Validación del Perfil de Valores Kinsel Hartman

The Kinsel-Hartman Profile and Successful Management Hiring
Abstract

Psychometrics has been employed, since its inception, to help employers carefully screen job candidates. Because the process of testing and proving the validity of a particular test for a specific job in a specific company must be unique to each job and company, thousands of studies have been conducted in the past decades. Ultimately, the employers wish to have the time and cost benefits which come from a test which quickly and definitively separates those who will be successful from those who will not be successful. The advanced training and broader exposure of psychology to college students and adults through self-help books have reduced the effectiveness of many tools available to industry for effective candidate screening. Many of the tests available today are based on the categorization of personalities which, besides being taught in colleges, is being taught in Junior High Schools (6th grade Social Studies class, McCullough Middle School, Highland Park, Texas, 1995), Churches (Tim and Beverly LeHay’s, Spirit Controlled Temperament , 1972 and Foundations of Purpose Program, Park Cities Presbyterian Church, 1996), and general couples conferences (Foundations II, 1995).

In 1973, Dr. Robert S. Hartman (University of Tennessee at Knoxville and the National University in Mexico City) was nominated for the Nobel Prize because of his work in formal axiology and the fruit of that work. One such byproduct is the Hartman Value Profile, which has been used in industry applications since the early 1960’s. The value profile provides industry with a new resource. Because its basis is axiological, few people are familiar with its foundations or methodologies and are not able to “figure out” what is being measured. Because it is a formal science, the time required to take the test and interpret the results is very short and the results are significantly more precise and objective than psychologically based tests. And because it does not require the candidate to engage in self analysis, test trauma and “fudging” of answer is effectively non-existent and administration is very simple.

In this study the Kinsel-Hartman Value Profile is demonstrated to be an extremely useful tool to augment the interview process. Interview results are notoriously poor predictors of job performance with a validity coefficient of .14 (Dr. John Hunter, Michigan State University, 1988). This necessitates that interviewers utilize resources such as tests (high validity coefficient of .53 – Hunter) to help them accurately select the best candidate for a particular job. The Kinsel-Hartman Value Profile is able to significantly reduce the risk and the negative effects of thinking biases that interviewers bring to the selection process.

Data Scoring

The profile items are scored according to the method outlined in the Hartman Value Profile Interpretation Manual (Dr. Robert S. Hartman, 1973). The scoring used for the subject’s reports yielded six dimensions (Reading People-DimI1, Practical Understanding-DimE1, Planning and Organizing-DimS1, Ability to Handle Rejection-DimI2, Practical Self-Knowledge-DimE2, Self Goals and Values-DimS2), five valences (Enjoys People-%+I1, Getting Results-%+E1, Conventionality Index-#Dis, Environment-%+S1, Competitive Self-%+E2, Sense of Future Direction-%+S2). Dimension and valence scores are combined to yield Stress Resistance (BQR1&2) and Team Orientation (Val.I1&I2) scores and the final Risk Analysis Score.

The Dimension scores indicate a person’s ability or capacity to value. In common parlance, this is a person’s ability to focus using that particular kind of thinking. Valences indicate an individual’s propensity to move toward or away from the given properties. These are commonly known as biases or preferences. Balance Quotients reveal the individual’s ability to and willingness to balance internal and external variables, issues, and concerns.

The data were analyzed both as raw data and as categorical data. For the later, each score was categorized as “no risk”, “moderate risk”, and “high risk” by the first author. Overall Risk scores were determined as follows: candidates with at least three scale scores in “high risk” categories were considered to be high Overall Risk. Candidates with at least one scale score in “high risk” and up to four scale scores in “moderate risk” categories were considered to be moderate Overall Risk. Candidates with fewer than four scale scores in the “moderate risk” and no more than one “high risk” score were considered to be low Overall Risk.

Results

Results by Overall Risk and Successful employment are shown in Table 1. After a period of 12 months, 35 of the original 49 individuals were still employed as managers with the company, that is, were “successful” hires. Of the three managers that had been identified as “high risk” hires, none were managers with the company a year after being hired. In marked contrast, 90% of those that had been “low risk” were successful and 65% of those that had been “moderate risk” were successful.

The standing of the managers on each of the scales was contrasted with their success using both raw and categorized data. The results are shown in Table 2. Of the individual scales, only “Sense of Future Direction” and “Getting Results” approach significance using raw data (raw numeric scores), while “Enjoys People” approaches significance using categorical data (categorization defined by Dr. Smith at the beginning of the project).

“Thus no individual scale stands alone in being able to predict future managerial success. However, the combined score of Overall Risk as determined by the Kinsel-Hartman Profile was found to be highly predictive of successful employment, at the p < .01 level, using either raw or categorical data.”

Dr. Virginia Harvey, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts Boston
Department of Counseling and School Psychology