行为描述访谈中典型回应与最大回应的实证评估

IF 2.9 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Human Performance Pub Date : 2020-08-28 DOI:10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075
Allen I. Huffcutt, Satoris S. Howes, Susan Dustin, Ashley N. Chmielewski, Corrie A. Marshall, Rachael L. Metzger, Victoria P. Gioia
{"title":"行为描述访谈中典型回应与最大回应的实证评估","authors":"Allen I. Huffcutt, Satoris S. Howes, Susan Dustin, Ashley N. Chmielewski, Corrie A. Marshall, Rachael L. Metzger, Victoria P. Gioia","doi":"10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of this investigation was to provide a direct assessment of typical versus maximal responding in a Behavior Description Interview. A total of 109 participants were recruited from three universities and tested as applicants for a general retail position. When asked to describe a time when they had to deal with a difficult person, a core aspect of retail positions, responses reflected typical tendencies roughly half of the time and more maximal tendencies the other half. Convenience factors (e.g., recent, frequent) appeared to exert a strong influence on responding. Such mixing is problematic from a psychometric perspective given the relatively low correlation between these two aspects of performance. Typical versus maximal recall was not correlated with mental ability. Directions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47825,"journal":{"name":"Human Performance","volume":"33 1","pages":"447 - 467"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirical Assessment of Typical versus Maximal Responding in Behavior Description Interviews\",\"authors\":\"Allen I. Huffcutt, Satoris S. Howes, Susan Dustin, Ashley N. Chmielewski, Corrie A. Marshall, Rachael L. Metzger, Victoria P. Gioia\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The purpose of this investigation was to provide a direct assessment of typical versus maximal responding in a Behavior Description Interview. A total of 109 participants were recruited from three universities and tested as applicants for a general retail position. When asked to describe a time when they had to deal with a difficult person, a core aspect of retail positions, responses reflected typical tendencies roughly half of the time and more maximal tendencies the other half. Convenience factors (e.g., recent, frequent) appeared to exert a strong influence on responding. Such mixing is problematic from a psychometric perspective given the relatively low correlation between these two aspects of performance. Typical versus maximal recall was not correlated with mental ability. Directions for future research are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47825,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Performance\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"447 - 467\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1812075","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本研究的目的是直接评估行为描述访谈中的典型反应与最大反应。共有109名参与者从三所大学招募,并作为普通零售职位的申请人进行了测试。当被要求描述他们不得不与一个难相处的人打交道的时间时,这是零售职位的核心方面,回答反映了大约一半时间的典型倾向,另一半时间则反映了更大的倾向。便利因素(例如,最近的、频繁的)似乎对反应产生了强烈影响。鉴于这两个方面的表现之间的相关性相对较低,从心理测量的角度来看,这种混合是有问题的。典型回忆与最大回忆与心理能力无关。讨论了未来研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Empirical Assessment of Typical versus Maximal Responding in Behavior Description Interviews
ABSTRACT The purpose of this investigation was to provide a direct assessment of typical versus maximal responding in a Behavior Description Interview. A total of 109 participants were recruited from three universities and tested as applicants for a general retail position. When asked to describe a time when they had to deal with a difficult person, a core aspect of retail positions, responses reflected typical tendencies roughly half of the time and more maximal tendencies the other half. Convenience factors (e.g., recent, frequent) appeared to exert a strong influence on responding. Such mixing is problematic from a psychometric perspective given the relatively low correlation between these two aspects of performance. Typical versus maximal recall was not correlated with mental ability. Directions for future research are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Performance
Human Performance PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Human Performance publishes research investigating the nature and role of performance in the workplace and in organizational settings and offers a rich variety of information going beyond the study of traditional job behavior. Dedicated to presenting original research, theory, and measurement methods, the journal investigates individual, team, and firm level performance factors that influence work and organizational effectiveness. Human Performance is a respected forum for behavioral scientists interested in variables that motivate and promote high-level human performance, particularly in organizational and occupational settings. The journal seeks to identify and stimulate relevant research, communication, and theory concerning human capabilities and effectiveness. It serves as a valuable intellectual link between such disciplines as industrial-organizational psychology, individual differences, work physiology, organizational behavior, human resource management, and human factors.
期刊最新文献
The Normative Judgment Test of Honesty-Humility: An Implicit Instrument for Organizational Contexts Mechanisms Underlying the Use of Power-Creativity Relationship in the Military: Achievement Motivation and Identification Authentic Leadership’s Impact on Follower Psychological Capital and Performance Through Organizational Identification and Role Clarity Doing Good to Be (Subtly) Bad: A Moral Licensing View on the Relations Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Instigated Incivility Toxic Triads: Supervisor Characteristics, Subordinate Self-Esteem, and Supervisor Stressors in Relation to Perceptions of Abusive Supervision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1