The criterion-related validity of conscientiousness in personnel selection: A meta-analytic reality check

A key finding in personnel selection is the positive correlation between conscientiousness and job performance. Evidence predominantly stems from concurrent validation studies with incumbent samples but is readily generalized to predictive settings with job applicants. This is problematic because the extent to which faking and changes in personality affect the measurement likely vary across samples and study designs. Therefore, we meta-analytically investigated the relation between conscientiousness and job performance, examining the moderating effects of sample type (incumbent vs. applicant) and validation design (concurrent vs. predictive). The overall correlation of conscientiousness and job performance was in line with previous meta-analyses ((r) over bar =.17, k = 102, n = 23, 305). In our analyses, the correlation did not differ across validation designs (concurrent: (r) over bar =.18, k = 78, n = 19, 132; predictive: (r) over bar =.15, k = 24, n = 4173), sample types (incumbents: (r) over bar =.18, k = 92, n = 20, 808; applicants: (r) over bar =.14, k = 10, n = 2497), or their interaction. Critically, however, our review revealed that only a small minority of studies (similar to 12%) were conducted with real applicants in predictive designs. Thus, barely a fraction of research is conducted under realistic conditions. Therefore, it remains an open question if self-report measures of conscientiousness retain their predictive validity in applied settings that entail faked responses. We conclude with a call for more multivariate research on the validity of selection procedures in predictive settings with actual applicants.