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 ($\overline{r}=.17,k=102,n=23,305$). In our analyses, the correlation did not differ across validation designs (concurrent: $\overline{r}=.18,k=78,n=19,132$; predictive: $\overline{r}=.15,k=24,n=4173$), sample types (incumbents: $\overline{r}=.18,k=92,n=20,808$; applicants: $\overline{r}=.14,k=10,n=2497$), or their interaction. Critically, however, our review revealed that only a small minority of studies (~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.

中文翻译：

---

人员选拔中责任心的标准相关有效性：元分析现实检验

人员选拔的一个重要发现是尽责性和工作绩效之间存在正相关关系。证据主要来自在职样本的同时验证研究，但很容易推广到求职者的预测设置。这是有问题的，因为伪装和人格改变对测量的影响程度可能因样本和研究设计而异。因此，我们元分析调查了尽责性和工作绩效之间的关系，检验了样本类型（在职者与申请人）和验证设计（并发与预测）的调节作用。尽责性和工作绩效的整体相关性与之前的荟萃分析一致（$\overline{r}=.17,k=102,n=23,305$). 在我们的分析中，相关性在不同的验证设计中没有差异（并发：$\overline{r}=.18,k=78,n=19,132$; 预测：$\overline{r}=.15,k=24,n=4173$), 样本类型（在职者：$\overline{r}=.18,k=92,n=20,808$; 申请人：$\overline{r}=.14,k=10,n=2497$), 或者他们的互动。然而，至关重要的是，我们的审查显示只有一小部分研究 (~12%) 是在预测设计中针对真实申请人进行的。因此，只有一小部分研究是在现实条件下进行的。因此，自我报告的尽责性措施是否在需要伪造响应的应用环境中保持其预测有效性仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。最后，我们呼吁对实际申请人在预测设置中选择程序的有效性进行更多的多变量研究。