March journal madness continues with the latest issue of the journal Human Performance.
There's really only one article in here related to selection, but it's an interesting one, so let's take a look.
In this study of 229 students from an southeastern U.S. university, Grubb and McDaniel looked at the constructs measured and fakability of the Emotional Quotient Inventory Short Form (EQ-i:S), a popular proposed measure of emotional intelligence.
The bottom line results:
- Participants were able to "fake" their scores, raising them substantially (by .83 standard deviations). Not particularly surprising as it's fairly well established that non-cognitive measures can be "faked." (What's not clear is whether it matters...)
- The two "screens" built into the EQ-i:S to try to identify fakers correctly identified only 31% of the fakers.
- EQ-i:S scores were predicted by the Big Five measure with a multiple correlation of .79. This result, say the authors, "casts doubt on the construct of emotional intelligence as operationalized in the EQ-i:S."
But there's some additional goodness in this article, largely because the authors also had the participants take the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) and a measure of the Big Five personality factors (IPIP):
- WPT scores were correlated strongly with only one Big Five factor--Openness.
- The correlation between WPT scores and gender was small.
- Black-White score differences on the Big Five factors were small.
- Gender was correlated with Big Five scales, but the nature varied depending on the condition (honest or faking).
- The ability to fake on the EQ-i:S was a function of cognitive ability and personality (mostly agreeableness).
There were other articles, one of which I'll discuss over at HR Coal.