An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory and observer's assessment from the perspective of the five-factor model

被引:19
作者
Broucek, WG [1 ]
Randell, G [1 ]
机构
[1] UNIV BRADFORD,CTR MANAGEMENT,BRADFORD BD7 1DP,W YORKSHIRE,ENGLAND
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00625.x
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
This paper examines the construct equivalency of the two measures used in Belbin's (1994) Interplace system-the self-report Self-perception Inventory MK2 (SPI) and the observer-rating Observer's Assessment (OA)-with regard to their use as parallel forms and their construct validity relative to the five-factor method (FFM) of personality assessment. A total of 152 managers(101 men, 51 women) completed the SPI and were assessed by four knowledgeable ca-workers each (608 raters) using the OA. Results showed that the convergent and discriminant construct validities of the two measures did not support the contention that they were parallel forms. A second study further examined the equivalency of the measures when 123 participants self-rated both a normative SPI and the OA. Despite attenuating the effects of ipsativity and self vs. observer discrepancies the two measures were not supported as parallel forms. Finally, the construct validity of ipsative and normative versions of the SPI and a self-rater OA was examined by correlating their respective role scales with a standard measure of the five basic personality dimensions, the NEO-PI-R. Though the ipsative, forced-choice format of the SPI was identified as a source of invalidity, results showed that neither the SPI, either in ipsative or normative version, nor the OA evidenced convergent and discriminant construct validity relative to the NEO-PI-R. Implications of these findings are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:389 / 405
页数:17
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
Belbin R.M., 1981, MANAGEMENT TEAMS WHY
[2]   A REPLY TO THE BELBIN TEAM-ROLE SELF-PERCEPTION INVENTORY [J].
BELBIN, RM .
JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1993, 66 :259-260
[3]  
BELBIN RM, 1994, INTERPLACE 4 HUMAN R
[4]   Functional Roles of Group Members [J].
Benne, Kenneth D. ;
Sheats, Paul .
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, 1948, 4 (02) :41-49
[5]   ASSESSING THE 5-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY DESCRIPTION [J].
BRIGGS, SR .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, 1992, 60 (02) :253-293
[6]   CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDATION BY THE MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD MATRIX [J].
CAMPBELL, DT ;
FISKE, DW .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1959, 56 (02) :81-105
[7]  
Cattell RaymondBernard., 1970, Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF): In clinical, educational, industrial, and research psychology, for use with all forms of the test
[8]  
Costa P., 1992, REVISED PERSONALITY
[9]  
Costa P. T., 1990, J PERS DISORD, V4, P362, DOI DOI 10.1521/PEDI.1990.4.4.362
[10]   4 WAYS 5 FACTORS ARE BASIC [J].
COSTA, PT ;
MCCRAE, RR .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 1992, 13 (06) :653-665