The main reasons for concern are the weak theories connecting personality inventories to job performance. Personnel psychologists have elaborated various methods to analyze work and determine the experience, knowledge and attributes required in order to deliver outstanding performance at work. The difficulty arises from the impossibility to match personality attributes to job descriptions.
The authors conclude that at this time personality measures would probably not reach the degree of acceptance accounted to cognitive tests. The reliability of cognitive tests is in the differences in the environment, in the domains and the specificities.
They key concepts discussed in the article are linked with the personality inventories, their measurement and reliability. The theories, methods and measures are exhaustively analyzed by the authors. They do not offer new perspectives into the personality inventories, however and due to the controversial nature of the subject, the article appears to be a concise summary of what has already been written.
The key findings of the article are that most of the common personality inventories applied in organizational settings are not adapted to measure the Big Five factors. Even though, there are disputes in the application of cognitive ability tests in personnel selection – for example, test fairness, racial discrimination, banding, in general cognitive ability tests are accepted by personnel psychologists are accurate and valid predictors of job performance. Murphy and Dzieweczynski conclude that it is easier to create a psychometrically sound ability test, than to create a comparably sound personality inventory. The reason for this is that there are more motivators to center on valid measures when creating ability tests than when designing personality inventories. Validities of personality inventories are generally small and quite unstable, often changing results when one