Week 5 DQ2
Is it legal and ethical to use personality inventories for employee selection, predicting performance, and assessment of work attitudes? Justify your answer.
Runninghead: PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
1
Personality Testing and the Americans With Disabilities Act:
Cause for Concern as Normal and Abnormal Personality Models Are Integrated
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
2
Abstract
Applied psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee selection systems because of
their advantages regarding incremental criterion-related validity and less adverse impact relative
to cognitive ability tests. Although personality tests have seen limited legal challenges in the
past, we posit that the use of personality tests might see increased challenges under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) due to
emerging evidence that normative personality and personality disorders belong to common
continua. This paper aims to begin a discussion and offer initial insight regarding the possible
implications of this research for personality testing under the ADA. We review past case law,
scholarship in employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance
regarding “medical examinations,” and recent literature from various psychology disciplines—
including clinical, neuropsychology, and applied personality psychology—regarding the
relationship between normative personality and personality disorders. More importantly, we
review suggestions proposing the five-factor model (FFM) be used to diagnosis personality
disorders (PDs) and recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM). Our review suggests that as scientific understanding of personality progresses,
practitioners will need to exercise evermore caution when choosing personality measures for use
in selection systems. We conclude with six recommendations for applied psychologists when
developing or choosing personality measures.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
3
Personality Testing and the Americans With Disabilities Act:
Cause for Concern as Normal and Abnormal Personality Models Are Integrated
Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee
selection systems. By some estimates, personality testing has become a $500-million per year
business that has grown approximately 10% to 12% annually (Weber & Dwoskin, 2014). In part,
this growth is due to advantages in hiring, including incremental validity for predicting job
performance over other commonly used psychological tests (Schmidt & Hunter, 1999) and less
adverse impact relative to general mental ability tests (Ryan, Ployhart, & Friedel, 1998). Most
personality tests utilized by I-O psychologists are based on major, normal, or general theories of
personality structure such as the five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & John, 1992) and do not
account for psychiatric disorders such as those previously known as Axis I and Axis II disorders,
at least not explicitly. The distinction between normal or general personality and psychiatric
disorders (including personality disorders) and the corresponding distinction between tests used
to assess them is crucial to the use of personality measures in employment decisions. Legal
restrictions prohibit collecting medical information, such as psychiatric disorder diagnoses, about
an applicant prior to a conditional job offer. Namely, the use of a psychiatric personality
diagnostic tool would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) if administered
before a conditional job offer and/or without demonstrated job relatedness. Nonclinical
assessments of normal personality traits thus far have been permitted under the ADA because of
the belief that they do not provide medical information.
Although normal and more pathological personality models historically have been
separated in both applied psychology and personality research, evidence from a variety of
psychological disciplines has begun to converge on the same conclusion: the “line in the sand”
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
4
between normal and abnormal personality models may be nonexistent. In fact, the most recent
version of the DSM highlights the substantial implications of this research. The Alternative
Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) included in Section III of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) now
lists uses personality dimensions with clear ties to basic personality structure from the FFM (e.g.,
Gore & Widiger, 2013) to make personality disorder diagnoses, blurring the line between
normal/general personality and pathological, disordered personality. Similar changes are
forthcoming to the next version of the International Classification of Diseases (e.g., Tyrer et al.,
2011). In this paper, we illustrate how the growing support for merging normal and clinical
personality dimensions in diagnosis may lead to increased challenges to personality testing under
the ADA. Although we focus here primarily on the link between normal/general personality and
pathological traits that comprise the personality disorders found in psychiatric taxonomies, it is
important to note that these basic personality dimensions align with fundamental dimensions of
psychopathology more generally, including mood, anxiety, eating, and substance disorders (e.g.,
Kotov et al., 2017). In fact, many trait psychologists believe that these basic personality
dimensions provide the foundation from which many other forms of psychopathology arise.
First, we review Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Guidance on the “mental
impairment and clinical measures” concept in the ADA to explicate the connection between
disability and personality. We then review past case law and employment law scholarship
relevant to personality testing. Finally, we present recent literature in various psychology
disciplines on the relationship between normal personality and personality disorders (PDs).
Together, we believe that these literatures reveal a seemingly inevitable collision between the
practice of personality testing for employment purposes and the scientific understanding of
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
5
personality models. With our review, we hope to begin a much-needed conversation in I-O
psychology about these looming legal issues as models of personality and PDs are integrated.
The Americans With Disabilities Act and Personality Testing
The ADA was passed by Congress in 1990 to protect persons with disabilities from
discrimination. Title I of the ADA addresses discrimination in the workplace specifically (ADA,
1990). For standing to file an ADA claim, a plaintiff must establish protected class membership,
an important and sometimes overlooked prerequisite. For example, in Varnagis v. City of
Chicago (1997), the court ruled the plaintiff Varnagis sufficiently demonstrated that the
administration of preemployment clinical personality tests was in violation of the ADA but failed
to show class membership; the court found for the defendant.
According to the ADA, there are two hurdles to disability class membership. The first
requires (a) “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities,” (b) “a record of such impairment,” or (c) “being regarded as having such impairment”
(ADA, 1990). The EEOC further defines major life activities to include physical acts such as
“sitting, standing, lifting, and reaching” and, of primary importance to the current discussion,
mental and emotional processes such as “thinking, concentrating, and interacting with others”
(ADA, 1990). The second hurdle requires that the individual has the ability to perform all
essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. In 2008, the ADA
Amendments Act (ADAA) further defined a disability as “an impairment that is episodic or in
remission, if the impairment substantially limits a major life activity” (2008, p.4). However, the
ADAAA excluded transitory impairments of 6 months or less duration. The ADAAA definition
of disability specifically included impairments mitigated by treatment (e.g., drugs, therapy) and
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
6
stipulated that the impairment is to be assessed in its nonmitigated state. Thus, individuals with a
PD likely meet the first hurdle for establishing ADA protected class membership.
Although there is no clause in the ADA specifically referring to personality tests, EEOC
Guidance (2000) offers clarification regarding how a personality test might be prohibited under
the ADA. Prior to a conditional job offer, an employer cannot use a medical examination as a
test to screen applicants. According to the EEOC, a test may constitute a medical examination if
one or more of the following conditions are met: the test (a) was administered by a
healthcare/medical professional; (b) was interpreted by a healthcare or medical professional; (c)
was originally designed to reveal an impairment or an applicant’s current mental or physical
health; (d) was invasive; (e) measured a physiological response (e.g., heart rate) to a (job-related)
physical task; (f) is typically used in a medical setting; or (g) involved the use of medical
equipment (EEOC, 2000). EEOC Guidance further indicates that a “medical examination” may
include but is not limited to “psychological tests that are designed to identify a mental disorder or
impairment.” Thus, any personality test used explicitly to screen an applicant for a mental
disorder prior to a conditional job offer would violate the ADA.
However, the EEOC also specifies that personality tests for employment purposes are not
categorically prohibited under the ADA (EEOC, 2000). EEOC Guidance specifies that
personality tests that are considered medical examinations may be permitted after a conditional
job offer if job relevant (e.g., for safety sensitive positions). Further, EEOC Guidance provides
examples of psychological tests that employers may require that are not considered medical
examinations. Such tests are permitted for screening applicants prior to a job offer and include
measures of honesty, preferences, and habits. Thus, only certain personality tests used in certain
circumstances are prohibited.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
7
Relevant Case Law Regarding the Use of Personality Tests for Selection
Reviewing relevant case law offers some additional clarification regarding the current use
of personality tests under the ADA. A somewhat notorious early legal case involving personality
testing and ADA compliance is Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation (1989; Camara &
Merenda, 2000). To screen store security officers (SSOs), Dayton Hudson used a combination of
the California Personality Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) and the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI; Dahlstrom et al., 1943) in an instrument they termed
“Psychscreen.” The plaintiffs filed a constitutional claim against Dayton Hudson under
California privacy laws claiming that some items on Psychscreen invaded their privacy and were
not job related, including items about sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and political views.
Although the lower state court found for the defendant, the appellate court found for the
plaintiffs. Ultimately, the case settled out of court before a review by the California Supreme
Court. Using strict scrutiny, the appeals court ruled that Psychscreen must “narrowly relate to the
performance of the employee’s important job duties.” Dayton Hudson had failed to conduct a job
analysis linking Psychscreen items to performance. Further, although Dayton Hudson cited a
validity generalization argument that SSO and police officer positions were in the same job
family in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, they failed to conduct a study to support the
notion that criterion validity was invariant between the two. The fallout from this case created a
chilling effect on the use of clinical personality tests by employers because of the high risk of
potential litigation (Camara & Merenda, 2000).
Gutman, Koppes, and Vodanovitch (2011) identified four important lessons from Soroka
for the use of personality testing in employment practice for both safety sensitive and non-safety
sensitive jobs. First, job analysis is a critical first step in identifying tests for selection purposes.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
8
Second, although personality tests rarely have adverse impact (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Berry,
Sackett, & Weiman, 2007), reliance on personality tests without a job analysis can result in
failing to identify other important requisite KSAs for the job. Even a valid personality test that
fails to capture relevant criterion space could be problematic if an alternative test with broader
coverage or an additional test captured that space. For example, failure to assess decision-making
ability under stress for safety sensitive jobs could put the public at risk. Particularly with jobs
involving public safety, not appropriately identifying other critical KSAs could lead to negligent
hiring charges. Third, conducting a job analysis in itself is insufficient; it is prudent for
employers to have validity evidence for all components of a selection program. Fourth, Gutman
et al. (2011) highlighted the distinction between clinical and nonclinical personality tests and
recommended that, for safety sensitive jobs, the former be administered and interpreted by
clinical psychologists subsequent to a conditional job offer. However, for non-safety sensitive
jobs, Gutman et al. recommended assessing personality traits such as integrity using “overt” tests
that directly assess attitudes toward counterproductive work behaviors rather than “personality-
oriented” tests that assess personality with the aim of predicting counterproductive behaviors
(Berry, et al., 2007; Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989). Because overt tests tend to be less
intrusive and to have higher face validity, they are less likely to lead to litigation. Yet in a meta-
analysis of integrity tests with absenteeism criteria, Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993)
found personality-based tests were better predictors than were overt tests. Thus, selection
practitioners need to strike a careful balance between minimizing test invasiveness while
maximizing face and predictive validity.
There have been very few court cases addressing preemployment personality testing
under the ADA. Table 1 summarizes three such cases: Thompson v. Borg-Warner Protective
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
9
Services Corp. (1996), Barnes v. Cochran (1996), and Karaker v. Rent-A-Center (2005). In
Thompson v. Borg-Warner, the plaintiff challenged Borg Warner’s use of a personality test, the
Personnel Assessment Selection Survey III (PASS-III), under the ADA. The PASS-III was
administered to applicants for security guard positions. Although the plaintiff claimed the PASS-
III inquired about mental impairment, the defendant argued the measure elicited information
about “work-related subjects.” To support this claim, the defendant noted that when they ordered
materials for the PASS-III, it was never mentioned that the measure could identify those with
disabilities. The court first looked to the EEOC’s definition of clinical measurement to determine
if ADA violations were present. The court determined that no clinical professionals administered
the exam, the PASS-III usually is not used for diagnoses or within a clinical setting, the measure
was not physically invasive, nor was any medical equipment used. The court decided the use of
PASS-III by the defendant did not violate the ADA. Instead, the court suggested the test was
merely a measure eliciting information surrounding an applicant’s character or personality traits,
and their fit for the job, indicating that personality tests are not inherently prohibited by the
ADA. Although a brief report in TIP (Toner & Arnold, 1998) indicated Thompson v. Borg
Warner settled, the court’s opinion remains informative.
In Barnes v. Cochran (1997), the plaintiff claimed a violation of the ADA when the
potential employer, the county sheriff, did not offer the plaintiff a corrections deputy position
due to a preemployment psychological evaluation. The plaintiff asserted that the evaluation
served as a medical examination in violation of the ADA. The evaluation was required of all
applicants and involved a clinical evaluation, review of medical records, and several personality
tests including the MMPI (Dahlstrom, Dahlstrom, & Welsh, 1943) and the CPI (Gough, 1987).
The court determined that information resulting from the evaluation would have given the
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
10
defendant ample information to determine if an applicant had a mental disability. Thus, the court
determined the evaluation was medical in nature and that its use was a direct violation of the
ADA. Despite this finding, the court granted the defendant summary judgement after concluding
that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence proving employment was denied for discriminatory
reasons. Consequently, the court determined no damage was caused by the defendant’s violation
of the ADA. This decision highlights the burden plaintiffs face when suing on the grounds of
disability-based discrimination; specifically, any legitimate justification articulated by the
defendant for an adverse employment decision must be proven by the plaintiff to be a pretext for
discrimination.
As with Barnes v. Cochran (1996), Karraker v. Rent-A-Center (2005) involved the use of
the MMPI, but summary judgement was ultimately granted to plaintiffs. In Karraker, three
plaintiffs claimed violation of the ADA by Rent-A-Center (RAC) retail stores throughout Illinois
for close to a decade. The plaintiffs had applied for promotion within the franchise and claimed
they were denied after taking the Associated Personnel Technicians Management Trainee-
Executive Profile (APT Test), a self-report measure that included items from the MMPI. The
lower court ruled that, although the MMPI has been used in clinical settings, RAC used the
measure as any other nonmedical measure. Thus, the court decided the use of the MMPI was not
medical in nature and did not violate the ADA. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court posed the question, “why would
the defendant use the MMPI, a test that has been historically known to reveal a respondent’s
mental impairment or condition, for their promotional decisions?” (Gonzales-Frisbie, 2006). The
court concluded that whether or not the test’s results were used for medical purposes, they were
nonetheless available for medical interpretation. RAC’s argument that the company inquired
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
11
only about “normal feelings of depression” as opposed to clinical depression was unconvincing.
The court posed the questions: “Why would RAC care if an applicant lost their keys in the
morning of the MMPI or took the test after another Cubs loss? Would RAC really want to
exclude an employee because he happened to feel sad on the wrong day?” (Karraker, 2005). The
court decided that: (a) if the MMPI was indeed used by RAC to measure current state of mood,
or “normal feelings of depression on any given day,” then the MMPI was a poor predictor of the
applicants’ future performance in management; or (b) the measure was designed to measure
more than an applicant’s mood on a given day. To reach a decision, scenarios using EEOC
classification for medical examinations were discussed. The court ultimately concluded that
although applicant responses were not interpreted by a medical professional, the use of the
MMPI would still be likely to identify and “weed out” individuals with PDs who are protected
under the ADA (Karraker, 2005). Therefore, the court decided that RAC’s use of the MMPI in
preemployment decisions was indeed a violation of the ADA.
Overall, the case law reviewed above points to several key legal implications for
personality testing in employee selection. First and foremost, a thorough job analysis must
provide the foundation for any justified use of a personality test. Second, the plaintiff cannot
claim discrimination based on the use of a medical examination alone. Instead, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the defendant’s legitimate justification for adverse employment decisions is in
fact pretext for discrimination. Finally, and perhaps most important for the current discussion,
measures of normal personality traits are permitted under the ADA, but any measure that might
yield insight to medical disorder or impairment is expressly prohibited prior to a conditional job
offer. Therefore, practitioners must remain vigilant to avoid “bad practice” through use of
clinical measures during the screening process (Barnes, 1996; Soroka, 1989) and should refer to
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
12
guidance provided by the EEOC and previous court decisions regarding the “line in the sand”
that currently distinguishes measurements of normal personality and abnormal personality (i.e.,
clinical diagnosis; Karraker, 2005; Thompson, 1996). Considering EEOC guidance and legal
precedent, restrictions are clear for the use of clinical tests in selection given a long history of
relative clarity in the distinction between “normal” and abnormal” personality. However, an
emerging literature from different psychological disciplines stands to make this “line in the sand”
between clinical and nonclinical personality measures ambiguous, and along with it the EEOC’s
current guidance and past court decisions.
Integration of Normal and Abnormal Models
Thus far, the legal community has addressed the status of personality tests in pre-
employment contexts by carefully distinguishing normal personality from psychiatric diagnoses.
Meanwhile, psychological scientists have increasingly questioned the appropriateness of that
distinction. The emerging consensus is that what once were qualitatively designated as “normal”
and “abnormal” models of personality structure likely have common structure and
neurophysiological origin (Hopwood et al., 2017). Further, recent studies suggest that even high
levels of “desirable” traits like high conscientiousness can be maladaptive at extreme levels.
These findings have important implications for personality tests in the preemployment stage.
Below, we detail recent findings in the clinical, neurophysiological, and applied personality
psychology domains. Because I-O psychologists generally utilize a “bottom-up” approach with
personality tests, such that low standing on desirable traits and high standing on undesirable
traits are used to “select out” applicants (Carrigan 2011), we assume this type of selection here.
Clinical psychology research. Within the field of clinical psychology, researchers
suggest a relationship exists between the FFM and PDs (Widiger, Gore, Crego, Rojas, &
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
13
Oltmanns, 2017). Indeed, multiple studies have shown that FFM traits account for features and
symptoms of PDs included in the DMS-5 (e.g., Bagby, Costa, Widiger, Ryder, & Marshall,
2005; Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis, 2004). Perhaps the most obvious link is the FFM trait of
neuroticism, which is thought to encompass several narrower facets, including depression and
anxiety (Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013). Indeed, meta-analytic estimates
show neuroticism is particularly highly associated with borderline (ρ = .54), avoidant (ρ = .52),
dependent (ρ = .44), paranoid (ρ = .40), and schizotypal (ρ = .40) PDs. Connections also have
been made between the other FFM traits and PDs: low levels of extraversion with avoidant (ρ =
.49) and schizoid (ρ = .46) PDs; low levels of agreeableness with narcissistic (ρ =.37) and
antisocial (ρ = .36) PDs; and low conscientiousness with antisocial PD (ρ = .33; Saulsman &
Page, 2005). Although less commonly used in I-O settings, HEXACO (Lee & Ashton, 2004)
dimensions also demonstrate robust links to certain personality disorders. More specifically, the
HEXACO Honesty-Humility domain may be nearly isomorphic with psychopathy/antisocial
personality disorder (e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2005; 2014), such that scores on this basic dimension
can largely be interpreted as scorings on psychopathy and other “dark triad” constructs.
Additionally, recent work has shown that the structure of these pathological traits
instantiated in the DSM-5 AMPD and as measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5
(PID-5; Krueger et al., 2011) converges with the structure of the FFM such that five factors
account for the shared variance between the PID-5 and the FFM (Few et al., 2013; Gore &
Widiger, 2013; Thomas et al., 2013), a measure of normal personality traits. Shared factors
include high neuroticism and negative affectivity; low agreeableness and antagonism; low
extraversion and detachment; low conscientiousness and disinhibition; high openness and
psychoticism (although this link is smaller and more inconsistent). Taken together, these findings
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
14
generally are suggestive of share continua for this dimensional personality disorder model and
the normal FFM.
Proposed application for clinical diagnosis. A move to adopt a more parsimonious and
empirically supported approach to personality disorder diagnosis has arrived and is predicated on
the use of pathological traits with clear links to normal personality dimensions. For instance, the
current version of the DSM-5 includes an Alternative Model of PD (AMPD) in Section III that
proposes that clinicians make PD diagnoses based primarily on evidence of personality
dysfunction (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits
(Criterion B) from a set of 25 narrow pathological trait dimensions that can be organized under
the factors of negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism.
Ultimately, it was decided that the diagnostic model for PDs remain the same as in the DSM-IV
due to concerns that this new model required further empirical testing before it could replace the
more traditional categorical approach. Similarly, the upcoming 11th edition of the International
Classification of Disease (ICD; World Health Organization, 2018) will similarly make PD
diagnoses on the basis of severity of personality impairment as well as description of the patient
along five dimensions that also align closely with four of the five FFM domains.
Given the potential integration of a dimensional model into PD diagnosis, researchers in
clinical psychology have begun studying the effectiveness of the model introduced in Section III
of the DSM-5 (Morey, Skodol, & Oldham, 2014; Samuel & Widiger, 2006). In a recent study
conducted by Morey and colleagues (2014), clinicians rated the AMPD high in utility and
viewed it as equal or more useful in comprehensiveness, patient communication, and treatment
formulation when compared to diagnostic criteria found in the DSM-IV-TR and section II of the
DSM-5 (Morey et al., 2014). Other work has demonstrated that the AMPD approach to PD
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
15
diagnosis yields nearly identical nomological networks as the more traditional approach (Miller,
Few, Lynam, & MacKillop, 2015). This work follows multiple demonstrations that
configurations of normal traits could successfully recreate the external correlates of personality
disorders such as borderline (Trull, Widiger, Lynam, & Costa, 2003; Miller, Morse, Nolf, Stepp,
& Pilkonis, 2012) and psychopathy (Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001).
As stated by Trull and Widiger (2013) “It is evident that the classification of personality
disorders is shifting toward a dimensional trait model and, more specifically, the [FFM]” (p.
135). Similar to proposals made by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorder Work
Group, Widiger, Costa, & McCrae (2002) have also proposed a four-step process that utilizes the
FFM to diagnosis PDs effectively. This process involves assessments that explicitly capture the
FFM traits and their facets. Using scores on such an assessment, clinicians then identify
maladaptive traits that are correlated with “elevations on any respective facet of the FFM”
(Widiger et al., 2002). If impairment and distress experienced by the individual reach a clinical
level, Widiger et al. suggested a PD diagnosis could be made by matching the patient’s FFM
profile to the FFM for a prototypic case of a respective disorder or syndrome. As evidenced by
Widiger et al. (2002)’s work and new additions made within the DSM-5, the line between
medical and nonmedical measures is rapidly blurring as psychologists push for the incorporation
of a dimensional model of PD diagnosis. Thus, although clinical psychologists continue to use
current diagnostic procedures for personality disorder that utilize multidimensional, categorical
constructs (e.g., borderline, narcissistic), research trends suggest an inevitable convergence
between the two conflicting models (Hopwood et al., 2017). In fact, there are already multiple
scoring approaches available that allow individuals to take general personality data from normal
personality measures like the NEO PI-R and score individuals on traditional (e.g., borderline; see
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
16
Miller, 2012 for a review) and nontraditional PDs (e.g., psychopathy; Miller, 2001). Ultimately,
the horse is already out of the barn in terms of how basic personality data can be used to provide
information on psychiatric disorders. As such, it is important for I-O psychologists to understand
potential legal implications associated with a switch to the dimensional, trait-based models for
PD diagnosis. If the proposed model of diagnosis becomes widely accepted and adopted,
classification of personality testing based on the ADA would change, specifically through EEOC
classifications of medical examination. With inclusion of the dimensional model within the DSM
comes considerable reason to prepare for a possible switch in how personality is viewed
medically and legally.
Personality neuroscience. In addition to being on common continua, personality traits
and PDs also appear to have common physiological origins. A growing body of work—
summarized below—suggests personality traits are associated with brain volume in specific
functional areas of the brain and that these functional areas are associated with specific
personality disorders. Below, we outline these connections. Neuroticism is associated with lower
volume in the posterior hippocampus, a region shown to be related to depression and anxiety
(Bremner et al., 2000), likely due to the posterior hippocampus’s regulation of sensitivity to
threat and findings that higher hippocampal volume is associated with lower evaluations of the
self. These findings support the association between neuroticism and negative affectivity. Low
agreeableness is associated with higher volume in the superior temporal sulcus. The temporal
sulcus is associated with interpreting the intentions of others (Pelphrey & Morris, 2006);
increased volume may lead to antagonistic tendencies that are associated with borderline
personality disorder. Low extraversion is associated with decreased volume in the medial
orbitofrontal cortex (Omura, Constable, & Canli, 2005; Rauch et al., 2005), which encodes
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
17
subjective values for reward. Thus, low reward sensitivity may connect low extraversion and
detachment. Low conscientiousness is related to lower volume in the middle frontal gyrus in the
left lateral prefrontal cortex, an area associated with ability to maintain and select complex rules
for behavior. This reduced capacity for rule maintenance supports a connection between low
conscientiousness and disinhibition. Notably, no conclusive region has been found for openness
(DeYoung et al., 2010).
In addition to the above findings, researchers have argued that the integration of normal
and abnormal dimensions of personality is the key to studying personality disorders
neuroscientifically. For example, researchers have suggested that hypotheses regarding the
neurological basis of borderline personality disorder should focus on brain regions associated
with high neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and low agreeableness (Abram & DeYoung,
2017). Additionally, other work suggests the genetic variation of personality disorders such as
borderline PD can be fully explained by variability in FFM traits (Distel et al., 2009). In sum,
research findings increasingly point to similar neurological and genetic origins for normal traits
and PDs (and for traits and psychiatric disorders, more broadly; e.g., Hyatt et al., 2017).
Normal extremes. Evidence within applied personality psychology literature also
underscores the misleading simplicity of the normal–abnormal personality distinction. In
particular, researchers now posit that many traits show curvilinear relationships with desired
outcomes such that extremely high levels of an otherwise adaptive trait can be detrimental (Grant
& Schwartz, 2011; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). For example, conscientiousness is widely known to
benefit a variety of personal and job outcomes (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, &
Mount, 2012; Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010). However, at its extremes,
conscientiousness reflects obsessive-compulsive tendencies (Carter, Guan, Maples, Williamson,
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
18
& Miller, 2016; Samuel, Riddell, Lynam, Miller, & Widiger, 2012; Widiger et al., 2002) that
reduce the likelihood of these positive outcomes, including multiple dimensions of job
performance (Carter et al., 2014; Le et al., 2011).
Findings that suggest extreme trait levels are maladaptive even within normal personality
models have important implications for personality testing in employment contexts. If extreme
standings on normal personality traits produce impairment or distress in life, then arguably
extreme levels on normal traits have similar functional implications to those of PDs. Thus, these
findings lend further credence to the notion that PDs may represent extreme poles of normal
personality types. At the same time, the obvious employment application of evidence for
curvilinear personality–performance relationships is to use personality tests to screen for
individuals with ideal, nonextreme trait levels. However, screening out individuals with extreme
trait levels may produce disparate treatment against individuals with PDs. Plaintiffs could argue
that, although a nonclinical measure of personality was used, by screening for extreme scores on
the measure, an organization could effectively identify and eliminate those individuals most at
risk of PDs (e.g., Miller et al., 2008). Thus, evidence for maladaptive extremes of normal
personality traits further highlights potential overlap of normal and clinical personality models,
and, in turn, the importance of carefully considering how advances in personality measurement
may change how the ADA applies to personality testing.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Current EEOC guidance and case law provide relatively clear boundaries for using pre-
employment personality testing under ADA, as evidenced by the few court cases addressing this
issue. However, as psychological science progresses in exploring the relationship between
normal personality taxonomies and PDs, the implications of the ADA for normal personality
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
19
tests may change. Imagine that an I-O psychologist without clinical licensure is hired to aid an
organization in employee selection. She or he advises the use of a nonclinical personality test,
the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Rejected applicants sue under the ADA. Although the
test was not administered or reviewed by a medical professional, plaintiffs argue that items
measuring neuroticism target individuals with anxiety and depressive disorders. Currently, it is
unclear how this scenario would fare if brought to court. If courts decide that the correlation
between the FFM and DSM-5 symptomology along with neurological evidence of their common
basis is sufficient to classify personality tests as clinical measures, the EEOC may have to
classify the majority of personality tests as prohibited.
Based on prior guidance from courts, general principles in employment law, and
mounting evidence for the connection between normal and clinical personality models, we offer
proactive recommendations to help I-O psychologists avoid legal challenges based on ADA
violation (summarized in Table 3). The first recommendation concerns determining if a
personality test is the most appropriate assessment to use in an organizational screening process.
We recommend always conducting an appropriate job analysis to determine the job relatedness
of personality constructs. Sound personnel practice, EEOC guidance, and legal precedent all
indicate each component of the selection process should have appropriate validity evidence and
that personality items must be clearly related to essential requisite KSAOs. Although job analysis
is an important first step in identifying whether a personality test is appropriate, solely depending
on job analysis is insufficient (Gutman et al., 2011). Practitioners also should apply the strict
scrutiny standard to personality tests that may impinge upon privacy rights. The strict scrutiny
standard dictates that there must be a compelling business necessity and validity evidence that
the test is narrowly tailored to essential job functions. Wherever possible, an effective method
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
20
that is less restrictive (i.e., less invasive) should be used to obtain applicant information. If
personality is a proxy for another job-related variable, measure the target variable directly
whenever feasible.
If a personality test has been determined to be the most appropriate measure, there are
additional recommendations that practitioners should follow to avoid legal challenges. Our
second recommendation is to avoid measuring personality constructs that are closely related to
PDs. We recommend avoiding “off-the-shelf” tests and measurements not directly designed with
the ADA in mind, particularly those that assess known PDs and “dark-side” traits that are often
subclinical measures of PDs (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). It is imperative that
practitioners know whether any part of a test is drawn from existing tests that could be classified
as assessing mental disorders or impairments. Further, even within normal personality models,
practitioners should target personality facets that have low correlations with traditional PDs and
as well as AMPD PD trait dimensions.
Third, we recommend I-O psychologists conduct more research surrounding development
and validation of personality tests given emerging evidence suggesting extreme trait levels are
maladaptive even within “normal personality” models. Given this developing evidence, it can be
argued that screening out individuals with extreme trait levels through normal personality tests
would likely screen out individuals with PDs. Plaintiffs could argue that, although a nonclinical
measure of personality was used, by screening for extreme scores, an organization could
effectively identify and eliminate those individuals most at risk of PDs. Over time, current “non-
clinical” measures of personality could face increased scrutiny by the courts. Thus, there is an
impending need for more research on the development and validation of subclinical personality
tests used in personnel selection. This research would be informative and would help to ensure
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
21
the field is well-equipped to avoid the assessment of “extreme scores” that could identify
disorder or dysfunction. Overall, we encourage active discussion between I-O researchers and
practitioners regarding the future of personality tests given these recent developments.
Fourth, we recommend ensuring items ask about behavior in the workplace. By clearly
establishing job relatedness, the courts are less likely to find that the test violates the ADA.
Predictive validity evidence is likely to be the most important evidence for job relatedness, but
designing items that directly inquire about the workplace likely will further safeguard against
potential legal consequence by maximizing face validity. Similarly, I-O psychologists should
further consider the use of personality measures with explicitly work-related test content, in the
same spirit of the Workplace Big Five (Howard & Howard, 2001; Schakel, Smid, & Jaganjac,
2007) or that have been clearly linked to job analysis such as in the Personality-Related Position
Requirements Form (Highhouse, Zickar, Brooks, Reeve, Sarkar-Barney, & Guion, 2016;
Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997). Notably, both of these types of personality measures are
highly underrepresented in the empirical literature. Fifth, do not involve individuals with clinical
or medical licensure in the administration or interpretation of tests unless clinical personality
diagnosis is job-related and, in such situations, administer the assessment following a conditional
job offer.
Last, and perhaps most importantly, we urge I-O psychologists to advocate for direct
conversation with various disciplines in psychology as well as the EEOC on this growing issue.
This dialogue should include continued research and discussion on the implications of expected
change in PD diagnosis. We cannot predict if or when the legality of the most commonly used,
nonclinical personality tests for selection decisions might face increased challenges under the
ADA. Rather than wait for an illuminating decision by the courts, we encourage I-O
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
22
psychologists to take deliberate, proactive steps in anticipating how personality testing under the
ADA may be impacted by scientific developments. I-O psychologists should pressure the EEOC
to provide more clarity in their guidance on the distinction between medical and nonmedical
personality measures. Taking such a proactive approach will reduce the gray area between
clinical personality tests and those that are appropriate for use in employment decision, and
practitioners will be more likely to avoid litigation. Our hope is that this paper serves as a first,
critical step in these discussions among researchers, practitioners, and law makers.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
23
References
Abram, S. V., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Using personality neuroscience to study personality
disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 2-13.
Aluja, A., Cuevas, L., García, L. F., & García, O. (2007). Zuckerman’s personality model
predicts MCMI-III personality disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
1311-1321.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, US Code § 12102, 104 Stat. 3
28
(1990).
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., Widiger, T. A., Ryder, A. G., & Marshall, M. (2005). DSM‐IV
personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A multi-method
examination of domain- and facet-level predictions. European Journal of Personality, 19,
307-324.
Barnes v. Cochran, 130 F.3d 443 (Court of Appeals
1997).
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Weiman, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity
test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271-301.
Bremner, J. D., Narayan, M., Anderson, E. R., Staib, L. H., Miller, H. L., & Charney, D. S.
(2000). Hippocampal volume reduction in major depression. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 157, 115-118.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
24
Camara, W. J. & Merenda, P. F. (2000). Using personality tests in pre-employment screening:
Issues related to Soroka V. Dayton Hudson Corporation. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 6, 1164-1186.
Carrigan, M. (2011). Pre-employment testing prediction of employee success and legal issues: A
revisitation of Griggs V. Duke Power. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5(8),
35-44.
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. M.
(2014). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job
performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 564-586. doi:10.1037/a0034688
Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. (2016). The downsides
of extreme conscientiousness for psychological well‐being: The role of obsessive
compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 84, 510-522. doi:10.1111/jopy.12177
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R). Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dahlstrom, W.G., Dahlstrom, L.E., & Welsh, G.S. (1972). An MMPI handbook. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press [1972-75].
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R.
(2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big
five. Psychological Science, 21, 820-828.
Distel, M. A., Trull, T. J., Willemsen, G., Vink, J. M., Derom, C. A., Lynskey, M., & Boomsma,
D. I. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and borderline personality disorder: a
genetic analysis of comorbidity. Biological Psychiatry, 66, 1131-1138.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
25
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). Enforcement Guidance: Disability-related
inquiries and medical examinations of employees under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-
inquiries.html#N_33_
Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Rothbaum, A. O., Meller, S., Maples, J., Terry, D. P., … & MacKillop,
J. (2013). Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality
disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 1057-
1069.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year
review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199-216. doi:
10.1111/spc3.12018
Gonzales-Frisbie, J. (2006). Personality tests in jeopardy: An evaluation of the Seventh Circuit’s
decision in Karraker v. Rent-A-Center and its impact on the future use of personality tests
in pre-employment screening. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 9,
185-205.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychological inventory administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing the challenge and opportunity of
the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61-76.
Gutman, A., Koppes, L. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2011). EEO law and personnel practices, 3rd
Edition. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for administering and scoring the
MMPI. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html#N_33_
https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html#N_33_
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
26
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., &
Zimmermann, J. (2017). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder
diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1002/pmh.1408
Howard, P.J., & Howard, M.J. (2001). Professional manual for the workplace big five (WB5P).
Charlotte, NC: Centacs.
Hyatt, C. S., Owens, M. M., Gray, J. C., MacKillop, J., Sweet, L. H., & Miller, J. D. (2017). The
neuroanatomical correlates of personality traits show expected relations with
internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Manuscript under review.
Inwald, R., Knatz, H., & Shusman, E. (1982). In Wald personality inventory manual. New York,
NY: Hilson Research.
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical
representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance:
Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98, 875-925.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.
Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005).
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to
anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin
136,768-821.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
27
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, M., … &
Zimmerman, M. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): A
dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126,
454-477.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial
construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-
5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a
good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113-133.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). The HEXACO Personality Inventory: A new measure of the
major dimensions of personality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329-358.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-
factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and
individual differences, 38(7), 1571-1582.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the HEXACO
model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2-5.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
Miller, J. D. (2012). Five-Factor Model personality disorder prototypes: A review of their
development, validity, and comparison with alternative approaches. Journal of
Personality, 80, 1565-1591.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
28
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Rolland, J. P., De Fruyt, F., Reynolds, S. K., Pham-Scottez, A.,
Baker, S. R., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). Scoring the DSM-IV personality disorders using
the five-factor model: Development and validation of normative scores for North
American, French and Dutch-Flemish samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22,
433-450.
Miller, J. D., Morse, J. Q., Nolf, K., Stepp, S. D., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2012). Can DSM-IV
borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional personality traits:
Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 121, 944-950.
Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004). The validity of the five-factor model
prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples. Psychological
Assessment, 16(3), 310-322.
Morey, L., Skodol, A., & Oldham, J. (2014). Clinician judgments of clinical utility: A
comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5
personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psycholgy,2, 398-405.
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2006).
Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the five-factor
model. Assessment, 13, 119-137.
Mulvihill, M. E. (2005). Karraker v. Rent-A-Center: Testing the limits of the ADA, personality
tests, and employer preemployment screening. Loyola University Chicago Law
Journal, 37, 865-910.
Omura, K., Constable, R. T., & Canli, T. (2005). Amygdala gray matter concentration is
associated with extraversion and neuroticism. Neuroreport, 16, 1905-1908.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
29
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 78, 679-703.
Pelphrey, K. A., & Morris, J. P. (2006). Brain mechanisms for interpreting the actions of others
from biological-motion cues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 136-140.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management.
Journal of Management, 39, 313-338. doi:10.1177/0149206311410060
Rauch, S. L., Milad, M. R., Orr, S. P., Quinn, B. T., Fischl, B., & Pitman, R. K. (2005).
Orbitofrontal thickness, retention of fear extinction, and extraversion. Neuroreport, 16,
1909-1912.
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse
impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298-307.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An
update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491-529.
Samuel, D.B., Riddell, A.D.B., Lynam, D.R., Miller, J.D., & Widiger, T.A. (2012). A five-factor
measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment,
94, 456-465.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Clinicians’ judgments of clinical utility: A comparison
of the DSM-IV and five factor models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 298 –308.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.2 .298
Schakel, L., Smid, N.G., & Jaganjac, A. (2007). Workplace Big Five professional manual.
Utrecht, The Netherlands: PiCompany B.V.
Schmall, L. A. (2009). One step closer to mental health parity. Nevada Law Journal, 9, 646-671.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
30
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27,
183-198.
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation, 18 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (1991).
Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J.
(2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model
trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308-311.
Thompson v. Borg-Warner Protective Servs. Corp., No. C-94-4015 MHP, 1996 W.L. 162990
(1996).
Toner, M. P. & Arnold, D. W. (1998). Tompson v. Borg-Warner case settled. The Industrial-
Organizational Psychologist, 36(2). Retrieved electronically from:
http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipoct98/16toner.aspx
Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). Dimensional models of personality: The five-factor model
and the DSM-5. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 15, 135-146.
Tyrer, P., Crawford, M., Mulder, R., Blashfield, R., Farnam, A., Fossati, A., … & Swales, M.
(2011). The rationale for the reclassification of personality disorder in the 11th revision
of the international classification of diseases (ICD-11). Personality and Mental
Health, 5(4), 246-259.
Varnagis v. City of Chicago No. 96 C 6304, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9031 (N.D. ill. June 20,
1997).
Weber, L., & Dwoskin, E. (2014, Sept. 29). Are workplace personality tests fair? Growing use of
tests sparks scrutiny amid questions of effectiveness and workplace discrimination. Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved from www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests-
fair-1412044257
http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipoct98/16toner.aspx
http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests-fair-1412044257
http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests-fair-1412044257
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
31
Widiger, T. A., Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). A proposal for Axis II: Diagnosing
personality disorders using the five-factor model. In P. J. Costa, T. A. Widiger, P. J.
Costa, T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality (2nd ed.,pp. 431-456). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10423-025.
Widiger, T. A., Gore, W. L., Crego, C., Rojas, S. L., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2017). Five factor model
and personality disorder. In T.A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor
model (5th ed., pp. 449-478). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
World Health Organization. (2018). International classification of disease (11th ed.). Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
32
Table 1
Summary of Court Cases, the Favored Party in Judgment, and the Court’s Rationale
Case Year Personality test in question Favored party Court’s rationale
Thompson v. Borg-Warner 1996 Personnel Assessment
Selection Survey III
Defendant “[evidence] that the test is designed to reveal
‘behavioral problems’ and ‘emotional instability’
is insufficient.”
Barnes v. Cochran 1996 Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventorya
Defendant Although ADA was violated by use of medical
examination, “[the] defendant has put forth
sufficient non-discriminatory reasons for not
hiring.”
Karraker v. Rent-A-Center 2005 Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventorya
Plaintiff “the MMPI is a medical examination under the
ADA.”
Note: aThe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was embedded with items from other measures.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
33
Table 2
Summary of FFM Traits, Corresponding PD Classification, PID-5 Trait, and Associated Brain Region
FFM Trait DSM categorical PDs
PID-5 pathological
trait Brain region
Neuroticism (+) Borderline, avoidant Negative affectivity Posterior hippocampus
Agreeableness (-) Narcissistic, antisocial Antagonism Superior temporal sulcus
Extraversion (-) Avoidant, schizoid Detachment Medial orbitofrontal cortex
Conscientiousness (-) Antisocial Disinhibition Prefrontal lateral cortex
Openness (+) n/a Psychoticism n/a
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
34
Table 3
Recommendations for Avoiding ADA Challenges and Rationale
Suggestion Rationale
1. Establish job relatedness through a proper job analysis and
apply the strict scrutiny standard. Whenever possible, utilize
alternative selection methods that are less invasive but with
equivalent validity. Do not use personality as a proxy for
another variable if that variable feasibly could be assessed
directly.
If the general employment law principle of job relatedness can be clearly
established, then courts are less likely to find that the test violates the ADA
based on EEOC guidance. Ensure the assessment is narrowly tailored to the
purpose; i.e., that it measures the target attribute directly, rather than using a
proxy, and measures it as precisely as possible.
2. Avoid personality tests that assess constructs closely related
to PDs and PID-5 dimensions, including “off-the-shelf” tests
developed with the ADA in mind, tests known to assess PDs,
“dark side” traits, and normal personality traits that are highly
correlated with PDs.
Such constructs could become more associated with clinical diagnoses, and thus
medical examinations, over time. If so, plaintiffs could argue that an employer
could gain information about disorders or impairment even if the assessment
was not explicitly designed or used to do so. By avoiding such constructs,
defendants can argue minimal or no relation to PDs and, thereby, an inability to
glean information about disorders or impairment. Additionally, tests that are
already known to assess PDs are more likely to be considered a medical
examination under EEOC guidance.
3. Conduct more research involving development and
validation of personality tests to be used in preselection.
Emerging evidence within personality literature suggests extreme trait-levels
are maladaptive even within “normal personality” models. Therefore, it can be
argued that screening out individuals with extreme trait levels through normal
personality tests could create a likelihood of screening out individuals with PDs.
Plaintiffs could argue that, although a non-clinical measure of personality was
used, by screening for extreme scores on the measure, an organization could
effectively identify and eliminate those individuals most at risk of PDs.
Overtime, current “nonclinical” measures of personality may face increased
scrutiny by the courts.
4. Ensure items ask about behavior in the workplace.
If the general employment law principle of job relatedness can be clearly
established, then courts are less likely to find that the test violates ADA based
on EEOC guidance.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND THE ADA
35
5. Do not involve persons with clinical or medical licensure in
administration or interpretation unless clinical personality
diagnosis is job related and, if so, administer the test after a
conditional job offer.
EEOC guidance states that whether a test is administered or interpreted by a
medical or health professional is considered when determining whether the test
is a medical examination. Given medical examinations are only permitted if job
related and administered post conditional job offer.
6. Advocate for direct conversation with various disciplines in
psychology and the EEOC through research and discussion on
implications of an anticipated change in PD diagnosis.
Discussion can further inform the EEOC to provide more clarity and guidance
regarding acceptable personality measures. By taking a proactive approach,
practitioners can avoid unwanted litigation.