Lessons Learned in Transitioning Personality Measures From Research to Operational Settings

Hough and Oswald have acknowledged the major contribution of the U.S. Army’s Project A to our understanding of personnel selection within the field of industrial–organizational psychology. Results from validation of the Assessment of Background and Life Experiences (ABLE) developed in Project A provided strong evidence of the utility of personality constructs for predicting important aspects of military performance. Since Project A, the U.S. Army Research Institute for theBehavioralandSocial Sciences (ARI) has conducted much research on the use of personality measures for personnel selection and classification decisions. Our commentary will focus primarily on the use of personality measures for highstakes, Army applicant screening. Much of this research has involved either the ABLE or the Assessment of Individual Motivation (AIM), both self-report personality measures assessing constructs that overlap with the Big Five. With respect to item format and transparency, ABLE is similar to many personality measures that are widely used today. AIM uses a forced-choice approach to help reduce concerns regarding fakability. Without question, the ‘‘faking problem’’ has been one of the greatest challenges to the Army’s ability to implement and sustain the operational, large-scale use of self-report personality measures, especially in highstakes testing situations. Our focus on this issue began during Project A when promising findings resulted in the ABLE being seriously considered for use in high-stakes, Army applicant screening. However, due primarily to concerns about its susceptibility to faking and coaching, ABLE was never used operationally by the Army for applicant screening. Today—20 years later—the Army is having some success in using personality measures for making real-life personnel selection and assignment decisions. In the spirit of Hough Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leonard A. White. E-mail: len.white@ cox.net Address: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3926. Leonard A. White and Mark C. Young, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; Arwen E. Hunter, The George Washington University; Michael G. Rumsey, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. All statements expressed in this commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the U.S. Army Research Institute or the Department of the Army. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 291–295. Copyright a 2008 No claim to original US government works. 1754-9426/08