Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:54:18.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personality testing and the Americans With Disabilities Act: Cause for concern as normal and abnormal personality models are integrated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2019

Arturia Melson-Silimon ,
Alexandra M. Harris ,
Elizabeth L. Shoenfelt ,
Joshua D. Miller  and
Nathan T. Carter
Arturia Melson-Silimon*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Alexandra M. Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Elizabeth L. Shoenfelt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
Joshua D. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Nathan T. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Applied psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee selection systems because of their advantages regarding incremental criterion-related validity and less adverse impact relative to cognitive ability tests. Although personality tests have seen limited legal challenges in the past, we posit that the use of personality tests might see increased challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) due to emerging evidence that normative personality and personality disorders belong to common continua. This article aims to begin a discussion and offer initial insight regarding the possible implications of this research for personality testing under the ADA. We review past case law, scholarship in employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance regarding “medical examinations,” and recent literature from various psychology disciplines—including clinical, neuropsychology, and applied personality psychology—regarding the relationship between normative personality and personality disorders. More importantly, we review suggestions proposing the five-factor model (FFM) be used to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) and recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Our review suggests that as scientific understanding of personality progresses, practitioners will need to exercise evermore caution when choosing personality measures for use in selection systems. We conclude with six recommendations for applied psychologists when developing or choosing personality measures.

Keywords

personality testingselectiondisabilitiesAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 119 - 132
Copyright
© Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

The work of Alexandra M. Harris was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE-1443117), and the work of Nathan T. Carter was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (SES1561070), and the Division of Social and Economic Sciences. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Abram, S. V., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Using personality neuroscience to study personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 2–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, US Code § 12102, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., Widiger, T. A., Ryder, A. G., & Marshall, M. (2005). DSM-IV personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A multi-method examination of domain- and facet-level predictions. European Journal of Personality, 19, 307–324.Google Scholar
Barnes v. Cochran , 130 F.3d 443 (Court of Appeals 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Weiman, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bremner, J. D., Narayan, M., Anderson, E. R., Staib, L. H., Miller, H. L., & Charney, D. S. (2000). Hippocampal volume reduction in major depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camara, W. J., & Merenda, P. F. (2000). Using personality tests in pre-employment screening: Issues related to Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1164–1186.Google Scholar
Carrigan, M. (2007). Pre-employment testing prediction of employee success and legal issues: A revisitation of Griggs V. Duke Power . Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5(8), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. M. (2014). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 564–586. doi: 10.1037/a0034688 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. (2016). The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological well-being: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 84, 510–522. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12177 Google Scholar
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, W. G., Dahlstrom, L. E., & Welsh, G. S. (1972). An MMPI handbook. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press [1972–75].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five. Psychological Science, 21, 820–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Distel, M. A., Trull, T. J., Willemsen, G., Vink, J. M., Derom, C. A., Lynskey, N. G., … Boomsma, D. I. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and borderline personality disorder: A genetic analysis of comorbidity. Biological Psychiatry, 66, 1131–1138.Google Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). Enforcement Guidance: Disability-related inquiries and medical examinations of employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html#N_33_ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Rothbaum, A. O., Meller, S., Maples, J., Terry, D. P., … MacKillop, J. (2013). Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 1057–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12018 Google Scholar
Gonzales-Frisbie, J. (2006). Personality tests in jeopardy: An evaluation of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Karraker v. Rent-A-Center and its impact on the future use of personality tests in pre-employment screening. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 9, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gore, W. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 816–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychological inventory administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing the challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutman, A., Koppes, L. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2011). EEO law and personnel practices (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Brooks, M. E., Reeve, C. L., Sarkar-Barney, S. T., & Guion, R. M. (2016). A public-domain personality item bank for use with the Raymark, Schmit, and Guion (1997) PPRF. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 2, 48–56.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., & Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12(1), 82–86. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1408 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, P. J., & Howard, M. J. (2001). Professional manual for the workplace big five (WB5P). Charlotte, NC: Centacs.Google Scholar
Hyatt, C. S., Owens, M. M., Gray, J. C., MacKillop, J., Sweet, L. H., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Personality traits share overlapping neuroanatomical correlates with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875–925.Google Scholar
Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 768–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, M., … Zimmerman, M. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). The HEXACO Personality Inventory: A new measure of the major dimensions of personality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and individual differences, 38(7), 1571–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D. (2002). Personality and problem behaviors: An exploration of the mechanisms (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(2–B), 1038.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D. (2012). Five-Factor Model personality disorder prototypes: A review of their development, validity, and comparison with alternative approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 1565–1591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Lynam, D. R., & MacKillop, J. (2015). Pathological personality traits can capture DSM–IV personality disorder types. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6, 32–40.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Rolland, J. P., De Fruyt, F., Reynolds, S. K., Pham-Scottez, A., … Bagby, R. M. (2008). Scoring the DSM-IV personality disorders using the five-factor model: Development and validation of normative scores for North American, French and Dutch-Flemish samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 433–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. D., Lyman, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D., Morse, J. Q., Nolf, K., Stepp, S. D., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2012). Can DSM-IV borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional personality traits: Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 944–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004). The validity of the five-factor model prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 310–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morey, L., Skodol, A., & Oldham, J. (2014). Clinician judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2, 398–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omura, K., Constable, R. T., & Canli, T. (2005). Amygdala gray matter concentration is associated with extraversion and neuroticism. NeuroReport, 16, 1905–1908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 78, 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelphrey, K. A., & Morris, J. P. (2006). Brain mechanisms for interpreting the actions of others from biological-motion cues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 136–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39, 313–338. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, S. L., Milad, M. R., Orr, S. P., Quinn, B. T., Fischl, B., & Pitman, R. K. (2005). Orbitofrontal thickness, retention of fear extinction, and extraversion. NeuroReport, 16, 1909–1912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50, 723–736.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, D. B., Riddell, A. D. B., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). A five-factor measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 456–465.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Clinicians’ judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of the DSM-IV and five factor models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 298–308. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.298 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085.Google Scholar
Schakel, L., Smid, N. G., & Jaganjac, A. (2007). Workplace Big Five professional manual. Utrecht, The Netherlands: PiCompany B.V. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183–198.Google Scholar
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation , 18 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308–311.Google Scholar
Thompson v. Borg-Warner Protective Servs. Corp., No. C-94-4015 MHP, 1996 W.L. 162990 (1996).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toner, M. P., & Arnold, D. W. (1998). Thompson v. Borg-Warner case settled. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 36(2). Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipoct98/16toner.aspx Google Scholar
Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). Dimensional models of personality: The five-factor model and the DSM-5. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 15, 135–146.Google Scholar
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2015). Borderline personality disorder from the perspective of general personality functioning. Focus, 112, 193–202.Google Scholar
Tyrer, P., Crawford, M., Mulder, R., Blashfield, R., Farnam, A., Fossati, A., … Swales, M. (2011). The rationale for the reclassification of personality disorder in the 11th revision of the international classification of diseases (ICD-11). Personality and Mental Health, 5(4), 246–259.Google ScholarPubMed
Varnagis v. City of Chicago No. 96 C 6304, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9031 (N.D. ill. June 20, 1997).Google Scholar
Weber, L., & Dwoskin, E. (2014, Sept. 29). Are workplace personality tests fair? Growing use of tests sparks scrutiny amid questions of effectiveness and workplace discrimination. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests-fair-1412044257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. T. Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (2002). A proposal for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the five-factor model. In Costa, P. J., Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. J., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 431–456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10423-025.Google Scholar
Widiger, T. A., Gore, W. L., Crego, C., Rojas, S. L., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2017). Five factor model and personality disorder. In Widiger, T. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (5th ed., pp. 449–478). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (2018). International classification of diseases (11th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar