5-Factor Model

Openness

Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be perceived as unpredictable or lack of focus. Conversely, those with low openness are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes even perceived to be closed-minded.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior, and they are generally dependable.

Extraversion

Extraverts enjoy interacting with people and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and assert themselves. Introverts have lower social engagement and energy levels than extroverts. They tend to seem quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; instead, they are more independent of their social world than extroverts.

Agreeableness

Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, kind, generous, trusting and trustworthy, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being and are less likely to extend themselves to other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability or is reversed and referred to as emotional stability. Those who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings.

Core Attributes

1. Competitive
2. Emotionally Controlled
3. Empathy
4. Flexibility
5. Leadership
6. Openness
7. Perseverance
8. Results-Oriented
9. Self-Discipline
10. Systematic

Competitive

Someone who scores highly competitive: is motivated by the drive to outperform others, be the best, or excel past the competition. This type of person is generally determined and effective, but may at times compromise workplace standards in order to secure success.

Someone who scores moderately competitive: tends to recognize the importance of drive and determination in relation to productivity. This type of person is accustomed to putting in extra work to get ahead and acknowledges the value in balancing personal performance with the greater good of the project, team, or company.

Someone who scores low competitiveness: typically considers personal achievement as less important than other work dynamics, such as productivity, resource management, or the relationship of the team.

Emotionally Controlled

Someone who scores as highly emotionally controlled: may be able to exercise extreme diligence in his or her behavior, even in light of extenuating circumstances. This type of person is generally able to regulate his or her mood regardless of disappointment, high stress, or unexpected changes.

Someone who scores as moderately emotionally controlled: is generally able to remain collected in difficult circumstances. In high-stakes situations, this type of person is usually capable of remaining composed without allowing a situation to compromise his or her performance.

Someone who scores low emotional control: is likely to experience a variety of reactive feelings in response to adverse situations. In professional circumstances where his or her needs are not being met, it may be difficult for this type of person to perform at their best.

Empathy

Someone who scores as highly empathetic: possesses a heightened level of understanding and compassion. This type of person typically excels at building emotional relationships with others but may have to be conscious of his or her personal involvement in the issues of others at work.

Someone who scores as moderately empathetic: generally recognizes the importance of balancing compassion with professionalism, and is typically capable of using the two to form healthy and trusting workplace relationships. This type of person recognizes the professional advantage of understanding others’ feelings and perspectives.

Someone who scores low empathy: may prioritize an objective opinion or personal stance over the emotional needs of others. This type of person is usually able to remain impartial to sensitive issues, but it may be challenging for him or her to relate to others or to connect on an emotional level.

Flexibility

Someone who scores as highly flexible: will likely adapt well to a variety of new or unexpected events without experiencing an interruption in the quality of performance. This type of person is generally willing to embrace and excel at uncertain situations in the workplace.

Someone who scores as moderately flexible: is likely capable of handling change or unexpected circumstances without major shifts in performance. This type of person is generally comfortable with unpredictability or impromptu adjustments and is effective at adapting to new routines.

Someone who scores low flexibility: is likely most effective when working in an environment that is consistent. It may be difficult for this type of person to adjust to unexpected events or interruptions, instead, his or her best work is completed in conjunction with stability.

Leadership

Someone who scores highly in leadership: likely excels in a position that requires supervising others and taking charge in team-based environments. This type of person is most fulfilled in a role where they direct, lead, and goal setting, and may feel less comfortable following the direction of others.

Someone who scores moderately in leadership: may feel comfortable taking the lead on occasion, while remaining capable of following the direction of others without challenging authority. This person is capable of both providing guidance to others and accepting guidance him or herself.

Someone who scores low leadership: is likely to be comfortable taking directions from others and assuming supporting roles in team-based environments. This type of person generally prefers accepting feedback rather than providing feedback and works best when contributing as a member of the team, rather than the leader.

Openness

Someone who scores highly in openness: is likely energized by the opportunity to experience new situations, learn new lessons, and question his or her personal values. This type of individual is generally quick to recognize the value in curiosity, diversity, and variety, and demonstrates this in his or her workplace behavior and personal culture.

Someone who scores moderately in openness: may appreciate a balance between new ideas and experiences and the comfort of familiarity. This type of person generally recognizes the value in variety and learning new things, and demonstrates this in his or her workplace behavior and personal culture.

Someone who scores low openness: is likely preferential to traditional ideas and consistency. This type of person generally gravitates towards familiar situations and strict routines, maintaining a conservative perspective on his or her workplace behavior and personal culture.

Perseverance

Someone who scores highly in perseverance: never gives up despite challenges or opposition. This type of person generally is tenacious and insistent in reaching goals and often inspiring to those around them.

Someone who scores moderately in perseverance: does not give up easily and is patient and persistent when it comes to achieving goals. This type of person generally recognizes hard work and is not deterred by putting in extra time or effort.

Someone who scores low in perseverance: likes variety and has trouble committing to a new goal or hobby. This type of person generally does not like to be tied down to deadlines or specific requirements.

Results-Oriented

Someone who scores highly results-oriented: is typically focused on completing projects and providing finished work. This type of person generally sees the end product as the number one goal, prioritizing problem-solving and maintaining focus towards completion over other components.

Someone who scores moderately results-oriented: is generally aware of the importance of the end goal, but prioritizes a balance between completion and quality of work. This type of person is typically mindful of team relationships and resource expenditures, and effective when responding to setbacks.

Someone who scores low results-oriented: may see the end goal of a project as just one component of his or her professional expectation. This type of person may place higher value in workplace relationships, management of resources, or other factors as opposed to project completion.

Self-Discipline

Someone who scores highly self-discipline: likely exercises a rigorous amount of control over his or her own performance. They are likely impervious to most distractions or temptation but may feel less comfortable in situations that demand flexibility or instinct.

Someone who scores moderately self-discipline: is generally capable of regulating his or her behavior in order to appropriately respond to distraction or temptation. This type of person will typically exercise good judgment when it comes to staying on task and making fair and thoughtful decisions.

Someone who scores low self-discipline: is typically very self-aware. This type of person is likely to make decisions and take actions based on what he or she believes to be best, and prioritize the tasks that seem most appealing.

Systematic

Someone who scores highly systematic: is most comfortable in a setting where tasks are completed “by the book”, and procedures follow a pre-established and structured pattern. When these guidelines do not exist, this type of person will either seek them out or develop them independently in order to progress in his or her work.

Someone who scores moderately systematic: is able to recognize the value of standardized procedures and guidelines, and comfortably follow pre-established settings. In ambiguous situations, this type of person is typically able to function comfortably by developing his or her own organization and order.

Someone who scores low systematic: is less likely to seek out standardized methods of completing tasks, and instead may prefer to design or implement their own guidelines. This type of person may prefer his or her own interpretation of organizing or structuring as opposed to those enforced.

Defining the Content Domain

Selection of Core Attributes

Fourteen attributes were determined to be suitable for inclusion in scale development of which ten of those attribute scales were retained in the final item bank.

Defining the Core Attributes

Measuring these core attributes required defining behavioral domains to assess an abstract concept. Each attribute was operationalized with a main definition, a list of synonyms, a list of antonyms, and an example item. Within the main definition, behavioral examples of each attribute were described (e.g., behaviors associated with a high/med/low score). The example items all began with the phrase “At work I...” This item stem served as an additional reminder to item writers that these items were going to be used for a selection system for applicants and employees.

Item Writing

Generating items for each attribute was done in several steps after defining the content domains of each attribute. First, the construct must be clearly defined before attempting to write items to assess the behavioral domain of interest. Next, initial item writing was done by 14 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in order to populate a large inventory of items that could later be narrowed down into a list of items that accurately assess the attributes.

Using the attribute definitions, each SME wrote 7-10 items per construct. This created a large item pool that was narrowed down before administering the initial items to participants. SMEs had a deep understanding of approaches to item generation, which includes writing items specific to behaviors that participants can recall easily, avoiding double-barreled items, and avoiding negatively worded items. The assumption of a deductive approach is that the definition provides enough information about the construct to create items that will tap into the behavioral domains of interest (i.e., the core attributes). Each SME individually wrote as many items as possible that tapped into all aspects of the behavioral domain. This activity was done with the intention to generate far more items than necessary for the final scales.

Sample Question & Instructions

The instructions given to item writers are listed below:

• Write items that are compatible with a 5 to 7-point (almost never-almost always) Likert scale.

• Statements should be as short as possible and use simple language (no jargon; no "big" words).

• No "double-barreled" items - items should address a single issue and be mutually exclusive. Do not use "and/or" in any items.

• Try to write items that assess behaviors, not affect/emotions. Affective items are permissible for a couple of the constructs (e.g., Emotional Control & Empathy).

• Avoid items that all participants might answer similarly. You want to imagine that all response options could be observed when administered to a sample.

• As much as possible, avoid negatively worded items.

• Avoid using negatives to create a positive item. For example, "At work, I do not like having a messy desk." This should instead be, "At work, I like to keep my desk tidy."

• Avoid strong wording (i.e., hate; love; disgust).

Content Validation

Content Validity Ratio (CVR) Ratings

Items were selected in part based upon the content validity of each item. This step helped narrow down items into a cohesive scale that accurately sampled from the construct domain with little overlap in item content. After generating the large pool of initial items, each item was assessed for content validity evidence by rating the relevance of each item to the construct as previously defined by SMEs. Content validity is the degree to how well a measure samples from the specified behavioral domain. When a measure is content valid it is more likely that it accurately measures the construct. One method calculates a content validity ratio (CVR) for each item. The formula for the CVR calculation is:

Where, 𝑛𝑒 is the number of raters who considered the item essential and N is the total number of raters. When more than half of the raters do not agree that an item is essential for measuring the construct the CVR will be negative, which is an indication that the item is not content valid and should not be included in the measure. On the other hand, if more than half of the raters agree that an item is essential for assessing the construct the CVR will be positive. A higher CVR indicates that an item should be included in the measure. Calculating CVRs for each item was accomplished by rating each item on relevance and quality. Relevance of items was rated on a 3-point Likert scale, where a rating of 1 indicated that the item was not necessary to assess the construct and 3 indicated that the item was essential for proper measurement of the construct. Quality ratings of each item were made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor quality; 5 = excellent quality) for later narrowing down of total items. Quality ratings were not included in CVR calculations but were of use in initial decision making for inclusion of items on the scale. Each SME created independent relevance ratings for each item, which were later compiled into a cumulative spreadsheet. The number of times that an item received a relevance rating of 3 (i.e., essential for proper measurement of the construct) across SMEs was summed to create the in the CVR formula. Next, the CVR was calculated for each item and each rater made subjective decisions about cutoff scores for inclusion of items. The team sorted all items by their CVR and only considered items that were greater than zero (i.e., more than half of the raters agreed that the item was essential). This resulted in approximately 40 items per attribute. The team then began deleting items with the lowest CVR/quality rating combo. Next, starting from the top, the team checked for redundant items and deleted ones with the lowest CVR and quality ratings. This resulted in approximately 20 items

Item Administration

Survey Distribution

After assembling initial scales, the survey was distributed to 5937 participants. Participants were geographically diverse across the United States. Items were randomly ordered to avoid priming effects that occur when items are administered in order by scale. This randomized procedure is typically done in survey development to avoid influencing participant responses.

Attention Checks

Three items were included as attention checks throughout the survey. Attention check items help with data cleaning and are useful for removing participant data when it appears they were responding carelessly. Instructive response items were used. Participants who missed more than one of these attention checks were removed from further analysis.

Analyses

Factor Analyses

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to identify the factor structure of a measure when no assumptions are made about the underlying factor pattern. Factor loadings greater than 0.40 were flagged for significance. Using the Kaiser criterion, eigenvalues greater than one were considered as a possible factor. We also examined scree plots to determine the number of relevant factors. Factors with an eigenvalue less than one are unlikely to be unique or interpretable factors. This process indicated that 13 of the 14 scales should be retained. Conscientiousness did not appear to be unidimensional. However, several of the items written for conscientiousness were included in the final item bank but on other attribute scales (i.e., Detail-Oriented). This is likely due to the highly similar nature of the conscientiousness definition to other scales.

Reliability Analyses

Chronbach’s alpha, an internal consistency analysis that measures covariance among items, was conducted on each individual scale. It is generally accepted that an alpha value at or above 0.7 is a good indication of a reliable scale. Alpha values for each scale are listed below.

Final Questions

Attention Check

1. We want to make sure you are not a robot. Please check Almost Always.
2. Please select Almost Never for this question.
3. Robots need not apply! Please select Almost Never.

Competitiveness

1. I am driven to win.
2. I try to outperform my friends.
3. I treat most situations like a competition.
4. I am driven by being the best.
5. My friends would say I am competitive.

Emotionally Controlled

1. I stay composed when I am upset.
2. I can control my behavior in emotional situations.
3. I allow my emotions to affect my performance.
4. When things get tough, I get stressed.
5. I am able to stay calm under pressure.

Empathy

1. I am sensitive to the concerns of others.
2. I am aware of what others may be feeling.
3. I genuinely care about the well-being of others.
4. It upsets me to see someone being treated unfairly.
5. I find it easy to understand other people's point of view.

Flexibility

1. It's difficult getting used to change.
2. I adapt well to unexpected changes.
3. Change comes naturally to me.
4. I adapt quickly to new situations.
5. People would say I am very flexible.

Leadership

1. People follow my lead.
2. My peers look to me for guidance.
3. In groups, my team looks to me for direction.
4. I start conversations when I meet new people.
5. I feel comfortable being the center of attention.

Openness

1. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.
2. New experiences make me uncomfortable.
3. I am quick to understand new ideas and complex concepts.
4. Bold thinking comes naturally and excites me.
5. I am cautious to take on unfamiliar tasks.

Perseverance

1. I am afraid to fail.
2. My friends would say I am a very driven person.
3. I am resilient in difficult situations.
4. I am focused on long term goals.
5. Obstacles deter me from achieving my goals.

Results-Oriented

1. I can solve unexpected problems.
2. I am known as a problem solver.
3. When I have a strong opinion, I let others know.
4. I frequently persuade others to do things my way.
5. Unexpected problems deter me.

Self-Discipline

1. I resist temptation in order to get things done.
2. I will blow off an obligation for something fun.
3. I am able to focus easily.
4. When I make a plan I stick to it, even if a new one comes up.
5. I often procrastinate on items I would rather not do.

Systematic

1. It is important that I have a clear understanding of a task.
2. I keep an organized calendar.
3. If there is a formal process for completing a task, I follow it.
4. I make to-do lists and follow them.
5. I am always careful to get the details right.