validation of the multicultural personality questionnaire in the context of personnel selection
TRANSCRIPT
European Journal of Personality
Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Published online 19 February 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.483
Validation of the Multicultural PersonalityQuestionnaire in the Context of
Personnel Selection
KAREN I. VAN DER ZEE1*, JAC N. ZAAL2 ANDJANTIEN PIEKSTRA1
1University of Groningen, The Netherlands2GITP-Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
The present data provide support for the reliability of the Multicultural Personality
Questionnaire among a sample of job applicants (n¼ 264). Factor analysis confirmed five
factors: Cultural Empathy, Open-Mindedness, Social Initiative, Flexibility, and Emotional
Stability. Moreover, the data largely support the construct validity of the MPQ. Correlations
with the Big Five were in the expected direction, and as predicted, Cultural Empathy and
Social Initiative were both positively related to socially oriented vocational interests and
Flexibility to artistic interests. Against our predictions, Cultural Empathy, Open-
Mindedness, and Flexibility appeared to be related to verbal intelligence. A comparable
pattern of relations of the Big Five with intelligence and vocational interests was found.
Finally, the MPQ scales predicted variance in an indicator of overall behaviour above the
Big Five, supporting its incremental validity. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
As a result of the growing mondial competition and globalization of our business
environment at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century,
organizations are becoming more and more international in their orientation. Increasingly,
employees are sent abroad for shorter or longer periods of time and also in the local
business environment employees are confronted with colleagues, clients, and customers
from different cultural backgrounds. Operating effectively in an intercultural context
seems to require specific skills, traits, and abilities (see e.g. Arthur & Bennett, 1995;
Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997). Not surprisingly, methods for selection and assessment are
increasingly affected by these globalization tendencies (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999). Until
recently, selection of international employees has suffered from two major pitfalls.
First, many companies select high performers from their local firm for international
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
*Correspondence to: Professor Karen I. van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, Department of Social and OrganisationalPsychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9721 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected]
assignments, assuming that their success will translate into the foreign work environment.
However, the skills, traits, and abilities related to success in the local firm may not be the
ones that are crucial to success in an international context. Second, companies seem to
focus primarily on the required technical competencies (Aryee, 1997), whereas research
has clearly revealed support for the importance of psychosocial dimensions, such as open-
mindedness and adaptability (see e.g. Arthur & Bennett, 1995). There seems to be a clear
need for valid and reliable tools that can be used for the assessment and selection of
international employees, focusing on these psychosocial competencies.
The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire
An increasing body of research focuses on the relation between personality and
multicultural success (see e.g. Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997;
Ward & Chang, 1997), assuming that personality traits have predictive value against success
in international positions. Some of these studies have been conducted within the Big Five
framework (Deller, 1997; see Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997, for an overview). However, the
Big Five may be too broad to cover trait aspects that are relevant to multicultural success.
The use of global dimensions may overshadow differential predictive capabilities of more
specific traits (see e.g. Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995; Ashton,
1998; Paunonen, 1998). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire was specifically deve-
loped to measure five personality dimensions that seem relevant to multicultural effective-
ness. The instrument has scales for Cultural Empathy, Open-Mindedness, Social Initiative,
Emotional Stability, and Flexibility (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). Even
the MPQ scales that closely correspond with Big Five scales are designed to cover more
narrowly those aspects of the broader trait that are of relevance to multicultural success.
The first dimension is Cultural Empathy. Ruben (1976) defines Cultural Empathy as the
capacity to clearly project an interest in others, as well as to obtain and to reflect a reasonably
complete and accurate sense of another’s thoughts, feelings, and/or experiences. In other
words, this dimension points to the ability to empathize with the feelings, thoughts and
behaviours of members of different cultural groups. A second relevant dimension to
acquiring the rules and values of a new culture isOpen-Mindedness, referring to an open and
unprejudiced attitude towards outgroup members and towards different cultural norms and
values (see Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Harris, 1973;
Ronen, 1989). The third MPQ dimension is Social Initiative, defined as a tendency to actively
approach social situations and to take the initiative. A related construct is Extraversion,
indicating talkativeness, sociability, assertiveness, and high energy, which several resear-
chers argue to be important for multicultural success (Armes & Ward, 1989; Deller, 1997;
Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997). The key here seems to take actions rather than to wait and see.
Emotional Stability refers to a tendency to remain calm in stressful situations versus a
tendency to show strong emotional reactions under stressful circumstances (see e.g. Abe &
Weisman, 1983; Armes & Ward, 1989; Church, 1982; Hammer et al., 1978; Tung, 1981).
Flexibility as the fifth dimension of multicultural effectiveness has been discussed as
important by a number of authors (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963;
Hanvey, 1976; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Smith, 1966; Torbiorn, 1982). In intercultural
situations people need to be able to switch easily from one strategy to another, because
familiar ways of handling things may no longer work. Moreover, they should not be afraid
of new and unknown situations but instead feel attracted to them, seeing them as a
challenge rather than as a threat (see e.g. Kets de Vries & Mead, 1991; McCall, 1994).
S78 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
In earlier research among student samples, support was obtained for the internal
structure and construct validity of the MPQ (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001),
as well as its incremental value above the Big Five in predicting international orientation
(Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Moreover, the concurrent and predictive
validities of the five dimensions have been established against success and well-being in an
intercultural context (Mol, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2001; Van Oudenhoven &
Van der Zee, manuscript submitted for publication). For example, in a longitudinal study
among international students, Van Oudenhoven and Van der Zee (manuscript submitted for
publication) showed that higher scores on the MPQ are associated with a higher sense of
psychological and social well-being. However, these findings are in majority based on
student samples. It is unclear whether these findings can be generalized to applicant
populations in the context of real selection decisions. The purpose of the present study was
to validate the MPQ in the context of personnel selection. The construct validity of the
MPQ was examined against indicators of general personality, intelligence, and vocational
interests. Unfortunately, the majority of our respondents were selected for positions that
did not have an international scope, so that it was impossible to link test performance to
ratings of suitability for an international career or even to assess actual job success.
Nevertheless, in order to get at least some indication of the concurrent validity of the
instrument, we related scale scores to overall assessments of assessors based on their final
evaluations on a number of behavioural criteria.
The MPQ and personality
Support for the construct and incremental validity of the MPQ scales is obtained if (i) the
MPQ scales are in a predicted way related to corresponding scales from general
personality instruments, (ii) the MPQ scales reveal a comparable (and predictable) pattern
of relations with related instruments as corresponding scales from general personality
instruments, and (iii) the MPQ scales are able to predict variance in job criteria above
general personality (see for example Nunnally, 1978). As a framework for approaching
personality we departed from the Big Five model (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990),
describing personality in terms of five factors: I, Extraversion; II, Agreeableness; III,
Conscientiousness; IV, Emotional Stability; and V, Intellect/Autonomy (Goldberg, 1990),
also referred to as Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Despite the fact that
the usefulness of the Big Five model for assessing personality in a work context has been
established (see e.g. Ferguson, Payne, & Anderson, 1994), many practitioners prefer the
use of lower-level trait indicators. Their meaning in the personality–job performance
relation is often more easily interpreted (see e.g. Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson, 1999;
Schneider, Hough, & Dunette, 1996). However, the large number of instruments for these
lower-level traits makes it hard to combine personality findings from large groups of
candidates for scientific research, as in many cases they have filled out different
combinations of personality indicators. In the present study, this problem was resolved by
computing Big Five scores by constructing composite scores from scores on lower-level
personality scales (see Koch, 1998).
First, it was expected that Cultural Empathy is most strongly related to Agreeableness.
The agreeable person can be described as warm-hearted, kind, trusting, and compassionate
(McCrae & Costa, 1990). Both Cultural Empathy and Agreeableness refer to a warm and
sympathetic interest in other people. Open-mindedness was expected to be most strongly
related to Openness to Experience. Intellect/Autonomy refers to imaginativeness,
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S79
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
curiosity, and an interest in intellectual and/or artistic pursuits. Both Open-Mindedness
and the fifth factor refer to openness to new ideas. Moreover, Caprara, Barbarinelli, and
Borgogni (1993) explicitly argue that the fifth factor encompasses openness to culture.
Earlier findings from a study with the MPQ among a student sample supported this
prediction (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Also on the basis of earlier empirical
evidence and based on their conceptual resemblance, the MPQ scales for Social Initiative
and Emotional Stability were expected to reveal the highest correlation with the
corresponding Big Five scales for Extraversion and Emotional Stability (Van der Zee &
Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Finally, in addition to indicators of the Big Five dimensions, a
rigidity scale was included in the present study, for its assumed correspondence—in a
negative sense—to the MPQ Flexibility scale. Rigidity refers to a tendency to stick to old
customs and principles, a lack of intellectual flexibility, conservatism and thriftiness
(Luteijn, Starren, & Van Dijk, 2000), characteristics that seem to reflect the opposite of the
ability to adjust flexibly to the demands of new and unknown situations.
The MPQ and cognitive abilities
Although the importance of intelligence in the development and expression of personality
has been stressed repeatedly in the literature (Ackerman, 1996; Baron, 1982), empirical
evidence suggests only weak associations between personality and cognitive ability
dimensions (Eysenck, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Zeidner, 1995). Exceptions are
studies that show a relation between factor V and intelligence (Brand, 1994; De Raad,
1994; Saucier, 1992). We therefore assumed that the MPQ-scales are unrelated to
intelligence dimensions. In an earlier study, we indeed found no indication of a relation
between the MPQ-scale for Cultural Empathy and intelligence (Van der Zee, Van Leest, &
Van Oudenhoven, 2002). Because the Open-mindedness dimension refers to curiosity with
respect to different cultures rather than an intellectual curiosity we also expected no
relation between this dimension and intelligence.
The MPQ and vocational interests
According to Hogan and Blake (1999) vocational interests are related to personality in a
meaningful way and Holland (1985) also regards vocational interests as expressions of
underlying personality traits. It seems therefore interesting to relate the MPQ scores to
indicators of vocational interests. In the present study the MPQ scores were related to the
ten interest dimensions of Thurstone’s (1928) Interest Schedule: natural scientific/
technical–constructive interests; biological–medical interests; administrative/economic
interests; commercial/enterprising interests; managerial/representative interests; convin-
cing/persuading interests; literacy/verbal interests; interest in humanitarian–social work;
artistic interests; and, finally, musical interests. In this classification of vocational interests,
the order in which the dimensions are presented is by no means at random. Each variable
reveals its highest correlation with the nearest one. According to Thurstone (1928), going
from natural scientific to musical interests represents a continuous transition from analytic,
restrictive thinking to intuitive and fluid thinking. It seems that particularly the intuitive
and fluid dimensions are related in a positive way to intercultural traits.
In the present study, we first expected Cultural Empathy to be primarily related to the
‘humanitarian–social work’ dimension. In his vocational theory, Holland (1985) describes
personalities with Social interests as individuals who are empathic, tactful, warm, and
understanding, and this seems to converge with our definition of Cultural Empathy.
S80 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Indirect empirical evidence is provided by Hofstee, de Raad, and Goldberg (1992). They
applied the Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) algorithm to Holland’s taxonomy. The
AB5C model represents trait adjectives in terms of their primary and secondary loadings
on the Big Five factors. In principal components analysis, they found the social type in the
IIþ IIþ box (revealing primary and secondary loadings on the Agreeableness factor) in
the AB5C taxonomy. A negative relationship was expected of the natural scientific/
technical constructive and biological–medical interests with Cultural Empathy. Both
interests seem to be characteristic of what Holland in his vocational theory refers to as the
Investigative personality type. The Investigative type is characterized by a preference for
activities that entail the observational, symbolic, systematic, and creative1 investigation of
physical, biological, and cultural phenomena in order to control such phenomena; and to
an aversion to persuasive, social, and repetitive activities. This aversion to social activities
was expected to be reflected in a negative correlation between the MPQ scale for Cultural
Empathy and both TBT scales.
Open-Mindedness and Flexibility were expected to be positively related to the
dimensions referring to Artistic interests, that is, ‘artistic’ and ‘musical’. According to
Holland (1985), the Artistic person is characterized by a preference for ambiguous, free,
unsystematic activities. The preference for ambiguous activities suggests a positive
relationship with the MPQ scale for Flexibility. Moreover, creativity also needs an open
attitude and a tendency to be curious, a tendency to explore things. We therefore also
expected a positive relationship between Open-Mindedness and both artistic dimensions.
Hofstee et al. (1992) argue that the AB5C position of the Artistic dimension is purely on
the fifth factor. De Fruyt and Mervielde (1997) report a correlation of 0.56 between
Openness to Experience and scores on the Artistic interest type. In addition, a negative
relation of Flexibility and Open-Mindedness with the administrative/economic scale was
expected. Holland refers to this interest dimension as ‘Conventional’, characterized by a
preference for explicit, ordered, systematic manipulation of data, and an aversion to
ambiguous, free, exploratory, or unsystematic activities (Holland, 1985). This pattern of
preferences seems more typical of the rigid, close-minded person than of the flexible and
open person. Indeed, De Fruyt and Mervielde (1997) found a negative relationship
between Conventional scores and Openness to Experience.
Social Initiative was expected to be positively related to both the dimension
‘humanitarian–social work’ referring to Social interests and the dimensions that refer to
Enterprising interests (commercial/enterprising, managerial/representative, and convin-
cing/persuading). According to Holland, social persons have a preference for ‘activities
that entail the manipulation of others to inform, train, develop, cure, or enlighten . . . ’
(p. 21), whereas Enterprising types have a preference for ‘activities that entail the
manipulation of others to attain organisational goals or economic gain . . . ’ (Holland,
1985, p. 21). Common to both definitions is the focus on manipulation of social situations,
which led us to suspect a relation with Social Initiative. Indirect evidence from research on
the relation between the Big Five and Holland’s (1985) vocational types is provided by
Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) and De Fruyt and Mervielde (1997), who found
Extraversion to be significantly related to scores on the Social interest theme. De Fruyt and
Mervielde also present empirical evidence for a relation between Extraversion and the
Enterprising type. In addition, as was hypothesized for Cultural Empathy, a negative
1The TBT scales particularly refer to the observational, symbolic, and systematic investigation of phenomenacharacteristic of the Investigative type and less to creative interests, as indicated by professions such as laboratoryworker. This is also the reason why we did not predict a relation with Open-Mindedness.
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S81
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
relationship was expected of the natural scientific/technical–constructive and biological–
medical interests with Social Initiative. Hence, the Investigative type is characterized by
an aversion to social and persuading activities. Finally, no relationship between Emotional
Stability and vocational interests was expected. Earlier research by Hogan and Blake
(1999) revealed that Emotional Stability was not represented in Holland’s typology and
Johnson, Flammer, and Nelson (1975) also found that Neuroticism was unrelated to
vocational interests. As a second indicator of vocational interests, we examined the impact
of the occupational group which was represented by the position participants were
applying for, on the MPQ score.
Incremental validity
In order to have additive value above the mainstream personality instruments, the MPQ
scores have to be able to predict variance in relevant job criteria above indicators of
general personality. In the present study, the incremental validity of the MPQ above the
Big Five was examined. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to obtain
indicators of actual job performance. To get at least some indication of the incremental
validity of the MPQ, we therefore relied on an overall behavioural competency score,
based on separate end ratings of assessors involved in the selection procedure on a number
of behavioural criteria. These ratings were based on the entire procedure, encompassing
the selection interview, observations of candidates in assessment centre exercises, and test
results. The assessors were blind with respect to candidates’ MPQ results. Support for the
concurrent validity of the MPQ is obtained if these ratings are significantly related to the
overall evaluation of behavioural competency after partialling out the variance that is
explained by the Big Five.
METHOD
Respondents and procedure
A sample of 264 applicants filled out the MPQ in the context of a regular assessment
procedure at different establishments of GITP, in different parts of the Netherlands and
Belgium. The assessment procedures were aimed at selection for a broad variety of
positions at different operational levels. Seventy-four per cent of the participants were
male; 26 per cent were female. The age of the participants varied between 20 and 56 years
(M¼ 35.4, SD¼ 7.94). Finally, the majority of the sample had a university degree
(35.2%), a higher education (26.1%), or a middle education (23.1%); only 2.7% had a
lower education (rest category of 12.9%). In majority, participants applied for a position at
the higher educational level (45.1%). Nineteen per cent applied for a position at the
university level; 15.2% at the middle educational level (rest category of 20.7%). The
assessment procedure encompassed a number of cognitive ability tests, personality and
vocational interest inventories, a selection interview, and behavioural exercises. The exact
composition of the selection procedure differed across candidates, dependent upon the
specific position they applied for. All participants filled out the MPQ.
Instruments
The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000,
2001) was used as an indicator of personality. The MPQ has five subscales. First, the scale
S82 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
for Cultural Empathy consists of 18 items, for example ‘Notices when someone is in
trouble’ (þ ) and ‘Understands other people’s feelings’ (þ ). Second, Open-Mindedness
(18 items) is represented by items such as ‘Gets involved in other cultures’ (þ ) and ‘Finds
other religions interesting’ (þ ). Emotional Stability is assessed by 20 items (e.g. ‘Can put
setbacks in perspective’ (þ ) and ‘Keeps calm at ill-luck’ (þ ). Social Initiative is assessed
by 17 items, including items like ‘Is inclined to speak out’ (þ ) and ‘Is often the driving
force behind things’ (þ ). Finally, the scale for Flexibility has 18 items, sample items
being ‘Avoids adventure’ (� ) and ‘Starts a new life easily’ (þ ). Participants could answer
on a five-point scale, ranging from not at all applicable (1) to totally applicable (5).
Personality. As indicators of personality, we first relied on composite scores on the Big
Five. These scores were computed from scores on alternative personality questionnaires:
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards, 1954, n¼ 254), Guilford LTP
Temperament Survey; GLTS; Buijk, 1974; n¼ 185), Gordon Personal Profile and Gordon
Personal Inventory (Gordon, 1963a, 1963b; n¼ 85), a Dutch achievement motivation test
(Prestatie Motivatie Test (PMT); Hermans, 1976; n¼ 27) and a Dutch personality
questionnaire (Nederlandse Persoonlijkheids Vragenlijst (NPV); Luteijn et al., 2000,
n¼ 66) and the (GITP Big Five (G5); Koch, 1998, n¼ 10). The composite scores on the
Big Five were computed from the scale scores by applying the weights of the different
scales on the five-factor solution. These weights were obtained in an earlier study in which
factor analysis was performed on the correlation matrix of the different personality
questionnaires, including the GITP Big Five as a marker for the five factors (see Koch,
2000). In Table 1 scale meaning, sample items and reliabilities for the G5 are presented.
Composite scores were calculated by computing the mean score obtained on the
corresponding scales from each instrument. Because the composition of the test
programme differed across candidates, the composite scores are based on different
combinations of instruments. Earlier evidence revealed that the composite scores are
highly related to the G5 scores (Koch, 2000).
Second, we used the Nederlandse Persoonlijkheids Vragenlijst (NPV) (Luteijn et al.,
2000) as an indicator of personality. The 133-item NPV has scales for Inadequacy, Social
Anxiety, Rigidity, Hostility, Egoism, Dominance, and Self-Esteem. A person high on the
scale for Inadequacy (�¼ 0.86) is emotional, tensed, unstable, disheartened, easily
disturbed, insecure, and gloomy. A sample item from this scale is ‘I am nervous a lot’.
Social Anxiety (�¼ 0.86), indicates a tendency to keep to the background and to be
introverted, reserved, careful, silent, and stiff. This scale is measured by items such as ‘I
feel uncomfortable talking to strangers’. Rigidity (�¼ 0.81) refers to a tendency to stick to
old customs and principles, to a lack of intellectual flexibility, thoroughness, conservatism,
dutifulness, seriousness, and thriftiness. For example, ‘I have difficulty in deviating from
the usual course’. Individuals high in Hostility (�¼ 0.78) are intolerant, impulsive, easily
irritated, and hot tempered (e.g. ‘I often think that people gossip about me’). Persons with
high scores on the Egoism scale (�¼ 0.70) are characterized by egoism and a low interest
in others. This scale has items such as ‘I don’t care what other people think about me’ and
‘I can also be happy without friends’. Dominance (�¼ 0.74) refers to strength,
determinedness, and authority over others. Dominant persons are stimulating and take
an active role in social groups. For example, ‘I like to take decisions for other people’ and
‘I like to be the life and soul of the party’. Finally, persons with high scores on the Self-
Esteem scale (�¼ 0.74) are active, cheerful, and independent. They have high energy and
are high in self-control (e.g. ‘I like action’ and ‘I am able to take a joke’). Participants
could respond with correct, ?, or incorrect. In an earlier study we found the NPV-scale for
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S83
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Rigidity to be strongly negatively related to the MPQ Flexibility scale (Van der Zee &
Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Inadequacy, Hostility, and Self-Esteem were expected to be
primarily negatively related to Emotional Stability and, finally, strong relations were
predicted of Social Anxiety and Dominance with Social Initiative.
Cognitive abilities. As an indicator of general intelligence, we used the Test voor Niet
Verbale Abstractie (TNVA; Drenth, 1965). This instrument is a Dutch adapted version of
the Test of Non-Verbal Reasoning (R. B. H. & Co. Inc., New York, USA). The test is a
speed–difficulty test, with 40 items and a time limit of 20 minutes. The TNVA is a test for
nonverbal reasoning, which is regarded as a good indicator of Spearman’s (1904) g-factor.
Each test item consists of four geometrical figures that, although they are different, have a
common feature. The task of the respondent is to select from a second series of figures two
figures that have the same common feature as the first series.
Second, a test series developed by GITP was used (Tjoa, 1965). This battery provides a
general level test, in a way that is comparable to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS, Wechsler, 1955) and the Groninger Intelligence Test (GIT, Kooreman & Luteijn,
1987). In addition, the series provide specific information on the level of development of
verbal and numerical abilities. Three dimensions measure verbal abilities. First, the
dimension abstract–verbal–logical refers to analytical and logical reasoning with verbal
materials (subtests for similarities and concept relations 1 and 2). The second dimension
concerns verbal fluency (subtest for vocabulary); the third dimension is language
comprehension and productive language skills (subtests for text completion and jumbled
up sentences). In addition, the battery includes two numerical dimensions: a numerical–
symbolical–logical dimension referring to analytical and logical reasoning with numerical
materials (subtests for numerical series and numerical ratios) and numerical insight and
numerical skills (subtests for problem solving and arithmetic and estimating). Factor
Table 1. Overview of the G5*
Extraversion Having a high need for company, Keeps to the background (�) �¼ 0.92
making contacts easily, liking to
be in the centre of attention. A
preference to collaborate with
others rather than to work alone.
Agreeableness Helpfulness, tolerance and kind- Treats others with kindness �¼ 0.82
heartedness, a tendency to
sympathize with others and to put
trust in other people.
Conscientiousness A tendency to stick to the rules and Arranges things well ahead �¼ 0.93
have high discipline. Having a
desire to achieve things and liking
to work hard.
Emotional Stability Steadiness, solidness, self-confidence Worries about many things (�) �¼ 0.91
and calmness. Being capable of
handling distress and being open
to criticism.
Intellectual Autonomy Reflexiveness, investigativeness and Has a vivid imagination �¼ 0.88
imaginativeness, being open to
experiences, being capable of forming
own opinion.
*Based on Koch (2000, 2001).
S84 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
analysis at the scale level resulted in two higher level factors that explained 59.7% of
variance (eigenvalue > 1). High loadings on the first factor were found for the verbal
subtests for similarities (0.73), vocabulary (0.77), text completion (0.75) and jumbled up
sentences (0.76). High loadings on the second factor were found for the subtests for
numerical series (0.66), numerical ratio’s (0.81), problem solving (0.69), and arithmetic
and estimating (0.84). The scales for concept relations 1 and 2 loaded highly on both
factors (0.50 and 0.51 for concept relations 1, respectively, and 0.58 and 0.50 for concept
relations 2, respectively). Factor scores were computed on both factors, reflecting
respectively verbal and numerical abilities. In order to prevent problems of collinearity,
multivariate analyses were performed on these orthogonal factor scores.
Finally, vocational interests were measured by the Thurstone Beroepen Test (TBT; Tjoa,
1974), a Dutch adapted version of the Thurstone Interest Schedule (Thurstone, 1928). The
TBT measures ten domains of vocational interests: natural scientific/technical–
constructive interests; biological–medical interests; administrative/economic interests;
commercial/enterprising interests, managerial/representative interests, convincing/
persuading interests; literacy/verbal interests; interest in humanitarian–social work;
artistic interests; and, finally, musical interests. Factor analysis at the scale level resulted in
four bipolar higher order factors that explained 70.6% of variance (eigenvalue > 1). On
the first factor high positive loadings were found for humanitarian–social work (0.79) and
literacy/verbal (0.59), and high negative loadings for administrative/economic (0.71) and
commercial/enterprising (0.65). This factor seems to converge with Holland’s Social type.
The second factor revealed a positive loading for convincing/persuading (0.84) and
negative loadings for scientific/technical–constructive (0.73) and biological–medical
(0.80) and was interpreted in terms of Holland’s Enterprising type. The third factor
revealed strong negative loadings for musical (0.81) and artistic (0.71) interests. Clearly,
this factor seems to encompass what Holland referred to as Artistic interests. A high
loading on the final factor was found for the managerial/representative scale (0.95). This
factor does not converge with Holland’s classification and was referred to as Managerial.
No separate factor representing the Conventional type was found. The administrative/
economic–dimension represented, together with commercial enterprising interests, the
negative pole of the Social factor. Factor scores were computed for the four factors.
Multiplying them by �1 reversed the scores for the Artistic factor, so that high scores
represented strong interests. To prevent problems of collinearity, multivariate analyses
were based on the orthogonal factor scores.
Behavioural competency
At the end of the assessment procedure, the assessors evaluated all applicants on a number
of behavioural criteria. The ratings represented a summary of their assessments of
candidates’ performance throughout the procedure, that is in the selection interview and in
assessment centre exercises, combined with their interpretations of written test results on
those criteria that were assumed to be crucial for successful performance in the job. Because
we were interested in an overall evaluation of suitability, we decided to combine these
ratings into one indicator of behavioural competency. Not all criteria were included for all
candidates. In the present study, we focused on those criteria for which the number of cases
that were available for further analyses exceeded 40 evaluations. These behavioural criteria
were decisiveness, flexibility, group leadership, initiative, customer friendliness, leadership,
listening, judging, persuading, planning/organizing, analysing problems, co-operating,
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S85
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
sensitivity, and stress tolerance. Mean scores were computed for those behavioural compe-
tencies that were included in the evaluation, provided that evaluations of candidates were
available on at least four of the 14 criteria (M¼ 3.48, SD¼ 0.45).
RESULTS
Internal structure of the MPQ
First, we examined the internal structure of the MPQ. Confirmatory factor analysis was
performed using the multiple group method (see e.g. Kiers, 1990; Nunnally, 1978). This
method starts with a weight matrix with binary elements (0 or 1) based on theoretical
expectations, in this case on the a priori expected scales. Support for the a priori
components is obtained when the amount of variance explained by these components is
not much lower than the variance explained by principal component analysis. When the
amount of variance that was explained by the a priori components (30.3%) was compared
with the amount of variance that was accounted for by principal component analysis
(32.3%), it was found that two per cent less variance was explained by the a priori
components. This suggests that the hypothesized components account reasonably well for
the variance in the original items. Additional support for the hypothesized factor structure
is obtained when the items reveal their highest loadings on the factor they are a priori
assigned to. We examined the pattern of factor loadings as represented by the correlations
of the items with the five dimensions. In computing the correlation between an item and
the scale it was originally assigned to, the item was excluded from the scale. With the
exception of Flexibility, the a priori classification of items into scales was confirmed
reasonably well by the data (see Table 2). For Cultural Empathy all items revealed their
highest loadings on the scale they were a priori assigned to; for Social Initiative all items
except one loaded on the a priori factor. Four items for Flexibility loaded on a different
factor, three of which appeared to load highly on the Open-Mindedness factor. One item
did not load on any factor. For both Open-Mindedness and Emotional Stability, all but
three items revealed the highest loadings on the corresponding factors. Because on the
whole the pattern of factor loadings fitted the a priori structure rather well, it was decided
to use the a priori classification of items into the five scales.
Table 3 reveals scale means and reliabilities of the five MPQ scales. Despite the fact that
the standard deviations of the scores were quite modest (0.36–0.42 on a five point scale),
internal consistencies of all scales were high. Overall, the scales were moderately
interrelated; the highest correlations were found between Cultural Empathy and Open-
Mindedness and between Social Initiative and Emotional Stability. Means were skewed
towards the end of the scale. For Social Initiative, Emotional Stability, and Flexibility,
means were clearly higher compared to the means obtained from earlier student samples
(M¼ 3.56, M¼ 3.34, and M¼ 2.95, for Social Initiative, Emotional Stability, and
Flexibility, respectively) (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001).
Group differences
Next, we examined group differences on the MPQ. Multivariately, a significant effect of
gender on the MPQ results was found, F(5, 240)¼ 7.98, p< 0.001. The univariate results
showed that females scored lower than males on Emotional Stability, F(1, 244)¼ 18.13,
p< 0.001 (M¼ 3.70 versus M¼ 3.93, respectively), whereas females scored higher than
S86 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Table 2. Significant factor loadings on the five MPQ dimensions
I II III IV V I II III IV V
CEa it 1 0.66 0.31 0.21 SI it 11 0.43 0.37 0.75 0.36it 2 0.70 0.39 0.33 0.20 it 12 0.45 0.33 0.55 0.35it 3 0.47 0.22 it 13 0.37 0.37 0.66 0.36it 4 0.65 0.25 0.36 0.27 0.26 it 14 0.60 0.41 0.24it 5 0.64 0.27 it 15 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.29it 6 0.39 it 16 0.26 0.28 0.58 0.27 0.24it 7 0.62 0.41 0.30 0.22 it 17 0.24 0.42 0.24it 8 0.50 0.26 0.35 ES it 1 0.30 0.53 0.20it 9 0.58 0.42 0.25 it 2 0.24 0.30 0.37 0.47 0.26it 10 0.41 0.29 0.24 it 3 0.48it 11 0.47 0.30 0.34 it 4 0.35 0.65 0.25it 12 0.57 0.28 0.22 it 5 0.30 0.56it 13 0.46 it 6it 14 0.54 0.31 0.31 0.21 it 7 0.25 0.44it 15 0.56 0.31 0.30 it 8 0.33 0.46 0.39 0.43 0.31it 16 0.54 0.24 0.31 0.26 it 9 0.40 0.50 0.25it 17 0.56 0.27 0.20 0.25 it 10 0.21 0.60 0.23it 18 0.65 0.46 0.25 0.21 it 11 0.25 0.34 0.27 0.52 0.29
OP it 1 0.29 0.62 0.26 it 12 0.45it 2 0.42 0.62 0.24 0.29 it 13 0.42it 3 0.25 0.47 0.27 0.26 it 14 0.38it 4 0.21 0.41 0.23 0.22 it 15 0.30 0.23 0.47 0.59it 5 0.33 0.63 it 16 0.34 0.62 0.24it 6 0.34 0.48 0.26 0.20 0.21 it 17 0.29 0.58 0.16it 7 0.45 0.59 0.25 0.26 0.29 it 18 0.26 0.40 0.14it 8 0.33 0.20 0.34 it 19 0.23 0.42 0.69 0.23it 9 0.40 0.72 0.36 it 20 0.20 0.31 0.36 0.30it 10 0.51 0.59 0.29 0.23 FL it 1 0.27it 11 0.25 0.53 0.22 0.27 it 2 0.26 0.21 0.41it 12 0.31 0.50 0.32 0.21 0.28 it 3 0.28 0.40 0.24 0.27it 13 0.24 0.46 0.26 it 4 0.23 0.39 0.40 0.35it 14 0.38 0.56 0.31 0.27 0.28 it 5it 15 0.22 it 6 0.29it 16 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.40 0.23 it 7 0.36it 17 0.20 0.48 0.23 0.21 it 8 0.29 0.38 0.41 0.59it 18 0.22 0.48 0.28 it 9 0.43
SI it 1 0.35 0.32 0.60 0.23 0.28 it 10 0.25 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.27it 2 0.35 0.26 0.67 0.26 0.27 it 11 0.29it 3 0.43 it 12 0.53it 4 0.56 0.29 it 13 0.25 0.22 0.55it 5 0.28 0.62 0.26 it 14 0.50it 6 0.56 0.26 it 15 0.32 0.22 0.44it 7 0.30 0.63 0.34 it 16 0.25 0.40 0.34 0.25 0.50it 8 0.29 0.51 0.35 0.20 it 17 0.35 0.40 0.29 0.25 0.33it 9 0.32 0.20 it 18 0.22 0.24 0.20 0.60it 10 0.25 0.23 0.60 0.33 0.26
For reasons of clarity solely correlations > 0.20 are presented.aCE¼Cultural Empathy, OP¼Open-Mindedness, SI¼ Social Initiative, ES¼Emotional Stability, FL¼Flexibility.
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S87
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
males on Cultural Empathy, F(1, 244)¼ 7.92, p < 0.01 (M¼ 4.10 versus M¼ 3.96,
respectively). Age appeared to be unrelated to the MPQ results. We did find a multivariate
effect of job level on the MPQ, F(15, 720)¼ 2.50, p< 0.01. Univariately, this effect was
significant for Open-Mindedness and Flexibility. Individuals working at higher job levels
obtained higher scores on Open-Mindedness than individuals working at lower levels,
F(3, 242)¼ 5.19, p< 0.01, �2¼ 0.06 (M¼ 3.61, M¼ 3.79 and M¼ 3.89, for jobs at the
middle educational, higher educational, and university level, respectively).2 Scores for
Flexibility also increased with job level, F(3, 242)¼ 3.79, p< 0.05, �2¼ 0.05 (M¼ 3.27,
M¼ 3.40, M¼ 3.51, respectively).
The MPQ and personality
One group of hypotheses concerned the relationship of the MPQ with the Big Five. Table 4
shows the raw correlations of the MPQ with the Big Five composite scores and the NPV.
Table 5 shows the results of hierarchical regression of each MPQ dimension on the Big
Five scales. As predicted, Social Initiative and Emotional Stability were most strongly
related to Extraversion and the corresponding Big Five factor for Emotional Stability,
respectively. It is interesting to note that the MPQ scales for Social Initiative and
Emotional Stability were even more strongly (negatively) related to the corresponding
NPV scales for Social Anxiety and Inadequacy, respectively. Also in line with our
hypotheses, Open-Mindedness was best predicted by the fifth factor of the Big Five.
2Cohen (1977) characterizes effect sizes �2¼ 0.01 as small, �2¼ 0.06 as medium, and �2¼ 0.14 as a large effectsize.
Table 3. Scale characteristics of the MPQ scales
M SD � 2 3 4 5
Cultural Empathy (18 items) 3.99 0.36 0.87 0.54* 0.48* 0.23* 0.27*Open-Mindedness (18 items) 3.80 0.42 0.83 0.43* 0.30* 0.47*Social Initiative (17 items) 3.94 0.41 0.86 0.53* 0.44*Emotional Stability (20 items) 3.87 0.37 0.83 0.35*Flexibility (18 items) 3.41 0.36 0.72 —
Significance levels *p< 0.01.
Table 4. Correlations of the MPQ scales with the Big Five and the NPV scales
GITP Big Five (n¼ 261) NPV (n¼ 66)
MPQ I II III IV V N SA R H E D SE
Cultural Empathy 0.17** 0.15* �0.07 �0.01 0.30** �0.16 �0.11 �0.19 �0.37** �0.17 0.02 0.06
Open-Mindedness 0.22** 0.08 �0.12 �0.12 0.38** �0.05 �0.14 �0.24 �0.28** �0.04 0.24 0.26**
Social Initiative 0.49** 0.04 �0.08 �0.08 0.22** �0.43** �0.69** �0.25** �0.37** �0.10 0.49** 0.18
Emotional Stability 0.14* 0.09 0.05 0.59** 0.17** �0.67** �0.49** �0.29** �0.38** 0.03 0.23 0.06
Flexibility 0.36** 0.12 �0.38** 0.26** 0.49** �0.01 �0.20 �0.40** �0.17 �0.03 0.31** 0.23
Significance levels *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01. I¼Extraversion, II¼Agreeableness, III¼Conscientiousness,
IV¼Emotional Stability, and V¼ Intellectual Autonomy. I¼ Inadequacy, SA¼Social Anxiety, R¼Rigidity,
H¼Hostility, E¼Egoism, D¼Dominance, and SE¼ Self-Esteem.
S88 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Unexpectedly, the regression coefficient for the independent effect of Big Five
Agreeableness on Cultural Empathy was rather weak, and considerably weaker than the
independent effect of the fifth factor on this MPQ dimension. In a similar vein, Flexibility
was, as predicted, strongly related to the NPV Rigidity scale, but appeared to be even more
strongly related to the fifth factor of the Big Five. The results from regression analysis
indicate that the Big Five are most predictive of Flexibility (38%) and Emotional Stability
(35%) and the least predictive of Cultural Empathy (14%) and Open-Mindedness (17%).
The MPQ and cognitive abilities
Table 6 shows raw correlations of the MPQ and Big Five dimensions with the separate
intelligence dimensions and with the two higher order verbal and numerical factors.
Because the higher order factors are orthogonal, the correlation coefficients represent the
independent beta-weights for the effects of each factor on the personality dimensions.
Table 6 also shows the total amount of variance that is explained by both intelligence
factors. No correlations between the MPQ scales and indicators of verbal, numerical or
general intelligence were expected. As Table 6 shows, with some exceptions at the level of
the intelligence subscales, this was found to hold both for general and for numerical
intelligence. However, unexpectedly, the MPQ scales for Cultural Empathy, Open-
Mindedness, and Flexibility revealed significant correlations with verbal abilities.
Apparently, the MPQ dimensions do reflect verbal abilities. In order to examine whether
the MPQ scales correlate with intelligence dimensions in the same way as general
personality does, correlations of the Big Five scores with intelligence were considered.
Again, on the whole personality appeared to be unrelated to general and numerical
intelligence, but was significantly related to verbal intelligence. Exceptions were significant
correlations of the fifth factor with non-verbal abstraction and of Emotional Stability with
the numerical factor. The pattern of correlations between Open-Mindedness and Flexibility
and the verbal dimensions was paralleled by a significant correlation between factor V and
verbal ability. In addition, the findings with respect to the MPQ scale for Flexibility were
mirrored by a significant negative correlation between Conscientiousness and verbal ability.
Together, verbal and numerical intelligence explained most variance in the MPQ scale for
Open-Mindedness (10%) and in the corresponding Big Five scale for Intellectual
Table 5. Results from hierarchical regression of the MPQ scales on the Big Five
MPV (n¼ 261)
Cultural Open- Social EmotionalEmpathy Mindedness Initiative Stability Flexibility
Iy 0.16** 0.13* 0.46** �0.01 0.17II 0.15* 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.10III 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 �0.24**IV �0.12 0.07 0.10 0.57** 0.18V 0.30** 0.34** 0.13* 0.09 0.36**R 0.37** 0.42** 0.51** 0.59** 0.61**R2 0.14 0.17 0.27 0.35 0.38
Significance levels *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01.yI¼Extraversion, II¼Agreeableness, III¼Conscientiousness, IV¼Emotional Stability, and V¼ Intellectual
Autonomy.
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S89
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Tab
le6
.C
orr
elat
ion
so
fth
eM
PQ
and
Big
Fiv
esc
ales
wit
hd
imen
sio
ns
of
cog
nit
ive
abil
ity
MP
QB
igF
ivey
Cu
ltu
ral
Op
en-
So
cial
Em
oti
on
alE
mp
ath
yM
ind
edn
ess
Init
iati
ve
Sta
bil
ity
Fle
xib
ilit
yI
IIII
IIV
V
Generalintelligence
(n¼
98
)n
onv
erb
alab
stra
ctio
n0
.07
0.1
0�
0.1
6�
0.0
90
.11
0.0
30
.05
�0
.03
0.0
00
.24
**
Verbalintelligence
(n¼
17
6)
Sim
ilar
itie
s0
.22
**
0.2
1*
*0
.13
0.0
30
.10
0.1
8*
*�
0.0
6�
0.1
6*
*0
.17
0.1
1C
on
cep
tre
lati
on
s1
0.1
8*
*0
.24
**
�0
.02
�0
.14
0.1
20
.17
**
�0
.02
�0
.20
**
0.1
20
.13
Co
nce
pt
rela
tio
ns
20
.20
**
0.3
0*
*0
.03
�0
.06
0.1
6*
*0
.13
0.1
1�
0.1
7*
*0
.11
0.0
8V
oca
bu
lary
0.1
6*
*0
.31
**
�0
.01
�0
.06
0.1
6*
*0
.01
0.0
6�
0.2
3*
*0
.05
0.2
1*
*T
ext
com
ple
tio
n0
.24
**
0.1
8*
*0
.07
�0
.03
0.2
3*
*0
.11
0.0
0�
0.1
8*
*0
.11
0.2
3*
*Ju
mb
led
up
sen
ten
ces
0.2
0*
*0
.20
**
�0
.04
�0
.08
0.1
40
.07
0.0
8�
0.2
1*
*0
.07
0.2
4*
*Numericalintelligence
(n¼
17
6)
Nu
mer
ical
seri
es0
.25
**
0.0
7�
0.0
10
.02
0.0
50
.06
0.0
9�
0.0
80
.09
�0
.01
Nu
mer
ical
rati
o’s
0.1
30
.04
�0
.14
�0
.04
0.0
0�
0.0
20
.08
�0
.11
0.1
6*
*�
0.0
4P
rob
lem
s0
.19
**
0.0
70
.02
�0
.02
0.0
30
.02
0.0
0�
0.0
50
.10
0.0
3A
rith
met
ics
and
esti
mat
ing
0.0
90
.09
�0
.11
�0
.05
�0
.06
�0
.02
0.0
2�
0.0
70
.17
**
�0
.07
Ver
bal
abil
itie
s(n
¼1
76
)0
.23
**
0.3
2*
*0
.08
�0
.05
0.2
5*
*0
.15
0.0
2�
0.2
6*
*0
.07
0.2
9*
*N
um
eric
alab
ilit
ies
(n¼
17
6)
0.1
40
.03
�0
.11
�0
.05
�0
.05
0.0
00
.06
�0
.05
0.1
5*
�0
.12
R0
.27
0.3
20
.14
0.0
80
.25
0.1
50
.06
0.2
60
.16
0.3
1R
20
.07
**
0.1
0*
*0
.02
0.0
10
.06
**
0.0
20
.00
0.0
7*
*0
.03
0.1
0*
*
Sig
nifi
cance
level
s*p<
<0
.05,
**p<
0.0
1.
y I¼
Ex
trav
ersi
on,
II¼
Agre
eable
nes
s,II
I¼
Consc
ienti
ousn
ess,
IV¼
Em
oti
on
alS
tab
ilit
y,an
dV¼
Inte
llec
tual
Auto
nom
y.
S90 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Autonomy (10%). Partialling out the influence of job level did not affect the correlations of
the MPQ and Big Five scales with the cognitive ability dimensions, either at the level of the
intelligence subscales or at the level of the two underlying factors.
The MPQ and vocational interests
Table 7 reveals the correlations of the MPQ and Big Five dimensions with interest
dimensions, as well as the results from hierarchical regression of the scales from both
instruments on the four higher order interest factors. Again, because the interest
dimensions are represented by the orthogonal factors obtained from principal component
analysis with varimax rotations on the TBT scales, the independent effect of each factor on
the personality dimensions is represented by the raw correlation coefficient between this
factor and each MPQ and Big Five scale. In addition, Table 7 shows the total amount of
variance that is explained by each factor. Also for interests, we were interested whether the
MPQ scores are related to interest dimensions in the predicted way, and additionally,
whether the MPQ scales correlate with interest dimensions in the same way as personality
does. As expected, Cultural Empathy was positively related to Social interests. This was
paralleled by a significant correlation between Agreeableness and Social interests. Also in
line with the predictions, at the scale level, Cultural Empathy was negatively related to the
natural scientific/technical constructive interests.
Findings for Open-Mindedness did not converge with our predictions. Instead of being
positively related to the Artistic factor, this trait was related to the factor that indicates
Social interests. At the level of the interest scales, we had expected a negative correlation
between Open-Mindedness and administrative/economic interest, but this expectation was
not confirmed. The correlation with Social interests was paralleled by a significant
correlation between the fifth factor of the Big Five and the Social interest factor. As
predicted, the MPQ scale for Social Initiative was positively related to the Enterprising
factor. At the scale level this was reflected in a positive relationship with convincing/
persuading interests. It was also reflected in a negative relationship of Social Initiative with
the subscales that represent Investigative interests (natural scientific/technical–
constructive and biological–medical). The same pattern of findings was obtained for
Extraversion. Unexpectedly, no significant correlations of Social Initiative and Extraver-
sion with Social interests were found. Together, the interest factors explained an equal
amount of variance in Social Initiative and Extraversion (14%). Flexibility correlated as
predicted positively with Artistic interests and negatively with the administrative/
economic interest scale. A negative correlation of Conscientiousness with the Artistic
factor and a positive correlation with the administrative/economic scale mirrored this
finding. Finally, the Managerial factor was as predicted significantly related to Social
Initiative. This finding was not mirrored by the pattern of findings for the Big Five.
Unexpectedly, both the MPQ and the Big Five scale for Emotional Stability were
significantly related to Managerial interests. Interestingly, the interest dimensions
explained more variance in the Big Five scale for Emotional Stability (17%) than in the
corresponding MPQ scale (8%).
Next, we were interested in whether applicants from different occupational groups differed
in their MPQ scores. Occupations were selected that could be easily classified into six groups:
administrative (n¼ 46), biological–medical (n¼ 16), commercial (n¼ 16), executive
(n¼ 26), social (n¼ 22), and technical (n¼ 56). Classification was done by the GITP
consultants who were responsible for the assessment of candidates, as part of their usual
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S91
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Tab
le7
.C
orr
elat
ion
so
fth
eM
PQ
and
Big
Fiv
esc
ales
wit
hvo
cati
on
alin
tere
sts
MP
Q(n¼
15
7)
Big
Fiv
ey(n¼
15
7)
Cu
ltu
ral
Op
en-
So
cial
Em
oti
on
alE
mp
ath
yM
ind
edn
ess
Init
iati
ve
Sta
bil
ity
Fle
xib
ilit
yI
IIII
IIV
V
Nat
ura
lsc
ien
tifi
c/�
0.1
8*
�0
.07
�0
.20
*�
0.0
2�
0.1
9*
�0
.22
**
�0
.03
0.1
30
.11
�0
.10
tech
nic
al-c
on
stru
ctiv
eB
iolo
gic
al–
med
ical
�0
.13
�0
.04
�0
.32
**
�0
.11
�0
.19
*�
0.2
7*
*�
0.0
1�
0.0
3�
0.1
0�
0.1
5A
dm
inis
trat
ive/
eco
no
mic
�0
.16
*�
0.1
3�
0.1
0�
0.0
2�
0.2
5*
*�
0.0
3�
0.1
30
.24
**
0.1
1�
0.1
0C
om
mer
cial
/en
terp
risi
ng
�0
.22
*�
0.2
2*
0.0
1�
0.0
2�
0.1
10
.09
�0
.23
**
0.1
50
.10
�0
.26
**
Man
ager
ial/
rep
rese
nta
tive
�0
.04
0.1
8*
0.1
9*
0.2
6*
*0
.18
*0
.16
*0
.06
0.0
10
.36
**
0.1
5C
onv
inci
ng
/per
suad
ing
0.1
30
.11
0.2
5*
*0
.02
0.1
9*
0.3
4*
*�
0.1
8*
0.0
00
.01
0.1
7*
Lit
erac
y/v
erbal
0.1
40.1
20.1
0�
0.1
40
.07
0.0
70
.10
�0
.13
�0
.09
0.1
1H
um
anit
aria
n–
soci
alw
ork
0.2
9*
*0
.05
0.0
6�
0.0
60
.07
�0
.04
0.1
40
.02
�0
.29
**
0.1
8*
Art
isti
c0
.01
�0
.03
0.0
10
.00
0.1
10
.05
0.0
2�
0.1
7*
�0
.09
0.1
1M
usi
cal
0.1
6*
0.0
80
.08
0.0
90
.20
*�
0.0
10
.20
**
�0
.24
**
�0
.10
0.0
5I
So
cial
0.2
8*
*0
.18
*0
.05
�0
.07
0.1
3�
0.0
30
.19
*�
0.1
3�
0.2
4*
*0
.23
**
IIE
nte
rpri
sin
g0
.15
�0
.06
0.3
1*
*0
.05
0.1
9*
0.3
5*
*�
0.0
90
.00
0.0
20
.13
III
Art
isti
c0
.03
0.0
50
.05
0.1
00
.18
*0
.01
0.1
5�
0.2
6*
*0
.02
0.0
7IV
Man
ager
ial
�0
.01
0.1
9*
0.2
0*
0.2
5*
*0
.20
*0
.13
0.1
1�
0.0
20
.33
**
0.1
3R
0.3
20
.27
0.3
70
.28
0.3
60
.37
0.2
80
.29
0.4
10
.31
R2
0.1
0*
*0
.07
*0
.14
**
0.0
8*
*0
.13
**
0.1
4*
*0
.08
**
0.0
8*
*0
.17
**
0.0
9*
*
Sig
nifi
can
cele
vel
s*p<
0.0
5,
**p<
0.0
1.
y I¼
Ex
trav
ersi
on
,II¼
Agre
eable
nes
s,II
I¼
Consc
ienti
ousn
ess,
IV¼
Em
oti
on
alS
tab
ilit
y,an
dV¼
Inte
llec
tual
Auto
nom
y.
S92 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
procedure. Because occupational group was confounded with job level, it was decided to
control for the effect of this variable in subsequent analyses. MANOVA with occupational
group as the independent variable, the MPQ scores as dependent variables, and job level as a
covariate revealed a significant multivariate effect of occupational group on the MPQ results,
F(25, 595)¼ 1.83, p< 0.01. Univariately, this effect was reflected in significant effects of
occupational group on Cultural Empathy, F(5, 164)¼ 2.47, �2¼ 0.07, Open-Mindedness,
F(5, 164)¼ 2.47, �2¼ 0.07, and Emotional Stability, F(5, 164)¼ 2.28, �2¼ 0.07. Next,
contrast analysis was performed, whereby we examined simple contrasts, using the
administrative group as a reference group. We hypothesized that the administrative group
would be the lowest scoring group on the MPQ, representing a group that is not likely to be
highly interested in or to actually operate within an international context. With respect
to Cultural Empathy, the commercial group (M¼ 4.18; difference¼ 0.25, p< 0.05) and the
social group (M¼ 4.11; difference¼ 0.19, p< 0.05) obtained higher scores than the
administrative reference group (M¼ 3.92). The biological–medical (M¼ 3.85; diff-
erence¼ 0.26, p< 0.05), executive (M¼ 3.84; difference¼ 0.24, p< 0.05), social
(M¼ 3.92; difference¼ 0.33, p< 0.01), and technical (M¼ 3.78; difference¼ 0.18,
p< 0.05) groups all scored higher on Open-Mindedness than the administrative group
(M¼ 3.60). The highest scores on Open-Mindedness were found for the social group. Finally,
solely the technical group scored significantly higher on the Emotional Stability dimension
(M¼ 3.44; difference¼ 0.22, p< 0.05) in comparison with the reference group (M¼ 3.76).
A highly comparable pattern of findings was obtained for the Big Five. MANOVA, again
with job level as a covariate, revealed a significant multivariate effect of occupational group
on the Big Five scores, F(25, 618)¼ 1.79, p< 0.05. Univariately, this effect was reflected in
significant effects of occupational group on Extraversion, F(5, 170)¼ 2.17, �2¼ 0.06,
Intellectual Autonomy, F(5, 170)¼ 2.40, �2¼ 0.07, and Emotional Stability, F(5, 170)¼3.07, �2¼ 0.08. Contrast analysis, with the administrative group as reference group,
revealed that both the commercial group (M¼ 0.33; difference¼ 0.56, p< 0.01) and the
executive group (M¼ 0.17; difference¼ 0.40, p< 0.05) obtained higher scores on
Extraversion than the administrative reference group (M¼�0.13). The biological–medical
(M¼ 0.10; difference¼ 0.40, p< 0.05), executive (M¼ 0; difference¼ 0.37, p< 0.05), and
social groups (M¼ 0.18; difference¼ 0.47, p< 0.01) obtained higher scores on Intellectual
Autonomy than the administrative group (M¼ � 0.29), with—as was also found for Open-
Mindedness—the highest scores for the social group. Finally, both the executive group
(M¼ 0.17; difference¼ 0.37, p< 0.05) and the technical group (M¼ 0.17; difference¼0.37, p< 0.05) obtained significantly higher scores on the Emotional Stability dimension in
comparison with the reference group (M¼ � 0.20).
Incremental validity
Finally, we were interested in the concurrent validity of the MPQ scales against an
indicator of overall performance in the assessment procedure and its incremental validity
above the Big Five. First, the scale scores were related to the overall behavioural
competency score, based on separate end ratings of assessors involved in the selection
procedure on a number of behavioural criteria. The MPQ scales for Cultural Empathy,
Open-Mindedness, Emotional Stability, and Flexibility were significantly related to
overall competency (Table 8). Hierarchical regression analysis showed that, together, the
MPQ scales explained 19% of variance in overall competency, with Cultural Empathy and
Open-Mindedness as significant independent predictors. Second, we were interested in the
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S93
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
incremental effect of the MPQ above the Big Five in predicting behavioural competency.
As Table 7 indicates, the MPQ predicted 14% of variance above the Big Five factors. In the
final regression, significant beta-weights were found for the Big Five scale for Emotional
Stability and the MPQ scales for Cultural Empathy and Open-Mindedness.
DISCUSSION
The present data provide support for the reliability of the Multicultural Personality
Questionnaire among an applicant sample. The scale intercorrelations were high and
clearly exceeded the levels of intercorrelations that were found among student samples
(Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). This result is consistent with empirical
findings on the Big Five, also showing higher intercorrelations among personality
dimensions in applicant than in nonapplicant samples (Barrick & Mount, 1996). Earlier
findings suggest that the factor structure of trait instruments may differ in applicant
samples (see e.g. Schmitt & Ryan, 1993). However, confirmatory factor analysis provided
reasonable support for the internal structure of the instrument. Moreover, the two scales
that were most strongly related, namely Cultural Empathy and Open-Mindednedness,
appeared to be independent predictors of overall competency, clearly pointing at the
usefulness of discriminating amongst them.
Elevated scale means were found for all MPQ dimensions. For Social Initiative,
Emotional Stability, and Flexibility, means were clearly higher than the means that were
Table 8. Hierarchical regression of behavioural competency on the MPQ scales, after controllingfor the Big Five
r �
Step 1 Cultural Empathy 0.31** 0.21*Open-Mindedness 0.35** 0.28*Social Initiative 0.15 �0.12Emotional Stability 0.23* 0.16Flexibility 0.23* �0.03R 0.44R2 0.19R2
change 0.19
�step 1 �step 2
Step 1 I Extraversion �0.04 �0.07II Agreeableness 0.12 0.06III Conscientiousness 0.02 �0.00IV Emotional Stability 0.20* 0.24*V Intellectual Autonomy 0.15 0.13
Step 2 Cultural Empathy 0.21*Open-Mindedness 0.28*Social Initiative �0.12Emotional Stability 0.16Flexibility �0.03R 0.30 0.47R2 0.09 0.23R2
change 0.09** 0.14**
Significance levels *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, n¼ 138.
S94 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
found among students (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). This is in line with
earlier empirical findings revealing higher scores on personality questionnaires in a
selection context than under different conditions (see, e.g. Levin & Montag, 1987; Rosse,
Stecher, Levin, & Miller, 1998). Social desirability bias may disturb test results in a
selection situation where there is a strong interest in presenting a positive image of one’s
traits and skills. However, empirical research suggests that social desirability is not a very
serious threat to the validity of personality instruments in the context of personnel
selection (Barrick & Mount, 1996). Indeed, the pattern of intercorrelations with related
personality and interest dimensions clearly points at the discriminant validity of the
different scales, suggesting that social desirability has not dominated the results.
Nevertheless, the present data suggest that separate norm groups for application in the
context of selection are clearly needed. Although the scales are assumed to measure traits,
they do reflect skill elements, which possibly makes them more susceptible to the
influence of social desirability than for example Big Five instruments. The fact that the
correlations with Big Five dimensions within the present applicant sample were much
lower than what we found in earlier studies among students (see e.g. Van der Zee &
Van Oudenhoven, 2001) may indicate that this was indeed the case. However, the latter
finding may also be due to the fact that we relied on composite scores that are usually
somewhat more heterogeneous than ordinary scale scores.
The present data also revealed gender differences in the scale scores. In accordance
with findings from other studies (e.g. Budaev, 1999; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven,
2000), females score lower on Emotional Stability. It must be noted that it is still
unclear whether males are less emotional or that they are simply more reluctant to
express their emotions. As compared with males, females scored higher on Cultural
Empathy. Prototypically, items from the Cultural Empathy scale refer to behaviours
such as listening, empathic responding or expressing interest in the feelings of others,
that are labelled as feminine. Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) did not find
gender differences on this trait. However, their findings were largely based on a sample
of psychology students that may not be a representative group. Hence, by nature of their
aspired profession, psychology students seem to be high in empathy. Within this group,
gender differences in Cultural Empathy may be smaller than in the general population.
A significant effect of job level on Open-Mindedness and Flexibility was found. Higher
job levels are usually more complex, more stressful, and less routinized (see Spector,
Jex, & Chen, 1995), aspects that are also characteristic of the expatriate situation for
which the MPQ was developed. Therefore, higher jobs seem to require higher levels of
the MPQ traits.
Correlations with the Big Five were largely in the expected direction. Open-
Mindedness, Social Initiative, and Emotional Stability were most strongly related to the
corresponding Big Five scales for Openness to Experience, Extraversion, and Emotional
Stability. Cultural Empathy was, as expected, related to Agreeableness but considerably
more strongly to Intellectual Autonomy. Likewise, Flexibility revealed high correlations
with Rigidity, but even higher correlations with Intellectual Autonomy. In an earlier study,
Flexibility was also found to be more strongly related to the fifth factor of the Big Five than
to the NPV Rigidity scale (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). In the introduction, we
defined Flexibility in terms of not being afraid of new and unknown situations, but on the
contrary feeling attracted to novelty, experiencing new situations as a challenge.
Adventurousness and a preference for variation are also important elements of Intellect/
Autonomy, and this may explain why they are interrelated.
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S95
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
As expected, no relation was found between MPQ scales and general or numerical
intelligence. The g-indicator represents fluid intelligence and empirical evidence suggests
that particularly fluid intelligence is unrelated to personality (Wart, Miles, & Platts, 2001).
However, we did find a relation between the MPQ scores and verbal intelligence. More
specifically, Open-Mindedness, Cultural Empathy, and Flexibility appeared to be inde-
pendent predictors of the verbal ability factor. The relation between Open-Mindedness and
verbal intelligence was paralleled by a significant relation between the fifth factor of the
Big Five and verbal intelligence. The Intellect interpretation of factor V strongly
resembles intelligence, or at least the words people use to describe intelligent people (see
e.g. Ashton, Lee, Vernon, & Jang, 2000). We had not expected that the relation between
the fifth factor and Intelligence would be replicated for Open-Mindedness. Perhaps we
have to conclude that this trait does reflect a more general intellectual orientation rather
than purely openness to cultural phenomena. However, it is important to realize that no
relation was found with the g-factor.
The MPQ scales also appeared to be related to occupational interests. Social interests
could be predicted from Cultural Empathy and Open-Mindedness, but were unexpectedly
unrelated to Social Initiative. Consistently, applicants for social positions obtained
relatively high scores on Cultural Empathy and Open-Mindedness. Ackerman and
Heggestad (1997) also found a relation between the fifth factor and Social interests.
Enterprising interests could be predicted from Social Initiative and Flexibility, Managerial
interests from Open-Mindedness, Social Initiative, Emotional Stability, and Flexibility.
Consistent with the former relation, applicants for executive positions scored relatively
high on Open-Mindedness. We had not expected a relationship between Emotional
Stability and vocational interests. It was assumed that Emotional Stability is more likely to
be related to candidates’ aptitude for than to their interest in specific occupations. Findings
by Hofstee et al. (1992) revealed that all trait dimensions except factor IV could
be represented in Holland’s interest typology. However, for example De Fruyt and
Mervielde (1997) did find a significant relation between Emotional Stability and Enter-
prising interests. Finally, as expected, Artistic interests could be predicted from Flexibility.
The pattern of correlations of the MPQ with interests was largely mirrored by the
intercorrelations between the Big Five and interest dimensions, again pointing to the
construct validity of the instrument. On the whole, the correlations of the MPQ scales
with personality, intelligence, and interests were only moderate and it seems justified to
regard the MPQ dimensions as different from general traits, interests, and cognitive
abilities.
Another piece of evidence for the additional value of the MPQ scales is provided by its
incremental value above the Big Five in predicting overall competency. In addition to the
Big Five scale for Emotional Stability, both Cultural Empathy and Open-Mindedness
appeared as significant independent predictors. This seems to suggest that these MPQ
scales capture aspects of traits that are not grasped by general personality inventories.
Interestingly, the Big Five scale for Emotional Stability appeared as an independent
predictor whereas the Conscientiousness scale, which represents the only Big Five factor
that does not have a clear counterpart in the MPQ, did not. Typically, Conscientiousness is
related weakly or even unrelated to behavioural measures whereas Emotional Stability
does show consistent relationships with behavioural assessments (Lievens, De Fruyt, &
Van Dam, 2001). Conscientiousness related behaviour is less observable in behavioural
exercises. These exercises formed an important data source for the overall competency
ratings that we relied on in the present study.
S96 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
The fifth factor of the G5 measures Intellect Autonomy. This scale seems conceptually
less close to a concept such as Open-Mindedness than the Openness to Experience
dimension from the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Possibly, if we had used the NEO-
PI as a Big Five indicator instead of the G5, less additional variance in behavioural
competency would have been explained by the MPQ. However, in two earlier studies
among students (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001; Leone, Van der Zee,
Van Oudenhoven, Perugini, & Ercolani, manuscript submitted for publication) we were
able to show that the MPQ scales predict a comparable amount of additional variance
above the NEO.
To conclude, the present data clearly present evidence for the construct and concurrent
validity of the MPQ and for its reliability in applicant samples. An important limitation of
the present study was the fact that, in majority, applicants applied for positions that were
local rather than international. Therefore, on the basis of the present findings we cannot
draw any conclusions with respect to their predictive value against international as
opposed to general job success. Future studies are needed that focus on employees that
operate within an international context. The present findings do suggest that the MPQ
scales have predictive value against success in positions that share elements with
international positions, that is jobs that are complex, stressful, and low in routine, and
positions that require skills in dealing with different kinds of people. In addition, the
generalizability of the findings to different cultural contexts has to be established
(Allworth & Hesketh, 1999). Across countries, different predictor and criterion constructs
may be relevant, or indicators of the same constructs may be different. First studies
indicate that the MPQ scales are replicable across cultural groups (Mol et al., 2001;
Van Oudenhoven, Mol, & Van der Zee, in press; Van der Zee & Brinkmann, manuscript
submitted for publication), but these studies have not yet provided evidence for its
predictive value against international job success.
REFERENCES
Abe, H., & Weisman, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of interculturaleffectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53–67.
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests,and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence ofoverlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related andcontextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7,97–111.
Armes, K., & Ward, C. (1989). Cross-cultural transitions and sojourner adjustment in Singapore.Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 273–275.
Arthur, W., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of factorsperceived to contribute to succes. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99–114.
Aryee, S. (1997). Selection and training of expatriate employees. In N. Anderson, & P. Herriot(Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 147–160). Chichester: Wiley.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.
Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M. G. (1995). The criterionvalidity of broad factor scales versus specific facets scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29,432–442.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid intelligence, crystallizedintelligence, and the Openess/Intellect factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 198–207.
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S97
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Baron, J. (1982). Personality and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of HumanIntelligence (pp. 308–351). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on thepredictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261–272.
Brand, C. R. (1994). Open to experience–closed to intelligence: Why the ‘Big Five’ are really the‘Comprehensive Six’. European Journal of Personality, 8, 299–310.
Budaev, S. V. (1999). Differences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing an evolutionaryhypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801–813.
Buijk, C. A. (1974). Guilford LTP Temperament Survey. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire. Manual.
Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 215–230.Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. Ed.). New York:
Academic Press.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five FactorInventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1997). The Five-Factor Model of personality and Holland’s RIASECtypes. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 87–103.
De Raad, B. (1994). An expedition in search of a fifth universal factor: Key issues in the lexicalapproach. European Journal of Personality, 8, 229–250.
Deller, J. (1997). Expatriate selection: Possibilities and limitations of using personality scales. InD. M. Saunders, & Z. Aycan (Eds.), New approaches to employee management, Vol. 4 (pp. 93–116). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review ofPsychology, 41, 417–440.
Drenth, P. J. D. (1965). Test voor Niet Verbale Abstractie: Handleiding. N. V. Amsterdam: Swets &Zeitlinger.
Edwards, A. L. (1954). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: PsychologicalCorporation.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric and experimental approaches. InR. J. Sternberg, & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and Intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ferguson, E., Payne, T., & Anderson, N. (1994). Occupational personality assessment: Theory,structure and psychometrics of the OPQ FMX-5 student. Personality and Individual Differences,17, 217–225.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The Big Five factor structure.Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Gordon, L. V. (1963a). Gordon Personal Inventory manual. New York: Harcourt, Brace, andWorld.
Gordon, L. V. (1963b). Gordon Personal Profile manual. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. (1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of SocialIssues, 19, 33–47.
Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of interculturaleffectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382–393.
Hanvey, R. G. (1976). Cross-cultural awareness. In E. C. Smith, & L. F. Luce (Eds.), Towardsinternationalism: Readings in cross-cultural communication (pp. 44–56). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Harris, J. G., Jr. (1973). Prediction of success on a distant Pacific island: Peace Corps style. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 181–190.
Hermans, H. J. M. (1976). Handleiding Prestatie Motivatie Test. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex
approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.Hogan, R., & Blake, R. (1999). John Holland’s vocational typology and personality theory. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 55, 41–56.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and workenvironments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, R. W., Flammer, D. P., & Nelson, J. G. (1975). Multiple correlations between personalityfactors and SVIB occupational scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 217–223.
S98 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Kets de Vries, M., & Mead, C. (1991). Identifying management talent for a pan-Europeanenvironment. In S. Makridakas (Ed.), Single market Europe (pp. 215–235). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Kiers, H. A. L. (1990). SCA: A program for simultaneous component analysis of variables measuredin two or more populations. Groningen: ProGAMMA.
Koch, B. (1998). Handleiding G5 [Manual of the G5]. Internal publication. Amsterdam: GITP R&D.Koch, B. (2000). Het vijffactor model als grootste gemene deler in het domein van gangbare
Nederlandse persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten [The Five FactorModel as a comprehensive frameworkin relation to popular Dutch personality questionnaires]. Paper presented at the WAOPConference, Leiden University.
Koch, B. (2001). Herziene handleiding G5: Aanvullende onderzoeksgegevens [Revised manual G5:Additional data]. Internal publication. Amsterdam: GITP R&D.
Kooreman, A., & Luteijn, F. (1987). Groninger Intelligentie Test: GIT Handleiding. Lisse: Swets &Zeitlinger.
Levin, J., & Montag, I. (1987). The effect of testing instructions for handling social desirability onthe Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 163–167.
Lievens, F., De Fruyt, F., & Van Dam, K. (2001). Assesors’use of personality traits in descriptions ofcandidates: A five-factor model perspective. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 74, 623–636.
Luteijn, F., Starren, J., & Van Dijk, H. (2000). Handleiding Nederlandse PersoonlijkheidsVragenlijst (herziene uitgave) [Manual of the NPV]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
McCall, M. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international executives: Developing aconcept. Consulting Psychology Journal, winter, 49–63.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R.
Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 269–290).Orlando, FL: Academic.
Mol, S., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2001). Validation of the M.P.Q. amongst aninternationally oriented student population in Taiwan. In F. Salili, & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Researchin multicultural education and international perspectives (pp. 167–186). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects of
expatriate job success. New Approaches to Employee Management, 4, 63–92.Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556.Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad
personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389–405.Ronen, S. (1989). Training the international assignee. In I. E. Goldstone (Ed)., Training and
development in organizations (pp. 417–453). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Levin, R. A., & Miller, J. L. (1998). The impact of response destortion
on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,634–644.
Ruben, B. (1976). Assessing communication competence for intercultural adaptation. Group andOrganization Studies, 1, 334–354.
Ruben, I., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and theprediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15–17.
Saucier, G. S. (1992). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing? European Journal ofPersonality, 6, 381–386.
Schmitt, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in applicant and nonapplicant populations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966–974.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunette, M. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sinkscience in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.
Smith, M. B. (1966). Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers in Ghana.American Psychologist, 21, 555–566.
Spearman, C. (1904). ‘General intelligence’ objectively determined and measured. AmericanJournal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
MPQ in the context of personnel selection S99
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)
Spector, P. E., Jex, S., & Chen, P. Y. (1995). Relations of incumbent affect-related personality traitswith incumbent and objective measures of characteristics of jobs. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 16, 59–65.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554.Tjoa, A. (1965). Handleiding boekje [Manual booklet]. Internal publication, Amsterdam: GITP
R&D.Tjoa, A. (1974). Thurstone Beroepen Test: Handleiding en specimen set [Manual of the TBT].
Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in the overseas setting.
Chichester: Wiley.Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journalof World Business, 16, 68–78.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Brinkmann, U. (2003). Construct validity evidence for the InterculturalReadiness Check against the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Manuscript submitted forpublication.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionaire: Amultidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14,291–309.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire:Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 35, 278–288.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Mol, S., & Van der Zee, K. I. (in press). A new approach to the study ofexpatriate effectiveness: Validation of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ)amongst a sample of expatriates in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology.
Ward, C., & Chang, W. C. (1997). Cultural fit: A new perspective on personality and sojourneradjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, 525–533.
Wart, P., Miles, A., & Platts, C. (2001). Age and personality in the British population between 16 and64 years. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(2), 165–200.
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX:Psychological Corporation.
Zeidner, M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske, & M. Zeidner(Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 299–319). New York: Plenum.
S100 K. I. van der Zee et al.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 17: S77–S100 (2003)