validation of the multicultural personality questionnaire in the context of personnel selection

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


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.



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.



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



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



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).



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,



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



validation of the multicultural personality questionnaire in the context of personnel selection

Documents