British Psychological Society Psychological Testing Centre Test Reviews. Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition)

Transcription

1 British Psychological Society Psychological Testing Centre Test Reviews Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) Local test distributor / publisher: Psychological Consultancy Ltd The British Psychological Society All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. 1

2 Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) (HDS) Reviewers: Consulting Editor: Senior Editor: Senior Update Editor: Update Editor G. Hodgkinson & S. Robertson L. Robertson P. A. Lindley P. A. Lindley P. A. Lindley GENERAL INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT Test Name: Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) Authors of the original test: Robert Hogan and Joyce Hogan Local test distributor / publisher: Psychological Consultancy Ltd Publisher of the original version of the test: Hogan Assessment Systems Inc. (US) Date of Publication of Current Review/Edition: 1998 (UK) Date of Publication of the Original Test: 1997 Date of Current Review: 2003 ISBN: General Description of Test: The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is a personality self report questionnaire that is occupationally oriented and clinical/counselling oriented. It is a 168 item, multi scale instrument designed to assess a variety of dysfunctional dispositions (11 in total) that occur in workplace settings. The 11 dispositional scales are also thought of as reflecting Karen Horney s (1950) concepts of moving away from people, moving against people, and moving towards people. As such, the purpose of the instrument is to identify the extent to which individuals exhibit behavioural tendencies that run contrary to occupational adjustment and well being, with intended applications in the areas of training and development (its primary purpose), personnel selection decisions, and in the assessment of how individuals will function as members of a team. Each disposition is reported on a separate scale, as follows: (1) Enthusiastic Volatile; (2) Shrewd Mistrustful; (3) Careful Cautious; (4) Independent Detached; (5) Focused Passive Aggressive; (6) Confident Arrogant; (7) Charming Manipulative; (8) Vivacious Dramatic (9) Imaginative Eccentric; (10) Diligent Perfectionist; (11) Dutiful Dependent. Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 2 of 15

3 In addition, the instrument incorporates a Social Desirability Scale, in an effort to assist with the detection of motivational distortion. According to the technical manual, individuals are normally distributed along the 11 primary dimensions and a given person may have high or low scores on any of the scales. Each scale comprises a total of 14 dichotomous (agree = 1; disagree = 0) items. The various scales are intercorrelated with one another and factor analyses performed on the 11 primary scales suggest that these scales may be meaningfully combined in order to form three or four higher order dimensions, roughly corresponding to the main themes contained in Horney s (1950) model or flawed interpersonal tendencies. Administration is by means of a reusable questionnaire booklet in conjunction with an answer sheet, or alternatively, via computer, using the HDS software or on line. The latter is a Windows driven computer programme that enables users to score and interpret responses to the HDS, as well as providing an alternative mode of administration. Regardless of which mode of administration is adopted, scoring, which takes the form of computer generated reports, requires the use of the HDS software. Three types of report can be generated through the HDS software: 1. Data Reports (providing individual item data, scale percentile scores and scale raw scores, depending on the option(s) selected); 2. Graphic Reports (which provide a general description of each scale, together with a graphic representation of the overall profile of the individual s results and pointers for handling the feedback session); 3. Interpretive Reports (a more extensive report, comprising a mixture of graphical and narrative information, with pointers for feedback discussion in cases where particular scale scores exceed the 84th percentile). The HDS software also has a data management facility, which enables data to be imported and exported to/from the system, for example, in order to conduct further analyses using external statistical software/packages for research purposes. Data gathered through the paper and pencil mode of administration may be scored in one of two ways: 1. by keying responses from the answer sheet directly into a personal computer, via the HDS software; 2. via a Mail In or Fax Scoring bureau system operated by the HDS distributor. Classification Content Domains: Personality Trait Intended or main area(s) of Use: Work and Occupational Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 3 of 15

4 Intended mode of use (conditions under which the instrument was standardised and validated): Supervised and controlled administration. Test administration under the control of a qualified administrator or proctor Description of the populations for which the test is intended: General working population. Number of scales and brief description of the variable or variables measured by the test: Each disposition is reported on a separate scale, as follows; (1) Enthusiastic Volatile (2) Shrewd Mistrustful (3) Careful Cautious (4) Independent Detached (5) Focused Passive Aggressive (6) Confident Arrogant (7) Charming Manipulative (8) Vivacious Dramatic (9) Imaginative Eccentric (10) Diligent Perfectionist (11) Dutiful Dependent In addition, the instrument incorporates a Social Desirability Scale, in an effort to assist with the detection of motivational distortion. Items format: Dichotomous (agree/disagree) Number of test items: 168 Administration modes: Interactive individual administration Supervised Group administration Response mode: Paper and pencil On line Computerised administration scoring, analysis and interpretation. Time: Preparation: 5 minutes or less. Administration: Approximately minutes. Scoring: Computer scoring and on line scoring would take only a few seconds; the bureau service would depend on speed of communication. Analysis: Computer based a few seconds. Feedback: Approximately 45 minutes, using either the computer generated graphic report on the computer generated interpretive report as a basis. Different forms of the test: There is no alternative form available. Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 4 of 15

5 Measurement and Scoring Scoring procedure for the test: Computer based and on line report/narrative generator. Requires computer based support for scoring and interpretation. Score transformation for standard scores: Normative. Non normalised scales. Those customised norms created by the user within the computer scoring software are normalised. Scales Used: Percentile based scores: Centiles Computer Generated Reports Are computer generated reports available with the instrument?: Yes Do distributors offer a service to correct and/or develop computer generated reports?: Yes Brief description of Reports.. Media: Complexity: Report Structure: Sensitivity to context: Clinical actuarial: Modifiability: Degree of 'finish': Transparency: Style and tone: Intended recipients: Integrated text and graphics Complex Scale based Pre defined context related versions Based on empirical/actuarial relationships Based on clinical judgement of group of experts Unlimited modification Publication quality Clear linkage between constructs, scores and text Guidance Informational and interpretive reports are available. Qualified test users Test takers Third parties Supply Condition and Costs Documentation provided by the distributor as part of the test package: User manual Supplementary technical information and updates (e.g. local norms, local validation studies etc) Technical (psychometric) manual Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 5 of 15

6 Methods of publication: Paper PC CD/ROM Live Internet (test runs in a web browser) Start up costs: Training = (2 day course) including manual (normally 78.75) and software (normally ) Recurrent costs: Paper and pencil = 8.00 per test booklet, for 25 answer sheets. Credits for software = Online = 6.50 administration fee per person per questionnaire and report costs. Prices for a report generated by user installed software: Data report = Graphic report = Interpretive report = Prices for reports: Bureau service = Report prices below. Prices for a report generated by the Internet services: Data report = Feedback report = 25. Interpretive report = Test related qualifications required by the supplier of the test: Accreditation in general personality and assessment: measures of typical behaviour, attitudes and preferences Test specific accreditation Professional qualifications required for use of the test: None Evaluation of Test Materials Key to symbols: [N.r.i.o.r] Inadequate No longer used Adequate/Reasonable Good Excellent (for updates only) Item was not rated in original review Quality of the explanation of the rationale, the presentation and the quality of information provided: Overall rating of the Quality of the explanation of the rationale: Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 6 of 15

7 i) Theoretical foundations of the constructs: ii) Test development procedure: N.r.i.o.r. * iii) Thoroughness of the item analyses and item analysis model: iv) Explanation of content validity: N.r.i.o.r. * v) Summary of relevant research: Adequacy of documentation available to the user (user and technical manuals, norm supplements etc): i) Rationale: ii) Development: iii) Standardisation: iv) Norms: v) Reliability: vi) Validity: Quality of the Procedural instructions provided for the user: i) For test administration: ii) For test scoring, norming etc: iii) For interpretation and reporting: iv) For providing feedback and debriefing test takers and others: v) For providing good practice issues on fairness and bias: vi) Restrictions on use: vii) References and supporting materials: Quality of the materials: i) General quality of test materials (test booklets, answer sheets, test objects, software, etc): ii) Test quality of the local adaptation (if the test has been translated and adapted into the local language): N/A Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 7 of 15

8 iii) Ease with which the test taker can understand the task: iv) Ease with which responses or answers can be made by the test taker: v) Quality of the items: N.r.i.o.r. * Reviewer's comments on the documentation (comment on rationale, design, test development and acceptability): The documentation is generally well organised and presented in a clear and concise fashion. The rationale underpinning the development of the instrument is clearly specified at the outset, as is its location vis a vis a range of other instruments. However, it would be helpful if rather more information had been reported in the manual concerning the standardisation of the instrument, with a detailed breakdown of the background characteristics of the sample upon which the norms are based. Basic comparisons of mean raw scores by age and gender (UK) and age, gender and ethnic background (US) are reported in the technical manual, but the results are not discussed explicitly in terms of their implications for using the instrument in applied settings. Design: The instructions associated with the questionnaire booklet and accompanying answer sheet appear to be self evident and the overall appearance of the booklet and answer sheet are aesthetically satisfactory. The instructions associated with the HDS software version of the instrument are similarly clear and straightforward and the overall quality of the graphics is aesthetically satisfactory. However, there is an inconsistency between the paper and pencil version of the instrument and the computerised version; the latter contains five practice items, prior to the commencement of the main questions, whereas the paper and pencil version does not contain these items. Rationale: The rationale for HDS is based upon the principle that under certain conditions, such as stress and pressure, most people begin to employ flawed interpersonal strategies that serve to detract from their work performance. According to the authors, such behaviours can be modified and ameliorated through training and development, hence giving a positive diagnostic role to a device such as HDS. These strategies or dysfunctional dispositions are probably rooted in inappropriate learned reactions to childhood experiences of failure, stress, and unhappiness of one sort or another. The authors argue that these dysfunctional dispositions may be classified using a model based on the DSM IV Axis 2 personality disorders, and understood as less extreme variants of interpersonal behaviour. They also reflect Horney s concepts of moving away from people, moving against people, and moving towards people. As described in HDS, they reflect a middle range of relatively negative interpersonal behaviours between those which are most overtly neurotic, and those which we would normally regard as well adjusted behaviours mapped by measures of normal personality (HDS manual, p. 3). Acceptability: Given the content of the scales, HDS would probably have most acceptability to the candidate in occupational counselling and/or development situations where the questionnaire could be employed on a diagnostic basis for dealing with poor performance, or reduced effectiveness based on interpersonal and other difficulties. Items are not phrased in occupationally specific terms, a factor which might lead more sceptical clients to doubt its relevance for its intended purpose: the identification of self defeating behaviours in work settings, in order to facilitate personal development and coaching. It is imperative, therefore, that clients are appropriately briefed beforehand. Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 8 of 15

9 Norms, Validity & Reliability Evaluation of technical information: Norms or reference group information: Overall adequacy: i) Appropriateness for local use, whether local or international norms: ii) Appropriateness for intended applications: iii) Sample sizes: iv) Procedures used in sample selection: v) Quality of information provided about minority/protected group differences, effects of age, gender etc: No information is supplied. 0 stars Reviewers' comments about the norms: The overall UK norm group has had two recent updates (1998; 2003) The current overall UK norm group is drawn from a sample of n = This is broken down into four subgroups: males only; females only; emergency services and professional and managerial. The subgroup samples range from 266 (female only) to 612 (emergency services). For each group there is a break down on the basis of ethnicity. In keeping with US policy, the US norms (n= 10305) are provided as combined males and females only. These norms have not been updated. It is desirable that further background information be provided on the standardisation sample, in terms of educational background, and various socio economic characteristics. Validity: Overall adequacy: Construct Validity (overall adequacy): i) Designs used: No information is supplied. ii) Sample sizes: iii) Procedure of sample selection: iv) Median and range of the correlations between the test and other similar tests: v) Quality of instruments as criteria or markers: vi) Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses: No information is supplied. N/A Criterion related validity: overall adequacy: Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 9 of 15

10 i) Description of the criteria used and characteristics of the populations: No information is supplied. ii) Sample sizes: iv) Median and range of the correlations between the test and criteria: Reviewers' comments about validity: Content validity: The questionnaire items generally appear to reflect the range of constructs measured, although, since no details are available regarding manual scoring, an item by scale inspection was not possible. The authors claim to have made serious efforts to ensure conceptual separation between scales by item writing and rewriting to remove overlap. Concurrent validity: Two main studies are reported. In the first, correlations are provided between HDS scale scores and descriptions of a person s performance as a manager from the perspective of subordinates, peers, and supervisors. The study is not described in detail, although the sample size is given as 193. No indication is provided as to how criterion ratings were combined across raters in the three groups. Statistically significant correlations (around nine per HDS scale on average) are quoted which exceed the critical value based upon a one tailed significance test at P < 0.05 (i.e. r = 0.13). Of the 101 correlations shown, only two reach or exceed the value of ±030; these both relate to Volatile (+0.30 for Yells at people when they make mistakes, and 0.30 for Expresses emotions appropriately ). In a second (UK based) study of 450 ambulance personnel (Tyler, 1998), HDS was correlated with self reported symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Five measures of reactions to stress (two from the General Well Being Questionnaire, GWBQ, and three from the Impact of Events Scale Extended Version, IES E, were employed). Exactly how many other sets of predictors were investigated and in what combination are not specified. The results of five multiple regression analyses (multiple Rs and beta weights) are reported, with multiple Rs of 0.36, 0.60, 0.47, 0.67 and Reported beta weights for various of the HDS scales range from 0.08 to 0.45, with the volatile scale (median beta = 0.34) consistently emerging as a strong predictor for each of the five PTSD measures. Predictive validity: No information supplied. Construct validity: The results of six US studies and two UK studies (samples ranging from 826 to 15) are presented, in which the HDS scales have been intercorrelated with a variety of other instruments of related concern (e.g. MMPI, Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, OPQ (concept 5.2) and the Hogan Personality Inventory). Two additional US studies are reported, the first of which explored the extent to which the various HDS scales are correlated with observers descriptions/ratings of individuals as managers, and a factor analytic study in which HDS items were jointly analysed in conjunction with items from two other instruments of related concern: the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). By way of illustration, the scales correlated most strongly with HDS dysfunctional dispositions are indicated below. HDS Scale Strongest Correlate Correlation Enthusiastic Volatile Adjustment (HPI) 0.76 Shrewd Mistrustful Paranoid (MMPI PDS) 0.62 Careful Cautious Ambition (HPI) 0.70 Independent Detached Agreeability (HPI) 0.67 Focussed Passive/Aggressive Schizotypal (MMPI PDS) 0.61 Confident Arrogant Narcissistic (MMPI PDS) 0.55 Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 10 of 15

11 Charming Manipulative Hypomania (MMPI) 0.57 Vivacious Dramatic Narcissistic (MMPI PDS) 0.53 Imaginative Eccentric Hypomania (MMPI) 0.52 Diligent Perfectionistic Security (MVPI) 0.39 Dutiful Dependent Prudence (HPI) 0.33 The above correlations illustrate (not exhaustively) the range of relationships that exist between HDS scales and the measures quoted. They also illustrate that many HDS scales do appear to tap different attributes than those identified by a standard personality questionnaire. However, not all of the of these attributes are represented elsewhere as one instrument. Little information is provided on either the construct or criterion related validity of the Social Desirability (SD) scale. Correlations involving SD have been routinely omitted from the tables of correlations quoted. The authors mention that SD correlates negatively ( 0.60) with HPI Adjustment, and positively with all the HDS scales. As each of the HDS scales has positive characteristics and the items nearly all describe positive behaviours, this results in those presenting themselves in a favourable light also representing themselves high on the HDS scales and this in turn results in their being described in terms of the dark side, for example, as less adjusted, and as having a stronger tendency to dysfunctional dispositions. In the larger of the two UK studies (n = 511) five of the 11 HDS scales (Dependent, Perfectionist, Eccentric, Arrogant and Passive Aggressive) fail to yield correlations above 0.4. The overall pattern of results emerging from the US and UK studies as a whole show that very few scales consistently yield correlations greater than General comments about validity: Limited empirical evidence has accrued, thus far, which supports the validity of the HDS. A number of small moderate correlations have been obtained between its various scales and scales from other similar instruments. Evidence of criterion related validity, although generally encouraging, is limited and restricts the extent to which the findings can be generalised across occupational contexts. Reliability: Overall adequacy: i) Data provided about reliability: No information is supplied. Internal consistency: i) Sample size: ii) Median of coefficients: Test retest stability: i) Sample size: ii) Median of coefficients: Equivalence reliability: i) Sample size: N/A Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 11 of 15

12 ii) Median of coefficients: N/A Reviewers' comments on Reliability (comment on confidence intervals for reliability coefficients and provide Spearman Brown equivalents for a 30 item scale): Reviewers comments about reliability: Reliability coefficients are reported on the basis of three samples. Test retest/stability coefficients are derived from a sample of n = 60 graduate students, over a three month interval, and range from 0.87 (volatile) to 0.58 (passive aggressive) with an overall median of Internal consistency coefficients are based on a US sample of n = 2071 adults and a UK sample of n = 668 adults. Alphas for the UK sample range from 0.52 to Given the number of items in the scales (14), these alphas are rather low. Quality of Computer Generated Reports Overall adequacy of computer generated reports: i) Scope or coverage: ii) Reliability: iii) Relevance or Validity: iv) Fairness, or freedom from systematic bias: v) Acceptability: vi) Practicality: vii) Length number of printed pages: Interpretive (10 pages) 9.09 Data Report (1 page) 0.9 Graphic report (5 pages) 4.54 Reviewers' comments on the quality of computer generated reports: Three reports were submitted: the Graphic Report, the Data Report and the Interpretative Report. All are written in the third person. The data Report contains one page of tabular score information. This is intended for the trained user who is skilled in interpretation and Feedback. As such it provides all the information that is needed for this level of skill. The Graphic Report informs a third party of the scales, the test takers scores on these scales and raises pertinent interview questions based on those scales. This could equally be used by someone giving feedback or by a reflective test taker. The Interpretive Report contains the information about the scales, a graph showing the position of the test taker on those scales and an interpretation of the test taker s score on each scale. The final section of the report raises pertinent questions for self reflection or feedback by a third person. All the reports are clearly structured and relevant for their purpose which is development. The language is clear and where the information is interpreted, the interpretation is clear and relevant Overall, these are excellent reports that fulfill their intended purpose in a very clear and simple way Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 12 of 15

13 FINAL EVALUATION Evaluative report of the test: In terms of their psychometric properties, the HDS scales have variable reliabilities, some of which are inadequate. In both the UK and US data, the Passive Aggressive, Manipulative, and Dependent scales exhibit internal consistencies lower than 0.6, with US stabilities also low in the case of the Passive Aggressive and Detached scales. In due course some further work is merited to improve the scale reliabilities where weaknesses are evident. Much of the validation research is focused on US data, although new UK studies (along with new UK norms) are now available. At least one of these (a correlational study between HDS and OPQ) needs a substantially larger sample for proper interpretation. Despite this, the construct and criterion related validation findings in relation to HDS main scales are based on adequate sample sizes and are promising. They suggest that HDS scales offer different information to that provided by a typical personality questionnaire. One exception may be the Volatile scale, which shows evidence of being heavily saturated with neuroticism (HDS manual, p. 19). Only two studies, thus far, have explored the construct validity of the anglicized version. However, neither the UK nor the US studies have provided convincing evidence in this respect. The majority of correlations between the HDS scales and the scales of other broadly similar instruments are 0.49 (nine out of the 11 scales of the MMPI personality disorder scales) in magnitude; correlations with scales from less similar measures are 0.45 or less. Taking into account the limitations of the psychometric evidence which has accumulated thus far in support of this instrument, at the present time the HDS is probably better reserved for use in the context of personal development and coaching situations, rather than as part of a personnel selection procedure. In view of the above limitations it is also strongly advisable that any evaluations derived using the HDS are independently corroborated by other evidence. The documentation is generally well organised and presented in a clear and concise fashion. The rationale underpinning the development of the instrument is clearly specified at the outset, as is its location vis a vis a range of other instruments. However, it would be helpful if rather more information had been reported in the manual concerning the standardisation of the instrument, with a detailed breakdown of the background characteristics of the sample upon which the norms are based. Basic comparisons of mean raw scores by age and gender (UK) and age, gender and ethnic background (US) are reported in the technical manual, but the results are not discussed explicitly in terms of their implications for using the instrument in applied settings. The underlying rationale of the instrument is clearly articulated, items having been derived on the basis of three primary sources, namely, DSM 1V Axis 2 personality disorders, the literature on managerial derailment and data derived from appraisals of workplace colleagues (especially subordinates evaluations of their first line supervisors). A key strength of the HDS is that, unlike other instruments designed to assess dysfunctional behaviours, the items have been specifically written in such a way as to specifically avoid tapping clinical themes, sexual preferences and religious preferences. The instrument is well presented and easily administered with self evident instructions. The HDS software is easy to install, making the task of scoring and deriving profiles and interpretative reports relatively painless. The software appears to be user friendly. The reports generated by this system are clearly structured and detailed and sensible guidance is provided on the process of giving feedback to clients. Given the nature of the constructs tapped by the various scales, particular care is required in this respect. Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 13 of 15

14 Conclusions: HDS is a novel measure, which is designed to provide coverage of an important and under explored domain, namely that of dysfunctional dispositions as they operate in the normal population so as to impede work performance and effectiveness. These dysfunctional dispositions relate to flawed interpersonal strategies which may be influential in creating anything from minor interpersonal difficulties in the workplace, to career derailment. A measure of this sort is potentially useful primarily in occupational counselling, as well as in personal and career development situations. Use of the HDS in selection would be ill advised, given the personal nature of the item content, and the potential for distortion that may occur. Where HDS is used, it would always benefit from being associated with a normal personality questionnaire, so as to give a broad picture of the respondent s preferences alongside and as a context to their dark side attributes and this is indeed the point made in the test manual, namely that the HDS should always be used alongside a measure of normal personality. Recommendations: Suitable for use in the area(s) of application defined by the distributor, by test users who meet the distributor's specific qualifications requirements Notes, references and bibliography: Bartram, D. (1994). Computer based assessment. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, Bartram, D. & Bayliss, R. (1984). Automated testing: Past, present and future. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, Two papers which review technical and practical considerations in the automation of assessment procedures. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. This is a well known authoritative text which sets out the standards expected of well validated and reliable assessment techniques and takes alpha = 0.7 to be the minimum. Tyler, G. P. (1998). Personality, general well being and post traumatic stress disorder in the ambulance services a validation study of the Hogan Personality Inventory and the Hogan Development Survey. Unpublished MSc Occupational Psychology dissertation, University of Nottingham. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE TEST Content Domains: Personality Trait Intended or main area(s) of Use: Work and Occupational Intended mode of use (conditions under which the instrument was standardised and validated): Supervised and controlled administration. Test administration under the control of a qualified administrator or proctor Test Description: Test Name: Local test distributor / publisher: Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) Psychological Consultancy Ltd Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 14 of 15

15 Date of Current Review: 2003 Date of Publication of Current Review/Edition: 1998 (UK) Constructs Measured: (11) Enthusiastic Volatile Shrewd Mistrustful Careful Cautious Independent Detached Focused Passive Aggressive Confident Arrogant Charming Manipulative Vivacious Dramatic Imaginative Eccentric Diligent Perfectionist Dutiful Dependent Administration Mode: Response Mode: Instrument Evaluation: Interactive individual administration Supervised Group administration Paper and pencil On line Computerised administration scoring, analysis and interpretation. Characteristics Evaluation Quality of Documentation Quality of Materials Norms and reference groups Construct validity Criterion related validity Reliability overall Number of Computer Generated Reports Not recorded The British Psychological Society All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. Hogan Development Survey (UK Edition) 2007 BPS Page 15 of 15