Hogan Personality Inventory

188 Pages·2007·3.68 MB·English

H O G A N
P E R S O N A L I T Y
I N V E N T O R Y
M A N U A L
RobeRt Hogan, PH.D. Joyce Hogan , PH.D.
www.hoganpress.com
HOGAN PERSONALITY INVENTORY MANUAL RobeRt Hogan, PH.D. Joyce Hogan, PH.D.
Hogan Personality Inventory Manual
Third Edition

Robert Hogan, Ph.D.
Joyce Hogan, Ph.D.

Hogan Assessment Systems
Tulsa, OK 74114, USA

2007
© 2007 Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this work may be copied or transferred to any other form or expression without the
expressed written consent of Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc.

TM
Hogan Personality Inventory
TM
Hogan Development Survey
TM
Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory
TM
Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory
are the exclusive registered trademarks of Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc.

www.hoganassessments.com

ISBN 978-0-9840969-5-4
C O N T E N T S
Contents
1. Introduction 8
1.1 Applying Socioanalytic Theory to Performance at Work 8
1.2 Measurement: Personality Assessment and the Five-Factor Model 10
1.3 Measurement: Assessing Job Performance using Multidimensional Models 11
1.4 A Viewpoint on Measurement 12
1.5 What to Measure 13
2. Inventory Construction, Reliability, And Confirmation 15
2.1 Early Development 15
2.2 Later Development 16
2.3 Most Recent Technical Developments 17
2.4 Definitions of the Scales 19
2.5 Composition of the Personality Scales; The 1992 Factor Analysis 20
2.6 Composition of the Personality Scales: The 2007 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 26
2.7 HPI Scale Distributions and Reliability 31
2.8 HPI Test-Retest Reliability 37
3. Validity 42
3.1 Correlations With Other Tests 43
3.2 Interpretive Summaries of the HPI Scale Correlations with Other Tests 64
3.3 HPI Correlates of Organizational Behavior 69
3.4 HPI Validity for Personnel Selection in Seven Job Families 78
3.41 Managers & Executives Job Family 83
3.42 Professionals Job Family 88
3.43 Technicians & Specialists Job Family 91
3.44 Operations & Trades Job Family 94
3.45 Sales & Customer Support Job Family 97
3.46 Administrative & Clerical Job Family 101
3.47 Service & Support Job Family 103
4. Interpretation 107
4.1 Adjustment 108
4.2 Ambition 109
4.3 Sociability 110
4.4 Interpersonal Sensitivity 111
4.5 Prudence 112
4.6 Inquisitive 113
4.7 Learning Approach 114
4.8 Adjectival Correlates of HPI Scale Scores 115
3
C O N T E N T S
5. Administering the HPI 121
5.1 Key Features of the Web-Based Platform 121
5.2 Completing the HPI Using the Online Internet System 122
5.3 Participant’s Informed Consent 125
5.4 Using International Translations of the HPI 127
5.5 Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities 130
5.6 Frequently Asked Questions 130
5.7 Alternative Testing Solutions 131
6. Compilation Of Norms 132
6.1 Characteristics of the 2005 HPI Norming Sample 132
6.2 Demographics of the Norming Sample 137
6.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Norming Sample 138
7. References 143
Appendix A: 2005 HPI Norming Sample Scale Scores 157
Appendix B: 1995 HPI Norms (N=21,573) 166
Appendix C: References For Transportability Of Validity Within Job Families 167
Appendix D: Correlations of HPI Scales With Adjectival Descriptions By Observers 175
4
TA B L E S & F I G U R E S
Tables & Figures
Table 1.1 Components of the Five-Factor Model 9
Table 2.1 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix for HPI HIC 22
Table 2.2 The Constituent HICs for the Seven HPI Scales 25
Table 2.3 Intercorrelations Between HPI Observed Scale Scores and Latent Factor Scores 27
Figure 2.1 HIC-Level Confirmatory Factor Model for the HPI 28
Figure 2.2 Histogram of Standardized Residuals for the Oblique Factor Model with Maximum Likelihood 29
Parameter Estimation
Table 2.4 CFA factor Loadings for the HPI HICs 30
Table 2.5 Classical Item and Scale Statistics for the HPI 35
Table 2.6 Composite Alphas and Standard Errors of Measurement for the Seven HPI Scales 36
Table 2.7 Hypothetical Scores on a Personality Scale Over Two Test Occasions 37
Figure 2.3 Hypothetical Scores and Test-Retest Reliabilities for a Personality Scale Over Two Test 38
Occasions
Table 2.8 Short-Term (14-21 day interval) Test-Retest Stability Indices for the HPI 40
Table 2.9 Long-Term (8 years interval) Test-Retest Stability Indices for the HPI 41
Table 3.1 Correlations Between the ASVAB Composites and the HPI Scales 44
Table 3.2 Correlations Between the PSI Basic Skills Tests and the HPI Scales 44
Table 3.3 Correlations Between GATB (Form E) and the HPI Scales 45
Table 3.4 Correlations Between WGCTA (Form B) and the HPI Scales 46
Table 3.5 Correlations Between BMCT and the HPI Scales 46
Table 3.6 Correlations Between HBRI and the HPI Scales 46
Table 3.7 Correlations Between the MBTI and the HPI Scales 48
Table 3.8 Correlations Between the SDS and the HPI Scales 48
Table 3.9 Correlations Between the MVPI the HPI Scales 48
Table 3.10 Correlations Between the IAS and the HPI Scales 50
Table 3.11 Correlations Between Goldberg’s Big-Five Markers and the HPI Scales 50
Table 3.12 Correlations Between 16PF and the HPI Scales 51
Table 3.13 Correlations Between CPI and the HPI Scales 52
Table 3.14 Correlations Between JPI-R and the HPI Scales 53
Table 3.15 Correlations Between MPQ the HPI Scales 53
Table 3.16 Correlations Between the NEO-PI-R and the HPI Scales 54
Table 3.17 Correlations Between the PCI Primary Scales and the HPI Scales 54
Table 3.18 Correlations Between the Inventario de Personalidad de Cinco Factores and the HPI Scales 54
Figure 3.1 Relations Between FFM Inventories and the HPI Scales 55
Table 3.19 Correlations Between the HDS and the HPI Scales 57
Table 3.20 Characteristics of Rated Personality Description Scales 66
Table 3.21 Scale Correlates of Rated Personality Descriptions 67
Table 3.22 Adjectival Correlates of the HPI Scales 68
Figure 3.2 Example Criteria Representing Getting Along, Getting Ahead, and HPI Personality Scales 70
5
TA B L E S & F I G U R E S
Table 3.23 Distribution of Studies Based on Holland Code and Job Title 72
Table 3.24 Meta-Analysis Results Across Getting Along and Getting Ahead Criteria Combined 74
Table 3.25 Meta-Analysis Results for Getting Along and Getting Ahead Criteria Separated 74
Table 3.26 Meta-Analysis Results for Criteria Aligned by Personality Construct 77
Table 3.27 US Department of Labor Job Categories and SOC Codes Categorized by Job Family 83
Table 3.28 Managers & Executives Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 84
Table 3.29 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Managers & 85
Executives Jobs
Table 3.30 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Managers & Executives Job Family 87
Competencies
Table 3.31 Professionals Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 89
Table 3.32 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Professionals Jobs 89
Table 3.33 HPI Scale Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Professionals Job Family Competencies 90
Table 3.34 Technicians & Specialists Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 92
Table 3.35 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Technicians & 92
Specialists Jobs
Table 3.36 HPI Scale Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Technicians & Specialists Job Family 93
Competencies
Table 3.37 Operations & Trade Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 95
Table 3.38 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Operations & 95
Trades Jobs
Table 3.39 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Operations & Trades Job Family Competen- 96
cies
Table 3.40 Sales & Customer Support Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 98
Table 3.41 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Sales & Customer 99
Support Jobs
Table 3.42 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Sales & Customer Support Job Family Compe- 100
tencies
Table 3.43 Administrative & Clerical Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Meta-Analysis 101
Table 3 44 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Administrative & 102
Clerical Jobs
Table 3.45 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Administrative & Clerical Job Family Compe- 103
tencies
Table 3.46 Service & Support Jobs with Criterion-Related Data for Transportability of Validity 104
Table 3.47 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between HPI Scales and Performance Criteria for Service & Support 104
Jobs
Table 3.48 HPI Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity for Service & Support Job Family Competencies 105
Table 4.1 Adjustment Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 116
Table 4.2 Ambition Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 117
Table 4.3 Sociability Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 117
6
TA B L E S & F I G U R E S
Table 4.4 Interpersonal Sensitivity Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 118
Table 4.5 Prudence Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 119
Table 4.6 Inquisitive Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 119
Table 4.7 Learning Approach Correlations with CQS and ACL Items 120
Figure 5.1 Hogan Assessment Systems Participant Login Web Page 122
Figure 5.2 Hogan Assessment Systems Participant Information Web Page 123
Figure 5.3 Hogan Assessment Systems Participant Menu Web Page 124
Figure 5.4 Hogan Assessment Systems Questionnaire Assessment Web Page 125
Table 5.1 HPI Language Translations 127
Figure 5.5 Hogan Assessment Systems Report Language Selection 128
Figure 5.6 Hogan Assessment Systems Language Translation Flags 129
Table 6.1 HPI Database Classified by DoL Occupations 134
Table 6.2 HPI Norming Sample Distribution by Occupation Using Applicants in Selection Contexts 135
Table 6.3 Final Norming Sample Distribution by Test Purpose 136
Table 6.4 Final Norming Sample Distribution by Occupation 136
Table 6.5 Gender Distribution of Final Norming Sample 137
Table 6.6 Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Final Norming Sample 137
Table 6.7 Norming Sample Ethnic Composition by Age and Gender 137
Table 6.8 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations 138
Table 6.9 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Age 139
Table 6.10 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Gender 140
Table 6.11 Norming Sample Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Age and Gender 141
Table A.1 Norms for the Total Sample 157
Table A.2 Stratified Norms of Validity Scale 158
Table A.3 Stratified Norms of Adjustment Scale 159
Table A.4 Stratified Norms of Ambition Scale 160
Table A.5 Stratified Norms of Sociability Scale 162
Table A.6 Stratified Norms of Interpersonal Sensitivity Scale 162
Table A.7 Stratified Norms of Prudence Scale 163
Table A.8 Stratified Norms of Inquisitive Scale 164
Table A.9 Stratified Norms of Learning Approach Scale 165
Table C.1 Research References Contributing HPI Validity Data for Seven Job Families 167
Table D.1 HPI Scale Correlations with Adjective Checklist Items 175
Table D.2 HPI Scale Correlations with Adjective Checklist Items 183
7
1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N
1. Introduction
The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) is a measure of normal personality. That statement raises two
questions. First, what is personality? And second, how can it be measured? Regarding nature, personal-
ity concerns two big things: (a) generalizations about human nature—what people are like way down deep;
and (b) systematic accounts of individual differences—which differences among people are important and
how do they arise?
1.1 Applying Socioanalytic Theory to Performance at Work
With regard to generalizations about human nature, the early pioneers of personality psychology (e.g.,
Freud, Jung, Adler, Horney, Erikson) argued that the most important generalization made is that everyone
is neurotic—which means that the most important psychological problem in life is to overcome one’s neu-
rosis. However, that generalization is empirically false—for example, the base rate of neuroticism is too
low to be a general characteristic (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005; Renaud & Estes, 1961).

Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983, 1991, 1996) is intended to explain individ- Socioanalytic theory
ual differences in interpersonal effectiveness, and is rooted in the long
is rooted in the
tradition of interpersonal psychology (Carson, 1969; Leary, 1957; Sullivan, 1953;
long tradition of
Wiggins, 1979). The theory is based on the following five assumptions: per-
interpersonal
sonality is best understood in terms of human evolution; people evolved
as group-living and culture-using animals; the most important human mo- psychology.
tives facilitate group living and enhance individual survival; social interac-
tion involves negotiating for acceptance and status; and, finally, some people are more effective at this
than others (Hogan, 1996; Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985). The theory is based on two generalizations relevant to
organizational behavior: people always live (work) in groups, and groups are always structured in terms of
status hierarchies. These generalizations suggest the presence of two broad motive patterns that trans-
late into behavior designed to “get along” with other members of the group, and to “get ahead” or achieve
status vis á vis other members of the group. Getting along and getting ahead are familiar themes in per-
sonality psychology (cf. Adler, 1939; Bakan, 1966; Rank, 1945; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Their importance is justified
in Darwinian terms: people who cannot get along with others and who lack status and power have reduced
opportunities for reproductive success.
Socioanalytic theory specifies that personality should be defined from the perspectives of the actor and
the observer. Personality from the actor’s view is a person’s identity, which is manifested in terms of the
strategies a person uses to pursue acceptance and status. Identity controls an actor’s social behavior.
Personality from the observer’s view is a person’s reputation and is defined in terms of trait evaluations—
conforming, helpful, talkative, competitive, calm, curious, and so forth. Reputation reflects an observer’s
view of the actor’s characteristic ways of behaving in public. Reputation is the link between the actor’s
8
1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N
efforts to achieve acceptance and status and how those efforts are evaluated by observers. Reputation
describes a person’s behavior; identity explains it.
From the lexical perspective (Goldberg, 1981), the development of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) (cf. Digman, 1990;
Goldberg, 1992; John, 1990, p. 72; McCrae & Costa, 1987) is based on 75 years of factor analytic research on the
structure of trait terms and peer ratings (cf. Thurstone, 1934; Tupes & Christal, 1961; Norman, 1963). The FFM sug-
gests that we think about and describe one another in terms of five broad trait-based themes (see Table
1.1).
Table 1.1
Components of the Five-Factor Model
Factor Definition ACL Marker Items*
I. Extraversion/Surgency The degree to which a person needs Quiet, Reserved, Shy vs. Talkative,
attention and social interaction. Assertive, Active
II. Agreeableness The degree to which a person needs Fault-finding, Cold, Unfriendly vs.
pleasant and harmonious relations Sympathetic, Kind, Friendly
with others.
III. Conscientiousness The degree to which a person is will- Careless, Disorderly, Frivolous vs.
ing to comply with conventional rules, Organized, Thorough, Precise
norms, and standards.
IV. Emotional Stability The degree to which a person experi- Tense, Anxious, Nervous vs. Stable,
ences the world as threatening and Calm, Contented
beyond his/her control.
V. Intellect/Openness to Experience The degree to which a person needs Commonplace, Narrow- interest,
intellectual stimulation, change, and Simple- vs. Wide- interest, Imagina-
variety. tive, Intelligent

*The adjectives listed here were taken from John’s (1990, Table 3.2) listing of factor loadings for selected Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun,
1983) items.
These factors are a taxonomy of reputation (cf. Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), and are
labeled as follows: Factor I, Extraversion or Surgency; Factor II, Agreeableness; Factor III, Conscientious-
ness; Factor IV, Emotional Stability; and Factor V, Intellect/Openness to Experience (John, 1990). Because
reputations are a rough index of the amount of acceptance and status a person enjoys (Foa & Foa, 1974,
1980; Wiggins, 1979), and because reputations are encoded in FFM terms (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), it follows
that the five factors are also evaluations of acceptance and status (Digman, 1997). Digman (1997) concluded
that two higher-order factors organize the FFM; he notes that these two broad factors precisely parallel ear-
lier dichotomies such as social interests versus superiority striving (Adler, 1939), communion versus agency
(Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1991), union versus individualism (Rank, 1945), status versus popularity (Hogan, 1983), and
intimacy versus power (McAdams, 1985).
9