COMPARABILITY OF INCUMBENT AND APPLICANT SAMPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIODATA KEYS: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY

• Published in: Personnel psychology Vol. 46; no. 4; pp. 739 - 762
• Main Authors: STOKES, GARNETT S., HOGAN, JAMES B., SNELL, ANDREA F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.1993; Personnel Psychology, Inc
• Subjects: Ability tests; Accuracy; Applicants; Cognitive ability; Cognitive Tests; Deception; Employee testing; Employment Experience; Evidence; Feedback (Response); Hypotheses; Incumbency; Influence; Inventory; Investigations; Item Analysis; Job Applicants; Preemployment screening; Questionnaires; Regression analysis; Salespeople; Self evaluation; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Social Desirability; Studies; Task Analysis; Tenure; Validation studies; Validity; Work Experience; North America
• ISSN: 0031-5826; 1744-6570
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01567.x

An index of Socially Desirable Responding (SDR) was developed to measure the extent of impression management exhibited in applicant and incumbent samples when responding to a biodata form. The sample consisted of 2,262 incumbent sales representatives and 2,726 applicants for sales positions. Greater applicant versus incumbent SDR was observed, but differences varied across a priori item content areas. Impression management was minimal in item categories such as Previous Work Experience and Economic Motivation, but it was more prevalent in categories such as Work Style and Preferences and Self‐Evaluations of Prior Sales Success. Using a smaller sample of 810 incumbents and 555 applicants, largely equated for experience, an item‐keyed biodata inventory was developed for selection. When regression procedures were used to develop final keys, no comparable items existed across the keys from the two samples. SDR was more highly related to the applicant key than to the incumbent key. Results for option‐keyed instruments developed and validated on the same samples were compared with the results associated with the item‐keyed instruments, and the conclusions were similar. Implications for the development of biodata forms for selection are discussed.