Between Goldberg’s Big-Five Markers and the HPI Scales 50 Table 3.12 Correlations Between 16PF and the HPI Scales 51 Table 3.13 Correlations Between CPI and the HPI Scales 52 Table 3.14 Correlations Between JPI-R and the HPI Scales 53 Table 3.15 Correlations Between MPQ the HPI Scales 53 Table 3.16 Correlations Between the NEO-PI-R and the HPI Scales 54 Table 3.17 Correlations Between the PCI Primary Scales and the HPI Scales 54 Table 3.18 Correlations Between the Inventario de Personalidad de Cinco Factores and the HPI Scales 54 Figure 3.1 Relations Between FFM Inventories and the HPI Scales 55 Table 3.19 Correlations Between the HDS and the HPI Scales 57 Table 3.20 Characteristics of Rated Personality Description Scales 66 Table 3.21 Scale Correlates of Rated Personality Descriptions 67 Table 3.22 Adjectival Correlates of the HPI Scales 68 Figure 3.2 Example Criteria Representing Getting Along, Getting Ahead, and HPI Personality Scales 70 5 TA B L E S & F I G U R E S Table 3.23 Distribution of Studies Based on Holland Code and Job Title 72 Table 3.24 Meta-Analysis Results Across Getting Along and Getting Ahead Criteria Combined 74 Table 3.25 Meta-Analysis Results for Getting Along and Getting Ahead Criteria Separated 74 Table 3.26 Meta-Analysis Results for Criteria Aligned by Personality Construct 77 Table 3.27 US Department of Labor Job Categories and SOC Codes Categorized by Job Family 83 Table 3.28 Managers & Executives Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 84 Table 3.29 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Managers & 85 Executives Jobs Table 3.30 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Managers & Executives Job Family 87 Competencies Table 3.31 Professionals Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 89 Table 3.32 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Professionals Jobs 89 Table 3.33 HPI Scale Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Professionals Job Family Competencies 90 Table 3.34 Technicians & Specialists Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 92 Table 3.35 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Technicians & 92 Specialists Jobs Table 3.36 HPI Scale Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Technicians & Specialists Job Family 93 Competencies Table 3.37 Operations & Trade Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 95 Table 3.38 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Operations & 95 Trades Jobs Table 3.39 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Operations & Trades Job Family Competen- 96 cies Table 3.40 Sales & Customer Support Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 98 Table 3.41 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Sales & Customer 99 Support Jobs Table 3.42 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Sales & Customer Support Job Family Compe- 100 tencies Table 3.43 Administrative & Clerical Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 101 Table 3 44 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Administrative & 102 Clerical Jobs Table 3.45 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Administrative & Clerical Job Family Compe- 103 tencies Table 3.46 Service & Support Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Transportability of Validity 104 Table 3.47 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Service & Support 104 Jobs Table 3.48 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Service & Support Job Family Competencies 105 Table 4.1 Adjustment Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 116 Table 4.2 Ambition Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 117 Table 4.3 Sociability Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 117 6 TA B L E S & F I G U R E S Table 4.4 Interpersonal Sensitivity Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 118 Table 4.5 Prudence Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 119 Table 4.6 Inquisitive Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 119 Table 4.7 Learning Approach Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 120 Figure 5.1 Hogan Assessment Systems Participant Login Web Page 122 Figure 5.2 Hogan Assessment Systems Participant Information Web Page 123 Figure 5.3 Hogan Assessment Systems Participant Menu Web Page 124 Figure 5.4 Hogan Assessment Systems Questionnaire Assessment Web Page 125 Table 5.1 HPI Language Translations 127 Figure 5.5 Hogan Assessment Systems Report Language Selection 128 Figure 5.6 Hogan Assessment Systems Language Translation Flags 129 Table 6.1 HPI Database Classified by DoL Occupations 134 Table 6.2 HPI Norming Sample Distribution by Occupation Using Applicants in Selection Contexts 135 Table 6.3 Final Norming Sample Distribution by Test Purpose 136 Table 6.4 Final Norming Sample Distribution by Occupation 136 Table 6.5 Gender Distribution of Final Norming Sample 137 Table 6.6 Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Final Norming Sample 137 Table 6.7 Norming Sample Ethnic Composition by Age and Gender 137 Table 6.8 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations 138 Table 6.9 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Age 139 Table 6.10 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Gender 140 Table 6.11 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Age and Gender 141 Table A.1 Norms for the Total Sample 157 Table A.2 Stratified Norms of Validity Scale 158 Table A.3 Stratified Norms of Adjustment Scale 159 Table A.4 Stratified Norms of Ambition Scale 160 Table A.5 Stratified Norms of Sociability Scale 162 Table A.6 Stratified Norms of Interpersonal Sensitivity Scale 162 Table A.7 Stratified Norms of Prudence Scale 163 Table A.8 Stratified Norms of Inquisitive Scale 164 Table A.9 Stratified Norms of Learning Approach Scale 165 Table C.1 Research References Contributing HPI Validity Data for Seven Job Families 167 Table D.1 HPI Scale Correlations with Adjective Checklist Items 175 Table D.2 HPI Scale Correlations with Adjective Checklist Items 183 7 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1. Introduction The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) is a measure of normal personality. That statement raises two questions. First, what is personality? And second, how can it be measured? Regarding nature, personal- ity concerns two big things: (a) generalizations about human nature—what people are like way down deep; and (b) systematic accounts of individual differences—which differences among people are important and how do they arise? 1.1 Applying Socioanalytic Theory to Performance at Work With regard to generalizations about human nature, the early pioneers of personality psychology (e.g., Freud, Jung, Adler, Horney, Erikson) argued that the most important generalization made is that everyone is neurotic—which means that the most important psychological problem in life is to overcome one’s neu- rosis. However, that generalization is empirically false—for example, the base rate of neuroticism is too low to be a general characteristic (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005; Renaud & Estes, 1961). Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983, 1991, 1996) is intended to explain individ- Socioanalytic theory ual differences in interpersonal effectiveness, and is rooted in the long is rooted in the tradition of interpersonal psychology (Carson, 1969; Leary, 1957; Sullivan, 1953; long tradition of Wiggins, 1979). The theory is based on the following five assumptions: per- interpersonal sonality is best understood in terms of human evolution; people evolved as group-living and culture-using animals; the most important human mo- psychology. tives facilitate group living and enhance individual survival; social interac- tion involves negotiating for acceptance and status; and, finally, some people are more effective at this than others (Hogan, 1996; Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985). The theory is based on two generalizations relevant to organizational behavior: people always live (work) in groups, and groups are always structured in terms of status hierarchies. These generalizations suggest the presence of two broad motive patterns that trans- late into behavior designed to “get along” with other members of the group, and to “get ahead” or achieve status vis á vis other members of the group. Getting along and getting ahead are familiar themes in per- sonality psychology (cf. Adler, 1939; Bakan, 1966; Rank, 1945; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Their importance is justified in Darwinian terms: people who cannot get along with others and who lack status and power have reduced opportunities for reproductive success. Socioanalytic theory specifies that personality should be defined from the perspectives of the actor and the observer. Personality from the actor’s view is a person’s identity, which is manifested in terms of the strategies a person uses to pursue acceptance and status. Identity controls an actor’s social behavior. Personality from the observer’s view is a person’s reputation and is defined in terms of trait evaluations— conforming, helpful, talkative, competitive, calm, curious, and so forth. Reputation reflects an observer’s view of the actor’s characteristic ways of behaving in public. Reputation is the link between the actor’s 8 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N efforts to achieve acceptance and status and how those efforts are evaluated by observers. Reputation describes a person’s behavior; identity explains it. From the lexical perspective (Goldberg, 1981), the development of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) (cf. Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992; John, 1990, p. 72; McCrae & Costa, 1987) is based on 75 years of factor analytic research on the structure of trait terms and peer ratings (cf. Thurstone, 1934; Tupes & Christal, 1961; Norman, 1963). The FFM sug- gests that we think about and describe one another in terms of five broad trait-based themes (see Table 1.1). Table 1.1 Components of the Five-Factor Model Factor Definition ACL Marker Items* I. Extraversion/Surgency The degree to which a person needs Quiet, Reserved, Shy vs. Talkative, attention and social interaction. Assertive, Active II. Agreeableness The degree to which a person needs Fault-finding, Cold, Unfriendly vs. pleasant and harmonious relations Sympathetic, Kind, Friendly with others. III. Conscientiousness The degree to which a person is will- Careless, Disorderly, Frivolous vs. ing to comply with conventional rules, Organized, Thorough, Precise norms, and standards. IV. Emotional Stability The degree to which a person experi- Tense, Anxious, Nervous vs. Stable, ences the world as threatening and Calm, Contented beyond his/her control. V. Intellect/Openness to Experience The degree to which a person needs Commonplace, Narrow- interest, intellectual stimulation, change, and Simple- vs. Wide- interest, Imagina- variety. tive, Intelligent *The adjectives listed here were taken from John’s (1990, Table 3.2) listing of factor loadings for selected Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) items. These factors are a taxonomy of reputation (cf. Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), and are labeled as follows: Factor I, Extraversion or Surgency; Factor II, Agreeableness; Factor III, Conscientious- ness; Factor IV, Emotional Stability; and Factor V, Intellect/Openness to Experience (John, 1990). Because reputations are a rough index of the amount of acceptance and status a person enjoys (Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980; Wiggins, 1979), and because reputations are encoded in FFM terms (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), it follows that the five factors are also evaluations of acceptance and status (Digman, 1997). Digman (1997) concluded that two higher-order factors organize the FFM; he notes that these two broad factors precisely parallel ear- lier dichotomies such as social interests versus superiority striving (Adler, 1939), communion versus agency (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1991), union versus individualism (Rank, 1945), status versus popularity (Hogan, 1983), and intimacy versus power (McAdams, 1985). 9