Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:59:37.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Behavioural Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

Adrian Furnham
Adrian Furnham
Affiliation:
University of London
Get access

Summary

This chapter covers five very different ways of assessing people by measuring their behaviour and choices. By far the most sensitive issue is the measurement of intelligence. Whilst the academic literature is very clear: intelligence can be easily and accurately measured and is highly predictive of many aspects of daily life (including work productivity), in the ‘practical world’ of Human Resources people are very cautious about using these tests because of established group differences. The chapter also looks at unobtrusive measures sometimes called snooping, which is concerned with how certain features of our life (office/bedroom layout) give a surprising insight into an individual’s personality and values. The chapter also considers situational judgement tests, which describe or show a typical workplace situation and candidates are required to select the best response. Fourth, the chapter looks at the definition and measurement of creativity, which remains something of a backwater in psychometric research, though selectors rate it very highly. Finally, the chapter looks at gamification, which involves the assessment of people by how they play various electronic games.

Keywords

Cognitive abilityCognitive styleContent analysisConvergent thinkingCreativityCrystallised intelligenceDivergent thinkingEmotional IntelligenceFluid IntelligenceGamificationGarbologyGeneral KnowledgeMultiple intelligenceNon-reactivityOnline testingSituational Judgement testsSnoopingUnobtrusive measures.
Type
Chapter
Information
Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
Different Techniques and their Respective Advantages
 , pp. 278 - 395
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Arnold, I. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106.Google Scholar
Arthur, W., Glaze, R., Villado, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Unprotected internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 39–45.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1968). A 3 minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.Google Scholar
Barak, A., & English, N. (2002). Prospects and limitations of psychological testing on the internet. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19, 65–89.Google Scholar
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: the role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beglinger, L. J., Gaydos, B., Tangphao-Daniels, O., Duff, K., Kareken, D. A., Crawford, J. F., et al. (2005). Practice effects and the use of alternate forms in serial neuropsychological testing. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 517–529.Google Scholar
Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests. A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 387.Google Scholar
Borman, W., Hanson, M., Oppler, S., Pulakis, E., & White, L. (1993). Role of early supervisory experience in supervisor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 443–449.Google Scholar
Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
Campbell, P., McHenry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. (2006a). Incremental validity of typical intellectual engagement as predictor of different academic performance measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 261–268.Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. (2006b). Ability and personality correlates of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 419–429.Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). The relationship between estimated and psychometric personality and intelligence scores Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I. (2001). Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilchert, S. (2018). Cognitive ability. In Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Sinangil, H. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 248–276). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Dragow, F. (2002). Intelligence and the workplace. In Borman, W., Ilgen, D., & Klimozki, R. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 107–130). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and intelligence at work. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. (2017). Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right. Differences and consequences of beliefs about your ability. In Sternberg, Robert, Fiske, Susan, & Foss, Don (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: The greatest living behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (2020). The Assessment of General Knowledge Online: Two studies using two platforms examining demographic, self-assessment and internet usage correlates. Paper under review.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). Personality, intelligence and general knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 9–90.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1998). Personality scores and test taking style. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2013). On-line questionnaire completion time and personality test scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 716–720.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2015). Personality and value correlates of careless and erratic questionnaire responses. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 64–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., Rawles, R., & Iqbal, S. (2006). Personality, intelligence and proof-reading. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1457–1467.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gatewood, R., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2016). Human Resource Selection. Scarborough, ON, Canada: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. (2003). g jobs and kife. In Nyborg, J. (Ed.), The science of mental ability (pp 293–342). Oxford, UK: Pergammon.Google Scholar
Harrell, T., & Harrell, M. (1945). Army general classification test scores for civilian occupations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L., Oswald, F., & Floghart, R. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personal selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.Google Scholar
Hulsheger, U., Maier, G., & Stumpp, T. (2007). Validity of general mental ability for the prediction of job performance and training success in Germany. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 3–18.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job performance. Intelligence, 29, 340–362.Google Scholar
Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jones, G. (1988). Investigation of the efficacy of general ability versus specific abilities as predictors of occupational success. Unpublished thesis. St Mary’s University of Texas.Google Scholar
Kaufman, S. (2019). There is no Nature-Nurture War. Scientific American.Google Scholar
Kline, P. (1996). The new psychometrics. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwing, R., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general factor of semantic memory and its components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, N. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martinsen, Ø. L., & Furnham, A. (2016). The Assimilator–Explorer styles and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 297–299.Google Scholar
Martinsen, Ø. L., & Kaufmann, G. (2000). The Assimilator–Explorer cognitive styles and their relationship to affective-motivational orientations and cognitive performances. In Riding, R. & Raynor, S. (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences: Vol. 1. New developments in learning/cognitive styles (pp. 3–41). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
McHenry, J., Hough, L., Toquam, J., Hanson, M., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promises in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59–74.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. (2002). Can conflicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved? Human Performance, 15, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Salgado, J. (2017). Cognitive ability: masurement and validity for employee selection. In Farr, James, & Tippins, Nancy (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 251–276). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 86–89.Google Scholar
Ree, M., & Carretta, T. (1998). General cognitive ability and occupational performance. International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 13, 161–189.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance. Human Performance, 15, 187–210.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173.Google Scholar
Schroeders, U., Wilhelm, O. & Schipolowski, S. (2010). Internet-based ability testing. In Gosling, S. D., & Johnson, J. A. (Eds.), Advanced methods for behavioral research on the Internet (pp. 131–148). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1960). Stanford–Binet intelligence scale. New York: Houghton Mufflin.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L., Henmon, V. A. C., & Buckingham, B. R. (eds.) (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Vernon, P. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1958). Measurement of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the adult intelligence scale (revised). New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam: User’s manual. Libertyville, IL: Author.Google Scholar

References

Bhardwaj, S., Atrey, P. K., Saini, M. K., & El Saddik, A. (2016). Personality assessment using multiple online social networks. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(21), 13237–13269.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P. (2003). Affective influences on attitudes and judgments. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Goldsmith, H. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 596–618). New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gosling, S. (2009) Snoop: What your stuff says about you. London, UK: Profile Books Limited.Google Scholar
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379–398.Google Scholar
Hill, A. D., Kern, D. A., & White, M. A. (2014). Are we overconfident in executive overconfidence research? An examination of the convergent and content validity of extant unobtrusive measures. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1414–1420.Google Scholar
Keep, M., & Amon, K. L. (2017). Follow me: exploring the effect of personality and stranger connections on Instagram use. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 9(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Ong, E. Y. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C. M., Lim, J. C. Y., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chua, A. Y. K. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion, and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paliszkiewicz, J. & Madra-Sawicka, M. (2016) Impression management in social media: the example of LinkedIn. Management, 11(3), 203–212.Google Scholar
Paramboukis, O., Skues, J., & Wise, L. (2016). An exploratory study of the relationships between narcissism, self-esteem and Instagram use. Social Networking, 5(2), 82–92.Google Scholar
Reid, E., & Novak, P. (1975). Personal space: an unobtrusive measures study. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(3), 265–266.Google Scholar
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407.Google Scholar
van de Ven, N., Bogaert, A., Serlie, A., Brandt, M. J., & Denissen, J. J. (2017). Personality perception based on LinkedIn profiles. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(6), 418–429.Google Scholar
Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. New York: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar

References

Al Hashmi, W., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). Developing a situational judgement test for admission into initial teacher education in Oman: an exploratory study. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human Performance, 15(3), 233–254.Google Scholar
Cook, M. (2016). Personnel selection: Adding value through people – A changing picture (6th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corstjens, J., Lievens, F., & Krumm, S. (2017). Situational judgement tests for selection. In Goldstein, H. W., , Pulakos, D. E., Semedo, C., & Passmore, J., (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 226–246). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (1986). Social skills training with adolescents and young adults. In Hollin, C. R., & Trower, P. (Eds.), Handbook of social skills training (pp. 33–57). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Gatewood, R., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2015). Human resource selection (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Kaminski, K., Felfe, J., Schäpers, P., & Krumm, S. (2019). A closer look at response options: is judgment in situational judgment tests a function of the desirability of response options?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(1), 72–82.Google Scholar
Kasten, N., Freund, P. A., & Staufenbiel, T. (2018). ‘Sweet little lies’: an in-depth analysis of faking behavior on Situational Judgment Tests compared to personality questionnaires. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 136–148.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: a comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1181–1188.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: a clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 730–740.Google Scholar
Moss, F. A., & Hunt, T. (1926). Ability to get along with others. Industrial Psychology, 1, 170–178.Google Scholar
Northrop, L. C. (1989). The psychometric history of selected ability constructs. Washington, DC: US Office of Personnel Management.Google Scholar
Pangallo, A., Zibarras, L., & Patterson, F. (2016). Measuring resilience in palliative care workers using the situational judgement test methodology. Medical Education, 50(11), 1131–1142.Google Scholar
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Social Intelligence. In Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 337–353). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Stemig, M. S., Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2015). Effects of organizationally endorsed coaching on performance and validity of situational judgment tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(2), 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (Eds.). (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Wagner, R. K., Horvath, J. A., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1997). Video‐based situational testing. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 25–49.Google Scholar
Whetzel, D. L., Sullivan, T. S., & McCloy, R. A. (2020). Situational judgment tests: an overview of development practices and psychometric characteristics. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. A. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, 396–239, 1–15.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1988). From individual creativity to organizational innovation. In Grønhaug, K., & Kaufmann, G. (Eds.), Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 139–166). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: the social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (Vol. 115, pp. 61–91). New York City, NY: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity: effects of choice in task materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 209–215.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. R., & Fielder, F. E. (1964). The effect of participatory and supervisory leadership on group creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: an embracing act. Long Range Planning, 36(4), 375–388.Google Scholar
Barbot, B., Hass, R. W., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creativity assessment in psychological research:(Re) setting the standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 233.Google Scholar
Barron, F. (1963). The needs for order and disorder as motives in creative action. In Taylor, C. W., & Barron, F. (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 139–152). New York City, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439–476.Google Scholar
Barron, F., & Welsh, G. S. (1952). Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style: its measurement by a figure preference test. The Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batey, M. ( 2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College, London.Google Scholar
Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: from definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429.Google Scholar
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). The relationship between measures of creativity and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 816–821.Google Scholar
Benedek, M., Christensen, A. P., Fink, A., & Beaty, R. E. (2019). Creativity assessment in neuroscience research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 218–226.Google Scholar
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50.Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 155–162.Google Scholar
Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159–163.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Datta, L. E. (1964a). Remote associates test as a predictor of creativity in engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(3), 183.Google Scholar
De Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. London, UK: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Creativity and personality: word association, origence, and psychoticism. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity (Vol. 12). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (2018). From fascination to research progress and problems in creativity research. In Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 77–93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (2019). Creativity and psychopathology. In Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, R. S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Crump, J., Batey, M., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality and ability predictors of the ‘Consequences’ Test of divergent thinking in a large non-student sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 536–540.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Goncalo, J. A. & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction and forecast (pp. 72–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In Taylor, I. A., & Getzels, J. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37–59). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Haller, C. S., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2010). Personality and thinking style in different creative domains. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(3), 149.Google Scholar
Harrington, D. M. (1972). Effects of instructions to ‘Be creative’ on three tests of divergent thinking abilities (PhD thesis). University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hartley, J., & Beasley, N. (1969). Contrary imaginations at Keele. Higher Education Quarterly, 23(4), 467–471.Google Scholar
Hartley, J., & Greggs, M. A. (1997). Divergent thinking in arts and science students: contrary Imaginations at Keele revisited. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 93–97.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1978). Cognitive psychology. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In Steinberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 11–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hocevar, D. (1979, April). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED170350).Google Scholar
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4(1), 25–40.Google Scholar
Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations: A psychological study of the young student. New York City, NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Hudson, L. (1973). Originality. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, L. (1980). This week citation classic. Social Citation, 43, 171–172.Google Scholar
Jamison, K. R. (1993). Touched with fire: Manic depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York City, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1988). Test your observational skills and compare your creative potential with children from eleven different countries. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 13(2), 75–80.Google Scholar
Jones, F. E. (1964). Predictor variables for creativity in industrial science. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(2), 134–136.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: development of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2019). Self-assessments of creativity: not ideal, but better than you think. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 187–192.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative – but not in mathematics!: self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143–155.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Pumaccahua, T. T., & Holt, R. E. (2013). Personality and creativity in realistic, investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising college majors. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(8), 913–917.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1968). The contrary imaginations of arts and science students: a critical discussion. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 10(4), 461–464.Google Scholar
Kwapil, T. R., Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2012). The expression of positive and negative schizotypy in daily life: an experience sampling study. Psychological Medicine, 42(12), 2555–2566.Google Scholar
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(4), 295–308.Google Scholar
Martinsen, Ø. L., Arnulf, J. K., Furnham, A., & Lang-Ree, O. C. (2019). Narcissism and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDermid, C. D. (1965). Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
Mednick, M. T., & Andrews, F. M. (1967). Creative thinking and level of intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 428–431.Google Scholar
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. S. (1967). Examiner’s manual: Remote associates test. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Merten, T. & Fischer, I. (1999). Creativity, personality and word association responses: associative behavior in 40 supposedly creative persons. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 933–942.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. L., Connelly, M. S., O’Connor, J. A., & Clifton, T. C. (1993). Leadership and destructive acts: individual and situational influences. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(2), 115–147.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, T., Dunbar, R., & Bentall, R. (2001). Schizotypy and creativity: an evolutionary connection?. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1067–1078.Google Scholar
Peretti, F., & Negro, G. (2007). Mixing genres and matching people: a study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, special issue: Paradoxes of Creativity: Managerial and Organizational Challenges in the Cultural Economy, 28(5), 563–586.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. B., & Carson, S. (2000). Latent inhibition and openness to experience in a high-achieving student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 323–332.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103–114.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 55–63.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73–93.Google Scholar
Probst, T. M., Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Tierney, B. W. (2007). Productivity, counterproductivity and creativity: the ups and downs of job in security. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 479–497.Google Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: a review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144–152.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, J. (2009). Creative mythconceptions: a closer look at the evidence for the ‘mad genius’ hypothesis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 62–72.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: a review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G.(1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61(4), 394–403.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. L., Michael, W. B., & Hocevar, D. (1990). Performance on creativity measures with examination‐taking instructions intended to induce high or low levels of test anxiety. Creativity Research Journal, 3(4), 265–280.Google Scholar
Smith, W. J., Albright, L. E., & Glennon, J. R. (1961). The prediction of research competence and creativity from personal history. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 59–62.Google Scholar
Snyder, H. T., Hammond, J. A., Grohman, M. G., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). Creativity measurement in undergraduate students from 1984–2013: a systematic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 133–143.Google Scholar
Sprecher, T. B. (1959). A study of engineers’ criteria for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(2), 141–148.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Nonentrenchment in the assessment of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(2), 63–67.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Natural, unnatural, and supernatural concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 451–488.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Gastel, J. (1989). Coping with novelty in human intelligence: an empirical investigation. Intelligence, 13(2), 187–197.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (2000). Intelligence and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 611–630). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Creativity. In Hubbard, F. W. (Ed.), What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: Department of Classroom Teachers American Educational Research Association of the National Education Association.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: national and international extensions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(2), 137–154.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norms-technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn & Company Publishers.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. F., Cline, V. B., & Schmitt, J. R. (1967). Prediction of creativity and other performance measures from biographical information among pharmaceutical scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2), 131–138.Google Scholar
Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272–280.Google Scholar
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1995). Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing (TSD-Z). Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.Google Scholar
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In Mussen, P. (Ed.), Carmichael’s Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 1211–1272). New York City, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativity‐intelligence distinction. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 348–369.Google Scholar
Williamson, P. K. (2011). The creative problem solving skills of arts and science students – the two cultures debate revisited. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422.Google Scholar

References

Adams, D. M., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive consequences approach: what is learned from playing a game? In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach (pp. 171–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1), 56–79.Google Scholar
Ángeles Quiroga, M., Escorial, S., Román, F. J., Morillo, D., Jarabo, A., Privado, J., Hernández, M., Gallego, B., & Colom, R. (2015). Can we reliably measure the general factor of intelligence (g) through commercial video games? Yes, we can! Intelligence, 53, 1–7.Google Scholar
Armstrong, M. B., Landers, R. N., & Collmus, A. B. (2015). Gamifying recruitment, selection, training, and performance management: Game-thinking in human resource management. In Davis, D., & Gangadharbatla, H. (Eds.), Emerging research and trends in gamification (pp. 140–165). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: do points affect test performance?. Computers & Education, 83, 57–63.Google Scholar
Boot, W. R. (2015). Video games as tools to achieve insight into cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(3), 1–3.Google Scholar
Collmus, A. B., Armstrong, M. B., & Landers, R. N. (2016). Game-thinking within social media to recruit and select job candidates. In Landers, R. N., & Schmidt, G. B. (Eds.), Social media in employee selection and recruitment: Theory, practice, and current challenges (pp. 103–124). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining ‘gamification’. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic Mindtrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15), Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(9), 1–36.Google Scholar
Entertainment Software Association. (2015). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.Google Scholar
Fetzer, M., McNamara, J., Geimer, J. L., Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., Passmore, J., & Semedo, C. (2017). Gamification, serious games and personnel selection. In Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., , Semedo, C., & Passmore, J. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 293–309). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fiore, C. A. (2016). Gamification of individual differences. Culminating Projects in Psychology. Paper 4. London: UCL.Google Scholar
Foroughi, C. K., Serraino, C., Parasuraman, R., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2016). Can we create a measure of fluid intelligence using Puzzle Creator within Portal 2?. Intelligence, 56, 58–64.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (2010). Proofreading as an index of crystallised intelligence. Educational Psychology, 30(6), 735–754.Google Scholar
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.Google Scholar
Gnambs, T., & Appel, M. (2017). Is computer gaming associated with cognitive abilities? A population study among German adolescents. Intelligence, 61, 19–28.Google Scholar
Griffiths, M. (1997). Computer game playing in early adolescence. Youth & Society, 29(2), 223–237.Google Scholar
Hansen, W. A., & Goldinger, S. D. (2009). Taboo: working memory and mental control in an interactive task. The American Journal of Psychology, 122(3), 283–291.Google Scholar
Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: a mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 245–270.Google Scholar
Hopko, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Aklin, W. M., Osborne, A., Simmons, B. L., & Strong, D. R. (2006). Construct validity of the balloon analogue risk task (BART): relationship with MDMA use by inner-city drug users in residential treatment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(2), 95–101.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. J., & Shute, V. J. (2015). The interplay of game elements with psychometric qualities, learning, and enjoyment in game-based assessment. Computers & Education, 87, 340–356.Google Scholar
Kircaburun, K., Pontes, H. M., Stavropoulos, V., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). A brief psychological overview of disordered gaming. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 38–43.Google Scholar
Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.Google Scholar
Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Jones, H. A., Richards, J. B., Strong, D. R., Kahler, C. W., & Read, J. P. (2003). The balloon analogue risk task (BART) differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(1), 26–33.Google Scholar
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75–84.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 927–940.Google Scholar
Mané, A., & Donchin, E. (1989). The Space Fortress game. Acta Psychologica, 71(1–3), 17–22.Google Scholar
Mavridis, A., & Tsiatsos, T. (2017). Game‐based assessment: investigating the impact on test anxiety and exam performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
Mekler, E. D., Bruhlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013). Disassembling gamification: the effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. Mackay, W. E. (Conference Chair), Baudisch, P., & Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (Technical Program Chairs), Proceedings of CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1137–1142). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Mullins, J. K., & Sabherwal, R. (2018, January). Beyond enjoyment: A cognitive-emotional perspective of gamification. Paper presented at the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research [Editorial]. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 450–454.Google Scholar
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2015). Multipoly: A selection game. Budapest, Hungary: Author.Google Scholar
Rabah, J., Cassidy, R., & Beauchemin, R. (2018). Gamification in education: Real benefits or edutainment? Paper presented at the 17th European Conference on e-Learning, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
Sajjadi, P., Vlieghe, J., & De Troyer, O. (2017). Exploring the relation between the theory of multiple intelligences and games for the purpose of player-centred game design. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(4), 320–334.Google Scholar
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31.Google Scholar
Sin, J., & Furnham, A. (2018). Do commercial games tap into cognitive ability? Computer Games Journal, 7, 27–37.Google Scholar
White, T. L., Lejuez, C. W., & de Wit, H. (2008). Test-retest characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(6), 565–570.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Behavioural Tests
  • Adrian Furnham, University of London
  • Book: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
  • Online publication: 11 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Behavioural Tests
  • Adrian Furnham, University of London
  • Book: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
  • Online publication: 11 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Behavioural Tests
  • Adrian Furnham, University of London
  • Book: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
  • Online publication: 11 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.007
Available formats
×