Evidence Overview
The overall evidence for JobMatch Talent’s psychometric properties includes internal structure, reliability, relationships with established personality measures, and predictive validity in relation to job performance.
Analyses show that JMT demonstrates:
- a stable factor structure
- good internal consistency
- high stability over time
- clear and theoretically grounded relationships with the Five-Factor Model (Big Five)
- stable, significant, and replicated relationships with job performance
The results are based on correlational analyses and model-based methods and are consistent with established guidelines for psychometric test evaluation (EFPA).
Overall, analyses show that JMT demonstrates predictive validity at levels comparable to, and in several analyses higher than, those reported in international meta-analyses.
Evidence at a Glance
Key results:
Observed predictive validity: r ≈ 0.37–0.40
Latent validity: up to R ≈ 0.50–0.70
Below is a summary of JobMatch Talent’s central psychometric properties, including internal structure, relationships with established personality models, and predictive validity in relation to job performance.
Internal Structure and Reliability
| Domain | Measure | Value | n | Method |
| Internal Structure | Model fit (CFA) | CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .045 | 448 | CFA |
| Reliability | Internal consistency (α), main scales | α = .73–.86 | 12941 | Cronbach’s α |
| Reliability | Internal consistency (α), facet level | α = .66–.83 | 12941 | Cronbach’s α |
| Reliability | Test–retest 2–6 months | r ≈ .86 | 225 | Pearson’s r |
| Reliability | Test–retest 2–6 years | r ≈ .76 | 39 | Pearson’s r |
Table 1 shows that JMT demonstrates a stable factor structure with good model fit, as well as good internal consistency at both factor and facet levels. Test–retest results also indicate high stability over time.
Relation to Big Five and Construct Validity
| Domain | Measure | Comparison / Variables | Value | n | Method |
| Construct Validity | Convergent validity | JMT ↔ NEO PI-R | r = .48–.67 | 390 | Pearson’s r |
| Construct Validity | Convergent validity | JMT ↔ IPIP | Median r ≈ .67 | 448 | Pearson’s r |
| Construct Validity | Convergent validity | Main scales ↔ NEO PI-R | Median r ≈ .51 | 390–448 | Pearson’s r |
| Construct Validity | Convergent validity | Facets ↔ NEO PI-R | Median r ≈ .46 | 390–448 | Pearson’s r |
| Construct Validity | Discriminant validity | JMT ↔ non-corresponding dimensions | Low to moderate correlations | 390–448 | Correlation analysis |
Table 2 shows that JMT has clear relationships with established personality measures (NEO PI-R and IPIP). The correlations are at levels consistent with expectations for good convergent validity, while lower correlations with non-corresponding dimensions support discriminant validity.
Predictive Validity in Relation to Job Performance
| Measure | Perspective | Level | Value | n | Method |
| Predictive validity | 10-factor | Scale level | r ≈ .37–.40 | 258–305 | Pearson’s r |
| Predictive validity | 10-factor | Latent level | β ≈ .54–.69 | 258 | SEM |
| Predictive validity | JM5 / Big Five structure | Overall level | r ≈ .35–.50 | 258–305 | Correlation (restructuring) |
| Indirect structural support | JM5 / Big Five structure | Overall level | r ≈ .29–.53 | ≈16000 | Norm data analysis |
Table 3 shows that JMT demonstrates stable and replicated relationships with job performance based on supervisor-rating studies. Observed predictive validity is around r ≈ 0.37–0.40, while latent analyses show stronger relationships.
An analysis based on JobMatch Talent’s Five-Factor structure (JM5), derived from the Big Five, shows that Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness are the primary predictors of job performance. Complementary analyses show that Openness and Emotional Stability also exhibit systematic relationships with performance-related traits.
Concept Definitions (Mini-Legend)
r (Pearson’s r): Correlation coefficient indicating the strength of the relationship between test results and job performance. Values around 0.10 are considered small, around 0.30 moderate, and 0.50 or higher strong in an occupational psychology context.
β (beta): Standardized regression coefficient indicating the unique effect of a variable in a multivariate analysis.
SEM (Structural Equation Modeling): Statistical method that analyzes relationships between latent variables and adjusts for measurement error, often producing higher and more theoretically precise estimates.
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α): Measure of how well a scale assesses a coherent psychological construct. Values above 0.70 are generally considered acceptable.
Test–retest: Measure of stability over time based on repeated measurements of the same individuals.
Convergent validity: The extent to which the test correlates with other established measures of the same construct.
Discriminant validity: The extent to which the test does not correlate too highly with measures of different, unrelated constructs.
Predictive validity: The extent to which the test can predict future job performance.
Overall Assessment
Overall, the results show that:
- JMT has a stable and well-functioning factor structure
- The test demonstrates good internal consistency and high stability over time
- There is clear support for construct validity in relation to the Big Five
- Predictive validity in relation to job performance is at levels comparable to or exceeding those typically reported in international research
This provides strong scientific support for the use of JobMatch Talent in recruitment and occupational psychological assessment.
For questions regarding the underlying data, contact: