Open Access
| Issue |
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 119, 2021
3rd International Conference on Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Social Sciences (QQR’21)
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 05007 | |
| Number of page(s) | 8 | |
| Section | Psychology and Education Studies | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202111905007 | |
| Published online | 24 August 2021 | |
- Arthur, W., Woehr, D. J. and Graziano, W. G. (2001) ‘Personality testing in employment settings: Problems and issues in the application of typical selection practices’, Personnel Review, 30(6), pp. 657–676. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005978. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Baez, H. B. (2013) ‘Personality Tests in Employment Selection: Use With Caution’. Available at: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/72937 (Accessed: 6 June 2021). [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, H. E. P. and Mead, A. D. (2008) ‘The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)’, in The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2 — Personality Measurement and Testing. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 135–159. doi: 10.4135/9781849200479.n7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Eysenck, H. J. (1991) ‘Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm’, Personality and Individual Differences, 12(8), pp. 773–790. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-Z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Furnham, A. (1990) ‘The fakeability of the 16 PF, Myers-Briggs and FIRO-B personality measures’, Personality and Individual Differences, 11(7), pp. 711–716. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90256-Q. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Furnham, A. (2008) ‘HR Professionals’ Beliefs About, and Knowledge of, Assessment Techniques and Psychometric Tests’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(3), pp. 300–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00436.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Goldberg, L. R. (1992) ‘The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure’, 4, p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. and Swann, W. B. (2003) ‘A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains’, Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), pp. 504–528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- van Kampen, D. (2009) ‘Personality and Psychopathology: a Theory-Based Revision of Eysenck’s PEN Model’, Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 5(1), pp. 9–21. doi: 10.2174/1745017900905010009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Morgeson, F. P. et al. (2007) ‘RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS’, Personnel Psychology, 60(3), pp. 683–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Moumen, A., Bouchama, E. H. and EL Bouzekri EL Idirissi, Y. (2020) ‘Data mining techniques for employability: Systematic literature review’, in 2020 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Control, Optimization and Computer Science (ICECOCS). 2020 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Control, Optimization and Computer Science (ICECOCS), pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICECOCS50124.2020.9314555. [Google Scholar]
- Myers, I. B. (1998) ‘MBTI manual : a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator’, p. 444. [Google Scholar]
- Scepura, R. C. (2020) ‘The Challenges With Pre-Employment Testing and Potential Hiring Bias’, Nurse Leader, 18(2), pp. 151–156. doi: 10.1016/j.mnl.2019.11.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- The history of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator | The Myers-Briggs Company (no date). Available at: https://eu.themyersbriggs.com/en/tools/MBTI/Myers-Briggs-history (Accessed: 9 June 2021). [Google Scholar]
- Youngman, J. F. (2017) ‘The use and abuse of pre-employment personality tests’, Business Horizons, 60(3), pp. 261–269. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.11.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.