Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Utilization of the Five Factor Model of Personality
In the Prediction of Cooperative Education
Success
by
Angela Webb
A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science Degree
111
Applied Psychology
Approved: 4 Semester Credits
Dr :KfiStil1aGorbatenko-Roth
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
May, 2010
1
Author:
Title:
University of Wisconsin-Stout Menomonie, WI
Webb, Angela N.
The Utilization of tlte Five Factor Model of Personality in tlte Prediction of Cooperative Education Success
Graduate Degree/ Major:MS Applied Psychology
Research Adviser: Kristina Gorbatenko-Roth, Ph.D.
Monthrvear: May, 2010
Number of Pages: 47
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition
Abstract
The Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality is obtaining construct validation,
recognition, and practical consideration across a broad domain of fields, including clinical
psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and health psychology (Widiger & Tull,
1997). One of the five personality factors in the FFM, conscientiousness and its specific sub-
personality traits has been associated with the prediction of job success. However, no research
has been conducted to assess the prediction of coop success using the FFM of personality. This
study aimed to address conscientiousness in relation to coop success by analyzing 1,399
employer evaluations from UW-Stout students enrolled in a coop position. The results of this
study indicated that work quality, judgment, motivation, and accuracy were high predictors of
2
coop success. This study suppOlied the hypothesis that conscientiousness would be predictive of
coop performance. Limitations and recommendations of the study are addressed.
The Graduate School University of Wisconsin Stout
Menomonie, WI
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Career Services depar1ment for their patience and assistance
while I was gathering the necessary data for my thesis . I would also like to thank my internship
supervisor for making space for me in the Career Services depa11ment and the opp0l1unity to
conduct research for such a friendly and welcoming environment.
I would also like to thank my family and friends. I am extremely grateful to have the
supp0l1 of my family and friends for without them I would have never challenged myself
throughout my education.
I would like to thank Dr. Kristina Gorbatenko-Roth, my research advisor, for her knowledge,
commitment, and patience in overseeing this research study. J have grown professionally because of the
3
commitment and dedication of the MSAP program faculty. It has been a long and enduring process and
I thank everyone who has been involved.
4
Table of Contents
.................. .... ..... ................................... .......... ...... ...................... .......... ......... ..................... ........ Page
Abstract ........ .............. ................................... ................................................................................. . 2
List of Tables ................................................ .......................................... ... .... ................ .... ............. 6
Chapter I: Introduction ...... ........ ... ... .... .. ........ ................ ................ ...... .. ...... .......................... ..... ..... 7
Statement of the Problem .................... ..... ........... .............................. ......................................... . 7
Purpose of Study ........................................ ................................................................................. 7
Methodology Sunlmary ...................... ................ ...................... ............... ............. ...................... 8
Definition of Terms ................................................................... .... .. ..... .... .... ......... .................... 10
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 11
Chapter II: Literature Review ............ ............ .............................................................................. 11
Cooperative Education Defined ........... ....... ................................. ............. .... ............................ 12
Cooperative Education and Success ........... ....... ......................... .... .. ....... ....... .... ...... ............. ... 13
Success in the Work Place ........................................................................................................ 16
Five Factor Model and Job Success .......................................................................................... 17
Conscientiousness and Personality Characteristics .................................................................. 21
Summary ........ ............. ...... ........................... : ............................................................................ 21
Chapter III : Methodology ....... ................... .. ...... ..... ...................................................................... 22
Participants .................................................... ... ......................................................................... 23
Procedure .... ........ .. .................................................................................................................... 23
Measured Variables .................................................................................................................. 23
Data Analysis ................................... .... .. ..... ... ...... ... ... ...... ......... .. ....... .. .. .... .... ........................... 23
Chapter IV Results: ....... .......... ..................................................................................................... . 26
5
Response Rate ........................................................................................................................... 27
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................. 27
Correlations ............................................................................................................................... 30
Prediction of Overall Coop Performance ................................................................................... 31
Chapter V: Discussion .................................................................................................................. 34
Major Findings .......................................................................................................................... 36
Conscientiousness and the Prediction of Coop Success ........................................................... 40
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 40
Recommendations for Future Research on Conscientiousness ................................................ 41
References ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix A: Employer Evaluation ............................................................................................... 46
6
List of Tables
Table 1: Job Performance Skills Statistics during the Midterm Evaluation ................................. 26
Table 2: Job PerfOlmance Skills Statistics during the Final Evaluation ....................................... 26
Table 3: Personal Characteristics Statistics during the Midtelm Evaluation ................................ 27
Table 4: Personal Characteristics Statistics during the Final Evaluation ..................................... 27
Chapter I: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
The Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality, specifically conscientiousness, has been
demonstrated through research to predict job success. Yet no research has been done studying
cooperative education success or the relationship of conscientiousness to cooperative education
(coop success). This research paper addresses both questions answering the following: "What
personal characteristics and job performance behaviors make an individual successful in a coop
experience?" and "How is conscientiousness related to coop success?"
7
Previous empirical research has found the Big Five predictive of success in a variety of
occupations (Gill et a1. 2007), and found meaningful relationships between individuals'
personalities and performance outcomes at work (Mount et a1. 1998). The FFM of personality
construct of conscientiousness and its related personality traits have been recently cited in the
prediction of job success. According to Witt, Burke, Banick, & Mount, (2002) workers high in
conscientiousness are predisposed to be organized, disciplined, diligent, dependable, methodical,
and purposeful and are more likely to correctly perform work tasks, take initiative in solving
problems, remain committed to work performance, and comply with policies. However, no
research has been conducted to determine the prediction of coop success let alone the
relationship of conscientiousness to coop performance.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was twofold: determine what job perfonnance and personality
characteristics predict coop success, and to assess the relationship between coop success and the
personality sub-constructs of conscientiousness.
8
Methodology Summary
In order to address the gap in predicting coop success using the FFM of personality,
1,399 employer evaluations were analyzed from UW-Stout students who were enrolled in a coop
position. Each coop student was required by the UW -Stout Career Services department to
complete two employer evaluations each semester; one during the middle of their coop (midterm
evaluation) and the other during the end of the semester (final evaluation).
The employer evaluation form (Appendix A) consisted of three categories which assessed
student overall performance: job performance skills, personal characteristics, and overall
performance. Within the job performance skills category there were eight variables: work
quality, oral communication, written communication, organization, problem solving, decision
making, leadership, and accuracy. Within the personal characteristics category there were also
eight variables: motivation, judgment, flexibility, dependability, initiative, appearance,
attendance, and punctuality. The last category was a single overall performance rating. In total
there were 17 variables measured.
Research Questions Related to Study
It was believed that students would improve in their job performance skills during the
coop experience. It was unlmown whether students would improve on their work-related
personality characteristics. It was also believed that students' personality characteristics and job
performance would be related. Lastly, it was believed that the personality construct of
conscientiousness would predict coop success, just as it does in employee job success. From
these assumptions three research questions and related hypotheses were developed.
• Research Question 1: What significant changes occUlTed between the midterm
evaluation and final evaluation in terms of job perfOlmance skills, personal
characteristics, and overall performance variables?
• Hypothesis 1: Students will improve on job perfOlmance between the midterm and
final evaluation.
• Research Question 2: What relationships between the final job performance and the
personal characteristic variables exist?
9
• Hypothesis 2: The job performance and personal characteristics will have significant
correlations between each other.
• Research Question 3: Which specific job performance and personal characteristic
variables would best predict overall coop perfOlmance of future coop students?
• Hypothesis 3: Personality traits of conscientiousness that were found to be predictive
in job success will also be predictive in coop success.
To test these hypotheses, four data analyses methods were used to analyze the results
from the 1,399 employer evaluations: descriptive statistics, t-tests, correlations, and stepwise
linear regressions.
Data Analysis Summary
Descriptive analysis assessed the level of perfOlmance and personality characteristics at
time midterm and final time periods. T -tests were used to assess for significant changes on these
variables between the midtelm and final evaluation periods. Changes would suggest coop
improvement.
10
The third statistical analysis (correlations) assessed the significant relationships between
any of the 17 variables. Specifically, how high or low the 17 variables were related to the
variables within their category (e.g. job performance) and variables across categories (e.g.
personal characteristics), and if these relations were statistically significant.
The last statistical analyses employed were several stepwise linear regressions used to
predict future student coop performance. The outcome variable of interest, or the criterion
variable, was the final student overall performance rating variable.
With the information accumulated from the four data analyses, it was the researchers'
objective to analyze the data, interpret the results, and make recommendations for future coop
success using the FFM of personali ty.
Definition of Terms
Cooperative Education. A structured educational strategy integrating classroom studies
with learning through productive work experiences in a field related to a student's academic or
career goals. (National Commission of Cooperative Education, 2010).
Five Factor Model (FFM). FFM suggests that there are five major domains of
personality: neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness (Widiger
and Tull, 1997).
Conscientiousness. A personality factor which describes socially prescribed impulse
control that facilitates task and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying
gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks.
(Smithikrai, 2007).
T-Test. A statistical analysis which assesses whether the means of two groups are
statistically different from each other (Trochim, 2006).
11
Correlation. A statistical analysis represented by a number (correlation coefficient r)that
describes the degree of relationship between two variables (Trochim, 2006).
Stepwise Linear Regression. A statistical technique for detelmining the relationship
between variables in order to describe or predict factors. (Modarres, Nasrabadi, Nasrabadi, M.
2004).
Limitations
The greatest limitation from this research study was that there was no direct measure of
conscientiousness included on the coop employer evaluation form. Without a direct measure,
personality constructs found related to conscientiousness in the job performance literature were
used as proxy variables.
A second limitation to this study was missing data. Some of the employer evaluations
were not available while the data collection process began. This could be due to reasons ranging
from failure to complete the evaluation form to student removal oftheir coop position.
The study also did not reflect a true pre-post comparative analysis to demonstrate
changes or improvements of overall job performance between the midterm and final evaluation.
For future research assessing pre-post changes, a measure would need to be developed to assess
students overall work quality and other job performance variables before the beginning of their
coop position.
Chapter II: Literature Review
Cooperative Education Defined
12
According to the National Commission of Cooperative Education (2010), cooperative
education is a structured educational strategy integrating classroom studies with learning through
productive work experiences in a field related to a student's academic or career goals. Ascher
(1994) defines cooperative education as a program which combines academic study with paid,
monitored, and credit-bearing work. The earliest research on the success and benefits of
education dates back to the 1920's. As America experienced the industrial gain, cooperative
education became an innovative way to pursue and fulfill an undergraduate education (Charron,
1996). Since then, the usefulness and demand for coop oppOltunities, has grown; today many are
offered through colleges and universities. Approximately 500 colleges and universities in
America offer coop programs, involving 300,000 students in real-world job experiences
(National Commission of Cooperative Education, 2010).
The total time students spend in coop experiences ranges from 6 months to 2 years,
depending on the degree and the school (Mariani, 1997). Ninety-five percent of coop students
find jobs immediately upon graduation (National Commission of Cooperative Education (2010).
It was found that after graduation, university coop students repOlted higher salaries in their first
year in the workforce: $33,837 compared with $26,337 for non coop grads, a 22.2% increase
(Drysdale, Goyder, Nosko, Easton, Frank, & Rowe, 2007). These impressive statistics of
cooperative education can be explained by identifying the benefits of cooperative education for
the student, university, and employer.
Benefits of Cooperative Education
While enrolled in a coop, students enhance academically, professionally, and personally.
13
The National Conunission for Cooperative Education (20 I 0) has identified several student
benefits of cooperative education which include but are not limited to: academic motivation,
career management, and professional networking. In a study conducted at Mississippi State
University, 5,506 undergraduate students were sampled in order to quantify the benefits of
students enrolled in a coop program. The findings indicated that students who participated in the
cooperative education program graduated with higher GPAs, (0.12 points higher), and obtained
higher post-graduation starting salaries ($6,302 higher) (Blaire, Millea, 2004). The cooperative
education experience allows students to pmticipate and engage in their learning, transfelTing
what has been gained from the classroom, and apply it to their profession.
Although students benefit from cooperative education, research has also indicated that
employers benefit from employing coop students. Braunstein and Sull (2001) examined
employer benefits of and attitudes toward cooperative education. Braunsten et al. (2001)
questioned the benefits of cooperative education to employers and also examined how the
employers perceived the importance of the coop benefits. The findings indicated 88% of
employer responses claimed that students who have cooperative education experience are more
likely to be hired in the organization, and 75% of employer responses indicated that cooperative
education students tend to progress faster in the organization (Braunstein et al. 200 1).
Furthermore, respondents indicated their organization spent less time and money training and
developing employees who have had cooperative education experience (Braunstein et al. 2001).
Cooperative Education and Success
Research has demonstrated and quantified the benefits of cooperative education, but little
research has been done studying what makes a student successful during a cooperative education
experience. In other words, research has minimally identified the skills, abilities, and
components that make a student successful while enrolled in a coop. Of the extant research
literature a few studies have suggested that social skills and mentoring are components that
predict a successful coop student.
14
Bartkus (200 1) suggests by enhancing social skills the student is able to communicate
effectively in an interpersonal work environment (Bartkus, 200 1). Bartkus theorizes further by
stating that students who understand and are able to exhibit appropriate social behavior will find
that their chances for career success will be considerably improved (Batikus, 2001). Bartkus,
K.R. (200 1) investigated his theory by identifying the effects of a social skills training workshop
on the performance evaluations of students enrolled in a cooperative education program. Bartkus
hypothesized that those students who receive social skills training will receive higher work
performance evaluations for outcomes that are directly related to the training (Batikus, K.R,
200 I). A one and a half hour training session was conducted for students enrolled in a
cooperative education program. Several questions were asked of students regarding work-related
social skills including the following measured constructs: interpersonal effectiveness in the
workplace, ability to handle public, promptness, responsibility, application, and initiative. A t
test was conducted in order to evaluate the social skills training session on each of the six
constructs. Of the six constructs, three were statistically significant: interpersonal effectiveness
in the workplace (t=5.47) , application (t=5.36), and promptness (1=5.34) (Bartkus, K.R., 2001).
Overall, Bartkus 's research supported his argument that social skills training increases
performance evaluation scores for outcomes directly related to the training and therefore social
skills training has beneficial effects (Bartkus, K.R, 200 1).
Another theory that identifies an essential component in cooperative education in relation
to success is mentoring. In previous research, mentoring can be identified as a "close
15
interpersonal helping relationship" (Van Gyn, Ricks, 1997). In suppOli of such a component,
Gibson, Angel (1995) suggests that mentoring helps bridge the gap between in-class learning and
real world application. Gibson, Angel (1995) also suggested that mentoring can help in coaching
students on making school-to-work transitions and becoming effective team members for coop
success. Ricks and Van Gyn (1997) hypothesized that cooperative education fosters mentoring
relationships and impression management skills which contribute to increased educational and
work benefits. To suppOli this hypothesis a longitudinal study was conducted to determine any
change in the experiences of mentoring in the student's attitudes towards mentoring, and in
learning skills which could affect work success (Ricks, Van Gyn, 1997). Several scales were
used, the Self-monitoring Scale, the Functional Flexibility Scale, the Mentoring Questionnaire,
and the Cooperative Education Work Setting Questionnaire. On the Self-Monitoring Scale, co
op students scored higher than non coop students both at pre-test [F(1 ,386)=7.37] and at post-test
[F(1,386)=5.13 (Ricks et aI1997). The research suggested that throughout the years, coop
undergraduates were more socially asseliive, self confident, extravelied, and instrumental, than
non coop students (Ricks et aI, 1997). The majority of mentor relationships were supportive and
there was mutual respect between mentor and student. The impOliant and emerged variable was
that the mentor relationship was centered on the students' needs. (Rick et al. 1997).
As identified in the previous paragraphs, social skills and mentoring have some empirical
suppOli for predicting cooperative education student success. Since no further research has been
conducted to determine the constructs related to cooperative education and success, the larger
domain of job related success will be reviewed. More specifically, what constructs have been
empirically identified as predicative of individuals' job/employment success?
Success in the Wori{ Place
Many studies have been conducted to determine the various constructs to predict and
identify factors related to job success. Of these constructs, general mental ability (GMA) has
been highly studied to predict the relationship between GMA and job performance. GMA, or
intelligence, is a universal and reliably measured distinction among humans in their ability to
leam, reason, and solve problems (Gottfredson, 2004). General mental ability is one of the
strongest predictors of job performance in a variety of work contexts and GMA tests have been
used tl1Joughout industrial and organizational psychology for over 100 years (Schmidt and
Hunter, 2004).
16
Research has shown that the average operational validity for GMA and cognitive ability
tests ranges from .38 to .47 for overall job performance (Beliua, Anderson, Salgado, 2005).
Furthermore, the General Aptitude Test Battery, the Army General Classification Test, the
Wonderlic Personnel Test, and the IQ test are measures of general mental ability. These tests
measure individual perfOlmance which include verbal, quantitative and spatial material about
equally represented (Schmidt et ai, 2004).
Although general mental ability tests have been conducted to predict job success another
construct that has gained recent attention is the five-factor model of personality (FFM), or the
Big Five. Researchers have recently asked whether there is a dynamic transaction between
personality and career success. The FFM is an empirically derived model of personality that
characterizes an individual's emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal and motivational
style (Sutin, Costa, Jr, Miech, and Eaton, 2009) and therefore much of the support for personality
traits as performance predictors can be attributed to the FFM.
Five Factor Model and Job Success
Five Factor Model Theory. Over the past 20 years, the developments in research of
personality psychology reached a consensus regarding the value of the FFM. As described by
Widiger and Tull (1997) the FFM suggests that there are five major domains of personality:
neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness. The same five
factors have been found in children, college students, older adults; in men and women; in self
repOlis and observer ratings; and in English, German, and Chinese samples (McCrae, Costa, Jr,
1991 ).
17
Five Factor Model Personality Traits. Neuroticism refers to an individual's lack of
emotional stability. Extraversion encompasses personality traits reflecting adjustment, adapting
to change, and confidence. Openness to experience refers to the degree to which an individual
is open to new experiences/new ways of doing things (Smithikrai, 2007). Agreeableness
measures how compatible people are with others, or basically how able they are to get along
(Smithikrai, 2007) and Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that
facilitates task and goal directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification,
following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks (Smithikrai, 2007).
Five Factor Model in Relation to Job Success. Mount and Banick (1998) have
conducted several research studies to assess the associations between job performance and
personality traits using the FFM and theorized that there were meaningful relationships between
individuals' personalities and performance outcomes at work. Although, Mount and Barrick are
highly recognized researchers for the association between the FFM and job success, other
researchers including Gill and Hodgkinson (2007) have found the Big Five predictive of success
in a variety of occupations, ranging from sales and customer service to managerial and
18
semiskilled roles. The following paragraphs report on several studies examining the relationship
between the FFM and job success across professional domains.
Research of the FFM and Job Success. Smithikrai (2007) researched the FFM in
relation to job success in the following professional domains: teachers, bank employees, hotel
staff, dentists, air-traffic controllers, and salesmen; N=2,518 (Smithikrai, 2007). Smithikrai
measured job success using the NEO-FFI-S which is a 60 item self-report questionnaire of the
five dimensions of the FFM (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to
experience, and agreeableness). Participants in each occupational group were asked to report
their perceived success with various facets of their job (e.g., income, supervisors' satisfaction,
and respect from coworkers) as they have stmted their careers (Smithikrai, 2007). A multiple
regression analysis investigated the predictive power of each domain of the FFM of personality
and job success. Results indicated that extraversion was positively related to job success,
especially jobs that required interpersonal contacts such as salesmen, bank employees, and
teachers (Smithikrai , 2007). Overall, the study conducted by Smithikrai (2007) supported the
FFM of personality domains in correlation with job success. Conscientiousness was positively
correlated with each professional domain: pharmacists ' 1'=.36, teachers, 1'=.33 , dentists' 1'=.49,
salesmen 1'=.28, and air traffic controllers r=.32; all correlations were statistically significant.
Another study conducted by Fouldkrod, Field, and Brown (2010) examined the
personality traits (using the 10-item Personality Inventory) found most common in trauma
surgeons in an effort to guide appropriate candidate recruitment. Fouldkrod et at. (2010) used
the 1 O-item Personality Inventory which is recognized for understanding how traits identified
from the FFM of personality combine to form a consistent way of thinking, feeling, and
behaving in the world (Fouldkrod et al 2010) . The study used a convenient sample (N=412) of
19
trauma surgeons. The researchers developed a 32-item questionnaire similar to the 10-item
Personality Inventory with qualitative and quantitative methods. A Pearson correlation was used
to address the relationship between personality traits and level of overall job satisfaction
(Fouldkrod et al 2010). Results from the convenient sample indicated that trauma surgeons had
high levels of extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness with lower levels of
agreeableness. A basic understanding of the general personality profile of the typical trauma
surgeon has important implications for recruitment of medical students and residents most suited
for the profession (Fouldkrod et ai, 2010) and thereby predicting job performance while saving
recruiters time and money during the hiring process.
Now that the FFM of personality has been introduced as a measure of personality traits in
relation to job success within professional domains, the following paragraphs report on research
investigating the FFM of personality across professional domains. Also presented are results on
the FFM and its relationship to job success and performance measure by income and job
satisfaction.
Sutin et al. (2009) conducted a longitudinal study and examined relationships between
career success and personality using three independent markers of success (occupational
prestige, income, and job satisfaction) and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R).
The NEO-PI-R is a 240-item questionnaire measure of the five major domains of the FFM of
personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and
conscientiousness (Sutin et al. 2009). Sutin et al. (2009) also examined whether personality
predicts career trajectories or whether career success predicts changes in personality or both over
time. Participants were drawn from the Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study
that had valid personality and occupational prestige measures, 181 participants from the baseline
20
assessment, 248 participants from the follow-up assessment and 302 from both assessments
(Sutin et al. 2009). Results indicated strong correlations between income and personality and
pal1icipants high in conscientiousness repol1ed higher income. More specifically, four facets of
conscientiousness were correlated with income; competence 1'=.20, dutifulness 1'=.15,
achievement striving 1'=.14, and self discipline 1'=.09. This study indicates that specific
personality traits correlate with higher income and therefore may predict future job success. The
findings from this study suggests that over time, personality influences an individuals' working
envirorunent, such as making decisions and their oppo11unities to utilize skills but do not
reciprocally shape personality (Sutin et al. 2009).
Another study conducted by Judge and Higgins (1999) linked traits from the five-factor
model of personality to multiple dimensions of career success throughout individuals' careers.
Career success was measured by income and occupational status during late adulthood. The
Intergenerational Studies provided personality data on participants, collected at five different
points in time (Judge et al. 1999). There were three major follow-up studies, completed when
participants were 30-38 (early adulthood), 41-50 (middle age), and 53-62 (late adulthood). Of
these studies, results indicated relations between the Big Five traits and career outcomes. In
general, the correlations of the childhood measures with career success were similar to those
with the adult measures and therefore it was demonstrated that relevant personality traits are
capable of predicting multiple facets of career success, even over a span of 50 years.
Meta-analyses have progressed to understand which personality traits are relevant for
predicting job success. As mentioned earlier, research has demonstrated the correlation between
job satisfaction and job success. It is assumed that if an individual is satisfied with their job they
would demonstrate intrinsic job success by intellectual stimulation, variety of responsibilities,
and interesting work (Feldt, Woelfel, 2009). One meta-analysis in paliicular investigated the
relationship between the five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction. Results of the
meta-analyses indicated neuroticism (r=-.29) was the strongest correlation of job satisfaction,
followed closely by conscientiousness (r=.26) and extraversion (r= .25) (Judge, Heller, Mount,
2002).
21
Overall, the five factor model of personality (FFM) has been shown throughout research
to predict job success (Mount et al. 1998). Of the five traits of personality (neuroticism,
extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience), conscientiousness
has been the strongest trait to predict job success in all occupational groups (Robertson, Baron,
Gibbsons, MacIver, Nyfield, 2000).
Conscientiousness and Personality Characteristics
According to Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, (2002) workers high in conscientiousness
are predisposed to be organized, disciplined, diligent, dependable, methodical, and purposeful
and are more likely to correctly perform work tasks, take initiative in solving problems, remain
committed to work performance, and comply with policies (Witt et ai, 2002). Prior research into
conscientiousness has shown that it is moderately associated with goal setting (r=.44) (Banick,
Mount & Strauss, 1993), leadership (,.=.13) (Ng, Ang & Chan, 2008), and dependability (,.=.13)
(Ones, Di1chert, Viswesvaran & Judge, 2007) within organizational settings.
Summary
As stated in the previous paragraphs, personality constructs have been well documented
to predict job performance. Of these personality constructs the FFM of personality (neuroticism
extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) has been used
throughout industrial/organizational psychology with conscientiousness as a main predictor.
22
There is no direct measure of conscientiousness but personality traits within the literature
identify factors of conscientiousness. No research identified by the author has been found
investigating the prediction of coop success by personality variables. The following study is the
assumed first to do so. It is hypothesized that the personality construct of conscientiousness,
specifically its sub-construct personality traits (e.g. organized, disciplined, diligent, dependable,
and leadership) will also be correlated in the prediction of coop success.
23
Chapter III: Methodology
This research assessment of the Cooperative Education program at UW -Stout derived
from N=l ,399 employer evaluations of over 700 students. The employer evaluations are aimed
to measure a student's performance. The evaluations used for this research were from the fall
2008, spring 2009, and sununer 2009 COhOlis. Each COhOli consisted of students who were
enrolled and registered in a coop during the semester in question. The following sections include
a description of the students assessed, the types of instruments used to measure a student's job
coop performance, student's personal characteristics, data collection procedures, and analysis
procedures.
Participants
The researcher obtained participant information from the Career Services depaliment at
UW -Stout on coop students that had supervisor rating f0ll11S available from the fall 2008, spring
2009, and summer 2009 cohorts. Of the 716 paliicipants, 90 were from the fall 2008 semester;
86 were from the spring 2009 semester, and 540 from the summer 2009 semester. Each student
was required to have two employer evaluations completed, one during the middle of the coop
experience and a final evaluation upon coop completion. All students from the mentioned COhOli
were chosen as participants for this study, as their coop COhOlis had the highest number of
students. Random selection was therefore not used in this research assessment.
Procedure
As required by the Career Services (policy), upon completion of any coop program
students must return their employer evaluations completed by their coop supervisor twice per
semester on the 15th of the specified month. Each completed employer evaluation received by
Career Services is then sCalU1ed and uploaded into each student's online file.
24
The data was first received from an Excel spreadsheet containing only the names of the
students in the fall 2008, spring 2009, or summer 2009 cohort; student name, major, hours per
week worked during the coop, the co-op site, coop position, and the state where the coop
experience was inputed. The spreadsheet was then transcribed into the Software Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0. The employer evaluation data for each student was
retrieved by searching the student's online file by first and last name. Each student's employer
evaluation data was entered into the SPSS database.
Measured Variables
On the employer evaluation form there were three categories that measured student
performance: job performance skills, personal characteristics, and overall perfonnance. Within
the job performance skills category there were eight variables: work quality, oral
communication, written communication, organization, problem solving, decision making,
leadership, and accuracy. Within the personal characteristics category there were also eight
variables: motivation, judgment, flexibility, dependability, initiative, appearance, attendance, and
punctuality. The last category was a singly overall perfOlmance rating. A 1-5 numerical range
was used to measure student performance on each variable; a '1' was identified as an
unsatisfactory performance, and a '5' was identified as an outstanding performance. With eight
variables from each category Gob performance skills, personal characteristics) and the overall
performance rating, a total of 17 variables were used for data analysis.
Data Analysis
The data was 'cleaned' using frequencies and descriptive statistics for each variable.
Specifically, if any of the 17 variables were indicated as having a value out of the expected range
the miscoding elTor was identified and corrected. If a supervisor respondent indicated a variable
25
was 'not applicable' or ifit was missing, the variable was indicated as a missing variable in the
database and not included in the data analysis.
There were a number of data analyses used for this evaluation. The Statistical Software
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 (2009) was used to complete the following
variable analyses: descriptive statistics, inferential comparisons (Hests), a correlation matrix,
and regression.
Descriptive Statistics. There were a total of 716 students from the fall 2008, spring
2009, and summer 2009 cohorts. Overall , 1,399 employer evaluations were analyzed.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the 17 variables. The statistics will be reported by
overall means and standard deviations for each of the 17 variables.
Within Group Comparisons. T-Tests were conducted to determine any significant
changes between the variables during the midterm evaluation and the final employer evaluation .
. The statistical analysis used to interpret these changes was a paired sample t-test. A p<.05
significance was chosen for all comparisons. Any statistically significant changes between the
midterm and final evaluation variables would indicate performance improvement.
Relationships Between Variables. A correlation matrix was developed for the
continuous 17 variables during the final evaluation to determine which variables correlated with
each other. Specifically, how high or low variables in each of the three categories were related
to each other and the variables in the other categories. Again, a p<.05 was used for the
determining statistical significance.
Prediction of Job Performance. Lastly, a series of linear step-wise regressions were
used to predict future student performance. The outcome variable of interest , referred to as the
criterion variable, was the student overall performance rating. The predictors were job
26
performance skills (work quality, oral communication, written communication, organization,
problem solving, decision making, leadership, accuracy) and personal characteristics
(motivation, judgment, flexibility, dependability, initiative, appearance, attendance, punctuality.)
Given the results of the above analyses, post-hoc analyses would be performed as appropriate.
27
Chapter IV Results:
The purpose of the Career Service research assessment was to 1) access if significant
changes occurred between the midterm employer evaluations and the final employer evaluations
in terms of the job performance skills, personal characteristics and overall performance variables .
2) determine the relationships between final job performance and the personal characteristic
variables, and 3) which specific job performance and personal characteristic variables would best
predict overall coop performance of future coop students. T -tests, correlations, and linear
regressions were conducted to answer the above questions. Descriptive statistics were also
calculated to describe the coop students serving as participants of this study.
Response Rate
The participants of this research assessment were 716 coop students enrolled in the fall
2008, spring 2009, and summer 2009 semesters. Each pmiicipant was required to turn in two
employer evaluations to the Career Services department for each semester they were enrolled in
a coop. However, 13 participants were enrolled in a coop for more than one semester. These 15
participants were not taken out of the data analysis and therefore resulted in oversampling. A
total of 1,399 employer evaluations were analyzed out of an expected N=1 ,432 giving a 97%
response rate. During the midterm evaluation there was a total ofN=689 evaluations out of716
giving a 96% response rate. During the final evaluation there was a total of 692 evaluations out
of 716 also giving a 96% response rate. A total of 18 UW -Stout majors were represented in the
sample.
Descriptive Statistics
A five point rating scale (1 = Unsatisfactory; 5= Outstanding) was used to measure
student job performance skills, personal characteristics and overall performance variables.
28
Job Performance. As shown in Table 1 the highest overall performance average for job
performance skills during midterm was work quality (M=4.32, SD=.72) and the lowest average
was written communication (M=3.53 , SD=l.72) . The results of the final evaluation indicate an
average rating for work quality with (M=4.49, SD=.67). The average written communication
skill rating was slightly higher during the final evaluation with (M=3.84, SD=1.56) .
Table 1
Job Peljormance Skills Statistics during the Midterm Evaluation
Job Performance Skills Mean SD
Work Quality 4.32 0.72
Oral Communication 4.08 0.78
Written Communication 3.53 1.72
Organization 4.16 0.81 Problem Solving 3.97 1.07 Decision Making 3.91 1.01 Leadership 3.95 1.76
Accuracy 4.14 0.96
Table 2
Job Peljormance Skills Statistics during the Final Evaluation
Job Performance Skills Mean SD
Work Quality 4.49 0.67
Oral Communication 4.27 0.78
Written Communication 3.84 1.56
Organization 4.37 0.74
Problem Solving 4.20 0.92
Decision Making 4.17 0.93
Leadership 3.76 1.62
Accuracy 4.31 0.71
Personal Characteristics. The highest average for the personal characteristic variables
during the midterm evaluation was attendance (M=4 .59, SD=0.68) and the lowest average was
29
judgment (M=4.18, SD=0.86). The highest average for the personal characteristics variables
during the final evaluation was dependability with (M=4.74, SD=1.62). These statistics are
shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
Table 3
Personal Characteristics Statistics during the Midterm Evaluation
Personal Characteristics Mean SD Motivation 4.38 0.76
Judgment 4.18 0.86
Flexibility 4.48 0.73
Dependability 4.53 0.63
Initiative 4.27 0.80
Appearance 4.44 0.77
Attendance 4.59 0.68
Punctuality 4.55 0.63
Table 4
Personal Characteristics Statistics during the Final Evaluation
Personal Characteristics Mean SD Motivation 4.52 0.64
Judgment 4.34 0.74
Flexi bility 4.61 0.66
Dependability 4.74 1.62
Initiative 4.46 0.73
Appearance 4.54 0.71
Attendance 4.68 0.60
Punctuality 4.65 0.58
Changes in Job Performance and Personal Characteristic Variables during the
Coop Experience. In order to detelmine significant differences and performance improvements
between the midterm and final evaluation, t-tests were conducted only for the variables which
had the lowest midterm averages for the job performance and personal characteristic. These
30
lowest averages for both the job performance variables and the personal characteristics variables
are presented to determine if they improved by the final evaluation.
The lowest average for the job performance skill variable during the midterm evaluation
was written communication with (M=3.53, SD=1.72) and this average increased slightly during
the final evaluation with (M= 3.84, SD=1.56). This improvement between the written
communication averages is significant [t(579)=-6.75, p<.OO]. The lowest average for the
personal characteristic variable during the midterm evaluation was judgment with (M=4.18, SD=
0.86) and this also slightly increased during the final evaluation (M=4.34, SD=.74). This slight
improvement of the judgment variable between the midterm and final evaluation was significant
[t(667)=-5.98, p<.OO].
Correlations
Several correlations were conducted between the job performance, personal
characteristic, and overall performance variables during the final evaluation in order to determine
significant relationships. All of the job performance variables were statistically significant with
each other at the p<.O 1 level with ranges from r=.315 between work quality and leadership and
r=.696 between problem solving and decision making.
All of the personal characteristics variables were also statistically significant with each
other at the p<.OI level with ranges from r=.335 between initiative and attendance and r=.622
between initiative and motivation.
The third correlation matrix was created to determine the significant relationships
between job performance and personality characteristic variables. All of the job performance
and personal characteristic variables were significant at the p<.O 1 level ranging from r=.319
between decision making and punctuality and r=.606 between judgment and work quality.
31
To identify which predictor variables had the strongest relationship with overall
performance, correlations were run for all job performance, personal characteristic variables with
overall job performance. All of the job performance variables were significantly correlated with
overall job performance at the p<.OI level. The strongest relationship between overall
performance and the job performance variables occurred for work quality (1'=.740). All of the
overall performance and personal characteristic correlations were statistically significant at the
p<.O 1 level. The strongest relationship for overall performance and personal characteristic
variables was judgment r=. 701.
Prediction of Overall Coop Performance
A series of linear regressions were conducted to predict student coop performance. The
outcome variable, (i.e. criterion), was the student overall performance rating during the final
evaluation.
Prediction of Overall Job Performance with Job Performance Variables. Predictors
of the first linear regression were the following job perfOlmance variables: work quality, oral
communication, written communication, organization, problem solving, decision making,
leadership, and accuracy. Using stepwise linear regressions, work quality accounted for 57% of
the variability in the final overall coop performance [F(1 ,569)=756.14], which was significant at
the p<.Ol level. Decision making accounted for an additional 7% of the variability in the final
coop performance [F(2,569)= 496.56]; oral communication accounted for an additional 2.7% of
the variability [F(3,569)=372.15]; written communication for 0.6% [F(4,569)=286.26], and
problem solving 0.4% [F(5,569)=233.08]. All of the F statistics were significant at the p<.OI
level.
32
Prediction of Overall Job Performance with Personal Characteristic Variables. The
second linear regression predicted final student overall performance rating based on the
following personal characteristic predictors: motivation, judgment, flexibility, dependability,
initiative, appearance, attendance, and punctuality. Using a step-wise linear regression, of the
eight personal characteristic predictor variables, judgment accounted for 49% of the variability in
final overall coop performance ratings [F(1 ,671 )=654.30, p<.O 1]. Initiative accounted for an
additional 7% of the variability in the final overall coop performance ratings [F(2,671)=434.95] ,
motivation accounted an additional for 1.5% [F(3,671)=308.01], punctuality 1.1%
[F(4,671)=241.05], and dependability 0.04% [F(5 , 671)=195.53]. Again, each F statistic was
significant at the p<.O 1 level.
Overall, the linear regressions indicated above identified work quality and judgment were
the strongest predictors of overall final coop performance
Prediction of Overall Job Performance with Personal Characteristic and Job
Performance Variables. Since work quality and judgment were the strongest predictors of the
job performance and personal characteristic predictor variables, a stepwise regression equation
incorporating both of these variables was conducted. Work quality was the strongest predictor,
accounting for 55% of final overall coop performance. [F(1,676)=830.28]. The personal
characteristic variable of judgment accounted for an additional 7%. Since work quality and
judgment were highly significant a post hoc analysis was completed.
Post Hoc Analysis. To assess the relationship between the work quality and judgment
variables a cOlTelation was conducted. The correlation coefficient between these variables was
r=.67 , p<.OI with N=687. Since this was not a perfect cOlTelation an interaction variable was
created. A fOUlth regression equation was run to assess final overall job performance as a
33
function of work quality, judgment, and work quality*judgment. The interaction variable
accounted for no additional variance, therefore, work quality and judgment are independently the
strongest predictors with work quality accounting for 55% of the variability and judgment
accounting for 7%.
Prediction ofWorl\. Quality for Job Performance Variables. Given the prominence
of work quality in predicting overall coop performance another linear regression was conducted
to determine the strongest predictor of work quality. The predictor variables used for this
analysis were the eight job performance variables excluding work quality. The predictor
variables of accuracy accounted for 55% of the variability within work quality
[F(1 ,577)=717.66, p<.O 1]. The leadership predictor variable accounted for an add itional 6% ofthe
variability [F(2,577)=464.80], organization accounted for an additional 2% [F(3,577)=339.18],
problem solving 1.3% [F(4,577)=268.02], and oral communication accounted for 0.05%
[F(5,577)=219.44], with all F statistics significant at the p<.OI level.
Prediction of Work Quality for Personal Characteristic Variables. Another linear
regression was conducted to detennine the strongest predictor of work quality using the eight
personal characteristic variables. The predictor variables of judgment accounted for 44% of the
variability within work quality [F(1, 673)=539.65, p<.OI]. The initiative predictor variable
accounted for an additional 5% variability [F(2,673)=330.72, p<.OI], attendance 1.5%
additional variability [F(3,673)=230.66, p<.OlJ, and motivation 0.5% [F(4,673)=178.98, p<.OI].
Prediction of Personal Characteristics and Job Performance Variables. The final
linear regression was conducted to determine the strongest predictors of work quality. All 15 job
performance and personal characteristic variables were included in the model. Collectively, the
15 variables in the linear regression model accounted for 68% of work quality variability;
34
accuracy accounted for 55% of the variability [F(1, 567)=706.43, p<.OO], motivation accounted
for an additional 7.2%, [F(2, 566)=476.21, p<.OI] leadership 3.1% [F(3,565)=363.53=p<.01],
and organization 1.1 % of the variability [F(4, 564)=285.99, p<.OI]. The most important
predictors of work quality was accuracy, motivation, leadership, and organization all significant
at the p<.OI level.
35
Chapter V: Discussion
The FFM model of personality and its association with job success have been well
documented. Specifically, the personality construct of conscientiousness and its sub-construct
personality traits have been found predictive of job success. Comparatively, no research has
demonstrated the relationship between the FFM of personality and coop success. This study was
the first to do so. The research sought to evaluate the personality traits of conscientiousness in
relation to coop success by analyzing 1,399 employer evaluations from the University of
Wisconsin-Stout for students who were enrolled in a coop position. The study analyzed
preexisting data on employer ratings of coop students. Data gathered consisted of three
categories of information: employer ratings of job performance (work quality, oral
communication, written communication, problem solving, decision making, leadership, and
accuracy), personal characteristics (motivation, judgment, flexibility, dependability, initiative,
appearance, attendance, punctuality), and overall coop performance. Coop students were rated
twice on these 17 variables during their coop experience: midway through the coop (midterm)
and at its completion (final evaluation).
The purpose of this study was to 1) access if significant changes occurred between the
midterm employer evaluation and final evaluation in terms of the three categories, 2) detelmine
the relationship between variables in the three categories, and 3) identify which specific job
performance and personal characteristic variables would predict final overall coop perfOlmance.
Using the preexisting data it was hypothesized that students will improve on job performance
between the midterm and final evaluation (hypothesis 1), the job performance and personal
characteristics will have significant correlations between each other (hypothesis 2), and the
personality construct of conscientiousness, specifically its sub-construct personality traits (e.g.
36
organized, disciplined, diligent, dependable, takes initiative, and leadership) would also be
correlated in the prediction of coop success (hypothesis 3). The results of this study, limitations,
and recommendations are discussed.
Major Findings
A t-test was conducted to determine significant changes between the midterm and final
evaluation for the three categories: job performance, personal characteristics, and overall
performance. The changes would indicate performance improvement during the midterm and
final evaluation.
Results indicated that all of the job perfonnance ratings during the midterm evaluation
improved by the final evaluation except leadership indicating that students were ranked higher
during their final evaluation compared to the midterm evaluation. All of the job performance
ratings were found to be statistically significant. Although this study provided no information as
to why this improvement occUlTed, one hypothesis is that students recognized and focused onjob
performance areas which needed improvement, as suggested by their supervisor during the
midterm evaluation. This finding supports the first hypothesis that students would improve on
job performance between the midterm and final evaluation.
Leadership was a job performance variable on which students did not improve.
Compared to the consistent improvement in all other job performance variables, this seems
unusual. One hypothesis to explain this finding is that students were not given the oppOitunity to
demonstrate their leadership skills in their coop position. This hypothesis is suppOited by the
fact that most coop positions are considered 'entry-level', where the coop experience is an
applied initial professional learning opportunity for the student.
37
Although each personal characteristic variable improved slightly from midterm to final
evaluation, none improved significantly. In fact, results indicated that both during the midterm
and final evaluation, personal characteristic variable ratings were above satisfactory (an average
rating of four). This finding may be expected because personal characteristics are not meant to
improve or change over a period of time. This finding suppolis Sutin et al (2009) who found that
over time, personality influences an individuals' working environment, such as making decisions
and their oppOliunities to utilize skills but do not reciprocally shape personality. In other words,
a person's working environment may influence their personality (or personal characteristics), but
do not change the individuals' personality over time.
To assess the relationships between all three categories (job performance, personal
characteristics, and overall performance), a correlation analysis was conducted for all variables
measured during the final evaluation. All correlations across category variables and within
category variables were statistically significant. These significant correlation findings indicate
that not only were indicators of job performance related to each other, they were also related to
personality variables. This indicates that as in the job literature, personality characteristics are
found related to coop performance. This finding also supports the second hypothesis that job
performance and personal characteristic variables will have significant correlations between each
other. However, not all relationships were equally strong; some relationships between variables
were stronger than others.
The results indicated a strong relationship within the job performance category between
problem solving and decision making. This finding suggests that if a student has problem
solving skills then they are also very likely to have decision making skills. In other words,
students make good decisions in order to solve difficult situations.
Within the personal characteristic variables, motivation and initiative had the strongest
correlation. Students who were motivated to perform their job responsibilities also took
initiative to complete tasks, assist co-workers, and take on challenging tasks which may have
been unfamiliar. This finding supports the relationship between initiative and job performance
conducted by Bledow and Frese (2009) who found an adequate validity measure of personal
initiative in predicting job behavioral criteria. Bledow et al. (2009) findings indicated that
supervisors acknowledge the positive contribution of personal initiative to general job
performance.
38
Another correlation was conducted to determine the strongest relationship between job
performance and personal characteristic variables. Again, most relationships between the
variables were found to be significant. The results indicated that judgment and work quality had
the strongest relationship. This finding suggests that coop students rated highly by their
supervisors on judgment are also rated as having high quality in their work.
The last correlation was conducted to assess the strongest relationship between the
overall work performance and job performance and personal characteristic variables. All of the
job performance and personal characteristic variables were significantly correlated with overall
job performance. Results indicated that work quality and judgment had the strongest correlations
between the job performance and personal characteristic categories, respectively.
A stepwise linear regression was conducted in order to predict student coop perfOlmance.
From the analyzed data, the results indicated that work quality and judgment were the most
predictive of coop success. Work quality alone accounted for more than half of the variability,
effectively predicting 57% of the variability in overall work performance.
39
Since work quality was such a strong predictor, there was interest in determining what
predicted it and therefore another stepwise linear regression was conducted. The results of the
linear regression indicated that accuracy accounted for more than half the variability within work
quality. Motivation was also a high predictor, but substantially less strong than accuracy.
The personality trait findings of motivation and initiative in predicting coop success
supports Barrick et a!. (2002) who conducted a study to test a model of job performance that
examined the effects of motivational work orientations on the relationships between personality
traits and performance in a job. The results of the study indicated that sales representatives high
in conscientiousness were more likely to set sales goals and to be conunitted to those goals
(Barrick et a!. 2002). The construct of conscientiousness was highly correlated with
accomplishment striving which reflects an individuals' intention to accomplish tasks and is
characterized by high task orientation (Barrick et a!. 2002). Thus, individuals who are goal
oriented and accomplishment striving have personality traits that reflect factors of
conscientiousness; these factors are congruent with the personality traits of motivation, and
initiative found in successful coop students.
Results from the linear regression also indicated that the personal characteristic variable
of judgment was a high independent predictor of overall work perfOimance. The finding of
judgment as a personality characteristic to predict coop success supp0l1s recent research on
situational judgment tests (SJT) which have increased in popularity as a predictor of work
performance. SJT measures an applicant's judgment of a realistic on-the-job situation. One
study conducted by Weekley and Ployhart (2005) found that SJT captures aspects of personality
that are most related to job performance and are correlated with conscientiousness (Weekley et
a!. 2005).
40
Together these findings suggest that if an employer could measure coop applicants on
three variables, they could strongly predict which applicants would be a successful coop student.
The three variables are work quality (assessed through accuracy) judgment, and motivation.
Conscientiousness and the Prediction of Coop Success
One of the two main purposes of this study was to determine the prediction of coop
success by the personality variable of conscientiousness. In recent research, it has been found
that workers high in conscientiousness are predisposed to be organized, disciplined, diligent,
dependable, methodical, and purposeful and are more likely to correctly perform work tasks, take
initiative in solving problems, remain committed to work performance, and comply with policies
(Witt et al. 2002).
These personality factors of conscientiousness found in work performance and job
success were congruent with the personality traits (i.e. work quality, judgment, acc~racy, and
motivation) found predictive of coop success in this study. This study therefore supports the
third hypothesis that conscientiousness would be predictive of coop success. The limitations of
the study, utilization of the results, and recommendations for future research are discussed next.
Limitations
The greatest limitation from this research study was that there was no true accepted
measure(s) of conscientiousness involved. Without a direct measure, personality constructs
found related to conscientiousness in the job performance literature was used as proxy variables.
A second limitation to this study was missing data. Some of the employer evaluations
were not available while the data collection process began. This could be due to several reasons
1) students not giving enough time for their employer to complete the evaluation 2) students
being unaware of turning in the employer evaluation form to Career Services at the specified
41
time 3) students were still completing their coop position and 4) students may have quit or have
been removed from their coop position.
The study also did not reflect a tme pre-post comparative analysis to demonstrate
changes or improvements of overall job perfOimance between the midterm and final evaluation.
For future research assessing pre-post changes, a measure would need to be developed to assess
students overall work quality and other job performance variables before the beginning of their
coop position.
Recommendations for Future Research on Conscientiousness
In this study, the personality construct of conscientiousness was used as an umbrella term
representing multiple personality traits. Future research is needed to develop a reliable, valid,
and direct measure of conscientiousness in coop students. Research is also needed to assess the
relationship between such direct measures of conscientiousness and student coop performance.
The results of this study identified predictors of successful UW -Stout coop students:
work quality, judgment, accuracy, and motivation. Faculty, students, and administrative staff
can utilize these results to understand personality traits and job performance criteria needed for a
successful coop student. The UW-Stout faculty can then develop pedagogical methods to
increase accuracy, judgment, and motivation, integrating these techniques into their classrooms.
By doing so, they would be increasing the chance any given student would have a successful
coop experience. Further, by assessing these job characteristics within the classroom, students
can identify which skills they need to focus on developing before they apply for a coop position.
Furthermore the Career Services department can present workshops and develop
programs to enhance student's judgmental skills, work quality, accuracy, and motivation.
42
References
Ascher, C. (1994). Cooperative Education as a Strategy for School-to-Work Transition. Journal
oJCooperative Education and Internships, 3(1).
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, 1. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and Performance of
Sales Representatives: Test of the Mediating Effects of Goal Setting. Journal oj Applied
Psychology, 78(5), 715-722.
Barrick, M. R., StewaI1, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and Job Performance: Test
of the Mediating Effects of Motivation Among Sales Representatives. Journal oj Applied
Psychology, 87( 1), 43-51.
Bartkus, K. R. (2001). Social Skills Training and Cooperative Education: An Empirical
Investigation of Performance Outcomes. Journal oj Cooperative Education and
Internships, 36(1), 48-60.
Bertua, c., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2005). The Predictive Validity of Cognitive Ability
Tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal oj Occupational and Organizational P5ychology,
78(3),387-409.
Blair, B., & Millea, M. (2004). Quantifying the Benefits of Cooperative Education. Journal oj
Cooperative Education and Internships, 38( 1), 67 -72.
Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A Situational Judgment Test of Personality Initiative and its
Relationship to Performance. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 229-258.
Braunstein, L. A., & Stull, W. A. (2001). Employer Benefits of and Attitudes Towards Post
Secondary Cooperative Education. Journal oJCooperative Education and Internships,
36(1), 7-22.
Charron, R. (2006). Boost Your Education with a Co-op. Careers and Colleges, 27(2), 12-14.
Drysdale, M ., Goyder, 1., Nosko, A, Easton, M., Frank, K., & Rowe, P. (2007). The Role of
Co-op in the Transition from High School to Post-Secondary Education. Journal 0/
Cooperative Education and Internships, 41(1), 48-55.
Feldt, R. C., & Woelfel, C. (2009) . Five Factor Personality Domains, Self-Efficacy, Career
Outcome Expectations. College Student Journal, 43(2),429-437.
Foulkrod, K. H., Field, C., & Brown, C. (2010). Trauma Surgeon Personality and Job
Satisfaction: Results form a National Survey. American Surgeon, 76(4),422-427.
Gibson, L. K., & Angel , D. L. (1995). Mentoring: A Successful Tool for Developing Co-op
Students. Journal o/Cooperative Education and Internships, 30(1),48-55.
43
Gill, C. M., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2007). Development and validation of the Five-Factor Model
Questionnaire: An Adjectival-Based Personality Inventory for Use in Occupational
Settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(3),731-766.
Gottfredson, L. (2004). Schools and the g Factor. Wilson Quarterly, 28(3),35-45.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal 0/ Applied Psychology, 87(3),530-541.
Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A (1999). The Big Five Personality Traits, General Mental Ability,
and Career Success Across the Life Span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652.
Mariani, M. (1997). Cooperative Education: Learn More, Eam More, Prepare. Occupational
Outlook Quarterly, 41(1), 2-12.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr, P. T. (1991). The NEO Personality Inventory: Using the Five
Factor Model in Counseling. Journal o/Counseling and Development, 69(4), 367-373.
Modarres, M., Nasrabadi, E., & Nasrabadi, M. (2004). Fuzzy Linear Regression Analysis from
the Point ofYiew Risk. International Journal o/Uncertainty, 12(5), 635-649.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five Reasons Why the Big Five Article has been
Frequently Cited. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 849-857.
National Commission for Cooperative Education (2010). The Cooperative Education Model.
Retrieved April 6th, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.co
op.edll/aboutcoop2.html
44
Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2008). Personality and Leader Effectiveness: A Moderated
Mediation of Leadership Self-Efficacy, Job Demands, and Job Autonomy. Journal 0/
Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In SuppOli of Personality
Assessment in Organizational Settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995-1027.
Ricks, F., & Van Gyn, G. H. (1997). Mentoring Relationships as Learning Opportunities.
Journal o/Cooperative Education and Internships, 32(1), 41-55.
Robelison, 1. T., Baron, H., Gibbons, P., MacIver, R., & Nyfield, G. (2000) . Conscientiousness
and Managerial Performance. Journal o/Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
73(2),171-180.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, 1. (2004). General Mental Ability in the World of Work:
Occupational Attainment and Job Performance. Journal 0/ Personality and Social
Psychology, 86(1), 162-173.
Smithikrai, C. (2007). Personality Traits and Job Success: An Investigation in a Thai Sample .
Intel'l1ational Journal of Selection and Assessment, J5( I), 134- 138 .
Sutin, A. R., Costa, Jr, P. T., Miech, R. , & Eaton, W. W. (2009). Personality and Career
Success: Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations. European Journal 0/ Personality, 23(2),
71-84.
Taylor, E. A. , & Webb, R. K. (1984). Cooperative Education and the Benefits to Industry in a
Changing Environment. Journal o/Cooperative Education and Internships, 20(1), 24-29.
Trochim, W. (2006). Correlation. Retrieved May 10,2010, from Research Methods
Knowledge Base.
Van Gyn, G., & Ricks, F. (1997) . Proteges Perception of the Characteristics of the Mentoring
Relationship and its Impact. Journal o/Cooperative Education and Internships , 32(2).
45
Weekley, J. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2005). Situational Judgment: Antecedents and Relationships
with Performance. Human Peljormance , J8( 1), 81-104
Widiger, T. A., & Trull , T. J. (1997). Assessment of the Five Factor Model of Personality.
Journal 0/ Personality Assessment, 68(2),228-251.
Witt, L. A. , Burke, L. A. , Barrick, M. A. , & Mount, M. K. (2002). The Interactive effects of
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on Job Performance. Journal 0/ Applied Psychology,
8 7(1),164-169.
~ STOUT
Appendix A: Employer Evaluation
COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM EMPLOYER EVALUATION
46
Please return to: Career Services. University of Wisconsin-Stout. 712 South Broadway .103 Administration Bldg . • Menomonie, WI 54751 Phone; 715-232-1601 • Fax; 715-232-3595 • email; [email protected]
Student Employee __________ ---:::c--_~..,.._:__:_-_:___::_c_:_-Student I. D. # __________ _ (Please Print Name Legibly)
Company/Agency _____________________ Faculty Mentor-
Co-op Term: FA SP SS 20 __ Start Date ____ End Date ___ _ Hours Worked Per Week
Due Dates: rlMarch 15th rlMay 15th rlJuly 15thiiAugust 15th n October 15th
December 15th
Note: This evaluation is a requirement of the student's Cooperative Education learning experience. Student: Give to supervisor a minimum of 2 weeks before the due dates and make an appointment to discuss this with them. Employer: Complete form, discuss with student, keep one copy, return original to address above.
Numerical (Use the following criteria when completing sections I, II, and III) Value
5 4 3 2 1
Outstanding Most Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory
I. Job Performance Skills
Consistently exceeds expectations Above average Average ability, commensurate with the demands of the position Lacking in some important respects or generally below average Due to altitude, lack of ability or failure to use it, or any other cause
II. Persona.1 Characteristics Please rate on the basis of observed job performance.
the job. Please rate on characteristics as exhibited on
5 4 3 2 1 Not applicable 5 4 3 2 1 Not applicable
Work Quality Oral Communication
Motivation Judgment
Written Communicatior Flexibility
Organization Problem Solving Decision Making Leadership Accuracy
Dependabil ity Initiative Appearance Attendance Punctuality
47
II. Opportunities for Improvement Please comment on areas that need the most improvement.
III. Overall Performance: 5 4 3 2 1
Outstanding Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory
I I I I I I
IV. Employer: A written evaluation is beneficial to the student when job hunting upon graduation. Your cooperation
in providing a recommendation is encouraged and appreciated. Guidelines for a recommendation letter are provided on the back of this form for your convenience.
Letter of Recommendation Attached: Yes No
Signed Date
Supervisor (Please Print Name)
Signed Date
Co-op student (Please Print Name)
Universily of Wisconsin-Slout is an equal opportunity and affirmative action university committed to diversity in its people and programs.
Employer: Please make a copy of this form for your records
