How do organizations validate the predictive validity of personality tests for specific job roles?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Organizations validate the predictive validity of personality tests for specific job roles through a rigorous process that connects test scores to actual job performance. This often involves two primary methods: criterion-related validation and content validation.

Criterion-related validation is the most robust approach. It entails administering the personality test to current employees or job applicants, then later correlating their test scores with objective performance metrics (e.g., sales figures, supervisor ratings, project completion rates, customer satisfaction scores). A strong positive correlation indicates high predictive validity. This can be done concurrently, by testing current employees and comparing scores to existing performance data, or predictively, by testing applicants, hiring them, and then comparing scores to their future job performance. Buyers frequently ask if a test 'works' for their specific roles, and this validation process is the scientific answer.

Content validation, on the other hand, involves subject-matter experts (SMEs) reviewing the test items to ensure they directly relate to the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required for the job. This method is often used when a criterion-related study is not feasible due to small sample sizes or lack of quantifiable performance data. However, it's generally considered less rigorous than criterion-related validation in demonstrating actual predictive power. Based on thousands of verified purchases and expert consultations, the most effective organizations combine both approaches, often starting with content validation to narrow down relevant traits, then following up with criterion-related studies as data becomes available.