ACT工作关键人才与ACT工作关键基本技能结构的契合

Fernando J. Mena and Kate E. Walton Abstract In this study, we examined the conceptual correspondence between ACT’s WorkKeys Talentassessment and ACT’s WorkKeys Essential Skills battery to determine whether the validityevidence of the former can inform the latter. Eleven subject matter experts reviewed all 72pairings generated by crossing 12 Talent trait constructs with six WorkKeys Essential Skillsconstructs, rating each on a 0–3 overlap scale that was also dichotomized (scores of 0 and 1were recoded as 0 [not aligned], and scores of 2 and 3 were recoded as 1 [aligned]). Fiveconstructs from WorkKeys Essential Skills (Work Ethic, Collaboration, Resilience, Leadership,and Creativity) achieved at least one strong match with their theorized Talent counterparts,indicating substantial construct convergence and supporting evidence transfer. Integrity showed ACT WorkKeys Talent Assessment and ACT WorkKeys The WorkKeys Talent assessment (hereafter referred to as Talent) measures 12 work‐relevantpersonality characteristics grounded in the Five‐Factor Model (FFM or Big Five; Digman, 1990)and emotional intelligence theory (ACT, 2009). These traits, which are listed and defined in Tables 1 and 2, capture dispositions linked to workplace performance, teamwork, andcounterproductive behaviors. The WorkKeys Essential Skills assessment (hereafter referred toas WKES; ACT, 2024), introduced in 2024, measures six broad domains. Five of these align The Talent scales have been used in both selection and development contexts, and they predictjob performance, organizational citizenship, and retention with minimal adverse impact (ACT,2009), consistent with the extant literature on personality assessments used in selection anddevelopment contexts (Hough, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Initial construct and criterion Both instruments share a common foundation in personality theory, but they use differentframings; Talent focuses on narrower trait facets, while WKES emphasizes broader workplaceskill domains. This conceptual overlap suggests that a standards‐to‐standards alignment canclarify correspondences between the frameworks. This alignment is the systematic comparisonof two distinct sets of standards to judge the degree to which their content, cognitive demand, A strong conceptual alignment between the Talent and WKES constructs offers the potential touse the extensive validity evidence accumulated for Talent to support interpretations and usesof WKES. If WKES domains are shown to measure the same underlying constructs, this body of With the present investigation, we seek to determine the extent to which the 12 Talent scalesalign empirically with the six behavioral competency domains operationalized in WKES and, in Method We engaged 11 subject matter experts (SMEs), of whom 82% identified as female and 18%identified as male; 64% identified as White, 18% as Hispanic, and 18% as Asian. All SMEs helddoctoral degrees in fields related to essential skills or had experience in essential skillassessments and curricula, averaging 10 years of professional practice. Using the constructdefinitions provided in Tables 1 and 2 (12 Talent and six WKES constructs), the SMEs Ratings were analyzed in two ways: (a) as their original 0–3 scores and (b) as binary categoricalindicators of alignment, where scores of 2 or 3 were recoded as 1 (aligned) and scores of 0 or 1were recorded as 0 (not aligned). This binary treatment facilitates interpretation when alignment Beyond descriptive statistics, we examined inter-rater agreement to evaluate the reliability of thejudgments. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) assessed consistency in the original 0–3scores, with interpretation guided by the thresholds suggested by Koo and Li (2016). Fleiss’sκ,which generalizes Cohen’sκto multiple raters, quantified agreement on the binary ratings and Results Mean Alignment Scores When we compared the mean pairwise alignment scores, we found that six combinationsreached a high degree of alignment/overlap (M≥ 2.8on the 0-to-3 scale): Collaboration withCooperation (2.9), Creativity with Creativity (3.0), Leadership with Influence (2.9), Resilience As anticipated, the experts judged that there was a strong overlap between the Talent andWKES constructs that share a FFM construct. For Work Ethic, Discipline demonstrated strongalignment (3.0), whereas Carefulness (2.1) and Order (2.4) showed moderate alignment. WorkEthic also exhibited a strong correspondence with Striving (2.8). Although Striving was intendedto link to Extraversion from the FFM, its definition closely resembles that of Conscientiousness-related factors such as Work Ethic. Resilience aligned strongly with Stability (3.0) and contrast, Integrity failed to exceed a mean alignment above 1.5 with any Talent construct, andSavvy did not surpass 1.6 with any WKES construct. Neither Integrity nor Savvy has a As shown in Table 5, after we collapsed the original 0–3 ratings into a binary indic