1 / 23

Eric Cartaya Florida International University

The Effects of Disposition on Training-Related Criteria: An Examination of Openness to Experience and Extraversion on Accuracy. Eric Cartaya Florida International University. Theoretical underpinnings. Bowen (1997)

ash
Télécharger la présentation

Eric Cartaya Florida International University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of Disposition on Training-Related Criteria: An Examination of Openness to Experience and Extraversion on Accuracy Eric Cartaya Florida International University

  2. Theoretical underpinnings Bowen (1997) • Apparent shift of job design and appraisal to more organizational level criteria • Making subjective ratings increasingly necessary in applied settings Kristoff (1996); Stevens (1999) • Hiring practices • PO Fit and subjective ratings

  3. Theoretical underpinnings Research has begun to address these issues: • Smith (1986) • Inherent difficulties in applied settings puts increased pressure on subjective ratings • Denisi, Cafferty & Meglino (1984); Landy and Farr (1980) • Three problem areas in subjective validity: • Subjective Bias • Individual Differences • Individual’s Frame of Reference

  4. Theoretical underpinnings Woehr (1994) • 2 ways of addressing subjective validity • Development of rating scales (anchoring) • Resulting in little improvement in ratings • Landy and Farr (1980) • Rater training • Showing considerable potential in increasing accuracy of rating scores • Woehr & Huffcut (1994)

  5. Five-Factor Model of Personality Eysenck (1996) • Trainees bring individual differences to the learning task, which impacts their proficiency • Big Five Taxonomy • Conscientiousness • Extraversion (E) • Agreeableness • Neuroticism • Openness to experience (OE)

  6. Previous Research Research has shown specific ties between disposition and training proficiency • Barrick and Mount (1998)(1991) • Individuals with certain traits are likely to gain more from training • The five-factor model • Openness to Experience • Extraversion

  7. Previous Research Barrick and Mount (1991;1995) • OE and E are predictors of training proficiency • Openness to Experience (=.25) • Imaginative, broad-minded, intelligent • Extraversion (=.26) • Sociable, assertive, talkative

  8. Rater Training Three major interventions in training: • Rater Error Training (RET) • Bernardin & Pence (1980) • Performance Dimension Training (PDT) • Feldman (1986) • Frame of Reference Training (FOR) • Bernardin and Buckley (1981)

  9. Rater Training Frame of Reference Training • Multidimensionality of performance • Defined performance dimensions • Examples of behavior within dimensions • Feedback • The goal of FOR is to train raters to use common conceptualizations of performance when making decisions about ratee performance. • .83 effect size between FOR trainees and rater accuracy (no effect for non-training group)

  10. Rater Accuracy Cronbach’s accuracy components • Elevation • Differential elevation • Stereotype accuracy • Differential accuracy • Estimates both correlational and distance information relative to target scores • Matrix table

  11. Hypothesis 1 • H1: FOR will produce ratings that are more accurate, according to Cronbach’s accuracy components, than ratings before training.

  12. Hypothesis 2 • H2: Individuals high in openness to experience will exhibit higher post-training accuracy ratings, based on Cronbach’s components of accuracy, than those low in openness to experience.

  13. Hypothesis 3 • H3: Individuals high in extraversion will exhibit higher post-training accuracy ratings, based on Cronbach’s components of accuracy, than those low in extraversion.

  14. Method • Sample • 137 undergraduate participants • Design / Procedure • Longitudinal Design • Time 1 = pre-training accuracy scores • Time 2 = post-training accuracy scores (immediately after training) • Time 3 = post-training accuracy scores (2 weeks after training) • Scripted TA video clips • Target score development • FOR intervention

  15. Method • Measures • Modified IPIP Personality Questionnaire • TA ratings for eight taped performances • 3 at Time 1, 2 at Time 2 , 3 at Time 3 • Cronbach computations of accuracy • FOR content quiz • Data analysis • Regression • T- tests

  16. Procedure OE and E effect FOR IPIP Time 1 Time 2 Time 3/Quiz Pre-training Accuracy Scores Post-training Accuracy Scores

  17. Results • Hypothesis 1: No Support • FOR training did not improve participants rating accuracy based on Cronbach’s accuracy components • T-tests showed significant differences between time periods, however not in the expected direction • Participants became less accurate in all accuracy components except one • Sterotype accuracy: Time 1 Time 2 • See Table

  18. Results • Hypothesis 2: Limited Support • OE influenced stereotype accuracy only at Time 3. • Significant variance in stereotype accuracy ratings at Time 3 was explained by OE, after controlling for Time 1 and Time 2. • OE did not influence Time 2 and Time 3 post-training accuracy for any other components.

  19. Results • Hypothesis 3: No Support • E did not influence post-training accuracy scores at Time 2 or Time 3.

  20. Supplementary analysis • Raw scores • Raw scores were analyzed relative to target scores. • Results echoed those found in Hypothesis 1 • Content quiz • A content quiz was given at Time 3 as an alternate measure of training proficiency. • Extraversion was found to be related to scores on the content quiz.

  21. Alternative Explanations for Findings 1. Low salience manipulation • 30 minute intervention was not enough • Although supported in the literature • McIntyre, Smith, and Hasset (1984) 2. Set mental models (Marks et al., 2000) • Individuals have set “mental models” (e.g., people have schemas about what teaching effectiveness is) • 30 minute intervention created dissonance in mental models • Need for a neutral training content

  22. Alternative explanations 3. A lack of cognitive resources (Kanfer, 1994) • Individuals have a finite pool of resources • Students involved in high task / high goal environment • Student’s cognitive resources are directed towards accomplishing academic tasks and goals, and away from non-relevant, “unimportant” tasks

  23. Limitations • Generalizability • Undergraduate students used in sample • May not generalize to applied setting • Time delays • 2 week time delay between post-training accuracy scores may be too long • Sulsky and Day (1994) • Accuracy is best preserved when there is no delay • Accuracy begins to decrease after a two-day time delay

More Related