Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Biographical data, or biodata, are measures of key aspects of individuals' life experiences intended to predict job applicants' future performance in organizations, whether that performance is task-specific job performance, teamwork, or shoplifting. Although biodata can be developed to measure a wide array of experiences and psychological constructs, the fundamental and general premises underlying the predictive power of biodata measures are that

  • individuals in free societies shape their life experiences, and they also are shaped by them;
  • this process of reciprocal influence between personality and situations occurs over a large time span; and therefore,
  • measures of past experience should predict future work behavior, especially given a relatively unconstrained environment where employees' typical performance can be wide-ranging.

In light of these premises, items on a biodata measure can be relatively personality oriented or covert in nature (e.g., “To what extent does your happiness depend on how things are going at work?”), or they can be relatively situation oriented and overt in nature (e.g., “Approximately how many books have you read in the past three months?”). In either case responding involves some cognitive processing where test takers are required to recall and summarize information, the accuracy of which depends on the accuracy of prior perception and storage, and in many cases the saliency or recency of the event.

Although biodata can vary widely in their content and constructs measured and can be scored in different ways, they have consistently demonstrated moderate to high levels of validity across job types (approximately .30); they also demonstrate incremental validity beyond ability and personality measures in predicting performance. Constituent biodata items either explicitly or implicitly reflect constructs such as ability, personality, motivation, interpersonal skills, and interests. They can be relatively pure measures of these constructs; however, biodata items that ask test takers about their experiences may be related to a combination of constructs, not just one. Analyses of the latter type of items may result in a weak general factor in a factor analysis or a low alpha reliability coefficient. Both test–retest reliability and alpha reliability should be considered when attempting to measure the stability of scores on biodata measures.

Item Attributes

An outline of 10 major attributes of biodata items was proposed by F. A. Mael and is as follows:

  • Historical versus hypothetical (past behaviors versus predicted behaviors in the future, or behaviors in what-if scenarios)
  • External versus internal (behaviors versus attitudes)
  • Objective versus subjective (observable or countable events versus self-perceptions)
  • Firsthand versus secondhand (self-descriptions versus how people would say others describe them)
  • Discrete versus summative (single events versus averaging over a period of time)
  • Verifiable versus nonverifiable
  • Controllable versus noncontrollable (circumstances that could or could not be influenced by a decision)
  • Equal access versus unequal access (access to opportunities with respect to the group being tested)
  • Job relevant versus nonjob relevant
  • Noninvasive versus invasive

Scoring Methods

Historically, biodata measures have developed out of a tradition of strong empiricism, and therefore a wide variety of scoring methods have been proposed. The criterion-keying approach involves taking individuals' responses to a given biodata item and calculating the mean criterion score or the criterion-related validity for each response option. This is done for each item, and these values are used as item response weights for scoring purposes. Weights may be rationally adjusted when nonlinear patterns in relatively continuous response options are found or when some weights are based on small sample sizes. A similar approach to criterion keying can be taken when keying biodata items not to criteria but rather to personality or temperament measures. This is a particularly interesting approach in keying a set of objective or verifiable biodata items, which tend to be less susceptible to faking but often are harder to assign to single psychological constructs. (Even if such keying is not done, it remains helpful to place the biodata measure within a nomological net of cognitive and noncognitive constructs.) When biodata items can be assigned to constructs in a relatively straightforward manner, such as by developing item content around constructs or through an a priori or post hoc subject matter expert (SME) item-sorting procedure, a straightforward scoring of each item along a single underlying continuum may be possible as is done with traditional Likert-scale self-report measures of personality.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading