The Federal Government will Become America's Model Employer for the 21st Century.
Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People.
Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
Biodata measures are based on the measurement principle of behavioral consistency, that is, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Biodata measures include items about past events and behaviors reflecting personality attributes, attitudes, experiences, interests, skills and abilities validated as predictors of overall performance for a given occupation.
Often, biodata test items are developed through behavioral examples provided by subject matter experts (SMEs). These items specify situations likely to have occurred in a person's life, and ask about the person's typical behavior in the situation. In addition, biodata items reflect external actions that may have involved, or were observable by, others and are objective in the sense there is a factual basis for responding to each item. An item might ask "How many books have you read in the last 6 months?" or "How often have you put aside tasks to complete another, more difficult assignment?" Test takers choose one of several predetermined alternatives to best match their past behavior and experiences.
A response to a single biodata item is of little value. Rather, it is the pattern of responses across several different situations that give biographical data the power to predict future behavior on the job. For this reason, biodata measures often contain between 10 and 30 items and some wide-ranging instruments may contain a hundred or more items. Response options commonly use a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Once a group of biodata items is pre-tested on a sample of applicants, the responses are used to group the items into categories or scales. Biodata items grouped in this way are used to assess how effectively applicants performed in the past in competency areas closely matched to those required by the job.
A more recent development is targeted biodata instruments. In contrast to traditional biodata measures developed to predict overall job performance, targeted biodata measures are developed to predict individual differences in specific job-related behaviors of interest. Similar to the developmental process used for traditional biodata, the content of a targeted biodata measure is often driven by SME-generated behavioral examples relevant to the specific behavior(s) of interest.
An example of a targeted biodata measure is a job compatibility measure (sometimes referred to as a suitability measure) which focuses on the prediction of counterproductive or deviant behaviors. Counterproductive behavior is often defined as on-the-job behavior that is (a) harmful to the mission of the organization, (b) does not stem from a lack of intelligence, and (c) is willful or so seriously careless it takes on the character of being willful. Previous criminal misconduct (e.g., theft), employment misconduct (e.g., sexual harassment, offensiveness to customers, and disclosure of confidential material), fraud, substance abuse, or efforts to overthrow the Government are some major factors that may be relevant to suitability determinations. A job compatibility index is typically used to screen out applicants who are more likely to engage in counterproductive behavior if they are hired. Job compatibility measures are less costly to implement than other procedures typically used to detect counterproductive behaviors (e.g., interviews, polygraphs) and are beneficial for positions requiring employees to interact frequently with others or handle sensitive information or valuable materials.
(See Section VI for a summary of each article)
Elkins, T., & Phillips, J. (2000). Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 479-484.
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future - Remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631-664.
Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 299-323.
Rothstein, H. R., Schmidt, F. L., Erwin, F. W., Owens, W. A., & Sparks, C. P. (1990). Biographical data in employment selection: Can validities be made generalizable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 175-184.
Schmitt, N., Cortina, J. M., Ingerick, M. J., & Wiechmann, D. (2003). Personnel selection and employee performance. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 77-105. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) website contains information on Biographical Data Tests.
Back to Top