Issues in Organizational Assessment: The Case of Frustration Tolerance Measurement in Mexico

Authors: David Ruiz, Carlos Nava, Roberto Carbajal

Abstract:

The psychological profile has become one of the most important sources of information when it comes to individual selection and the hiring process in any organization. Psychological instruments are used to collect data about variables that are considered critically important for performance in work. However, because of conceptual chaos in organizational psychology, most of the information provided by psychological testing is not directly useful for Mexican human resources professionals to take hiring decisions. The aims of this paper are 1) to underline the lack of conceptual precision in theoretical testing foundations in Mexico and 2) presenting a reliability and validity analysis of a frustration tolerance instrument created as an alternative to a heuristically conduct individual assessment in organizations. First, a description of assessment conditions in Mexico is made. Second, an instrument and a theoretical framework is presented as an alternative to the assessment practices in the country. A total of 65 Psychology Iztacala Superior Studies Faculty students were assessed. Cronbach´s alpha coefficient was calculated and an exploratory factor analysis was carried out to prove the scale unidimensionality. Reliability analysis revealed good internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.825). Factor analysis produced 4 factors for the scale. However, factor loadings and explained variation give proof to the scale unidimensionality. It is concluded that the instrument has good psychometric properties that will allow human resources professionals to collect useful data. Different possibilities to conduct psychological assessment are suggested for future development.

Keywords: Psychological assessment, frustration tolerance, human resources, organizational psychology.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1123630

References:

[1] Aguilar, E. & Vargas, M. (2010) Research in Organizational Psychology in Mexico: An Historical Review. Boletín Electrónico de Investigación de la Asociación Oaxaqueña de Psicología A.C, 6.1. 89-126.
[2] Aguilar E. & Vargas, M. (2010b) The Teaching of Applied Psychology to Organizational Settings in Mexico: Analysis of the Curricular Content. Boletín Electrónico de Investigación de la Asociación Oaxaqueña de Psicología A.C. 6. 1, 57-88.
[3] Baer, R. A., Kroll, L. S., Rinaldo, J., & Ballenger, J. (1999). Detecting and discriminating between random responding and overreporting on the MMPI-A. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 308-320.
[4] Carmines, E. y Zeller, R. (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. California: Sage.
[5] Christian, M., Garza, A. & Slaughter, J. (2011). Work Engagement: A Quantitative review and Test of its Relations with Task and Conceptual Performance. Personnel Psychology, 64. 89-136.
[6] Davidson, K., & MacGregor, M. W. (1998). A critical appraisal of self-report defense mechanism measures. Journal of Personality, 66, 965-992.
[7] Ferrando, P. J. y Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles del Psicológo, 31. 1. 18-33.
[8] Fryling, M. & Hayes, L. (2010). An interbehavioral Analysis of Memory. European Journal of Behavior Analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11. 53-68.
[9] Harzem, P. (1984) Experimental Analysis of Individual Differences and Personality. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 42. 385-395
[10] Huh, J., Delorme, D. y Reid, L. (2006) Perceived third-person effects and consumer attitudes on preventing and banning DTC advertising. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 40. 90.
[11] Kantor, J. R. (1957). Constructs and events in psychology: Philosophy: Banished and recalled. The Psychological Record, 7, 55-60.
[12] Keller, F. S. (1973). The definition of psychology. East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
[13] Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[14] Parrott, L. J. (1983). Systemic foundations for the concept of ‘private events’. In N. W. Smith, P. T. Mountjoy, & D. H. Ruben (Eds.), Reasssessment in psychology: The Interbehavioral alternative (pp. 251-268). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
[15] Reckase, M. (1979) Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor test: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Satatistitcs, 4. 3. 207-320.
[16] Ribes, E. (1992). Some thoughts on thinking and its motivation. In S. C. Hayes & L. J.Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 211-224). Reno, NV: Context Press.
[17] Ribes, E. (2000) Instructions, rules and abstraction: A misconstructed relation. Behavior and Philosophy, 24. 41-55.
[18] Ribes, E., Contreras, S., Martínez, C., Doval., E & Viladrich C. (2005) Individual Consistencies Across Time and Task: A Replication of Interactive Styles. The Psychological Record, 55. 619.631.
[19] Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.
[20] Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. & Parks, J. (1995) Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In Cummings L, Staw B (Eds.) Research in organizational Behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 212-215) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[21] Wilde, J. (2012). The Relationship between Frustration Intolerance and Academic Achievement in College. International Journal of Higher Education, 2. 1.
[22] Wright, B. y Masters, G. (1982) Rating Scales Analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.